Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2019 2:53 PM
34 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,075 Year: 5,112/19,786 Month: 1,234/873 Week: 130/460 Day: 72/58 Hour: 5/12


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
graedek
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 84 (27829)
12-25-2002 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by KingPenguin
02-10-2002 12:54 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
quote:
Originally posted by mark24:
It's not even hypothetical, given the directly contradicting physics. A white hole with an event horizon, that we were inside. Not even light can escape from inside an event horizon, let alone an entire solar system!

Mark


yeah its all just crazy ideas, i doubt if it will ever be proven with tangible evidence. so maybe that is possible.


people like humphry's keep science from becoming stale....who knows what will discovered with the introduction of new ideas

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 12:54 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Mike Holland, posted 12-25-2002 7:47 PM graedek has not yet responded

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 77 of 84 (27865)
12-25-2002 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by graedek
12-25-2002 4:33 AM


Someone remarked that the astronomers are still too busy laughing to reply to Humphries.

I agree, Graedek. That's why my library includes 'The Big Bang Never Happened' by Lerner, 'A Different Approach to Cosmology' by Hoyle etc, 'Seeing Red' by Arp, and other such fringe topics. But they all have to stand up to reason, mathematics and evidence.

I would love to see some of the scientific edifices toppled, just to make science exciting again as it was 50 - 150 years ago. The merging of all the sciences into a unified view of the universe is satisfying, but it is all just crossing the 't's and dotting the 'i's. The Big Bang is just about the only area left where conjecture can go wild (maybe Schrodinger's at and parallel universes too).

Mike


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by graedek, posted 12-25-2002 4:33 AM graedek has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Mike Holland, posted 12-25-2002 7:48 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 78 of 84 (27866)
12-25-2002 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Mike Holland
12-25-2002 7:47 PM


Sorry, that should be 'Schrodingers Cat'.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Mike Holland, posted 12-25-2002 7:47 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by wj, posted 12-25-2002 10:52 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
wj
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 84 (27872)
12-25-2002 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Mike Holland
12-25-2002 7:48 PM


Mike, just edit your post rather than creating a new post.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Mike Holland, posted 12-25-2002 7:48 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 80 of 84 (28083)
12-29-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Aryeh Shavit
12-25-2002 2:40 AM


A, I havent tried to research this but when "Mere Creation" came out, I bought it and tried to read Ross himself but unlike my experience with Humphreys this was *not* the same pleasent experience. If ICR backs up some creationist then I have in these cases never been dissatisfied when I finally get/got around to putting my mind to the thoughts within the "promotion". I was also not satisfied with the way that I heard Ross come across the "air-waves" from Janet Partial's American Station on Earth but then that was before I compared Janet to the BAD GIRLS of the Bible (to whom I jocularly refer GOOD DAY LIVE Dorthoy and ZoloffCanadaGirl-Jill (both claimed "Catholic") which came on at the same time recently.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-25-2002 2:40 AM Aryeh Shavit has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-30-2002 2:41 AM Brad McFall has responded

    
Aryeh Shavit
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 84 (28091)
12-30-2002 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Brad McFall
12-29-2002 10:17 PM


Brad,

quote:
Originally posted by Brad McFall:
A, I havent tried to research this but when "Mere Creation" came out, I bought it and tried to read Ross himself but unlike my experience with Humphreys this was *not* the same pleasent experience. If ICR backs up some creationist then I have in these cases never been dissatisfied when I finally get/got around to putting my mind to the thoughts within the "promotion". I was also not satisfied with the way that I heard Ross come across the "air-waves" from Janet Partial's American Station on Earth but then that was before I compared Janet to the BAD GIRLS of the Bible (to whom I jocularly refer GOOD DAY LIVE Dorthoy and ZoloffCanadaGirl-Jill (both claimed "Catholic") which came on at the same time recently.

Hmmm… I would say, Brad, that reading Isaac Asimov’s stories is even more pleasant.

However the question remains: did the mainstream physicists and astronomers even notice Humphreys’s book and regard it as science, not science fiction?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Brad McFall, posted 12-29-2002 10:17 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 12-31-2002 1:28 PM Aryeh Shavit has not yet responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 84 (28200)
12-31-2002 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Aryeh Shavit
12-30-2002 2:41 AM


Look I am not about to answer this question. I was in the top of my public school, taught evolution by my grandfather who had a genetics PHD, collected the most extensive data on herps in a particular county in the US, wrote an essay on environemetalism and got accedpted into Cornell University, achieved a 4.07 average when we were all told to expect a C but as soon I starte to write what I thought as opposed to what was being told to me I was sent to a mental hospital. I did not have a breakdown I only likely spent more time thinking about the subject than the people I was in contact with.

Cornell Scientists rejected me WHEH the only religious thing I was doing was going to Church ON THE SECULAR CAMPUS to take a break from studying on Sundays and sometimes I did NOT worship so that I could keep up with the problem sets. It doesnt matter if they think it is fiction, for they think I am too. And as for Asimov, both my brother and I read popular science as teems but it was he and not me that made any collection of this author. I nver found any interest in him and that was when I in all ways disposed to disblieve in any creation.

You may be statisfied that this elite ivy group rejects some things but in my case they thew what? -- the baby (me whining) out with the bath water (a polluted Hudson). I live(d) in NJ.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Aryeh Shavit, posted 12-30-2002 2:41 AM Aryeh Shavit has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Mike Holland, posted 12-31-2002 9:52 PM Brad McFall has responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 83 of 84 (28229)
12-31-2002 9:52 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Brad McFall
12-31-2002 1:28 PM


Hi, Brad, That was the most lucid contribution of yours that I have read yet. I can empathise to some extent, as I got involved in scientology during my Uni days, and was also regarded as a bit weird.
At that time I was into all sorts of mysticism - buddhism, sufism, Rodolf Steiner, zen, etc. After seeing the light about scientology, I spent years studying philosophy, science and religion to sort out what I could accept. Ended up an atheist and sceptic, but still have a lot of unanswered questions.
But your contributions give me the impression that you get one idea, from something you have read, say, and your mind shoots off in a hundred directions at once building up associations. Not a nice straight line direction of logic. A mild dose of schizophrenia? As you say, I don't think the way you do.
I don't like Asimov. Prefer Niven and Brin.

OK, so this has nothing to do with Starlight and Time. Nobody has discussed this subject seriously yet, or answered or criticised my postings on this subject, so I am switching to something else - geology, or something.

[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 12-31-2002]

[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 12-31-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 12-31-2002 1:28 PM Brad McFall has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Brad McFall, posted 01-01-2003 11:36 AM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3140 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 84 of 84 (28246)
01-01-2003 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Mike Holland
12-31-2002 9:52 PM


rIGHT YOU ARE, and Admoose thought he might have me censored for responding this way. I gave the copy of Starlight and Time to my Brother for Christmass, he looked it over once and I doubt he will ever get to the video, So unless I do a lot more work with it too I will also, ditto.

For sys ad- if this kind of post is too cluttering delete it and I will not post this kind of closure response again. Thanks Brad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Mike Holland, posted 12-31-2002 9:52 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Prev12345
6
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019