Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Physical Laws ....What if they were different before?
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 84 of 309 (662838)
05-19-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
05-19-2012 12:59 PM


Re: SN1987A part 1
I never noticed that, and neither has anyone in the astronomical community. That's primarily because it isn't so. The LMC and SMC are in orbit around the Milky Way, but they, just like the couple of dozen other sattelite galaxies, formed seperately and have different chemical compositions than the Milky Way. The "river" is a trail from a recent* orbit that brought the clouds a tad too close to our galaxy.
Yet the Magellanic stream does not orbit the MW, it links back to the southern end of our galaxy. The evidence that miniature galaxies were ejected from larger active galaxies is visible, since we observe the past exactly as it happened long ago.
The chains of star globs spreading out is visible in the Hubble Deep Field and at many ranges throughout cosmic history.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 05-19-2012 12:59 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-19-2012 9:03 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 85 of 309 (662839)
05-19-2012 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ringo
05-19-2012 2:09 PM


Re: first assumption
All observations of all moving objects have confirmed Newton Laws (with allowances being made for relativistic effects and quantum effects). Every motion is perpetual - until some force changes it.
On the contrary, we observe in all parts of the spectrum how star globs accelerated outward as galaxies intrinsically grew - taking up more space concurrently with the accelerating atomic clocks. Many galaxies are spirals and they grew into huge growth spirals as the properties of matter continued to change in defiance of every law of modern physics.
That still isn't true, no matter how many times you repeat it. Scientists are not trained to assume that nothing can change. They are trained to look for evidence of change.
You are right that scientific training does not explicitly focus on the first principle. The first principle is inferred in almost everything scientists do, think and measure. Indeed it is the foundational assumption with which they define their symbolical versions of reality - things like mass, energy and time. They even operationally define methods of measuring these invisible entities by circularly using their assumption. They had to assume that today's atoms are identical to yesterdays in order to invent the modern empirical system.
Proclus, the last of the pagan philosophers, lived in an age when there were several competing versions of science. He wrote: "No science demonstrates it own first principles or presents a reason for them; rather each holds them as self-evident, that is more evident than their consequences. The science knows them through themselves, and the later propositions through them. This is the way the natural scientist proceeds, positing the existence of motion and producing his ideas from a definite first principle. The same is true of the physician and of the expert in any other science or art. Whoever throws into the same pot his principles and their consequences disarranges his understanding completely by mixing up things that do not belong together. For a principle and what follows from it are by nature different from each other."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 2:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by ringo, posted 05-19-2012 3:09 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 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 seen this message but not replied

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

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 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 replied

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

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 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 replied

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

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 106 of 309 (663344)
05-23-2012 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Dr Adequate
05-23-2012 4:51 AM


Re: Trenches
The Cascadia trench runs from northern California to Vancouver Island, y'know.
Where did western California come from? It migrated down the coast as a long island. The rocks on the western side of the San Andreas match coastal rocks far to the north. In that case the Cascadian trench is a stretch feature as the Earth grew in size as the oceans continued to spread out. The Bible states three times that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity (in Hebrew that is).
http://www.godsriddle.info/...tern-california-come-from.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2012 4:51 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Coyote, posted 05-23-2012 1:01 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 111 of 309 (663384)
05-24-2012 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Taq
05-23-2012 12:58 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
Just measure the speed of light and then determine how far light would travel in a year. The math is quite simple.
How do you extend the measurement of the number of modern days between the flash and the reflection at SN1987a to the notion that days and years have equal durations?
Operational definitions can short circuit the brain. One can end up believing in the actuality of the thing defined with the procedure, even though it is completely undetectable. Just because scientists assume that atoms are perpetual motion engines and use this to define seconds does not mean that time has an actual existence.
A light year is not a fixture of nature. It is a mathematical procedure based on the above assumption. No has ever sent beams of light to distant reflective targets (at various ranges) and counted the number of years before they were reflected back.
It is impossible to support the notion that SN1987a is 168,000 light years distant since such a measurement is assumption dependent and the assumptions involved are visibly contradicted.
1. Billions of galactic orbits are observed to accelerate, when we compare the shape of the most distant galaxies with closer ones at many ranges. We observe how small galaxies were ejected from active galaxies all over the universe. The Magellanic stream connects the MCs back to the MW, clear evidence that the same ejections occurred here. An ejection is an acceleration, not a clock - like orbit. (What we observe is not allowed in the scientific system, which is why scientific cosmic history is mostly about magic).
2. Every atomic clock in billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency from modern atoms, and the differences often correlate with distance (dimness and morphological compactness).
3. If the same laws are operating in the solar system as we observe in galaxies, then the ancient claim that the planets made close passages just a few hundred generations ago would be supported. Have you ever wondered why ancient astronomers kept measuring a decreasing solar parallax? Have you ever wondered why the earliest astronomical record showed Venus in a much different orbit than what it is in today? Have you ever wondered why the ancients, including the biblical authors, claimed that a planet was crushed in a collision a few millennia ago? Have you ever noticed the crushed planet pieces with volcanic and sedimentary rocks circling in the same direction in the asteroid belt? Seems like the stories of the ancients have more likely validity than the undetectable matter astronomers insist they measure.
4. An empiricist might claim to measure unchanging gravity and clock like orbits. In countless examples at many ranges, we observe how galaxies grew into local growth spirals. The atomic clocks visibly accelerate along with the accelerating star streams.
5. What causes orbits to accelerate outwards?We know that the "gravitational effect" does NOT propagate at infinite speed. This should produce a difference between the pull on the trailing side of the Earth as paraconical pendulums show. This should accelerate days and years together. You say, if that were happening we could measure it with clocks. Not if the observed acceleration of atomic clocks is the cause of the gravitational phemomena.
The claim to measure how many years ago SN1987a occurred is unsupportable except with assumptions that are visibly contradicted in billions of galaxies.
The scientific first principle is indeed the foundational assumption in scientific empiricism, yet there is no visible support for this premise anywhere in the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Taq, posted 05-23-2012 12:58 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Panda, posted 05-24-2012 4:58 AM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 05-24-2012 11:29 AM godsriddle has replied
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2012 11:43 AM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 150 of 309 (664155)
05-29-2012 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Taq
05-24-2012 11:29 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
Taq wrote: What are the assumptions and how are they contradicted.
I wrote a response but it is lengthy so I posted it on my blog here
http://www.godsriddle.info/2012/05/sn-1987a.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 05-24-2012 11:29 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Theodoric, posted 05-29-2012 2:25 PM godsriddle has replied
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 3:44 PM godsriddle has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 155 of 309 (664168)
05-29-2012 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Theodoric
05-29-2012 2:25 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
Either post here or do not bother debating here
Ok - no problem.
Evolutionists confirm a biblical prediction when they make astronomical age of the universe claims. 2 Peter 3:3-5 predicts that mockers will actively ignore the evidence that the ouranoi (plural heavens) esan ekpalai. Ek, in ekpalai, means to come out from a point of origin. Palai has to do with vibrations, repetitive events, orbits. Peter explained that the mockers will actively choose or prefer (thelo) to ignore the evidence that the plural heavens came out long ago because they think all things remain the same (panta houtos diamenei).
On February 23, 1987 an astronomer in Chile noticed an exploding star in the Large Magellanic Cloud. At 0736 UT that day, three underground experiments recorded 25 neutrino events within 13 seconds. Evidently that was when the first light from SN-1987a arrived. The light from the explosion faded but eighty days later it began to brighten to a double peak at 240 and 400 days. We now know that the exploding star is surrounded by gas rings, evidently ejected by previous explosions. The inner ring has an approximate diameter of 0.808 arc seconds (0.00022444 degrees). The front half of the ring glowed with reflected light by day 240 and the reflection from the far side arrived by day 400. A high school student can calculate that the light was in transit for 240 / tan (0.00022444 degrees): over 6,000,000,000 modern days. Scientists assume that days and years are linear when they estimate that the nova occurred 168,000 years ago. Their calculations presume that the properties of all things are fixed as Peter predicted.
The Bible records genealogies that add up to ~ 4,000 pre New Testament years. If we accept the text literally, in its cultural and grammatical context, those could not be linear years. Elohim continued to form the Sun, Moon and stars and continued to place them in the spreading place (raqiya) half way through the creation week according to the creation account. Orbits that spread apart - accelerate. Jacob claimed that his days and years were shorter and worse than the days and years of the fathers (Genesis 47:9). The Greek words for eon, eons and eonian occur almost 200 times in the New Testament. Christ came at the end of the plural eons to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Job mentioned several geological markers for the few days of his life in chapter 14. One of his age markers was the dried sea (Hebrew west). Drill cores show that the deep Mediterranean dried as evidenced by thick layers of salt, gypsum and stromatolite sandwiched between marine oozes. Scientists estimate the last Mediterranean drying occurred five million years ago. The biblical Job lived about 4,000 years ago during the age of dinosaurs (see Job 40 & 41). Job also mentioned how their faces changed, doubled, before they died. We find the skulls of the ancients with thick brows and we measure how our brows slowly grow as we age. If we lived for geological ages our faces would grow Neanderthal. The Neanderthal children did not have the thick brows of their grandparents, evidence that the grandparents lived for eons like the ancient poets and the Bible mentioned. Where is the evidence for linear days and years?
1. Every atomic clock in billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency than modern atoms, and the differences usually correlate with distance. NASA sent calibrated clocks out of the solar system on Pioneer 10 and 11. Their transmitted clock signals slowed, when compared to NASA’s hydrogen maser clocks. The ratio of frequency slowing to distance was the Hubble ratio scientists use to estimate galactic distances by comparing ancient light clocks with modern atoms.
2. We see strings of blue globs in equally spaced chains around the redder cores of many early galaxies. We observe, at many ranges, how these globs took up more space and changed their clock frequencies as they moved outward in orbits that did not close. Billions of galaxies visibly grew into local growth spirals without evidence of accretion or growth by collisions.
3. If the same laws are operating in the solar system as we observe in galaxies, (see Job 38:33), then the solar sy stem must have been much smaller when atoms ticked at tiny fractions of the frequencies of modern clocks. Ancient astronomers optically measured a decreasing solar parallax over the centuries, which has continued even after radar established the canonical distance to the Sun using atomic clocks. The earliest astronomical record of Venus could only be valid if the solar system was contracted. Have you ever wondered why the ancients, including the biblical authors, mentioned the crushing of a nearby planet a few millennia ago? The volcanic and sedimentary rocks on angularly shaped asteroids and comets support the four references to this planet shattering in the Bible.
4. A river of cold hydrogen links the Magellanic galaxies with the southern end of the Milky way. This is simple evidence that these galaxies were ejected from the Milky Way. The Biblical God says He calls the stars to come out in unbroken continuity and none go missing (Isaiah 40:26). The several rings around the SN-1987a progenitor star suggest that previous explosions did not destroy the star. The material from the latest ejection is oblong, instead of spherical.
5. What could cause solar system orbits to accelerate outwards? We know that the "gravitational effect" does NOT propagate at infinite speed. This should produce a different gravitational pull on the trailing side of the Earth than on the leading side. Indeed, paraconical pendula change their precession rate depending on the relative positions of the Sun, Moon and apparently even the planets. This imbalance must accelerate days and years equally. The same gravitational affects would also accelerate the planet orbits so that the whole solar system should expand.
6. We measure local orbits and they are clock like, screams the scientist. Only when you compare orbits to clocks, instead of angles. But we measure gravity and it does not change! No one has ever isolated any gravity and your measuring system was contrived with the idea that Peter predicted. You assumed that atoms are perpetual motion engines and have built a great structure of mathematical empiricism based on a blind creed. No perpetual motion atoms gleam from billions of ancient galaxies. We visually correlate how atoms keep changing their clock rates along with emerging star stream orbits as spiral galaxies grew into huge growth spirals. Despite the fact that no physical constants are visible in the whole universe, scientists keep on claiming to empirically measure how many years ago an event occurred.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Theodoric, posted 05-29-2012 2:25 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 156 of 309 (664172)
05-29-2012 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Taq
05-29-2012 3:44 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
If time were moving along differently then the observations would be different. RAZD explained this in his post. The delay between the burst of the supernova and the lighting of the rings would have been much longer than observed if time moved differently in the past than now. Also, we would not observe the same nuclear decay rates of spectra if time was different.
The Bible clearly states that time (Hebrew olam) is in our minds (Ecc 3:11).
No one has ever detected any time or observed any of its properties. Time is a synthetic idea. We know it is a synthetic idea because if we deny that it exists, nothing in the whole universe changes except for the magic. Scientists have filled the universe up with magical, invisible things like space time that stretches light and stretches the vacuum. These are unneeded if we accept Solomon as an authority instead of Einstein.
What we observe is that all clocks are accelerating, inertial and atomic. (Biological clocks are synched to the Sun) so if orbits are accelerating - as the Bible so plainly states, we would continue to tune ourselves to the cycles of the heavens.
Nuclear decay rates are compared to a CONCEPT of time. Radioactive samples measured and stored, when their decay products were analyzed years later, they did not fit the assigned mathematical decay rate.
Time has no existence.
Scientists have contrived an entire structure of empirical measuring based on the notion that time exists and it is linear. The primary measuring unit in science is the second of time from which thousands of other measuring units are derived - such as meters, velocities and the laws of physics. Atomic time is denied by the light evidence that ancient atomic clocks ticked at different rates from modern clocks and the most distant atoms ticked the slowest. Spectra ticking at 1/11th the rate of modern atoms are visible.
I am arguing with the historical first principle of modern science, the idea the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last day. This idea came about when the medieval friars invented the notion that the essence of substance is changeless - in their efforts to adapt Aristotle's system to the Bible. All attempts to tailor the Bible to fit philosophy fail, including those from modern creation scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 3:44 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 05-29-2012 4:27 PM godsriddle has replied
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2012 4:38 PM godsriddle has replied
 Message 159 by Coragyps, posted 05-29-2012 4:41 PM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 4:58 PM godsriddle has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 161 of 309 (664194)
05-29-2012 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Taq
05-29-2012 4:58 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
The fact of the matter is that time is a measurement. It is as quantitative as anything there is.
This is the problem with the empiricist's mindset.
1. You cannot measure something without defining what it is and assigning units to the measuring scheme.
2. Operational definitions are a way of getting around the reality of nature. Scientists DEFINED time as what clocks measure. Yet no one has ever detected any time. Then they extend their definition circularly by inventing other undetectable things like mass and energy.
3. The primary unit of measuring in science is - by international agreements - the second of time. If time has no existence, then very little of what scientists measure and mathematicate has reality.
4. We can see that past and directly compare the rate of past atomic clocks with modern ones at many ranges. The Pioneer clocks are not the only ones we calibrated on Earth that changed their clock frequencies as they distanced themselves from Earth. Galileo and Ulysses also did the same. They also were spin stabilized rather than using inertial wheels to point the craft.
5. Despite the fact that every clock in the universe is clocking a different speed than modern atoms and the most distant one clocked the slowest, scientists scale their notion of atomic perpetual motion into an empirical structure.
6. The precision empirical system has produced the greatest system of mythology ever invented by man. Allegedly a tiny bit of vacuum exploded and created everything out of nothing. Allegedly the vacuum of spacetime is expanding, dragging the frequencies of passing light as the vacuum expands. Spacetime pushes distant galaxies away, as they supposedly are standing still relative to local vacuums. Even the Earth allegedly rides rails bent into the local vacuum as it circles the Sun. Invisible holes and invisible matter liter the scientific universe. Scientists even admit that their universe is 99% invisible. Why all the magic? Because they empirically defined atoms as markers of time and used atomic perpetual motion to define thousands of other forms of measuring.
Yet when we look at the universe with sight, in all parts of the spectrum, we can see how the galaxies spread out as the atomic clocks concurrently accelerated. According to the Bible, Elohim first created the plural heavens and the earth. At that stage the Earth was without form, unextended. Then Elohim commanded light to be and physical reality began. Latter He continued to form the stars and to continued to place them in the spreading place - exactly as we confirm in visible galactic history. Galaxies cannot grow from tiny naked globs as the stars continued to form and spread out unless the properties of matter are emerging in the very manner Paul described in Romans 8.
How great will be the triumph of the Bible over the scientific empirical system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Taq, posted 05-29-2012 4:58 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2012 8:09 PM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 05-29-2012 8:12 PM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 165 by vimesey, posted 05-30-2012 1:09 AM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 167 by Taq, posted 05-30-2012 11:33 AM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 166 of 309 (664228)
05-30-2012 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by ringo
05-29-2012 4:27 PM


Re: question unanswered ...
ringoddle: On the contrary, Ecclesiates 3 clearly states that time is reality-based:
quote:To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted....
Three different time words are used in this chapter - because ancient people did not have a unified view of time.
eth is the Hebrew for event time and is used 32 times in this chapter. Event time is observed - you react to presently happening events when you play ball.
olam is the word of long time, time that is not now present. Olam is the kind of time that only exists in our minds.
Ancient people, including the biblical authors did not have a unified concept of time. You could not run out of time, because only events existed, not time. For example, the first Roman calendar sometimes had 20 days in a month and sometimes 35. (See Plutarch) Why? The months were not measuring time, they were merely markers for the passing of cyclical events. A new month only happened when you SAW the new moon. If it was raining, you had a longer month. The first Roman calendar only had only 10 months. Can you see the Latin numerals in the following months? Septermber 7, October 8, November 9, December 10. Januarius and Februarius did not exist because months without agricultural activity had no meaning. The first Roman king (Numa) added the names for these months. In societies that used cyclical calendars, men adjusted their activities to fit the pulse of nature. They did not run their lives with symbolical representations of linear time - because linear time had not yet been invented. Their earth history was about change. They saw change in the very places modern people see constants.
This is why claims that the universe is 6,000 linear years or that the bible is wrong because we measure 13 billion years are both efforts to twist the words of the Bible to fit a concept of time that is foreign to the authors. Moses could no more have imagined a 24 hour day than he could visualize a cell phone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 05-29-2012 4:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 05-30-2012 11:49 AM godsriddle has replied
 Message 169 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2012 11:52 AM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 171 of 309 (664316)
05-31-2012 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by ringo
05-30-2012 11:49 AM


Re: question unanswered ...
Of course, Moses did (as the traditional author of Genesis) go to considerable trouble to establish the orderly passage and measurement of time, right in Chapter 1.
Moses did not mention time. The translation of beryshit as in the beginning was not what the word meant before Augustine came up with his notion that time exists. It simply means first in order, first in rank or importance. The sequence and duration are recorded - but there is no reference to time, per se. The fact that durations are not linear is clearly stated because God formed the Sun, Moon and stars out of the things created on day One and continued to place them in the spreading place (raqiya). Raqiya is the noun form of the verb to spread out.
The most powerful evidence for a biblical creation is how galaxies started out as naked globs of tohu bohu stuff and intrinsically grew, the stars accelerating outward, spreading out as the atomic clocks also accelerated. Look and glorify the God who will make foolish the wise of this age, the scientists. Look!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by ringo, posted 05-30-2012 11:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by ringo, posted 06-02-2012 11:54 AM godsriddle has replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 201 of 309 (664763)
06-05-2012 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
05-19-2012 3:06 PM


Re: SN1987A part 1 - still on the baby step.
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.
Parallax is useful for measuring the distance to nearby objects. For example, the distance to Venus during the 2004 transit was much larger than the canonical value measured using atomic clocks.
However, in the case of SN-1987a I have not read of a parallax measurement.
1. They counted the number of modern days between the first light and the reflected light of the explosion.
2. The angular size of the inner ring, which does not appear spherical (different parts of it lit up years apart on the arrival of the shock wave).
No one measured any time. In fact no one has ever measured any time.
Time is an operationally defined entity that has no correspondence in the world of real reality (the world of visible things).
Despite this scientists measure thousand of empirical things - scaled from a concept of time - such as meters and light years.
An atomic clock is really two clocks that tune each other in a feedback loop. The first clock irradiates cesium. The second counts the emissions from the relaxing cesium and tunes the first clock for maximum emission amplitude. If cesium atoms are changing RELATIONALLY (as all atoms are observed to change RELATIONALLY throughout cosmic history), then the atomic clocks would keep tuning themselves and scientists would continue to blindly measure things that only exist in their minds.
Most scientific measuring units exist in a world of mathematical reality that has no correspondence to the real visible world. This is certainly whey all scientists deny the visible history of the universe, since it violates almost all of their definitions and consequently all of their laws of physics.
Edited by godsriddle, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2012 3:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by NoNukes, posted 06-05-2012 1:55 AM godsriddle has replied
 Message 213 by Taq, posted 06-05-2012 11:00 AM godsriddle has not replied
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2012 9:48 PM godsriddle has not replied

  
godsriddle
Member (Idle past 4310 days)
Posts: 51
From: USA
Joined: 12-20-2007


Message 202 of 309 (664767)
06-05-2012 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
05-29-2012 4:38 PM


Re: ... and more questions unanswered ...
In other words, either the variable speed of light is falsified, or additional things need to be changed in consort with the speed of light in a carefully managed manner.
Each of these will result in other aspects of reality that need to be changed.
I am arguing against your first principle. You are expecting me to counter your arguments BASED ON your assumption. It is impossible to measure the speed of light without using an assumption. What assumption - the one the Bible predicted for the false teachers of the last days - that all things remain the same.
Playing the god-did-it card also means acknowledging that god/s have faked the evidence, that all is a hoax, an illusion, and that anyone's concept of reality is as valid as the next. That way lies delusion.
The proof that God did it without using any deception is in the history of how galaxies formed. We observe that the plural heavens (shamaiym) were created first but they had no extension. All matter evidently originally was formless, just like the Creator stated.
We observe how galaxies spread out from point sources, as the stars continued to spread out and accelerate out as billions of galaxies grew into huge, local growth spirals. This is precisely what the Biblical God said He did and continues to do. Look and glory the God of truth who can make fools out of all scientists for His great glory. Look at galactic history not with mathematical dogmas - but with light from every part of the spectrum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 05-29-2012 4:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Taq, posted 06-05-2012 11:04 AM godsriddle has replied
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 06-05-2012 10:01 PM godsriddle 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