Space was Warm.

[dad]

In effect, space, if there were no radiation would not freeze water, if I read the science right there?
edit.. now don't go getting too literal here with the title of the thread. The point is, that the reason for things freezing may not have been here, not that space was that literally 'warm'

"so a body in space gains or loses heat
by radiation. In fact, all bodies radiate heat according to their temp..."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99383.htm

If there was no radioactive decay before the split, then, looks like the flood water leaving the planet could get around as water?

"Ionizing radiation in space comes in three main types. The first is Galactic Cosmic Rays. Astronomers believe that these rays originate mainly in supernovae, although they also appear to come from quasars and solar flares from stars outside the Solar System. .."

"The second type of radiation that astronauts must be concerned with is solar protons. The protons originate in the sun."
"The third type of radiation is high energy electrons and protons trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. The areas of trapped radiation are called Van Allen belts"
http://www2.cotf.edu/iss/techcheck3/radiation.html

So, space had to be different in the past! If there wasn't the supernova exploding till the split happened, and radiation like now, the universe was affected greatly.

--See why assuming it was always as it is now really gives ridiculous results! Cosmology, move over.

 

[Cannonflare]

What the hell is the split (pictures )

 

[dad]

What the hell is the split..

The big change in creation in our past, where this physical only universe was seperated from the spiritual universe, and we were left in this decaying, temporal state.

 

[Chalnoth]

What ridiculous results?

 

[Cannonflare]

Are you sure it happend at the split and not the flip.

 

[dad]

What ridiculous results?

In assuming the sun was and will be as it now is, for example, means it is going to burn out. In assuming flood water could not make it to mars. In assuming the redshift didn't come from the split, and that it means an expanding universe, and reversing that mentally back into a speck! By assuming the CMB is a left over of the big bang. By assuming SN were millions of years ago, some of them. Basically, by assuming almost anything in modern cosmology, except for the basics of how it now operates!

 

[Ondoher]

In assuming the sun was and will be as it now is, for example, means it is going to burn out. In assuming flood water could not make it to mars. In assuming the redshift didn't come from the split, and that it means an expanding universe, and reversing that mentally back into a speck! By assuming the CMB is a left over of the big bang. By assuming SN were millions of years ago, some of them. Basically, by assuming almost anything in modern cosmology, except for the basics of how it now operates!

And none of these things can be true, regardless of the evidence, because it upsets dad.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In effect, space, if there were no radiation would not freeze water, if I read the science right there?

You think radiation freezes water?

edit.. now don't go getting too literal here with the title of the thread. The point is, that the reason for things freezing may not have been here, not that space was that literally 'warm'

Actually, if your notion of a pre-split universe was even remotely true, everything would be frozen.

"so a body in space gains or loses heat
by radiation. In fact, all bodies radiate heat according to their temp..."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99383.htm

Bodies do not generate heat. Energy generates heat.

If there was no radioactive decay before the split, then, looks like the flood water leaving the planet could get around as water?

So, there was no energy before the Split? No thermodynamics?

So, space had to be different in the past! If there wasn't the supernova exploding till the split happened, and radiation like now, the universe was affected greatly.

Except why were there no supernova pre-split?

--See why assuming it was always as it is now really gives ridiculous results! Cosmology, move over.

Dad, you've officially buried the needle on the gibberish-o-meter.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Are you sure it happend at the split and not the flip.

Or did it happen, not at the flip, but at the flop?

Just last week at the regular Evil Atheist Conspiracy poker game, I had pocket Kings, and the flop came up K-7-7.

For me, flopping a full boat violates all sorts of laws of the universe!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In effect, space, if there were no radiation would not freeze water, if I read the science right there?

The spacetime continuum does not freeze water. Thermocrystallisation (i.e., crystallisation that occurs with certain thermosensitive phenomenon) freezes water.

"so a body in space gains or loses heat
by radiation. In fact, all bodies radiate heat according to their temp..."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99383.htm

I believe you are misinterpriting 'space'. 'A body in space' is any body not in contact with another body. A ball resting on the ground is not 'in space', but a ball flying through a vacuum is 'in space'.
This distinction is made because there are numurous other ways to transmit heat when a body is not in space (sonic resonance, for example, or simply molecular collision).

If there was no radioactive decay before the split, then, looks like the flood water leaving the planet could get around as water?

What split? Are you referring to the Judaeo-Christian idea of the Fall?
What makes you think that there was no radioactive decay before the Fall?

"Ionizing radiation in space comes in three main types. The first is Galactic Cosmic Rays. Astronomers believe that these rays originate mainly in supernovae, although they also appear to come from quasars and solar flares from stars outside the Solar System. .."

"The second type of radiation that astronauts must be concerned with is solar protons. The protons originate in the sun."
"The third type of radiation is high energy electrons and protons trapped by the Earth's magnetic field. The areas of trapped radiation are called Van Allen belts"
http://www2.cotf.edu/iss/techcheck3/radiation.html

Note that these are types of cosmic ionising radiation.

So, space had to be different in the past!

Utter non sequitur. You misinterprit the physicists 'space', you irrelevantly catagorise three types of cosmic ionising radiation, and now you illogically infer from all that that space (the spacetime continuum? The physicists 'space'?) was 'different'.
And to top it all, you act like this is some form of triumph. What, exactly, have you shown here?

If there wasn't the supernova exploding till the split happened, and radiation like now, the universe was affected greatly.

There is nothing in the definitions of specific heat radiance to suggest anything about the physical laws of the early universe, and certainly nothing regarding Judaeo-Christian theology.

--See why assuming it was always as it is now really gives ridiculous results! Cosmology, move over.

What results? You have shown nothing!

 

[UniversalAxis]

What results? You have shown nothing!

It would be nice to have the OP reiterated in a more concise and logical fashion. Y'know, like telling us how the evidence supports the conclusion. Little details like that...

If not that, then a little better grammer would be a good start:

If there wasn't the supernova exploding till the split happened, and radiation like now, the universe was affected greatly.

...huh...???

 

[dad]

It would be nice to have the OP reiterated in a more concise and logical fashion. Y'know, like telling us how the evidence supports the conclusion. Little details like that...

If not that, then a little better grammer would be a good start:


...huh...???

Well, I have been posting for a while, and covered a lot of these things, but, for the sake of new folks, I ought to clear it up.

I'll translate.
If there wasn't the supernova exploding till the split happened, and radiation like now, the universe was affected greatly.

The split is the seperation in our past about a hundred years after the flood, of the spiritual from the physical. The idea being, that the original, and future natural creation state of the universe is both. We are now seperated into a physical only universe. It is temporary. In this state everything is different. We have decay, out light is different, the physical only universe laws apply here, etc etc.
I postulate that at the split process, the changing state of matter into this PO state (physical only) left some stars exploding, and others that would explode fairly sson, etc. (These are atomic level changes we are talking about, and beyond)

Som there was no radioactive decay in the different past, or laws of physics as we know them, including gravity as we know it. (Obviously there were laws in place for the complete universe, laws that also affected the spiritual part. Gravity, for example does not attract non physical bodies)
Hopefully that clears it up. This is why, I ask, would space be the same in the different a universe, to where water would freeze, as it does in the present reality?

 

[dad]

And none of these things can be true, regardless of the evidence, because it upsets dad.

What does that mean? Are you suggestinmg that you have some evidence flood water had to freeze, before hitting planets in our system in the different past??? Or, that you have some evidence for a same past??? Cause I really really really doubt it.

 

[dad]

You think radiation freezes water?

Well, not the same form as uranium decay, or some such, but according the the lnk I gave in the OP, it is why water freezes in space.

"so a body in space gains or loses heat
by radiation. In fact, all bodies radiate heat according to their temp..."
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc...9/ast99383.htm

"Answer 2: ...and remember that heat is energy and this energy can be transfered
by conduction, convection, or radiation (just real basic thermodynamics).
In space there is virtually no medium for conduction or convection
(actually, the tenuous plasma and gas that permeates space has an
extrememly low heat capacity), so a body in space gains or loses heat
by radiation. In fact, all bodies radiate heat according to their temp.
(black body radiation, look it up); if a body radiates more than it
absorbs, it cools off, like a satellite in Earth orbit while it's in
the Earth's shadow (from the Sun). If you're in direct sunlight,
you will heat up unless you're a very good reflector!
The short, simple answer is that being hot or cold is a property of
matter... AND hot or cold RELATIVE to what?
hawley"

So, in that electromagnetic waves, and fundamentals of the universe were different, who says that water would have froze then in space? You?

Actually, if your notion of a pre-split universe was even remotely true, everything would be frozen.

Nonsense.

Bodies do not generate heat. Energy generates heat.

So? Who said they did? The reason it loses heat, they explain in the link. If you think you can correct the guy, let's see you do it. Strut your stuff.

So, there was no energy before the Split? No thermodynamics?

Not as it is now, one would assume. The energy now, in the sun, for example, is not like it will be, otherwise it would burn out one day, for example. Light is also not the same. Etc.

Except why were there no supernova pre-split?

I don't know that for sure. That is my opinionn. I think that stars started to explode as a result of finding themelves in a PO state of decay. Stars are different, so some were such, that in this PO state, they exploded as a result.

Dad, you've officially buried the needle on the gibberish-o-meter.

Well, you think the universe was so small it could easily fit on the head of a needle, relax?

 

[dad]

The spacetime continuum does not freeze water. Thermocrystallisation (i.e., crystallisation that occurs with certain thermosensitive phenomenon) freezes water.

And that happens out of our space time present continuum, does it??? Explain.

I believe you are misinterpriting 'space'. 'A body in space' is any body not in contact with another body. A ball resting on the ground is not 'in space', but a ball flying through a vacuum is 'in space'.

I mean outer space. What is between here, say, and Mars.

This distinction is made because there are numurous other ways to transmit heat when a body is not in space (sonic resonance, for example, or simply molecular collision).

Great, but we are talking about in space here.

What split? Are you referring to the Judaeo-Christian idea of the Fall?
What makes you think that there was no radioactive decay before the Fall?

No. The fall was at the beginning. The split was where, as I understand it, the spiritual and physical elements of the universe were seperated, leaving us in the physical only universe. This was, as I calculate, about 100 years after the flood of Noah.

Note that these are types of cosmic ionising radiation.

Right.

Utter non sequitur. You misinterprit the physicists 'space', you irrelevantly catagorise three types of cosmic ionising radiation, and now you illogically infer from all that that space (the spacetime continuum? The physicists 'space'?) was 'different'.
And to top it all, you act like this is some form of triumph. What, exactly, have you shown here?

Since we are also talking about deep space, and the things that go on there, it's all good.

There is nothing in the definitions of specific heat radiance to suggest anything about the physical laws of the early universe, and certainly nothing regarding Judaeo-Christian theology.

Thank you! In other words, you have nothing to say that space was the same, and water would have frozen there, in the past. Fine.

 

[UniversalAxis]

The biggest problem with this whole idea of an alternate reality before the modern day is that it is a tenuous, unprovable, and volitile set of beliefs that haven't got a shred of evidence to support them.

There is no science to your assertions, and even thologians would be wary of your conclusions.

Besides, why would "the Split" happen 100 years after the Flood, why not at the expulsion from Eden, or after Moses recieved the Ten Commandments, or right after some other major Biblical Event?

This whole "fundamental change in the laws of physics and the universe" isn't even good theology. I mean, really, where did this idea even come from? Is it some kind of YEC thing?

 

[dad]

The biggest problem with this whole idea of an alternate reality before the modern day is that it is a tenuous, unprovable, and volitile set of beliefs that haven't got a shred of evidence to support them.

Precisely my problem with your claims of a past that was the same!!! Why would I consider the bible a lie, and those claims true with NO evidence whatsoever?????!!!

There is no science to your assertions, and even thologians would be wary of your conclusions.

None to yours either. I can handle the theology boys if they get restless too.

Besides, why would "the Split" happen 100 years after the Flood, why not at the expulsion from Eden, or after Moses recieved the Ten Commandments, or right after some other major Biblical Event?

Because I look at the evidence we have! If the big change happened before the flood, how could the continents seperate fast? How could the SN be explained? How could the water from the flood get off the planet? How could there have been rings, or partial canopies, or a canopy pre flood? How could there have been the different plant growth of trees, that Noah witnessed still, and the fast evolving of animals from the few on the ark, etc???? The flood needs a different past! The fast deposition of the various layers in the geological column need a different past. The salt that exists needs it. The water that used to be in the fountains of the deep need it, and the waters that came up instead of rain then need it! The creation week needs it, because the supercontinent was seperated from the waters, and it generated little heat, and we were able to be created only days after this! Etc etc etc etc etc etc.

 

[Ondoher]

Precisely my problem with your claims of a past that was the same!!! Why would I consider the bible a lie, and those claims true with NO evidence whatsoever?????!!!


None to yours either. I can handle the theology boys if they get restless too.


Because I look at the evidence we have! If the big change happened before the flood, how could the continents seperate fast? How could the SN be explained? How could the water from the flood get off the planet? How could there have been rings, or partial canopies, or a canopy pre flood? How could there have been the different plant growth of trees, that Noah witnessed still, and the fast evolving of animals from the few on the ark, etc???? The flood needs a different past! The fast deposition of the various layers in the geological column need a different past. The salt that exists needs it. The water that used to be in the fountains of the deep need it, and the waters that came up instead of rain then need it! The creation week needs it, because the supercontinent was seperated from the waters, and it generated little heat, and we were able to be created only days after this! Etc etc etc etc etc etc.

I get it. The stories in Genesis cannot possibly be true, therefore you must invent a past in which reality operated differently. And the only justification for this is that the bible HAS to be correct, so it is reality that has to be wrong. Got it.

At least we agree that the stories in Genesis cannot be true.

 

[Asimov]

I get it. The stories in Genesis cannot possibly be true, therefore you must invent a past in which reality operated differently. And the only justification for this is that the bible HAS to be correct, so it is reality that has to be wrong. Got it.

At least we agree that the stories in Genesis cannot be true.

A very concise explanation of the irrationalizations of dad.

 

[rambot]

another important point:
Bodies "radiate" heat depending on their environment: It doesn't radiate heat if the environment is HOTTER than it is.