Why does the earth rotate?

[dad]

No, I am observing the fact that everything we see in the distant universe can be explained using the same laws we have here.

I observe the same thing. That is exactly how you explain them.

 

[Kylie]

With what!? Of course it is consistent with it's own belief system. Nothing gets added unless it is.

The fact remains that you can show NOTHING, even from the furthest paets of the observable universe, which can not be explained by the laws of science we know here on Earth.

That is nothing. Al you are doing is claiming that you do think they work like that including near Earth, and then concluding that they do work like this, including near Earth.

How about you show me something in the universe which can not work the way our science says it should?

Not really. You end up with 95% of the universe being unknown stuff of dreams.

So you think that because science can't provide you with all the answers, it can't possibly be right?

Scripture means the Almighty God. He can be used to do anything. Science can't.

So it means whatever you want it to mean in order for you to justify your beliefs to yourself.

How about you die to affirm that? Then arrange millions more to do the same. Then affect billions of lives over time in their heart and lives. Then make all history come down like a symphony orchestra, orchestrated in advance! Oh, and then raise yourself from the dead.

If I die to affirm it, it means only that I really believe it. It doesn't mean it is true. The Heaven's Gate cults killed themselves because they really believed that a comet was a spaceship that would take them away to paradise (or something). The fact that they believed it enough to die for it does not make it true.

As for the prophecy and raising from the dead you speak of, the Bible is very unreliable in this sort of thing. There are many ways to create "prophecy" which do not actually require foreknowledge of events. And the accounts of the resurrection appear in no contemporary records. And yet they bear similarities to earlier religious beliefs. So I find that very suspicious.

No. There are not. Not one. Anywhere.

But face it, you make mistakes.

Willing to prove it?

 

[Kylie]

I observe the same thing. That is exactly how you explain them.

Then why do we NEVER see anything that is impossible according to the science we know?

 

[dad]

The fact remains that you can show NOTHING, even from the furthest paets of the observable universe, which can not be explained by the laws of science we know here on Earth.

Can be explained is meaningless. That just means you contort facts to try to fit a belief.

How about you show me something in the universe which can not work the way our science says it should?

Show me something that does. Their big game is that no one can check their stories, so they say whatever they like.

So you think that because science can't provide you with all the answers, it can't possibly be right?

It can't even get the 5% OF THE UNIVERSE IT ADMITS SEEING RIGHT.

So it means whatever you want it to mean in order for you to justify your beliefs to yourself.

No. I mean either you know or not.

If I die to affirm it, it means only that I really believe it. It doesn't mean it is true.

Well it would show a serious belief.

The Heaven's Gate cults killed themselves because they really believed that a comet was a spaceship that would take them away to paradise (or something). The fact that they believed it enough to die for it does not make it true.

I think most drank the koolaid because they were thirsty or told to?

As for the prophecy and raising from the dead you speak of, the Bible is very unreliable in this sort of thing. There are many ways to create "prophecy" which do not actually require foreknowledge of events. And the accounts of the resurrection appear in no contemporary records. And yet they bear similarities to earlier religious beliefs. So I find that very suspicious.

There are no earlier beliefs. Noah believed right from the ark and before.

Willing to prove it?

Sure show a mistake and I shoot it down.

 

[dad]

Then why do we NEVER see anything that is impossible according to the science we know?

Get a grip. You thought science was God and could do anything?

 

[Kylie]

Can be explained is meaningless. That just means you contort facts to try to fit a belief.

It is not meaningless. It shows that everything we see is entirely consistent with how we know the universe works here.

Show me something that does. Their big game is that no one can check their stories, so they say whatever they like.

Doesn't work like that. I am asking you to provide something here. You turning around and demanding that I provide it isn't going to cut it.

Show me something in the universe which can not work the way our science says it should.

It can't even get the 5% OF THE UNIVERSE IT ADMITS SEEING RIGHT.

SOmething is not wrong just because it disagrees with you.

No. I mean either you know or not.

You don't know how to science.

Well it would show a serious belief.

So what? The seriousness of a person's belief does not make what they believe in true.

I think most drank the koolaid because they were thirsty or told to?

No, they really believed what they were doing was right.

There are no earlier beliefs. Noah believed right from the ark and before.

Now you are denying reality? There are lots of religions that predate the stories in the Bible.

Sure show a mistake and I shoot it down.

If there are no mistakes in the Bible, you will be able to tell me the story of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection which includes ALL information found in the Bible regarding these events and is entirely consistent with each of the gospels.

 

[Kylie]

Get a grip. You thought science was God and could do anything?

Don't avoid answering.

 

[dad]

It is not meaningless. It shows that everything we see is entirely consistent with how we know the universe works here.

Consistent with their belief system and godless interpretations of partial facts.

Doesn't work like that. I am asking you to provide something here. You turning around and demanding that I provide it isn't going to cut it.

If you had fact or knowledge or science it would.

Show me something in the universe which can not work the way our science says it should.

They say whatever they need to to sound like they have a clue. '95% dark unknown stuff.? ..hey we will know what it is one day..'

SOmething is not wrong just because it disagrees with you.

No, I just point it out.

You don't know how to science.

You don't know how to find truth.

So what? The seriousness of a person's belief does not make what they believe in true.

Deathbed statements have some value.

Now you are denying reality? There are lots of religions that predate the stories in the Bible.

The word of God was here before the bible. Just because we don't yet have a hard copy of the data doesn't mean it wasn't here.

If there are no mistakes in the Bible, you will be able to tell me the story of Jesus' death on the cross and resurrection which includes ALL information found in the Bible regarding these events and is entirely consistent with each of the gospels.

Yes. This is news?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Consistent with their belief system and godless interpretations of partial facts.


If you had fact or knowledge or science it would.
They say whatever they need to to sound like they have a clue. '95% dark unknown stuff.? ..hey we will know what it is one day..'


No, I just point it out.

You don't know how to find truth.


Deathbed statements have some value.


The word of God was here before the bible. Just because we don't yet have a hard copy of the data doesn't mean it wasn't here.



Yes. This is news?

Ok, daddy-o, how about you tell us why the Earth rotates?

 

[Loudmouth]

No kidding. How could anything be the same in an accelerating universe????

No matter how fast you accelerate, you will observe the same laws operating at the same rates within that frame of reference. Since the Earth and everything on it has been in the same frame of reference as the Sun and the rest of the Solar System since its inception, acceleration doesn't factor into it.

Let's take a look at radioactive decay. Let's put you in a spaceship with a hunk of uranium and a scintillation counter. Let's accelerate that spaceship to 0.5c over 1 year, and then back down to 0c over the next year. What will you observe as it relates to the decay of the hunk of uranium? You will observe that the decay of uranium doesn't change one iota at any point in the journey.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No matter how fast you accelerate, you will observe the same laws operating at the same rates within that frame of reference. Since the Earth and everything on it has been in the same frame of reference as the Sun and the rest of the Solar System since its inception, acceleration doesn't factor into it.

Let's take a look at radioactive decay. Let's put you in a spaceship with a hunk of uranium and a scintillation counter. Let's accelerate that spaceship to 0.5c over 1 year, and then back down to 0c over the next year. What will you observe as it relates to the decay of the hunk of uranium? You will observe that the decay of uranium doesn't change one iota at any point in the journey.

No you don't observe the same laws. You are not using your brain Loud - and that's too bad because you ain't stupid - just lost in that glittering Fairie Dust.

Your clocks slow and your rulers shrink. This has been experimentally verified, you do realize this, right?

You measure a "proportional" difference in those laws based upon energy content.

If the stationary twin A is a point near the hub of a second hand - the accelerating twin B is the tip. Both points measure a different distance and elapsed period of time - but both call it a second. They are not the same Loud, they are "proportional" to energy content.

Acceleration does factor into it. Since the Sun - and earth - have been accelerating with this galaxy through space since the beginning - according to your claim - not mine. You can't just ignore that Kinetic energy that causes clocks to slow and rulers to shrink.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

"In physics, {versus your concept} the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes."

And you have already informed us that the universe is continuing to accelerate - increasing our kinetic energy.

And now what did E tell everybody?

"Special principle of relativity: If a system of coordinates K is chosen so that, in relation to it, physical laws hold good in their simplest form, the same laws hold good in relation to any other system of coordinates K' moving in uniform translation relatively to K."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-inertial_reference_frame

"In a curved spacetime all frames are non-inertial. The laws of motion in non-inertial frames do not take the simple form they do in inertial frames, and the laws vary from frame to frame depending on the acceleration."

Because acceleration adds kinetic energy, which slows clocks and shrinks rulers. They do vary proportionally to that energy - but they are not the same.

Please cut two strips of paper. One 12 inches long and one 8 inches long. Divide the 12 inch one into 12 equal spaces, do the same with the one 8 inches long. Call them both a foot. Now show me that the stationary and the accelerating ruler read the same distance to any point? The rulers and their units have been reduced proportionally to the energy contained within that accelerating frame. The two no longer measure the same distance nor time interval. All because of added kinetic energy due to acceleration.

You can not defend your own claims with any science whatsoever - because all the science falsifies every claim you make.

So either the universe is accelerating and kinetic energy is being added and the laws of physics vary depending upon that acceleration (kinetic energy) - or the universe is not accelerating and no kinetic energy is being added and the laws of physics remain the same. I'm good with either - which one are you good with?

Or the one that goes against all of science in which the universe is accelerating but acceleration does nothing?

 

[Loudmouth]

No you don't observe the same laws. You are not using your brain Loud - and that's too bad because you ain't stupid - just lost in that glittering Fairie Dust.

Your clocks slow and your rulers shrink. This has been experimentally verified, you do realize this, right?

Within the frame of reference, your clocks and rulers don't change at all. During your trip in the spacecraft, you will never see any change in the decay rate of uranium.

If the stationary twin A is a point near the hub of a second hand - the accelerating twin B is the tip. Both points measure a different distance and elapsed period of time - but both call it a second. They are not the same Loud, they are "proportional" to energy content.

We are talking about the passage of time only at twin B. We are talking about what has happened in this solar system, and this solar system only. This solar system has been an intact frame of reference for at least 4.5 billion years. The rocks we date have remained within this frame of reference the entire time.

In our spaceship analogy, energy is being added to the spaceship and it is accelerating, yet you measure the same decay rate while on that spaceship throughout the entire journey.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ok, daddy-o, how about you tell us why the Earth rotates?

Told you why it spins and orbits.

http://www.livescience.com/39780-magnetic-field-pushes-earth-core.html

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-does-the-earth-rotate.7906046/page-39#post-68764129

 

[Loudmouth]

Told you why it spins and orbits.

You have invented stories, that much is true.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Within the frame of reference, your clocks and rulers don't change at all. During your trip in the spacecraft, you will never see any change in the decay rate of uranium.

Because as your clocks are slowing and your rulers shrinking - so are the atomic orbitals of the uranium that shares your frame. They all change proportionally and you call a shorter ruler and longer tick of time a meter and a second still - despite the fact you know your ruler is shorter and your clock tick is longer. The uranium now oscillates at the same increased rate as your clock - as it oscillated faster when your clock also ticked faster. You measure the same output proportionally Loud. You need to contemplate on that word for a bit.




No, contemplate longer.

We are talking about the passage of time only at twin B. We are talking about what has happened in this solar system, and this solar system only. This solar system has been an intact frame of reference for at least 4.5 billion years. The rocks we date have remained within this frame of reference the entire time.

In our spaceship analogy, energy is being added to the spaceship and it is accelerating, yet you measure the same decay rate while on that spaceship throughout the entire journey.

And during that entire time it has been undergoing acceleration. But because you call a shorter ruler a meter and a longer tick of time a second - you confuse it as being the same. You share this accelerating frame Loud - YOU are changing proportionally as well. The reason the twin never notices is because he shares this accelerating frame loud. He doesn't realize his rulers are shrinking because he always calls it a meter - even if "we" understand it is no longer the same length as before. Everything in the local galactic cluster is sharing the same relative translational motion, they are all changing proportionally and you will never know because you keep thinking a shorter ruler is the same length as a longer ruler because you call two different lengths the same name.

Contemplate some more, resist that glittering Fairie Dust and accept the science.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because as your clocks are slowing and your rulers shrinking - so are the atomic orbitals of the uranium that shares your frame.

No such thing happens within the frame of reference of the spaceship.

And during that entire time it has been undergoing acceleration.

The only time you get differences due to relativity is when there is a difference in acceleration between two frames. We are talking about the Solar System's frame of reference, and no other frame of reference. If a group of humans accelerated away from the Solar System and then back, we would have to calculate the differences between the Earth and Ship clock due to that difference in acceleration. That is not what we are doing. All clocks and observations have occurred within this frame of reference. Nothing has left this frame of reference.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You have invented stories, that much is true.

Yes, let's ignore all the magnetic fields we are immersed in. Let us instead preach perpetual motion machines spinning against friction for 4+ billion years.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion

"A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics."

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, let's ignore all the magnetic fields we are immersed in. Let us instead preach perpetual motion machines spinning against friction for 4+ billion years.

Why don't you write it up into a paper and submit it? Until you do, it is just your little fantasy world.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No such thing happens within the frame of reference of the spaceship.



The only time you get differences due to relativity is when there is a difference in acceleration between two frames. We are talking about the Solar System's frame of reference, and no other frame of reference. If a group of humans accelerated away from the Solar System and then back, we would have to calculate the differences between the Earth and Ship clock due to that difference in acceleration. That is not what we are doing. All clocks and observations have occurred within this frame of reference. Nothing has left this frame of reference.

And if our local galactic cluster (group of humans) is accelerating away from every other galaxy in the universe (the solar system in your scenario) (as you claim it is) - suddenly you turn 360 degrees and try to preach the exact opposite of what you just admitted to.

 

[Loudmouth]

And if our local galactic cluster (group of humans) is accelerating away from every other galaxy in the universe (the solar system in your scenario) (as you claim it is) - suddenly you turn 360 degrees and try to preach the exact opposite of what you just admitted to.

We aren't using clocks from those other galaxies. We are using clocks that have remained in our frame of reference for the entire history of our solar system.