The Fourteen Cosmological Arguments for the Existence of God

Photons move (time) they are not static.

No. Photons are timeless.

“A photon cannot see or experience anything, as it turns out. It’s true that time doesn’t pass for a photon: in relativity, it represents what we call a null geodesic. It travels from its point-of-origin to its point-of-termination: from where an interaction creates (or emits) it to where another interaction destroys (or absorbs) it. This is exactly what happens whether it’s emission/absorption, emission/reflection, a scattering interaction, or any type of interplay with another particle.“

forbes.com/sites/startswith … -universe/

That’s bullshit. A photon travels at 186,287 miles per second. Very well known fact.

It’s not bs. It’s General Relativity. Take it up with Einstein if you don’t like it.

You want to talk about Einstein?!

Sure, let’s do it!

E=MC^2! Right?

Do you know what the ‘C’ in that equation means?

It means ‘cosmological constant’. How the fuck can you square something that by definition can’t be squared ?!?

My grandfather used to travel as a job to places like area 54 and Area 51 all over the world … one thing he told me… “don’t believe any of your physics books”

I figured it out myself … E=MC^2 is crap logic!

You can square the speed of light.

The speed of light is the “cosmological constant”.

The fastest possible speed! You can’t even add anything to it! Let alone square it.

This is the problem with the general public! They can’t think! They regurgitate!

You can certainly square a number which represents the speed of light.

Anyway, no one in over a century has proven a single flaw in General Relativity.

I just disproved it for you. The highest speed possible cannot be added to. Man, you really don’t get it, you’ve been taught a lie.

Even if you believe the lie:

Einstein proved the “special theory of relativity”

He never solved the “general theory of relativity” though he tried!

That you didn’t even know that, means you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about!

E=MC^2 simply means that mass has a ton of energy in it. This is proven by the atomic bomb.

That’s funny! Why ‘squared’ instead of ‘plus 1’ or even ‘cubed’ for that matter?!?!

I didn’t think this would become a physics thread, as in “physics proves god created existence”. But for some bizarre reason, you had to go there.

I use all tools at my disposal, including physics.

And like I just demonstrated, those tools suck.

Light is considered by physics the cosmological constant. It’s not infinite. It’s 186,000 miles per second. But because it’s considered the cosmological constant (by definition!) how can anything possibly move faster than it?!?!

Basic, basic logic!

The fastest thing in existence is thought!

E=MC^2 is not claiming anything goes faster than light. It is only showing energy and mass equivalence.

By order of operations in math C^2 is done first (Before multiplication).

forbes.com/sites/startswith … does-emc2/

No. You really don’t get it. “C” literally stands for “cosmological constant”. If it can be added to, then it is no longer the cosmological constant! Duh! Very basic logic.

John, you yourself stated that the photon has the most unique properties about 3 posts ago (the only timeless particle)… regardless of what you think about my argument against your ‘timeless’ claim, this special status that you’re giving the photon is that it travels at the cosmological constant (hence the letter “c”)… if “c” ever increases… it’s no longer “c”!!

Now if the equations used something like “p” for photon, we wouldn’t be having this discussion!

You really aren’t making any points here. Your assertion that multiplying c x c is somehow improper flies in the face of General Relativity and physics. Multiplying C x C is part of the equation E=MC^2, and is necessary to calculate work in the joules unit.

You’re totally dodging the point or ignoring it.

C

Literally means “cosmological constant”

Like I stated before … if they used the term “vp” (velocity of a proton). We would not be having this discussion!!

You see, Einstein was a religious man. What’s the number 1 concept of religion? Light. So instead of calling it the velocity of a photon, he decided to call light the cosmological constant. If a cosmological constant can be added to, it’s not a cosmological constant (duh!). Einstein was a horrible example of a human being in a great many ways … evangelical Christians (all of them morons) love Einstein.

I think categorically seeking a religious motive, in stead another front can be opened.

Such as , how do the primal philosophical questions relating to the naturalistic fallacy: Is factual ‘is’ conceptions reducible to ‘ought’ types of propositions help to ingenie the question,- may be appropriate her.
As well the other current dialogue dealing with the Darwinian justification. I am not implying a trespass into these other forums, only noticed coincidentally, that they are currently indicative of pertinent , maybe not totally coincidentally formed inquiries.

If not, it may still be worth a try.