Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,843 Year: 4,100/9,624 Month: 971/974 Week: 298/286 Day: 19/40 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   former speed of light
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 230 (123560)
07-10-2004 4:54 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Sleeping Dragon
07-10-2004 3:55 AM


dragon tastes fire
quote:
You're proposing the existence of something that cannot be proven, has no measurable physical properties, no longer exists, and was never explicitly mentioned in any reliable literatures
Hey, we're not talking about missing links, and non existant transitional forms here! Neither vanished universe producing specks!! We are talking about a spirit world here. We are talking about God, and creation! Now He may not be as 'reliable' as some mental smut like fruadulent freud's drooling demonic dreams, but He still ranks a best seller! I showed lots of verses about light, how He is the light, and will light heaven, for example.
quote:
As a matter of fact, I can probably find more evidence for Santa Claus than "spiritual light" that travels at the speed of infinity.
God's circuit, or rounds, as it were is from one end of creation to the other. He is Infinite, what speed do you want to restrain Him to? "Before Abraham was, I Am"--So how much time do you think it takes Him?
quote:
Well, with truckloads of endorphines cruising around in his system and massive blood loss, Jesus was likely in a state of hallucination prior to his death.
So the creator of the world was just a demented lunatic, as He died there for you? Sorry, it sounds to me like your insanity is come to torment you ahead of it's time.
quote:
A worldwide flood that left no geological evidence,..
All you have to do there is give credit to something else for all the flood loss of life, and planet riddled with the fossils. Darkness indeed. Not an innocent darkness, but one that fights the light. Fight all you like, the light will overcome the darkness, and flee. I think the time of your blasphemy is ending here with me. No need to discuss bible, or religion, or such with you, you have chosen your place.
So, with some I would go on to demonstrating the bible's position on the model here, if there can be raised no scientific, or logical reasoning against it. Not with you, foul mouth lover of darkness, though. I've had enough of you insulting Jesus. So has His Dad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-10-2004 3:55 AM Sleeping Dragon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-10-2004 12:03 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 230 (123627)
07-10-2004 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Sleeping Dragon
07-10-2004 12:03 PM


no thought required
OK, so as I indicated, I don't have enough in common with you to discuss theology, or religion.
So, as this post contains nothin else, nothing here that requires thought, or reply. Nice speech, thanks for the good day wishes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 07-10-2004 12:03 PM Sleeping Dragon has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 230 (123641)
07-10-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by sidelined
07-10-2004 8:59 AM


power of light
quote:
So again we have you stating that p and s travelled together initiallly instantaneously but then at the speed we now know.
Well I looked over the post 88 quote you included, and can't seem to see that one. I guess it was implyed by something I said. Anyhow, light, I would think that we now have was it seems to me not likely in it's present state, pre split. That's why I try to say it was the form of light we needed here that we got. Any properties S had, would have no such limitations as P. So either some part of p was in a different state in S, or p was simply put in place to fill the way of S after split.
The basic idea is there was a split of the spiritual world. Now how light exactly was affected, down to the nitty gritty, who can say? What did He need to do to put in place light that could exist in a physical universe, yet would give man no significant interuption in light of the stars?
I'd have to wonder what couldn't He do?
quote:
You would not be able to see light under the constraint of the physical because it is bound to the speed limit of 300,000 Km/s and will not be seen until it has had time to traverse the distance between us and the star.
The speed limit was not posted before in the light highway, in this idea, and only applies to p. Now I don't know if there was a zone that was like a sign 'saying speed change ahead', where like in a car, we adjust to the new limit over a distance, or time. Anyhow, the result, or present speed limit is well known. So, we can't read the speed sign now to the speed then. As far as traversing the distance, it was left to fill, in this idea, the whole path as it came to be, so the traversing would merely be continuing on it's merry way at the legal speed limit now.
quote:
light having travelled here in no time at all cannot also leave a trail of light moving at a slower speed
I could see what you say here being applicable to say, our light disappearing, and leaving a much slower light in it's place. But as far as S being parted from our dimension, it had totally different properties. How then could you know what it could or could not leave?
Personally I sense great mystery in the cosmos. I believe angels were refered to even, somewhere in the bible as 'stars'? I don't know if we can make too much out of this, but it kind of raises the hint of a possibility that some of the things way out there could be very different than we use our limited knowledge to conceive them.
quote:
a star that now shows an age measureably older than your creation model allows
Measured only by the current speed limit sign. I know the habit is deep seated to relate that to great time!
Even if I got the light thing somewhat imperfectly understood, as relates to a split, does not mean there could be nothing to it. That's one reason I put it out here, to pump out some different, and more informed imput.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by sidelined, posted 07-10-2004 8:59 AM sidelined has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 230 (123649)
07-10-2004 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Melchior
07-10-2004 10:18 AM


signs in the stars
quote:
Probably not, because the supernova must have spread it's light before the actual split.
Sounds like it must be. After all light from one thing, like a star could not travel faster than another. Certainly not with our light anyhow.
Must be quite a show, looking uo and seeing something like a supernova! According to my calculations, we are at the verge of the greatest cosmic light show in history, by 1000 fold! "Signs in the heavens" and "And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. "(rev 6:13) "and the third part of the sun was smitten, and the third part of the moon, and the third part of the stars; so as the third part of them was darkened, and the day shone not for a third part of it, and the night likewise" Rev 8:12)"For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. "(Is 13:10)
"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; " (lu 21:25)
quote:
I'm going to ask you to think over what you think physical mean. Going by this quote, you don't really seem to be completely sure.
I looked at a site where a scientist answered a question on light. In his answer, he was pointing out that light was not physical. Myself, I don't really know enough about light to say. But the light we have in our physical world can be seen, and exist here. It has a speed, and properties, etc. So I see it as physical enough to exist in a physical universe, at least!
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Melchior, posted 07-10-2004 10:18 AM Melchior has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by fnord, posted 07-10-2004 5:44 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 230 (123672)
07-10-2004 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by fnord
07-10-2004 5:44 PM


Re: signs in the stars
quote:
Really? You could have fooled me!
Perhaps if you stated something about it, you might have a chance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by fnord, posted 07-10-2004 5:44 PM fnord has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by fnord, posted 07-11-2004 3:40 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 230 (123825)
07-11-2004 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by fnord
07-11-2004 3:40 AM


Re: signs in the stars
Sorry, I guess even though it was short, I must have misunderstood. I guess it wasn't the sarcasm I took it for. Being in a minority opinion here I get into a defensive mode.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by fnord, posted 07-11-2004 3:40 AM fnord has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024