R
rossum
Guest
Well, my degree is in Mathematical Physics, so I did a lot of this stuff during my education. It seems to have stuck, though my tensor algebra is very rusty.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
Noose001
Guest
Because it is consciousness that measures, without consciousness there’s no measuring and there will be no such thing as precision or precision equipment. Reality is nothing more than a measurement or an observation.Sure there is.
When we really try to measure the speed of light with the most precision and training, we all get the same answer.
That means it exists discretely from consciousness.
Time is in you, the life in you and not in the clock or on the precision equipment.
Looking or observing a clock or the precision equipment requires time; the brain collects information through seeing, touch, feeling, tasting, hearing- it takes time (milliseconds) to transfer to the brain which takes time to analyze and give feedback. If time=0, you can not observe because there will be no time to relay info to the brain and that means the observer is dead. Time=0 means death.
If a clock stops or the precision equipment stops, the observer can not die because time itself has not stop and the measuring by consciousness has not stopped. Consciousness gives meaning to the experience of passage of time by observing and we can decide to give the units of this measurement however we like.
I can decide that 2 years are my 1 year and still experience passage of time because time is in me and not outside me.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Your fatal error here is that it’s not defined by you nor specifically for you.I can decide that 2 years are my 1 year and still experience passage of time because time is in me and not outside me.
We create these definitions because we, as a collective species, need the knowledge.
We actually use it - for much more than arguing on the internet!
…
1 Hey man, I need a 3/8ths to tighten down this bolt.
2 Here ya go…
1 That’s a 3/16ths…
2 That is my 3/8ths, maaaan.
1 this is useless…
Last edited:
N
Noose001
Guest
Doesn’t matter, the current is built on the former, and the former is earth dependent and so is the current. Like i said, if life was on Jupiter, the unit we call a second would be different based on the EXPERIENCE OF THE OBSERVER on Jupiter. Clearly, measurement is not so much on the equipment but an experience.I know you didn’t ask me directly, but I can answer these questions.
- It used to be, but is now defined in terms of a number of seconds. Hence the occasional insertion of a “leap second” to keep the defined day roughly in line with the rotation of the earth.
- It used to be, but is now defined in terms of a number of seconds.
- It used to be, but is now defined in terms the transitions of the caesium-133 atom. Specifically, the SI definition of a second is: “the time that elapses during 9,192,631,770 (9.192631770 x 109) cycles of the radiation produced by the transition between two levels of the caesium-133 atom.”
- The speed of light is 299,792,458 metres/second. Effectively 300,000 kilometres per second.
N
Noose001
Guest
Correct, we create not only definitions but also reality.Your fatal error here is that it’s not defined by you nor specifically for you.
We create these definitions because we, as a collective species, need the knowledge.
We actually use it - for much more than arguing on the internet!
…
1 Hey man, I need a 3/8ths to tighten down this bolt.
2 Here ya go…
1 That’s a 3/16ths…
2 That is my 3/8ths, maaaan.
1 this is useless…
Cool, i’ll give you my 3/8ths to tighten your bolt so long us you don’t insist that a 3/8th has always been a 3/8th even before we decided to give it that name or meaning or definition.
And, you can not have 13.8 billion earthly years, 8.3 billion earthly years before even the earth was formed and an earthly year was defined, calculating your figures using earthly dependent rates. You want to shove this to me as a fact?! No.
It’s not the earth that matters but the observer.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Of course you can. An Earth-year is a span of time that itself exists independent of the earth because time is independent of the Earth. We just picked that unit of measurement because it’s more intuitive to us than others at that scale.
N
Noose001
Guest
IOW, we experience passage of time and through this experience we create reality because every observable thing has a time stump. It is real because we can observe it.Of course you can. An Earth-year is a span of time that itself exists independent of the earth because time is independent of the Earth. We just picked that unit of measurement because it’s more intuitive to us than others at that scale.
Now this excludes the supernatural or immaterial things and conditions like darkness.
I’m still waiting for an answer of how you observe darkness as you asserted a few posts before.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Darkness is an absence of light.
Take a space with light. Remove light.
Voila
Take a space with light. Remove light.
Voila
N
Noose001
Guest
Nope. It’s like saying trees are unprocessed furniture; furnitures are emergent from trees.Darkness is an absence of light.
Take a space with light. Remove light.
Voila
Light is the absence of darkness and not the other way round; darkness is not emergent, has no source or is uncreated and is not dependent on anything whereas light is created, has a material source and there’s no light without darkness because light is basically a creation of mind by contrasting the dark.
There’s no sound before there is silence to be contrasted by consciousness.
And you can not observe darkness or measure it, there are no known receptors of darkness to be relayed to the brain. We just understand it is there.
Last edited:
H
Hume
Guest
Cool.
If you want to say that darkness isn’t the absence of light then I’m obviously not on your level of enlightenment.
Have a nice Easter!
If you want to say that darkness isn’t the absence of light then I’m obviously not on your level of enlightenment.
Have a nice Easter!
R
rossum
Guest
No it would not. Caesium-133 is the same on Jupiter as it is on earth. The integers are the same on Jupiter as they are on earth.Like i said, if life was on Jupiter, the unit we call a second would be different based on the EXPERIENCE OF THE OBSERVER on Jupiter.
Alternatively you can give up any idea of a single Bible, since each individual observer sees their own Bible, and judging by the number of different christian denominations, all of those individual Bibles are different. There is no single Bible to which we can all refer.
N
Noose001
Guest
I’m yet to see a Caesium-133 calendar and when we move from Monday to Tuesday, no one cares what Caesium-133 does, we only have to OBSERVE the earth give us day and night and behold, the next day cometh and the calendar date is turned. I’m very sure a calendar based on Jupiter would have so many months regardless of what Caesium-133 does.No it would not. Caesium-133 is the same on Jupiter as it is on earth. The integers are the same on Jupiter as they are on earth.
True, that’s why the bible says:Alternatively you can give up any idea of a single Bible, since each individual observer sees their own Bible, and judging by the number of different christian denominations, all of those individual Bibles are different. There is no single Bible to which we can all refer.
2 Cor 5:7 For we walk by faith, not by sight.
Last edited:
G
Gigantals
Guest
You think the Earth was ok after the Flood? Even after an earthquake, there are aftershocks. The Earth is STILL settling. The rate of tectonic movement has slowed considerably, but even if you go back 4000 years or so to the Flood, Mt Everest would be at least 244m shorter. This isn’t taking into account the slowing of the Earth’s tectonic plates since then (scientists still struggle to understand what is causing them to move in the first place, it’s currently a mixture of ridge push, slab pull and magma plumes, yet are still unable to explain why the rate of tectonic movement was over three times faster in the past). Taking into account the deceleration of the plates since then, every mountain on this Earth was much shorter during the Flood, and continued to grow to their current heights long after the waters receded.
Where’d the water go? Deep underground. Rapid subduction took huge quantities of water into the mantle. In fact, they’ve not only found large quantities of water deep in the crust, but also deep within the Earth. Land is pushed up whilst water is taken down into the Earth. Not hard to see why sea levels are lower. And it does explain the cold slabs in the mantle by the Earth’s core.
Darwin at the time was grieving the death of his daughter. To propose the theory of evolution, which had no theism attached last minute as it has currently, is an atheistic idea. Not only that, but he also attempted to distance science from religion. This sounds like someone who couldn’t understand why God had let his daughter die, which seems to be the basis of every single movie plot about an ex-Christian.
They dated rocks from Mt St Helens and other volcanoes that had erupted in either living memory, or had written records. The results were millions of years old. They can carbon dated dinosaur fossils and soft tissue found in creatures millions of years old. This is impossible. It can’t be an anomaly, because it every single sample found, no matter what ‘time period’ they were found in or location would be contaminated. And this contamination can’t even be explained. Simply calling it a contamination because it doesn’t fit the expected results (which would otherwise result in the rejection of the hypothesis) isn’t a plausible answer. And the fact that there is soft tissue can’t be explained either. Doubting numerous labs that all conclude that there is DNA and other time-dependant degradable organic molecules by claiming there was contamination in the lab is a laugh; when they provide ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ results otherwise.
Where’d the water go? Deep underground. Rapid subduction took huge quantities of water into the mantle. In fact, they’ve not only found large quantities of water deep in the crust, but also deep within the Earth. Land is pushed up whilst water is taken down into the Earth. Not hard to see why sea levels are lower. And it does explain the cold slabs in the mantle by the Earth’s core.
Darwin at the time was grieving the death of his daughter. To propose the theory of evolution, which had no theism attached last minute as it has currently, is an atheistic idea. Not only that, but he also attempted to distance science from religion. This sounds like someone who couldn’t understand why God had let his daughter die, which seems to be the basis of every single movie plot about an ex-Christian.
They dated rocks from Mt St Helens and other volcanoes that had erupted in either living memory, or had written records. The results were millions of years old. They can carbon dated dinosaur fossils and soft tissue found in creatures millions of years old. This is impossible. It can’t be an anomaly, because it every single sample found, no matter what ‘time period’ they were found in or location would be contaminated. And this contamination can’t even be explained. Simply calling it a contamination because it doesn’t fit the expected results (which would otherwise result in the rejection of the hypothesis) isn’t a plausible answer. And the fact that there is soft tissue can’t be explained either. Doubting numerous labs that all conclude that there is DNA and other time-dependant degradable organic molecules by claiming there was contamination in the lab is a laugh; when they provide ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ results otherwise.
G
Gigantals
Guest
Evolution has facts to support it? Then why is it still a theory? Evolution has had 170 years to makes it’s point. We’ve had billions of fossils found. Transitional forms switch out faster than dresses at a fashion show. When will something concrete be provided that doesn’t need to be changed? Last I checked, there were no more models of the solar system being formed (though, to be honest, the technology required to prove the stellar parallax for heliocentricity was only made last century, so I can forgive them for taking so long). In this day and age, why hasn’t evolution been able to do the same? If out technology is too primitive, then it’s no surprise. We will never truly be able to bring our imagination to life regardless of how many supercomputers and VR machines we have.
Uniformitatianism is the most ridiculous concept in geology. The idea of conditions being constant over any period of time is absurd no matter what name or science it is buried under. Assuming things remained constant over 6650 years is much more realistic than 4.6 billion years (which is still a ridiculous claim and we refuse to accept). Claiming that the rates of decay are constant because it fits the old Earth model, by propping it up with 3 assumptions just leads to another, larger assumption. Polonium halos in granite point to a much faster date of decay in the past (and a faster decay rate supports the Flood model and the following Ice Age perfectly).
Enzymes and proteins aren’t the problem? Did they just spontaneously appear (abiogenesis was disproven, by the way)? A protein will break down in water as the peptide bonds are broken through hydrolysis. The warmer the water, the faster. Which is why meat becomes tender after boiling it. Without any protection, amino acids will never be able to form any large enough structure. This rules out any water-based formation. Unless, of course, an intelligent mind (such as a scientist) creates specific conditions that allow them to form something larger. But I don’t think the Earth was the inside of a lab all those years ago. I mean, Miller-Urey was proven wrong. They got the chemical composition of the atmosphere wrong. Oxygen was not present that early. And the sheer amount of organics molecules needed to start making things connect would have long since depleted all the necessary compounds (at that time); which would be already reduced through homochirality. We’re talking about a 10% organic matter solution across the oceans required for abiogenesis through molecular means. This isn’t plausible. Miller-Urey had to stop their experiment early because the sugars and alcohol being produced were interfering with amino acid synthesis. This isn’t the ordered, controlled conditions inside a cell. This was a self-destructive toxic soup.
Uniformitatianism is the most ridiculous concept in geology. The idea of conditions being constant over any period of time is absurd no matter what name or science it is buried under. Assuming things remained constant over 6650 years is much more realistic than 4.6 billion years (which is still a ridiculous claim and we refuse to accept). Claiming that the rates of decay are constant because it fits the old Earth model, by propping it up with 3 assumptions just leads to another, larger assumption. Polonium halos in granite point to a much faster date of decay in the past (and a faster decay rate supports the Flood model and the following Ice Age perfectly).
Enzymes and proteins aren’t the problem? Did they just spontaneously appear (abiogenesis was disproven, by the way)? A protein will break down in water as the peptide bonds are broken through hydrolysis. The warmer the water, the faster. Which is why meat becomes tender after boiling it. Without any protection, amino acids will never be able to form any large enough structure. This rules out any water-based formation. Unless, of course, an intelligent mind (such as a scientist) creates specific conditions that allow them to form something larger. But I don’t think the Earth was the inside of a lab all those years ago. I mean, Miller-Urey was proven wrong. They got the chemical composition of the atmosphere wrong. Oxygen was not present that early. And the sheer amount of organics molecules needed to start making things connect would have long since depleted all the necessary compounds (at that time); which would be already reduced through homochirality. We’re talking about a 10% organic matter solution across the oceans required for abiogenesis through molecular means. This isn’t plausible. Miller-Urey had to stop their experiment early because the sugars and alcohol being produced were interfering with amino acid synthesis. This isn’t the ordered, controlled conditions inside a cell. This was a self-destructive toxic soup.
N
Noose001
Guest
No, you can’t say that, seriously you can’t. Think about it.darkness isn’t the absence of light
G
Gigantals
Guest
If God can’t be observed or tested through scientific means (since He is beyond the Material Realm), then why are you trying to understand His Miracles like this? If you try to understand His Miracles through science, you will find no answer that includes God. God is supernatural. So are His Miracles. The answer to these is literally ‘God did that’. And that’s ok (atheists also acknowledge the supernatural, but don’t call it God; just violations of the laws of thermodynamics on a photonic level). Because God is not some level of scientific understanding of the universe that can be achieved through knowing everything; we’re not pantheists. Watching someone trying to explain how the Resurrection through science is a laugh. It will never be explained. If someone ‘did’ explain it, there would be no God in it. It would just be some trick or magic act to fool a group of people. And that’s what’s happening here.
Atheists think they will be able to disprove God by explaining away everything. And they’re right. Why? Because a God that can be explained through natural means is not supernatural. He is limited by the laws of this universe. Which would remove His Omnipotence. Understanding everything (whether it’s one person or a database doesn’t matter, the fact that everything in the universe is know by it’s inhabitants is important here) in the universe through science would remove His Omniscience. And some excuse would be made to explain away His Omnipresence. These three aspects are what make God ‘God’. What would He be without them?
And this all starts with His miracles. Proving they are nothing but natural (even if you claim there is a God directing them, you’d just trap yourself; because you claim there is a God yet you can’t prove it) is the first step. Undermining and ‘explaining’ them leads to atheists reaching the same level as us. And then people will drift away. If you claim God guided Theistic evolution, what stops an Atheist removing the ‘Theistic’ and claiming there is no God by using evolution? You have nothing that separates you from them, and that is why there is a crisis of faith at present. All God becomes then is just an idea in a small group of people.
You can’t prove God in any way, because His actions on this Earth have been explained away, with a ‘natural’ explanation behind them. God is within the unexplained. He is beyond our understanding. That’s why Thomas Aquinas stopped writing the Summa Theologica. He had a revelation, and realised he would never be able to understand God. His work in metaphysics trying to understand angel physiology showed he truly was a genius, but this was beyond him. And that unfathomability is what makes all attempts to explain God and His Miracles pointless. If they can be explained, then they aren’t centred around God.
So you’re right, God can’t be explained. And that’s why His Miracles can’t be explained. You can try to understand His Works, no problem. But His Miracles are just as supernatural and beyond us as He is. There is no point in trying to understand them through the laws of science that He wrote Himself. Because a coder cannot be governed by the code they wrote.
Atheists think they will be able to disprove God by explaining away everything. And they’re right. Why? Because a God that can be explained through natural means is not supernatural. He is limited by the laws of this universe. Which would remove His Omnipotence. Understanding everything (whether it’s one person or a database doesn’t matter, the fact that everything in the universe is know by it’s inhabitants is important here) in the universe through science would remove His Omniscience. And some excuse would be made to explain away His Omnipresence. These three aspects are what make God ‘God’. What would He be without them?
And this all starts with His miracles. Proving they are nothing but natural (even if you claim there is a God directing them, you’d just trap yourself; because you claim there is a God yet you can’t prove it) is the first step. Undermining and ‘explaining’ them leads to atheists reaching the same level as us. And then people will drift away. If you claim God guided Theistic evolution, what stops an Atheist removing the ‘Theistic’ and claiming there is no God by using evolution? You have nothing that separates you from them, and that is why there is a crisis of faith at present. All God becomes then is just an idea in a small group of people.
You can’t prove God in any way, because His actions on this Earth have been explained away, with a ‘natural’ explanation behind them. God is within the unexplained. He is beyond our understanding. That’s why Thomas Aquinas stopped writing the Summa Theologica. He had a revelation, and realised he would never be able to understand God. His work in metaphysics trying to understand angel physiology showed he truly was a genius, but this was beyond him. And that unfathomability is what makes all attempts to explain God and His Miracles pointless. If they can be explained, then they aren’t centred around God.
So you’re right, God can’t be explained. And that’s why His Miracles can’t be explained. You can try to understand His Works, no problem. But His Miracles are just as supernatural and beyond us as He is. There is no point in trying to understand them through the laws of science that He wrote Himself. Because a coder cannot be governed by the code they wrote.
G
Gigantals
Guest
Ok, that’s all three of them
R
rossum
Guest
You need to learn more about science. Theories are not facts; theories explain the facts. The theory of Gravity explains the facts of gravity. Once we used Newton’s theory. Then Newton’s theory was replaced by Einstein’s theory because it explained the facts better.Evolution has facts to support it? Then why is it still a theory?
Evolution happens, that is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how evolution happens. If you can provide a better theory, as Einstein did for gravity, then you will be in line for a Nobel Prize. However, you new theory has to explain everything that the old theory explains and also explain some things that the old theory did not.
In summary:
- Gravity-as-fact: things fall down.
- Gravity-as-theory: things fall down because…
G
Gigantals
Guest
Well, the current understanding is that the World pre-Flood was much warmer than present, like a greenhouse. All that decay in the core kept the Earth nice and warm. The reason why it wasn’t too warm was due to the large subterranean ocean deep in the crust. Just as how the oceans today help regulate the Earth’s temperature, these massive bodies of water helped do this too.
Problem is, super-continents are terrible when it comes to maintaining planet temperature (in secular models, they always break apart shortly after they form because they become too warm). So when the Flood started, the heat from the radioactive core caused the supercontinent to fracture. And this was helped by several asteroids. Shock Dynamic Theory believes that a large impact just North of the Seychelles several million years ago fractured the tectonic plate there, and changed the direction of continental drift. This is more than likely caused by the Shiva bolide, which was the big brother of the Chicxulub and Bolytsh bolides (whether these specific impacts came earlier or later isn’t too important; these show there was colossal asteroid bombardment).
With the splitting of the Earth’s crust, the Fountains of the deep opened. And all that hot water came up (though the video I put in an earlier comment explains what happened during the Flood itself better). All the rich ecosystems were destroyed and mass buried, and in those warmer conditions under all that warm water and above the warmer land; they would become fossil fuels (there’s a nice report on how the Kentucky coal beds were formed from a massive log mat during a large flood event). These large bodies of hot water would have formed hypercanes, creating large-scale rainfall. Thanks to the two different bodies of water’s temperatures’, such hot water wouldn’t have necessarily mixed with the surrounding cooler water (like a bubble). This would form controlled regions of hot water only a short distance away from their source, with the hypercanes only forming above them to quickly spread the heat and water away (that’s why hurricanes form after all, to transfer heat from the Equator).
With the entire planet covered in water, heat was lost VERY quickly (volcanic activity was still ongoing, there would still be plenty of ash blotting out the sun). The planet cooled, and slowly the energy required to maintain the ferocity of tectonic activity it was undergoing was lost. This was also helped by the rapid subduction of water into the mantle along with entire tectonic plates (hence the large cold slabs in the mantle near the core, and the fact that magma can only exist in the presence of water; and magma had been found deep within the Earth. The sheer amount of heat lost into space would’ve been incredible.
The more water taken into the mantle, the more the cooling. And this cooling helped set up the resulting ice age which lowered the sea levels. The sea level rise we’re currently experiencing will never be as high as the Flood was, because a lot of that water is too deep within the Earth. And the uplifted land wasn’t present before.
Problem is, super-continents are terrible when it comes to maintaining planet temperature (in secular models, they always break apart shortly after they form because they become too warm). So when the Flood started, the heat from the radioactive core caused the supercontinent to fracture. And this was helped by several asteroids. Shock Dynamic Theory believes that a large impact just North of the Seychelles several million years ago fractured the tectonic plate there, and changed the direction of continental drift. This is more than likely caused by the Shiva bolide, which was the big brother of the Chicxulub and Bolytsh bolides (whether these specific impacts came earlier or later isn’t too important; these show there was colossal asteroid bombardment).
With the splitting of the Earth’s crust, the Fountains of the deep opened. And all that hot water came up (though the video I put in an earlier comment explains what happened during the Flood itself better). All the rich ecosystems were destroyed and mass buried, and in those warmer conditions under all that warm water and above the warmer land; they would become fossil fuels (there’s a nice report on how the Kentucky coal beds were formed from a massive log mat during a large flood event). These large bodies of hot water would have formed hypercanes, creating large-scale rainfall. Thanks to the two different bodies of water’s temperatures’, such hot water wouldn’t have necessarily mixed with the surrounding cooler water (like a bubble). This would form controlled regions of hot water only a short distance away from their source, with the hypercanes only forming above them to quickly spread the heat and water away (that’s why hurricanes form after all, to transfer heat from the Equator).
With the entire planet covered in water, heat was lost VERY quickly (volcanic activity was still ongoing, there would still be plenty of ash blotting out the sun). The planet cooled, and slowly the energy required to maintain the ferocity of tectonic activity it was undergoing was lost. This was also helped by the rapid subduction of water into the mantle along with entire tectonic plates (hence the large cold slabs in the mantle near the core, and the fact that magma can only exist in the presence of water; and magma had been found deep within the Earth. The sheer amount of heat lost into space would’ve been incredible.
The more water taken into the mantle, the more the cooling. And this cooling helped set up the resulting ice age which lowered the sea levels. The sea level rise we’re currently experiencing will never be as high as the Flood was, because a lot of that water is too deep within the Earth. And the uplifted land wasn’t present before.
R
rossum
Guest
And those carbon dates come out to around 30,000 years old.They can carbon dated dinosaur fossils and soft tissue found in creatures millions of years old.
Are those dates right? If so then the YEC 6,000 year timescale is obviously wrong. A 6,000 year old earth cannot have a 30,000 year old fossil.
Are those dates wrong? Then we can ignore them because they are wrong. We cannot make reliable deductions from false data. If the dates are wrong then you are unable to draw any valid conclusions from those dates.
You pick. Are the dates right or are they wrong?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.