Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
20 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Post Volume: Total: 861,822 Year: 16,858/19,786 Month: 983/2,598 Week: 229/251 Day: 0/58 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 72 of 297 (623708)
07-12-2011 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-12-2011 3:46 PM


Re: Moderator on Duty
Using the term Universe together with verbs like start or begin implies that existence could be started from non-existence which is absurd. Simple.

Are you approaching it from the perspective of 4 dimensionality.

The Universe exists as space/time. Length, Width, Depth and Persistence.

But M-Theory works off 11 dimensions.

If this one Universe, like any of the others in the multiverse, stems from interactions in high dimensions, then it can quite easily have a start and a finish.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 3:46 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 7:27 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 74 of 297 (623716)
07-12-2011 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-12-2011 7:27 PM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
Therefore until shown otherwise, I have to consider those extra dimensions to be redundant and in need of being shaved with the Occam's razor off the face of physics and I'll continue to stick to the simple definition of the Universe as the sum of all that exists.

Okay, how many years of advance physics have you studied?

Demanding to be "shown otherwise" is going to require you to do some work.

Right now you sound like someone who understands only one language and claims that everyone else is merely muttering gibberish unless he can be shown otherwise.

Well, you need to learn


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 7:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 8:30 PM Nuggin has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 76 of 297 (623718)
07-12-2011 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein
07-12-2011 8:30 PM


Re: what are the extra dimensions in aid of?
The post you were replying to in its title contained the question what were those dimensions in aid of. Further it expressed my reasons for doubting the extra dimensions were in aid of anything at all really.

And my point is that your vocabulary and reasoning demonstrate a lack of understanding.

First of all, why must a dimension be in "aid of" anything?

Second, expressing your reasons in doubting something doesn't really matter one way or another unless you have sufficient understanding of the topic.

I know next to nothing about automechanics. I can express all the doubts I want about whether or not this hoosiewhatsit is needed to make the car go.

So tell me then what is it exactly that you know so well and I am so ignorant of.

This is a topic that requires many years of advancement mathematics and theoretical physics. Much of what people "know" is best expressed as equations.

Have you done the years of schooling necessary to read such equations? To write them? To know if something is in error?

You're to be provided with 8 years of college level courses through the medium of a chat board. On a forum where you've been a member for 3 months.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-12-2011 8:30 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 07-15-2011 11:52 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 224 of 297 (627325)
08-02-2011 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 3:00 AM


Light was the 4th product, not the first.
However, if light is the first product

Light was not the first product of the Universe.

Not even you can support that claim. Light was, AT BEST, the 4rd product.

And that's WITHOUT any definition of the term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 3:00 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 4:21 AM Nuggin has responded

    
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 751 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 242 of 297 (627402)
08-02-2011 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by IamJoseph
08-02-2011 4:21 AM


Re: Light was the 4th product, not the first.
At least you agree there is a first product. So which is the first three prior to light?

Read your Bible!

Geez. You have exactly ONE source material. I'm talking about only the first 2 sentences in that source material and you can't be bothered to read it?

Seriously?

If you are going to reference the Bible, you should at least be familiar with it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by IamJoseph, posted 08-02-2011 4:21 AM IamJoseph 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 © 2019