• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

  • The rule regarding AI content has been updated. The rule now rules as follows:

    Be sure to credit AI when copying and pasting AI sources. Link to the site of the AI search, just like linking to an article.

Can only a Milky-way type of galaxy hold life at this age of the universe?

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,205
5,048
✟374,675.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The speed of light is proven to be slowing down (decay of c.) from over 300 years of experiments conducted.
BS.
The Law of Causality does not afford man a non-response to the question who or what caused the Big Bang.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics (law of conservation) proves that nothing in the physical universe can come into existence from nothing. And the 2nd Law proves that nothing in the physical universe is eternal. So, other than metaphysics which transcends the laws of physics can anything exist. So all that exists proves there is a metaphysical source / creator.
Energy is not conserved in GR.
In an expanding universe the metric coefficients are time dependent for the FWLR metric meaning time translation symmetry is broken which according to Noether's theorem energy is not conserved.

Two observations of the universe support this, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and cosmological redshift where photon energy is lost and not converted to a different form of energy.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

JohnD70X7

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
693
257
66
Southwest
✟79,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The mass of the sun is 2e30 kg. 4e9 kg is 2e-21 time the mass of the Sun "lost" per second. 1 year is 3.16e7 seconds, or about 7e-14 solar masses lost per year. After the estimated 10 billion years (1e10 years) the total mass loss is about 7e-4 solar masses or 0.0007 solar masses, or about 0.07% in 10 billion years.

Relative to the Sun, this is basically nothing.
Okay, then the theories that the sun will one day swell into a red giant swallowing the Earth are false...
 
Upvote 0

JohnD70X7

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
693
257
66
Southwest
✟79,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
What fraud?

You didn't discover this.

Nor this.

Nor this.

I've seen lectures by the scientist who discovered Lucy. She's a transitional fossil

Not all erosion is the same rate.

Who told you that?

Never happened.

False. See above.

Gibberish.
Standard "nuh uh..." tripe.

I can do the same if I wanted to waste my time as you did.

I was asked what I discovered (not as the initial discoverer) or if that was your premise you did not state it that way.
Again a waste of time.
 
Upvote 0

JohnD70X7

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
693
257
66
Southwest
✟79,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
BS.

Energy is not conserved in GR.
In an expanding universe the metric coefficients are time dependent for the FWLR metric meaning time translation symmetry is broken which according to Noether's theorem energy is not conserved.

Two observations of the universe support this, the acceleration of the expansion of the universe and cosmological redshift where photon energy is lost and not converted to a different form of energy.
The decay of c. has over 300 years of proven tests and is irrefutable beyond the margin of error.

Just because the universe is expanding does not make it somehow exempt from the LAWS of physics as you suggest.
Also, the LAW of Causality was mentioned... what CAUSED the Big Bang?
 
Upvote 0

JohnD70X7

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
693
257
66
Southwest
✟79,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You’re replying to yourself.
Ever the critic of one you cannot refute?

I did so to make a valid point in addition to the laborious points I already made.

It was a courtesy.
 
Upvote 0

JohnD70X7

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
693
257
66
Southwest
✟79,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Back to the basic point of this thread...

What type of galactic cycle would form the Milky Way into a spiral shape?

The old age theory is the only basis for presuming it is a fan type cycle (bands of stars constantly whirling around a center point) versus a spiral cycle (bands or stars spiraling out or spiraling down from a center point). That way old age theorists can claim the earth and the cosmos for that matter are billions of years old. But the galaxy is not fan-shaped. It is a spiral.

fan versus  spiral.jpg
 
Upvote 0

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
8,105
5,563
NW
✟294,576.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I was asked what I discovered (not as the initial discoverer)
If you're not the discoverer, you didn't discover it. You learned it after someone else discovered it. But the things you learned don't support your claims.

There are no human footprints in the same strata as dino footprints.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,205
5,048
✟374,675.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The decay of c. has over 300 years of proven tests and is irrefutable beyond the margin of error.
This is utter nonsense, are you seriously suggesting a speed of light measurement performed 300-350 years ago using telescopic observations and a timing piece based on a primitive pendulum clock can even be compared to the use of lasers and atomic clocks in modern times?
The variations in the speed of light measured over the centuries is the result of errors in accuracy and precision which have been steadily reduced as measurement technologies have improved and there is zero evidence of the speed of light decaying.

YearScientist(s)Method / EquipmentTiming Device UsedMeasured Speed of Light (km/s)Reported Error / UncertaintyNotes
1676Ole RømerAstronomical observation of eclipses of Jupiter’s moon IoMechanical astronomical clocks (early pendulum clocks)~214,000–220,000Very large (~−27% error vs modern value)First evidence light travels at finite speed.
1726James BradleyStellar aberration measurements using telescopePrecision pendulum clocks and astronomical timing~301,000~0.4% errorUsed Earth’s orbital motion instead of time-of-flight experiment.
1849Armand FizeauToothed-wheel apparatus with distant mirror (~8 km)Mechanical chronometer / rotating wheel frequency as timer~315,000~+5% errorFirst terrestrial measurement of light speed.
1862Léon FoucaultRotating mirror optical apparatusMechanical rotation rate timing (calibrated chronometers)298,000±500 km/sDemonstrated light slower in water than air.
1879Albert A. MichelsonImproved rotating mirror systemPrecision mechanical chronometers measuring rotation speed299,910±50 km/sBeginning of modern precision optical experiments.
1907Rosa & DorseyElectrical measurement from electromagnetic constantsElectrical oscillation timing with precision galvanometers and chronometers299,788±30 km/sIndirect determination from EM constants.
1926Albert A. MichelsonLong baseline rotating mirror experiment (Mount Wilson)Highly accurate electromechanical timing systems299,796±4 km/sOne of the most precise pre-WWII optical measurements.
1947Louis Essen & A. C. Gordon-SmithMicrowave cavity resonator experimentQuartz crystal oscillators (early electronic precision clocks)299,792±3 km/sRadar technology improved timing accuracy greatly.
1958K. D. FroomeMicrowave interferometer / radio frequency measurementStabilized quartz frequency standards299,792.5±0.1 km/sTransition toward frequency-based measurements.
1972Evenson et al.Laser interferometry measuring wavelength and frequencyAtomic clocks (cesium standard)299,792.4574±0.001 km/sExtremely precise laser frequency measurement.
1983International Committee on Weights and MeasuresDefinition via SI metre (distance defined from light travel time)Atomic clocks defining the second299,792.458 (exact)No error (definition)Speed of light fixed constant in SI system.

Just because the universe is expanding does not make it somehow exempt from the LAWS of physics as you suggest.
Also, the LAW of Causality was mentioned... what CAUSED the Big Bang?
So when I explained to you the energy conservation law does not apply globally to an expanding universe because the metric tensor components of the FLWR metric are time dependent and time invariance is broken according to Noether’s theorem, I might as well as communicated in some alien code given your complete lack of comprehension.

The ‘LAWS of physics’ are based on observations and experiments and it was found through observation the energy conservation law only applies locally such as in the laboratory, on Earth, in our galaxy, any gravitationally bound system but not globally in an expanding universe as observed in cosmological redshift or dark energy which increases as the universe expands.

I also notice you do not comprehend what causality means, in science causality is the ordering of events such as the cause preceding the effect making faster than light signalling impossible.
Scientific theories do not have to specify a cause they can be purely phenomenological where only the effects are considered.
Newtonian gravity is one such example, the Big Bang is a theory about the evolution of the universe, not its creation or cause to use your misuse of the term ‘LAWS of physics’ as these breakdown at time scales less than 10⁻⁴³s after the Big Bang.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

sjastro

Newbie
May 14, 2014
6,205
5,048
✟374,675.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Back to the basic point of this thread...

What type of galactic cycle would form the Milky Way into a spiral shape?

The old age theory is the only basis for presuming it is a fan type cycle (bands of stars constantly whirling around a center point) versus a spiral cycle (bands or stars spiraling out or spiraling down from a center point). That way old age theorists can claim the earth and the cosmos for that matter are billions of years old. But the galaxy is not fan-shaped. It is a spiral.

Since you are very much into the 'LAWS of Physics', there is one particular law called the conservation of angular momentum which is applicable to spiral galaxies.
I want you to explain how the left hand shape can be formed as collection of orbiting individual stars without violating the conservation of angular momentum otherwise the shape rotates as a rigid object and not as a collection of individual stars.

Since you have this rather bizarre idea that spiral galaxies as shown in your right hand image requires stars to spiral into or out of the centre leading to large variations in the tangential velocity for stars as angular momentum is conserved, yet the actual evidence shows the opposite by measuring the rotation curves of galaxies such as M33 where the variation in tangential velocity is in the error bar which is the uncertainty in the measurement not a physical change in the velocity.

M33.png

Explain to us how you are right and everyone one else is wrong.

 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hans Blaster
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Call Me Al
Mar 11, 2017
24,707
18,033
56
USA
✟466,620.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Democrat
Okay, then the theories that the sun will one day swell into a red giant swallowing the Earth are false...
Nope. They are correct. Just wait around for another 4 billion years or so.
 
Upvote 0

JohnD70X7

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2021
693
257
66
Southwest
✟79,560.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
There is no presumption. The shape and size of the galaxy has been measured. This is trivial stuff.
Sounds like the formula for fairy dust. Care to elaborate?
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
16,518
10,015
53
✟428,119.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Sounds like the formula for fairy dust. Care to elaborate?

Structure of the spiral system​

three views of the Milky Way Galaxy
three views of the Milky Way Galaxy
The Milky Way Galaxy’s structure is fairly typical of a large spiral system. (Spiral galaxies and other types of galaxies are described in the article galaxy.) This structure can be viewed as consisting of six separate parts: (1) a nucleus, (2) a central bulge, (3) a disk (both a thin and a thick disk), (4) spiral arms, (5) a spherical component, and (6) a massive halo. Some of these components blend into each other.


It’s a long article (as befits the subject matter) but do read it all.
 
Upvote 0