light years

[KerrMetric]

As for your computer model, based on present laws, that starts with gas, in non existant ages imagined gone by, it is a joke.

You cannot comprehend this.

LOL.

You just a fumbling around in the dark aren't you?

What ages gone by are applicable here. There is no "age gone by" parameter in the code. LOL.

You are cracking me up.

 

[dad]

LOL.

You just a fumbling around in the dark aren't you?

What ages gone by are applicable here. There is no "age gone by" parameter in the code. LOL.

You are cracking me up.

Not real ages, of course, any more than you wanted to use the real sun! But explain to us how some imaginary gas you dream up could age for millions or billions of years to in your mind get to the stage the sun or star now is, if there were no imaginary long ages? I guess you need someone to say imaginary ages gone by to relate to it!
As for a particular computer program, that all depends on what program it is, or what is put into it. In case you missed it, you gave no details of any program much except for imaginary PO gas! If you want to discuss parameters, we need to know what they are, and what program it is you are talking about!

 

[KerrMetric]

Not real ages, of course, any more than you wanted to use the real sun!

I was doing you a favour there, you should have thanked me for being nice.

But explain to us how some imaginary gas you dream up could age for millions or billions of years to in your mind get to the stage the sun or star now is, if there were no imaginary long ages?

Psst. The ages aren't imaginary. The dad'isms are.

As for a particular computer program, that all depends on what program it is, or what is put into it.

Of course.

In case you missed it, you gave no details of any program much except for imaginary PO gas! If you want to discuss parameters, we need to know what they are, and what program it is you are talking about!

Gas is gas. It isn't PO gas its gas. Hydrogen, helium or whatever.

Why don't you actually ask real questions which if you weren't too lazy to do you could by researching a little. What's up - is the technical side of things a little tough?

Who was the EvC forum poster you mentioned?

 

[dad]

I was doing you a favour there, you should have thanked me for being nice.

For not using the real sun? I suspect this is humor somehow? What, as if I should thank you for not destroying the solar system?

Psst. The ages aren't imaginary. The dad'isms are.

The ages are as imaginary as the claims of some the sun will burn out one day or the galaxy will collide with another in the far imaginary future! Nothing makes them real but the bible contrary claims of PO forever believers.

Gas is gas. It isn't PO gas its gas. Hydrogen, helium or whatever.

What makes it 'natural' gas is that it is based on present laws, and models, and long ages that come from assuming it always was the same.

Why don't you actually ask real questions which if you weren't too lazy to do you could by researching a little. What's up - is the technical side of things a little tough?

Here's a few. How do you know that this universe is not temporary? (Not in relation to expansion, but that it will never be merged with the spiritual) How do you know it was always physical only? How do you know the gas we see in distant galaxies must be produced the way the standard models claim? How do you know that the decay in the universe and every star did not begin at the split, or seperation of the spiritual from the physical 4400 years ago?

Who was the EvC forum poster you mentioned?

Cavediver I think I had in mind, he was more reasonable than the old crank, Eta_Carinae. I had a little fun with Sylas on the speck stuff as well, but that's another story.

 

[KerrMetric]

What makes it 'natural' gas is that it is based on present laws, and models, and long ages that come from assuming it always was the same.

It's not an assumption for the 1000th time.

How do you know the gas we see in distant galaxies must be produced the way the standard models claim? How do you know that the decay in the universe and every star did not begin at the split, or seperation of the spiritual from the physical 4400 years ago?

Because I can ascertain this.

Cavediver I think I had in mind, he was more reasonable than the old crank, Eta_Carinae. I had a little fun with Sylas on the speck stuff as well, but that's another story.

I figured you meant Eta_Carinae. I know who Eta is in real life personally. (It isn't me by the way.) He lost his kids in a car accident and I don't thimk he posts anymore.
By the way - if you tangled with him you would not come out of it well. Eta is just about the foremost cosmologist in the world and very very smart - I think he graduated with his PhD at like 18 or something insane.

 

[dad]

It's not an assumption for the 1000th time.

You are starting to crack me up, pretending you can back it up.

Because I can ascertain this.

That one I don't doubt. I must be honest though, I asked more to get an answer, than just to hear you pat yourself on the back.

I figured you meant Eta_Carinae. I know who Eta is in real life personally. (It isn't me by the way.) He lost his kids in a car accident and I don't thimk he posts anymore.

Sorry to hear that. Some things are more important than things cosmolgical.

By the way - if you tangled with him you would not come out of it well.

For me it was before the split concept, and he didn't do much but insult, and wave high priest robes anyhow. He used to peek in here a bit, as he went back to the other forum and reported there that I posted here as "time" as well. It seemed to amuse him.

Eta is just about the foremost cosmologist in the world and very very smart - I think he graduated with his PhD at like 18 or something insane.

He did seem to have the grasp of what they teach down to a tee. My issue is with the teaching itself, not those who are well versed in it.
But through conversations with such types, I realized that we really do know the distances to stars pretty good. So, with all these things we do know, the past had to be different for the bible timeline to be true. Same with geology, people like Joe Meert have explained that there is a lot of real facts we know like about the fossil record, and geologic column, and continental seperation, and imposibility of a vapor canopy, and heat that would be produced by fountains of the deep, etc etc etc, again, only a different past could explain it. The there are the evos, and how there seems to be some evolution to account for, etc, again, the very different past was needed. Since it fits the bible, and evidence and none yet can say anything against it, it explains things the best for me.

You claim to have evidence that you can without assumption more or less 'prove' that there were old ages, and a PO past, far as I can tell. Funny that you can't roll up your sleeves and actually do that. maybe it's time you realized that.

 

[KerrMetric]

Sorry to hear that. Some things are more important than things cosmolgical.

We actually agree on something. Yes that was bad - I forgot to add his wife died too.

He did seem to have the grasp of what they teach down to a tee.

That is not a shock he's one of the few people the word genius was invented for I have ever met. He's actually a nice guy in real life but I can see him being very intolerant of Creationist types.

My issue is with the teaching itself, not those who are well versed in it. But through conversations with such types, I realized that we really do know the distances to stars pretty good. So, with all these things we do know, the past had to be different for the bible timeline to be true. Same with geology, people like Joe Meert have explained that there is a lot of real facts we know like about the fossil record, and geologic column, and continental seperation, and imposibility of a vapor canopy, and heat that would be produced by fountains of the deep, etc etc etc, again, only a different past could explain it. The there are the evos, and how there seems to be some evolution to account for, etc, again, the very different past was needed. Since it fits the bible, and evidence and none yet can say anything against it, it explains things the best for me.

This is actually interesting, scary but interesting.

You claim to have evidence that you can without assumption more or less 'prove' that there were old ages, and a PO past, far as I can tell. Funny that you can't roll up your sleeves and actually do that. maybe it's time you realized that.

I see a very strange dichotomy between this paragraph and your previous one. Don't you?

 

[dad]

...

I see a very strange dichotomy between this paragraph and your previous one. Don't you?

I think this is saying that I have no evidence either? If so, that is fine, I am happy to leave it as unknown. (Christians can know, others may not) My problem comes when old ageism is rammed by force of law into the hearts and minds of young people in public education. Since it is a belief, I have my own beliefs, thank you very much.
Nite all.

 

[KerrMetric]

But through conversations with such types, I realized that we really do know the distances to stars pretty good. So, with all these things we do know, the past had to be different for the bible timeline to be true.

So do you accept the distance or not? You are telling me this is all to shoe horn your interpretation of the Biblical timeline witht the facts?

So I take it you accept distances and physics out to 6000 light years or so but at 6001 light years or so they are wrong? If that is your take then what should (if anything) we see different in observations at 6001 compared to 6000? Are there none? This is like matching a complicated function at the boundary between two different regimes and having all the derivatives match as well? Is this a correct reading of what you think?

 

[dad]

So do you accept the distance or not? You are telling me this is all to shoe horn your interpretation of the Biblical timeline witht the facts?

I don't see anything wrong with distances.

So I take it you accept distances and physics out to 6000 light years or so but at 6001 light years or so they are wrong?

Oh no. I accept them to the edge of the physical universe, unless some reason arises to question that. We live in a physical only universe at the moment. When the new heavens are revealed, that are forever, this will no longer be the case, of course neither will any of the old laws as we know them exist. The split affected the whole universe, or heavens. (Radioctive decay, light, the whole 9 yards)

If that is your take then what should (if anything) we see different in observations at 6001 compared to 6000? Are there none? This is like matching a complicated function at the boundary between two different regimes and having all the derivatives match as well? Is this a correct reading of what you think?

Ha. No wonder you don't think I know what I'm talking about. The split was universal, not limited to some thousands of light years in distance. The merged light, for example pre split got here very quickly from what is now billions of our light years away in our light travel time. When the seperation process finished, it left us with our present light still coming in in the present PO universe form.

 

[KerrMetric]

Ha. No wonder you don't think I know what I'm talking about. The split was universal, not limited to some thousands of light years in distance. The merged light, for example pre split got here very quickly from what is now billions of our light years away in our light travel time. When the seperation process finished, it left us with our present light still coming in in the present PO universe form.

Well this makes any discussion without purpose. You have a "model" that has no way to be falsified so that makes it unscientific. Your model is also no different really than Last Thursdayism. Your split might has well have been a few days ago.

It's just your unique interpretation of Scripture forced upon you when the facts of science necessitated. Instead of going the liberal theology (TE type) route you just invented a completely ad hoc 'model' that suffers no testing.

Fine - it cannot be argued against outside of a philosophy or metaphysics arena and really is not that removed from solipsism.

Bye

 

[Valkhorn]

I am not going to argue with you. You want to be ignorant, and boastful, and rude thats up to you. You make claims, and don't pony up when confronted, but pontificate. Fine. I have to consider you unable to address the points I raised.
To anyone else who may have felt bluffed by this guy, as you see, he is all bluster.

My Irony Meter Explodeth.

 

[dad]

Well this makes any discussion without purpose. You have a "model" that has no way to be falsified so that makes it unscientific. Your model is also no different really than Last Thursdayism. Your split might has well have been a few days ago.

Not true, any more than creation was this morning, or heaven is after supper. We have certain times and seasons. Now we live in an earth and heavens that are physical only, temporarily. Studying this PO universe is science. Claiming it is the be all end all, always was, always will be with not an iota of concrete evidence is not science in any way. It is philosophy, assumption, and baseless belief. It is fine in the present of course where it applies, but you can't take it with you to heaven, or Eden.

It's just your unique interpretation of Scripture forced upon you when the facts of science necessitated. Instead of going the liberal theology (TE type) route you just invented a completely ad hoc 'model' that suffers no testing.

It is your old age future and past that suffers no testing except in assumption, and belief, you seem to forget here. If it wasn't, you could lay down, as we speak concise evidence that of course the past was physical only as you claim, you can't do that.

Fine - it cannot be argued against outside of a philosophy or metaphysics arena and really is not that removed from solipsism.

This is what I have been saying, so get the stuff out of the science classes pronto.
---And remember that the belief you chose instead of the bible's creation account, is nothing more in this world than an alternate belief.
Bye.

 

[KerrMetric]

The split stands in only one place - in between your ears. You say regular science only stands test except with assumption. Yours does not stand test no matter what.

You've done nothing more than created closed model of no use to anyone and you then make it a tautology on here.

This is what I have been saying, so get the stuff out of the science classes pronto.
---And remember that the belief you chose instead of the bible's creation account, is nothing more in this world than an alternate belief.

Your model isn't in the classroom so it doesn't need to be removed. And at least the view in the classroom allows calculations to be performed and predictions made. Yours has no such ability and cannot even support a framework for doing so.

It's, for want of a better word, chaotic.

 

[dad]

...You say regular science only stands test except with assumption. Yours does not stand test no matter what.

It stands that test only between your ears!

You've done nothing more than created closed model of no use to anyone and you then make it a tautology on here.

Any model that fits the evidence and science is of great use. Why continue the hotty tottiness after you said goodbye? We don't need that tottology.

Your model isn't in the classroom so it doesn't need to be removed. And at least the view in the classroom allows calculations to be performed and predictions made.

False, like the predictions they make in a classroom! The only predictions we need are those dealing with the present that we can rest, not your dead zone delisions!

Yours has no such ability and cannot even support a framework for doing so.

It predicts better than your model, thats for sure. Cut the vague quackeries. Your old age nonsense predicts that our galaxy will samsh into another and the sun will burn out, and such utter baloney. Mine predicts the universe is temporary and a better one is coming, there is more. Yours predicts some primodial pond with a lifeform that 'appeared', and a universe in an area at one time so small, it was speck sized. Mine predicts for those kids that God created all things, including man. Yours is shamefully false, and any who share responsibility for the teaching and supporting of such things shall answer to God. I kid you not.

It's, for want of a better word, chaotic.

To your old age ideas, it hopefully is that, cause your chaotic PO theories assume the temporary PO heavens as all there ever was or will be. Yech.

 

[KerrMetric]

For dad:

http://www.m-w.com/


Please use this for the word prediction. You should have been using the word platitude - enter that one as well if you are unsure.

 

[dad]

For dad:

http://www.m-w.com/


Please use this for the word prediction. You should have been using the word platitude - enter that one as well if you are unsure.

Try entering our galaxy will crash, if you want platitude. Try entering that the sun and stars will one day die. Try entering that the universe always will be physical only, you may find the word to enter there is 'joke'. Maybe you might have some success with old gas predictions, just enter follow your nose.

 

[Jet Black]

Well, that's not really an accurate way to measure how long it's been in existence. By doing that alone, you'd conclude that the sun is only 8.4 minutes old.

no, you would conclude that it is at least 8.4 minutes old. and you know what? you'd be right.

Or, consider a flashlight powerful enough to be seen billions of miles away. Suppose I flash that light at the ground, then go backwards billions of miles. Measuring how long the light takes to reach us is not the least bit accurate then, because the light has always been shining at the ground.

what? if you saw that the light was billions of miles away, then you could determine at least how old it was.

There is, of course, doppler red to be considered, but it still leaves the same problem.

what problem?

 

[Jet Black]

That's only if the light is just reaching us. But like in the example of the "flashlight", the light could have always been hitting us, starting from when it was first created, and continued moving back.

but when you view some light from the flashlight, at that point you can see how far away it is. if you know how far away it is, you know how long the light has been travelling from that point to get to you. If you know that, then you know the flashlight is at least that old. It could indeed be older. To be honest you don'T even need the flashlight to be moving away from you. you can just turn it on billions of miles away, and when I first see it, I don't know how long it has been on for (unless I see it turn on) All these dates give, is a minimum age for those feature.

 

[Jet Black]

Okay. What basic law of physics says that stars need time to "adjust" after being created? And how much time would they need, according to physics?

The answer to this question would basically prove your point, at least on the question of stars needing time to adjust.
Of course, that's after some logical follow up questions, if there are any to be asked.

when two hydrogen nuclei fuse, they release some light. this light bounces around inside the star, hitting lots of other nuclei and things on the way out. Since we know (we can measure it) the pressure and density of and inside the sun, we know on average how far the light can travel before it hits something. when it hits another nucleus or electron, it is absorbed and reflected in a random direction. From this we can work out the average distance the light travels before it gets out of the star. It is a little more complex than this, becase there are different zones and methods of transport within the star - convection zones and radiation zones, but we know how these things work, because it just uses the properties of plasmas, which we can test here on earth. In short, the path from the core of the star is very long, and it takes millions of years for the light to travel from the core of the star to the surface. Now if we suddenly turned off all fusion in the core of the star, all the light that is currently there would still be there, and would have to make its way to the surface in exactly the same way. we can work out the rate at which the light leaks out of the star. from this we can calculate how the pressure in the star changes, and hence how the star will behave over time.