Jump to content


Photo

Is Earth The Center Of The Universe?

geocentric heliocentric ptolemy copernicus center

  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#41 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 08:25 AM

With regard to Killur's posts #31 and 32 .....

 

If there was something there that supports a geocentric universe or addresses any of the points I made, I must have missed it.

 

Perhaps Killur would be so kind as to point out where the paper helps his position.

piasan, Indeed the entirety of  J.B. Barbour & B. Bertotti's work here shows, it's not necessary for any of the Einsteinian equations for 'Gravity' & 'Inertia'. All these forces are more easily put in to reference as we (Earth) are motionless and the stars traverse around us. Are you unfamiliar with this work perhaps? You say you "must have missed it" i do believed you have not read it and or looked into the equations within this work. Grant it, it was rather difficult to actually find this work and the origin finder was required to pay for it. Many of these papers are 'Never' discussed in Academia. Clear to the reasons why, are, may i say 'Natural'  :gigglesmile:  :kaffeetrinker:



#42 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 08:53 AM

I'm not only showing the Biblical Text as literal but to also prove this so called 'Settled Science' myth is indeed just that a myth. As you should be well aware from Einsteinian worldview all things are simply relative and there is no real truth, right lol. So i do believe this most 'Modern' worldview has a religious basis and this religion is 'Scientism' complete with rules and guidelines for which mankind should adhere. But indeed in all it's aspects tries to undermine 'Gods' 'Word'. Subsequently as why i first brought up this topic to begin, was showing how the 'Copernican Principle was wrong' it leads to 'Modern' man believing themselves upon a meaningless mass of rock whizzing thru space at breakneck speeds, bound for collision with another galaxy. As why i have quoted many astrophysicist, cosmologist and physicist.



#43 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 10:35 AM

Some of these fabled ideas are Black Holes. Which (type) are we to regard or consider?            They are all alleged mind you, not one is everproved lol.                                                                  Maybe it should be the Non-rotating, charge neutral type as Schwarzschild contends, or perhaps we should consider the Non-rotating, charged type as Reissner-Nordstrom contends.                     How about the rotating, charge neutral type from Kerr ?                                                                   Better even yet maybe the rotating, charged type of Kerr-Newman??                                       Lets look at what fairytale we chose in consideration for the infamous, illustrious, often imitated yet never duplicated 'Big Bang'  After all we indeed have a variety of our own minds choice when considering or contemplating such events. Such is the K= -1 (negatively curved spacetime, spatially infinite, expanding                                                                                                             Or the K= 0 ( flat spacetime, spatially infinite, expanding   should 1 render the K= 1 (positively curved spacetime, spatially infinite, expanding and then at some unknown point contract??            Heck, i for 1 at one point thought 1 of these mindwarps was already set in stone!                         Hence, Modern Cosmological Science  as well as all Astrophysics and Physicist ideology is as convoluted and messy as my chicken coop floor.                                                                               I believe this to be simply the remains of mans willingness to stray from 'Gods' 'Word'.                   As we know leads to utter confusion and being swayed in our opinions like the wind would blow   a leaf around, leaving the human mind to all sorts of false pillars from which he can perch upon.   Now 'AWAKEN' and Behold, pay heed to your 'Creator', The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob   from whence ye came!! I will be back l8r.



#44 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 April 2018 - 10:45 AM

 

With regard to Killur's posts #31 and 32 .....

 

If there was something there that supports a geocentric universe or addresses any of the points I made, I must have missed it.

 

Perhaps Killur would be so kind as to point out where the paper helps his position.

piasan, Indeed the entirety of  J.B. Barbour & B. Bertotti's work here shows, it's not necessary for any of the Einsteinian equations for 'Gravity' & 'Inertia'. All these forces are more easily put in to reference as we (Earth) are motionless and the stars traverse around us. Are you unfamiliar with this work perhaps? You say you "must have missed it" i do believed you have not read it and or looked into the equations within this work. 

So, basically, you're saying you quoted 14 pages of a paper running something over 20 screens to show "forces are more easily put in to reference as we (Earth) are motionless and the stars traverse around us."   That's it ? ? ?

 

OK .... by CONVENTION (meaning, astronomers have agreed to the system) we ARBITRARILY (ie: just because we say so ... for convenience)  set reference points on Earth and do our calculations AS IF Earth is motionless and the stars move.  This is done for simplicity and has nothing at all to do with the actual motion of the stars and planets.  If we were on Mars, we would use Mars as our arbitrary point of origin.  If we were on the Sun, we would do the same thing using the Sun.  It's simply a lot simpler to do the calculations using your own position as a reference point.

 

I already explained I have done the same thing in any number of problems I had to work when taking physics.  We are free to move our reference point wherever we wish then measure forces and motion using that reference as your center point.  This does not mean your reference is ACTUALLY the point that is the center.  Actual motion would best be described by what an "outside observer" would see taking place.

 

From your citation: "The local dynamics obtained by the Solar System reduce to Newtonian dynamics..."  Newtonian physics mandates the solar system revolves around the Sun, not the Earth.   This is what an outside observer would see looking "down" on the solar system.

 

It provides absolutely NO help whatsoever in establishing the Earth as the center of the universe.  

 

 

Grant it, it was rather difficult to actually find this work and the origin finder was required to pay for it. Many of these papers are 'Never' discussed in Academia. Clear to the reasons why, are, may i say 'Natural'  

Yeah, I hate papers that are behind pay walls.... and I refuse to pay $5 to $30 for access to these papers.



#45 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 April 2018 - 11:29 AM

I'm not only showing the Biblical Text as literal but to also prove this so called 'Settled Science' myth is indeed just that a myth. 

The science that objects/systems rotate around their center of gravity is about as "settled science" as you can get.  It's demonstrated by every high school or university lab group at some point during their studies.  It is mandated by Newtonian physics.  There is absolutely nothing theoretical or arbitrary about it.

 

Earth is not the center of mass for the solar system.  The solar system does not orbit the Earth.

 

Earth is not the center of mass for the galaxy.    The galaxy does not orbit the Earth.

 

Since the Earth is not the center of the solar system and the Earth is not the center of the galaxy, it's going to be really really difficult to show the Earth is the center of the universe.

 

 

As you should be well aware from Einsteinian worldview all things are simply relative and there is no real truth, right lol.

Can you show where Einstein ever said there is no real truth?  Einstein's theories are for physics and mathematics .... not philosophy and theology.

 

 

So i do believe this most 'Modern' worldview has a religious basis and this religion is 'Scientism' complete with rules and guidelines for which mankind should adhere.

Your religious belief is noted.  You must adhere to the "rules and guidelines" of science when doing science.    When engaging in other activities, one should follow the "rules and guidelines" applicable to that activity.  We don't play tennis by the rules of baseball.

 

 

 But indeed in all it's aspects tries to undermine 'Gods' 'Word'. 

Science is indifferent to the Bible.   The most you can say is that scientific inquiry will "test" some of what is said in the Bible .... but that's a long way from the goal being to "undermine" it.

 

 

Subsequently as why i first brought up this topic to begin, was showing how the 'Copernican Principle was wrong' it leads to 'Modern' man believing themselves upon a meaningless mass of rock whizzing thru space at breakneck speeds, bound for collision with another galaxy.

I'm still waiting for you to actually SHOW the Copernican Principle is substantially wrong.  The Sun, not the Earth is the center of the solar system  ..... exactly as Copernicus says.

 

 

As why i have quoted many astrophysicist, cosmologist and physicist.

All of whom have said we can ARBITRARILY choose Earth as the center of our coordinate system and do our calculations more easily from there.  Not one of them has said the Earth is ACTUALLY the center of the universe.



#46 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,932 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 11 April 2018 - 11:38 AM

 

Lets look at what fairytale we chose in consideration for the infamous, illustrious, often imitated yet never duplicated 'Big Bang' 

Duplicate the Big Bang ? ? ?    I wouldn't want to be around if our scientists ever actually tried to do that one.  Though the big accelerators do try to achieve the conditions of the BB in tiny spaces with subatomic particles.

 

Regardless of the nature of the creative event, the evidence is that it took place billions of years ago, not thousands.

 

 

I believe this to be simply the remains of mans willingness to stray from 'Gods' 'Word'. 

I see it more as a test of God's word.

 

How would you go about testing the Bible if you are a physicist or astronomer?



#47 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 02:25 PM

 

I'm not only showing the Biblical Text as literal but to also prove this so called 'Settled Science' myth is indeed just that a myth. 

The science that objects/systems rotate around their center of gravity is about as "settled science" as you can get.  It's demonstrated by every high school or university lab group at some point during their studies.  It is mandated by Newtonian physics.  There is absolutely nothing theoretical or arbitrary about it. You have not payed attention to the papers iv'e cited. Yes all modern government classrooms teach this as some long proved and well established scientific 'Fact' lol. Perhaps you have not grasped my purpose bringing up this topic lol. In short let me rephrase, Text Books and Schools teach hypothesis and theory as 'Scientific Fact' just as they do with Erroneous Evolution dear piasan. And almost literally 'Everything' they teach upon the Cosmos lol.

 

Earth is not the center of mass for the solar system.  The solar system does not orbit the Earth. Now you are indeed delving into the flawed worldview which has nada to do with reality.

 

Earth is not the center of mass for the galaxy.    The galaxy does not orbit the Earth. Hypothetical, never been proved lol

 

Since the Earth is not the center of the solar system and the Earth is not the center of the galaxy, it's going to be really really difficult to show the Earth is the center of the universe. As i have shown it's indeed rather simplistic, the fact that the Earth is the center and not moving as all actual test indeed have shown. eg Michelson Morley, Sagnac, G.B. Airy's Failure, The Michelson Gale experiment and many others that i shall hold out for now lol. Merely because, Oh what a virtue is that of patience my contender.

 

 

As you should be well aware from Einsteinian worldview all things are simply relative and there is no real truth, right lol.

Can you show where Einstein ever said there is no real truth?  Einstein's theories are for physics and mathematics .... not philosophy and theology. Einsteins entire theses is that of a relativity existence lol. As in truth is merely in the eye of the beholder!! Indeed you have missed this most simplistic observation lol... indeed pun, pun, pun...... Or my i insert a most enjoyable quote from none other then Nikola Tesla "Today's Scientist have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality"  

 

 

So i do believe this most 'Modern' worldview has a religious basis and this religion is 'Scientism' complete with rules and guidelines for which mankind should adhere.

Your religious belief is noted.  You must adhere to the "rules and guidelines" of science when doing science. As i have stated of implied by which rules of science do you wish to infer?? Einstein's?? Lol    When engaging in other activities, one should follow the "rules and guidelines" applicable to that activity.  We don't play tennis by the rules of baseball. Well of course, no need for absurdities lol.

 

 

 But indeed in all it's aspects tries to undermine 'Gods' 'Word'. 

Science is indifferent to the Bible.   The most you can say is that scientific inquiry will "test" some of what is said in the Bible .... but that's a long way from the goal being to "undermine" it. If indeed science is indifferent then why is the Biblical narrative not taught? Is there no Scientific Facts whatsoever held within the Biblical scriptures?? Again let us not be absurd.

 

 

Subsequently as why i first brought up this topic to begin, was showing how the 'Copernican Principle was wrong' it leads to 'Modern' man believing themselves upon a meaningless mass of rock whizzing thru space at breakneck speeds, bound for collision with another galaxy.

I'm still waiting for you to actually SHOW the Copernican Principle is substantially wrong.  The Sun, not the Earth is the center of the solar system  ..... exactly as Copernicus says. My statement stands lol this is also why indeed, is a theological topic. The Earth does NOT fly around the Sun lol. The is no proof to the contrary which leads to the Biblical narrative upon which i stand solid.

 

 

As why i have quoted many astrophysicist, cosmologist and physicist.

All of whom have said we can ARBITRARILY choose Earth as the center of our coordinate system and do our calculations more easily from there.  Not one of them has said the Earth is ACTUALLY the center of the universe.             

 



#48 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 02:31 PM

 

 

Lets look at what fairytale we chose in consideration for the infamous, illustrious, often imitated yet never duplicated 'Big Bang' 

Duplicate the Big Bang ? ? ?    I wouldn't want to be around if our scientists ever actually tried to do that one.  Though the big accelerators do try to achieve the conditions of the BB in tiny spaces with subatomic particles.

 

Regardless of the nature of the creative event, the evidence is that it took place billions of years ago, not thousands.

 

 

I believe this to be simply the remains of mans willingness to stray from 'Gods' 'Word'. 

I see it more as a test of God's word. Indeed this is in fact 'MY POINT' lol Thank you....... Yet you go right into the next question below lol!!!

 

How would you go about testing the Bible if you are a physicist or astronomer? As i have shown it's indeed rather simplistic, the fact that the Earth is the center and not moving as all actual test indeed have shown. eg Michelson Morley, Sagnac, G.B. Airy's Failure, The Michelson Gale experiment and many others that i shall hold out for now lol. Merely because, Oh what a virtue is that of patience my contender.

 



#49 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 06:03 PM

https://www.edge.org...-isn-39t-zeroHere you can find the shocking (To many) confessions that Relativity has lost credibility with Physicist and Cosmologist along with Astrophysicist let me quote some of this for those of whom will not go read it themselves We've got this weird antigravity in the universe, which is making the expansion of the universe accelerate. Now: if you plug in the equations of general relativity, the only thing that can 'anti-gravitate' is the energy of nothing. Now: this has been a problem in physics since I've been a graduate student. It was such a severe problem we never talked about it. When you apply quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space inevitably has energy. The problem is, way too much energy. It has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than is contained in everything we see!  Umm......Now why would they wish to keep it in the closet and not speak of it???  Yeah i do agree here with Mr. Lawrence crock of Krauss. Yet he and all others continue to postulate as to the validity of utter  convoluted nonsense, why ??? Because AT ALL COST THEY MUST!! Or surrender to the actual scientific experiments that indeed show an ever still Earth!  That's the wrong picture, because every now and then you have an electron positron pair that pops into existence. And the electron is going to want to hang around near the proton because it's oppositely charged, the positron is going to be pushed out to the outskirts of the atom, and while they're there they change the charged distribution in the atom in a very small, but calculable, way. Feynman and others calculated that effect, which allows us to get agreement between theory and observation at the level of nine decimal places. It's the best prediction in all of science. There's no other place in science where, from fundamental principles, you can calculate a number and compare it to an experiment at nine decimal places like that.

But then when we ask, if they're there, how much should they contribute to the energy in the universe, we come up with the worst prediction in physics. it says if empty space has so much energy we shouldn't be here. And physicists like me, theoretical physicists, knew they had the answer. They didn't know how to get there. It reminds me or the Sidney Harris cartoon where you've got this big equation, and the answer, and the middle step says "And then a miracle occurs". And then one scientist says to another, "I think you have to be a little more specific at this step right here".

The answer had to be zero. The energy of empty space had to be precisely zero. Why? Because you've got these virtual particles that are apparently contributing huge amounts of energy, you can imagine in physics, how underlying symmetries in nature can produce exact cancellations — that happens all the time. Symmetries produce two numbers that are exactly equal and opposite because somewhere there's an underlying mathematical symmetry of equations.  So that you can understand how symmetries could somehow cause an exact cancellation of the energy of empty space.

There appears to be energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.  So as we can see those of whom postulate for such a worldview will rather rely upon equations verses relying on actual Experimentation for supposed proof!! Just as Tesla knew and condemned them for doing!  And the only way to resolve this problem will be to have a theory. And theories are a lot harder to come by than experiments. Good ideas are few and far between. And what we're really going to need is a good idea, and it may require an understanding of quantum gravity, or it may require that you throw up your hands, which is what we're learning that a lot of people are willing to do.  In the Virgin Islands we had a session on the anthropic principle, and what is surprising is how many physicists have really said, you know, maybe the answer is an anthropic one.  Twenty years ago if you'd asked physicists if they would hope that one day we'll have a theory that tells us why the universe is the way it is, you would have heard a resounding 'Yes'. They would all say 'that's why I got into physics'.

They might paraphrase Einstein, who said, while referring to God but not really meaning God, that the question that really interested him is did God have any choice in the creation of the universe. What he really meant by that was, is there only one consistent set of laws that works. If you changed one — if you twiddled one aspect of physical reality — would it all fall apart? Or are there lots of possible viable physical realities?  Now obviously Crock of Krauss is indeed referring to a 'Multi Universe' why ??? Because relativity physics are indeed found lacking and in want of yet another overhaul. Which again renders these postulates to be entwined in utter ignorance and nonsense!   But now because of this energy of empty space — which is so inexplicable that if it really is an energy of empty space, the value of that number is so ridiculous that it's driven people to think that maybe, maybe it's an accident of our environment, that physics is an environmental science — that certain fundamental constants in nature may just be accidents, and there may be many different universes, in which the laws of physics are different, and the reasons those constants have the values they have might be — in our universe — might be because we're there to observe them.

This is not intelligent design; it's the opposite of intelligent design. It's a kind of cosmic natural selection. The qualities we have exist because we can survive in this environment. That's natural selection, right? If we couldn't survive we wouldn't be around. Well, it's the same with the universe. We live in a universe — in this universe — we've evolved in this universe, because this universe is conducive to life. There may be other universes that aren't conducive to life, and lo and behold there isn't life in them. That's the kind of cosmic natural selection.  piasan and all other atheist as i have know for many a yr and as YOU too can indeed see Religion is indeed a huge part of this discussion, there is NO WAY AROUND it!! Scientism is the new found Religious worldview!! No need to deny just accept the 'Fact' the you are arguing from a religious worldview called Scientism!!   Then I come up with some result which is interesting, and Steven Weinberg was one of the first people to point out, that if the value of the energy of empty space was much greater than it is, then galaxies wouldn't have formed, and astronomers wouldn't have formed, so that gave the anthropic argument that, well, maybe that's why it is what it is — it can't be much more.

But the problem is, you don't know if that's the only quantity that's varying! Maybe there are other quantities that are varying. Whatever you're doing is always a kind of ad hoc suggestive thing at best. You can debate it, but it doesn't lead very far. It's not clear to me that the landscape idea will be anything but impotent. Ultimately it might lead to interesting suggestions about things, but real progress will occur when we actually have new ideas. If string theory is the right direction, and I'm willing to argue that it might be, even if there's just no evidence that it is right now, then a new idea that tells us a fundamental principle for how to turn that formalism to a theory will give us a direction that will turn into something fruitful. Right now we're floundering. We're floundering, in a lot of different areas.  Case closed, ignorance abounds!! Just as i have stated Gods 'Word' will NEVER be wrong! Modern Scientist MUST postulate themselves with what they 'Think' they know as 'Scientific Fact'. Time to fess up and admit the BLIND are indeed leading the BLIND!   Right now it's clear that what we really need is some good new ideas.  Fundamental physics is really at kind of a crossroads. The observations have just told us that the universe is crazy, but hasn't told us what direction the universe is crazy in. The theories have been incredibly complex and elaborate, but haven't yet made any compelling inroads. That can either be viewed as depressing or exciting. For young physicists it's exciting in the sense that it means that the field is ripe for something new.    OH how ole Einstein would be rolling over, or rather flip flopping!!    :gilligan: :cry:   :consoling:  :kaffeetrinker:  :yoda: 



#50 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 06:10 PM

Yet another Paradigm Crusher!! Wake up World!!



#51 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 11 April 2018 - 07:35 PM

As i have shown it's indeed rather simplistic, the fact that the Earth is the center and not moving as all actual test indeed have shown. eg Michelson Morley, Sagnac, G.B. Airy's Failure, The Michelson Gale experiment and many others that i shall hold out for now lol. Merely because, Oh what a virtue is that of patience my contender.

piasan already pointed this out earlier, but it didn't look like you responded so I'll bring up those points again. All of those experiments were attempting to detect the effect of light (and Earth) moving through the aether. They all failed to detect any such motion because there isn't any such thing as aether, not because Earth is actually stationary. All of the results of those experiments are also explained by special relativity.

#52 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 11 April 2018 - 08:56 PM

 

As i have shown it's indeed rather simplistic, the fact that the Earth is the center and not moving as all actual test indeed have shown. eg Michelson Morley, Sagnac, G.B. Airy's Failure, The Michelson Gale experiment and many others that i shall hold out for now lol. Merely because, Oh what a virtue is that of patience my contender.

piasan already pointed this out earlier, but it didn't look like you responded so I'll bring up those points again. All of those experiments were attempting to detect the effect of light (and Earth) moving through the aether. They all failed to detect any such motion because there isn't any such thing as aether, not because Earth is actually stationary. All of the results of those experiments are also explained by special relativity.

 

Oh how so contrary popoi. Why do you think the Fritzgerald-Lorentze  equation came about?? Have you not bothered looking into the reason?? Lol, You are behind in the conversation. You are not keeping up popoi. They came up with a ad-hoc equation because?? That's right NO Movement or rotation of the earth was detected, hence Shazaam We Must equate a way to show the equipment shrank right in front of our eyes without anyone noticing such a shrinkage lol. Ummm Yeah because the light somehow with the 'Movement' magically change the equipment's size and or shape at that time lol but umm.. of course we could not see it because ummm... OH YEAH we too were moving at breakneck speeds therefore we were literally blinded by SCIENTISM!!! Sounds fair to you popoi??? 



#53 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 867 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 11 April 2018 - 10:42 PM

Why do you think the Fritzgerald-Lorentze  equation came about??

Based on what I’ve read, it was originally an attempt to salvage the aether theory from the negative result of Michelson-Morley. The aether part turned out to be wrong, but the postulate turned out to fit with special relativity, which reconciled all of those seemingly contradictory experiments.
 

That's right NO Movement or rotation of the earth was detected

Again, they were looking for relative motion through stationary aether. That they failed to find it either means no relative motion or no stationary aether (there are actually a bunch of other auxiliary hypotheses that could have failed). It turned out it was the latter.
 

, hence Shazaam We Must equate a way to show the equipment shrank right in front of our eyes without anyone noticing such a shrinkage lol. Ummm Yeah because the light somehow with the 'Movement' magically change the equipment's size and or shape at that time lol but umm.. of course we could not see it because ummm... OH YEAH we too were moving at breakneck speeds therefore we were literally blinded by SCIENTISM!!! Sounds fair to you popoi???

What do you expect they should have seen/measured if length contraction was real?

#54 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 11 April 2018 - 11:01 PM

https://www.edge.org...-isn-39t-zeroHere you can find the shocking (To many) confessions that Relativity has lost credibility with Physicist and Cosmologist along with Astrophysicist let me quote some of this for those of whom will not go read it themselves 

 

First, your link doesn't work for me, but I think I've seen the lecture on youtube. Second, on multiple occasions you have used relativity to support geocentrism, so I am confused as to your view on relativity.

 

We've got this weird antigravity in the universe, which is making the expansion of the universe accelerate. Now: if you plug in the equations of general relativity, the only thing that can 'anti-gravitate' is the energy of nothing. Now: this has been a problem in physics since I've been a graduate student. It was such a severe problem we never talked about it. When you apply quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space inevitably has energy. The problem is, way too much energy. It has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than is contained in everything we see!  Umm......Now why would they wish to keep it in the closet and not speak of it???  Yeah i do agree here with Mr. Lawrence crock of Krauss. Yet he and all others continue to postulate as to the validity of utter  convoluted nonsense, why ??? Because AT ALL COST THEY MUST!! Or surrender to the actual scientific experiments that indeed show an ever still Earth!  

 

How would empty space having energy support a stationary Earth? I don't get it.

 

Fyi, this lecture is all about the hypothesis that the universe has a net of zero energy, and thus could have formed from a quantum fluctuation from a state devoid of space, time, and matter, and Krauss uses this as an argument against God.

 

There appears to be energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.  So as we can see those of whom postulate for such a worldview will rather rely upon equations verses relying on actual Experimentation for supposed proof!! Just as Tesla knew and condemned them for doing!

 

That is not what he is saying, and he even explains what he means in the next part you copy-pasted. He is talking about needing a new theory/idea that has yet to be conceived, not simply more experiments.

 

  Now obviously Crock of Krauss is indeed referring to a 'Multi Universe' why ??? Because relativity physics are indeed found lacking and in want of yet another overhaul. Which again renders these postulates to be entwined in utter ignorance and nonsense! 

 

Interesting how you belittle multiverse as ignorant and nonsense while advocating a view that has been empirically debunked for a few centuries.

 

For the record, I have no dog in the multiverse fight. The mathematics works, but there hasn't been any observation confirming multiverse (scientists have looked), but there hasn't been any observation falsifying multiverse either.

 

piasan and all other atheist as i have know for many a yr and as YOU too can indeed see Religion is indeed a huge part of this discussion, there is NO WAY AROUND it!! Scientism is the new found Religious worldview!! No need to deny just accept the 'Fact' the you are arguing from a religious worldview called Scientism!!   

 

I apologize in advance for being off-topic. 

 

How do you define religion? Religion is one of those words that doesn't have a hard and fast technical definition, but my personal base definition (adapted from a definition I got in a religion 101 class) consists of four pillars. Belief in a supernatural or transcendent something. We are connected to this supernatural something. Humanity is connected to each other through this supernatural something. And, our greatest calling is to conform to this supernatural something through some kind of transformation process.
 

My point is that science, or scientism (the belief that science is the only valid way of obtaining information), is not a religion by any standard usage of the word religion.

 

 Case closed, ignorance abounds!! Just as i have stated Gods 'Word' will NEVER be wrong! Modern Scientist MUST postulate themselves with what they 'Think' they know as 'Scientific Fact'. Time to fess up and admit the BLIND are indeed leading the BLIND!   

 

OH how ole Einstein would be rolling over, or rather flip flopping!!    :gilligan: :cry:   :consoling:  :kaffeetrinker:  :yoda:

 

I am completely confused as to what exactly you are talking about. There will always be questions and ignorance when talking about the cutting edge of any scientific field; the whole point of science is to improve upon our understanding of the unknown, and that means wrestling with the unknown.

 

To paraphrase Piasan, the irony meter is skyrocketing. You are making fun of the ignorance positioned on the precipice of human scientific knowledge, while simultaneously propping up a model of the universe that has been debunked for centuries.



#55 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 April 2018 - 01:16 AM

I'm not only showing the Biblical Text as literal but to also prove this so called 'Settled Science' myth is indeed just that a myth.

The science that objects/systems rotate around their center of gravity is about as "settled science" as you can get.  It's demonstrated by every high school or university lab group at some point during their studies.  It is mandated by Newtonian physics.  There is absolutely nothing theoretical or arbitrary about it.
 
Earth is not the center of mass for the solar system.  The solar system does not orbit the Earth.
 
Earth is not the center of mass for the galaxy.    The galaxy does not orbit the Earth.
 
Since the Earth is not the center of the solar system and the Earth is not the center of the galaxy, it's going to be really really difficult to show the Earth is the center of the universe.
 
 

As you should be well aware from Einsteinian worldview all things are simply relative and there is no real truth, right lol.

Can you show where Einstein ever said there is no real truth?  Einstein's theories are for physics and mathematics .... not philosophy and theology.
 
 

So i do believe this most 'Modern' worldview has a religious basis and this religion is 'Scientism' complete with rules and guidelines for which mankind should adhere.

Your religious belief is noted.  You must adhere to the "rules and guidelines" of science when doing science.    When engaging in other activities, one should follow the "rules and guidelines" applicable to that activity.  We don't play tennis by the rules of baseball.
 
 

But indeed in all it's aspects tries to undermine 'Gods' 'Word'.

Science is indifferent to the Bible.   The most you can say is that scientific inquiry will "test" some of what is said in the Bible .... but that's a long way from the goal being to "undermine" it.
 
 

Subsequently as why i first brought up this topic to begin, was showing how the 'Copernican Principle was wrong' it leads to 'Modern' man believing themselves upon a meaningless mass of rock whizzing thru space at breakneck speeds, bound for collision with another galaxy.

I'm still waiting for you to actually SHOW the Copernican Principle is substantially wrong.  The Sun, not the Earth is the center of the solar system  ..... exactly as Copernicus says.
 
 

As why i have quoted many astrophysicist, cosmologist and physicist.

All of whom have said we can ARBITRARILY choose Earth as the center of our coordinate system and do our calculations more easily from there.  Not one of them has said the Earth is ACTUALLY the center of the universe.


"Science is indifferent to the Bible."

Well since "Science" is not a sentient being that can show indifference ,that statement is a superfluous boondoggle on steroids..


Let's try to clean it up a little...

IF "Science" were to be carried out by unbiased robots with the sole objective of discovering what is true, BTW, ("Knowledge" of the counterfactual is NOT knowledge) then yes Scientific Rigour would have nothing to do with whether the Bible is True or Not...

HOWEVER

"Science" is undertaken by "Scientists" AKA Biased and Flawed humans with limited knowledge who have a particular epistemological worldview that they WANT to believe.. (And MANY of them want others to share their beliefs) IRREGARDLESS of whether they have any logical basis for those epistemological beliefs..

SO UNFORTUNATELY..

We live in a society with Mob Rule, where the truth can be secondary to what POPULAR OPINION happens to be..


BTW

Who do you think that Leading Evolutionary Biologist and Geneticist Richard Lewontin was referring to with the word "We"..?

"for WE cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"



"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

#56 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,281 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 12 April 2018 - 01:26 AM

https://www.edge.org...-isn-39t-zeroHere you can find the shocking (To many) confessions that Relativity has lost credibility with Physicist and Cosmologist along with Astrophysicist let me quote some of this for those of whom will not go read it themselves 

 
First, your link doesn't work for me, but I think I've seen the lecture on youtube. Second, on multiple occasions you have used relativity to support geocentrism, so I am confused as to your view on relativity.
 

We've got this weird antigravity in the universe, which is making the expansion of the universe accelerate. Now: if you plug in the equations of general relativity, the only thing that can 'anti-gravitate' is the energy of nothing. Now: this has been a problem in physics since I've been a graduate student. It was such a severe problem we never talked about it. When you apply quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space inevitably has energy. The problem is, way too much energy. It has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than is contained in everything we see!  [/size]Umm......Now why would they wish to keep it in the closet and not speak of it???  Yeah i do agree here with Mr. Lawrence crock of Krauss. Yet he and all others continue to postulate as to the validity of utter  convoluted nonsense, why ??? Because AT ALL COST THEY MUST!! Or surrender to the actual scientific experiments that indeed show an ever still Earth!  [/size] [/size]

 
How would empty space having energy support a stationary Earth? I don't get it.
 
Fyi, this lecture is all about the hypothesis that the universe has a net of zero energy, and thus could have formed from a quantum fluctuation from a state devoid of space, time, and matter, and Krauss uses this as an argument against God.
 

There appears to be energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.  So as we can see those of whom postulate for such a worldview will rather rely upon equations verses relying on actual Experimentation for supposed proof!! Just as Tesla knew and condemned them for doing!

 
That is not what he is saying, and he even explains what he means in the next part you copy-pasted. He is talking about needing a new theory/idea that has yet to be conceived, not simply more experiments.
 

Now obviously Crock of Krauss is indeed referring to a 'Multi Universe' why ??? Because relativity physics are indeed found lacking and in want of yet another overhaul. Which again renders these postulates to be entwined in utter ignorance and nonsense! 

 
Interesting how you belittle multiverse as ignorant and nonsense while advocating a view that has been empirically debunked for a few centuries.
 
For the record, I have no dog in the multiverse fight. The mathematics works, but there hasn't been any observation confirming multiverse (scientists have looked), but there hasn't been any observation falsifying multiverse either.
 

piasan and all other atheist as i have know for many a yr and as YOU too can indeed see Religion is indeed a huge part of this discussion, there is NO WAY AROUND it!! Scientism is the new found Religious worldview!! No need to deny just accept the 'Fact' the you are arguing from a religious worldview called Scientism!!   

 
I apologize in advance for being off-topic. 
 
How do you define religion? Religion is one of those words that doesn't have a hard and fast technical definition, but my personal base definition (adapted from a definition I got in a religion 101 class) consists of four pillars. Belief in a supernatural or transcendent something. We are connected to this supernatural something. Humanity is connected to each other through this supernatural something. And, our greatest calling is to conform to this supernatural something through some kind of transformation process.
 
My point is that science, or scientism (the belief that science is the only valid way of obtaining information), is not a religion by any standard usage of the word religion.
 

Case closed, ignorance abounds!! Just as i have stated Gods 'Word' will NEVER be wrong! Modern Scientist MUST postulate themselves with what they 'Think' they know as 'Scientific Fact'. Time to fess up and admit the BLIND are indeed leading the BLIND!   
 
OH how ole Einstein would be rolling over, or rather flip flopping!!    :gilligan: :cry: [/size]  :consoling:[/size]  :kaffeetrinker:[/size]  :yoda:[/size] [/size]

 
I am completely confused as to what exactly you are talking about. There will always be questions and ignorance when talking about the cutting edge of any scientific field; the whole point of science is to improve upon our understanding of the unknown, and that means wrestling with the unknown.
 
To paraphrase Piasan, the irony meter is skyrocketing. You are making fun of the ignorance positioned on the precipice of human scientific knowledge, while simultaneously propping up a model of the universe that has been debunked for centuries.


Fyi, this lecture is all about the hypothesis that the universe has a net of zero energy, and thus could have formed from a quantum fluctuation from a state devoid of space, time, and matter"

Just out of curiosity, do you consider this to be a possibility?


"Interesting how you belittle multiverse as ignorant and nonsense"


Just out of curiosity, Are you defending the Multiverse as a PLAUSIBLE hypothesis? If not, then you ABANDON the right to criticize anyone for belittling it as "ignorant and nonsense" (ical)!

#57 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,139 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 12 April 2018 - 02:41 AM

Fyi, this lecture is all about the hypothesis that the universe has a net of zero energy, and thus could have formed from a quantum fluctuation from a state devoid of space, time, and matter"


Just out of curiosity, do you consider this to be a possibility?

 

Yes.

 

Just out of curiosity, Are you defending the Multiverse as a PLAUSIBLE hypothesis? If not, then you ABANDON the right to criticize anyone for belittling it as "ignorant and nonsense" (ical)!

 

A multiverse is a real possibility. I doubt any modern physicist would give geocentrism a higher probability than a multiverse, and it wouldn't even be close.
 



#58 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 12 April 2018 - 09:50 AM

 

https://www.edge.org...-isn-39t-zeroHere you can find the shocking (To many) confessions that Relativity has lost credibility with Physicist and Cosmologist along with Astrophysicist let me quote some of this for those of whom will not go read it themselves 

 

First, your link doesn't work for me, but I think I've seen the lecture on youtube. Second, on multiple occasions you have used relativity to support geocentrism, so I am confused as to your view on relativity. Goku, the entirerty of 'My' views can indeed be found in the Biblical pages of 'The WORD' and alone in those pages by which instruct, mandate, nourish, comfort etc. etc. etc. i rely.

 

We've got this weird antigravity in the universe, which is making the expansion of the universe accelerate. Now: if you plug in the equations of general relativity, the only thing that can 'anti-gravitate' is the energy of nothing. Now: this has been a problem in physics since I've been a graduate student. It was such a severe problem we never talked about it. When you apply quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space inevitably has energy. The problem is, way too much energy. It has 120 orders of magnitude more energy than is contained in everything we see!  Umm......Now why would they wish to keep it in the closet and not speak of it???  Yeah i do agree here with Mr. Lawrence crock of Krauss. Yet he and all others continue to postulate as to the validity of utter  convoluted nonsense, why ??? Because AT ALL COST THEY MUST!! Or surrender to the actual scientific experiments that indeed show an ever still Earth!  

 

How would empty space having energy support a stationary Earth? I don't get it. Goku, umm.... by what empty space might you be in reference to?? Please do tell.... Have you and the world not known this assumed empty space is indeed rather 'FULL' of bodies in motion!!! Have you failed to cause your eyes to gaze up, into the heavens above you? Have you also failed to read my prior postings? I indeed believe this to be the case.

 

Fyi, this lecture is all about the hypothesis that the universe has a net of zero energy, and thus could have formed from a quantum fluctuation from a state devoid of space, time, and matter, and Krauss uses this as an argument against God. Goku, umm....'net of zero energy' ??  look just below this sentence please, as it seems your mind has been blow into critical shutdown by the ramifications of exactly what the convoluted jimmijargon and utter nonsensical hypothesis are, and by this sentence produced by that mind of yours of which i find myself amusingly responding to....

 

There appears to be energy of empty space that isn't zero! This flies in the face of all conventional wisdom in theoretical particle physics. It is the most profound shift in thinking, perhaps the most profound puzzle, in the latter half of the 20th century. And it may be the first half of the 21st century, or maybe go all the way to the 22nd century. Because, unfortunately, I happen to think we won't be able to rely on experiment to resolve this problem.  So as we can see those of whom postulate for such a worldview will rather rely upon equations verses relying on actual Experimentation for supposed proof!! Just as Tesla knew and condemned them for doing!

 

That is not what he is saying, and he even explains what he means in the next part you copy-pasted. He is talking about needing a new theory/idea that has yet to be conceived, not simply more experiments. Lol Goku, What Krauss is indeed saying in the entire interview is that they are 'ALL' QUACKS!! Whom come up with quote "WILD Hypothesis" after never ending wild hypothesis, trying to conform the observations into their worldview!! Point Blank!! 

 

  Now obviously Crock of Krauss is indeed referring to a 'Multi Universe' why ??? Because relativity physics are indeed found lacking and in want of yet another overhaul. Which again renders these postulates to be entwined in utter ignorance and nonsense! 

 

Interesting how you belittle multiverse as ignorant and nonsense while advocating a view that has been empirically debunked for a few centuries.

 

For the record, I have no dog in the multiverse fight. The mathematics works, but there hasn't been any observation confirming multiverse (scientists have looked), but there hasn't been any observation falsifying multiverse either.

 

piasan and all other atheist as i have know for many a yr and as YOU too can indeed see Religion is indeed a huge part of this discussion, there is NO WAY AROUND it!! Scientism is the new found Religious worldview!! No need to deny just accept the 'Fact' the you are arguing from a religious worldview called Scientism!!   

 

I apologize in advance for being off-topic. 

 

How do you define religion? Religion is one of those words that doesn't have a hard and fast technical definition, but my personal base definition (adapted from a definition I got in a religion 101 class) consists of four pillars. Belief in a supernatural or transcendent something. Goku, Yes 'Scientism' fits exactly your 'Religion' definition, your supernatural or transcendent something is (??) some mysterious something brought forth life from an asteroid, Or your supernatural something somehow just 'Shazaam' 'Pow' Bang' the universe and or universes into being. Oh by the way Goku if you believe the latter then you prove you religious ideology, yep just like me!! But i do not believe in the Big Bang i believe the Earth was here before the Sun and yes exactly what and how his 'WORD' made it. And ummm.. indeed in the chronological order of which it states. We are connected to this supernatural something. Goku indeed you worldview 'MANDATES' you are indeed interconnected via goo to you via the zoo. Humanity is connected to each other through this supernatural something. Goku your nature God via evolution.And, our greatest calling is to conform to this supernatural something through some kind of transformation process. Goku indeed you conform to your supernatural nature God thru your so called transformation process of evolution.   
 

My point is that science, or scientism (the belief that science is the only valid way of obtaining information), is not a religion by any standard usage of the word religion. Goku, here you are merely and simply wrong....

 

 Case closed, ignorance abounds!! Just as i have stated Gods 'Word' will NEVER be wrong! Modern Scientist MUST postulate themselves with what they 'Think' they know as 'Scientific Fact'. Time to fess up and admit the BLIND are indeed leading the BLIND!   

 

OH how ole Einstein would be rolling over, or rather flip flopping!!    :gilligan: :cry:   :consoling:  :kaffeetrinker:  :yoda:

 

I am completely confused as to what exactly you are talking about. There will always be questions and ignorance when talking about the cutting edge of any scientific field;  the whole point of science is to improve upon our understanding of the unknown, and that means wrestling with the unknown.

 

To paraphrase Piasan, the irony meter is skyrocketing. You are making fun of the ignorance positioned on the precipice of human scientific knowledge, while simultaneously propping up a model of the universe that has been debunked for centuries. Goku, My Gods 'Word' has never and shall never be debunked lol. What has ever debunked Joshua 10: 12-13 ?? where is this long withheld empirical fact that Debunks My God, which is indeed the same God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!  Come now and prove my God and his 'WORD' wrong!

That is, we live in one universe, so we're a sample of one. With a sample of one, you have what is called a large sample variance. Ad- hoc, fairytale, lala land of his mind! And maybe this just means we're lucky, Nay no such luck lil fella. that we just happen to live in a universe where the number's smaller than you'd predict. But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, Umm.. Structure?? You indeed mean the exact 'Structure' that you other high priest Richard Dorkins says is not really 'Structure' but merely gives off the illusion of structure?? is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That's crazy. We're looking out at the whole universe. There's no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. Hahaha Oh yes indeed Krauss come face to face with your Paradigm Crushing Reality!! That would say we are truly the center of the universe.

The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, Well indeed i'm gratified he agrees with me on only THE MOST IMPORTANT Cosmology findings..or maybe the data is imply incorrect, Oh sure thing lil fella all the Data that has proved the exact same thing from multiple sources in multiple decades all showing we are the center of our known universe is??? Correctly Fitting and in 100% accordance with what the 'WORD OF GOD SAYS'!! Well just imagine that lol.  or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales. And of course as a theorist I'm certainly hoping it's the latter, because I want theory to be wrong, not right, because if it's wrong there's still work left for the rest of us.



#59 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 12 April 2018 - 10:04 AM

 

Fyi, this lecture is all about the hypothesis that the universe has a net of zero energy, and thus could have formed from a quantum fluctuation from a state devoid of space, time, and matter"


Just out of curiosity, do you consider this to be a possibility?

 

Yes. Why of Course you 'MUST' by all means because if you look into the utter catastrophe that is modern Physics you 'MUST' seek out by all means some other thing.

 

Just out of curiosity, Are you defending the Multiverse as a PLAUSIBLE hypothesis? If not, then you ABANDON the right to criticize anyone for belittling it as "ignorant and nonsense" (ical)!

 

A multiverse is a real possibility. A multiverse is another quote 'Wild Hypothesis' that MUST be conformed to by modern Cosmologist, Astrophysicist and Physicist alike!! There is NO other escape route left form which they can hide so They MUST turn into their unique Religious Metaphysical illusion. Not so much Different from the long Known Christian and Hebrew worldview that knows of, may i say and indeed dare i say another Dimension or dare i say an unseen realm!! Funny how no matter which way Scientism Leads they always come back to a Metaphysical ideology!!!  I doubt any modern physicist would give geocentrism a higher probability than a multiverse, and it wouldn't even be close.
 

 



#60 KillurBluff

KillurBluff

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:S.W. Indiana
  • Interests:Theology, Acoustics, Planting Fruit Trees on my Property.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • In.

Posted 12 April 2018 - 10:54 AM

Let me further state for a record we 'Christians' are NOT given over to a quote "Spirit of Fear" as is most clearly stated in 2 Timothy 1:7. Howbeit Christians whom claim all Authority thru Yeshua Yahweh and his 'WORD', yet wish to bow in fear of this Modern worldview? If we as Christians are to claim to believe in ALL the Gospels What was the Earth revolving around before the Sun was spoken into existence?? Is Gods Word hereby made negligible?? From WHAT Authority has Modern Mythology made you fearful of Standing Tall for our God and the "WORD"?? Are you become adherent to render scripture to that of Metaphor?? Let ME be hereby deemed a 'FOOL For Christ'!! Just as 1 Corinthians 4:10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users