The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: rotating planet on October 20, 2012, 08:34:03 PM

Title: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 20, 2012, 08:34:03 PM
How could the universe have been created in way that makes the world flat and the celestial boldies "hang" above us?
If the earth and the celestial bodies are suspended with UA, how are the sun and moon circling the earth the way they are? What type of origin of the Universe would make for it to do so?
Was the UA supposed to be there before the creation or is it a part of the creation?
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2012, 07:00:03 AM
Most things are flat in the universe. Including the entire universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11810553 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11810553)

Galaxy's are flat, solar systems are flat, why not a planet? Flat is not a shape that nature shies away from.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Flat Eric on October 21, 2012, 08:24:27 AM
it's not the same kind of flatness: the scale factor makes the difference to start with.

we're also not sure that the universe is flat, only a handfull of educated guys think the earth is flat.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: iwanttobelieve on October 21, 2012, 08:34:11 AM
please do not take"flat" literally.
no one here believes in a literal "flat earth"
the earth is 3 dimensional, with a depth, while unknown, we know is 1000s of miles deep. 

Think of the Earth as more of a cylinder.


Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 21, 2012, 11:16:32 AM
I understand however that did not answer my question. I guess m yquestion could be rephrased to how could the universe be created in such a way that things will end up the way they are now.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2012, 11:50:45 AM
I understand however that did not answer my question. I guess m yquestion could be rephrased to how could the universe be created in such a way that things will end up the way they are now.
Are you asking me to explain creation? Because neither round earth nor flat earth know the answer to that.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 21, 2012, 12:19:47 PM
There are approximations toward the creation of the universe in round earth theory. I havent heard of any for flat earth.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2012, 12:27:56 PM
There are no approximations. All maths and physics break down as you near the point of creation.

Asking me to explain something that no other human can explain either, does not prove the earth cannot be flat. It merely proves I'm no better at explaining 'how did we get here?' than anyone else.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 21, 2012, 12:29:59 PM
There are educated guesses as to how the universe was created in RET.  But, they are still just guesses.  We can guess too, but our guesses will be just as unprovable as theirs.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 21, 2012, 12:33:37 PM
Sure just as unproveable just like all science.
All maths and physics break down as you near the point of creation.
That is why they are approximations and incomplete theories.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2012, 12:39:52 PM
All maths and physics break down as you near the point of creation.
That is why they are approximations and incomplete theories.
So what is the point in that? I can give you approximations and incomplete theories but you'd just spend the next 4 pages picking holes in them.

I don't know how the universe was created. Neither does anyone else. Its a score draw. It isn't going to bring us any closer to agreeing on earth's shape.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Moon squirter on October 21, 2012, 01:47:57 PM
There are approximations toward the creation of the universe in round earth theory. I havent heard of any for flat earth.
It's worth pointing out here that Zetetics, the methodology of enquiry that underpins flat earth theory, strongly discourages speculation and conjecture.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems)
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 21, 2012, 01:55:19 PM
The whole universe is speculation yet i suppose they believe in it?
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Son of Orospu on October 21, 2012, 01:58:00 PM
The whole universe is speculation yet i suppose they believe in it?

So, you believe that there is not a universe?  I don't understand your reasoning.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 21, 2012, 02:22:47 PM
No I believe there is a universe, however that is a belief and there isn't a way to prove it 100%. That is why I said it is speculation
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Ski on October 21, 2012, 02:33:17 PM
I'm sure the rest of your freshman philosophy class finds your hyper-philosophical skepticism fascinating. If you hold this true, what is the point of asking us any questions about the shape of the earth, or our reasonings?
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 21, 2012, 02:56:59 PM
It is true that there is no complete proof for the universe, however there still can be a point in asking for others' reasonings, because i believe that there is a universe
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 21, 2012, 04:00:16 PM
It is true that there is no complete proof for the universe, however there still can be a point in asking for others' reasonings, because i believe that there is a universe
What is the point in asking, when you aren't even sure if the people you are asking exist? I have no time for this beard stroking hippy drug nonsense. The earth is flat. Good day.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 21, 2012, 08:08:52 PM
I can't be sure, but I believe the others exist
It is true that there is no complete proof for the universe, however there still can be a point in asking for others' reasonings, because i believe that there is a universe
What is the point in asking, when you aren't even sure if the people you are asking exist? I have no time for this beard stroking hippy drug nonsense. The earth is flat. Good day.
Can you make sure that others exist?
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Particle Person on October 21, 2012, 11:04:37 PM
Obviously you can't prove that the universe isn't a product of your mind, so there's no reason to operate under the assumption that it is. It's an interesting thought, but it isn't useful and it doesn't really lead anywhere. The hallucination would also have to come from somewhere other than a human brain, which is not powerful enough to simulate all of the interactions between matter in the universe. All of that is irrelevant to the shape of the earth.

One theory is that the "Big Bang" was mostly focused in one direction, and is still a constant source of energy, which accounts for UA.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Flat Eric on October 22, 2012, 12:43:23 AM
the big bang was one huge explosion and in no way a constant source of energy. it wasn't focused in one direction becaue wherever you point your instruments, you see remains of that energy in the microwaves spectrum.

ua doesn't work because nothing could generate constant acceleration for billion of years.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2012, 01:08:31 AM
The most important question is this: WHERE is our universe located? An equivalent question: Where is the only place a universe could have been created?

To answer this question we need to go back in time some 100 years, to the astronomical studies of Hans Hoerbiger...and Kozyrev's studies and thoughts on time.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1384905.html#msg1384905 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55467.msg1384905.html#msg1384905)

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50513.msg1241224.html#msg1241224 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,50513.msg1241224.html#msg1241224)
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2012, 05:05:43 AM
And another question which is equivalent to the above (last message):

What is the actual scale of our universe?

Could the objects Hans Hoerbiger saw actually be the atomic elements of a crystal, and not blocks of ice? The Hexagonal Crystal Universe cosmogony by the Desanas (see the bibliography) does provide some clues...
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2012, 05:48:53 AM
http://conscious-universe.blogspot.ro/2007/07/brahmas-dream.html (http://conscious-universe.blogspot.ro/2007/07/brahmas-dream.html) (dreaming universe section)

Tesla's mind lab/thalamus gland imagination/dreaming mind:

http://www.creativethinkingwith.com/Nikola-Tesla-Creative-Thinking-Secrets.html (http://www.creativethinkingwith.com/Nikola-Tesla-Creative-Thinking-Secrets.html)



Art of Dreaming (C. Castaneda):

http://www.prismagems.com/castaneda/donjuan9.html (http://www.prismagems.com/castaneda/donjuan9.html)



Controlled lucid dreaming:

http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng03.htm#par23 (http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng03.htm#par23)

http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng17.htm#par199 (http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng17.htm#par199)

http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng16.htm#part5 (http://www.rosicrucian.com/rcc/rcceng16.htm#part5)


At the present time, however, the mind is not focused in a way that enables it to give a clear and true picture of what the spirit imagines. It is not one-pointed. It gives misty and clouded pictures. Hence the necessity of experiment to show the inadequacies of the first conception, and bring about new imaginings and ideas until the image produced by the spirit in mental substance has been reproduced in physical substance.


We can imagine ways and means of working with the mineral forms of the three lower kingdoms, but can do little or nothing with the living bodies. We may indeed graft living branch to living tree, or living part of animal or man to other living part, but it is not life with which we are working; it is form only. We are making different conditions, but the life which already inhabited the form continues to do so still. To create life is beyond man's power until his mind has become alive.


...the mind will be vivified to some extent and man can then imagine forms which will live and grow, like plants.


...when his mind has acquired "Feeling," he can create living, growing, and feeling things.


...he will be able to "imagine" into existence creatures that will live, grown, feel, and think.


We are now working with it by means of the faculty of imagination, giving it form--building it into ships, bridges, railways, houses, etc.


Our faculty of imagination will be so developed that we shall have the ability, not only to create forms by means of it, but to endow those forms with vitality.


Thalamus gland egyptian hieroglyph:

(http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/9672/eyeofhorusthalamusbrain.jpg)



GATE TO THE GODS: THALAMUS GLAND - EYE OF IMAGINATION

http://garyosborn.webs.com/gateofgod.htm (http://garyosborn.webs.com/gateofgod.htm)


ACHARYA RAJNEESH (OSHO) BOOK OF SECRETS, VOLUME 1,


http://selfdefinition.org/tantra/Osho%20-%20Vigyan%20Bhairav%20Tantra%20Volume%201.pdf (http://selfdefinition.org/tantra/Osho%20-%20Vigyan%20Bhairav%20Tantra%20Volume%201.pdf) (chapter 5, chapter 6 - thalamus gland, dreaming mind, eye of imagination/creation)


What really happened in the Garden of Eden, Tree of Knowledge/Imagination, how the thalamus gland was implanted in the human mind, without the ability to create lucid dreams:


http://www.piney.com/ApocMoses.html (http://www.piney.com/ApocMoses.html)

http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-2o.htm (http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/lginzberg/bl-lginzberg-legends-1-2o.htm)
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Dino on October 24, 2012, 11:26:27 AM
How could the universe have been created in way that makes the world flat and the celestial boldies "hang" above us?
If the earth and the celestial bodies are suspended with UA, how are the sun and moon circling the earth the way they are? What type of origin of the Universe would make for it to do so?

Try reading Genesis.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Flat Eric on October 24, 2012, 11:28:17 AM
genesis if faith, not science
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: hoppy on October 24, 2012, 11:39:01 AM
How could the universe have been created in way that makes the world flat and the celestial boldies "hang" above us?
If the earth and the celestial bodies are suspended with UA, how are the sun and moon circling the earth the way they are? What type of origin of the Universe would make for it to do so?

Try reading Genesis.
The answer is too simple for most people to believe. They would rather believe lies.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: iwanttobelieve on October 24, 2012, 11:42:12 AM
What happened before Genesis? 
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Dino on October 24, 2012, 02:03:31 PM
What happened before Genesis?

God existed all alone. God existed because he had the form of a man. But "man" in the Bible means dinosaur, because obviously there is evidence that dinosaurs existed before modern men. So early man must have taken the form of a dinosaur and so must have God. I suppose there is no reason to repaint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel now, though. Michelangelo did a pretty good job going with what he had to work with. 
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: iwanttobelieve on October 24, 2012, 02:39:07 PM
interesting theory.
do you agree with Master James that long thought possible dinosaurs still may live beyond Antarctica, in a region "lit" by their own sun?
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Dino on October 24, 2012, 03:09:13 PM
interesting theory.
do you agree with Master James that long thought possible dinosaurs still may live beyond Antarctica, in a region "lit" by their own sun?

I don't know about their own sun; I'll have to give that some thought. But yes, I believe the dinosaurs -- or rather their descendants -- dwell beyond the ice wall and that this explains UFO's. UFO's don't come from space, they come from beyond the icy wall and the "aliens" are descendants of the dinosaurs who migrated there.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Flat Eric on October 24, 2012, 03:40:35 PM
is it a scientific forum or a gathering of loonies with ludicrous ideas?
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Dino on October 24, 2012, 04:08:35 PM
is it a scientific forum or a gathering of loonies with ludicrous ideas?

The subject is "creation of the universe". You can't exactly say that this is a subject on which religion has no bearing.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: rotating planet on October 24, 2012, 10:18:01 PM
I meant for a non-religious answer as I believe not all FErs are religious.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Dino on October 24, 2012, 11:18:34 PM
I meant for a non-religious answer as I believe not all FErs are religious.

Well, religion is the answer. You asked an open question. You received the Truth as an answer, but apparently you didn't want that.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Pongo on October 25, 2012, 01:12:40 AM
the big bang was one huge explosion and in no way a constant source of energy. it wasn't focused in one direction becaue wherever you point your instruments, you see remains of that energy in the microwaves spectrum.

ua doesn't work because nothing could generate constant acceleration for billion of years.

And yet, top round-earth physicists say that one day all the stars in the sky will be moving away from every other star faster than the speed of light.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 01:47:32 AM
i don't know this theory
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Beorn on October 25, 2012, 01:48:13 AM
i don't know this theory

Then it must be untrue!
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 01:49:20 AM
i never said that
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: RealScientist on October 25, 2012, 04:21:18 AM
the big bang was one huge explosion and in no way a constant source of energy. it wasn't focused in one direction becaue wherever you point your instruments, you see remains of that energy in the microwaves spectrum.

ua doesn't work because nothing could generate constant acceleration for billion of years.

And yet, top round-earth physicists say that one day all the stars in the sky will be moving away from every other star faster than the speed of light.
This definitely requires a quote. Until recently, no scientist would tell you if the expansion was accelerating or decelerating, so my guess is not one scientist has ever even suggested expansion beyond the speed of light.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 07:54:41 AM
nothing goes fastest than the speed of light, so far
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: digimonkey on October 25, 2012, 08:17:49 AM
the big bang was one huge explosion and in no way a constant source of energy. it wasn't focused in one direction becaue wherever you point your instruments, you see remains of that energy in the microwaves spectrum.

ua doesn't work because nothing could generate constant acceleration for billion of years.

And yet, top round-earth physicists say that one day all the stars in the sky will be moving away from every other star faster than the speed of light.
This definitely requires a quote. Until recently, no scientist would tell you if the expansion was accelerating or decelerating, so my guess is not one scientist has ever even suggested expansion beyond the speed of light.

I've heard this hypothesized before.  The idea is that the universe itself contains space and time, which is where the limit of faster than light travel exists.  As far as universe expansion...we don't know if a limiting factor exists.  I was under the impression the consensus was in fact that the universe was expanding faster, though nobody knows why or to what ends.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Ski on October 25, 2012, 04:52:44 PM
nothing goes fastest than the speed of light, so far

I don't think you know what this actually means in the context of this discussion. 
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: RealScientist on October 25, 2012, 05:16:00 PM
the big bang was one huge explosion and in no way a constant source of energy. it wasn't focused in one direction becaue wherever you point your instruments, you see remains of that energy in the microwaves spectrum.

ua doesn't work because nothing could generate constant acceleration for billion of years.

And yet, top round-earth physicists say that one day all the stars in the sky will be moving away from every other star faster than the speed of light.
This definitely requires a quote. Until recently, no scientist would tell you if the expansion was accelerating or decelerating, so my guess is not one scientist has ever even suggested expansion beyond the speed of light.

I've heard this hypothesized before.  The idea is that the universe itself contains space and time, which is where the limit of faster than light travel exists.  As far as universe expansion...we don't know if a limiting factor exists.  I was under the impression the consensus was in fact that the universe was expanding faster, though nobody knows why or to what ends.
There can be hypothesis about what will happen in several times the current age of the universe, but no mechanism has ever been demonstrated to be able to accelerate objects from under to over the speed of light. You have to be careful in this forum, because you will be held to this claim forever. I can assure you that this idea is, if anything, in the very first stages of tentative hypothesis. And yet, in this forum they live to inflate tentative hypothesis to full blown theory, or even rock hard truth.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 25, 2012, 05:22:23 PM
Shadows can travel faster than the speed of light (based on laws of parallax). Technically so can a laser beam. If you swoosh a laser across the sky, the arc of the beam several billion miles away will move faster than light. The photons aren't moving faster than light, but the beam is. A possible insight into how faster than light communication may be possible.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: RealScientist on October 25, 2012, 06:02:04 PM
Shadows can travel faster than the speed of light (based on laws of parallax). Technically so can a laser beam. If you swoosh a laser across the sky, the arc of the beam several billion miles away will move faster than light. The photons aren't moving faster than light, but the beam is. A possible insight into how faster than light communication may be possible.
You do not know how ignorant this comment sounds among the Physics literates.

Don't you think that physicists have tried to fool the information transmission speed with moving lasers since some 80 years ago?

Every physicist knows that mathematical constructs, like the group velocities of waves, can move faster than light. But as soon as you try to put information on these mathematical constructs you get nowhere.

The day someone shows you tomorrow's news today you will know that information traveled faster than light. Until then, accept what physicists say.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Pongo on October 25, 2012, 11:34:39 PM
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo (http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo)

I know it's long, so I don't really expect any of you round-earthers to watch it and maybe, I dunno, try and educate yourselves on the ideas you expound to your dying breath. Summary: A leading physicist says stars may one day move away from each other star faster than the speed of light.

Also, that's a mobile YouTube link. If it doesn't work, search "A Universe From Nothing Krauss."
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 26, 2012, 02:12:49 AM
Shadows can travel faster than the speed of light (based on laws of parallax). Technically so can a laser beam. If you swoosh a laser across the sky, the arc of the beam several billion miles away will move faster than light. The photons aren't moving faster than light, but the beam is. A possible insight into how faster than light communication may be possible.
You do not know how ignorant this comment sounds among the Physics literates.
Are they the same physics literate who mistake the earth for being round?

Don't you think that physicists have tried to fool the information transmission speed with moving lasers since some 80 years ago?
Of course you need vast distances to compensate for the speed at which you rotate a device. Large distance is something a computer for example, doesn't have.

Every physicist knows that mathematical constructs, like the group velocities of waves, can move faster than light.
So now you agree with my simple statement that shadows and beams can go faster than light. ::)

But as soon as you try to put information on these mathematical constructs you get nowhere.
Because the distances we can generate on earth negate any chance of moving or rotating such an object fast enough. We would have to move a device at almost light speed to change a beam/wave/shadow in such a relatively short space. But with a large distance, the flick of a wrist would do.

The day someone shows you tomorrow's news today you will know that information traveled faster than light. Until then, accept what physicists say.
Now that was a stupid thing to say. How would travelling faster than light show me tomorrow's news? I'm already within 0.06666666 seconds of any point on a round earth earth. So if I accelerated at it at almost infinite speed I'd only see something 0.06666 seconds earlier at the most. Certainly not tomorrow's news today. Once I reach the location, accelerating into it any further will only cause me to collide with it. Not see it any sooner. I think you are probably out of your depth in this discussion. You lack a basic understanding of the fundamental concepts.

Additional: If you want to read tomorrow's news today, fly the short distance from Samoa to Tonga. Buy a newspaper and then go back. The newspaper will have tomorrow's date on it!  :o
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Beorn on October 26, 2012, 02:52:58 AM
Time is such a fickle thing.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: RealScientist on October 26, 2012, 02:53:44 AM

The day someone shows you tomorrow's news today you will know that information traveled faster than light. Until then, accept what physicists say.
Now that was a stupid thing to say. How would travelling faster than light show me tomorrow's news? I'm already within 0.06666666 seconds of any point on a round earth earth. So if I accelerated at it at almost infinite speed I'd only see something 0.06666 seconds earlier at the most. Certainly not tomorrow's news today. Once I reach the location, accelerating into it any further will only cause me to collide with it. Not see it any sooner. I think you are probably out of your depth in this discussion. You lack a basic understanding of the fundamental concepts.

Additional: If you want to read tomorrow's news today, fly the short distance from Samoa to Tonga. Buy a newspaper and then go back. The newspaper will have tomorrow's date on it!  :o
You really do not understand, or know much about relativity, do you? Go learn a bit about how it has been established that, according to Relativity, once you get something to move faster than light (whether it is an object or information) it is a simple feat to transmit information into the past. I will not bother myself with your instruction, but I believe simple sources are available, like the TV series "Through the Wormhole". You will find that theoretical physicists have had the same ideas you are telling, but have actually done the maths and found the effects predicted by Relativity for information traveling faster than light.

Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 26, 2012, 02:59:14 AM
You claimed to be able to get information from the future. From the not yet happened. That has nothing to do with light speed. What has yet not happened, has not happened. And no amount of travelling at light speed or above can make it happen.

And such a well informed 'physics literate' like yourself will be aware that the theory of relativity is riddled with holes and breaks down under certain conditions. Its not a one size fits all rule for the universe.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: RealScientist on October 26, 2012, 05:40:50 AM
You claimed to be able to get information from the future. From the not yet happened. That has nothing to do with light speed. What has yet not happened, has not happened. And no amount of travelling at light speed or above can make it happen.

And such a well informed 'physics literate' like yourself will be aware that the theory of relativity is riddled with holes and breaks down under certain conditions. Its not a one size fits all rule for the universe.
To fill the huge gap in your Physics knowledge you can even go to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#General_relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#General_relativity) to be exact. This is no cutting edge Physics, this is your run-of-the-mill university-course information. And you will even be well versed in it by watching science documentaries.

It is a well known fact that if Relativity is as we think it is and we send information or objects to a speed larger than light then backwards time travel becomes possible. There are plenty hypothesis of how backwards time travel will be forever impossible, but if we can achieve faster than light travel and no loopholes to Relativity exist, we can, at least, send information back in time.

And by the way, I did not "claim to be able to get information from the future". Your reading abilities are not only challenged by popular scientific articles, they are even challenged by simple posts for the scientifically challenged.
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: Thork on October 26, 2012, 08:09:48 AM
I did not "claim to be able to get information from the future".
Yes you did.

The day someone shows you tomorrow's news today you will know that information traveled faster than light.
You are suggesting I can see the future by breaking the light speed barrier. Which of course is completely wrong. I merely get the information earlier, but never ever before the event has happened. I will always see it in the past.

It is a well known fact that if Relativity is as we think it is and we send information or objects to a speed larger than light then backwards time travel becomes possible.
Whoa whoa whoa. Let me stop you there. Why are you moving the goal posts again?

At first I claimed shadows and beams could travel faster than light. For some reason this enraged you, despite your agreeing with me.
Every physicist knows that mathematical constructs, like the group velocities of waves, can move faster than light.
Then you claimed I would know if light speed could be broken because we could see the future.
The day someone shows you tomorrow's news today you will know that information traveled faster than light.
Which is nonsense.
Once informed about that, you decide to start ranting on about 'travelling back in time' which of course also isn't the case at all. You just delay the propagation time by increasing the distance and hence receive information that is already out there, at a later time. You aren't actually going back in time, merely viewing older information.

And all this with an air of self-importance, a condescending tone and a belligerent refusal to admit that you have made several errors in a few short posts.

Amongst all this fibbing and rudeness, do you know what I think? I think that you're not a real scientist at all! >:(
Title: Re: The creation of the universe
Post by: RealScientist on October 26, 2012, 09:07:30 AM
At first I claimed shadows and beams could travel faster than light. For some reason this enraged you, despite your agreeing with me.
Look who is enraged. You said you could move information faster than the speed of light, and you do not envision what you said, not even now.

You have not even seen that your claims have a reach that goes far beyond your wildest imagination because you have decided to be, and continue being, ignorant about General Relativity. For starters, you have not yet accepted that your claim implies that either General Relativity is totally wrong in a simple, everyday scenario or that information can travel time backwards.

Let me help you with this elemental Relativity problem that you have not been able to research for yourself. The segment of light that came from your laser beam a nanosecond ago is positioned and pointed in a straight line from where the laser was a nanosecond ago. If you could take a picture that was that fast, you would see that the light from a nanosecond ago has moved a foot from the laser, and is moving away from the place the laser was then, not now. The laser beam is not moved like a whip. Each little segment of the laser beam complies with Relativity, as everything else we know in the universe (at least until now, and maybe some subatomic particles).

If you want to see a simpler experiment, play with a garden hose. The water moves according to where the hose was when the water left the hose. The whole column of water does not move like a solid stick.

The shadow works just as the laser beam does. This is simple wave theory, where the maximums and minimums of a wave both act as waves should.

Now, you can get me any scientific paper where you see information moving faster than light and we can carry this discussion. Otherwise, rant a little more and delude yourself about your Physics knowledge. I will not reply.