- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
That was in reference to a type of person. Did you think this was all about you??
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 was in reference to a type of person. Did you think this was all about you??Now, would your teachers like it when you call someone a "pusshead"? And just because they were attempting to provide you with some information?
That isn't nice at all.
If the speed of light is not constant, then how come we can only measure it at one speed (dependant on the medium)?
I mean, take and object 6,000 light years away.
It was not our light, in a present state universe that set off.If light set off faster than c, why is it now only traveling at c?
Well, one assumes that this universe has light that can travel at a certain speed, how would it matter what part of the universe?? What part of a universe would a universe change not affect???Compare this with light from the edge of the visable universe, it is still travelling at c. How can they all slow daown at the same time, irrespective of how fast they were travelling before?
not important, drop it pleaseYou posit what about the former state, then? That the light was more than photons????
can you think of a better explanation for the systematic brightening and darkening of the ring? it's incredibly unlikely that light from the core is not responsible for this, even by your standardsWell, good point. But let's have a quick review. There is the issue of the rings. I have asked how we know that light went from the core to the ring and saw no reply.
it appears to us to travel that distance in 2/3 of the year. the precise speed is irrelevant, for reasons that we've already discussedI have asked how fast we observe core to ring light to be. No reply.
which is precisely what the video discusses and disprovesSo I raised the possibility that the ring light may have been an event that was carried to earth at greater than present speeds, as a result of the universe change.
this has a huge number of implications, which i can't even begin to wrap my head around. congrats dad, i didn't doubt you for a momentIf that were the case, then the two need to be looked at separately. (ring light and sn to earth light.) That is because the split may have started in some places first, and took some time to be universal.
The other issue is whether or not we even are sure that the light there is present state? (I await the data that we have from core to ring, if any)
again, this is precisely the condition that the video assumesThe other possibility is that the ring to core light may have been faster or slower, but now, all light appears the same, because it now is in this universe state. So, in fact, it does not defeat my point(s)
Well if the facts speak for themselves, there will be no need to think of a better explanation, now will there? It will pan out as being demonstrably PO state. Which is fine. You ain't even there yet.not important, drop it please
can you think of a better explanation for the systematic brightening and darkening of the ring? it's incredibly unlikely that light from the core is not responsible for this, even by your standards
Well, no, it is relevant. Appears is a funny word. You need to do a lot better than that.it appears to us to travel that distance in 2/3 of the year. the precise speed is irrelevant, for reasons that we've already discussed
Well, then you can tell us why as we go along, from that video, no??which is precisely what the video discusses and disproves
this has a huge number of implications, which i can't even begin to wrap my head around. congrats dad, i didn't doubt you for a moment
Well, assume is a funny word. You will need to do better than that to establish this stuff as solid science. Remember, you are at a handicap here, because science messed it up so bad already on this, by not predicting, and predicting wrongly. They scrambled to cook up a cohesive explanation after the fact, but are still missing black holes and neutron stars, etc.again, this is precisely the condition that the video assumes
That was in reference to a type of person. Did you think this was all about you??
If I want to insult you, you will be one of the first to know. But, of course, if the shoe fits, far be it from me to ask you not to wear it.If you want to insult someone, Dad, be man enough to own up to it.
Thanks for pointing that out. But, on the bright side, their little baby math terms and etc
So, PO V factors in here. Surprised, I am not. Just remember to keep the PO V in this universe state, now, at least.
Well, I don't think of forever state light as a wave, is that OK??
But we can think of present light that way, long as we don't go getting into things quantum.
You might save yourself some time if you pay attention. Just a thought.
If I want to insult you, you will be one of the first to know. But, of course, if the shoe fits, far be it from me to ask you not to wear it.
I appreciate that we cannot accurately measure the speed of light 6,000 years ago, and questioning the current understanding that the laws of the universe are constant can only be constructive.I would think it is constant at the moment, in this temporary universe. But, if that has only been here for, say, 4500 years, and the light before was not constant, why, all that we can say is constant is our present light.
It was not our light, in a present state universe that set off.
Well, one assumes that this universe has light that can travel at a certain speed, how would it matter what part of the universe?? What part of a universe would a universe change not affect???
But, I do notice that no one really got into proving that the rings light up as a direct result of the SN core?? That would be a simple cross check, that the far away universe operates the same. Otherwise, some may wonder if only part of the universe is as we claim and know.
Right, that is a present age formula. Now, do you have any for the former state?
Some will, some won't. Abstract still has a basis.
I don't know that it is a number. I don't even know that it can be represented by a number. We do know that we can't really do that in this temporal world we live in. At least I have never seen such a number. I think of infinity as lasting forever, and being beyond limits we know.
Well, that is all pretty complicated stuff. Let's look at a concrete example of how the spiritual works, in a local manifestation. What we would call a miracle. Jesus fed some 15 -20,000 people (5000 men plus women and children) on a few loaves and fishes. One kid's lunch, basically.
lets call the loaves A and the fish B. Now, when the first person grabbed a roll, and scarfed it down, that is A-A. Are you with me so far??? You claim that equals 0!! Well, no, in this case, another 19,000 people had one, two, or maybe 4 rolls each. They ate their fill.Same with the fish.
See, you better go back, and check your foundational assumptions, because your numbers are not even close to the data.
Well, if there is no end to Infinity, how can there be an end of adding to it, if that could be done at all??
Hey, at least you aren't using big complicated numbers here. As explained above, that makes it easier for the average Joe to see where you go wrong.
I don't think it is a number, and, assuming that it could be represented, in the new heavens, by a number, your math doesn't add up anyhow. So, yes, something in your fundamentals is wrong, as applies to the forever state.
I don't do that, and even gave a dictionary definition for infinity. Guess that moots your point.
Of course not. When you try it, it is OK. Got it.
No, infinity is a concept that is out of the fishbowl, that could be why it throws you so.
But one would think they should represent something?
Well, as explained in the loaves and fishes example, present simple is not all it's cracked up to be when we add the forever state spiritual component to it. But, it still really isn't that complicated.
Hope you enjoyed your lesson in the new maths. Now, I think that is a bit off topic.
you're focusing on the wrong thing again. the distance from the ring to the core not only appears to be 2/3 of a lightyear, it is 2/3 of a lightyear. you dropped the idea that light moved a non-uniform speed, remember?Well, no, it is relevant. Appears is a funny word. You need to do a lot better than that.
or you can watch the intro again. i'm in no mood to type it up verbatimWell, then you can tell us why as we go along, from that video, no??
you and the video are assuming the same thing in this instance. you're just looking for excuses to grandstand, now that we're just about past the argument stage of thingsWell, assume is a funny word.
and you will need to do better than inventing hypotheticals if you want to disprove scienceYou will need to do better than that to establish this stuff as solid science. Remember, you are at a handicap here, because science messed it up so bad already on this, by not predicting, and predicting wrongly. They scrambled to cook up a cohesive explanation after the fact, but are still missing black holes and neutron stars, etc.
i think that was the first thread i argued with you in. you failed to convince anyone then, so why do you take it for granted that you're correct now?It isn't just a gaping shotgun hole in the heart of their theories here, it is a black hole. (however imaginary, they are the ones that put it there in their heads)
Well, I simply set out to know the truth, and why science was so wrong. I don't need to be some great one.I appreciate that we cannot accurately measure the speed of light 6,000 years ago, and questioning the current understanding that the laws of the universe are constant can only be constructive.
All you need to provide is a little evidence, and you could be the next Einstein.
Well, what about the dawn of history? Aside from decay dates, that coincides with the timing. What about Dodwell's curve?? That uses data to arrive at the time. What about the bible? Doesn't that count?? What about CMB, would not a universe change leave that?? What about the quantum world, does not that show that there has to be more than the laws we have assumed?? What about the spiritual, is that not a well known part of man's reality? Etc..It would be the biggest shake up of science ever seen.
You know you are right, so if you don't have the evidence, all you need to do is point us all in the right direction and we will endevour to find it for you.
One can question what we really know, arrive at a dead end, and then look to God for a way out.In short, how can you arrrive at this conclusion?
It was doing whatever God wanted. It was not limited by our present laws. The speed of God's will is not fixed, but depends on many things. Some say that, after death, they saw a great light, but it was not a burning light, the sort that hurts the eyes.Do you have any data?
Tells us what light was actually doing, and we'll have a go at working out formulae.
And the meaning of infinity is beyond present description.Perhaps I should explain. The meaning you give to a word can change, but the original concept remains the same, and that's all that matters.
The fish was B. The loaves were A. We are not told the details. But, after all was said and done, there were 12 baskets full that were uneaten, left over. Let us say that there were 100 loaves, and 15 fish in each basket. That means we fed 20,000 people with 5 loaves and I think it was 2 fishes, and had about 1200 loaves, and 180 fish left over!!Sorry, but you're now dealing with loaves and fishes, not with numbers. Suppose the person ate one fish. So we have A - 1. Now, what happened next? Did another fish appear? Then we have A - 1 + 1 = A - no problem.
Well, we took about 21,200 a's from the 5 a's in the above example. And what was left was not )!!! It was 12 baskets full of leftovers. So, there is a higher math.You haven't answered the infinity issue though.
Unfortunately, the fact that 'a - a = 0' is a basic axiom of mathematics. It is required for mathematics to work, and it defines the minus operation. Without it, maths just doesn't work.
Nonsense, it depends. Normally, in this state universe math works. But in a local application of the spiritual, or in the future state, why, today's math is a joke.I ask you what's 5 - 5 and you say, what - it depends whether they're Jesus' fishes or not? Nonsense: 5 - 5 is always 0. Perhaps Jesus miraculously made some new fish, but 5 - 5 is still 0.
Not really. But we can leave it.This is meaningless.
The fundamental that what exists in this temporary state is all there is or was, or will be.I told you you have to know which fundamental. Go for it.
Well, maybe if we bend and contort a number in the box, it seems like it equals any number. But, 2 does not really = 12. Well, show us the number for infinity that leaves 1 as 0.I'd rather go with mathematicians than a dictionary to be honest. As shown above, if infinity is a number, then 1 = 0. (And of course, you can prove that any number equals any other number.
Who says it does?Heh. Try understanding why argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, then you'll understand why it can't apply in matters of definition.
Why, am I talking to the person that thinks he does???Said the person who DOESN'T UNDERSTAND INFINITY?!
What CAN happen in this state universe and what can happen in the forever state are not equal.It's abstract. Don't you even understand what that means? It can represent something but in no way does it happen.
When a university decides to progress from baby math that only includes this temporal state, why, we might talk. Meanwhile, if I want answers, that is the last place I would look.Well, then, you really ought to go to a university and show them all how it's done - we're dying to know. So far, you've asserted that the fundamentals of maths are wrong, and not said anything else. I respectfully decline to share your delusion.
That does not answer the question. The fact that it takes 8 months means squat. Unless we see that the light starts at the core, and works out, for one thing. Then, we need to determine how big the rings are some other way, that how long we assume light took to get there from the core, if indeed it is proved that is where it started.you're focusing on the wrong thing again. the distance from the ring to the core not only appears to be 2/3 of a lightyear, it is 2/3 of a lightyear. you dropped the idea that light moved a non-uniform speed, remember?
I can't think of anything we haven't addressed yet. You?or you can watch the intro again. i'm in no mood to type it up verbatim
But I need evidence for assumptions, to elevate them into actual facts.you and the video are assuming the same thing in this instance. you're just looking for excuses to grandstand, now that we're just about past the argument stage of things
When science stops at the dead end, and only proceeds by hypotheticals, that are invented, nothing needs disproof. Not until first proven!and you will need to do better than inventing hypotheticals if you want to disprove science
Looking at the facts and comparing evidences is not trying to convince people. It is finalizing my own opinion, in a way that looks at both the bible, and all that science actually knows, and does not know.i think that was the first thread i argued with you in. you failed to convince anyone then, so why do you take it for granted that you're correct now?
And Jesus also affects things in the forever state.So, how do you carry over today's math there?? The missing fundamental is Him.Jesus feeding the crowd isn't an example of math being broken since it was Jesus multiplying the fish and bread. 2x1000 = 2000.
Again, it's not a difference in math. If, say, 2 = 1, then you can show that 3 also = 2 and every number equals every other number. This prevents matter from existing and energy and therefore life and everything. It's not a problem with math, it's just that God/Jesus is manipulating the universe. If I, somehow, construct a machine that creates twice the amount of energy I input I haven't proven 2 = 1 I've just manipulated the workings of reality to make extra energy.And Jesus also affects things in the forever state.So, how do you carry over today's math there?? The missing fundamental is Him.
it means everything, if the speed of light was uniform. the light can be moving at any speed at all, and it'll still only travel 2/3 of a lightyear in eight months. the distance that a lightyear measures depends on the speed that light travels at.That does not answer the question. The fact that it takes 8 months means squat.
it does, because that's what we observe, and there is no other reasonable explanation. you keep disputing the fact, but i still haven't seen you explain why it mattersUnless we see that the light starts at the core, and works out, for one thing.
probably impossible because any measurement would require light in some fundamental way, but thankfully comlpetely irrelevantThen, we need to determine how big the rings are some other way
you mean if the speed of light was different, the distance between the core and the rings would be different as well? fantastic point, dad! unfortunately, the video made it firstthat how long we assume light took to get there from the core, if indeed it is proved that is where it started.
since you asked, i have a couple questions that are somewhat unrelated to all of thisI can't think of anything we haven't addressed yet. You?
you agreed with the terms of the video, and the video says you're wrong. i don't see what this has to do with that!But I need evidence for assumptions, to elevate them into actual facts.
you mentioned that creationists do the best with what the have; well, so does science. it bases its conclusions on evidence, and if no evidence is available, then no conclusions are made. every time you have accused a scientific theory of being without evidence, you have been wrongWhen science stops at the dead end, and only proceeds by hypotheticals, that are invented, nothing needs disproof. Not until first proven!
all that you have ever managed to do is establish that scientific theories don't assume a past state, which is perfectly reasonable given that there is no evidence of one. meanwhile, you base your beliefs on the assumption of a 6000 year old universe, which you seem to take entirely for granted. i understand your reasons for doing so, but i don't think i can ever agree with themLooking at the facts and comparing evidences is not trying to convince people. It is finalizing my own opinion, in a way that looks at both the bible, and all that science actually knows, and does not know.
It was doing whatever God wanted. It was not limited by our present laws. The speed of God's will is not fixed, but depends on many things. Some say that, after death, they saw a great light, but it was not a burning light, the sort that hurts the eyes.
And the meaning of infinity is beyond present description.
The fish was B. The loaves were A. We are not told the details. But, after all was said and done, there were 12 baskets full that were uneaten, left over. Let us say that there were 100 loaves, and 15 fish in each basket. That means we fed 20,000 people with 5 loaves and I think it was 2 fishes, and had about 1200 loaves, and 180 fish left over!!
Well, we took about 21,200 a's from the 5 a's in the above example. And what was left was not )!!! It was 12 baskets full of leftovers. So, there is a higher math.
Nonsense, it depends.
The fundamental that what exists in this temporary state is all there is or was, or will be.
Well, maybe if we bend and contort a number in the box, it seems like it equals any number. But, 2 does not really = 12. Well, show us the number for infinity that leaves 1 as 0.
Who says it does?
Why, am I talking to the person that thinks he does???
When a university decides to progress from baby math that only includes this temporal state, why, we might talk. Meanwhile, if I want answers, that is the last place I would look.
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?