Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9036 total)
92 online now:
PaulK, ringo (2 members, 90 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,660 Year: 3,306/14,102 Month: 247/724 Week: 5/91 Day: 5/20 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 91 of 309 (662851)
05-19-2012 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by ringo
05-19-2012 4:39 PM


Re: Cuts and pastes from a blog...
Hi Ringo and Coyote,

Message 89: He might be getting a lot of his material from here:
http://www.godsriddle.info/2012_02_01_archive.html

Or here: http://godsriddle.com/ (crank warning).

Indeed, the mark of delusion runs strong. Isn't it wonderful how technology enables all people to participate in the age of disinformation?

The question I have is how other creationists see him ...

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 4:39 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 92 of 309 (662864)
05-19-2012 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 2:37 PM


Re: SN1987A part 1
Yet the Magellanic stream does not orbit the MW, it links back to the southern end of our galaxy.

Where are you getting this from?

The evidence that miniature galaxies were ejected from larger active galaxies is visible ...

This would be another of those visible things that we can't actually see, right?

The chains of star globs spreading out is visible ...

Like this.

Really, you have the strangest idea of what "visible" means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 2:37 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 93 of 309 (662865)
05-19-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:13 PM


Re: first assumption
No observation from billions of galaxies supports the notion that atoms do perpetual motion.

Newton did NOT begin his book Principia Mathematica with first principles. He simply assumed his principles and went on to define matter space and time as a measurement OPERATIONALLY. He rejected the common sense notion of time (crowing roosters and twilight) and defined time as a mathematical entity that is unaffected by anything exterior. Yet no one has ever detected any time or measured any of its properties. There is not a shred of evidence that time has an actuality. It exists in our minds, as Solomon explained 3,000 years ago. Yet scientists actually use it as the independent variable in many of their formulas and laws.

The death of modern physics will come about because of the visible history of the cosmos. Not a single ancient galaxy shines with the light of modern atoms. When we compare the morphology of galaxies at many ranges, we observe how clumps packed with stars accelerated out from formerly naked cores. We observe how galaxies intrinsically grew as the properties of all matter kept on changing in defiance of every law of modern physics.

Because scientist were trained to think with a single assumption, a first principle, they have filled the universe with magical things like invisible matter and vacuums that stretch themselves as they stretch all the light passing through the vacuum. No pagan could invent such absurd myths as scientific mythology / cosmology. Why? None of their laws of physics is being followed anywhere in the past. None of their definitions are supported by visible evidence. So they obfuscate - exactly as the Bible predicted they would do - because they think that all things remain the same. Even the Earth follows the simplicity of biblical physics. The continents only fit together on a tiny globe without major seas. The Bible states three times that the Earth spreads out in unbroken continuity and this happens above the waters.

The scientific first principle is visibly false which is why none of their laws of physics, which were contrived with an assumption, work in hundreds of billions of galaxies. But they work locally, says the scientists! They only work in the world of mathematical symbols. The symbols do not represent reality. If clocks are accelerating - as we observe - then the symbolical world of mathematical reality will crumble. Only a biblical cosmic history and biblical creation are supported by the only history that is visible as it happened, galactic history.

There is no need to keep repeating yourself. We already know what it is that you wish to be wrong about. Now would be the time to put up some arguments in favor of your views. Assertion is not evidence. Repeated assertion is still not evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:13 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2610 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 94 of 309 (662866)
05-19-2012 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by godsriddle
05-19-2012 1:13 PM


Re: first assumption
godsriddle writes:

He rejected the common sense notion of time (crowing roosters and twilight) and defined time as a mathematical entity that is unaffected by anything exterior. Yet no one has ever detected any time or measured any of its properties. There is not a shred of evidence that time has an actuality. It exists in our minds, as Solomon explained 3,000 years ago. Yet scientists actually use it as the independent variable in many of their formulas and laws.


So....you forgot your wife's birthday?
I don't think that excuse is going to work.
Try flowers instead.

I don't think it will get you out of paying that speeding ticket either.


Tradition and heritage are all dead people's baggage. Stop carrying it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by godsriddle, posted 05-19-2012 1:13 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 7:04 PM Panda has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 309 (662969)
05-20-2012 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Panda
05-19-2012 9:36 PM


Re: first assumption
There is not a shred of evidence that time has an actuality. It exists in our minds, as Solomon explained 3,000 years ago.

Hilarious!


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Panda, posted 05-19-2012 9:36 PM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:20 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Census Takers Hatmaker
Junior Member (Idle past 3113 days)
Posts: 4
Joined: 05-20-2012


Message 96 of 309 (663036)
05-20-2012 9:09 PM


anyone for spacetime?

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 3208 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 97 of 309 (663287)
05-23-2012 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by NoNukes
05-20-2012 7:04 PM


Re: first assumption
Hilarious!

For those of you who are not aware of the first principle of physics, I republished a google knol article (since google shut down its knol).

http://www.godsriddle.info/...irst-principle-of-physics.html

First principles are the most important part of reasoning. Carefully examine yours.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 05-20-2012 7:04 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2012 12:42 AM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2012 2:24 AM godsriddle has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1003 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 98 of 309 (663289)
05-23-2012 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by godsriddle
05-23-2012 12:20 AM


Re: first assumption
For those of you who are not aware of the first principle of physics...

One thing I learned long ago is to ignore the many, often contradictory, interpretations people come up with for the bible. Ancient tribal myths don't tend to teach us much about science.

As Heinlein noted:

The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it.

Robert Heinlein, The Number of the Beast


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:20 AM godsriddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2012 6:27 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 99 of 309 (663291)
05-23-2012 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by godsriddle
05-23-2012 12:20 AM


Re: first assumption
As I have commented on your blunders in physics in previous posts, I shall refer you to my previous comments. You seem to have added some mistakes in geology, viz:

They continue to hold to subduction even after the drill cores showed thin, layered, undisturbed sediments in the ocean trenches.

You appear to be denying the existence of accretionary prisms. And you claim that this denial is based on drill cores. Curiously enough, that's not what the people doing the actual drilling say.

* Ocean Drilling Project report on the Barbados prism
* Ocean Drilling Project report on the Nankai prism
* Ocean Drilling Project report on the the Costa Rica prism
* Ocean Drilling Project report on the the Cascadia prism

See, they're drilling into the prisms. And what they find are not "thin, layered, undisturbed sediments". What they find are accretionary prisms.

I've noticed before that creationists deny the existence of accretionary prisms. May I ask where you get this crap from? Only clearly it's not from reading the drilling reports. There must have been some original creationist who made it up, but as creationists are so lax about providing citations I have not been able to find out who he was or how he came to make such a stupid mistake.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:20 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 3:14 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 3208 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 100 of 309 (663295)
05-23-2012 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Dr Adequate
05-23-2012 2:24 AM


Re: first assumption
Not all "subduction trenches" have thin layers. The Cascadian trench is filled with sediments, but they came from massive floods that flowed across Washington, evidently when ice dams broke.

The Aleutian trench has magnetic stripes running down into the trench perpendicular to its long axis. This suggests that the trench is a stretch feature, not a subduction zones.

Millions of cubic kilometers of scrapped off marine oozes and sea mounts are missing in the subduction trenches. Scarps and volcanic vents are missing. How do you get basalt denser than granite to tunnel into the molten interior without leaving a shred of evidence. I suggest you read Theories of the Earth and Universe by S. Warren Carey - an Australian geologist who wrote extensively on the evidence for a continually growing Earth.

You might want to watch a few of Neal Adams videos on a growing Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJfBSc6e7QQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBT8KyWVxj8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeUEzM7hsmY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TzX7Ou1anM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fsg1XJTbKA


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2012 2:24 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2012 4:51 AM godsriddle has responded
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2012 6:38 AM godsriddle has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 101 of 309 (663298)
05-23-2012 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by godsriddle
05-23-2012 3:14 AM


Trenches
Here, have another one. According to the Ocean Drilling Project, they found "over a mile" of sediment in the Tonga Trench near Vanuata.

The Cascadian trench is filled with sediments, but they came from massive floods that flowed across Washington, evidently when ice dams broke.

The Cascadia trench runs from northern California to Vancouver Island, y'know.

Look, here's how big it is:

And according to this paper from the "Proceedings of the Ocean Drilling Project" the sediment in it is 2.5 km thick.

So, exactly how much sediment do you think there was in Washington before these glacial floods of which you speak?

The Aleutian trench has magnetic stripes running down into the trench perpendicular to its long axis. This suggests that the trench is a stretch feature, not a subduction zones.

Possibly that meant something in your head when you decided to write it.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 3:14 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:50 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 102 of 309 (663308)
05-23-2012 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Coyote
05-23-2012 12:42 AM


Re: first assumption
Hi Coyote

As Heinlein noted:
The Bible is such a gargantuan collection of conflicting values that anyone can prove anything from it.
Robert Heinlein, The Number of the Beast

Shakespeare said it first:

quote:
The Merchant of Venice Quote Act i. scene. 3.
"The devil can cite scripture for his purpose."

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2012 12:42 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 302 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 103 of 309 (663310)
05-23-2012 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by godsriddle
05-23-2012 3:14 AM


question unanswered ...
Hi godsriddle,

Hope you can take time out of your busy schedule to answer my question:

Message 87:
Did you notice that ...

... you did not answer the question? Yes I did. Here it is again:

Message 72: Now the difference in time measured between the arrival of light from the nova star and from the ring is measured in days, and we know the speed of light has not varied by any measurable amount in that time.

Thus we knowwhen the light reaches the earth from the nova star and the ring, the time delay at the current known speed of light gives you the actual physical distance from the nova star to the ring.

This now known distance and the actual measured angle of the star to the ring can then be used to measure the actual distance to the star through basic elementary trigonometry.

This distance is calculated at 168,000 light-years.

Do you agree thus far?

So where do you find a fixed reference system for determining how long ago SN1987a exploded? ...

All other nonsense aside, we can deal with this issue when you answer the question regarding the calculation of the actual distance between earth and sn1987a.

Just a simple yes or no is all that is required.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 3:14 AM godsriddle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 3208 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 104 of 309 (663342)
05-23-2012 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by RAZD
05-23-2012 6:38 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
1. I agree that (when referenced to the duration of modern days), the distance to to the LMC is accurately determined in modern days. There is no way to measure a light year. No one has ever done it. Those that do rely on the assumption I argue with.

2. I agree that the Magellanic stream shows the MC were ejected from the MW, as were countless miniature galaxies that we observe emerging from their parent galaxies back near the beginning.

3. I agree that the MW itself was once a tiny glob of primordial matter and the the star globs emerged, accelerated out, in the same manner as we observe billions of spiral galaxies intrinsically growing into huge growth spirals throughout cosmic history. I agree that the atomic clocks continued to accelerate as the star streams spread out - as we observe.

4. I agree that days and years on Earth have continued to accelerate as ancient people recorded - including the Bible. Even since 1960, the optical parallax to the Sun has continued to decrease as it has for at least 2000 years, as recorded by astronomers. In In two weeks, Venus will transit the Sun. Eight years ago when it did, the AU was optically much larger than the canonical radar value (based on perpetual motion atomic clocks)

5. There is a simple reason why days and years accelerate. Its called gravity. Since it has a finite speed, it MUST pull on the trailing hemisphere of Earth more than the leading hemisphere - which forces earths orbit to not close - but to continually spiral out. (Examine Maurice Allais' paraconical pendulum runs to see how gravity varies relative to the position of the Sun, Moon and planets as the Earth rotates). Ancient people lived for geological ages, as the Bible plainly states, which is why they grew Neanderthal brows before they died in old age. Time has no actual existence. No one has ever detected any of it. The only reference system we have is the continually accelerating Earth orbit.

6. I am using a different first principle than you are, which is why I use simple visible evidence rather than a empirical system that relies on atomic perpetual motion as modern physicists do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2012 6:38 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2012 12:49 PM godsriddle has not yet responded
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 05-23-2012 12:58 PM godsriddle has responded
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 05-23-2012 5:06 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1003 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 105 of 309 (663343)
05-23-2012 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by godsriddle
05-23-2012 12:35 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
Ancient people lived for geological ages, as the Bible plainly states, which is why they grew Neanderthal brows before they died in old age.

This is absolute nonsense.

First, there is no evidence other than ancient tribal myth that people lived longer in the past.

Second, we have bones or fossils of modern humans going back 200,000 years and a variety of other species prior to that. There is no evidence of extreme age in any of them. Using forensics we can age skeletons pretty accurately through a variety of indicators, and what we see now seems to be pretty much what we observe from the past.

Also, the skeletal differences between Neanderthal and modern humans at the same time are well known, and age has nothing to do with them.

Finally, young Neanderthals exhibit the same characteristics (brow ridges, etc.) as old Neanderthals.

Your contention that people lived for geological ages is clearly untrue.

Tell me, what good does it do you are others like you to believe things that are clearly untrue, and can so easily be shown to be untrue?

Wouldn't it make more sense to accept evidence that can be verified? I would think that would make a better foundation than accepting easily disproved nonsense.

(And see signature.)


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by godsriddle, posted 05-23-2012 12:35 PM godsriddle has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021