Jump to content
IGNORED

Astronomic events that never happened?


one.opinion

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

6 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

I understand you don't see a reason to reject. My view is I don't see a reason to believe.

I'm afraid that there won't be any single piece of evidence that anyone will ever be able to point to and say "Aha! There it is, absolute proof of God's existence!" Throughout the Bible, God repeatedly emphasizes the value of faith. I believe He "drops hints" all over the planet and universe, but asks us to approach Him by faith, rather than incontrovertible evidence. To me, it is easier to believe that there is a God that created natural laws than to believe that the natural laws arose on their own.

 

8 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

That said I still see these events in our galaxy or others as amazing and completely fascinating.

I could not agree more with this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Thanks for the explanation, I can see the point you are making now. Just my opinion again, but... If all matter of the universe originated at the earth and extended from there, the gravitational effects on the planet would be rather disastrous.

I'm going to guess boredom is limited to us humans. God is eternal, after all.

I suppose it is the canary in the rail-car analogy. If the canary is flying - is the rail-car lighter?

Since our space shuttle is less complex that the smallest single-cell organism, I doubt we could hazard a guess as to how powerful our God is. If he 'spoke and flung' the stars into galaxies we have yet to discover, how else can we say we know very much of anything.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, Sojourner414 said:

When Scripture tells us that God created the heavens and the Earth, the word used for "heaven" in Hebrew was ha·sha·ma·yim  or "heaven, sky". So, I'm thinking that Genesis is beginning with the creation of the planet and it's atmosphere; God didn't have to create the whole universe at once, but Genesis does describe the Lord bringing the planet from a state of lifelessness to a finished, working, viable ecosystem replete with a biosphere. That said, it is possible for the Universe to be that old and the planet to have been formed much later.

I prefer to think (JMO really) that the Lord has other projects in the Universe He made; probably not "other life", but other things He was working on (and still might be). I know with the projects I do, I have more than one going at any time. :)

Just some thoughts.

That's my opinion also.  God did not tell us He created the universe at the same time as the Earth.  Reading Scripture puts these questions to rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I'm just waiting on evidence that they are saying what you claim they are saying.

Allow me to assist...

The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

Interpretation:  If the Path of the Photon (LIGHT) is not an "Element of Reality" then we don't know "HOW" it travels.

"So we have to play this game in two ways, it is particles but it's future is determined by a wave--but 'the wave' is PURELY MATHEMATICAL you cannot put an instrument to measure the energy due to that wave.  It's a CONSTRUCT we use to determine what will happen in this experiment".
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality.  (21:03 minute mark.)

Interpretation: "The Wave" is merely a Mathematical Construct used to describe. "The Wave" is NOT Physical i.e., you can't "measure the energy due to that wave" because it's NOT an "Element of REALITY", echoing Professor Zeilinger's conclusion above.

We don't know "HOW" it travels.  If we don't know "HOW" it travels then there's really not much we can say about the Speed.

Furthermore, we have Confirmed "Instantaneous Actions at a Distance" (SEE: Non-Locality), so the One-Way Speed of Light can be INSTANTANEOUS.

I actually don't need their testimony...it's just Icing on the Cake.  The Actual Main Evidences are in the post that you've WHOLESALE DODGED going on 3 Pages now. :rolleyes: Right here: Main Evidences PUMMELING the Speed of Light

 

Quote

Until that evidence is apparent

That evidence is just as 'apparent' as the Main Evidences --(SEE: WHOLESALE DODGED throughout this thread)

 

Quote

This is a classic appeal to authority fallacy.

:blow-up:  What on Earth??

Didn't I already PUMMEL this into the Incoherent Oblivion, here:  Appeal to Authority PUMMELING ??  Let's try it again...

Factually Incorrect...

Appeal to Authority (Fallacy) --- This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Ergo... you're claiming Professor Anton Zeilinger and Professor Ramamurti Shankar ARE NOT Legitimate Authorities on Quantum Mechanics. :huh:

Ahhh, That's a Six Million Dollar Man Style Crash & Burn !!

Is there anything that's confusing here that you need me to shed some light on?

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

I agree that physical laws do a great job of explaining natural phenomena.

The Physical Laws/Natural Laws don't "EXPLAIN" anything... they "DESCRIBE", BIG Difference.

 

Quote

I just believe that there is an author of those physical laws.

And...To have Laws you must have a Law Giver.

 

Quote

I don't see any reason to reject the existence of God because physical laws tell us so much about how nature works.

1.  Actually Physical Laws Necessitate a Law Giver.

2.  Again as noted above, Physical Laws only Describe "The What", Scientific Theories (Actual Ones ;)) Explain "The How" Nature Works...

"Look above at the last definitions under Law and Theory. These definitions clearly differentiate the two words. Some scientists will tell you that the difference between them is that a LAW DESCRIBES WHAT NATURE DOES under certain conditions, and will predict what will happen as long as those conditions are met. A THEORY EXPLAINS HOW NATURE WORKS..... From this view, laws and theories "do" different things and have different roles to play in science."
http://facultyweb.kennesaw.edu/rmatson/links/theories.php

 

Quote

I did see this, it was amazing! It wasn't huge news over here, though.

It's Nonsense; merely more Fairytale "Just-So" Stories.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

5 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

That's my opinion also.  God did not tell us He created the universe at the same time as the Earth.  Reading Scripture puts these questions to rest.

Huh?? :huh:  Yes, HE surely did; We must be reading different Bibles...

(Genesis 1:1) "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

Can you point to where Scripture puts your 'Opinion' claim to rest...?

Moreover, Scripture states that: The Sun, The Moon, and The Stars were created on the Fourth Day. 

 

Furthermore, if God didn't tell us he created the universe at the same time as the Earth...how can Reading Scripture (telling us) put these questions to rest?  It's Non-Sequitur Fallacy   

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

44 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Actually Physical Laws Necessitate a Law Giver.

I agree with you on this! Wanna "hug it out"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  29
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  5,240
  • Content Per Day:  2.13
  • Reputation:   1,356
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  07/03/2017
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, Enoch2021 said:

The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.”
Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist)

Interpretation:  If the Path of the Photon (LIGHT) is not an "Element of Reality" then we don't know "HOW" it travels.

"So we have to play this game in two ways, it is particles but it's future is determined by a wave--but 'the wave' is PURELY MATHEMATICAL you cannot put an instrument to measure the energy due to that wave.  It's a CONSTRUCT we use to determine what will happen in this experiment".
Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. 
Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality.  (21:03 minute mark.)

Interpretation: "The Wave" is merely a Mathematical Construct used to describe. "The Wave" is NOT Physical i.e., you can't "measure the energy due to that wave" because it's NOT an "Element of REALITY", echoing Professor Zeilinger's conclusion above.

We don't know "HOW" it travels.  If we don't know "HOW" it travels then there's really not much we can say about the Speed.

Aaaand... still waiting for evidence that the physicists say we don't know the speed of light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

19 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Aaaand... still waiting for evidence that the physicists say we don't know the speed of light.

They already 'SAID' it, as I Interpreted it for you.  Long after this guy 'SAID' it...

So the ENTIRE "Light Speed" Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy.  Einstein made the very same conclusion...

“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.

Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That
light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of MY OWN FREEWILL in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” 
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.
 
This ^^^^^^^^^ is what you WHOLESALE DODGED:rolleyes:
 
 
regards
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  11
  • Topic Count:  19
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  3,396
  • Content Per Day:  0.91
  • Reputation:   730
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  12/21/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/26/1963

35 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I agree with you on this! Wanna "hug it out"?

This is not a case of Agree/Disagree (The Subjective) and is the main area of your confusion.  We're discussing "Science" (The Objective).

Once you reconcile the difference, then it will be "Hugs All Around".  thumbsup.gif

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...