|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: New Hubble pictures, YEC explanations just don't make sense. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Reef,
its a good job columbus didnt listen to you a few hundred years ago isnt it with all that evidence that the world is flat i mean where would be today. It was known that the world was spherical in Columbus' day. So he would have found the Americas if he'd listened to me. The Greeks & Egyptians knew the earth was curved, too.
If anything has been proven throughout history...its that 9 times out of 10 theories are very very wrong. Not good enough. A VAST body of evidence requires an equally VAST body of evidence to overturn it. Most of the theories you are talking about are barely past the hypothesis stage. Once a theory starts seeing it's predictions born out they are almost never overturned by a paradigm shift. Why? The very thing I've been trying fruitlessly to communicate to you. A LARGE body of corroborative evidence needs to be explained away in a better fashion than the original theory. Most theories, nay, ALL of them undergo revision, but that doesn't make them very, very wrong, does it? Take the Greenland ice cores, for example. Two miles thick with distict bi-banding all the way to the bottom. The summer layers are frosty & airy, the winter more homogenous ice. Summer snow contains more acid reducing it's conductivity relative to winter snow. Summer snow contains more hydrogen peroxide than winter snow. Every 11 years more Beryllium 10 is produced in the upper atmosphere due to the sunspot cycle. Summer & winter bands possess different oxygen isotope ratios due to different evaporative properties. All of the above phenomenon (bar the first) can be traced all the way to the bottom of the ice sheet, that is winter-summer-winter-summer etc. Major eruptions like vesuvius leave their marks where they are supposed to. The leaded fuel era is represented. The predicted changes are exactly where they are supposed to be vis-a-vis the ice ages as dated by other methods, including the correct pollen & dust levels, a near perfect correlation. There are 110,000 banded couplets representing 110,000 years. Now you need to explain via legitimate logical inference based upon empirical observation as to why banded couplets occur in the Greenland ice sheet (nay, ALL ice sheets) that possess the above phenomena in such a way that denies the link to annual deposition. If you can't do it then your "9/10th of theories are very, very wrong" baloney isn't holding much water, is it? This is what a robust, evidentially well supported theory looks like. It's not so easy to overturn a paradigm with no evidence, is it? A bare assertion that it must be wrong because 9 out of 10 were previously (& I dispute the number & level of "wrongness", but nevermind) is meaningless, evidenceless, wishful thinking with no logical imperative or power. This is a SINGLE line of evidence showing the earth to be at least 110,000 years old.
Newton was gospel before Einstein... Still is....
now evidence is finally being compilled against Einsteins theories. Such as? I bet you have no paradigm shifting evidence at all as to his theories that were accepted 10 years ago but are now allegedly falsified.
We shud never stop asking the question of whether what we take to be true is wrong... otherwise my dear fellow you'd still wake up hoping that u dont fall of the end of the earth one day! Incidentally, have you ever left you country of birth with the fear that your plane/boat was going to fall off the end of the earth? No? Makes you look a bit hypocritical, no? Surely you are giving the spherical earth hypothesis a bit to much credibility? I mean, a logical corollary of your argument thus far is that we should seriously consider a flat earth hypothesis despite the evidence to the contrary? May I respectfully suggest that you think twice before you get on a ship or plane again? Otherwise, I quite agree, it's how science works. But make NO mistake, a highly supported theory is going nowhere without a mountain of contradictory evidence, it's the newer theories that get the major revisions, the older ones are simply so well supported that a paradigm shift is very, very unlikely. How likely do you think a return to a flat earth paradigm is? Does the word "tentativity" mean anything to you? The reason we accept old age theories of the earth/universe is because they are evidentially robust, just like the spherical earth hypothesis. The reason we reject young earth hypotheses is because they have no supporting evidence of their own, & are in fact contradicted by evidence, just like the flat earth hypotheses. I doubt you've ever worried about falling off the edge of the earth, why dispute the age of the earth/universe? Mark "Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4404 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
Under your hypothetical - Yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
I agree with Eta, if the magnification were good enough, yes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Reef Inactive Member |
so if we did such a hypothetical thing and (again hypothetically) had an arm long enough to reach the earth from that new position of the hubble... we cud touch a dinosaur?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
No
At least not unless you could also reach back faster than the speed of light as well. This is where hypotheszing FTL travel starts to generate paradoxes and trouble. [This message has been edited by NosyNed, 03-11-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Reef Inactive Member |
why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4404 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
No - I'm not allowing two violations of relativity in one scenario!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Sorry I added a bit more by edit while you were posting.
You are basically asking for time travel. And if I remember correctly FTL travel can involve time travel as a result. However, that is all hypothetical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Reef Inactive Member |
your assuming that time exists (afterall it could simply be a phenomonon caused by motion) http://www.thevortextheory.com
wow its weird how noone wasnts to take that one on well how about this one. a man is in a race with a tortoise the tortoise sets off and the man trys to catch it. its takes the man a certain amount of time to reach where the tortoise was after 1 sec by the time the man reaches that point the tortoise has moved a little futher again it takes the man a certain amount of TIME to reach where the tortoise has got to byt which time the tortoise would have moved a little futher. How can the man ever catch the tortoise if this is the case over and over. Time (its a lovely concept isnt it)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How can the man ever catch the tortoise if this is the case over and over. Do the math. He overtakes the tortise. This is only a stumper in a world without calculus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Reef Inactive Member |
you have missed the point however infinitly small the distance between the man and the tortoise is the man will still have to take time to cover it by which time the tortoise will have moved a little futher... you do the maths.... you cant because maths cannot explain this paradox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
you have missed the point however infinitly small the distance between the man and the tortoise is the man will still have to take time to cover it by which time the tortoise will have moved a little futher... Right, but it takes less time each time.
you cant because maths cannot explain this paradox Christ, we solved this ages ago. Where the hell have you been?
quote: From No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.deltalink.com/dodson/html/zeno.solution.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Reef Inactive Member |
yes it does take less each time... but because time as a concept is infinite (the clock will never stop rising) it will take Achilles an infinite amount of time to cover an infinite amount of small distances. There is no mathematical equation (using time) that can explain this... Result TIME does not exist as part of the Universe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
but because time as a concept is infinite (the clock will never stop rising) it will take Achilles an infinite amount of time to cover an infinite amount of small distances. No, it doesn't. Did you even read the explanation? Because it's a reducing series, it takes Achilles finite time to cover the infinite distance intervals.
There is no mathematical equation (using time) that can explain this... What the fuck are you talking about? The equation is simple. Follow this link and all is explained.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.deltalink.com/dodson/downloads/zenomath.pdf If you expect "vortex theory" to have legs than you're going to have to base it on more than your own ignorance of math.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Reef Inactive Member |
the only person who is being ignorent is you!! All that equation states is that by applying finite numbers to the equation it will herald a result giving the point where Achilles catches the turtle.
Everybody knows Achilles actually catches the turtle... thats not whats being disputed! Whats being disputed is mathetmatics has a problem dealing with the concept of infinity and the only thing we can fathom to be infinite is the concept of Time Zeno's paradox is dealing with infinity that equation u put forward suggests that the race has a beginning and an end. Zeno is saying that everytime Achilles reaches a point the turtle reached first a new race is started and thus an infinite amount of races will be run for all of time! Your equation only works in an actually finite race... Zeno is saying there is no beginning and end
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024