what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course not.

I never do, do I?

Only academia can make points ... right?I give up.

Why is the Sahara desert called the Sahara, when Sahara means desert?Especially if it blasphemes God ... right?

I think you might be going just a tad overboard with the blasphemy allegation, AV ...

... that, and the fact that we're focusing on the Age of the Universe here in this thread. We don't care about who named Mickey Mouse and friends.

 

[AV1611VET]

Never once have you shown how it's even blaspheming.

That's because Jesus can be hinted at as having a sister and/or being a transgender, and academias' academic mindset ... being quite myopic ... can't even see it.

In other words: "Whooosh"!

 

[AV1611VET]

I actually started a thread just for you on the very topic of 'So what?' with regards to Pluto.

Okay, thanks.

I'll check it out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think you might be going just a tad overboard with the blasphemy allegation, AV ...

Natch.

And this Titanic is a little short on life boats, isn't it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's because Jesus can be hinted at as having a sister and/or being a transgender, and academias' academic mindset ... being quite myopic ... can't even see it.

In other words: "Whooosh"!

Or.. and this might a shock to you... a little girl is the opposite of a little boy. Because the La Nina event happens in the summer, bring cold currents to the South Pacific, instead of the warm currents in December like the El Nino does. It's the opposite of what happens and so needed a name that was the opposite of the El Nino; La Nina.

Amazing, I know. Words and phrases often have opposites to them.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Natch.

And this Titanic is a little short on life boats, isn't it?

Good grief, Charlie Brown! ... you Independent Baptists sure have a strict notion about what is and what isn't "blasphemy"!

Would you say that it boils down to the fact that you think that if I don't agree with you on every point you make, then I'm somehow blaspheming?

Here's the thing: Iron Maiden me if I'm wrong, but I think the Lord is BIGGER and MORE mysterious than the Bible let's us in on, especially when the Bible is read in solitary confinement. This also means (to me) that He hasn't told us EVERYTHING. So, there remains some wiggle room in all of the mental and intellectual wrestlings we each may have with all that He "has done." Not every act of questioning the Bible is up for blasphemy charges.

 

[AV1611VET]

Amazing, I know. Words and phrases often have opposites to them.

Watch academia cover its tracks here:

El Niño means Little Boy, or Christ Child in Spanish.

SOURCE

Thus if someone arcs and sparks about it being a reference to Jesus, they can recuse to "Little Boy."

On the other hand, if someone arcs and sparks about it being a "Little Boy," they can recuse to "the Christ Child."

 

[AV1611VET]

Not every act of questioning the Bible is up for blasphemy charges.

Well, for the record, I accuse academia of being hypocritical with regard to the weather.

Let them deal with it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Watch academia cover its tracks here:


SOURCE

Thus if someone arcs and sparks about it being a reference to Jesus, they can recuse to "Little Boy."

On the other hand, if someone arcs and sparks about it being a "Little Boy," they can recuse to "the Christ Child."

To fully name it Christ Child, El Nino would have to be called El Nino de Navidad.

And also, you just blatantly ignore what I said, but in no way does that show what I said to be wrong, so I'll repeat it just for your benefit:

Or.. and this might a shock to you... a little girl is the opposite of a little boy. Because the La Nina event happens in the summer, bring cold currents to the South Pacific, instead of the warm currents in December like the El Nino does. It's the opposite of what happens and so needed a name that was the opposite of the El Nino; La Nina.

 

[AV1611VET]

To fully name it Christ Child, El Nino would have to be called El Nino de Navidad.

And also, you just blatantly ignore what I said, but in no way does that show what I said to be wrong, so I'll repeat it just for your benefit:

Or.. and this might a shock to you... a little girl is the opposite of a little boy. Because the La Nina event happens in the summer, bring cold currents to the South Pacific, instead of the warm currents in December like the El Nino does. It's the opposite of what happens and so needed a name that was the opposite of the El Nino; La Nina.

Are we done now?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are we don't now?

... might want to retype that since that comment makes zero sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

... might want to retype that since that comment makes zero sense.

Sorry.

That was a doozy.

I always reread my posts after typing them.

So much for my proofreading skills!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry.

That was a doozy.

I always reread my posts after typing them.

So much for my proofreading skills!

Happens to everyone.

But yes, I'd say we're done now, until you bring it up again.

 

[Astrid]

To fully name it Christ Child, El Nino would have to be called El Nino de Navidad.

And also, you just blatantly ignore what I said, but in no way does that show what I said to be wrong, so I'll repeat it just for your benefit:

Or.. and this might a shock to you... a little girl is the opposite of a little boy. Because the La Nina event happens in the summer, bring cold currents to the South Pacific, instead of the warm currents in December like the El Nino does. It's the opposite of what happens and so needed a name that was the opposite of the El Nino; La Nina.

But some people can never be wrong

 

[AV1611VET]

But some people can never be wrong.

And some people can never be right.

 

[John Caldwell]

Why try to equate energy or mass with god? Makes no sense and adds nothing.

Why does the start of our Universe have to be "the Beginning?" Why not have that hot-dense state always exist as part of some thing that always existed?

You make a good point (and what I am asking). I find it more logical to believe in God than to believe there has always existed some thing that has the properties on and of itself (without intellect) to spontaneously spark a universe, complex life, ect.

Ultimately it is a choice of faith. Where does one put their faith? In an unknown source that existed eternally and somehow became a universe? In God?

 

[John Caldwell]

If a god is considered for all questions, how can we ever know anything? For example: it sure looks like you flipped heads, but what if god reversed the sides of the coin?

It's for this reason that science MUST exclude god's whims lest every single question of any kind be futile and unanswerable.

I see what you mean. But there is a difference in what I am getting at. I'm saying all of creation testifies of God ,(testifies of a Creator).

 

[John Caldwell]

You are just making assertions

No, I am asking questions about your assertion.

I am aware that nuclear energy moves to dispersement. If you remove a port the gamma radiation is kinda like a flashlight beam. It is concentrated at the port but as you create distance from the port it disperses. X-ray, alpha, beta, and neutron radiation behaves the same. This is why distance is a key factor in safety.

But that is my experience, which is limited.

I am simply asking you for an example of energy moving to a concentrated state.

You made the assertion, and I don't doubt you ate correct. But I can't picture it.

 

[sjastro]

Can you turn this into a more easily accessible explanation please?
Does this imply that angular momentum simply came into existence as a phenomenon of space-time?

You are familiar with the balloon analogy to explain space-time expansion?
If you draw dots on the balloon and inflate it, the dots don’t move across the surface of the balloon but the space between the dots increases.
The dots remain stationary relative to the surface of the balloon.

Similarly galaxies are stationary while space-time between them expands hence they have zero velocity in space-time.
Since the velocity v = 0, the linear momentum P and angular momentum L, must also be zero since
P =mv and L =mvr where m and r are the mass and radius respectively.

The recessional velocity R of a galaxy from the observer due to space-time expansion is the motion of the galaxy away from the observer as it appears in the observer’s frame of reference even though in the galaxy’s frame of reference it is zero.
The motion always appears to be radial or along the observer’s line of sight irrespective of the observer’s location.

If a receding galaxy has a motion which is not 100% radial but has a transverse component which is perpendicular to the line of sight of the observer then the galaxy has what is known as a peculiar velocity where v ≠ 0 and it has motion in space-time along with a recessional velocity R.
This is due to the influence of gravity.

 

[Astrid]

No, I am asking questions about your assertion.

I am aware that nuclear energy moves to dispersement. If you remove a port the gamma radiation is kinda like a flashlight beam. It is concentrated at the port but as you create distance from the port it disperses. X-ray, alpha, beta, and neutron radiation behaves the same. This is why distance is a key factor in safety.

But that is my experience, which is limited.

I am simply asking you for an example of energy moving to a concentrated state.

You made the assertion, and I don't doubt you ate correct. But I can't picture it.

I already did, at least twice.

Here is another. Rain to river to dam to high voltage
Lightning
Trees
How many do you need?

I'm not the one making assertions