The Laws of the Universe

Tiberius · May 4, 2011

sandwiches said:
The Bible demonstrably exists doesn't it? What more evidence do you need?

lol, perhaps you should have been a creationist. You certainly can argue like one!

Jazer said:
Isn't that what Quantam Physics is? Different laws from regular physics.

No. I'm talking about laws that we have today which operated in a significantly different way (or not at all) in the past. Like saying that a billion years ago, gravity pushed objects away rather than pulling them together. Dad has made the claim that the laws governing the radioactive decay of elements that are today used for radio dating techniques operated differently in the past, meaning that such radio dating techniques give unreliable results.

I have pointed out that if this were the case, then we would get nonsensical results when we compared the results of differentdating techniques performed on one object (which we don't), and I have also pointed out that he has not provided any evidence to support his position. Well, I tell a lie. He has provided (what is to his mind) evidence. When asked for something that supports the idea that the laws which govern the operation of the universe were different in the past, he said "History" and "The Bible." Of course, he gives no explanation as to HOW exactly either history or the Bible shows that the laws were different in the past... He says it HERE.

dad · May 5, 2011

SharpSolaris said:
I might try to calculate for simple objects (I'm not a physicist) such as binary stars or binary pulsar.

We know its mass, radius, speed, etc (Kepler's laws). And we can use the formula:

No! Mass you know...how? Tell us! speed, radius...how?!!!!

g = Fr2 / (m1 m2).

g - gravitational constant

Prove gravity is constant? Otherwise lose the little g in your formula.
M1 and M2 - mass

r2 - distance

Distance depends on our space existing as we know it here all the way to star Forget that!

F2 - force of gravity (calculated knowing rate, mass and other parameters).

Problem is you actually know squat.

But I was wrote a letter to NASA and Roscosmos. Let's will see if they respond.

OK, But they cannot prevail. I KNOW what they base stuff on.

dad · May 5, 2011

Tiberius said:
You know, Dad, I'm still waiting for you to give any reason at all for us to accept your claim that the laws of the universe were different in the past...

You know, Tiberius, I'm still waiting for you to give any reason at all for us to accept your claim that the laws of the universe were the same in the past...

dad · May 5, 2011

Tiberius said:
It's easily measurable. You say that radioactive decay has occurred for as long as the laws of the universe have been the way they are now, and you agree that the decay in that time has been occurring the way we understand it.

Well, the only way for us to see what we see is if the decay has been going on for billions of years.

No. Peleg lived not that long ago. It was in his day likely, that the split occurred. Billions smillions.

It's like if there was a bathtub, and the tap (faucet for those of you in the USA) is only on a little bit, dripping slowly. You can say, "The tap has been dripping like that for ten minutes only, and before that it wasn't dripping at all." And yet, when we look, the bathtub is almost full.

Blather aside, show us how you know how long anything dripped in this state?

It's impossible for a slowly dripping tap to fill a bathtub in ten minutes, just as it is impossible for the amount of decay we see to have occurred in a few thousand years.

All that is impossible is for your imaginary tub to be filled up fast in this state. So?

Then you don't understand the process.

Yes I do. But understanding this state and processes in it cannot help you.

And yet the signs of the stress this would cause in the rocks is absolutely nowhere to be seen.

No idea what you ar talking about. Stress from...???

heck, the heat generated by such movement would probably MELT the continents.

Only in this state which never existed at the time.

What does it matter where or when the origin was? Don't you want to understand the way the world works? The way it worked in the past?

Make up you mind! Which? The way it works or worked??

Tiberius · May 5, 2011

dad said:
You know, Tiberius, I'm still waiting for you to give any reason at all for us to accept your claim that the laws of the universe were the same in the past...

Oh, shifting the burden of proof! Dad, you are the one who is making the claim, so YOU are the one who must support it! Your view is not the default position. Why? because we can see a set of laws in our universe now, and they work, and the universe is exactly as it would appear if the laws that exist now had been operating for billions of years.

On the other hand, you have said it was different in the past, but you can't say how it was different, you have never explained why the universe looks like todays laws have been in effect for billions of years, and you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your view!

dad said:
No. Peleg lived not that long ago. It was in his day likely, that the split occurred. Billions smillions.

Unsupported claim. You want to explain WHY it is likely that the split happened then? Provide some evidence that is testable?

Oh, and the division of the earth that is said to have occurred during the time of Peleg is thought by most (including Archbishop Ussher) to have meant the fall of the tower of Babel, not the physical division of the land. And even if you are right, why is there not a single mention of this anywhere?

Blather aside, show us how you know how long anything dripped in this state?

Date it by other methods. Like if there was a jar of honey spilled by whatever turned the tap on. You can make a similar measurement on the honey, and because the honey flows slower than the water, you can compare them.

However, I fear you are straining the analogy here.

All that is impossible is for your imaginary tub to be filled up fast in this state. So?

I'm trying to show you how radio dating works, since you are obviously ignorant of it.

And I'm trying to show you that if you are right, and the radioactive decay of elements has only occurred in the last few thousand years, then we are seeing a greater amount of decay than could have happened in that time.

Yes I do. But understanding this state and processes in it cannot help you.

lol, you sound like Darth Vader bragging about how strong the dark Side is. But he still lost, didn't he?

No idea what you ar talking about. Stress from...???

Stress from forcing a huge great slab of rock to move really fast.

Only in this state which never existed at the time.

Unsupported claim. You are assuming the thing you are trying to prove.

Make up you mind! Which? The way it works or worked??

The way it worked in the past was the same as the way it worked now.

And again, I'll ask you, PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIMS.

SharpSolaris · May 5, 2011

No! Mass you know...how? Tell us! speed, radius...how?!!!!

Kepler's 3 Law - gives the sum of mass of the binary stars.
If the stars are equal in mass, we know mass of each.
If the masses of stars are not equal, and if we can find the distance p of the total center mass, then we can find the mass of each star.

Measuring stellar masses
===
But I do not see how important this is? Assume gravity is changed. And what is up with that?

Doveaman · May 5, 2011

SharpSolaris said:
But I do not see how important this is? Assume gravity is changed. And what is up with that?

Impossible Dinosaurs.

sandwiches · May 5, 2011

Doveaman said:
Impossible Dinosaurs.

They were possible.

The Solution to the Big Dinosaur Paradox

Jazer · May 5, 2011

Tiberius said:
Like saying that a billion years ago, gravity pushed objects away rather than pulling them together.

Actually gravity is more of a push then a pull. But what about the expanding universe. Some Physicists talk about a contracting Universe. We assume the universe has been expanding now for almost 14 billion years. How do we know that this has been consistant? (As well as the moon receding, and the earth's rotation slowing down.)

Tiberius · May 5, 2011

Jazer said:
Actually gravity is more of a push then a pull. But what about the expanding universe. Some Physicists talk about a contracting Universe. We assume the universe has been expanding now for almost 14 billion years. How do we know that this has been consistant? (As well as the moon receding, and the earth's rotation slowing down.)

gravity is more of a push? You wanna provide a source for that claim? because, seeing as gravity is what PULLS objects towards the earth, PULLS the earth towards the sun and PULLS the sun and solar system towards the milky way galaxy (many thousands of light years), I think gravity's PULLING action is well documented.

Can you provide an example of gravity providing a pushing force?

You mention the expansion of the universe. First, can you demonstrate that gravity is responsible for this expansion? Secondly, we can tell the rate of expansion in the past by looking at distant objects, since the light from them left that object in the past. The redshift of that light tells us what the object was doing at the time that light left it.

Nathan Poe · May 5, 2011

dad said:
No. Peleg lived not that long ago. It was in his day likely, that the split occurred. Billions smillions.

Rubbish. prove it.

Delphiki · May 5, 2011

dad said:
Distance depends on our space existing as we know it here all the way to star

I've pointed this out to you many times, but you still don't get it. If the laws of physics change the further out you go, but at the same time can be observed to cause stars and planets to interact with each other exactly as expected, then the fundamentals of the universe must all be different IN PROPORTION to each other -- thus, being the same thing as not different at all.

What we observe is the same physics out there as here. If even gravity is different at large distances, then every other aspect of the universe appears to be operating in consistent proportion to it. That's the same as no difference at all.

dad · May 6, 2011

Delphiki said:
I've pointed this out to you many times, but you still don't get it. If the laws of physics change the further out you go, but at the same time can be observed to cause stars and planets to interact with each other exactly as expected, then the fundamentals of the universe must all be different IN PROPORTION to each other -- thus, being the same thing as not different at all.

I don't think that is true.

All it would mean is that we can see things from the fishbowl, that are outside the fishbowl.

What causes stars to interact is not known. Not that I am aware. Let's see what you got?

What we observe is the same physics out there as here.

Nope. You try to assign our laws to what we see. That is what you use for all explanations. You have it backwards.

If even gravity is different at large distances, then every other aspect of the universe appears to be operating in consistent proportion to it. That's the same as no difference at all.

No. Firstly, if space is not OUR present state space, distances are not actually known!!

Next, show us a concrete example of what you claim here Name a star that gravity affects? Then tell us how you know it does

dad · May 6, 2011

Tiberius said:
Oh, shifting the burden of proof! Dad, you are the one who is making the claim, so YOU are the one who must support it!

Trying to chicken out of proving the universal homogeneity that so called science claims?

Since my claims are outside the realm of so called science, all that is needed is evidence of the kind that exists, like the records. You need more, especially because your tales oppose the records.

Your view is not the default position. Why? because we can see a set of laws in our universe now, and they work, and the universe is exactly as it would appear if the laws that exist now had been operating for billions of years.

False. You DO NOT see our laws working anywhere beyond the little sphere of earth, that I am aware! You merely assign our laws out there to try to explain things we see.

On the other hand, you have said it was different in the past, but you can't say how it was different, you have never explained why the universe looks like todays laws have been in effect for billions of years, and you have not provided a single shred of evidence to support your view!

It is easy to explain why the universe looks to you like it has the same laws...you FIRST assumed they existed, and then explained all things by that!

Unsupported claim. You want to explain WHY it is likely that the split happened then? Provide some evidence that is testable?

It is likely because the convergence of events in the bible point to that time, especially when coupled with modern science. For example, the continental separation had to be after the flood for the fossil record and dna to make sense.

Oh, and the division of the earth that is said to have occurred during the time of Peleg is thought by most (including Archbishop Ussher) to have meant the fall of the tower of Babel, not the physical division of the land. And even if you are right, why is there not a single mention of this anywhere?

They didn't know. There are a few opinions. Some include the physical division of continents.

Date it by other methods. Like if there was a jar of honey spilled by whatever turned the tap on. You can make a similar measurement on the honey, and because the honey flows slower than the water, you can compare them.

You can't get out of the fishbowl. You only measure honey inside it!

I'm trying to show you how radio dating works, since you are obviously ignorant of it.

Then speak about it. Get on with it man..get to the daughter and parent stuff...etc.

And I'm trying to show you that if you are right, and the radioactive decay of elements has only occurred in the last few thousand years, then we are seeing a greater amount of decay than could have happened in that time.

Nonsense. How would you arrive at that conclusion?? If the daughter materials were already here when the decay started?

lol, you sound like Darth Vader bragging about how strong the dark Side is. But he still lost, didn't he?

Earth calling Tiberius...come back down....

Stress from forcing a huge great slab of rock to move really fast.

Assuming present gravity and laws! No. It wasn't in this state, mostly. (maybe at the tail end)

Unsupported claim. You are assuming the thing you are trying to prove.

dad · May 6, 2011

Nathan Poe said:
Rubbish. prove it.

You want someone to prove when Peleg lived?? The records were somewhat sparse then. This is news? Science can not prove he did or did not.

dad · May 6, 2011

SharpSolaris said:
No! Mass you know...how? Tell us! speed, radius...how?!!!!

Kepler's 3 Law - gives the sum of mass of the binary stars.
If the stars are equal in mass, we know mass of each.
If the masses of stars are not equal, and if we can find the distance p of the total center mass, then we can find the mass of each star.

Measuring stellar masses
===
But I do not see how important this is? Assume gravity is changed. And what is up with that?

To determine how a star is affected by (what they think is) gravity, distance must be known.

For all stars to be equal in mass, you need to know at least one star mass! Far away star that is.

Unless space were the same all the way from here to the star, you cannot use trigonometry, as your link states! How do you know space is present state space all the way??

Tiberius · May 6, 2011

dad said:
I don't think that is true.

Then you are wrong.

What causes stars to interact is not known. Not that I am aware. Let's see what you got?

Just because you do not know it does not mean that it is not known. What happens inside stars is quite well understood, and everything we see in the universe supports the accuracy of the model we have.

If you were right, then our model of stars would NOT match what we see in distant stars. And yet they match perfectly.

Next, show us a concrete example of what you claim here Name a star that gravity affects? Then tell us how you know it does

Here you go. A star being ripped apart by the gravity of a black hole. Oh, and here's another one for you. And another.

How do we know it is being affected by gravity? because it is behaving in excactly the manner that einstein's theory of relativity tells us it will behave when it is being affected by gravity.

Now, let's see you tell us that the theory of relativity is wrong...

dad said:
Trying to chicken out of proving the universal homogeneity that so called science claims?

This is rich. I've provided evidence countless times for my position, yet you have not given anything at all to support yours! Come on, get your act together.

Since my claims are outside the realm of so called science, all that is needed is evidence of the kind that exists, like the records. You need more, especially because your tales oppose the records.

Ah. Outside science. No wonder you can't produce evidence. It's all imaginary, your position.

False. You DO NOT see our laws working anywhere beyond the little sphere of earth, that I am aware! You merely assign our laws out there to try to explain things we see.

If the laws operating way out there are NOT the same as they are here, why do they look like they do? As I've said, what we see happening millions of lightyears away fits in perfectly with what we would expect if the laws operating here were also operating there.

It is easy to explain why the universe looks to you like it has the same laws...you FIRST assumed they existed, and then explained all things by that!

Like I've already said, we look at reality and find that what we see millions of light years away fits in perfectly with what we would expect if the laws operating here were also operating there.

It is likely because the convergence of events in the bible point to that time, especially when coupled with modern science. For example, the continental separation had to be after the flood for the fossil record and dna to make sense.

I asked for TESTABLE evidence. You've given me a vague statement. So go on, be specific, like I've asked you countless times. What DNA evidence makes no sense if you assume an ancient earth, but makes perfect sense when explained by your ideas?

They didn't know. There are a few opinions. Some include the physical division of continents.

So you are saying that while the continents were zipping away at a rate of speedd which would have caused incredible heating and volcanic activity by the sheer friction of moving trillions of tons of rock over other rock... and nobody noticed? And there isn't even any geologic record anywhere of such intense volcanic activity!

You can't get out of the fishbowl. You only measure honey inside it!

*Sigh* Do I need to tell you again that what we observe in the distant universe fits in perfectly with the laws of the universe we see operating in the here and now?

Then speak about it. Get on with it man..get to the daughter and parent stuff...etc.

I've already explained it. Several times. Don't blame me for your ignorance.

Nonsense. How would you arrive at that conclusion?? If the daughter materials were already here when the decay started?

In many cases the daughter material also breaks down. So if A breaks down to B which breaks down to C, then we can look at the ratio of A to B and we can measure it against the ratio of B to C.

Here. Go and read this. Go and actually learn something.

Earth calling Tiberius...come back down....

I think I have more of a right to say that to you...

Assuming present gravity and laws! No. It wasn't in this state, mostly. (maybe at the tail end)

So you are assuming that the laws were different in order to show that the laws were different. Tell me, do you ever get dizzy going in circles like this?

And again, I'll ask you to provide evidence for your position.

Nathan Poe · May 6, 2011

dad said:
You want someone to prove when Peleg lived?? The records were somewhat sparse then. This is news? Science can not prove he did or did not.

Actually, how about proving any of your "Split" blather -- what, how, or when -- pick one.

SharpSolaris · May 6, 2011

dad said:
To determine how a star is affected by (what they think is) gravity, distance must be known.

No.

dad said:
For all stars to be equal in mass, you need to know at least one star mass! Far away star that is.

No. we can find out the sum of mass double stars (m1+m2).

dad said:
Unless space were the same all the way from here to the star, you cannot use trigonometry, as your link states! How do you know space is present state space all the way??

LOL. Then everything is possible. If, Unless... If we have absence of facts, we can build the any castles in the air. =)

dad · May 6, 2011

SharpSolaris said:
SharpSolaris said:

No.

Click to expand...

Then shao us a star where no distance is required rather than saying 'no'!

No. we can find out the sum of mass double stars (m1+m2).

Click to expand...

So when they look at stars, here is one example of what is done..

"Two stars are orbiting each other in a binary system. Star A is 5 AU from the center of mass. Stars B has a mass of 3 solar masses and is 23 AU from the Center of mass. ..[distance is involved here obviously!]

Since both stars are the same mass, the barycenter is the same distance from both of them, exactly in the middle.
Therefore: 20/10 = 10 AU «-------- distance of Barycenter from both stars. [in plain English here for lurkers!]

Now lets find the mass of star B.

M= v^2r/G
M is the mass of the stars in kg
v is the orbital speed of the planet, 23,000 m/s
r is the distance of the planet from the star, .98 AU = 146,606,040,000 meters
G is Newtons universal constant, 6.673 x 10^-11 [oh looky here again distance is involved!]

Center of mass and Binary stars questions? - Yahoo! Answers

There is no mass as we think of it to the star unless it is a physical only body. You do not know that. Your math is religion in this case.

You have a demonstrated chronic case of lack of facts.

The Laws of the Universe

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

in the mind

Re-Created, Not Evolved.

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.

Jazer

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

in the mind

Undefeated!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency