Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 651 of 1482 (830769)
04-06-2018 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 648 by Tangle
04-06-2018 2:59 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Tangle
Tangle writes:
You're at liberty to believe anything at all. But what you believe about your magical being is not relevant to science's current state of knowledge of the universe.
You mean to tell me there are no scientist that are proposing multiverses?
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 648 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 2:59 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 652 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2018 6:05 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 656 of 1482 (831847)
04-25-2018 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 653 by Tanypteryx
04-06-2018 6:07 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Tanypteryx,
Tanypteryx writes:
Can you give an example of time being rewound?
The Twin Paradox rewinds it for one twin. Because it is said the closer you get to the speed of light the slower times goes and when you go faster than the speed of light you will go back in time.
But then I may be misunderstanding those statements that have been made on this site.
Tanypteryx writes:
Time is a feature of the Universe "discovered by humans." We ""invented" a way to measure the duration between events. I have no idea why you added "in eternity."
If time is a feature of the universe explain exactly what it is.
How do you measure duration between events? A stop watch, clocks of different kinds. Those clocks, however they are tuned are based upon the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.
Existence has to be eternal as existence could not have a beginning to exist from non-existence. Existence has duration between events continually.
Tanypteryx writes:
We measure all 4 of these things with artificial scales that we invented, i.e. millimeters, meters, kilometers, days, hours, minutes, seconds.
Why did you add days, hours, minutes, and seconds in that sentence?
A period of light is called a day.
A period of light and a period of darkness is called a day.
The light, and dark periods are controlled by the revolutions of the earth in relation to the sun.
Mankind divided that light period and dark period into 24 hours, of 60 minutes each, with 60 seconds each.
So my question is what exactly is the dimension you call time?
Tanypteryx writes:
So, are length, height, and width always the same directions or does it depend on their orientation relative to the observer?
If you take a 2 x 4 that is 96" long the 96" measurement will always be the same as will the 2" and 4" measurements.
You can change the orientation relative to yourself but the measurements will not change. But if you put the board in a wall the height is 96".lengths is 2" and width is 4".
If you put it down for a plate it will be 2" in height, 4" in width, and 96" in length.
Tanypteryx writes:
Is a direction in between say, length and height another dimension.
No.
Tanypteryx writes:
Why is it important to you that time not be a dimension?
It makes no difference to me what time is.
But if time is a dimension you or at least someone should be able to tell me exactly what that dimension is.
No one has a problem with explaining what length, height, and width are as a dimension.
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 653 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-06-2018 6:07 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 664 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-28-2018 1:36 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 657 of 1482 (831848)
04-25-2018 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 655 by ringo
04-07-2018 12:12 PM


Re: Bible
Hi ringo,
ringo writes:
. Granted, it is difficult to portray and/or visualize four dimensions in a two-dimensional drawing,
I don't have any problem with drawing a 3d picture as I drew thousands of cabinets in 3d.
Could you explain to me how it would be possible to put another dimension in those 3 dimensions?
ringo writes:
But it seems that you're not only misunderstanding the drawing.
The drawing depicts the universe as a tube that has two dimensions.
But the universe was not shot out of a cannon that it would have forward motion. If the BBT is correct the universe is a sphere and is expanding in every direction at the same time.
According to the Bible version I would believe that the length is probably greater than the height or width as it has been stretched out.
ringo writes:
you're trying to deny the science behind it.
What science are you talking about?
Give me the facts that you have to support that time is a dimension.
ringo writes:
Ever hear of a clock? Ever see a clock go backwards?
Yes I have heard of a clock. There are many kinds of clocks that operate on different scales. I have never had a problem turning my watch back an hour in the fall.

"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 655 by ringo, posted 04-07-2018 12:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 658 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2018 2:59 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 659 by ringo, posted 04-25-2018 3:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 660 of 1482 (831867)
04-25-2018 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 654 by Modulous
04-06-2018 7:13 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
Like Genesis. Only Genesis is not based on physics that predicts the paths of planets, satellites and light.
Physics is a study of matter and energy.
The Bible is a study of matter and energy.
No Scientist or science book tells us how the universe began to exist nor how life began to exist.
The Bible tells us how the universe began to exist and how life began to exist.
Physics does not predict anything. It only tells us what has happened, and the course of things because of what has happened in the past.
Mod writes:
Assumptions which, if true, predict the existence of things we've seen, phenomena we have observed, anomalies we could not otherwise explain.
What if those assumptions are not true?
What you believe is based on assumptions but you do not want me to believe in the facts delivered to Moses during his 80 day visit with God that he was told to write in a book.
I personally believe that Moses was allowed to view the creation of the universe and the beginning of life on earth. He did not understand what he had viewed but he did a great job with his limited knowledge in trying to explain to us what creation was all about.
Mod writes:
Time is a dimension. Like all dimensions it measures a distance between two events.
Time does not measure the distance between two events.
Distance is the length of space between two points.
Time is made up of days, hours, minutes, and seconds are used to measure the duration between events that exist in eternity.
The measurement of days, hours, minutes, and seconds is relative. As they are determined by the rotation of the earth in relation to the sun.
Time is not a dimension which is a measurable extent of a particular kind.
The only kind of time we know of is that which is used to measure duration between events in eternity.
Mod writes:
Neither can they tell me how to measure time.
With a clock.
A clock does not measure time.
A clock is a mechanical device whether it has springs or uses the pulses of atoms to measure the duration between events in eternity.
The units of measurements is based upon God's definition of a day in Genesis 1:5. That day has been divided into hours, which has been divided into minutes, which has been divided into seconds etc..
Therefore time is a concept of man that he has invented to measure the distance (duration) between events.
Mod writes:
No. Time is time. In the early universe the geometry of time is, according to Hawking's notion, describable using complex mathematics - ie., imaginary numbers. This notion essentially resolves the singularity problem by 'smoothing' it out.
What kind of a statement is "Time is time"? What does that mean?
Notion= a conception of or belief about something an impulse or a desire
A Notion is not a fact. Neither is imaginary something real..
Yes Hawking had a notion with which he created imaginary time which runs vertical This imaginary time had to exist in which the pin point sized universe existed to make it possible for the BBT to work.
Otherwise the universe had to begin to exist out of non-existence. So he was trying to do away with the need of a first cause.
Mod writes:
Quite the opposite, it kind of makes the idea of a beginning to exist more incoherent. As you go further 'back' in time, time itself becomes increasingly space-like. That is, it takes on the properties closer to space than time - thus the notion of a beginning becomes less clear.
Hawking had this to say about the beginning of the universe.
quote:
This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.
In the same lecture Hawking said in conclusion:
quote:
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.
You can read the entire lecture at: The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
Either the universe is eternal in existence or had a beginning to exist.
Mod writes:
t's a diagram. 'Forwards' is time. Up and down (and depending on the diagram in and out) represent the three spatial dimensions. Thus as you proceed forwards in time, the diagram shows space expanding in all directions.
But the universe does not expand in a horizontal direction from a single point.
Expansion requires that space between quarks that existed in the pin point sized universe expand. That would make the pin point spread in all directions which would best be represented as a sphere.
Mod writes:
You can make a diagram which shows the different rates of expansion of the sphere over time, using only a sphere, if you'd like. But I'd wager it'd be more difficult to understand. I can't even imagine how you'd do it.
Why would that be hard to understand?
I have been told in the past that the universe is like a balloon with dots on it or a cake with raisins in it and the space grows between the raisins as the cake rises and as the balloon as it is filled with air.
But the universe does have a center which everything in the universe is moving away from as that is the point expansion began, according to the BBT.
Mod writes:
That's not what science teaches. It does not teach the universe did not exist. That may be true, but in any given theory where it is, there is something other than the universe that gives rise to the universe.
Then what existed at T=0?
General relativity breaks down and the math can not give any data of what existed at T=0.
Therefore there is no data at or past T=0. That means no know facts. Without facts all you have is a notion or belief.
That makes my belief just as factual as your belief.
Actually I have a book that tells me how the things at T=0 began to exist. That same book makes thousands of predictions that have been proven by scientific methods over the past 200 years.
Mod writes:
You just said it. Biological matter of deceased animals explains the oil.
But what is the scientific explanation of how the oil got to be 5 miles deep in the earth, where it is under 22,000 psi.
There are those who wrote in the hundred years BC and many years following the birth of Christ that there had been many worlds that had been destroyed. Where did they get those ideas from?
I believe that the earth was smaller in the past and was covered with vegetation and animals that was covered with overburden material in which there was more vegetation and animals who lived and died and was also covered with overburden. This process continued until the original matter that produced our oil was covered with 5 miles of overburden. This would have taken an enormous amount of duration.
Mod writes:
It's early conditions and its conditions today are the basis we have and upon which scientists are intelligently exploring avenues for the universe's earliest moments - and before that if such a thing exists.
The only facts you have concerning the early conditions are:
There was a period of extreme light evidenced by the CMBR.
Do you have anything to add?
Mod writes:
Unless braneworld is in some fashion, eternal.
But that does away with the BBT, which requires that the universe have a beginning to exist.
Mod writes:
If it just is, it didn't come from - it just is.
Which would require the universe to be eternal, which would mean that notion would be in deep trouble.
quote:
From above Hawking quote, ". The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. "
Mod writes:
No. They are all travelling through time and space.
Nothing is traveling through space as space is what is expanding.
Mod writes:
It is one dimension. So there is only two possible directions. Just like when considering length. It doesn't have to advance in both directions.
You are confusing time with duration.
Mod writes:
Just maybe time is not a dimension and is only a concept devised by mankind to measure duration between events.
just as mankind invented length to measure distance between points?
Exactly the point I am trying to make. Which is that mankind invented a way to measure duration between events in existence (rather than using eternity).
Mod writes:
It is one dimension. So there is only two possible directions. Just like when considering length. It doesn't have to advance in both directions.
Again you are confusing duration with time which is a way of measuring duration.
Mod writes:
His alternative is just multiple big bang expansion events with the one we talk about today being the most recent. It's not a well-respected idea regardless of people's opinions of Penrose.
His alternative was just a notion he had that could have been used to do away with the universe having a beginning to exist. The problem with that notion is that you would still run into the problem created by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Which would be Thermal Equilibrium.
Mod writes:
That's a great question! Generally speaking physicists tend to answer by pointing to the necessary directionality of thermodynamics and entropy. But a full discussion is beyond the scope of this, apparently a 'bible' topic.
But thermodynamics takes place in duration which is measured by mans invention called time.
Any place you are at in the universe that exists has duration between that point and the point that began to expand shortly after T=0.
Are you telling me that duration can not be measured as time can only go in one direction? That sounds silly.
Mod writes:
No, that doesn't follow from anything we know.
Are you saying then that since the universe is not expanding into empty space that the universe is not expanding. Which would mean that it is still the size of a pin point and we just perceive that the universe is expanding. Talking about magic, that takes the cake.
Mod writes:
I, for one, practically insist upon it!
If the universe don't have something to expand into, then it is not expanding.
Mod writes:
Naturally you do. There's less basis for that belief than cosmology of course. Just an anonymous author from over two millennia ago
He may be anonymous to you but he is not anonymous to me. Jesus tells me Moses wrote the Torah.
I have just as much evidence for my belief as you have for yours.
I have Biblical evidence for a light period in the universe of undetermined duration which is equal to the CMBR.
I also have Biblical information that has been proven to be true by modern science that was written over 2800 years ago.
You are always talking about theories making predictions being evidence for your scientific views.
The same would hold true for the predictions of the Bible that has been proven to be fact by science.
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 654 by Modulous, posted 04-06-2018 7:13 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 661 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2018 5:37 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 665 of 1482 (832088)
04-29-2018 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 658 by Modulous
04-25-2018 2:59 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Mod
Mod writes:
It depicts the diameter of the sphere and how it changes over time.
The picture in question don't look like any sphere I have ever seen.
Mod writes:
To locate something in the universe you need 4 dimensions. For instance my wallet is 1 metre north of my cat. It is 2 metres east of my cat. It is 1 metre up from my cat. But that isn't sufficient because tomorrow my wallet and the cat have moved. So I also need to use a fourth dimension - time
If it is where you say it is I don't need to have time to tell me where it is. I only need the information of its present location.
Mod writes:
If you apply this idea to the mathematics of physics, you describe a reality that matches our own. If you don't - your model of reality is wrong.
By itself, time has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.
We do not measure time. We do measure an object's frequency, speed, duration, etc. We compare motion to the tick of a clock. Some say that the universe is "timeless".
Mod writes:
'Eternal' and 'beginning to exist from non-existence' are not the only possibilities.
You changed my words.
I said existence has to either be eternal which means it has no beginning or ending.
Or existence had to have a beginning to exist.
I think you would agree that there is existence today.
If existence is not eternal, how did it begin to exist, if there was non-existence?
Mod writes:
What exactly is the dimension you call 'length'?
You ask a question and did not answer my question.
Never the less I will answer your question but I expect you to reply to my question.
The distance from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head is the length of your body in the prone position. It is measured with inches and feet.
Mod writes:
Unless the relative speed between you and the 2x4 varies significantly.
How do you propose to propel the 2 x 4 at a speed it would contract?
Mod writes:
Oh that's easy. The dimension that time is is time.
So how do you measure time?
Mod writes:
Go for it. Show me.
I have a cube that is 12 inches high, 12" wide, and 12" in length.
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 658 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2018 2:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 666 by Phat, posted 04-29-2018 4:38 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 668 by Modulous, posted 04-29-2018 7:53 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 669 of 1482 (832480)
05-04-2018 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by Phat
04-29-2018 4:38 PM


Re: Time as an effective dimension
Hi Phat
Phat writes:
At the time of the singularity, the wallet, cat, and cube were all very very close to one another. Thus, in the sense of expansion, time allows distance to form between objects. Right? (It also allows objects to have height, width, and depth)
Everything I can gather about the early universe is that at some point in the past the universe was all collected in an infinite energy mass with everything in the universe packed into the size of a pin point or pea.
Expansion of distance between each unit, that made up this entity began to take place. This expansion was faster than the speed of light.
There is a picture of the raisin bread expansion Here
If expansion took place as stated the universe is expanding in every direction at the same time.
That would mean that from the place of the pin point the universe would be expanding at the speed of light in one direction and the universe would be expanding in the opposite direction (180) at the speed of light. That would mean the universe is expanding at twice the speed of light
Since every galaxy in the universe should be moving away from us at 2 times the speed of light, expansion is a fantasy as Penrose says due to the fact we are on a collision course with andromeda.
The picture we are discussing shows the BB at the left end of a tubular object that gets larger the further it is away from the left end. That tubular object does not look like a sphere to me.
Mod insists that it shows the universe expanding in the form of a sphere.
The raisin cake expanding that I referenced above shows expansion as it is required for space to be expanding between objects in the early universe.
The word space is a misnomer as there is no such thing as space. There is no place in the universe that something does not exist.
Definition of space=1. a continuous area or expanse that is free, available, or unoccupied. Here
There is no place in the universe that is not occupied with energy, matter, dark matter, or dark energy.
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 666 by Phat, posted 04-29-2018 4:38 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by Stile, posted 05-09-2018 1:12 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 670 of 1482 (832508)
05-04-2018 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 661 by Modulous
04-25-2018 5:37 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Mod,
Mod writes:
B) The Bible doesn't predict the paths of planets and light etc etc.
But it does record the objects in the heavens move about in the universe, as it calls them wandering stars. It recorded this a long time before mankind observed that they did move around.
Science does not predict the paths of the planets. It does observe that they do move around which certifies that the Bible prediction is true.
Mod writes:
The Bible doesn't tell us how, it just tells us that God was responsible.
It does give a lot of the how. You just never looked for it, or accepted it.
Mod writes:
Telling us the course of things is the long way of saying 'predicting'.
Observations are not predicting.
Predicting is telling something is going to happen before there is knowledge of such an event.
Mod writes:
Time does not measure the distance between two events.
Yes, it does.
There is no distance between events unless you are talking about an event taking place in New York and Los Angeles.
If you are talking about the distance in the 100 yard dash from the start line to the finish line it is measured in yards. But if you want to measure the duration that lapses between the runner leaving the start line and crossing the finish line you measure that duration by a stop watch. Which uses minutes, seconds and hundredth's of a second.
Mod writes:
Distance is the length of space between two points.
Duration is the length of time between two points.
No mod you do not measure time with duration. Time as we know it is measured with what we call clocks.
Clocks can be used to measure the duration between events.
Duration=the lapsed duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom". equals 1 second.
Mod writes:
Length measures the distance in space.
Duration measures the distance in time.
What numbers or scale is used to express duration?
Space does not exist.
Length measures the distance between objects in the universe.
Time measures duration between events.
Mod writes:
A clock is a mechanical device whether it has springs or uses the pulses of atoms to measure the duration between events in eternity.
A tape measure is a mechanical device to measure the distance between points in space.
Mod writes:
Space and time are not concepts. They exist regardless of man's existence.
Space does not exist as a concept or a reality.
Time only exists as a concept invented by mankind to measure duration.
The universe does exist whether man does or not.
Since there are events that take place in the universe and they do not all happen at once there is duration exists between those events whether man does or not.
Mod writes:
What kind of statement is 'time is imaginary time'? What does that mean?
Why should I answer your question when you did not answer my question?
Nevertheless, imaginary time is an invention of Hawking to have a place his instanton could exist.
Mod writes:
Replace 'imaginary' with 'complex'. We use complex numbers in many things - from building aeroplanes to computers and more.
Numbers are just that, numbers. Which are an invention of mankind.
Mod writes:
Hawking didn't create imaginary time. He had the notion that there is a thing called imaginary time which is where the dimension of time is spacelike.
Where did he get the notion if not his imagination?
Mod writes:
It exists through all time,
Since time as we know it has only existed a little over 6,000 years when God defined time in Genesis 1:5 the universe would be very young .
But the universe is not young it is very, very old. Much older than you even think.
Duration had no beginning to exist and does not cease to exist, duration is eternal. There are events in duration that we measure with instruments that we have decided determines the length of duration between these events in existence.
Mod writes:
That's a reasonable analogy to the diagram you are complaining about.
I am simply saying the tubular picture that gets bigger as we look from the left which represents the start to the right. Does not represent a sphere.
A sphere would be a circle in 2d.
Now in your example of a walk I could only see so far from my position on earth and I would only be able to draw a picture that would be a rectangle so wide and so long. There I would conclude the earth was flat, and rectangular shaped.
I don't have any difficulty with that picture.
It has a very bright point at which things begins to exist.
Then everything expands to the right in a tubular configuration.
That does not depict the universe expanding in every direction from a center point.
Mod writes:
Here is a projection of a hypercube:
The hypercube is worse yet.
Mod writes:
Which seems more difficult to understand to me.
Looks like a page where a 3 year old has been coloring.
Mod writes:
And that's easier than doing the same for a baking cake. So show me how easy it is to draw as a single static image.
Here is the cake.
Mod writes:
Actually no. There is no centre. Every point in space sees everything expanding away from that point 'as if' it were the centre.
The universe has a center.
Yes, makes no difference where you are in the universe everything is moving away from you. That is because what we call space is expanding between every object in the universe.
But this is only true if the BBT is true.
Mod writes:
All the energy that exists in the universe.
What data is that assertion based upon?
Mod writes:
It makes no sense to describe the state of that energy. How can describe the distance between two quanta of energy when there is no distance? That's the nature of the problem.
But General Relativity breaks down and the math does not work so it does not even determine that there is existence at T=0.
Mod writes:
If so it has also made thousands of predictions that have been proven false and can only be thought of as being proven true by altering the interpretation of the book.
Start a thread in which we can discuss all those predictions that are proven wrong.
Mod writes:
Sediments - where other areas of land where eroded, were washed or blown over the dead things. Lava flowed over those. More sediment was deposited on the lava flows, etc etc etc - Geological rock formation occurred basically.
Yes sediments produced the oil we have. But your description would cover surface oil and coal.
But I was asking what produced the oil that is found 5 miles deep in the earth. How did it get there?
Mod writes:
Imagination.
You credit those people with the ability to produce those thoughts with the primitive education and knowledge they had. I would say that they read where somebody had expressed those ideas by writing them down.
Mod writes:
Because it doesn't work
Was the earth created by accretion?
Definition of accretion. Here
If it was not created by accretion, then how was it created?
Mod writes:
Yes - relativity helps us go beyond that. And it has been proven time and again to be an accurate way to describe the universe.
Assertions is not evidence. Produce the evidence.
Mod writes:
No it doesn't do away with BBT. It incorporates the big bang theory by positing the universe that began to exist at the big bang is embedded in a larger entity sometimes called 'braneworld'.
Where can I find that definition of the BBT?
Mod writes:
Nope. It wouldn't. Time can be finite in this model.
Time is finite as it is a concept invented by mankind less than 6k years ago.
Duration is not finite because it is existence.
Mod writes:
It is unlikely the quarks are not moving through space. But if we want to imagine such a scenario fair enough. It makes no difference to what I was saying.
They would be moving in space but not through space.
Our sun is moving on its journey around the Milky Way at 45,000 miles per hr.
Our earth is rotating at 1,000 mph at the equator. It is also moving at 67,000 mph on its journey around the sun.
That would mean the earth is moving at 112,000 mph on its journey around the Milky Way.
But they never exit the Milky Way and head off into some other galaxy. They travel in space but not through space.
Mod writes:
No. Time is a dimension. Duration is its measure.
Length is a dimension. Distance is its measure.
What scale or numbers are used to represent duration to measure with?
What scale or numbers are used measure time with? Where did those numbers come from?
Mod writes:
Good. Time is as manmade as space. Eternity is clearly not a measurement so that part is nonsensical.
Definition of time.
quote:
Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.[1] In classical, non-relativistic physics it is a scalar quantity
Here
Time is what is measured by a clock.
Definition of Eternity .
quote:
Eternity in common parlance is an infinitely long period of time. In classical philosophy, however, eternity is defined as what exists outside time while sempiternity is the concept that corresponds to the colloquial definition of eternity.
Eternity is an important concept in many religions, where the god or gods are said to endure eternally. Some, such as Aristotle, would say the same about the natural cosmos in regard to both past and future eternal duration, and like the eternal Platonic forms, immutability was considered essential.
Here
Literally duration is what takes place in eternity in which events take place.
Definition of duration. The time during which something exists or lasts. Here
So duration is the existence of something that we can measure with a clock, which we call time.
Mod writes:
No you are. Duration is a measurement of time. It measures how much time there is between two events.
Duration in the existence between events and what is measured by a clock which keeps time.
Mod writes:
"How long will this take?"
"An hour"
What is the this you are talking about? Apparently it is an event that takes place in duration and you are stating the length of the duration from the beginning of the event to end of the event.
An hour is a period of duration. It describe how much time passes between the start and end of some specified period of duration.
Mod writes:
"How long is this piece of string?" "1 metre"
Yes a piece of string would be measured in inches, feet, and yards. But that does not make time a dimension.
Mod writes:
His notion is that the Big Bang was not the beginning -not that there was none.
Are you saying that the second law of thermodynamics would be dissipated if there was a universe that existed that collapsed and then our universe came from that universe?
If so how far would the regression have to go before thermal equilibrium would have already been reached?
That is the problem with his notion.
Mod writes:
Thermodynamics does indeed take place in time, which is measured by mans invention called seconds / hours.
But it is directional. That's the starting point as to why an arrow of directionality seems to exist in time
It don't go north, south, east, west, or anywhere in between. It does advance in duration.
Mod writes:
That some guy says some other guy wrote something doesn't make it not anonymous. It is an attribution by a third party. Believe what you like.
Jesus was not just some guy, He was God in the flesh. He was there when Moses was listening to what He said to write in a book.
mod writes:
No. You have a book. I have experimental results.
And just what kind of information do you have concerning the beginning to exist of the universe or life?
You don't have any information must less experimental evidence.
Lets see, I would need to know length of the duration the universe was bathed in light without any darkness then how long darkness had been around and the rate of cooling before I could begin to put numbers together. And if I knew what the present observed temperature is I could put the numbers together to say what I wanted them to say. Shucks I could do that anyway. Numbers can be made to say anything you want them to say. Einstein proved that.
Mod writes:
The predictions in the Bible are not reliable - and indeed they don't predict how colliding particles will behave and at the same time, how the planet mercury behaves, and how light behaves, and how gravity behaves and....
All those things have been observed not predicted by anything.
But the Bible does tell why they behave as they do. They were ordered to do so from the beginning and continue to obey those orders today.
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 661 by Modulous, posted 04-25-2018 5:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by NoNukes, posted 05-04-2018 9:02 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 672 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 8:05 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 673 of 1482 (832686)
05-08-2018 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 672 by Modulous
05-07-2018 8:05 PM


Re: Bible
Hi Mod
Mod writes:
Saying 'the planets move around' is not a prediction
If someone says a specific thing happens before it is discovered wouldn't that be predicting?
Mod writes:
Relativity gives us the answer to the Mercury problem.
If you watched the video you posted you would have heard Sean say Relativity is wrong.
Mod writes:
I only see the assertion that God did it and it involved him speaking.
Have you ever read the first 4 chapters of Genesis?
It is when it is not expanding.
Did you notice how the raisins moved apart as the cake expanded?
The cake expands in every direction.
That is what is said about the single point called the singularity is supposed to have done. But if expansion had occurred as presented there would be nothing in the universe but a bunch of quarks that would have been separated like the raisins in the cake.
Mod writes:
Sure, but General Relativity aint the only player. It gives us most of the picture, but not all of it. You cannot use General Relativity to say what the state of the energy at T=0 was.
But there is nothing that tells you T=0 existed. Unless you got some data I don't know anything about.
Mod writes:
Nope, if the BBT is true then the universe does not have a centre. The big bang happened everywhere - not an explosion from some central point.
Well I tried to talk about the point of the beginning of the universe to be 500 light years in diameter and cavediver assured me it was no larger that a pin point. Son Goku said a pea.
Now if that pea sized universe expanded like the cake with the raisins wherever that pea or point was would be the center of the universe with everything expanding in every direction from that point. That would mean that if you drew a straight line intersecting that point whatever was at the two ends of that line would be expanding from that point at the speed of light. As each would be expanding at the speed of light. That means that the 2 points at the ends of the line would be separating at twice the speed of light.
Mod writes:
It is based upon the understanding that energy is neither created nor destroyed. All the energy in the universe has existed throughout the entire existence of the universe. There is nothing that would give rise to the energy not existing at some point, nor is there any indication that energy would suddenly appear. In the big bang theory - all the energy exists at T=0. The singularity problem is that there is also zero space in which to contain all this energy. The resolution seems to be the rejection of the existence of points in reality. That is, the universe never was at zero size - that points of zero dimensions can exist is a mathematical artefact rather than a physical reality. Thus the universe had some size, within which all the energy that exists in it today exists then.
But all the energy and mass was contained in something the size of a pin point.
And yes energy cannot be created or destroyed. But there is a lot of matter in the universe. That matter had to be formed from the energy. They are interchangeable. But every time they are changed either way a certain amount of energy becomes unusable and will eventually reach thermal equilibrium.
If the universe was eternal in the past through one universe collapsing and then starting a new universe there would be nothing but a dead universe as it would have reached thermal equilibrium a long time ago.
That is the reason that the universe had to have a beginning to exist as it still exists today.
There is one other option but you will not like it.
There could be a source of pure energy that could infuse energy as needed into the universe. But that source would be God.
Mod writes:
Of course, but you asked about the buried oil, not the surface stuff. The surface stuff is at the surface due to either erosion or geological uplift (such as mountains). I notice your theory about the earth getting bigger also does not explain surface oil or coal.
Why would there not be oil at all kinds of levels in a earth that grew 10 miles in diameter. Actually it had to start as a speck, just one atom.
Mod writes:
As I said, it was buried - through volcanic lava flows or sedimentary deposits etc.
It would take some really high mountains to produce enough sedimentary deposits to bury matter up to 5+ miles deep in the earth.
The Deepwater Horizon is 35,055 feet deep 6.6 miles from the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. It is under 30,923 feet, 5.85 miles of earth. And not quite a mile of water at 4,132 feet of water. The oil at the bottom of the well is under 30,000 to 40,000 psi.
Now you want me to believe that matter that produced the oil in that well got to the place it is at by being covered with 5+ miles of dirt and then another 4,132 feet of water.
That hole would have to have been almost as deep as the Mariana trench, 35,756 feet.
Mod writes:
I was talking about the people that wrote them down, not the people that read what was written. Those people certainly did have the ability to produce those thoughts with the knowledge they had. They were as creative and intelligent as we are today.
That being the case why didn't they have airplanes, rocket ships, atom bombs, cars, skyscrapers, TV, radio, telephone, computers, etc.
I really don't think they were as creative as we are today.
Mod writes:
whereas my theory does.
Explain it then.
If I remember my talks with a fellow named Morton that found oil for one of the big oil companies. They have equipment that the sound the earth with and when they get certain results back they can predict where in the area they have covered will produce oil. An underground sea of water has been found under china.
Mod writes:
quote:
the collision of a brane universe and a vacuum bubble coming from the extra-dimension is utilized as a trigger of brane big-bang.
But where did the extra-dimension come from or the vacuum bubble?
This has no more traction than Hawking's instanton. Which required a vacuum also.
Penrose says string theory where the branes come from is a fashion.
Mod writes:
Our experimental results to verify General Relativity to a sufficient degree for us to conclude the universe was once denser and that time is a dimension.
Sean Carroll said in the video GR was wrong. So why did you put him up to evidence for General Relativity?
Mod writes:
It does not tell us why they were ordered to do things in the specific way they were or how that happened
But it does tell us why they are ordered to do things.
First it was so ordered for the glory of God. So you could examine them and see His handy work and be amazed and have a puzzle to try and figure out. If He had given all the details a lot of people would be out of work today as they are trying to figure out why and how God created the universe as we see it today.
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 672 by Modulous, posted 05-07-2018 8:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by Modulous, posted 05-08-2018 9:52 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 678 of 1482 (832822)
05-11-2018 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 677 by NoNukes
05-09-2018 11:06 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
There is no local motion at light speed.
I have often thought about local motion. The Milky Way is not expanding. Why is that?
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 677 by NoNukes, posted 05-09-2018 11:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 679 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2018 5:24 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 681 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2018 8:21 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 680 of 1482 (832825)
05-11-2018 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 676 by Stile
05-09-2018 1:12 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi stile,
Stile writes:
Oh no! What happened?
I am not sure but I think you got your thought experiment a little wrong.
You have been in airports that have moving floors I will assume. If not you need to visit one. Your rubber road would be like the moving floor as you travel on the moving floor you gain just as much distance as the person in front of you. If that person stands still you will catch up to them If you are moving on the moving floor.
The rubber road would be a little different. Tom would move the 3 yards plus what the rubber road stretched every second.
But maybe I am wrong.
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 676 by Stile, posted 05-09-2018 1:12 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2018 8:23 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 693 by Stile, posted 05-15-2018 10:20 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 683 of 1482 (832910)
05-14-2018 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 682 by NoNukes
05-11-2018 8:23 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
It may be hard to extend this analogy if you take into account that walkway stretching. I am not sure that doing so is helpful, but I am willing to be convinced.
The rubber road would be streaching with tom on the road. So Tom would gain the amount the road stretched every time he took a step.
Toms rear foot would be on the rubber road as his front foot was traveling through the air. What ever amount the rubber road stretched the rear foot would travel as the front foot was in the air.
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 682 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2018 8:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2018 6:16 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 686 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2018 6:16 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 684 of 1482 (832911)
05-14-2018 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 681 by NoNukes
05-11-2018 8:21 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
Good question. The milky way is not expanding because gravity within the galaxy is sufficient to hold it together despite the expansion.
I understand there is a lot of mass to exert gravitational force on items inside the Milky Way. But before those big masses formed what kept the space between the quarks from expanding in the early universe. There was no mass so why did anything ever form into anything but quarks?
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 681 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2018 8:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2018 6:24 AM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 688 of 1482 (832931)
05-14-2018 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 685 by NoNukes
05-14-2018 6:16 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
You are making an unwarranted assumption that the momentum is supplied by the stretching rather than being input by Tom when he tries to advance. What is the nature of the stretching of the walkway?
The walkway is not stretching. It is moving in a forward direction that you can stand on. But when it reaches its end it returns underneath in the opposite direction and then comes up and starts it journey all over again. The surface of the walkway is moving in a forward direction to its destination where you get off.
The rubber road would be moving in like manner as it stretches
The stretching of the rubber road would provide momentum on the rear foot as the front foot was in the air. What ever the distance the rubber road stretched during the interval would move Tom's body forward the amount the road stretched. The same as walking on the moving walkway would.
I did not make an assumption.
I took a large rubber band and placed marks on it 1 inch apart. I placed it on a piece of cardboard and fastened it at one end. While the rubber band was in a relaxed position I made matching marks on the cardboard. I then stretched the rubber band to the right and the further I stretched the rubber band the farther the marks on the rubber band moved to the right of the marks on the cardboard. We are talking about Mod's rubber road. We are not talking about space.
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 685 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2018 6:16 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2018 3:18 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 690 of 1482 (832954)
05-15-2018 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 689 by NoNukes
05-14-2018 3:18 PM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
Then it would not model the universe, would it?
The moving walkway was never represented to mimic the universe and space as I said in my post.
But it does model the rubber road that was stretching.
As I said the space between objects in the universe is expanding in every direction at the same time.
The rubber road and the moving walkway are moving in one direction only.
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 689 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2018 3:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 692 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2018 4:46 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 691 of 1482 (832955)
05-15-2018 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 687 by NoNukes
05-14-2018 6:24 AM


Re: Speed of Light vs. Expansion of the Universe
Hi NoNukes
NoNukes writes:
The mass/energy was there before the stars formed.
According to the standard theory all energy and mass in the observed and unobserved universe existed at T=0-43 and was about the size of a pin point.
The first stars did not exist until about 100 million years after T=0-43.
The quarks and leptons were amongst the first particles to appear. but atoms did not appear for another million years.
My question still is how could these atoms get together to form anything if the space between them had been expanding at near the speed of light and some say faster than light since T=0-43?
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 687 by NoNukes, posted 05-14-2018 6:24 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 694 by Modulous, posted 05-15-2018 1:57 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 695 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2018 5:17 PM ICANT has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024