Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,494 Year: 6,751/9,624 Month: 91/238 Week: 8/83 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   SIMPLE Astronomical Evidence Supports the Bible
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 106 of 197 (200663)
04-20-2005 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by ptolemy
04-14-2005 2:24 PM


I haven't read this thread BUT...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ptolemy writes:
What we see in at the greatest distance is how they were and what is close is how they are. I accept what we see as valid. Why do scientists populate the universe with more than 90% undetectable things? They are faced with paradoxes that don’t fit their primary assumption, their arche, so they must invent undetectable things to explain away what is visible.
For example, galaxies are paradoxical. The stars apparently orbit at about the same speed without regard to distance from the center. In the solar system, the earth orbits at ~30 km/sec. Uranus which is 19 times farther, (19 AU), rotates at 30 / (19), about 7 km/sec, so the earth laps Uranus 84 times for its one orbit. That this relationship does not work in galaxies is visibly evident, especially in spiral galaxies. The arms of a spiral galaxy are connected back to the hub with gas linkages and streams of stars as though they were ejected. http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/.../43/images/a/formats/web.jpg
However, ejections would demand some sort of fundamental change. Astronomers explain this visible phenomena with invisible density waves for which there is not a shred of visible evidence. Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions More than ten times the Old Testament mentions the continuous spreading of the heavens. The simple visible evidence fits exactly what the grammar of the text says.
Thomas Kuhn, the historian of Scientific Revolutions, explained that science is a system that shares a common paradigm and the evidence is seen from that perspective. What is the most basic assumption of science? Peter says the first thing to know (what is first in precedence and rank) is the arche of the last days. He explains their arche as all things diamenei. That little Greek word means they think things remain the same in relation.
Perhaps you think, how could matter change as a relationship when we measure constants? Yet constants are always associated with things that change as a relationship, like mechanical or chemical equilibria. The constants are not an indication that things are not changing, but that billions of reactions in one direction are balanced by billions in the other and the whole process can shift as a relationship. The reason the constants do change is because they are defined in terms of the whole shifting relationship. The light from the most distant stars shows that matter has shifted as a relationship. May I suggest that you look up the twice repeated Greek together-words that Paul uses to explain the corruption of all creation. (Romans 8:19 - 22). Things that change as a relationship are interconnected in complex ways, they change-together.
Posts like I quoted above should come with an appropriate government health warning - and what is more - reminds me of why I shouldn't get on the internet.
Does ptolemy not realise the other observed consequences of his absurd model of ejections from the galactic bulge???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ptolemy, posted 04-14-2005 2:24 PM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by ptolemy, posted 04-20-2005 9:26 PM Eta_Carinae has replied
 Message 113 by tsig, posted 04-21-2005 5:07 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 197 (200716)
04-20-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Alexander
04-20-2005 5:13 AM


Simple versus complex evidence
Alexander answers: The link was good, but it was from the Malta UFO Research society!? I don't know what to make of your post. It looks like you've got some exclusion principle, uncertainty principle, duality of light, etc., all of which leads to the conclusion that the bible somehow explains this?
You question some of the seeming absurdities that modern physics has revealed. But does this tell us that we have lots more work to do in order to unravel these new mysteries, or that we should throw the whole thing out in favor of old fairy tales that don't have anything to do with modern physics?
Sorry about the link - it was the wee hours of the morning and I took the first thing I found. A conference on the Pioneer Anomaly was held last year with proposals to send new missions to try to understand it. Here is a better link:
Home – Physics World
The Bible is very negative on the subject of knowledge.
quote:
Solomon writes almost 3000 years ago:
Ecclesiastes 8:16 When I gave my heart to know wisdom and to see the task which has been done on the earth (even though one should never sleep day or night),
17 and I saw every work of God, I concluded that man cannot discover the work which has been done under the sun. Even though man should seek laboriously, he will not discover; and though the wise man should say, "I know," he cannot discover.
Eleven Hebrew verbs are found in verse 17. The qual stem - causal knowledge is what we cannot find even in the solar system (under the sun).
I am not suggesting we believe in unsubstantiated myths. We live in a world where many people believe there is no truth. Relativism says, Your truth is true for you and mine works for me. Jesus claims to be the Truth.
Can we use what the Bible says about physical things and examine whether they are true? We must be consistent. We cannot use two methods: grammar for spiritual things and the assumptions of the Greek philosophers to interpret what it says about the physical universe.
To be consistent with the Bible, we must first start with the beginning - the first thing to know. To understand the physical universe we must separate this assumption, that Peter predicted, from the vast amounts of information about the physical universe.
My claim is: That if we focus on this principle first, we can distinguish what is likely to be scientific myths and what is likely to be valid. It is the simple evidence, the stuff understandable by children, that stands once we examine and test the first principle. It is the complex stuff based on assumptions and mathematics that seems to be the real myths. If we take what the Bible says about time and matter as fundamentally true, we can eliminate with one stroke all the invisible things that clutter up the scientific cosmos. I claim that the simple evidence from astronomy supports the grammatical text of the Bible.
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-21-2005 10:14 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Alexander, posted 04-20-2005 5:13 AM Alexander has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Phat, posted 04-21-2005 5:31 AM ptolemy has replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 197 (200761)
04-20-2005 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by sidelined
04-19-2005 9:58 PM


There is no real answer
Let us see if you can give the "real" answer to this scenario.
I am on board a train travelling at a constant velocity along the tracks as we pass a road crossing.I open my window and drop a steel ball from the train.To my eyes the path taken by the ball is a straight line{neglecting air resisitance}from my carriage to the ground below.
A man in the adjacent grass bordering the tracks views my misdeed and,being keen eyed, follows the path of the ball as it drops and witnesses it following a curved path {a parabola}.
This is a great puzzlement since we both witness the same event and yet we come to see 2 different paths,one straight and one curved.Since the event had the same origin and end point in each persons view we are left with the great puzzle of judging which path is the "real" one.
Can you explain this?
Of course, as Galileo noticed four hundred years ago, there is no real answer. You cannot prove an absolute rest frame because something seems to move in a straight line. Neither can you prove a force exists when something deviates from a straight line. The classic example is Coriolis that can actually be measured with instruments and modeled with mathematics but is a fictitious force. We measure the Coriolis force because our reference point is rotating with the earth. Yet this fictitious force made a difference who got killed in the bombardment of Paris in WWI. Page not found · GitHub Pages
However, these things do not impact in a major way what we see at the great distances of the Hubble Deep Fields. At vast distances, what we see is very likely what is going on unless you are prepared to believe that primordial galaxies can zip around at thousands of times the speed of light.
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-20-2005 07:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by sidelined, posted 04-19-2005 9:58 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2005 8:19 PM ptolemy has replied
 Message 112 by sidelined, posted 04-20-2005 11:29 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 109 of 197 (200765)
04-20-2005 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ptolemy
04-20-2005 8:17 PM


hey wait a minute. address my question.
in post 101 of this thread, i asked:
quote:
how is this different than staying the same? if everything changes at rates constant to everything everything else ("as a relation") then it is observably no different than natural laws and constants from an internal perspective.
please explain to me how if things change in relations to one another it is any different than everything staying the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ptolemy, posted 04-20-2005 8:17 PM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ptolemy, posted 04-21-2005 8:00 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 126 by ptolemy, posted 04-23-2005 6:01 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 197 (200784)
04-20-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Eta_Carinae
04-20-2005 9:23 AM


It is only inconsistent with regar to the assumption
Eta Carinae asks: Does ptolemy not realise the other observed consequences of his absurd model of ejections from the galactic bulge???
Exactly what is it about this galactic bulge that violates ejections? The most distant galaxies don’t seem to have such a bulge - perhaps it expanded from dense primordial matter. The Large and Small Magellanic Clouds are linked to the Milky Way by a stream of gas. These galaxies are so close that they are visible with the bare eyeballs - which is why they are called clouds. The evidence shows they were either ejected or collided with our galaxy and exited leaving behind a stream of gas. The distant evidence shows a lot of ejections so why not go with that.
Please understand that I am showing that the Bible is consistent with itself and the simplest evidence from astronomy and geology. What you see is what you get if you throw out the assumption that matter does not age and change. If we rejected this assumption, we could not claim to be wise in a scientific sense, but we might just see how wise He is. Yet to accept literally what the Bible says in this area is to become an utter ignoramus in the eyes of this world’s system.
Without this assumption
  • one could not claim to understand time - yet one could accept literally the amazing things the Bible says on this fascinating subject.
  • One could not define mass or energy etc. These definitions were based on the assumption.
  • One could not claim to have decoded any of the laws of physics.
  • Yet one could understand why they work in the here and now - and why they are useless for understanding the long ago or far away.
  • You could see how wise God is.
Can He really take the wise of this world, who reject faith in Jesus, with their own wisdom? Can He make a universe where mathematics, logic and experiments are useful in the present - but are useless for decoding the history of the universe? If the first principle Peter predicted is indeed false, He already has.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-20-2005 9:23 AM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2005 10:42 PM ptolemy has not replied
 Message 120 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-22-2005 2:38 AM ptolemy has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 111 of 197 (200808)
04-20-2005 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by ptolemy
04-20-2005 9:26 PM


i'm gonna be persistent about this

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ptolemy, posted 04-20-2005 9:26 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 6163 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 112 of 197 (200824)
04-20-2005 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by ptolemy
04-20-2005 8:17 PM


Re: There is no real answer
ptolemy
Of course, as Galileo noticed four hundred years ago, there is no real answer.
Actually either answer is valid in the frame of reference of the individual.The difficulty presented here is the designation of just what is meant by the term space.Since an arc{parabola} covers a greater distance between the same two points than a straight line what do you suppose has changed to allow the two valid observations to equally describe the same event?
This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2005-04-20 08:29 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by ptolemy, posted 04-20-2005 8:17 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
tsig
Member (Idle past 3163 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 113 of 197 (200880)
04-21-2005 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Eta_Carinae
04-20-2005 9:23 AM


Re: I haven't read this thread BUT...
Posts like I quoted above should come with an appropriate government health warning - and what is more - reminds me of why I shouldn't get on the internet.
Does ptolemy not realise the other observed consequences of his absurd model of ejections from the galactic bulge???
I have read most of this thread, brain reeling,I like your posts but nderstand the fustration.
According to ptolemy the only obseved model is recorded in the bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Eta_Carinae, posted 04-20-2005 9:23 AM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ptolemy, posted 04-22-2005 12:02 PM tsig has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18650
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 114 of 197 (200883)
04-21-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by ptolemy
04-20-2005 3:42 PM


Re: Simple versus complex evidence
Ptolemy writes:
To be consistent with the Bible, we must first start with the beginning - the first thing to know. To understand the physical universe we must separate this assumption, that Peter predicted, from the vast amounts of information about the physical universe.
Lets slow down and explain the principles.
1)What is "the principle that Peter predicted"? Pretend that we are being taught...right now...by Peter. What is it that Peter wants us to know about truth and reality? Keep in mind that you cannot skim over these principles and assume that everyone is going to catch on.
2)Percy had several questions for you. Concentrate on answering these.
Percy writes:
I'd like to ask two things of you. Please explain Aristotle's Conjecture in a way that other people can understand. And explain how rejecting this conjecture helps provide a better explanation for why the stars and clouds in galaxies have roughly constant orbital periods about the galactic center.
If you can't explain Aristotle scientifically, please show us how Aristotle and the Greeks differed from Peter philosophically. Surely the two can be contrasted,no?
3) In a nutshell, what is it that you want EvC to know? What is it that you want us to see? You can't rewrite science by using theology, science fiction, or philosophy. You can show us what it is that you really want us to know. Is it Jesus? Is it a new theory? Is it your website? Biblical Creation Defeats Science | A Literal Interpretation
I went to your website and copied this:
The biblical answer involves the first principle that Peter predicted almost two thousand years ago. A first principle is an elementary assumption that is the basis of our world-view. It cannot be proved without depending upon it in the proof, yet it is the historical basis of scientific reasoning itself. Most of us are not even aware of this assumption because we treat it as self evident. I claim that numerous Biblical passages contradict this little idea. God's universe even defeats mathematics and logic so that simple faith in Jesus alone will triumph. "but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory;" I Corinthians 2:7
When you say first principle, are you quite simply suggesting that either we acknowledge the Spirit of God as the source of all true wisdom or we will continue to be confused? Be honest! Yes or No? ( I am not disagreeing with you...I simply want a yes or no answer to that question.)
Surely we can all just go to your website and read what you have written there! You have chosen to come debate here, so I ask that you answer the questions above or give us a link to the answer.
I am challenging you to answer the questions above, Ptolemy.
This message has been edited by Phatboy, 04-21-2005 02:38 AM

"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives."-- Anne Dillard
Every tool carries with it the spirit by which it had been created.
-- Werner Karl Heisenberg: (1901-1976) German physicist
I read the newspaper avidly. It is my one form of continuous fiction.
-- Aneurin Bevan: (1897-1960) English politician

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by ptolemy, posted 04-20-2005 3:42 PM ptolemy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by arachnophilia, posted 04-21-2005 5:38 AM Phat has not replied
 Message 121 by ptolemy, posted 04-22-2005 3:21 AM Phat has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 115 of 197 (200884)
04-21-2005 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Phat
04-21-2005 5:31 AM


Re: Simple versus complex evidence
1)What is "the principle that Peter predicted"?
that everything remains the same as it always was. he's misreading the verse. grossly. ignoring things like "grammar."
i'd also like my question answered. if EVERYTHING changes directly related to everything else, what is the net observable effect, and how is it different than nothing changing at all?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Phat, posted 04-21-2005 5:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
ptolemy
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 197 (201004)
04-21-2005 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by arachnophilia
04-20-2005 8:19 PM


How can things change as a relationship
Arachnophilia asks: how is this different than staying the same? if everything changes at rates constant to everything everything else ("as a relation") then it is observably no different than natural laws and constants from an internal perspective.
please explain to me how if things change in relations to one another it is any different than everything staying the same?
The whole universe is shouting, in a wordless language, that everything is changing as a relationship.
To think about a first principle you have to dig down to the foundations, that part of our shared way of thinking that is never discussed openly. It is most helpful to examine our epistemological history. The Christians from Western Europe used Aristotle’s Conjecture about matter as the starting point for constructing Western science. Within a century of Aquinas, the monks were building mechanical clocks whose monotonous ticking advanced a new idea: that time was unchanging. Even Aristotle did not imagine such a radical idea. Today we build atomic clocks which rely on the assumption that internal processes within atoms cannot change their dithering motions and geometry together. Time is not only ‘what clock’s measure,’ as Einstein stated. We always combine the assumption that reality is unchanging with our clocks. Our idea of time is highly symbolic, unlike the way the ancients thought about it, including the prophets in the Bible.
quote:
Genesis 47:9 And Jacob saith unto Pharaoh, `The days of the years of my sojournings [are] an hundred and thirty years; few and evil have been the days of the years of my life, and they have not reached the days of the years of the life of my fathers, in the days of their sojournings.'
Old man Israel says few and evil. Hebrew - (me@`at): littleness, smallness . (ra`):when used in a comparison - worse than. In this one verse, he uses the word day four times. He thought that his days and years were smaller and worse than the days and years of his fathers. Yet his father experienced five more solar orbits than his grandfather. All ancient people seemed to think that time was part of a dynamic relationship in which everything was changing for the worse. The ancient poets, such as Hesiod, were very explicit about his kind of change. The evidence that old Israel meant what he said is: he could drive suckling lambs from the Euphrates to Gilead in 10 days. When the cowboys drove mature animals to the railhead 150 years ago, 10 - 12 miles a day was considered a good days drive. Alexander and Xenophon also could march an army further in a day than Napoleon. This suggests that ancient days were longer.
How could days and years become smaller and worse for succeeding generations? If matter ages and changes, it would have to affect rotations AND orbits - since matter is fundamental to both. It would also affect the size of the earth - which the Bible clearly says is continuously spreading. We could not use our mathematical laws, based on Aristotle’s Conjecture, to detect such a change locally. Why not? When we define something like gravity, we define it in terms of the whole relationship. If the relationship shifted - like an equilibrium - our constants would remain unchanged because of our assumption - not because the economy was not changing.
Everyone of our definitions of the fundamentals relies on Aristotle’s Conjecture. Since we never discuss our first principle, we convince ourselves that we can measure these things independently of the assumption we used. Who ever found an experiment that can separate time, as though it exists apart from the things that move or change? Western time is used as an independent variable in almost every differential equation that seeks to decode the long ago. Can we drag a second from the past and compare it to one from the present? What experiment can measure an unchanging mass, without using this assumption in the measurement? We cannot even measure an atom without using this assumption. What experiment can compare the length of a fixed rod today with the same one in the future without assuming the first principle? Who can even find such a thing as energy without using Aristotle’s Conjecture. We can say some light or matter are energetic, but energy is a mathematical thing - that has NEVER BEEN ISOLATED with any experiment.
Subatomic particles, even whole atoms, show non-locality and strangeness (Boise-Einstein and Bell’s Inequality). Something that is not local can only be a relationship. The Bible simply states that what God made was formless, without geometric shape, until He created light. This clearly implies that mater is a relationship with light, for which there is simple evidence.
Upon the foundation of Aristotle’s Conjecture about matter, we have constructed a symbolic system in which mathematics has a higher importance than careful thinking about first principles. We have more confidence in pages of symbols than in what we actually see in the universe.
You may be thinking, the system works. Of course it does - but only in nearby ages and close spaces. We have adjusted it to work in those areas. But the evidence that this symbolic structure is false is:
  • If matter is a relationship - for which there is simple evidence in the quantum.
  • If this relationship shifts - and all the light from long ago is shifted.
  • when we use our symbolic, mathematical system to understand the long ago or far away, we end up inventing undetectable things to preserve our little dogma. This is because everything we see in the universe shows signs of fundamental change, and science has no mechanism for such change.
If the first principle is false, then our structured way of thinking is useless for trying to understand the long ago past. Perhaps you are thinking, we use this system to precisely predict innumerable processes in chemistry and physics. You cannot test a first principle with the system built upon it. That is begging the question. You must exclude the assumption from the test. The measurements of the ancient astronomers, such as Claudius Ptolemy, are one possible test. The things he measured that seem accurate to us, and the ones that are "erroneous," but whose errors seem to miraculously cancel so that his system worked, suggest that our first principle is false.
Is there evidence that the Bible really is God’s Word? Once you examine the first principle that Peter predicted and identified, you can see that He really can take the wise of our system with their own skills and wisdom. Once you question this assumption, the evidence that supports the Bible is simple and visible. What we see exactly fits what the Bible states in simple grammatical words. It is the scientific system, that never tests its first principle, that argues against the Bible with pages of mathematical symbols, that invents undetectable things to protect its dogma, it is this system that is suspect when we question our first principle. Think about it.
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-21-2005 07:08 PM
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-21-2005 08:52 PM
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-21-2005 09:01 PM
This message has been edited by ptolemy, 04-21-2005 10:18 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by arachnophilia, posted 04-20-2005 8:19 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Admin, posted 04-21-2005 8:48 PM ptolemy has not replied
 Message 119 by arachnophilia, posted 04-21-2005 10:35 PM ptolemy has not replied
 Message 125 by doctrbill, posted 04-22-2005 5:16 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13107
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 117 of 197 (201015)
04-21-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ptolemy
04-21-2005 8:00 PM


Re: How can things change as a relationship
Hi Ptolemy,
Normally I wouldn't bring this up when a thread is only a third over, but I thought it would be a good idea to let you know that at EvC Forum at around 300 messages threads are usually closed. I don't want it to be a surprise to you and leave you feeling like you had insufficient opportunity to make your point clear.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ptolemy, posted 04-21-2005 8:00 PM ptolemy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Monk, posted 04-21-2005 9:41 PM Admin has not replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 4179 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 118 of 197 (201034)
04-21-2005 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Admin
04-21-2005 8:48 PM


Re: How can things change as a relationship
He's going to need a lot more than 300.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Admin, posted 04-21-2005 8:48 PM Admin has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1599 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 119 of 197 (201046)
04-21-2005 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ptolemy
04-21-2005 8:00 PM


what?
Today we build atomic clocks which rely on the assumption that internal processes within atoms cannot change their dithering motions and geometry together.
and if they do, what's the difference? if the period of helium decay lengths by a certain percent, and our planet's rotational speed and the laws of gravity change at that same percent, is the clock inaccurate? no.
Time is not only ‘what clock’s measure,’ as Einstein stated.
you've obviously never read einstein. he asserts that time is quite changing. just as space is. mass warps both. he also says that the laws of physics change according to the speed at which things are going, and that everything is relative to your point of observation.
now, there's a set of equations, called lorentz contractions, based on this simple thought experiment.
suppose you're on a train. you fire a gun in the same direction the train is going. how fast does the bullet travel? the speed of the bullet relative to the gun, plus the speed of the train.
now suppose you shine a light in the same direction as the train. how fast is the light going? the speed of light. it can't get any faster.
so what lorentz did was come up with a set of equations that took into account the relativistic differences. now, i messed around with some of these equations in high school. and for everyday life, they don't mean a damned thing. in fact, i had to use special software that would even do the decimal arithmetic after 50 some places. i only started to get significant changes when i significantly approached the speed of light. (i think the first noticeable change was at about 1/10th c. i don't recall)
but there IS a case where we know that the laws of physics DO in fact change in relation to speed. and for all intents and purposes, the difference is so fractional as to be unimportant. ockham's razor, eliminate all the extra needless calculation. i'm not even sure you can tell the differences as an internal observer at relativistic speeds. (anyone know? my physics is a little rusty)
but, if everything is changing in relation to everything else... how can we tell? how is it different than staying the same?
Everyone of our definitions of the fundamentals relies on Aristotle’s Conjecture...
...Once you examine the first principle that Peter predicted and identified,
aristotle was born in 384 bc. he's not what peter was "predicting." modern scientific philosophy and methodological naturalism was already well established when peter wrote. peter was writing about SIGNS and fulfilled prophesies, arguing that the first thing WE AS CHRISTIANS should know is that everyone else will deny that god has done anything new.
you're still misreading the verse.
You may be thinking, the system works. Of course it does - but only in nearby ages and close spaces. We have adjusted it to work in those areas. But the evidence that this symbolic structure is false is:
If matter is a relationship - for which there is simple evidence in the quantum.
so back to sir ockham again. when einstein wrote his theories of special and general relativity, it shook the physics world. huge revolution. and yet we still study newton, and use his rules. they still work. why is that? when quantum theory came out, it revolutionized einstein. yet einstein and newton still work. when string theory came out, it revolutionized quantum mechanics. yet quantum theory is still taught and works, as does newton and einstein.
in fact, some things works better than other depending on how and when they're used. quantum theory is piss-poor for describing the behavious of large objects, and string theory is even worse. yet relativity and newtonian mechanics each work perfectly, depending on the speed. yet relativity and newtonian mechanics can't explain quanta and super strings.
so for the most part, that symbolic structure WORKS, and not only works, but WORKS BETTER than the more intricate understandings.
the evidence that supports the Bible is simple and visible. What we see exactly fits what the Bible states in simple grammatical words.
now, my real area of interest is the bible. and i will tell you flat out that it does not describe the real world accurately. for instance, mustard does not grow any kind of tree, let alone the biggest and the strongest.
there is, quite frankly, a TON of evidence that the bible is not even internally consistent within its books. genesis contradicts itself no more than a page in. proverbs occasionally contradicts itself in the next verse. now this is just literary evidence. i'm not even concerned with archaeology, philosophy, theology, geology, biology, etc. i'm just using simple logic to actually look at the book, and determining that it does not present a simple, straightforward claim to anything, let alone having that claim verified by the real world.
sure, you know, we can ignore that "first principle" of yours, and not require it to make any sense. who cares if it contradicts itself? maybe god changes his mind. maybe he just tricked moses when he said he made plants before man (like genesis 1), and he really meant that he made man before plants (like genesis 2).
oh wait, no. that would make one of them wrong, wouldn't it? which means the word of god lies. which means there's no reason we should trust it, including peter's "first principle."
logic is a bitch, isn't it?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ptolemy, posted 04-21-2005 8:00 PM ptolemy has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4629 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 120 of 197 (201088)
04-22-2005 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by ptolemy
04-20-2005 9:26 PM


I'm going to say this in a short and to the point matter
Please get out your calculator and calculate the energy necessary to eject something the mass of the Large Magellanic Cloud from the bulge of the Milky Way to it's present locale.
Then tell me what mechanism can provide such energy without wholesale disruption of the entire galaxy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by ptolemy, posted 04-20-2005 9:26 PM ptolemy 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