Jump to content
IGNORED

Distant black hole holds surprises about the early universe


MorningGlory

Recommended Posts


  • 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

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

You're confused.  I'm not summarily dismissing "YOU", I'm summarily dismissing "YOUR CLAIMS".

You don't have to be a "King" to summarily dismiss UNSUPPORTED Claims.  Just have the ability to Reason.

It's akin to somebody claiming the existence of 3 Toed Gnomes.  Then challenging that individual to SUPPORT that claim; when they can't, well...the claim can be summarily dismissed.  It's not Supernatural and you surely don't have to be Royalty to adjudicate it.

 

regards

I'll say it again. The claims were made by Eduardo Bañados; contact him and tell him those claims are summarily dismissed by you.  I doubt if he would care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

7 hours ago, one.opinion said:

"I also wonder what is the impact on your own personal walk with God, - that you give yourself permission to disregard scriptures you disagree with."

"I wonder" if you are having difficulty being honest with yourself about your attitudes towards those that hold to interpretations that differ from your own. I've moved past my initial offense at your comment, but it did shed quite a bit of light on your views.

Just for the record as long as I'm harping on honesty, I only claimed that you hold to a mental position of spiritual superiority. I clearly did not claim that you held to an intellectually superior attitude.

What I hope to see in the not-too-distant future is a day when young earth creationists and evolutionary creationists can agree that Jesus Christ is so much greater of a unifying theme than science is a divisive theme. Tristen, you have helped me significantly by being an example of a  young earth creationist that doesn't rely decades-old, disproven factoids of why evolution is wrong, but is sincerely and diligently engaged in understanding and discussing science. For that, I thank you.

On this sentiment, I completely agree! (Romans 8:31-32)

And props for working the word "chillax" into the conversation :laugh:

So in all our extensive conversations, you have taken a single line of text, interpreted it as some kind of personal attack on you (which it clearly was not), and from that one line you have developed an overriding impression of me considering myself to be, in some sense, superior.

I would call that ironic, given your complaint about me judging you “without knowing a single thing about me personally”. I respectfully don't think it is me “having difficulty being honest with” myself.

P.S. I did try earlier in the thread to contribute to the Black Hole discussion, but was accused of being unduly provocative and breaking the ToS – so I gave up. It's getting tiresome– dancing on eggshells trying not to offend Christians. We should be the least offendable people on the planet.

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

1 hour ago, Tristen said:

So in all our extensive conversations, you have taken a single line of text, interpreted it as some kind of personal attack on you (which it clearly was not), and from that one line you have developed an overriding impression of me considering myself to be, in some sense, superior.

I would call that ironic, given your complaint about me judging you “without knowing a single thing about me personally”. I respectfully don't think it is me “having difficulty being honest with” myself.

P.S. I did try earlier in the thread to contribute to the Black Hole discussion, but was accused of being unduly provocative and breaking the ToS – so I gave up. It's getting tiresome– dancing on eggshells trying not to offend Christians. We should be the least offendable people on the planet.

This is how threads get derailed and closed.  If you and One can forget about your bickering, what is your opinion on the topic of this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

1 hour ago, MorningGlory said:

This is how threads get derailed and closed.  If you and One can forget about your bickering, what is your opinion on the topic of this thread?

I don't think there is a verifiable, reliable way to measure "millions of light years" of distance. I am certain that there is no empirical way to measure "over thirteen billion years" of history. The Bible doesn't mention God creating the universe "from a singularity", nor has any such "singularity" ever been observed.

But I am 100% on board with God speaking "everything into being", as described in the Bible. All of His creation is awe-inspiring.

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

2 hours ago, Tristen said:

I don't think there is a verifiable, reliable way to measure "millions of light years" of distance. I am certain that there is no empirical way to measure "over thirteen billion years" of history. The Bible doesn't mention God creating the universe "from a singularity", nor has any such "singularity" ever been observed.

But I am 100% on board with God speaking "everything into being", as described in the Bible. All of His creation is awe-inspiring.

I agree that there is no way to verify light years or billions of years of age.  At best, those are educated guesses.  As for the universe coming from a singularity, I think that is a plausible explanation.  No the Bible doesn't tell us how God spoke everything into being but a singularity would make sense and we are not told it DIDN'T happen either.  When the Bible is silent on something, we just have to use our God given brains to try to understand.  We won't know for sure until we get to the Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

On 22/12/2017 at 11:23 PM, Tristen said:

Science is a logical method devised to investigate God's creation

 Yet scientific understanding contradicts the biblical 6 day creation story let alone it's in the wrong order . Ie day and night several days before the sun. Science doesn't support Adam and eve... this is biblical presupposition.

On Enoch... he won't like black holes discussed here because they came about by Einsteinian physics pre observations...as did hawking radiation. This is because of his biblical presuppositional stance of flat earth... as described in the bible... firmament magic dome and such. I must say I agree the bible indicates this but being a non believer... it's not supported by evidence... along with the rest of the claims. Pre supposing prior and believing before investigation and a shred of evidence is the entire problem.  

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

58 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

 Yet scientific understanding contradicts the biblical 6 day creation story let alone it's in the wrong order . Ie day and night several days before the sun. Science doesn't support Adam and eve... this is biblical presupposition.

1.  What is "Scientific Understanding"? 

2.  Plants were created on the Third Day.  The Sun on the Fourth Day.  Are you saying plants can't survive 1 Day without the Sun? :rolleyes:  What about "Night Time"??  lol

3.  Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

On Enoch... he won't like black holes discussed here because they came about by Einsteinian physics pre observations

It's not that I don't like them; it's more of a LOL-ing at them.

How can this be Physics "Science" (i.e., The Scientific Method) ...when the First Step of The Scientific Method is "Observe A Phenomenon" and your appeal is that they came BEFORE observations "PRE OBSERVATIONS", por favor...?

 

Quote

 This is because of his biblical presuppositional stance of flat earth

1.  Appeal to Motive/Intent (Fallacy).

2.  Actually it's because black holes, like it's fairytale sisters... (big bangs, evolution (Whatever that is??), multiverses, dark energy/matter, ect ect) are all Pseudo-Science Fairytales

 

Quote

I must say I agree the bible indicates this

Yes, it surely does. 

 

Quote

but being a non believer... it's not supported by evidence

Really??  So there's no DOME/Firmament??  OK...

How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Please, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...? 
Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!!  :rolleyes:

 

Quote

Pre supposing prior and believing before investigation and a shred of evidence is the entire problem.

That's what I keep telling you but apparently it's falling on deaf ears.

 

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

2.  Plants were created on the Third Day.  The Sun on the Fourth Day.  Are you saying plants can't survive 1 Day without the Sun? :rolleyes:  What about "Night Time"??  lol

So they appeared poof pre sun... please demonstrate? I referred to the bible creation myth saying day and night day 1 but the sun day 4...erm..

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

3.  Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...

Scientific understanding supports evolution. Your point 3 is shifting the burden of proof for your Adam and eve claim. Please demonstrate evidence for the Adam and eve claim. 

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Really??  So there's no DOME/Firmament??  OK...

How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Please, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...? 
Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!!  :rolleyes:

Agreed. However to have this problem ... as you do you must presuppose flat earth 1st. 

Please explain what drives the sun and moon in the magic dome.? How does a compass work? What are the northern lights in the magic dome model? Stars are angels too in your model if memory serves? Angel telescope pic if you please? How far are the sun and moon?  Earth is on columns... what are columns on? What causes the sun to produce light? The moon produces light also right... by what means... why does it have a shadow and why doesn't the moon show its  own light in the dark areas? The other planets are flat too yet we see them as spheres and their moon's travel past... disappear behind and reappear the other side? Where do asteroids come from and suspended how... they must be inside the dome already?  Why is there no evidence of firing something into a dome to easily prove it? 

If you can demonstrate evidence for these claims we can progress to page 2s problems with your hypothesis.

Anyways as it's Christmas thought I'd try again and unblock for a spell... you didn't answer this stuff last time.

Hope you're well and had a good Christmas. 

 

Edited by Kevinb
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

33 minutes ago, Kevinb said:

So they appeared poof pre sun... please demonstrate?

No Problem, Please provide a Time Machine...?

 

Quote

I referred to the bible creation myth saying day and night day 1 but the sun day 4.

1.  This is Incoherent, could you rephrase...?

2.  Creation Myth? :huh:  What else is there besides CREATION??

 

Quote

Scientific understanding supports evolution.

'evolution'?? :huh:  What's that...?  Define evolution...?  

a.  Post the Scientific Theory of evolution...? 
b.  Post just TWO Formal Scientific Hypotheses then Experiments that concretized it into a REAL Scientific Theory...?
c.  Post the Null Hypotheses that were Rejected/Falsified for each...?
d.  Highlight The Independent Variables used in Each TEST...?

 

Quote

Your point 3 is shifting the burden of proof for your Adam and eve claim.

Huh??  You're somewhat confused...

My Point 3:  "Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...?" <--- This is a request for SUPPORT.

Is in response to "YOUR" Claim: "Science doesn't support Adam and eve"<--- This is a CLAIM.

"YOU" made the Claim.  So How in the World can I be Shifting the Burden of Proof, Pray Tell...? :rolleyes:

 

Quote

Please demonstrate evidence for the Adam and eve claim.

So now "YOU" are Shifting the Burden of Proof (Fallacy).  I didn't make a Claim (SEE: directly above).

 

Quote

However to have this problem ... as you do you must presuppose flat earth 1st. 

Nope, not this one (or any one).  I must Presuppose :rolleyes: the Definition of Gas Pressure.  So again...

How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF ITS CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html

Please, I can't wait to hear this Yarn...? 
Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!!  :rolleyes:

 

Quote

Please explain what drives the sun and moon?
How does a compass work?
What are the northern lights in the magic dome model?
How far are the sun and moon?
What causes the sun to produce light? 
The moon produces light also right... by what means?
Where do asteroids come from and suspended how?

Red Herring Fallacy (Diversion) x7.

You have the prevailing "Narrative"; Ergo...You Scientifically Validate EACH:

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified...?

 

Quote

Stars are angels too in your model if memory serves?

1.  I don't have a 'model'.  WHY, Well...

'models' are demonstrable Pseudo-Science...

Please show "models" in the Scientific Method...? (and not "Ball-Stick" Airplane 'Models' Either !!! lol)...?

"A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a LIMITATION ON IT'S VALIDITY." 
https://www.thoughtco.com/hypothesis-model-theory-and-law-2699066

Allow me to translate: "Pseudo-Science" ...There is no such animal as a Scientific Hypothesis with 'limited validity' it's tantamount to a woman being 'A LITTLE' PREGNANT !!
REAL Scientific Hypotheses are either CONFIRMED or INVALIDATED, PERIOD...End of Story!! 
Furthermore, Scientific Hypotheses do not exist in PERPETUITY or wait for more DATA !!! 'Data' comes *FROM* Experiments --- 
( Hypothesis TESTS ).
A "model" is conjured when the 'alleged' Hypothesis is UN-TESTABLE !!! That means, there never was an 'ACTUAL' Scientific Hypothesis to begin with !!

2.  God states that Stars are Angels.  

 

Quote

Angel telescope pic if you please?  

Telescope.jpg

 

Quote

Earth is on columns... what are columns on?

I have No Idea.

 

Quote

The other planets are flat too yet we see them as spheres

Factually Incorrect:  You can't see 3 dimensionally into the night sky...

"You don’t notice any depth to the night sky because your depth perception only works for a distance of about 6 meters (20 feet)."
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/08/04/how-we-see-the-stars-in-3d/

"Since we totally lack depth perception when we look at the night sky, it is impossible to tell the distance to stars just by looking at them.'
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/physics/79-the-universe/stars-and-star-clusters/distances/359-how-can-i-measure-the-distance-of-a-star-beginner

 

Quote

Why is there no evidence of firing something into a dome to easily prove it? 

Don't need it.  We already have the Evidence (that you WHOLESALE DODGED): 

Gas Pressure (Atmospheric Pressure), Remember?  thumbsup.gif

 

Quote

If you can demonstrate evidence for these claims we can progress to page 2s problems with your hypothesis.

I don't have a Hypothesis.  Why??  Well because this isn't "Science"...

Flat/Sphere (or any other shape) is OUTSIDE the Purview of The Scientific Method.

Ya see professor...
The sine qua non of "Science" is The Scientific Method
The sine qua non of The Scientific Method is "Experiments" (Hypothesis Tests).
The sine qua non of Experiments is "Hypothesis"

"The Scientific Method is Hypothesis-Driven;"
http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE and EFFECT Relationship - (The Phenomena that was Observed in Step 1) .  It's a classic:  "If" this "Then" that, motif.

"A Scientific Hypothesis is based on CAUSE-EFFECT reasoning.  A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but EXPLAINS WHY they are related.
Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

Because Experiments (Hypothesis Tests) ONLY adjudicate 'Cause and Effect' -- How/Why questions.  Whatever SHAPE something is (Flat, Sphere, or Spinning/Not Spinning ect)...is a "WHAT/IS" question; it's tantamount to asking:

How/Why is a Breadbox Rectangular, True or False??

i.e., You can NEVER formulate a Viable Alternative Hypothesis;
Ergo...you can NEVER formulate a Viable Null Hypothesis; 
Ergo...This isn't "Science"!!

It's quite clear you don't even know what a Scientific Hypothesis is :rolleyes:.

 

It's High Time you start answering questions in SUPPORT of your 'Spinning-Ball' Religion...

Flat: 

1.  "The salar de Uyuni in the Bolivian Andes is the largest salt flat on Earth, exhibiting LESS THAN 1 M OF VERTICAL RELIEF over an area of 9000 km2" ..."Longer wavelengths in the DEM [Digital Elevation Model] correlate well with mapped gravity, suggesting a connection between broad-scale salar topography and the geoid similar to that seen over the oceans."

Borsa A. A., et al: Topography of the salar de Uyuni, Bolivia from kinematic GPS; Geophysical Journal International Volume 172, Issue 1, p. 31-40 http://gji.oxfordjournals.org/content/172/1/31.full

This is a Geometrical Flat Plane.

You can have a myriad of Topographical Features on a Sphere: Mountains, Ridges, Saddles, Spurs, Depressions, ect ect; Ya know what you CAN'T HAVE (??) ...

"A Geometrical Flat Plane" 

And this one is over *"9000 km2"!!!!*

Therefore, how can you Blindly Adhere to a Sphere that has one of it's Foundational Tenets "Vertical Drop" and yet at the SAME TIME have a FLAT PLANE with less than *1 METER VERTICAL DROP* over 9000 km2, pray tell??

** The Entire Globe Charade is actually OVER right here. 

 

 

2.  Sea Sparrow (NATO): 

"Bistatic, semiactive seekers in the nose of a missile receive a reflected signal from a target that is being “illuminated” with an RF signal transmitted from a fire control radar on a stand-off platform (e.g., aircraft, ship). Such systems REQUIRE that the platform maintain LINE OF SIGHT (LOS) to the target until it is engaged by the missile. Ship-based standard missile (SM) and NATO Seasparrow AAW missiles are examples of such a semiactive mode." http://m.eet.com/media/1111959/819_radar3.pdf
 
The target is "Illuminated" with a 2 inch Pencil Beam (RF) which has to be maintained "Painted" on the target until detonation. At a more than generous 80 Feet Elevation above Sea LEVEL (Tracking Radar Height), the target should be hidden behind 385 Feet of Curvature.
 
Please explain how you can have Line of Site (LOS) 35 Miles Away on a "Spinning-Ball" by showing how an 2" RF Pencil Beam can penetrate 385 Feet (117 METERS) of Target Hidden Height through a WALL OF WATER 24 MILES in Length...?? (ps. 35 miles is "Low Balling": (The 'Official' Max Effective Range is Classified ---- i.e. it's MUCH MUCH greater than 35 Miles!).

So Either ...

A.  The NATO Sea Sparrow Exists,  OR...
B.  The Spinning-Ball Religion Exists.

BOTH can't be TRUE !!!  Savvy? 

 

3.  Flight:  Since the Earth is, as we're TOLD, a Sphere 25,000 miles in circumference... radius 3959 miles, then Pilots traveling @ a typical cruising speed of 500 mph --- to simply maintain altitude, would constantly have to adjust their altitude downwards, (to Compensate for the Curvature) and descend 2,777 feet over half a mile every minute !!!

500 miles2 x 8 inches/12 inches = 166,666 Feet of curvature ---Total Drop needed in one hour to Maintain Altitude.

166,666 feet/60 minutes = 2777 feet per minute altitude descent to Maintain Altitude.

A flippin Roller Coaster would be placid serenity(!!) in comparison.  The nose of the plane on a typical flight would never get above horizontal, save for takeoff. 

 

 

4. Not "Spinning":

For the Coriolis Effect to Exist, you MUST HAVE (i.e., the "Necessary Conditions"): 1. Two differing Frames of Reference (One Rotating Coordinate System (Non-Inertial) --- The Earth  and One Non-Rotating Coordinate System (Inertial)-- The Atmosphere ...and anything in it)...

"CC.12 The Coriolis Effect:

When set in motion, freely moving objects, including AIR [Atmosphere] and WATER masses [Clouds/Water Vapor], move in straight paths while the Earth continues to

                                                                                 ROTATE INDEPENDENTLY.

Because freely moving objects ARE NOT carried with the Earth as it Rotates, they are subject to an apparent deflection called the “Coriolis effect.” To an observer rotating with the Earth, freely moving objects that travel in a straight line appear to travel in a curved path on the Earth."

Segar, Douglas A; Introduction to Ocean Sciences, 2nd Edition: Critical Concept Reminders -- CC.12 The Coriolis Effect (pp. 313, 314, 323, 324), ISBN: 978-0-393-92629-3, 2007.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/geo/oceansci/cc/cc12.html

 

In other words, anything not "Tethered" to the Earth is 'Freely Moving'.

2. The Object in question not Physically Attached to the Rotating Coordinate System appears to deflect (i.e., Moves Independently of the Rotating Coordinate System) from the vantage point anywhere on the rotating coordinate system -- aka: the 'Coriolis Effect'.

So, if the Coriolis Effect Exists (with Respect to the Earth), then a Flight from Charlotte North Carolina to LA (Non-Stop) traveling @ 500 mph (Air Speed) --- with both locations roughly 35th degree N Latitude, (i.e., both 'allegedly' spinning @ 860 mph ) should be ~ *1.5 hours!!* (But it's ~ *4.5 hrs!!*)

Charlotte to LA Flight: Air Speed 500 mph. Ground Speed: 500 mph + 860 mph "Alleged" rotation speed = 1360 mph.

So in my example:

1. Two differing Frames of Reference: (Earth and Atmosphere -- and everything in it) 2. The Plane in the Atmosphere is "Freely Moving" (not attached) to the Rotating Coordinate System and is flying in a straight path. In other words, Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction each (The Coriolis Effect and the Charlotte Flight at 1.5 hours) are either: Both TRUE or Both FALSE.

The Flight is most assuredly FALSE!! 

In conclusion, the Earth is *NOT* "Spinning"; ERGO..."The Ball" goes by way of the DoDo Bird or you're a Stationary Ball Geo-Centrist. Voila.

The only way the above can be refuted is if you're of the position that the Atmosphere 'spins' with the Earth. So then:

1. Please explain how the Coriolis Effect can EXIST when the NECESSARY CONDITIONS for it to EXIST are Two Differing Coordinate Systems (Reference Frames) -- One Rotating --"Earth" and One Non-Rotating-- the "Atmosphere" and everything in it...?

2. Show the Experiment where 'Gases'/Gas rotate in Lock-Step with a Rotating Solid Body just 5 cm above the surface, then provide the mechanism....?

3. Please explain "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds...? ;) 

(Bonus Question: How you can have different wind speeds and directions simultaneously at differing elevations of the atmosphere while the atmosphere is collectively 'spinning' East, in Unison...?)

btw, These are Contradictory Statements:

1. The Atmosphere 'spins' in Lock-Step with the Earth.

2. The Existence of "EAST/North/South" Surface Winds.

Which do you think is FALSE?

MOREOVER, following the 'yarn'... Every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere traveling horizontally from the equator to the center of rotationMUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds; and every Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere rising in elevation from each respective horizontal Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere MUST HAVE differing Tangential Speeds (In fact, the higher the elevation... the faster they'll need to travel to keep up !!); and all of this rolling along at differing speeds... in Unison, EAST?? :blink:

This is so far beyond Preposterous Ludicrousness Absurdity, 'evolution' (whatever that is??) and Multiverses... are BLUSHING!!

AND, does anyone know how far up this 'Increasing Speed' Rope-A-Dope Fairytale Spinning Atmosphere ENDS?? I'd like to see that...it'll give a Whole New Meaning to Guillotine "WIND SHEAR"!! Goodness Gracious People.  

ps. Are the Gas Molecules attached to each other by: Velcro?? Glue?? Pixie Dust?? Other?? And where is the energy coming from for the continuous "Shot in the Arm" injections needed to keep each successive Cubic Nanometer of atmosphere higher elevation brethren in tow?

Alice in Wonderland is more tenable than the "Spinning-Ball" religion.

 

 

5.  Vacuum of Space:

1. How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When...

"The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". 
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html


Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... 

                      WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! :blink:

2. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ??

a.  In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to the fairytale 'Narrative'... BOTH, at the same time??

b.  Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...?

c.  Then, please list each fairytale associated with "Outer-Space" that gets taken out back to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned Senseless as a result of the fairytale "Vacuum of Space" VAPORIZING....?

3. Have you ever heard: "Nature Abhors a Vacuum", by chance?  Why is that...?

 

If you can't provide Coherent/Substantive Falsifications of the 5 PROOFS above then your Globe Earth Position is UNTENABLE.

It's just that simple. 

Capisce?

regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Seeker
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  423
  • Content Per Day:  0.17
  • Reputation:   70
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/18/2017
  • Status:  Offline

55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:
2 hours ago, Kevinb said:

So they appeared poof pre sun... please demonstrate?

No Problem, Please provide a Time Machine...?

Ah okay.. so nothing besides biblical assertion... shame. 

55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:
Quote

I referred to the bible creation myth saying day and night day 1 but the sun day 4.

1.  This is Incoherent, could you rephrase...?

The bible indicates a day and night days before the sun. 

55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:
Quote

Your point 3 is shifting the burden of proof for your Adam and eve claim.

Huh??  You're somewhat confused...

My Point 3:  "Show how "Science" doesn't SUPPORT Adam and Eve...?" <--- This is a request for SUPPORT.

Is in response to "YOUR" Claim: "Science doesn't support Adam and eve"<--- This is a CLAIM.

"YOU" made the Claim.  So How in the World can I be Shifting the Burden of Proof, Pray Tell...? :rolleyes:

Not going to relive evolution again. Clearly science doesn't support Adam and eve. If you feel it does please give evidence... if it doesn't on what do I accept Adam and eve? 

Re the flight and such... we've done this many times too... such that as the earth curvature  "falls" so does the plane based on atmospheric pressure to maintain height. 

The rest of the copy and paste and the container stuff I agree on the theory however the issues are only there is you have presupposed flat earth. Done all this stuff before. Just for others to see the knot people get in vs reality when they've already accepted the biblical before assessing evidence.  Therefore you've got to not accept evidence for black holes... General relativity and so forth.  Spherical planets.. stars and so on coz you've bought into the bibles flat earth. 

55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:
Quote

Please explain what drives the sun and moon?
How does a compass work?
What are the northern lights in the magic dome model?
How far are the sun and moon?
What causes the sun to produce light? 
The moon produces light also right... by what means?
Where do asteroids come from and suspended how?

Red Herring Fallacy (Diversion) x7.

You have the prevailing "Narrative"; Ergo...You Scientifically Validate EACH:

a.  What Phenomenon was Observed...?
b.  Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis then EXPERIMENT that validates your claim...?
c.  Highlight the "Independent Variable" that was used in the TEST...?
d.  Post the Null Hypothesis that was Rejected/Falsified.

These are legitimate problems for flat earth and dome. You've just dodged. 

 snarkily calling me professor doesn't help matters. Back on block before things deteriorate...i don't want to be the reason for you to get thrown from another thread. 

55 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Ya see professor

 

Edited by Kevinb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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