Fun with the Flood math.

[ikester7579]

I have sent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory my idea on holding hydrogen in it's metallic like state be using a magnetic field. I will let you know the outcome.

 

[ikester7579]

I just tried JB weld and it is attracted to a magnet. It's a thick paste like stuff that's in a tube. I put some on paper and stuck a magnet under it and found you can thin it out by moving the magnet around. You can also make it string out in a thin mass(which holds together because of the magnetic field produced by the magnet ) when you stick the paste on metal and stick the magnet to it and pull it away. I need to get two of the same magnets to conduct the next test which is to suspend the paste between the two magnets and see if the paste stays that way overnight or for several days.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Ikester: I never said it was solid. So don't put words in my mouth.

No Look said it was solid. If it's not solid it will boil away instantly when the pressure is released.

Ikester: This would not only hold the liquid hydrogen together, but enable it to be "thin" enough to allow light to pass through(most metals, like gold, in their purest states are transparent in thin layers ex: A thin layer of gold is used on visors of astronauts to block the sun's harmful rays while in space). When a liquid metal becomes magnetized it becomes a semi solid state. Now the question is, While in this semi solid state, can the pressure and the tempature be reduced and the hydrogen still maintain it's semi solid state because it has been magnetized? This would explain why the earth was created before light was introduced! It would have been cold enough(absolute zero) to create the metalic hydrogen in the upper atmosphere.

So do you think it was absolute zero when He created plants before He created the sun? I guess plants were tougher in those days. I would like to see a reference on magnetic fields changing liquid metals to a semi-solid state. I don't think a magnetic field will hold liquid hydrogen together above its boiling point. Magnetic fields will confine plasmas but I would like to see a reference to the possibiity of magentic confinement of liquid metallic hydrogen.

I have sent Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory my idea on holding hydrogen in it's metallic like state be using a magnetic field. I will let you know the outcome.

I wouldn't bother to ask them what they think of a solid hydrogen firmament above the earth if I were you.

Ikester: I just tried JB weld and it is attracted to a magnet. It's a thick paste like stuff that's in a tube.

This is not surprising since JB Weld is an epoxy with fine steel filings suspended in it.
http://www.aubuchonhardware.com/brands/j-b_weld.asp
It has nothing to do with liquid metal.

Arikay:Well, the standard Hydrogen Canopy theory (that you linked to along time ago) says that the canopy was solid crystalized hydrogen.

Actually Look first posted this.

There was a super-conducting canopy of solid crystalline hydrogen back then. With the weight of that canopy pressing down on the atmosphere, the barometric pressure was certainly higher.

And gave this link.

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-1c.htm

The whole silly hydrogen firmament idea seems to come from Carl Baugh and even AiG says it is nonsense. When AiG, prime purveyors of YEC nonsense themselves say that something promoted by another YEC is nonsense you know it's really nonsense.  Here's a reference.

http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/whatbau.htm

Arguments by Baugh are on AiG's shouldn't use list.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

Even so I have been investigating this a little further since the phase behavior of hydrogen is itself of interest.  We need to distinguish the known and postulated phases of hydrogen and their behavior to understand these arguments. Of course we all know hydrogen gas and have heard of liquid hydrogen. Crystalline hydrogen  is also known. Crystalline hydrogen exists only at low temperatures. Its melting point is 14 K or 14 degrees above absolute zero. Hydrogen boils at 20K at 1 atm.  

Crystalline hydrogen is transparent and it is a semiconductor, meaning that it has high electrical resistence. However, the phase behavior of crystalline hydrogen is also known so it is known that a "firmament" of crystalline hydrogen surrounding the earth is not physically possible.  The triple point of hydrogen is about 14 K at 0.07 atmospheres. At the triple point gas, liquid and crystalline solid are in equilibrium.  At lower pressures or higher temperatures the gas phase prevails.

http://www.trgn.com/database/cryogen.html

The metallic hydrogen that has been produced in laboratory experiments and thought to exist at the center of jupiter is liquid metallic hyrogen. It can only exist at high pressure and will instantly evaporate when the pressure is released. Of course any liquid boils in the vacuum of space and and many solids will sublime in vacuum as in freeze drying. 

The minimum temperature of the ionosphere, where this firmament is supposed to have existed is about 133 K, far above boiling point of hydrogen at 1 atmosphere and the pressure is far below the triple point pressure.  From about 100 km on up the temperature of the upper atmosphere actually increases as the thermosphere is approached and entered. If the hydrogen firmament was located 100 mile up, it was in fairly warm spot with very low pressure and it would boil away to gas very rapidly.  Anywhere you put it crystalline hydrogen will disappear pretty fast if not under pressure because of sublimation.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_struct.html


It may be possible to produce solid metallic hydrogen. The group discussed at the link below produced an opaque material at about 320 GPa (about 3 million atmopheres) that was said to be stable if the pressure stayed above 160 GPa but the material was still a semi-conductor.
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/6
They predict it might become metallic at about 4.5 million atmospheres.

There is speculation that solid metallic hyrogen might be metastable. Perhaps it could continue to exist, if once formed at least below certain tempertures.  No one knows if this is true but I rather doubt that it would continue to exist unless pressure are kept high and temperatures kept low.  Metastable phases exist, for example crystalline polymorphic phases that form during rapid freezing of some materials but I don't see how a metastable solid phase of an element could continue to exists hundreds of degrees above the melting and boiling points of the element. If a metastable solid hydrogen did exist I would think it would be highly unstable. However, from the phase properties of cyrstalline hydrogen it is quite clear that a crystalline hydrogen "firmament" as speculated about on the web page that Look linked to, would not be stable.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Follower of Christ]

All I can say about most of this is everyone is denying God the power He claims to have.

Everyone who believes in God should acknowldge that He is capable of breaking the laws He would have enacted.

Scientists are capable of bending a few laws themselves and they are mere men armed only with technology.

What is it that the creator could not do, AND do in a manner that conflicts with any law AND outside the confines of scientific interpretation (ex.-miracles)
Christians make our God very small sometimes.

 

[PhantomLlama]

But the point is the YECs are trying to push it as science. The scientists here (at least the christian ones) accept miraculous means as an explanation, but respect the fact that as soon as you pull that one it ceases to be science because it is not falsifiable. Therefore, if the flood is presented as science it will be dealt with as science with no miracles allowed.

 

[ikester7579]

6th April 2003 at 12:50 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #203



No Look said it was solid. If it's not solid it will boil away instantly when the pressure is released.



So do you think it was absolute zero when He created plants before He created the sun? I guess plants were tougher in those days. I would like to see a reference on magnetic fields changing liquid metals to a semi-solid state. I don't think a magnetic field will hold liquid hydrogen together above its boiling point. Magnetic fields will confine plasmas but I would like to see a reference to the possibiity of magentic confinement of liquid metallic hydrogen.

Genesis 1

 1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 2.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
 3.  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

I do not see plants being created before the sun. Read the Bible on what God created and in what order it was created for better understanding.

I wouldn't bother to ask them what they think of a solid hydrogen firmament above the earth if I were you.

What's it to you? At least I'm trying to find the truth. I don't see you going to any extremes to do so.

This is not surprising since JB Weld is an epoxy with fine steel filings suspended in it.
http://www.aubuchonhardware.com/brands/j-b_weld.asp
It has nothing to do with liquid metal.

Well I asked to see if anyone knew of a liquid metal that I could use. This was the closest I could come. And I did not see you making any suggestions on this.

Actually Look first posted this.


And gave this link.

http://www.layevangelism.com/advtxbk/sections/sect-10/sec10-1c.htm

The whole silly hydrogen firmament idea seems to come from Carl Baugh and even AiG says it is nonsense. When AiG, prime purveyors of YEC nonsense themselves say that something promoted by another YEC is nonsense you know it's really nonsense.  Here's a reference.

http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/whatbau.htm

Arguments by Baugh are on AiG's shouldn't use list.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

Yep, just like there are those who still believe in Lucy and peltdown man which I hear have been throughly debunked.

Even so I have been investigating this a little further since the phase behavior of hydrogen is itself of interest.  We need to distinguish the known and postulated phases of hydrogen and their behavior to understand these arguments. Of course we all know hydrogen gas and have heard of liquid hydrogen. Crystalline hydrogen  is also known. Crystalline hydrogen exists only at low temperatures. Its melting point is 14 K or 14 degrees above absolute zero. Hydrogen boils at 20K at 1 atm.  

Crystalline hydrogen is transparent and it is a semiconductor, meaning that it has high electrical resistence. However, the phase behavior of crystalline hydrogen is also known so it is known that a "firmament" of crystalline hydrogen surrounding the earth is not physically possible.  The triple point of hydrogen is about 14 K at 0.07 atmospheres. At the triple point gas, liquid and crystalline solid are in equilibrium.  At lower pressures or higher temperatures the gas phase prevails.

http://www.trgn.com/database/cryogen.html

The metallic hydrogen that has been produced in laboratory experiments and thought to exist at the center of jupiter is liquid metallic hyrogen. It can only exist at high pressure and will instantly evaporate when the pressure is released. Of course any liquid boils in the vacuum of space and and many solids will sublime in vacuum as in freeze drying. 

The minimum temperature of the ionosphere, where this firmament is supposed to have existed is about 133 K, far above boiling point of hydrogen at 1 atmosphere and the pressure is far below the triple point pressure.  From about 100 km on up the temperature of the upper atmosphere actually increases as the thermosphere is approached and entered. If the hydrogen firmament was located 100 mile up, it was in fairly warm spot with very low pressure and it would boil away to gas very rapidly.  Anywhere you put it crystalline hydrogen will disappear pretty fast if not under pressure because of sublimation.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfjps/1400/atmos_struct.html


It may be possible to produce solid metallic hydrogen. The group discussed at the link below produced an opaque material at about 320 GPa (about 3 million atmopheres) that was said to be stable if the pressure stayed above 160 GPa but the material was still a semi-conductor.
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/6/4/6
They predict it might become metallic at about 4.5 million atmospheres.

There is speculation that solid metallic hyrogen might be metastable. Perhaps it could continue to exist, if once formed at least below certain tempertures.  No one knows if this is true but I rather doubt that it would continue to exist unless pressure are kept high and temperatures kept low.  Metastable phases exist, for example crystalline polymorphic phases that form during rapid freezing of some materials but I don't see how a metastable solid phase of an element could continue to exists hundreds of degrees above the melting and boiling points of the element. If a metastable solid hydrogen did exist I would think it would be highly unstable. However, from the phase properties of cyrstalline hydrogen it is quite clear that a crystalline hydrogen "firmament" as speculated about on the web page that Look linked to, would not be stable.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

Yes but once mgnetized it might become stable. Do you agree that molecules in a magnetic field act differently than ones that are not? Besides, since the test has not been done you cannot say with 100% truth that it would not work now can you?

And neither can any of the web sites you have listed. Testing makes proof possitive on results. Guessing is only speculation. And since neither side cannot prove with 100% truth until someone does this test, there is always the possibility.

After dealing with most people in here, I don't think the word possible can be used in creation. Only in evolution. And because the possibility of creation has been ommited from science how can the truth ever be found?

 

[ikester7579]

6th April 2003 at 04:02 PM PhantomLlama said this in Post #205

But the point is the YECs are trying to push it as science. The scientists here (at least the christian ones) accept miraculous means as an explanation, but respect the fact that as soon as you pull that one it ceases to be science because it is not falsifiable. Therefore, if the flood is presented as science it will be dealt with as science with no miracles allowed.

In the medical field there are miracles all the time. Some people should have died but survive. The medical field is a part of science and just because somethings are not explainable by the experts in that feild does not mean they do not happen. Ex: My mother who was in the hospital last year should have died according to the experts in the field. The narrowing of her heart valve was so small that according to all medical books and journals, should not have been supporting her life(Not enough blood flow). In fact she became so stable before the operation that they put her in a non-emergency room with no monitors. Doctors from other hospitals came to see the "miracle". They will be rewritting these books because of this. Can you explain this? And if not then what happened? You already know what I think about it so I won't bore with details.

 

[ikester7579]

Yesterday at 01:03 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #204

All I can say about most of this is everyone is denying God the power He claims to have.

Everyone who believes in God should acknowldge that He is capable of breaking the laws He would have enacted.

Scientists are capable of bending a few laws themselves and they are mere men armed only with technology.

What is it that the creator could not do, AND do in a manner that conflicts with any law AND outside the confines of scientific interpretation (ex.-miracles)
Christians make our God very small sometimes.

I really don't think God had to break his own rules. I believe there is a lot more laws of how things have to be that we have not even scratch the surface yet. Like most people here did not know hydrogen could be made into a metallic like state before I posted the info. Then all of a sudden everyone becomes an expert on what happens to hydrogen in all circumstances. No one even gives the remote possibility that it could happen this way even though there are no actual tests proving it cannot. According to them, it just can't because it might prove some truth in God's word. You cannot believe in God and call him a liar at the same time.

 

[Cantuar]

Ex: My mother who was in the hospital last year should have died according to the experts in the_field. The narrowing of her heart valve was so small that according to all medical books and journals, should not have been supporting her life(Not enough blood flow). In fact she became so stable before the operation that they put her in a non-emergency room with no monitors. Doctors from other hospitals came to see the "miracle"._They will be rewritting these books because of this.

They will? They'll actually be saying "Here is an example of God at work" right there in a science book? Do let us know when it's published.

 

[Arikay]

I do not see plants being created before the sun. Read the Bible on what God created and in what order it was created for better understanding.

Well, I dont believe many people consider this the sun. It says god created "light" not the "sun." Most people believe that god created the sun in "Gen 1:16__ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. "
The sun is the great light that rules the day.

Well I asked to see if anyone knew of a liquid metal that I could use. This was the closest I could come. And I did not see you making any suggestions on this.

Interestingly enough, I believe Iron and steel lose their magnetic properties when heated to a high enough temperature.

The best liquid metal I have seen was a toy as SigGraph. It used a computer to translate sound wave patterns into shape and intensity of magnetic fields. The magnetic feilds would then interact with a black oil that had iron fileings in it. The black ooze would shift and change based on the sorounding sounds.

cannot say with 100% truth

Even after tests you cant say with 100% truth.

However, everything that we know says that the cannopy theory is completly false, but if you like studing it, then that works too.

Today at 09:53 PM ikester7579 said this in Post #206



Genesis 1

 1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 2.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
 3.  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

I do not see plants being created before the sun. Read the Bible on what God created and in what order it was created for better understanding.

What's it to you? At least I'm trying to find the truth. I don't see you going to any extremes to do so.



Well I asked to see if anyone knew of a liquid metal that I could use. This was the closest I could come. And I did not see you making any suggestions on this.



Yep, just like there are those who still believe in Lucy and peltdown man which I hear have been throughly debunked.



Yes but once mgnetized it might become stable. Do you agree that molecules in a magnetic field act differently than ones that are not? Besides, since the test has not been done you cannot say with 100% truth that it would not work now can you?

And neither can any of the web sites you have listed. Testing makes proof possitive on results. Guessing is only speculation. And since neither side cannot prove with 100% truth until someone does this test, there is always the possibility.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 01:24 AM Arikay said this in Post #210

I do not see plants being created before the sun. Read the Bible on what God created and in what order it was created for better understanding.

Well, I dont believe many people consider this the sun. It says god created "light" not the "sun." Most people believe that god created the sun in "Gen 1:16__ And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. "
The sun is the great light that rules the day.

Genesis 1

 1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 2.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
 3.  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
 4.  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
 5.  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

So what was this part all about? Verse 16 sounds like God describing what he had already done, not what he was doing.

Well I asked to see if anyone knew of a liquid metal that I could use. This was the closest I could come. And I did not see you making any suggestions on this.

Interestingly enough, I believe Iron and steel lose their magnetic properties when heated to a high enough temperature.

The best liquid metal I have seen was a toy as SigGraph. It used a computer to translate sound wave patterns into shape and intensity of magnetic fields. The magnetic feilds would then interact with a black oil that had iron fileings in it. The black ooze would shift and change based on the sorounding sounds.

cannot say with 100% truth

Even after tests you cant say with 100% truth.

However, everything that we know says that the cannopy theory is completly false, but if you like studing it, then that works too.

I can admit that the canopy theory might be wrong, But what gets to me is you'll never admit that it might be right. I thought science was exploring possibilities of things. And since the possibilty of the canopy cannot be totally ruled out than it deserves further investagation. There may be a law that you or me or anyone else knows about that applies to this to make it work. Besides. Do you believe that science has found every law for everything out there? If not than there are still possibilities right?

 

[Arikay]

But where in it does it specifically say the sun was created? Even science says light was created before the sun was ever formed.

I do see problems with the canopy theory, others have pointed it out. But it does also deserve more exploration.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

"I can admit that the canopy theory might be wrong, But what gets to me is you'll never admit that it might be right. I thought science was exploring possibilities of things. And since the possibilty of the canopy cannot be totally ruled out than it deserves further investagation. There may be a law that you or me or anyone else knows about that applies to this to make it work. Besides. Do you believe that science has found every law for everything out there? If not than there are still possibilities right?"

There are possibilities of an endless number of things, especially when the supernatural is included, but that does not mean they are worthy of investigation. The canopy "theory" is flawed in so many ways (pressure on Earth, heat released from the kinetic energy of that much rain, etc) that it is reasonable to reject it. If you wish to continue to pursue, then go ahead! But don't expect others to give it any credence whatsoever until there are two things: 1) explanations on how the canopy "theory" (it is really a hypothesis) solves the myriads of problems that it creates; and 2) some positive evidence that it is actually true (possibilities that it could have happenned don't count - you need evidence that it did in fact actually happen).

Remember, you cannot falsify the "theory" that my cat (who happens to be an omnipotent supernatural being) created the Universe last Thursday. But, just because you cannot falsify this ridiculous supernatural explanation for the Universe does not mean that it is worthy of further study.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

"Scientists are capable of bending a few laws themselves and they are mere men armed only with technology."

Umm, which laws can scientists "bend" (and I'll just assume that you mean physical laws as opposed to societal laws here)?

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 02:05 AM Arikay said this in Post #212

But where in it does it specifically say the sun was created? Even science says light was created before the sun was ever formed.

I do see problems with the canopy theory, others have pointed it out. But it does also deserve more exploration.

For life to be created, the sun would have been one of the first things to be created. Nothing can live in absolute zero right? And what would produce enough light to seperate the night and day?

So lets break down what the Bible says so you can better understand:

Genesis 1

 1.  In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
 2.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
 3.  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
 4.  And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
 5.  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.



Here we see light being created. God said let there be light, which means he created an object(sun) to produce the light. He even went as far as to call the light "day". And then called the evening and the morning the "first day". I don't think a day is complete without the sun.

 6.  And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
 7.  And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
 8.  And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
 9.  And God said, Let the waters under the Heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
 10.  And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
 11.  And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
 12.  And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
 13.  And the evening and the morning were the third day.
 14.  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
 15.  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
 16.  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
 17.  And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
 18.  And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
 19.  And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.


In verse 11-12 plants are introduced. Again would they survive in sub zero temps.?

In verse 14. Is where he is created the stars and the rest of the universe.

In verse 16. "And God made". God has been speaking things into existence. So the word "made" here is used in past tense because it had been already spoke into existence. So if you notice when something is created for the first time it is spoken into existence.

A perfect example of this is in verse 6-7. First God said, then God made, past tense. In other words, it was spoken into existence then the word "made" was confirming the existence of it.

 

[ikester7579]

Today at 02:07 AM Joe_Sixpack said this in Post #213

"I can admit that the canopy theory might be wrong, But what gets to me is you'll never admit that it might be right. I thought science was exploring possibilities of things. And since the possibilty of the canopy cannot be totally ruled out than it deserves further investagation. There may be a law that you or me or anyone else knows about that applies to this to make it work. Besides. Do you believe that science has found every law for everything out there? If not than there are still possibilities right?"

There are possibilities of an endless number of things, especially when the supernatural is included, but that does not mean they are worthy of investigation. The canopy "theory" is flawed in so many ways (pressure on Earth, heat released from the kinetic energy of that much rain, etc) that it is reasonable to reject it. If you wish to continue to pursue, then go ahead! But don't expect others to give it any credence whatsoever until there are two things: 1) explanations on how the canopy "theory" (it is really a hypothesis) solves the myriads of problems that it creates; and 2) some positive evidence that it is actually true (possibilities that it could have happenned don't count - you need evidence that it did in fact actually happen).

Remember, you cannot falsify the "theory" that my cat (who happens to be an omnipotent supernatural being) created the Universe last Thursday. But, just because you cannot falsify this ridiculous supernatural explanation for the Universe does not mean that it is worthy of further study.

What does your cat have to do with it? This last paragraph shows just how immature and unscientific your reasoning is. And if this is the best you can do than why bother posting?

There are still unanswered questions about the canopy. Do you abandoned something with unanswered questions so easy.

Doesn't science say to research something to it's final outcome no matter where it leads?

 

[Arikay]

The problem is that you are interpreting things. You are assumeing something about the words. You cant assume stuff about the words when you take something literally.

 

[Joe_Sixpack]

"What does your cat have to do with it? This last paragraph shows just how immature and unscientific your reasoning is. And if this is the best you can do than why bother posting?"

Wow, you're not the nicest nor sharpest I've ever met. THe last paragraph is to show you that using unfalsifiable supernatural explanations is inherently worthless.

"There are still unanswered questions about the canopy. Do you abandoned something with unanswered questions so easy.

Doesn't science say to research something to it's final outcome no matter where it leads?"

No, it doesn't. But as I said - investigate all you want, but don't go and get all huffy that the scientific community isn't giving it much credence until you actually get some evidence to SUPPORT it! Postulating ideas just so they can fit with a particular religious myth isn't good science - but do it all you want if it floats your boat.

By the way, there are still some unanswered questions regarding my cat and the last thursday creation of the Universe, and you can't falsify it, so doesn't it deserve ome more investigation?

 

[Smilin]

5th April 2003 at 04:48 AM ikester7579 said this in Post #191



Funny! First you say no one called me stupid. Then you say the guilty party is the one who came up with ball and string experiment(which was "me" by the way). So in one sentence you say one thing and the other? And for the record. You have not read some of the posts that were personal attacks. Not so much on this thread but others. But I'm not getting into it because as far as I'm concerned the thread it was done in has already died.

My apologies for the assumption you're experiment was devised by some who 'claim' to be Dr's, and their assertions are posted here.

Frumius demonstrated how you're experiment fails. If you still aren't convinced... we'll discuss it further if you like.

My apologies for the personal attacks, I do not engage in such... just debunking the scientific lies from other sources that are constantly posted here.

Again, I apologize, no offense intended.

However, your experiment does fail. We'll discuss it further if you like.

~Smilin

 

[Smilin]

Yesterday at 06:27 AM Arikay said this in Post #200

Ikester, I believe its called spectometry. It allows us to see what basic elements make up things, including things we can not touch or visit.

Well, the standard Hydrogen Canopy theory (that you linked to along time ago) says that the canopy was solid crystalized hydrogen.

and suddenly it's a 'liquid hydrogen canopy'... big difference.

Which was it? solid or liquid?