Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Will creationists have a problem with this?

Page 6 of 7 [ 99 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Sep 2008, 4:35 pm

chever wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.

The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence ;)


Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence. ;) :P


Why do you have to disprove pseudoscience?


Because it runs rampant currently.



chever
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

10 Sep 2008, 4:37 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
chever wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.

The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence ;)


Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence. ;) :P


Why do you have to disprove pseudoscience?


Because it runs rampant currently.


Yes, but parallax geometry isn't pseudoscience; it's math.


_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

10 Sep 2008, 5:08 pm

chever wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
chever wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.

The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence ;)


Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence. ;) :P


Why do you have to disprove pseudoscience?


Because it runs rampant currently.


Yes, but parallax geometry isn't pseudoscience; it's math.


Yes, trigonometry is math which I've taken. Distance in itself is not the problem, it's whether t=d/r has always been the relevant formula for the transit time of light. Humphrey's model showed that the universe at the beginning of expansion from a singularity would have a great deal of time dilation comparing the center to the edge. Time would run faster the farther the radius from the center of mass. Light would travel at the same rate, but have the time to do so. I could explain more, but I feel even these words might as well as have never been written.



slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

10 Sep 2008, 6:29 pm

Haliphron wrote:
slowmutant wrote:
Haliphron wrote:
Sand wrote:
If God had problems with creating life, why should humans be more lucky?


Because we have the luxury of studying Gods mistakes and learning from them :D


No we don't. That assumes God makes mistakes, and a perfect being can never make mistakes. God is perfection, among other things.



The way God expects us to behave-according to the bible, often is in conflict with our impulses. I mean since God created pleasure, then is it fair to say if it feels good, do it? I mean, O wait! I forgot about Satan :twisted: . Afterall, he created sin and so when we feel the impulse to do something that the bible says we shouldnt its Him playing with our minds. :lol:


Now you're getting it! :)



Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

10 Sep 2008, 7:50 pm

Exactly. Every time you masturbate, God kills a kitten.


_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!


twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

10 Sep 2008, 7:57 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
chever wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
chever wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
greenblue wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Has been accounted for to my satisfaction by Dr Russell Humphreys and Dr John Hartnett.

The thing is that personal satisfaction does not count as evidence ;)


Neither does personal dissatisfaction count as negative evidence. ;) :P


Why do you have to disprove pseudoscience?


Because it runs rampant currently.


Yes, but parallax geometry isn't pseudoscience; it's math.


Yes, trigonometry is math which I've taken. Distance in itself is not the problem, it's whether t=d/r has always been the relevant formula for the transit time of light. Humphrey's model showed that the universe at the beginning of expansion from a singularity would have a great deal of time dilation comparing the center to the edge. Time would run faster the farther the radius from the center of mass. Light would travel at the same rate, but have the time to do so. I could explain more, but I feel even these words might as well as have never been written.

Has Humphrey's model withstood any kind of peer review process?


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Sep 2008, 7:58 pm

And did or did not God not only create Satan but knew very clearly the result? What in the world did God have in mind? (Does He enjoy nasty games?)



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

10 Sep 2008, 8:00 pm

Sand wrote:
And did or did not God not only create Satan but knew very clearly the result? What in the world did God have in mind? (Does He enjoy nasty games?)

Well, I *hear* He's quite a gambler, and that can lead you places you didn't intend...


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Sep 2008, 8:20 pm

A gambler is someone who doesn't know the future and hopes for the best outcome. That doesn't sound possible with a God who is all knowing.



twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

10 Sep 2008, 8:39 pm

Sand wrote:
A gambler is someone who doesn't know the future and hopes for the best outcome. That doesn't sound possible with a God who is all knowing.

Steven Hawking wrote:
On the contrary, it appears that not only does God play dice, but also that
he sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen.


_________________
* here for the nachos.


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Sep 2008, 8:44 pm

What you seem to indicate is that a God who is all seeing is not all seeing.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Sep 2008, 3:13 am

Hawking wasn't referring to the Biblical God,
but even so his statement would only refer to our ability to observe.



DNForrest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,198
Location: Oregon

11 Sep 2008, 3:31 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Yes, trigonometry is math which I've taken. Distance in itself is not the problem, it's whether t=d/r has always been the relevant formula for the transit time of light. Humphrey's model showed that the universe at the beginning of expansion from a singularity would have a great deal of time dilation comparing the center to the edge. Time would run faster the farther the radius from the center of mass. Light would travel at the same rate, but have the time to do so. I could explain more, but I feel even these words might as well as have never been written.


Wouldn't that cause the universe to be even older than it's perceived to be? The gravitational effect on the time flow in the areas near the mass would be perceived to go slower than it actually is on average over the whole of the infinite space. Or is he trying to argue that the perceived time flow is what causes the existence of the solar system to seem to be around 10,000 years old when the universe overall is 6 or more orders of magnitude larger? It seems to me that with the rapid initial rate of expansion, the initial gravitational effects would have only caused a difference of a few minutes at most.

No, I'm not trying to argue either way (I thoroughly believe in people believing what they want to believe), I'm just curious about this model.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Sep 2008, 4:04 am

DNForrest wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Yes, trigonometry is math which I've taken. Distance in itself is not the problem, it's whether t=d/r has always been the relevant formula for the transit time of light. Humphrey's model showed that the universe at the beginning of expansion from a singularity would have a great deal of time dilation comparing the center to the edge. Time would run faster the farther the radius from the center of mass. Light would travel at the same rate, but have the time to do so. I could explain more, but I feel even these words might as well as have never been written.


Wouldn't that cause the universe to be even older than it's perceived to be? The gravitational effect on the time flow in the areas near the mass would be perceived to go slower than it actually is on average over the whole of the infinite space. Or is he trying to argue that the perceived time flow is what causes the existence of the solar system to seem to be around 10,000 years old when the universe overall is 6 or more orders of magnitude larger? It seems to me that with the rapid initial rate of expansion, the initial gravitational effects would have only caused a difference of a few minutes at most.

No, I'm not trying to argue either way (I thoroughly believe in people believing what they want to believe), I'm just curious about this model.


I think you have said that correctly since, in Humphrey's cosmology, this galaxy is supposed to be at or near the center of mass. I don't know the former time dilation from the start of expansion until now. Currently the dilation effect would be minimal, but so would the gravity-well be minimal also.



DNForrest
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,198
Location: Oregon

11 Sep 2008, 4:35 am

If the gravity well was that strong to cause such a difference in time, then wouldn't the blueshift caused by this been so incredibly massive that we would've fried from the perpetual blast of ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma radiation? The expanding galaxy would have had to have been in excessive relativistic speeds for quite a while to cancel out the effect, especially if the gravity well was enough to reduce 10 billion passed years to 10,000 perceived. Also, it seems like the gravity necessary to cause this would have ripped the Milky Way galaxy apart, since if we're near the center, the forced would have been pulling in all directions, and the proximity of the mass required to cause that massive of a gravity well.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Sep 2008, 5:00 am

DNForrest wrote:
If the gravity well was that strong to cause such a difference in time, then wouldn't the blueshift caused by this been so incredibly massive that we would've fried from the perpetual blast of ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma radiation? The expanding galaxy would have had to have been in excessive relativistic speeds for quite a while to cancel out the effect, especially if the gravity well was enough to reduce 10 billion passed years to 10,000 perceived. Also, it seems like the gravity necessary to cause this would have ripped the Milky Way galaxy apart, since if we're near the center, the forced would have been pulling in all directions, and the proximity of the mass required to cause that massive of a gravity well.


Blueshifting would be canceled by the expansion from the white hole. The galaxy wouldn't have existed initially. Currently the density is low. As for the "all directions" bit: what is the exact magnitude of the net acceleration at the exact center of mass of the Earth (or any other planet or star)?