- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
That's what we have to do when talking old age speculation, I am used to it.KerrMetric said:Forget about the real Sun for a second.
Right here we assume that the sun came from gas then, more or less, and proceed from there. Basically a what if, starting from old age gas.If I model a mass of gas of the solar composition
Right, and only it's physical properties, assuming that at one time in the past, or the future there are not also spiritual properties. In other words, if that is all there ever was, this is how we think it must have worked, and more or less created itself.and calculate its physical properties and let it evolve in time -
Hey, I got it, every law in the box. So we end up with a program that assumes only the box. Get it?using the basic physical laws of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, statistical mechanics, gravity, atomic and nuclear physics, radiative transfer theory etc etc.
Whoopee do, what other models will exibit what we see? All you have there is an old age assumption based model.then the model will exhibit the observed properties of stars of this mass/composition.
Even without calibration the the model will change over time and exhibit the observed properties of sub-giants and eventually red giants on time scales of (for solar mass) of billions of years.
So, you assume what, they all were created the same, uniformly for some reason, or worse, they proceeded out of a little less than speck sized (at one time) hot soup?
Calibrate it with the past and future merged universe, and this one passing away and see what you come up with.Now since in this example I have not calibrated the model
20% error and you think it's a hot theory? Sounds more like the Ps don't meet the Qs right even with tender loving care!then the ages will be off by perhaps 20% or so the fact is a 20% error on say 12 billion years at the tip of the red giant branch ..
Can you hear yourself? Comedy at it's finest!still means out based in physics model gives long ages WITHOUT any assumption.
I said that so you couldn't throw out a bias question of using the observed properties of the Sun a priori into the model.dad said:That's what we have to do when talking old age speculation, I am used to it.
Complete crackpot codswallop. I know what it is made of. So I model that substance. There is no such concept of "old age gas". What a load of childish nonsense you spout.Right here we assume that the sun came from gas then, more or less, and proceed from there. Basically a what if, starting from old age gas.
What another load of childish nonsense. You have no argments to bring to the table do you. As soon as anything technical goes over your head you bring out some infantile rubbishRight, and only it's physical properties, assuming that at one time in the past, or the future there are not also spiritual properties. In other words, if that is all there ever was, this is how we think it must have worked, and more or less created itself.
More appeals to fantasy. You are bankrupt on technical issues.Hey, I got it, every law in the box. So we end up with a program that assumes only the box. Get it?
There is NO assumption here. You are pathetically grasping for straws and the straws don't even exist.Whoopee do, what other models will exibit what we see? All you have there is an old age assumption based model.
No such assumption required or used. Again, you don't know a thing about this topic do you?So, you assume what, they all were created the same, uniformly for some reason, or worse, they proceeded out of a little less than speck sized (at one time) hot soup?
You don't even understand the terms I am using. I knew this was futile with someone without a college science education.Calibrate it with the past and future merged universe, and this one passing away and see what you come up with.
20% is excellent. And I can make it far better than that with calibration - but I didn't utilise that in this example so you couldn't throw out the a priori assumption charge.20% error and you think it's a hot theory? Sounds more like the Ps don't meet the Qs right even with tender loving care!
It's not a comedy and it is without the assumptions you claim - having said that you are so out to sea on technical material that you don't even know what you are claiming yourself. The only comedy is the paroDADy you maintain.Can you hear yourself? Comedy at it's finest!
KerrMetric said:The only comedy is the paroDADy you maintain.
Hey, if you want the real sun out of the picture, I understand.KerrMetric said:I said that so you couldn't throw out a bias question of using the observed properties of the Sun a priori into the model.
No? Let me see, you start out with some gas, then age it for billions of years! Of course it is not officially named 'old age gas'. That is a description of some gas you made up, that aged for old ages! Don't blame me, it's your gas!Complete crackpot codswallop. I know what it is made of. So I model that substance. There is no such concept of "old age gas". What a load of childish nonsense you spout.
You mentioned some natural universe laws like gravity, decay and such. In your words...using the basic physical laws of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, statistical mechanics, gravity, atomic and nuclear physics, radiative transfer theory etc etc.What another load of childish nonsense. You have no argments to bring to the table do you. As soon as anything technical goes over your head you bring out some infantile rubbish
These are pretty basic things, and you reciting them doesn't mean it is over my head. I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.
You are bankrupt on spiritual and physical properties together! Stop appealing to the fantasy that the past or future must be put in PO irons and chains!More appeals to fantasy. You are bankrupt on technical issues.
YES there IS. You assume almost everything, and seem to have lost track of what is really going on. Sad.There is NO assumption here. You are pathetically grasping for straws and the straws don't even exist.
The topic of what? The big bang? Or ages of stars in a cluster are considered similar? Or your model that exibits properties of stars at various stages? But here's the thing there, they all were made 6000 years ago. So, whatever stage they are at stems from how they were made to begin with, and changes since then. 'One star differeth from another in glory' We and the stars were all made different. If you look at one and the color, or whatnot matches what your old age model predicts, it has almost no meaning! You can't go ahead and say 'See, we predict in the model a star that is that size, and far away, and etc etc etc is so and so old. That would only have merit if stellar evolution had occured over long ages, which it didn't.No such assumption required or used. Again, you don't know a thing about this topic do you?
Calibrate it all you like it won't help your case.20% is excellent. And I can make it far better than that with calibration - but I didn't utilise that in this example so you couldn't throw out the a priori assumption charge.
Of course - since you can't handle the subject matter you have thrown it out in a very amateurish way anyway.
I can calibrate it with the bible.
It's not a comedy
So much a comedy that it will be remembered after the earth and heavens pass away! How wrong man could get!
You aren't even close.
dad said:I can't figure out why anyone tries to debate with dad any longer. I mean, I've only been back to this board for about 10 seconds, and he threw any and all credibility out the window with his postings about the magical "spiritons"Hey, if you want the real sun out of the picture, I understand.
No? Let me see, you start out with some gas, then age it for billions of years! Of course it is not officially named 'old age gas'. That is a description of some gas you made up, that aged for old ages! Don't blame me, it's your gas!
You mentioned some natural universe laws like gravity, decay and such. In your words...using the basic physical laws of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, statistical mechanics, gravity, atomic and nuclear physics, radiative transfer theory etc etc.
These are pretty basic things, and you reciting them doesn't mean it is over my head. I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.
You are bankrupt on spiritual and physical properties together! Stop appealing to the fantasy that the past or future must be put in PO irons and chains!
YES there IS. You assume almost everything, and seem to have lost track of what is really going on. Sad.
The topic of what? The big bang? Or ages of stars in a cluster are considered similar? Or your model that exibits properties of stars at various stages? But here's the thing there, they all were made 6000 years ago. So, whatever stage they are at stems from how they were made to begin with, and changes since then. 'One star differeth from another in glory' We and the stars were all made different. If you look at one and the color, or whatnot matches what your old age model predicts, it has almost no meaning! You can't go ahead and say 'See, we predict in the model a star that is that size, and far away, and etc etc etc is so and so old. That would only have merit if stellar evolution had occured over long ages, which it didn't.
Calibrate it all you like it won't help your case.
I can calibrate it with the bible.
So much a comedy that it will be remembered after the earth and heavens pass away! How wrong man could get!
You aren't even close.
This board is to discuss science, creation and evolution... not incoherant, delusional, schitzophrenic-type ramblings.
Well it does, that much is obvious.dad said:These are pretty basic things, and you reciting them doesn't mean it is over my head.
Ta da. The key point - I do know how this can be done and you don't. Happy now.I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.
No there isn't. You are simply (stress on that) wrong.YES there IS. You assume almost everything, and seem to have lost track of what is really going on. Sad.
Ta da #2. Now here is the silly kiddie assumption that is contradicted by evidence.But here's the thing there, they all were made 6000 years ago.
Ta da #3. Another assumption of your that is contradicted by evidence.That would only have merit if stellar evolution had occured over long ages, which it didn't.
LOL. Calibrate it with a spiritual guide and old Jewish mythology.Calibrate it all you like it won't help your case.
I can calibrate it with the bible.
Remember what?dad said:So much a comedy that it will be remembered after the earth and heavens pass away!
Yes. Thank you! This leaves all assumptions and belief based on what can't be done, or evidenced as beliefs only, and you are welcome to yours.KerrMetric said:....
Ta da. The key point - I do know how this can be done and you don't. Happy now.
Then prove you are right, or that I am wrong, one or the other, at least show concrete evidence andd support if you can, rather than just ramblung on about some fantasy based on nothing!! Heavens sake. And you just admitted you can't do that! As you said, "I do know how this can be done"No there isn't. You are simply (stress on that) wrong.
( assume them into the future or distant past. )
No, it is not! Just your unsupportable beliefs on what the evidence means. Like the OP here, regarding light. I believe that the universe was different, and the light in the past allowing the light of the time to get here quickly. You believe, apparently the present variety is all there ever was or will be. But you can not back up such a claim by any stretch of the imagination.Ta da #2. Now here is the silly kiddie assumption that is contradicted by evidence.
Evidence you have not produced yet, by some cosmic coincidence.Ta da #3. Another assumption of your that is contradicted by evidence.
No, calibrate it with the white hot, sexy, vibrant, universal secret possessing, mystery unlocking, extension of the Almighty Himself, that tells us where it's really at, and was at, and will be. World without end, amen.LOL. Calibrate it with a spiritual guide and old Jewish mythology.
dad said:Then prove you are right, or that I am wrong, one or the other, at least show concrete evidence andd support if you can, rather than just ramblung on about some fantasy based on nothing!!
KerrMetric said:The proof I am right is that these models work and produce results WITHOUT the nonsensical claims of assumption ...
In my first post on this I explained what goes into the modelling. You then said some rubbish. What am I to do? How can I prove rubbish is rubbish when it has no bearing on the science here.OK, thanks, it was fun playing PO modelling.
dad said:OK, thanks, it was fun playing PO modelling.
I didn't say I have some insane urge to spend untold years exploring just the natural temporary universe. You have shown how you model everything only and strictly, and devoutly on the PO. You have resorted to insults, rather than trying to explain your position, and reasoning as simply and articulately as possible.KerrMetric said:How can it be fun playing something you don't know the rules or understand the game?
dad said:You assume a PO past with no back up, enjoy your beliefs.
I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.
"Ta da. The key point - I do know how this can be done " (KerrMetric)
I can only see what you provide. You have not done this, I don't believe you. Go ahead, make my day, prove me wrong, -that you can do it, if you can. Be concise, and clear, and try to be understood, hit us with your best shot! How do we know for sure the past was not spiritual and physical but only physical? (with the physics laws)KerrMetric said:I assumed no such thing. Its not my fault you cannot see this. I can measure these laws did apply in the past with no assumption necessary.
Thanks for playing anyway.
dad said:I can only see what you provide. You have not done this, I don't believe you. Go ahead, make my day, prove me wrong, -that you can do it, if you can. Be concise, and clear, and try to be understood, hit us with your best shot! How do we know for sure the past was not spiritual and physical but only physical? (with the physics laws)
Pretend you are talking not to me, but to some nice high school student, explain your position.
Or not.
PO point you mean. My point is that it is ALL based on an assumption!KerrMetric said:When you have a specific and cogent scientific point about assumption I'll answer.
Do you post on evc forum? You sure sound like someone over there. Anyhow, you said "....based in physics model gives long ages WITHOUT any assumption."I answered you plenty earlier. It's not my fault you haven't the education or knowledge is it?
Where it comes to the future and the past one has to or one ends up like you. Completely assuming only the physical.When you mention "spiritual" that is all you will do.
Not as applied to the future, I don't think you'll find many christians denying that this heavens will pass away and is temporary, and a new universe is coming. You seem to be kind of far gone even for that much?No matter what anyone ever says that is your "get out of jail card" in your mind. To every other poster on this board it screams nonsense.
dad said:Do you post on evc forum? You sure sound like someone over there.
Anyhow, you said "....based in physics model gives long ages WITHOUT any assumption."
A physics model is the assumption. One you cannot evidence as existing in the past, despite your claims.
Why pretend, and be condesending? Do you think trying to make others sound dumb makes you sound smart?
The past and future you old agers preach is not evidenced, nothing wrong with denying that. As for your computer model, based on present laws, that starts with gas, in non existant ages imagined gone by, it is a joke.KerrMetric said:...
As I said earlier - you are basically a solipsist. And yes I can evidence it in the past. You just cannot comprehend this....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?