Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 9:39 AM
205 online now:
Diomedes, PaulK, PurpleYouko, Stile (4 members, 201 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,790 Year: 18,613/29,783 Month: 558/2,043 Week: 110/386 Day: 13/47 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 151 of 687 (521189)
08-26-2009 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Theodoric
08-26-2009 10:04 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Theo,

Theodoric writes:

Well that cinches it. I will not be debating you any more.

It is kinda hard to cease doing something that you never began to do isn't it?

I have given you my opinions on things.

You gave your opinion on things.

Then you told me how my opinions are wrong.

That is not debating that is preaching.

Debating is where you take a subject. Pick a position. Then affirm and defend that position.

At least that is what I was taught in school.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Theodoric, posted 08-26-2009 10:04 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 152 of 687 (521191)
08-26-2009 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by ICANT
08-26-2009 11:47 AM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
When the new telescope is deployed in 2014 and stars are seen that are 500 billion light years away I have a feeling those numbers will change. I could be mistaken.

Which telescope are you talking about and where do you get this 500 billion light years away figure? Even if there were stars 500 billion light years away, we would not be able to see them since the sheer amount of space between us and them expanding makes it seem as if they are moving away faster than light, so their light can't reach us.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 11:47 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 12:07 PM Perdition has responded
 Message 157 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 1:37 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 153 of 687 (521192)
08-26-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Perdition
08-26-2009 12:03 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
I am guessing the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), successor to the Hubble. link

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak link - Remove the "/url" from directly after the "gov".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:03 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:12 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 154 of 687 (521194)
08-26-2009 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by hooah212002
08-26-2009 12:07 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
I am guessing the James Webb Space Telescope

That's what I assumed too, but I wanted to double check with him before assuming anything. You never know, he might have been tlaking about the Area 51 telescope we're building with technology reverse-engineered from the space ships we have stored there...but I've already said too much.

successor to the Hubble.

They call it this, but since it coveres IR, whereas Hubble was largely visible light, I find the claim dubious.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 12:07 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 12:18 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 155 of 687 (521196)
08-26-2009 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Perdition
08-26-2009 12:12 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
I watched a video the other day, of which I can't currently find, and I could have swore it said the JWST was capable of both.........most likely on DailyGalxy.

Oops, way off topic here. Sorry mods

edit: nope, I am wrong. It IS a straight infrared telescope.

Edited by hooah212002, : admitted I was wrong


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:12 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 156 of 687 (521198)
08-26-2009 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Straggler
08-26-2009 10:31 AM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler, Thanks,

Straggler writes:

Just to let everybody else know what ICANT is talking about here:

We had talked about it in an earlier thread and you started this particular thread.

But you did not reference Guth's information of a zero energy universe.

Guth's paper was on Chambridge Cosmology Site but since they started revamping it I have not been able to find several things that was there before. Hopefully they will get everything back in the future.

There is only one section of Inflation with information in it. That is the Low density inflationary universes. Everything else is missing its information.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2009 10:31 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Straggler, posted 08-26-2009 3:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 157 of 687 (521208)
08-26-2009 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by Perdition
08-26-2009 12:03 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
Hi Perdition,

The article I read was on that was linked from a NASA report on the completed mission or repair to Hubble.

There was no mention of a name for the telescope just that it would be much better than Hubble even with the capability to see 500 billion light years, where Hubble can see only 20 billion light years.

As far as I know it may all be fantasy.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 12:03 PM Perdition has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 158 of 687 (521209)
08-26-2009 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by ICANT
08-26-2009 1:37 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
That is NOT AT ALL what NASA claims the JWST is capable of. Please, please, PLEASE stop blaspheming astronomy like this. Did you not read the link I responded to perdition with? Did you research what you typed?

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 1:37 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 2:17 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 159 of 687 (521220)
08-26-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by hooah212002
08-26-2009 1:41 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
Hi hooah,

Get off that hight horse and read my posts or don't comment.

I said it was a report linked to NASA'S report.

That ain't saying NASA said anything.

And yes I read the article you referenced.

Now how old is the universe?

If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 1:41 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 2:33 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 161 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 2:43 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 160 of 687 (521225)
08-26-2009 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
08-26-2009 2:17 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed.

Not necessarily. There are things farther than 13.7 billion light years away. We can't see them (AFAIK) but that doesn't mean the universe is older than that because every bit of space expanding will make the objects seem to be moving faster than light, which will push them beyond the distance light can travel.

Remember, 13.7 billion light years is a measure of the distance light can travel in a year multiplied by 13.7 billion. 13.7 billion years old, for the age of the universe, would be the same even if light travelled at a different speed.

Edited by Perdition, : I'm sure we all agree the universe is older than 13.7 years...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 2:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
hooah212002
Member
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 161 of 687 (521228)
08-26-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by ICANT
08-26-2009 2:17 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
I do apologize for calling you out on bullshit. Please accept this apology.

I was merely stating that
a) you claim the article you read linked to NASA's report
b) I directly linked to the JWTS site, which makes no such claim.

If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed

It doesn't make this claim. The only claim is the mission statement, which states that they *hope* to be able to see the oldest light in the universe. Which, hypothetically, would be the BB.

So, please, utilize your resources.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 2:17 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 2:48 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 1213 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 162 of 687 (521230)
08-26-2009 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by hooah212002
08-26-2009 2:43 PM


Re: What's the time frames, and how about common ancestry
Which, hypothetically, would be the BB.

Technically wrong. The "dark ages" was a span of time after the big bang where light was still not able to move freely. The oldest light would be from the end of these dark ages.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by hooah212002, posted 08-26-2009 2:43 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by NosyNed, posted 08-26-2009 3:48 PM Perdition has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8814
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 163 of 687 (521243)
08-26-2009 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Perdition
08-26-2009 2:48 PM


Dark Ages
Technically wrong. The "dark ages" was a span of time after the big bang where light was still not able to move freely. The oldest light would be from the end of these dark ages.

I am pretty sure (so sure I won't look it up) that this is wrong. The universe was all "light" for the first 300,000 years while the matter was so dense (and ionized) that light wasn't free to move through space.

After that the "haze" cleared and light moved freely. This started the dark ages because there was nothing emitting light anymore.

Then the first stars formed and the dark ages ended. I don't remember how long that was (100 million years?).

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 2:48 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10268
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 164 of 687 (521246)
08-26-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by ICANT
08-26-2009 12:31 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
We had talked about it in an earlier thread

Do you mean this? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507v1.pdf

This is a paper by Guth regarding inflation and mentioned by me in a previous thread.

Also if you fancy continuing Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory (Message 126) is still awaiting a response.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 12:31 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6118
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 165 of 687 (521278)
08-26-2009 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Straggler
08-25-2009 4:15 PM


Re: Snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory
Hi Straggler,

I thought we had already hashed this to death is the reason I had not answered it.

Straggler writes:

It has existed for all of time. But that apparently is not what you mean by "always". The sense that you seem to mean infinite/eternal/always strongly implies that you are invoking a sense of "time" that is somehow external to the universe. On what do you base this implicit assumption?

You believe the universe has lasted for all of time.
Time is a property of the universe.
Time has lasted just as long as the universe.
Sounds kinda circular to me.

Since you have no intention of answering the questions I proposed.

Which one existed first? Time or the Universe.

If either began to exist they both began to exist, simotaniously.

Therefore one can not exist without the other existing.

But the universe "just is" then it exists. If the universe exists time exists.

Straggler writes:

On what do you base this implicit assumption?

'No Thing' can only produce 'No Thing'

If there is 'No Thing', and I am told there is 'No Thing' outside of the universe.

Either the universe is infinite in all directions.

OR

The universe began to exist.

Guth's paper you referenced Here says:

quote:
At the first level, I would argue that the answer to the question is yes, the universe had a beginning in the event that is usually referred to as the big bang.

He goes with 99.9% of the people working in scientific cosmology holding that view.

Then he begins a discussion of the second level which is inflation.

On page 13 he says:

quote:
For the explicit constructions of eternally inflating models, the answer is clear. Such models start with a state in which there are no pocket universes at all, just pure repulsivegravity
material filling space. So there is definitely a beginning to the models that we know how to construct.

Pure repulsivegravity material filling space is necessary for eternal inflating universe to begin.

But if gravity and space is a part of the universe and does not exist outside of the universe, we are on a merry go round.

quote:
At the present time, I think it is fair to say that it is an open question whether or not eternally inflating universes can avoid having a beginning. In my own opinion, it looks like eternally inflating models necessarily have a beginning.

So can you clear this mess up for me?

Is the universe infinite in all directions?

OR

Did the universe begin to exist?

Straggler writes:

Why is the universe itself not that "uncaused existence"?

If it had been expanding for infinity everything in it would be dead that is the prediction for it's demise.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Straggler, posted 08-25-2009 4:15 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 3:31 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 167 by Sasuke, posted 08-27-2009 6:06 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 168 by greyseal, posted 08-27-2009 6:16 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 179 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2009 3:22 PM ICANT has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
46NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018