Moon was Created

FishFace · Jan 5, 2008

dad said:
Of course we would. Not for the PO reasons you think, however.

If we would, give reasons. Explicit, well defined reasons.

You justify yours, I'll do mine.

Because solid material, with a liquid core, fits exactly the data we have. But it wouldn't fit the data if there were no shadow zones. "Spiritual material" doesn't make any predictions - it's useless.

False. It is circular reasoning. They cooked up the interior from assumptions, and then try to make the waves match.

Hello? The waves are the raw data. If the centre is not physical, why does modeling it as physical explain the data?

What we see is what we get. The inner core area is a spiritual/physical is such that certain waves react to it the same as a liquid. You name the bend, and the purported cause, and I'll substitute the PO materials you IMAGINE, for S/P ones. Easy.

So why should we believe that it is S/P instead of PO, given that the results would apparently be exactly the same? What's the way we can test for S/P over PO?

Here's the test: If the centre of the earth were a S/P material, then we would observe that no shear waves would appear at the opposite side of the earth. We do!!!!!

No. That's completely wrong. S/P material doesn't say anything about what kind of waves do or do not travel through it. "Physical liquid" and "physical solid" on the other hand, do. You need three kinds of tests. The first kind of test is what you predict will happen. The second is what you predict won't happen. The third kind predicts something different from the other theories so we can tell which it is.
What do you predict the raw data will look like that's different from a PO theory?

Just did. Like you did.

Model? What model? There was no model. A model involves equations for the speed or attenuation of the various waves given the depth, and relates those equations to actual properties your model says the earth has at that depth.

I have already done this - the model is a spiritual/physical earth.

That's not a model.

That matches exactly what we see. I'm talking because I've got the goods. You've got sweet... nothing.

Uh, wrong. We have the geophysical theory, thanks. Your "theory" is no different except that it is baseless. You give no reasons for believing that there shouldn't be any shear waves on the opposite side.

dad · Jan 6, 2008

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
and here I was afraid you had lost your comedic touch. This post may not match some of your past gems for hilarity but it is pretty funny.

Yes, thanks.

Thanks.

dad · Jan 6, 2008

Wyzaard said:
Really? How so?

The new heavens is guaranteed because God says so. Right in the bible.

And what exactly is your claim about the center of the planet?

I don't know what it is. I assume it may be precious stones like topaz, and sapphire, and emerald, and etc. As well as some spiritual housing. I suspect much of it may be as we speak in the eternal form. Not like the surface. But, I don't know. Maybe it is just dirt, rock, and hot dirt and rock as men think. Either way, the earth is eternal, it will be here forever and ever and ever. So, if it was not in the eternal state now, it soon will be.

I suspect Spaceship Earth is a neat place inside. Precious stones, gold, absolutely beautiful beyond the wildest dreams. A place of power, and intelligence, the foundations of the future forever home of the Almighty Himself. The center of the universe, and many other universes we never dreamed of.

My claim, exactly, about the center of the earth, is that we men know little about it. I deeply question the claims that are made flying blind.

dad · Jan 6, 2008

thaumaturgy said:
So you either can't or won't back up your claim with proof.

OK.

I am one of the men that knows little about the center of the earth. But I think I may be onto something. You guys are old news.

Oh so you didn't actually READ the question. I asked why one as SUPERIOR to the other.

One what?

Kinda like the waves of light in the vacuum of space.

I see light. From space. I see no core of the earth. There is a difference.

Gee, for someone with a picture of Einstein as their avatar I would think you'd understand this stuff.

You seem somewhat obsessed with that. Relax. A picture of the dead guy doesn't make me as smart as he was.
I wanted a pic that looked like it fit in a science forum. I also wanted to emphasize that the present light is slow. Kind of in the spirit of a temporary universe.

dad · Jan 6, 2008

FishFace said:
If we would, give reasons. Explicit, well defined reasons.

Because the waves that will not go through liquid also will not go through S/P material. Now, if you want that defined, I can only think of three places offhand.
1) The center of the earth
2) The risen body of Jesus
3) The Sceptre, the flying throne starship of God.

Your present science isn't up to the task. Better keep playing in the sandboz of the surface for now. Make the best of it.

Because solid material, with a liquid core, fits exactly the data we have. But it wouldn't fit the data if there were no shadow zones. "Spiritual material" doesn't make any predictions - it's useless.

Can you show us exactly how liquid bends the waves in some predicted way? I mean, it seems all we know is that the waves don't go through, and come out again, at an angle.

" The P-wave shadow zone is a region that extends from 104 degrees to 142 degrees from the epicenter of an earthquake and is marked by the absence of P waves. Beyond 104 degrees the p-wave amplitudes diminish as they are refracted into the core and emerge at epicentral distances beyond 142 degrees where they are concentrated. Since waves are detected, then not, then reappear again, something inside the Earth must be bending the P waves. The P-wave shadow zone is due to the refraction of seismic waves in the liquid outer core."

http://www.scieds.com/spinet/faq/shadowzone.html

Hello? The waves are the raw data. If the centre is not physical, why does modeling it as physical explain the data?

The center is physical. And spiritual. The data is not specific.

So why should we believe that it is S/P instead of PO, given that the results would apparently be exactly the same? What's the way we can test for S/P over PO?

No. So, believe what you want, just don't pretend it is known science fact!

No. That's completely wrong. S/P material doesn't say anything about what kind of waves do or do not travel through it. "Physical liquid" and "physical solid" on the other hand, do. You need three kinds of tests. The first kind of test is what you predict will happen.

The waves will go through S/P stuff. Done.

The second is what you predict won't happen.

Certain waves won't go through.

The third kind predicts something different from the other theories so we can tell which it is.
What do you predict the raw data will look like that's different from a PO theory?

Well, not like we have a lot to work with there. If silly waves don't go through, they don't. Not rocket science, that.

Model? What model? There was no model. A model involves equations for the speed or attenuation of the various waves given the depth, and relates those equations to actual properties your model says the earth has at that depth.

The eternal model. Use your PO equations for things PO, like seismic waves, and I will use God's formula, the bible, for forever state things. See, the spiritual is more than a locked down PO formula. Jesus did both, behaved as a spirit, and a s physical. So, it can do either!

Uh, wrong. We have the geophysical theory, thanks.

Right, and it is a lot of assumptions.

Your "theory" is no different except that it is baseless.

No, your basis is only the PO, my basis is more than the PO. You fly blind. I don't pretend to fly to the core!!

You give no reasons for believing that there shouldn't be any shear waves on the opposite side.

The shear fact that shear PO waves can't penetrate the spiritual material they encounter there means don't expect any on the other side. They basically are temporary universe waves, and cannot now pass, to 'the other side'.

dad · Jan 6, 2008

FishFace said:
We've been threw this. Prove they were not using the word spiritual in its accepted usage that does not require a supernatural force.

Irwin said it was God.

You're avoiding the question. If you can get rid of invisible elephants, I can get rid of spirits. It's the same argument.

No, evil spirits actually exist.

I guess that's why it has its very own fallacy - argumentum ad populum. Sorry dad, truth is not a democracy. As with the flatness of the earth, just cuz everyone believed it doesn't mean they were right. Clothes have nothing to do with belief.

I don't believe you, that most thought the earth was flat. The truth is not a democracy, but the evidence with the most test tubes wins!

In that case you can only get rid of the elephant in your head. Good for the goose, good for the gander. Focus.

No, There is no elephant. You made it up. You want to make it equal with a real God and spirits, just because you can chase what is not real away.

Indeed. The amazing experience they had going to the moon.

No, it was once they got there. Even orbiting it for the first time, the first words could only be, not, 'what a touchy feely atheist experience this is'. But, "In the beginning GOD created"!!!!!!!

AirPo · Jan 6, 2008

thaumaturgy said:
So you either can't or won't back up your claim with proof.

OK.

You don't need proof with the HI theory, you just make things up.

Oh so you didn't actually READ the question. I asked why one as SUPERIOR to the other.

That's the power of the

Kinda like the waves of light in the vacuum of space.

Gee, for someone with a picture of Einstein as their avatar I would think you'd understand this stuff.

Oh well.

George Burns was much more appropriate.

thaumaturgy · Jan 6, 2008

dad said:
Can you show us exactly how liquid bends the waves in some predicted way? I mean, it seems all we know is that the waves don't go through, and come out again, at an angle.

S-waves are "Shear waves"

Liquids cannot propogate this type of stress. It is a known fact.

Here's why:

In shear waves, the disturbance is perpendicular to the direction that the disturbance is trying to travel. A shearing motion is one where something slides past something else. You can imagine that in a solid, this shearing can be thought of as a bending of the bonds in the material. The bonds rebound and it is this rebound that then transferrs the shearing motion to the next bonds along the way, and so on. That's how the wave gets propagated. In a liquid though, the shearing results in moving molecules around - there are no bonds to bend so the shearing motion would all be taken up by moving the first layer of liquid molecules and the would never "snap" back so they will never allow the shearing displacement to be propagated." (Emphasis added) (SOURCE)

As for bending of waves:

Imagine a wave front moving slowly through one solid:

When it hits a material it can move through FASTER the wave front BENDS. This is why I kept posting stuff about SNELLS LAW, it is an analogous process.

FishFace · Jan 6, 2008

dad said:
I see light. From space. I see no core of the earth. There is a difference.

No! You only actually are aware of the sensation in your brain that you assume corresponds to light entering your eye! You also assume that the light in your eye has come on a straight path and represents whatever it looks like!

YOU, DAD, ARE MAKING A PO ASSUMPTION!

Allow me to explain by way of picture:

Oh no! It looks like you don't actually know what you see! I mean, anything could happen in between there.

FishFace · Jan 6, 2008

dad said:
Because the waves that will not go through liquid also will not go through S/P material.

Why not.

Can you show us exactly how liquid bends the waves in some predicted way? I mean, it seems all we know is that the waves don't go through, and come out again, at an angle.

Look up index of refraction. Also look up moduli of elasticity, and refer to the equations thaumaturgy already posted.

The center is physical. And spiritual. The data is not specific.

So, when we look at light refracting through a block of glass, how do you know that the glass is not made of spiritual stuff?
Why does modeling the earth as physical explain the data?

No. So, believe what you want, just don't pretend it is known science fact!

Answer the question - how do we test for S/P instead of PO?

The waves will go through S/P stuff. Done.
Certain waves won't go through.
Well, not like we have a lot to work with there. If silly waves don't go through, they don't. Not rocket science, that.

And yet still beyond you. Physical predictions are much better, much more specific. That's why physical material is probably the answer.

The eternal model. Use your PO equations for things PO, like seismic waves, and I will use God's formula, the bible, for forever state things. See, the spiritual is more than a locked down PO formula. Jesus did both, behaved as a spirit, and a s physical. So, it can do either!

The shear fact that shear PO waves can't penetrate the spiritual material they encounter there means don't expect any on the other side. They basically are temporary universe waves, and cannot now pass, to 'the other side'.

Why don't PO waves penetrate spiritual material? How do you know?

FishFace · Jan 6, 2008

dad said:
Irwin said it was God.

God. Not spirits. Thanks.

No, evil spirits actually exist.

Prove it.

I don't believe you, that most thought the earth was flat.

Tough.

No, There is no elephant. You made it up.

And someone made up your spirits too. Either provide evidence, or accept that they don't exist.

No, it was once they got there. Even orbiting it for the first time, the first words could only be, not, 'what a touchy feely atheist experience this is'. But, "In the beginning GOD created"!!!!!!!

We've already established they believed in God. They were having an amazing experience. Lots of people look up at the stars and think, "wow, God created all of that." Doesn't mean they're right.

dad · Jan 7, 2008

thaumaturgy said:
S-waves are "Shear waves"

Liquids cannot propogate this type of stress. It is a known fact.

So what??? Did you know, by the way, that there are liquids in the s/p? Yes, like the river of life in heaven, or the crystal sea!
But the fact that mere PO waves of a certain type can't penetrate liquid means nothing, unless the interior is PO. The waves also can't penetrate spiritual/physical material.

Here's why:

As for bending of waves:

Imagine a wave front moving slowly through one solid:

When it hits a material it can move through FASTER the wave front BENDS. This is why I kept posting stuff about SNELLS LAW, it is an analogous process.

So what??? That simply means that there are materials down there that it can move faster through. So??? S/P materials fit that bill as well as PO material.
That is HELL"S law!

dad · Jan 7, 2008

FishFace said:
Oh no! It looks like you don't actually know what you see! I mean, anything could happen in between there.

Right. You are limited to the natural. My point, exactly. But thanks for the cave art.

dad · Jan 7, 2008

FishFace said:
Why not.

Well, why can't you slap a ghost, or even see it? Why is gold transparent in heaven? How could Jesus pass through locked solid doors? Te spiritual realm is simply out of your current depth.

Look up index of refraction. Also look up moduli of elasticity, and refer to the equations thaumaturgy already posted.

Meaningless. Look up PO assumption. Look up moduli of a ghost. Look up the refraction of sapphire emerald, quartz, onynx, topaz, olivine, etc.

So, when we look at light refracting through a block of glass, how do you know that the glass is not made of spiritual stuff?
Why does modeling the earth as physical explain the data?

NOT passing through something does not mean it is what you imagine it is not able to pass through. Materials you imagine are refracting the wave are NOT the only thing that refracts it so.

Answer the question - how do we test for S/P instead of PO?

Get some science that is more than limited by definition, to the PO??

And yet still beyond you. Physical predictions are much better, much more specific. That's why physical material is probably the answer.

No. The waves were not predicted to act a certain way, I don't think. They tailored the whys of the wiggle of the waves to the materialistic, spiritually exclusive, myth.

Why don't PO waves penetrate spiritual material? How do you know?

Test an angel, and let us know the results when you get to the point of being able to deal in anything at all more than the current natural, will you? Meanwhile, the natural is all you know, and assume all things wrap around that precept.

dad · Jan 7, 2008

FishFace said:
God. Not spirits. Thanks.

God is a spirit. But spiritual influence is also known to come by spirits, not just God. Daniel, for example, had a angel deliver the inspiration for a vision.

Speaking of that, you better sit down. Spirits on the moon is not a new idea. Right after the flood, apparently, in what is now Egypt, a spirit from the moon, was said to have built the first pyramid! It was the moon god.
This was shortly after Babel, as I put the timescale, meaning that spirits had just stopped mingling with men. (There used to be a spirit level not too high above). This son of god, or whatever he was, some spiritual being, was said to give them writing! (After Babel, they could no longer talk to each other). This guy, apparently was from the moon, they thought.
So, I don't know the shape of the base that they used to have there, in the moon, but, I suspect it may be shaped like a pyramid. This moon man/spirit is recorded in history of the Egyptians, as building the first pyramid!!!!!!

The moon affected history.

"according to the ancient Egyptians themselves, this Menes/Narmer followed a long list of gods and demi-gods who ruled before him. They were portrayed as superhuman figures, giants who towered above mortal men. (One is reminded of the biblical Nephilim, men of great size and strength, mentioned in Genesis 6:4 - "The Nephilim were on the earth then . . . the Sons of God . . . heroes of old, men of renown.")

The Egyptian mythological explanation of the foundation of their state, however, does not begin with Menes, but ends with him. They speak of the Zep Tepi - the "First Time". During this fabled First Time, the gods ruled in their country. The Egyptians said it was a golden age during which the waters of the abyss receded, [did I hear anyone say there was no flood in Egypt history!!!!??]

the primordial darkness was banished, and humanity, emerging into the light, was offered the gifts of civilization.

[they would need help re civilizing after the flood!]

spoke also of intermediaries between gods and men - the Urshu, a category of lesser divinities whose title meant 'the Watchers'. And they preserved particularly vivid recollections of the gods themselves, puissant and beautiful beings called the Neteru who lived on earth with humankind and exercised their sovereignty from Heliopolis and other sanctuaries up and down the Nile.

[the bible talks of the Watchers as well. Right in Daniel]

The ancient Egyptians left records describing the First Time as actual historic period.

http://www.corzak.com/egypt/egypt0801.htm

Da 4:17 - This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones:

Prove it.

Prove that there are none. That is out of your natural fishbowl.

We've already established they believed in God. They were having an amazing experience. Lots of people look up at the stars and think, "wow, God created all of that." Doesn't mean they're right.

History STARTED with a moon spirit building a pyramid (according to their records). Other cultures also had spirit personages from the moon, gods, or goddesses. The men that walked on the moon FELT spiritual influence to a degree not in sync with just some stargazer. Men's lives were impacted, in a real way.
How much more evidence could there be???

FishFace · Jan 7, 2008

dad said:
Right. You are limited to the natural. My point, exactly. But thanks for the cave art.

And so are you, apparently, if you think that there is no S/P material sending light waves flying off every which way!

FishFace · Jan 7, 2008

dad said:
Well, why can't you slap a ghost, or even see it? Why is gold transparent in heaven? How could Jesus pass through locked solid doors? Te spiritual realm is simply out of your current depth.

So you don't know why not. That's a shame - it means your model's rubbish.
Hooray; we win.

Meaningless. Look up PO assumption. Look up moduli of a ghost. Look up the refraction of sapphire emerald, quartz, onynx, topaz, olivine, etc.

Ohh dear. No model that predicts the correct behaviour here either.

NOT passing through something does not mean it is what you imagine it is not able to pass through. Materials you imagine are refracting the wave are NOT the only thing that refracts it so.

Did you read what I said? Why does modeling the earth as physical get the right results? If I say "the earth is made of S/P material" what can I conclude from that - NOTHING. On the other hand, if you model the earth as physical material with a certain specific density function, we get exactly the results we see - that's because we know how physical stuff works.
You have no clue how spiritual stuff works, so you can't tell anything about what a spiritual thing will do under given circumstances. That means you can't construct a model, and that means you're wrong.

Get some science that is more than limited by definition, to the PO??

So you can't test it. So you're wrong.

No. The waves were not predicted to act a certain way, I don't think. They tailored the whys of the wiggle of the waves to the materialistic, spiritually exclusive, myth.

Uh, no. We know exactly what waves do given the density function of a material. That's why thaumaturgy was telling you to look up Snell's law, and I was telling you to look at moduli of elasticity. We know what happens. You have no clue what happens in spiritual stuff.

Test an angel, and let us know the results when you get to the point of being able to deal in anything at all more than the current natural, will you? Meanwhile, the natural is all you know, and assume all things wrap around that precept.

So you've got no clue why not. Guess what that means? It means you lose.

FishFace · Jan 7, 2008

dad said:
Prove that there are none. That is out of your natural fishbowl.

Why are you still asking my to prove there are no anything? It's impossible. I can no more prove that there are no spirits than you can prove there is no invisible elephant in your cupboard.
You know why that is? Because proving "there is no such thing as a <something>" is impossible.

But if you expect me to disprove such a thing, then I have the right to expect you to do the same. So - if you want me to disprove spirits, then you can go ahead and disprove the inivisible elephant in your cupboard.

History STARTED with a moon spirit building a pyramid (according to their records). Other cultures also had spirit personages from the moon, gods, or goddesses. The men that walked on the moon FELT spiritual influence to a degree not in sync with just some stargazer. Men's lives were impacted, in a real way.
How much more evidence could there be???

A lot? How about if people who went up with amputated limbs regrew them? That would be a good start.
You know nothing of the influence compared with anything, so I'm going with the stargazer option, thanks.

Wyzaard · Jan 7, 2008

dad said:
Well, why can't you slap a ghost, or even see it? Why is gold transparent in heaven? How could Jesus pass through locked solid doors? Te spiritual realm is simply out of your current depth.

Why do Invisible Pink Unicorns love chimichangas? What do angels taste like? Why are these meaningful questions that deserve to be within 100 miles of scientifc domains?

Wyzaard · Jan 7, 2008

dad said:
Speaking of that, you better sit down. Spirits on the moon is not a new idea. Right after the flood, apparently, in what is now Egypt, a spirit from the moon, was said to have built the first pyramid! It was the moon god.
This was shortly after Babel, as I put the timescale, meaning that spirits had just stopped mingling with men. (There used to be a spirit level not too high above). This son of god, or whatever he was, some spiritual being, was said to give them writing! (After Babel, they could no longer talk to each other). This guy, apparently was from the moon, they thought.
So, I don't know the shape of the base that they used to have there, in the moon, but, I suspect it may be shaped like a pyramid. This moon man/spirit is recorded in history of the Egyptians, as building the first pyramid!!!!!!

Well, someone's been reading some Van Daniken...

the primordial darkness was banished, and humanity, emerging into the light, was offered the gifts of civilization.

A common trope seen in ancient middle eastern river people's creation stories... after all, flooding was a common occurance that was both necessary for replenishing the land's fertility as well as being terrifying and often unpredicatably destructive.

Prove that there are none. That is out of your natural fishbowl.

Trouble is... how are you to verify/justify such matters outside said fishbowl? By what justified methodology?

Conjecture is not proof.

Moon was Created

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

with a Touch of Grey

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency