neil_

Sculelos, first of all, nice to meet you. Especially since you apparently are, like me, a geocentrist. I really don’t know where exactly did you get all that, but I’m very much interested. Looking forward. Thanks. I’m very much interested in this too. Firstly, it’s Newtonian gravitation, not gravity (to be accurate). Secondly, it’s indeed very easy to show how electromagnetism beats gravitation (or gravity) by many orders of magnitude. At this point, Newton & Einstein fans usually claim further radius for gravity. Actually, the entire universe (and then some!). Which, of course, they never prove, they only claim it. Meanwhile of course, the real universe proves gravity wrong (expansion!).

So you call geocentrism as not “scientifically sound”, while you call your universe (the big bang universe) as “scientifically sound”. I understand. Now you tell me, how can a universe of which 95% are fictional things (by definition!) be scientific (let alone “scientifically sound”)? Because in your universe, the real things (the 5% - the real matter, the real energy) doesn’t work UNTIL you postulate those completely fictional things. Now, is there anything else you’d like to know? Now this is extremely funny. Because all we can see is microevolution (variation). Not a single human EVER has seen macroevolution. And yet you claim macroevolution. If that’s not faith, I don’t know what is… Evolution is not science, simply because is not observable, testable, repeatable. Moreover, as Popper showed, is not falsifiable and therefore is not science, according to YOUR definition. Claim differently all you want, it won’t make you right.

You’ll be even more. Just stick around. Indeed, why to bother to google things instead of just claiming what you want? So there you are, comfy in your armchair, puffing your cigar and enjoying your brandy, proudly claiming your false universe: the balloon universe. A balloon exactly like those seen raised by kids in parks. Only that in yours, there is nothing inside, and nothing outside… Tell me, do you really call this science? Regardless, I already gave a link (in the thread “For those that believe in the Big Bang…” – last page) clearly showing that that universe (your universe) does not exist. I understand if you conveniently skip it. As to Einstein and GPS, of course you would claim what you had been WRONGLY taught in your schools. In fact, Einstein is unable to explain things in regard to GPS operation. Here, let me educate you, since googling is apparently too much for you: http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_1843.pdf (you may also want to read his book and his other scientific papers dealing with Einstein – that is, proving Einstein wrong on multiple topics) Let me put it this way: on one side it’s you and all the other theorists in the world (none of them ever checking their own claims in reality). On the other side it’s the people who actually made GPS work (including and actually foremost Ronald Hatch – by the way, GPS wouldn’t work without his PERSONAL patents). Now you tell me, who wins? Because, let me share with you of a basic thing: GPS actually works – and it doesn’t do it in conformity with Einstein’s theories of relativity. In other words, according to Einstein, GPS shouldn’t work… Oh, and I think people like you should REALLY read this (it speaks about Hatch too): http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_supr.htm And after you’re done with this link, why don’t you find by yourself THOUSANDS more of such links (tell me if you’re again too lazy). After you’re done with them, well, welcome to REALITY. It would have taken you some time but you’ll be finally awake. I understand if you choose to ignore all the evidence I have given so far. I mean, you surely wouldn’t want your universe to be proven to not exist, so you stick your head in the sand. I can understand that. However, let’s for the moment ignore, both of us, all that contrary evidence (should be easy for you, since you already have done that). So I’m waiting for you to PROVE (not claim, but to actually prove) gravity in the universe (let’s say beyond our solar system). Looking forward. And I remind you, just as I did to ‘alphaparticle’, that there’s a Nobel prize involved, so you should be motivated enough. The Earth is indeed fixed. I suppose soon I’ll have to address this, since I’m growing tired with all you nonbelievers. I’ve delayed that, since it would require my exclusive attention (that is, not replying to other things at all - no time). But it’s coming soon. In a city near you. You still haven’t proved your universe, while I have already disproved it in already several ways (and I will in several more). So talk all you want, all you have is empty talk. You know what, I’m sick of atheists claiming that reason is actually with them, and not with the believers. So here is me giving you a chance to actually stand before what you claim (reason). Let’s start easy: why exactly do you think you (and all the atheists in the world) can understand the universe? Because let me bring reason to you: you simply can’t claim you have understood the universe if the primary question is left unanswered: why exactly do you think you can EVER understand the universe? Looking forward. No, I don’t get angry with caps. Some use bold, some use caps (faster!) – to underline an idea. It’s that simple. But you tell me: why do you get angry by NOT using caps? You’ll eventually get it.

I really don’t understand what you’re talking about. Again, that text of mine (quoted by GE) had NOTHING to do with you – or any YEC. It was about evolution (in several of its forms).

I didn’t say or even think otherwise. Moreover, I really don’t understand how exactly is that connected to the topic I discussed in the quoted text. By the way, to my surprise I couldn’t find, upon my return, this thread: “Can any evolutionist provide a single fact without an assumption…?” Deleted? An entire thread? I find that very strange. Could you please explain? Thanks. Sure here it is... From the WCF Terms of Service (Board Rules) This is a privately funded message board, we reserve the right to edit or remove any postings that we feel are detrimental to the fellowship on this board, or detrimental to the witness of the board, as we see fit. It is not possible to read every post. If you see a board violation, please report it using the “Report Post” button.

I find it VERY interesting that evolutionists take YECs as easy prey (moreover, they usually call them as fools and uneducated). However, each time a YEC shows scientific evidence in support of their view, nothing happens. No replies whatsoever… So, AGAIN, it’s not about science. It’s about religion (yes, to believe in a universe without God is nothing but FAITH). And only one religion CAN be true. Would you guess which one?

Other one, nice pic. And motto too...

And I thank you for your honesty and him for thanking you. Nice to deal with this kind of people, for a change. Well, I certainly don’t talk for the sake of talking. Since you exclude any possible result, then it’s obvious we SHOULDN’T talk about that. I think you believe too much in man. I think it’s time for you to believe in God, instead. And by the way, a geocentric model is exactly what they used. That is, of course, assuming they were there in the first place. A thing I’m not so sure about. But it doesn’t bother me, either.

I’m sorry to say no. Anyway, a universe larger than the observable universe is UNPROVABLE BY DEFINITION. So, we’re talking about nothing. Inflation was meant to solve several problems, not just that. It’s hard to say what was Guth’s focus. Especially since current inflation theory is not Guth’s. Theoretically. Practically, it’s only 13.3 bly. Currently… That is, only if you want to admit all the assumptions they make for stellar distances, in the first place.

Well, it’s not a problem for me, so your sentence is wrong. One way to solve that is to further develop Joao Magueijo’s idea. Another is to attack the formal foundation for stellar distances. Quite easy to do, since for example no one is able to explain the negative parallaxes. Nor that the basis for the initial calculation (the diameter of Earth’s presumed orbit) is actually real - and if it’s not real, the universe suddenly becomes more than 20000 times smaller. And yet another is this: the Bible says God stretches the heavens (expansion). For example: Job 9:8 He alone stretches out the heavens, and treads on the waves of the sea. Psalms 104:2 You are clothed with light as with a robe; stretching out the heavens like a curtain Isaiah 44:24 I am the Lord who makes all things; stretching out the heavens by myself, and giving the earth its limits; who was with me? And many more instances. But the Bible also says God stretched the heavens. Since it doesn’t say “has stretched”, “stretched” must refer to the Creation days. For example, he made the space near Earth, and stretched it throughout. And He made the celestial objects near Earth and then He threw them away, into distant places, with their light trailing, always pointing towards Earth (the point of focus in a Biblical universe). Or He made the celestial objects and only then stretched FTL the space. So there you are: billions of light years as distance in a thousands of years timeframe. All cosmic events are preserved, only pushed away from Earth. What about scientific evidence, is there any in support of this? Yes: the expansion started rather close to Earth (if you correct for a 6000 years expansion age, you’d get even closer): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.1148v1.pdf

I didn’t’ say that. Which, even true, would still say farewell to a billions-of-years-old universe - just as I said. So, what is it exactly you wanted to say? Moreover, millions of years are not enough even for biological evolution, let alone geological evolution, let alone cosmic evolution and chemical evolution.

No, I’m not sure I would phrase it like that. But I’m not sure how exactly I would phrase it. That has always puzzled me. If anyone has a pertinent answer, looking forward - and thanks.

I forgot something: I don’t know how many times to tell this: I didn’t claim otherwise. Hence the word I used: game. If both Dirac and Schrodinger would say the same thing, what exactly COULD be the game?

I thought I already showed there’s no such thing called spacetime. Your faith in man’s imagination is indeed strong… And since you speak so much about gravity, why don’t you actually prove it. Let’s say anywhere beyond the solar system. Looking forward with much interest. To motivate you: there’s a Nobel prize waiting… Why? Especially since the formal cosmology is built exactly on expansion. Even the concept of “big bang” loudly speaks of one thing, and one thing alone: expansion. So why to ignore exactly the most important thing of them all? But your situation is not only ironical, it’s actually paradoxical. Let me show you a rule and then exemplify: with X you don’t have a universe (your universe, the formal universe, is shown wrong); without the same X, you again don’t have a universe (your cosmology is again shown wrong). Examples: let’s start with expansion, since you chose to ignore it. With expansion you don’t have a universe (should have been decelerated); without expansion you again don’t have your universe (and not even the concept of “big bang”). Another example: with inflation you don’t have a universe (because it’s exactly inflation that’s responsible for some things that flagrantly violate the cosmological principle, for example the huge cosmic voids); without inflation you again don’t have a universe (without inflation, to the list of the problems of big bang, you have to add many others, including, since we already mentioned this, the flatness problem). Yet another example: without dark matter you don’t have a universe (certainly not a gravitational one); with dark matter you still don’t have a working universe (you are forced to postulate the existence of other universes to explain many things, including why gravity is the weakest force in this universe). What “inflationary force” could you be possibly talking about? And buddy, inflation ended long time ago - at the beginning, actually…. No, I don’t see it. And neither do you. Do you know why? Because, among other reasons, you had to fabricate five times more matter to make it work, that’s why. And speaking of that, tell me, how exactly would Newton stand if you have multiply existing matter to have the same gravitation? And how would Einstein stand? In other words: when you calculate orbits for example in our solar system, do you add the missing mass? If yes, then the equations are wrong. If not, why not? What is dark matter after all, a white rabbit to be pulled out only when it’s convenient? I mean, make up your mind once and for all, so that we all know what you’re speaking about: does dark matter exist? Yes or no. If it exists, then you should consider it AT ALL TIMES (meaning farewell to both Newton and Einstein). If it doesn’t, then stop claiming it does - and moreover explain those observations regarding the galaxies. Meanwhile… well, it’s no: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-dark-theories-mysterious-lack-sun.html But being “no” brings you yet other problems, like for example the space would not be flat - which is contrary to observations… So whatever you do, you don’t have a working universe. Isn’t that interesting? This kind of thing happens, you know, when one chooses to follow his or her imagination, instead of dealing with the real universe… And speaking of imagination, 95.1% of your universe is imaginary by definition. Do you know why? Prove it. Really looking forward. Did I mention a Nobel prize? I think firstly they should establish the existence of spacetime, wouldn’t you agree? They have failed to show the existence of spacetime in the first place. So tell me, why are we talking about a non-existent “thing”? That’s strange, since others have determined their INvalidity on all scales… That’s what I’ve been talking so much (in regard to spacetime) and nobody listened… They ALREADY failed to detect them. That’s the point: why to keep a non-existent thing (spacetime) in play, if you have no proof for it? Why exactly would I even mention such an absurd thing? Buddy, it is you, not me, who’s forced to appeal to other universes to keep your theories in play (because THIS universe shows those theories to be wrong). I’m sorry too, I don’t know what more to say to that point. And an announcement: today is the last day I’m able to post here for a week or so.

You should be certain. Nice to meet you, by the way. Then I don’t want to be a fool. In other words: don’t worry, I won’t try convincing you otherwise. Your loss. But I am nevertheless curious: why exactly would I have to prove that the Earth doesn’t rotate, instead of you proving that it does rotate?

Nice to meet you. And I entirely agree. So, extreme irony, a world full of evolutionists doesn’t prove evolution right - instead, it proves the Bible right !!

Tell me, how exactly reading ABOUT him, and reading ABOUT his book (and perhaps ABOUT his scientific papers), CAN enlighten you who’s right: Hatch or the mainstream? You know what, Jdavis? I’ve had it with you. I find that I was insulted quite enough by you (not only in this thread), so that’s it. Please stop addressing my posts, and I will stop addressing your posts. Thank you. And by the way, the fact that you CANNOT allow for any critical view against mainstream clearly PROVES that it actually is NOT about the science. Had it been so, you would have jumped off your seat in enthusiasm in your life long journey of searching for knowledge. Instead, what do we see? That you call critics of the mainstream paradigms as uneducated, that (s)he doesn’t know what (s)he’s talking about, that (s)he’s lazy (instead of admitting that you are in fact the lazy one), etcetera. Because mainstream simply can’t be wrong - can it? Don’t answer, I already said I will ignore you. Bye.

You said cosmology is a hobby for you. Don’t you know your own hobby? Anyway, read for example this: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/olbers.html By the way, almost all that’s on that page is WRONG (that is, according to mainstream!). I especially liked number 5, which clearly says goodbye to a billions of years old universe (which he advocates only a few paragraphs below that!). Another extremely funny (and WRONG) thing: “We live inside a spherical shell of "Observable Universe" which has radius equal to the lifetime of the Universe. Objects more than about 13.7 thousand million years old (the latest figure) are too far away for their light ever to reach us.” That’s going against the big bang universe at the highest degree, since the radius of the formal observable universe is more than 3 times that figure. This fellow really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But that’s not actually a surprise, since he’s a big bang supporter… I think I gave enough evidence for anyone to steer clear of University of California…

Completely wrong. In fact, Einstein’s relativity (both of them) is unable to explain things. Why don’t you google Ronald Hatch GPS. You’ll eventually find his scientific papers (or his book) on the topic. You should read them, since this fellow actually had to make the GPS to work. He even has personal patents in it. Let me put it another way, so you’ll understand: without Hatch, GPS wouldn’t work.

Gravity loses at all times. Hence not only the expansion, but even worse for you: an accelerated expansion. Not to mention that, in the conditions of expansion, gravity shouldn’t exist in the first place (hence another strong argument for Creation, if one wants to keep gravity in play, and I personally don’t). Matter is ALWAYS dissipated by expansion, not gathered together to form anything (a planet, a star, whatever). In other words, cosmic evolution is disproved by the simple fact of expansion. Regardless of this and that, no one has ever proved that there indeed is gravity in cosmic space. No one - ever. It is only claimed it is. That’s why I am cautious and therefore tend to resume what we call gravity to Earth. Especially since there are no gravitational waves. A fact that not only clearly shows that the universe is not gravitational, but also shows general relativity to be false (via the non-existence of space-time, or directly as a gravitational theory). Furthermore, no one has ever proved that gravity (if exists) works at distance. It is only claimed it does. Therefore, any gravitational theory CANNOT be science. No need. Expansion does the job. Wrong. Don’t mistake the formal cosmology for other cosmologies. Regardless, cosmology is NOT “the study of General Relativity”. General relativity is only the technical describer of the formal cosmology (aka big bang). And it’s wrong anyway – for example, because the universe doesn’t obey your cosmological principle. On large scales gravity doesn’t work. Strange enough, on small scales doesn’t work either (see lunar orbit anomaly, for example). Moreover, even in YOUR cosmology (big bang) the space is flat, so not sure what you meant above about geometry. It would have been nice for you, instead of calling me crazy, to actually call for evidence. That would have been scientific, wouldn’t it? What you’re talking about is only propaganda. I think I already suggested to you (or to another) to check out sources proving Einstein relativity tests wrong, not just those claiming it “passed every test with flying colors”. Having an exclusive point of view and excluding all the contrary either interpretations or evidence is certainly not scientific. For example, MMX. Are you even aware of alternative explanations? How about a later one, Hafele-Keating. Claimed as proof for Einstein, have you even bothered to read what Essen said on that? You should have, since he’s the one who invented those atomic clocks. So if he said it the experiment didn’t work, then it didn’t work, no matter what YOU say – and all the other Einstein’s fans in the world, be them billions. And you should read Essen to find out WHY it didn’t work. The old Dirac-Schroedinger game. Oh yes. Buddy, I didn’t say otherwise. What I said is that QM contradicts especially general relativity (hence the desperation in mainstream for a theory of everything). And there are also papers showing that special relativity fails too. For example this one: http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4253 Even more, the paper shows the existence of ether, the non-existence of flat (special relativity) space-time (the curved, general relativistic, space-time doesn’t exist because the gravitational waves don’t exist), and also shows a way to experimentally distinguish between Lorentz theory and Einstein’s special relativity (which, according to mainstream, is impossible). Not only that, but the paper shows Lorentz theory to be true and special relativity to be false. Each and every time you “date” a rock (geological evolution) or a fossil (biological evolution) in order to prove an old age and therefore evolution, you show chemical evolution as false. Because those radiometric things you use for dating are always DECAYING (they are not progressing in the periodic table, on the contrary). Regardless the scale, what we see all the time is a decaying universe – just the opposite of an evolutionary universe.

OneLight and GoldenEagle, thank you for trying to bring some sense here. It apparently worked. FresnoJoe, I think God loves you so much… God created mortality? I find that strange. What’s certain from my Bible is that God didn’t intend for mankind (or animals etc.) to die. That was (wo)man’s choosing. I agree - and apologize. What would you like to know? google “the most profound problem”. Congrats. I have personally read tens of cosmologies. Some starting out from one point alone. For example, why doesn’t the night sky blind us. Having said that, I found geocentrism to be the most consistent one. By far.

Buddy, it is you who have no idea "what the words "prove" and "proof" mean". Hence your blind faith in evolution. And hence your inability to give me an actual size for your universe.

That’s quite funny. Because of the very name of the standard cosmological model… Agreed. However, ironically, most of the real matter is, by far, by VERY far, plasma. Yet the universe is taught in schools as gravitational… And the weakest of them all, by many orders of magnitude, is gravity. And yet they teach this universe as being gravitational… I think that was the point Sculelos was trying to make. Regardless, there was no cambrian. What evolutionists call cambrian (fossil) explosion is actually evidence of the Flood. Actually, GPS proves Einstein wrong (both special and general relativity). Actually, it’s a fact that that’s a lie. Actually, relativity has nothing to do with the nukes. Moreover, those working at the nukes made huge efforts to keep Einstein away from there. Theoretical science (Einstein) has many times nothing to do with real (applied) science (nukes). Perhaps you should also visit the sites proving each and every test of Einstein’s relativity wrong, not just those claiming it’s true. Wouldn’t that be scientific of you? And you should start with MMX itself. By the way, would you agree that if what you said above is true, then there wouldn’t be any more tests of Einstein’s relativity? Because I can give you examples how top space agencies are still testing Einstein general relativity. Moreover, they are also testing ALTERNATIVE theories of gravity. Tell me, what does THIS say to you? QM clearly contradicts general relativity. Also the special relativity. Moreover, careful study shows that spacetime doesn’t exist in the micro world either (just as was shown it doesn’t exist in the macro world). “Being in space” has nothing to do with heliocentrism. Instead has everything to do with geocentrism. I think you’re lost in reference frames - just as JDavis. Sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about. Yes. Besides, each and every time you try to prove old age for a fossil (biological evolution) or a rock (geological evolution), you prove chemical evolution wrong. Are you even aware of that? Moreover, without chemical evolution, you don’t have geological & biological evolution. Are you aware of this too?

Buddy, you are indeed away. From anything that makes sense. So sorry for you. I think I'll leave you in your illusions. Obviously there's no point in talking to you.

I see that contrary to your claims, you are profoundly incapable of behaving scientifically. But OK, let me indulge you for a bit. So, what does "bajillion" mean? And on what exactly are you basing your statement that that's indeed the size of your universe?