[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Creationism/Evolution See other Creationism/Evolution Articles Title: NASA's Hubble Finds Most Distant Galaxy Candidate Ever Seen in Universe Source: NASA URL Source: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/h ... e/science/farthest-galaxy.html Published: Mar 22, 2015 Author: VxH Post Date: 2015-03-22 03:09:26 by VxH Keywords: None Views: 14878 Comments: 62 "Astronomers have pushed NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to its limits by finding what is likely to be the most distant object ever seen in the universe. The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder. The age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years." Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: All (#0) Light that traveled 13.2 Billion light years reached the Hubble. So what's the organized religious response from those who assert the world is only a few thousand years old? VxH  posted on  2015-03-22   3:11:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: VxH (#1) Hmm, not sure if you realize this, but there are bigger issues out there to obsess about. Just sayin..... Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-03-22   4:03:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: Dead Culture Watch (#2) The next generation of telescopes may be interesting in confirming or refuting Big Bang. There are alternate theories, like the minority who think the universe has simply always existed in various forms but much as it is today. So if your telescopes get good enough to see further than 14 million light years (more than the supposed age of the universe), you would disprove Big Bang (but not relativity). At the rate of advance in space telescopes, we could do this in a decade or so. After all, Hubble was very limited to begin with. Falsifiability is an essential element of science. This is likely a way to put Big Bang to the test. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-22   6:27:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: TooConservative (#3) So if your telescopes get good enough to see further than 14 million light years (more than the supposed age of the universe), you would disprove Big Bang (but not relativity). Not necessarily. It would either disprove the Big Bang OR disprove the estimated age of the universe. (That only after proving your image shows something more than 13.7 billion light years away). Of course there may well be a few other potential explanations to make everything fit together as well. I think the current theory is that the laws of physics were different shortly after the big bang. If so, then it will be hard to draw many conclusions from any set of evidence. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-22   6:54:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: TooConservative (#3) I've recently heard the new theory is that the universe has always existed, is eternal. Its the 'agreed' science of the day, lol. Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-03-22   7:31:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: Pinguinite (#4) "The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble" So if that object was a galaxy, and you lived in that galaxy, what would you observe looking away from our galaxy? What if you launched a probe into that undefined nothingness? misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-22   9:39:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: Dead Culture Watch (#5) I've recently heard the new theory is that the universe has always existed, is eternal. Its the 'agreed' science of the day, lol. It is still definitely a minority view among physicists. However, it is attractive because it doesn't need to explain what happened prior to the supposed Big Bang. Conventional Big Bang theory doesn't have the faintest notion of what happened prior to the Bang which is a notable weakness. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-22   10:10:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: Pinguinite (#4) I think the current theory is that the laws of physics were different shortly after the big bang. If so, then it will be hard to draw many conclusions from any set of evidence. In physics, you don't really get to draw conclusions based on such speculative thinking. You may as well suggest the Martians caused it. Or God. Or any other scheme you like. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-22   10:12:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: Dead Culture Watch (#2) bigger issues out there to obsess about. Bigger issues like whether the Sun still revolves around the Earth at the center of the sun-parrot universe? VxH  posted on  2015-03-22   11:00:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: VxH (#0) (Edited) "The object's light traveled 13.2 billion years to reach Hubble, roughly 150 million years longer than the previous record holder. The age of the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years." If we started off with some Big Bang singularity 13.7 billion years ago, and this object is now 13.2 billion light years away, that means that it averaged close to light- speed away from us? Given that objects in our universe are accelerating away from each other, how does any object average near light-speed? Unless ... it popped into existence 13.2 billion years ago 13.2 billion light-years away, and its light is just now reaching us. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-22   11:31:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: misterwhite (#10) Given that objects in our universe are accelerating away from each other, how does any object average near light-speed? Actually if you study new data on the big bang hoax. You would know that the universe isn't accelerating away from each other. But in multiple directions. Which many non creationist scientists say the big bang is a big pile of crap. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-22   11:37:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: A K A Stone (#11) "But in multiple directions." Yes. As though all the objects in the universe are on the surface of a balloon and someone is inflating the balloon. The universe is increasing in size, and all the objects are speeding away from each other to fill it. Some say the opposite -- all the objects are speeding away from each other and the universe is expanding to accomodate them. The Big Bang theory is possible if the universe popped into existence on a very large scale, not from a single point. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-22   11:49:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: TooConservative (#8) "In physics, you don't really get to draw conclusions based on such speculative thinking.' Our physics are defined by our universe. Different universe, different physics. No universe, no physics. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-22   12:34:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: TooConservative (#7) Conventional Big Bang theory doesn't have the faintest notion of what happened prior to the Bang which is a notable weakness. In our current universe, space and time go hand in hand, so if there was no space, there was no time either. Stephen Hawkings described asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. A weird concept to wrap one's head around but... that's the argument, at least. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-22   13:32:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: misterwhite (#10) Given that objects in our universe are accelerating away from each other, how does any object average near light-speed? I think current theory says the universe was expanding as much faster than the speed of light in the initial bang, slowing down significantly at some point afterwards. The laws of physics has supposedly "changed" though that would probably be clarified as not changing per se, but rather just not fully understood. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-22   13:41:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: TooConservative, Dead Culture Watch, All (#3) So if your telescopes get good enough to see further than 14 million light years (more than the supposed age of the universe), you would disprove Big Bang (but not relativity). At the rate of advance in space telescopes, we could do this in a decade or so. After all, Hubble was very limited to begin with. I don't think you have this quite right. All the 13.2 billion light years says is that the Universe is at least this big. It has nothing to do with the orign or center of the Unoverse (i.e. the reference point for the location of the Big Bang). потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-03-22   16:46:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: SOSO (#16) "It has nothing to do with the orign or center of the Unoverse (i.e. the reference point for the location of the Big Bang)." Shouldn't we be able to easily pinpoint that, given that every object in the universe should be rushing away from it? misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-22   17:03:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: misterwhite (#17) "It has nothing to do with the orign or center of the Unoverse (i.e. the reference point for the location of the Big Bang)." Shouldn't we be able to easily pinpoint that, given that every object in the universe should be rushing away from it? I wouldn't think so because we are receiving light basically from objects that surround the Earth in a 360 sphere. For example, if the Earth was at the center of the Universe it would be receiving light from 360 degrees in all directions. That would mean that we would receive light from 13 light years away coming from the north of the sphere around us and from the south pole. This would indicate that Universe was at least 26 light years across. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-03-22   21:10:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: VxH (#1) Light that traveled 13.2 Billion light years reached the Hubble. So what's the organized religious response from those who assert the world is only a few thousand years old? Other than God Himself is the only one to have observed this, nothing. We can only guess, speculate, hypothesize etc. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   0:29:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: Dead Culture Watch, GarySpFc, liberator (#5) I've recently heard the new theory is that the universe has always existed, is eternal. Its the 'agreed' science of the day, lol. "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."-- Robert Jastrow "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   0:34:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: misterwhite (#6) What if you launched a probe into that undefined nothingness? Maybe another telescope? "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   0:35:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: VxH (#9) Bigger issues like whether the Sun still revolves around the Earth at the center of the sun-parrot universe? Yeah the Greeks really got that wrong; and all those who bought into Greek philosophy syncretizing it with Christian theology. It was a medieval machination. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   0:39:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Pinguinite (#14) Stephen Hawkings described asking what happened before the big bang is like asking what's north of the north pole. It's an intelligent brain teaser but akin to yelling "look squirrel!" Meaning the actual creation of the matter, and conditions, to cause Big Bang is an inconvenient truth for him and others. It's probably why most honest scientists don't go to Vegas. They know the odds. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   0:44:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: redleghunter (#23) Meaning the actual creation of the matter, and conditions, to cause Big Bang is an inconvenient truth for him and others. Why did it need to be created? Maybe it was always here? rlk  posted on  2015-03-23   0:53:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: rlk (#24) You and I were not always "here." We can observe that. Everything in our universe decays, dies. It has an end. Procreation has a beginning. The universe tells us loud and clear something does not come from nothing. Taking the "universe has no beginning and is eternal" is a theological statement. Not scientific. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   1:05:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: redleghunter (#25) (Edited) Taking the "universe has no beginning and is eternal" is a theological statement. Not scientific. What the hell does that word salad mean? rlk  posted on  2015-03-23   1:17:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: redleghunter (#23) Meaning the actual creation of the matter, and conditions, to cause Big Bang is an inconvenient truth for him and others. I think this is disingenuous to scientists. A true scientist actually has a craving for solving the riddles of nature. And while finding explanations and achieving understanding is itself a great reward, it would be disappointing for all mysteries to be solved as there would be no more searching or digging for more answers. While theologians may be content to accept things on faith, a scientist, by definition, does not have that luxury. Even the bible says, in proverbs, that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of man to seek out a matter. I see no reason to denigrate the honest scientific profession, and while many or even most scientists may well have their own bias that can interfere with their work, that does not mean they are not consciously honest people. A physical explanation for the Big Bang would doubtless involve alternate universes or dimensions, the discussion of which are very much mainstream in the scientific community. Such alternate universes may well be where spiritual faith and science converge. Time may tell. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-23   2:00:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: redleghunter (#20) "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Even if this were true, I would add to the analogy that it is the scientist that would have, because of his exhaustive research, a full understanding of where the mountain was. It is he who could point it out on a map. The theologians wouldn't have a clue. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-23   2:05:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: misterwhite (#13) Our physics are defined by our universe. Or perhaps our our universe is defined by our physics? Or they are one and the same thing? Or if not what is the difference? A Pole  posted on  2015-03-23   3:01:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Pinguinite, GarySpFc, liberator, Vicomte13 (#27) I think this is disingenuous to scientists. A true scientist actually has a craving for solving the riddles of nature. And while finding explanations and achieving understanding is itself a great reward, it would be disappointing for all mysteries to be solved as there would be no more searching or digging for more answers. I understand the curiosity as it is human nature. It is just not scientific. They look 'odd' dousing Christians and philosophers with insults when they engage in the same exericise on origins. So when they step into this realm of being they should put on their armor. that it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but the glory of man to seek out a matter. Can't argue with that. Solomon was wise to say so. We were created curious beings. Just as were the earlier Western scientists and philosophers. They all had one thing in common. What we observe is ordered and was created by a personal Creator. Curious they were that thanks to their humility and efforts we have modern science which has derived so many cures for sickness. Where I take pause in our post-modern world is the arrogance of our scientists today. Most exclude even the very thought of an "unmoved Mover" in the origins of our existence. Akin to the short sighted Middle ages where anything science was considered heretical. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   9:18:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pinguinite, GarySpFc (#28) Even if this were true, I would add to the analogy that it is the scientist that would have, because of his exhaustive research, a full understanding of where the mountain was. It is he who could point it out on a map. The theologians wouldn't have a clue. It was meant to be a bit of humor as I see it written. The theologians wouldn't have a clue. By the quote they (the theologians) were on top first:) Perhaps they 'hired' a guide who showed them. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genesis 1:1) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-23   9:24:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Pinguinite, redleghunter (#28) (Edited) I would add to the analogy that it is the scientist that would have, because of his exhaustive research, a full understanding of where the mountain was. It is he who could point it out on a map. The theologians wouldn't have a clue. In the purest sense, you're mostly likely correct. However, I'm not sure the two are mutually or necessarily exclusive. There seems to be a movement advancing the myth that those with faith in the Almighty and His nature and law are at odds with science. If you ask many scientists these days, they'll merely admit that life and nature's law reinforce their faith, as well as in their Creator-Designer, God. Liberator  posted on  2015-03-23   9:51:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: misterwhite (#10) (Edited) Unless ... Unless, did you take into account the expansion of Space itself - and with it the distances observed within? Personally I don't see any conflict between the modern cosmological model and the assertion that God created the universe from nothing. They both say the same thing, one moment there was nothing, and the next, all the energy in the universe today existed. Let there be light! BANG! The bump that gets the feathers of religiously petrified sun-parrots all ruffled is that light traveling 13+ billion years sort of contradicts their quaint notion that Creation is only a few thousand years old. They're welcome to their opinion - but when they start asserting that I must accept of their cosmic calendar instead of believing what my own eyes see as a condition of my (or my children's) membership in "THEIR" body of Christ, well... then I start plucking Fallible and Uninspired plumage. VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   1:41:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: VxH (#33) "Unless, did you take into account the expansion of Space itself - and with it the distances observed within?" Well, I didn't want to get technical so I ignored that. My point was that the "Big Bang" occurred some 13-14 billion years ago, but not from a single point. To me, that's more plausible than this "remote object" starting out right next to us 13.7 billion years ago (during the Big Bang) and ending up 13.2 billion light-years away during that time. It would have to be travelling near light speed all the way, and the red-shift would be extreme. I believe space-time is expanding to accommodate our expanding universe. But I don't see how the expansion of space-time has any effect on the objects within our universe. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   9:49:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: misterwhite (#34) Well, I didn't want to get technical so I ignored that. My point was that the "Big Bang" occurred some 13-14 billion years ago, but not from a single point. What you mean. Is someone told you that and you bought it hook line and hell. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-24   9:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: VxH (#33) "The bump that gets the feathers of religiously petrified sun-parrots all ruffled is that light traveling 13+ billion years sort of contradicts their quaint notion that Creation is only a few thousand years old." That's based on their belief that God created everything in 6 days with each "day" being 24 hours. But why would God use one revolution of a planet not yet created as his unit of measurement? If He did, maybe He was referring to one revolution of the planet Zorp which is 2 billion years. Meaning God took about 12+ billion years to create everything ... which is about right (given the uncertainties of Zorp). misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   10:06:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: A K A Stone (#35) "What you mean. Is someone told you that and you bought it hook line and hell." Nope. That's my own theory. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   10:07:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: misterwhite (#37) I didn't realize you were the one who made up the big bang hoax. Nice to meet you Mr creator of the Big bang hoax A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-24   10:21:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: VxH (#33) The bump that gets the feathers of religiously petrified sun-parrots all ruffled is that light traveling 13+ billion years sort of contradicts their quaint notion that Creation is only a few thousand years old. God created a finished work fool. Tell me why the creator would be forced for to wait for light to travel when he is the one who created it. Tell us fool why God would be unable to do that. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-24   10:23:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: VxH (#33) Dr Faulkner has a lesson for you. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/a-proposal-for-a-new- solution-to-the-light-travel-time-problem/ A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-24   10:24:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: misterwhite (#36) But why would God use one revolution of a planet not yet created as his unit of measurement You know more then God. So you tell us. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-24   10:25:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: A K A Stone (#38) "I didn't realize you were the one who made up the big bang hoax." a) It's a Theory, not a hoax. b) I have my own theory, which I cited. c) How do you know this theory is a hoax? misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   11:03:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: misterwhite (#42) c) How do you know this theory is a hoax? Short answer is all I have time for now. Because the earth was created by God as described in the Holy Bible. Because skin doesn't evolve around a heart, lungs, veins etc. Because all these theories big bang, evolution, billions of years are circular reasoning. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-03-24   11:11:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: A K A Stone (#40) Dr Faulkner has a lesson for you. "Admittedly, I have left much unsaid. Since my modest proposal appeals to a miracle, there may be no physical predictions and hence nothing that we can test." Riiiight. VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   11:29:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: A K A Stone (#39) (Edited) Tell us fool why God would be unable to do that. Tell us sun-parrot why God would want to do that - other than to perform an act that's been defined for Him ala human religious dogma and the "created things" who'd impose that between the Creator and the free minds of individuals seeking Him. Meanwhile the signals from Voyager are arriving on predictable schedule. VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   11:53:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: misterwhite (#36) But why would God use one revolution of a planet not yet created as his unit of measurement? Well obviously because the Earth is the center of the sun-parrot universe. Want to get them furiously stacking the firewood? Ask which inertial frame each "day" was being measured in. VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   12:09:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: misterwhite (#34) But I don't see how the expansion of space-time has any effect on the objects within our universe. Time is merely a derivative function of state-change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed. C is the product of Distance and Time, thus any change in either D or T has a relative impact upon C. VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   12:16:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: VxH (#47) "C is the product of Distance and Time" Nah. "C" just is. It's like Pi or Plank's Constant. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   13:45:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: misterwhite (#48) (Edited) Nah. "C" just is. It's like Pi or Plank's Constant. "The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is exactly 299792458 metres per second," www.google.com/search?q=s...f+light&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 "Speed has the dimensions of a length divided by a time" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed What happens to speed when the base units of Length and Time (meters and seconds) change? VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   16:19:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: VxH (#49) "What happens to speed when the base units of Length and Time (meters and seconds) change?" Well, that would change the weight of blue. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   16:32:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: misterwhite (#50) (Edited) And red. VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   16:41:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: VxH (#51) "And red." Now you're just guessing. misterwhite  posted on  2015-03-24   16:48:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: misterwhite (#52) (Edited) "And red." Now you're just guessing. No, the effect of spatial distortion is documented in red-shift changes observed and associated with gravitational lensing. But what if that distortion were uniformly distributed in a less expanded universe? What would the effect be upon the relative distance between P1 and P2 in the contexts of the universe at T1 and T1 + 13 billion years? VxH  posted on  2015-03-24   16:53:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: Pinguinite (#28) Even if this were true, I would add to the analogy that it is the scientist that would have, because of his exhaustive research, a full understanding of where the mountain was. It is he who could point it out on a map. The theologians wouldn't have a clue. And the voice of atheistic materialism rumbles and roars as it mocks theology. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-27   17:53:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: VxH (#33) (Edited) The bump that gets the feathers of religiously petrified sun-parrots all ruffled is that light traveling 13+ billion years sort of contradicts their quaint notion that Creation is only a few thousand years old. Did it ever occur to you that maybe light has not always traveled at 186,000 miles/sec? “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-27   17:59:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: VxH (#47) Time is merely a derivative function of state-change that progresses relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed. An atheistic materialist puts their tiny God in a bottle, and says, "Everything remains unchanged." “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-03-27   18:10:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: GarySpFC (#55) (Edited) VxH  posted on  2015-03-27   20:19:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: GarySpFC (#55) Did it ever occur to you that libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=38598&Disp=53#C53 VxH  posted on  2015-03-27   20:19:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: GarySpFC (#56) (Edited) "Everything remains unchanged." Time changes relative to E within the inertial frame(s) in which it is observed, and I'm not an atheist. VxH  posted on  2015-03-27   20:21:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: GarySpFC (#54) And the voice of atheistic materialism rumbles and roars as it mocks theology. I'm not sure of your exact meaning, but I'm certainly not mocking theology. Theologians and scientists both have great potential to contribute to our understanding of the universe and our place in it. It is inappropriate for either side to mock the other, and certainly there are those on both sides who do so. The truth stands on it's own, regardless of what errors, whether maliciously instigated or not, are projected by any person. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-29   5:15:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: GarySpFC (#54) (Edited) And the voice of atheistic materialism rumbles and roars as it mocks theology. Was human theological dogma among the "Created Things" referenced in Romans 1:25+? Got change for a goat? VxH  posted on  2015-03-29   12:53:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: VxH (#61) Got change for a goat? How about a dozen stray cats? I could round up more than that if you want 'em... Chuck_Wagon  posted on  2015-03-29   15:32:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com