Remember me
▼ Content

The science is absolutely not settled



Page 2 of 3<123>
01-02-2021 00:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Hawks are just not dinosaurs kid. If they are descended from dinosaurs so what? The age of dino's ended abruptly

Why should any rational adult believe your WACKY dogma?

LOL Birds are warm blooded and reptiles are cold blooded.

LOL ... but what-blooded were dinosaurs LOL? Warm or cold? LOL

Refresh my memory which fossils tell us that LOL? LOL

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-02-2021 01:34
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Hawks are just not dinosaurs kid. If they are descended from dinosaurs so what? The age of dino's ended abruptly

Why should any rational adult believe your WACKY dogma?

LOL Birds are warm blooded and reptiles are cold blooded.

LOL ... but what-blooded were dinosaurs LOL? Warm or cold? LOL

Refresh my memory which fossils tell us that LOL? LOL

.


Well after the asteroid hit and the debris thrown into the atmosphere cooled the Earth, the cold blooded dino's all died

Simple really
01-02-2021 14:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Hawks are just not dinosaurs kid. If they are descended from dinosaurs so what? The age of dino's ended abruptly

Why should any rational adult believe your WACKY dogma?

LOL Birds are warm blooded and reptiles are cold blooded.

LOL ... but what-blooded were dinosaurs LOL? Warm or cold? LOL

Refresh my memory which fossils tell us that LOL? LOL

.


Well after the asteroid hit and the debris thrown into the atmosphere cooled the Earth, the cold blooded dino's all died

Simple really

Really?? What about the American alligator? What about the komodo dragon? What about every lizard and snake that's out there?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-02-2021 19:12
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Swan wrote:
LOL how did Noah catch hawks by the way?

RQAA.

Swan wrote:
Also you need to figure out if you really believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs because Noah God and evolution can not coexist.

IBD was quite clear to you about what he believes, and he has also been quite clear in the past about his atheism (meaning "without theism", not to be confused with the Church of No God).

I would suggest using commas so that your argumentation is easier to properly comprehend (for example: "Noah, God, and evolution can not coexist"). As to your argumentation itself, those things actually CAN coexist. Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive religions (like the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of the Continuum are, or the Church of Christianity and the Church of No God are).

Swan wrote:
So you do not know what you believe

IBD has been very clear and consistent about what he believes. I have been very clear and consistent about my beliefs as well.

The difference between us and you is that we realize which of our beliefs are rooted in religion and which are rooted in science, as opposed to you who treats your WACKY religious beliefs as if they were somehow "what we know to be True". IBD is absolutely correct... you ARE a gullible moron.
01-02-2021 19:14
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Spongy Iris wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:I've never heard anybody say an asteroid which caused disonaur extinction was reality, Just a theory.

You are correct. It is just a theory. All speculation about the past is just unfalsifiable theory.

My personal belief is that the dinosaurs are still with us, just having evolved into birds/avians, i.e. they never became "extinct" per se. I cannot prove it; I simply believe it.

.


How is your pet T Rex

A little smaller these days. I don't know if it's because of his diet but he's definitely tipping the scales at a lighter weight.



.


Cheers from your friend Hawk Eye.


Beautiful bird there!
01-02-2021 20:25
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
LOL how did Noah catch hawks by the way?

RQAA.

Swan wrote:
Also you need to figure out if you really believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs because Noah God and evolution can not coexist.

IBD was quite clear to you about what he believes, and he has also been quite clear in the past about his atheism (meaning "without theism", not to be confused with the Church of No God).

I would suggest using commas so that your argumentation is easier to properly comprehend (for example: "Noah, God, and evolution can not coexist"). As to your argumentation itself, those things actually CAN coexist. Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive religions (like the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of the Continuum are, or the Church of Christianity and the Church of No God are).

Swan wrote:
So you do not know what you believe

IBD has been very clear and consistent about what he believes. I have been very clear and consistent about my beliefs as well.

The difference between us and you is that we realize which of our beliefs are rooted in religion and which are rooted in science, as opposed to you who treats your WACKY religious beliefs as if they were somehow "what we know to be True". IBD is absolutely correct... you ARE a gullible moron.

Yo nerds 3 feet of snow here now, al bore is full of shit. Global ice age ahead
01-02-2021 23:23
James___
★★★★★
(4152)
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
LOL how did Noah catch hawks by the way?

RQAA.

Swan wrote:
Also you need to figure out if you really believe that birds evolved from dinosaurs because Noah God and evolution can not coexist.

IBD was quite clear to you about what he believes, and he has also been quite clear in the past about his atheism (meaning "without theism", not to be confused with the Church of No God).

I would suggest using commas so that your argumentation is easier to properly comprehend (for example: "Noah, God, and evolution can not coexist"). As to your argumentation itself, those things actually CAN coexist. Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive religions (like the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of the Continuum are, or the Church of Christianity and the Church of No God are).

Swan wrote:
So you do not know what you believe

IBD has been very clear and consistent about what he believes. I have been very clear and consistent about my beliefs as well.

The difference between us and you is that we realize which of our beliefs are rooted in religion and which are rooted in science, as opposed to you who treats your WACKY religious beliefs as if they were somehow "what we know to be True". IBD is absolutely correct... you ARE a gullible moron.

Yo nerds 3 feet of snow here now, al bore is full of shit. Global ice age ahead



Get a life, Pplleeeeaaaasssee. We know it's coming, duh!! We're more concerned about the present.
01-02-2021 23:34
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
There'll be warming and melting long before the next ice age.
It takes a perspective to really understand it.
02-02-2021 00:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
gfm7175 wrote: Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive religions (like the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of the Continuum are, or the Church of Christianity and the Church of No God are).

Actually, ... the Continuum theory and the Big Bang theory are NOT mutually exclusive. They are both different ways of looking at the same thing.

Einstein's theory of Relativity explains how time itself passes at different rates (if you will) within different inertial frames of reference. For example, if you and I were to purchase identical wrist watches that we subsequently synchronized, and then you were to board a starship that flew for 30 minutes away from earth at close to the speed of light (as you noted by periodically checking your watch), and then spent the next 30 minutes returning to earth at the same near light speed, you would return to find that eighty years had passed on earth, and that my watch had run at normal speed the entire time.

In that scenario, you and I were in very disparate inertial frames of reference. No two inertial frames of reference are more disparate than those comprised of that which is outside the universe (continuum view) and that which is inside the universe (human Big Bang view). From the point of view of an observer outside the universe, starting at the present moment and going back in time to the creation of the universe, that observer would have to go back forever, i.e.he could never arrive at a point of creation, even if the universe had only been created 6,000 years prior from the perspective of an observer inside the universe.

Another way of looking at it is that time and energy and matter and dimension are all components of the universe and therefore outside the universe the passage of time is just as undefined as "forever."

Those who subscribe to the continuum view are not expressing anything incompatible with the big bang. They are simply emphasizing a different inertial frame of reference that might apply to a Creator rather than to an internal human observer.


Jussayn.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-02-2021 01:06
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive religions (like the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of the Continuum are, or the Church of Christianity and the Church of No God are).

Actually, ... the Continuum theory and the Big Bang theory are NOT mutually exclusive. They are both different ways of looking at the same thing.

Einstein's theory of Relativity explains how time itself passes at different rates (if you will) within different inertial frames of reference. For example, if you and I were to purchase identical wrist watches that we subsequently synchronized, and then you were to board a starship that flew for 30 minutes away from earth at close to the speed of light (as you noted by periodically checking your watch), and then spent the next 30 minutes returning to earth at the same near light speed, you would return to find that eighty years had passed on earth, and that my watch had run at normal speed the entire time.

In that scenario, you and I were in very disparate inertial frames of reference. No two inertial frames of reference are more disparate than those comprised of that which is outside the universe (continuum view) and that which is inside the universe (human Big Bang view). From the point of view of an observer outside the universe, starting at the present moment and going back in time to the creation of the universe, that observer would have to go back forever, i.e.he could never arrive at a point of creation, even if the universe had only been created 6,000 years prior from the perspective of an observer inside the universe.

Another way of looking at it is that time and energy and matter and dimension are all components of the universe and therefore outside the universe the passage of time is just as undefined as "forever."

Those who subscribe to the continuum view are not expressing anything incompatible with the big bang. They are simply emphasizing a different inertial frame of reference that might apply to a Creator rather than to an internal human observer.


Jussayn.

.

Thanks. I'll have to read through your reasoning in more detail and soak it in.

My reasoning for saying that they are mutually exclusive comes from the premise that the BBT has a 'beginning' [or 'was created'], and seems to logically lead towards an 'end' [or 'destruction'], while the Continuum theory does not have any 'beginning' [was not created] or 'end' [cannot be destroyed]. In other words, a universe under the continuum theory "simply is" rather than "came to be" as it would be under the BBT. That, on its face, would be mutually exclusive, but like I said, I will have to ponder over your reasoning.
03-02-2021 13:31
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive religions (like the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of the Continuum are, or the Church of Christianity and the Church of No God are).

Actually, ... the Continuum theory and the Big Bang theory are NOT mutually exclusive. They are both different ways of looking at the same thing.

Einstein's theory of Relativity explains how time itself passes at different rates (if you will) within different inertial frames of reference. For example, if you and I were to purchase identical wrist watches that we subsequently synchronized, and then you were to board a starship that flew for 30 minutes away from earth at close to the speed of light (as you noted by periodically checking your watch), and then spent the next 30 minutes returning to earth at the same near light speed, you would return to find that eighty years had passed on earth, and that my watch had run at normal speed the entire time.

In that scenario, you and I were in very disparate inertial frames of reference. No two inertial frames of reference are more disparate than those comprised of that which is outside the universe (continuum view) and that which is inside the universe (human Big Bang view). From the point of view of an observer outside the universe, starting at the present moment and going back in time to the creation of the universe, that observer would have to go back forever, i.e.he could never arrive at a point of creation, even if the universe had only been created 6,000 years prior from the perspective of an observer inside the universe.

Another way of looking at it is that time and energy and matter and dimension are all components of the universe and therefore outside the universe the passage of time is just as undefined as "forever."

Those who subscribe to the continuum view are not expressing anything incompatible with the big bang. They are simply emphasizing a different inertial frame of reference that might apply to a Creator rather than to an internal human observer.


Jussayn.

.

Thanks. I'll have to read through your reasoning in more detail and soak it in.

My reasoning for saying that they are mutually exclusive comes from the premise that the BBT has a 'beginning' [or 'was created'], and seems to logically lead towards an 'end' [or 'destruction'], while the Continuum theory does not have any 'beginning' [was not created] or 'end' [cannot be destroyed]. In other words, a universe under the continuum theory "simply is" rather than "came to be" as it would be under the BBT. That, on its face, would be mutually exclusive, but like I said, I will have to ponder over your reasoning.

Einsteins theory of relativity does not explain anything. If it did it would not be a theory
03-02-2021 15:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:Einsteins theory of relativity does not explain anything. If it did it would not be a theory

Yes, Relativity is a theory, but one that differs from Big Bang and (Darwin's) Evolution by being a falsifiable model that predicts nature and which has survived the scientific method.

Relativity is science whereas Big Bang and Evolution are not. This is why Relativity is used for gravitational calculations out beyond earth.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-02-2021 17:37
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
Swan wrote:
Einsteins theory of relativity does not explain anything.

Sure it does. A theory, by definition, is an explanatory argument.

Swan wrote:
If it did

It does.

Swan wrote:
it would not be a theory

It is the very definition of a theory.
03-02-2021 18:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
gfm7175 wrote: My reasoning for saying that they are mutually exclusive comes from the premise that the BBT has a 'beginning' [or 'was created'],

The problem lies in attempting to conceptualize a "beginning" which, in your mind, necessarily involves time, that does not occur in any point in time.

I don't know how much you remember about sixth grade math but at some point you learned about the number line for real numbers. Imagine you were to pop the zero off the number line along with all negative numbers. Now you point at, say, the number "1" and then slide your finger towards zero, what number is at the end? There is no answer because, with zero gone, you can always go some tiny distance further towards zero. For any point that you pick, there exists some point closer to zero that is not itself zero.

To draw an analogy to the universe's timeline, we just need to add one additional complication. This particular number line is "stretched." The amount of space between "2" and "3" is not the same as between "3" and "4." Imagine the amount of stretching is 1/X, meaning as numbers get larger, the amount of stretching diminishes. The amount of "stretch" at "1" is "1" meaning at the number "1" it is stretching "1" ... and at "4" it is stretching only 0.25, at 10 this number line is stretching only 0.1, etc...

But this means that at 1/2 the amount of stretch is 2, at 0.01 it is stretching 100. As you approach zero the number line stretch approaches infinity. Ergo, not only can you not get to the end (i.e. there's no zero) but all the "near zero" values approach being infinitely far away, stretching out forever. Please note that your "intertial frame of reference" (i.e. your perspective) is outside the numberline. This is how you would view the Creation timeline were you the Creator or any other observer outside the universe who had special magical powers of observation that would enable observation without having to observe in the traditional sense.

*BUT* the numbers themselves are entirely within the universe's "inertial frame of reference" and they don't see any stretch in the number line (timeline). For them, the distance between 0.5 and 1.5 is exactly the same as the distance between 44.2 and 43.2. The numbers themselves readily admit that there is no zero value because it was removed by a "singularity" but they think you can easily reach the zero limit by going to "1" and by just sliding "1" in the direction of zero. Easy-peezy-lemon-squeezy.

An observer in an inertial frame of reference outside the universe cannot have the same understanding/perspective of the origin of the universe as an observer in an inertial frame of reference inside the universe. The "internal" observer sees a measurable, even-flowing timeline with a beginning while the "external" observer necessarily sees an infinite timeline that does not flow at a constant rate.

... and they are both correctly describing the exact same event.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-02-2021 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: Christianity and Evolution are not mutually exclusive religions (like the Church of the Big Bang and the Church of the Continuum are, or the Church of Christianity and the Church of No God are).

Actually, ... the Continuum theory and the Big Bang theory are NOT mutually exclusive. They are both different ways of looking at the same thing.

Einstein's theory of Relativity explains how time itself passes at different rates (if you will) within different inertial frames of reference. For example, if you and I were to purchase identical wrist watches that we subsequently synchronized, and then you were to board a starship that flew for 30 minutes away from earth at close to the speed of light (as you noted by periodically checking your watch), and then spent the next 30 minutes returning to earth at the same near light speed, you would return to find that eighty years had passed on earth, and that my watch had run at normal speed the entire time.

In that scenario, you and I were in very disparate inertial frames of reference. No two inertial frames of reference are more disparate than those comprised of that which is outside the universe (continuum view) and that which is inside the universe (human Big Bang view). From the point of view of an observer outside the universe, starting at the present moment and going back in time to the creation of the universe, that observer would have to go back forever, i.e.he could never arrive at a point of creation, even if the universe had only been created 6,000 years prior from the perspective of an observer inside the universe.

Another way of looking at it is that time and energy and matter and dimension are all components of the universe and therefore outside the universe the passage of time is just as undefined as "forever."

Those who subscribe to the continuum view are not expressing anything incompatible with the big bang. They are simply emphasizing a different inertial frame of reference that might apply to a Creator rather than to an internal human observer.


Jussayn.

.

The Theory of Relativity is a strawman. It is not involved.
The given observer is moving at the same rate in both cases.

There is nothing outside The Universe. It is not possible for an observer of the Big Bang to observe from outside The Universe (assuming one could go back in time to that point). The Universe itself defines the bounds of where an observer can be. There is no time or place before The Universe. The Theory of the Big Bang describes The Universe as a finite one, with a beginning and an end and with boundaries that cannot be exceeded. The Theory of the Continuum describes The Universe as infinite. It has no bounds, and never had any. It has no beginning, and no ending.

Similarly, one cannot go back in time to a point before The Universe existed since there is nothing to go back to.

If you ARE saying that one can observe the Big Bang, then the Big Bang itself did not include The Universe. Therefore, the Big Bang that created The Universe never took place.

The Big Bang that created The Universe either happened or it didn't. It's a binary choice.

The two theories are mutually exclusive of each other. If you try to combine them you get a paradox. Indeed, the Big Bang theory itself creates a paradox, as commonly described or shown as an image, for the observation point of such an image is outside The Universe that is being created. One cannot observe such an event from such a vantage point. Indeed, one cannot observe the event at all. Time itself does not exist before such an event and will not exist after The Universe ends (isn't English great? We can describe 'before' and 'after' such an event as if time existed before and after such an event, event though it can't!).

Even Douglass Adams had to acknowledge the paradox of the Big Bang and (as he called it) the Gnab Gib. Describing a restaurant serving sumptuous meals to the scene of The Universe ending, even with cleaning up after wards and moving the restaurant back and forth over the moment in time. Yet he tried to give a tip of the hat to the end of time itself, using a vague 'time bubble'. A nice piece of fiction, and a hilarious farce of science fiction, but he too found the same paradox built into the Big Bang theory.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 03-02-2021 21:58
03-02-2021 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: My reasoning for saying that they are mutually exclusive comes from the premise that the BBT has a 'beginning' [or 'was created'],

The problem lies in attempting to conceptualize a "beginning" which, in your mind, necessarily involves time, that does not occur in any point in time.

I don't know how much you remember about sixth grade math but at some point you learned about the number line for real numbers. Imagine you were to pop the zero off the number line along with all negative numbers. Now you point at, say, the number "1" and then slide your finger towards zero, what number is at the end? There is no answer because, with zero gone, you can always go some tiny distance further towards zero. For any point that you pick, there exists some point closer to zero that is not itself zero.

To draw an analogy to the universe's timeline, we just need to add one additional complication. This particular number line is "stretched." The amount of space between "2" and "3" is not the same as between "3" and "4." Imagine the amount of stretching is 1/X, meaning as numbers get larger, the amount of stretching diminishes. The amount of "stretch" at "1" is "1" meaning at the number "1" it is stretching "1" ... and at "4" it is stretching only 0.25, at 10 this number line is stretching only 0.1, etc...

But this means that at 1/2 the amount of stretch is 2, at 0.01 it is stretching 100. As you approach zero the number line stretch approaches infinity. Ergo, not only can you not get to the end (i.e. there's no zero) but all the "near zero" values approach being infinitely far away, stretching out forever. Please note that your "intertial frame of reference" (i.e. your perspective) is outside the numberline. This is how you would view the Creation timeline were you the Creator or any other observer outside the universe who had special magical powers of observation that would enable observation without having to observe in the traditional sense.

*BUT* the numbers themselves are entirely within the universe's "inertial frame of reference" and they don't see any stretch in the number line (timeline). For them, the distance between 0.5 and 1.5 is exactly the same as the distance between 44.2 and 43.2. The numbers themselves readily admit that there is no zero value because it was removed by a "singularity" but they think you can easily reach the zero limit by going to "1" and by just sliding "1" in the direction of zero. Easy-peezy-lemon-squeezy.

An observer in an inertial frame of reference outside the universe cannot have the same understanding/perspective of the origin of the universe as an observer in an inertial frame of reference inside the universe. The "internal" observer sees a measurable, even-flowing timeline with a beginning while the "external" observer necessarily sees an infinite timeline that does not flow at a constant rate.

... and they are both correctly describing the exact same event.


.

The bit with the number line is another strawman. Zero on a number is quite literally where you set it. It IS the one and only reference point on the entire line, other than the concept of a One, and the concept of the addition and subtraction binomial operators, AND the concept of division producing a fraction as a quotient, all axioms in the Real Math Domain.

There is no observer possible outside the frame of reference, because there is no frame of reference outside The Universe.

So you are comparing an observation with a void, not two observations.

Either the Big Bang created The Universe or it didn't. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 03-02-2021 22:09
03-02-2021 22:46
James___
★★★★★
(4152)
Into the Night wrote:

The Theory of Relativity is a strawman. It is not involved.
The given observer is moving at the same rate in both cases.




And this shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science. How do you think that your phones location can be known by it pinging 3 different cell towers?
And if you walk down the street and you're using a map function on a smartphone, it can know your precise location on that street. That is a function of the Theory of Relativity.
And if 2 people are walking somewhere and they can tag the other person on their map, then they'll know their velocity relative to the other person and to any stationary landmarks for each individual.
03-02-2021 23:50
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1869)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: My reasoning for saying that they are mutually exclusive comes from the premise that the BBT has a 'beginning' [or 'was created'],

The problem lies in attempting to conceptualize a "beginning" which, in your mind, necessarily involves time, that does not occur in any point in time.

I don't know how much you remember about sixth grade math but at some point you learned about the number line for real numbers. Imagine you were to pop the zero off the number line along with all negative numbers. Now you point at, say, the number "1" and then slide your finger towards zero, what number is at the end? There is no answer because, with zero gone, you can always go some tiny distance further towards zero. For any point that you pick, there exists some point closer to zero that is not itself zero.

To draw an analogy to the universe's timeline, we just need to add one additional complication. This particular number line is "stretched." The amount of space between "2" and "3" is not the same as between "3" and "4." Imagine the amount of stretching is 1/X, meaning as numbers get larger, the amount of stretching diminishes. The amount of "stretch" at "1" is "1" meaning at the number "1" it is stretching "1" ... and at "4" it is stretching only 0.25, at 10 this number line is stretching only 0.1, etc...

But this means that at 1/2 the amount of stretch is 2, at 0.01 it is stretching 100. As you approach zero the number line stretch approaches infinity. Ergo, not only can you not get to the end (i.e. there's no zero) but all the "near zero" values approach being infinitely far away, stretching out forever. Please note that your "intertial frame of reference" (i.e. your perspective) is outside the numberline. This is how you would view the Creation timeline were you the Creator or any other observer outside the universe who had special magical powers of observation that would enable observation without having to observe in the traditional sense.

*BUT* the numbers themselves are entirely within the universe's "inertial frame of reference" and they don't see any stretch in the number line (timeline). For them, the distance between 0.5 and 1.5 is exactly the same as the distance between 44.2 and 43.2. The numbers themselves readily admit that there is no zero value because it was removed by a "singularity" but they think you can easily reach the zero limit by going to "1" and by just sliding "1" in the direction of zero. Easy-peezy-lemon-squeezy.

An observer in an inertial frame of reference outside the universe cannot have the same understanding/perspective of the origin of the universe as an observer in an inertial frame of reference inside the universe. The "internal" observer sees a measurable, even-flowing timeline with a beginning while the "external" observer necessarily sees an infinite timeline that does not flow at a constant rate.

... and they are both correctly describing the exact same event.


.


I think that I am understanding your description of inertial frames of reference, and the idea that two observers can make what would seem to be mutually exclusive observations, yet those observations aren't actually mutually exclusive, due to the observers operating from differing inertial frames of reference, and I don't disagree with your reasoning in a general sense. However, I think that there are a couple of areas where your reasoning is still losing me with regard to this particular discussion:

[1] I'm not understanding how it applies or makes any difference to the basic framework of what both theories are positing. My understanding of the Continuum Theory is that it posits an infinite universe (one in which there is no beginning and no end, and that the universe "is"). My understanding of the Big Bang Theory is that it posits a finite universe (one in which there is a beginning and an end, since the existence of the universe is thought to be a result of a particular "big bang" event). Under that understanding of those theories, it seems to me that they can't simultaneously be True. Either the universe began (it "came to be") or it didn't begin (rather, it "is").

[2] The definition of the word 'universe'. When I use the word 'universe', I define it as "all existing matter and space" or iow "everything seen and unseen". I am using it as an all inclusive term. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to me when you posit an observer being able to "observe from outside of the universe", because how does one possibly get to a place that is beyond everything? It makes me think of when someone says something along the lines of: "I'm going to put 110% effort into my final exam"... The retort that I make in my mind is something along the lines of: "How are you managing to put in MORE than a FULL effort into your final exam? The most you can possibly put in is a full effort, or a 100% effort)."
Edited on 03-02-2021 23:58
04-02-2021 01:02
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Einsteins theory of relativity does not explain anything.

Sure it does. A theory, by definition, is an explanatory argument.

Swan wrote:
If it did

It does.

Swan wrote:
it would not be a theory

It is the very definition of a theory.


Actually if the theory of relativity is correct, then the universe can not exist because all sorts of shit is moving faster than light.

So stop wanking off
04-02-2021 02:19
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
Einstein was wrong about a lot of things.
04-02-2021 02:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote: Actually if the theory of relativity is correct, then the universe can not exist because all sorts of shit is moving faster than light.

LOL Nope. Incorrect. Einstein's theory of Relativity has not been shown to be incorrect in any way required to show it to be incorrect.

Yawn LOL

You just made the same argument warmizombies make, i.e. that if Stefan-Boltzmann "were" correct then the earth would be a lot colder than it is.

So stop wanking off and start reading up on the scientific method LOL.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 02:30
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
IBD,
There you go. Spouting the SB law again without any reasoning.. I call BS instead of SB.
04-02-2021 02:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
keepit wrote: IBD, There you go. Spouting the SB law again without any reasoning..

It's a law of science. I wouldn't expect you to understand.


keepit wrote: I call BS instead of SB.

I know. You are scientifically illiterate. I can't help you.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 03:03
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: Actually if the theory of relativity is correct, then the universe can not exist because all sorts of shit is moving faster than light.

LOL Nope. Incorrect. Einstein's theory of Relativity has not been shown to be incorrect in any way required to show it to be incorrect.

Yawn LOL

You just made the same argument warmizombies make, i.e. that if Stefan-Boltzmann "were" correct then the earth would be a lot colder than it is.

So stop wanking off and start reading up on the scientific method LOL.


.


Actually NASA has clocked entire galaxies at 5 times light speed and entanglement has been measured at over 10000 times light speed. Thus the need for dark matter.

Yawn
04-02-2021 03:04
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
keepit wrote:
Einstein was wrong about a lot of things.


Correct, what I do not understand is why so few people either know or admit this?
04-02-2021 03:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
Swan wrote:
keepit wrote:Einstein was wrong about a lot of things.
Correct, what I do not understand is why so few people either know or admit this?

Au contraire mon frère, I think you will be hard-pressed to find anyone who will claim that Einstein was perfect and that he never made any mistakes.

You need to shift your focus away from the man and back to the Theory of Relativity which is a theory of science, which has endured the rigors of the scientific method and which has never been shown to be false.

Do you have anything to add?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 03:34
keepit
★★★★★
(2073)
Swan,
I don't know that dark matter ahs anything to do with entanglement.
04-02-2021 03:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
keepit wrote: Swan, I don't know that dark matter ahs anything to do with entanglement.

That would follow, yes, since you don't know anything.

So, this dark matter, is it like the dark web? Is it like dark meat? Does it operate in dark mode? Does it have a dark sense of humor?

What have you been told to say on the matter? ... or even on the Mater?




.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 07:49
James___
★★★★★
(4152)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: Swan, I don't know that dark matter ahs anything to do with entanglement.

That would follow, yes, since you don't know anything.

So, this dark matter, is it like the dark web? Is it like dark meat? Does it operate in dark mode? Does it have a dark sense of humor?

What have you been told to say on the matter? ... or even on the Mater?




.



You're not aware that astronomers say that dark matter shapes spiral galaxies? I thought that was basic knowledge.
04-02-2021 11:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
James___ wrote:You're not aware that astronomers say that dark matter shapes spiral galaxies?

I believe you mean astrophysicists. Astronomers just simply look at the stars and enjoy the view.

On that point, no astrophysicist has ever examined any dark matter, except for maybe coal and black ink. I thought that was basic knowledge.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 13:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The Theory of Relativity is a strawman. It is not involved.
The given observer is moving at the same rate in both cases.




And this shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science. How do you think that your phones location can be known by it pinging 3 different cell towers?
And if you walk down the street and you're using a map function on a smartphone, it can know your precise location on that street. That is a function of the Theory of Relativity.

Nope. That is simply the relative strengths of the cell phone towers being measured by your phone, and the use of GPS built into your phone. The Theory of Relativity is not involved in any of it.
James___ wrote:
And if 2 people are walking somewhere and they can tag the other person on their map, then they'll know their velocity relative to the other person and to any stationary landmarks for each individual.

Nope. Not involved.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-02-2021 13:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
Swan wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Einsteins theory of relativity does not explain anything.

Sure it does. A theory, by definition, is an explanatory argument.

Swan wrote:
If it did

It does.

Swan wrote:
it would not be a theory

It is the very definition of a theory.


Actually if the theory of relativity is correct, then the universe can not exist because all sorts of shit is moving faster than light.
Like what?


So stop wanking off



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-02-2021 13:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
keepit wrote:
Einstein was wrong about a lot of things.

Denial of quantum mechanics. Denial of the Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Special Relativity.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-02-2021 13:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
There you go. Spouting the SB law again without any reasoning.. I call BS instead of SB.

Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Denial of science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-02-2021 13:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15047)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: Actually if the theory of relativity is correct, then the universe can not exist because all sorts of shit is moving faster than light.

LOL Nope. Incorrect. Einstein's theory of Relativity has not been shown to be incorrect in any way required to show it to be incorrect.

Yawn LOL

You just made the same argument warmizombies make, i.e. that if Stefan-Boltzmann "were" correct then the earth would be a lot colder than it is.

So stop wanking off and start reading up on the scientific method LOL.


.


Actually NASA has clocked entire galaxies at 5 times light speed and entanglement has been measured at over 10000 times light speed. Thus the need for dark matter.

Yawn


NASA doesn't clock galaxies. Entanglement isn't a speed.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
04-02-2021 16:14
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(393)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: Actually if the theory of relativity is correct, then the universe can not exist because all sorts of shit is moving faster than light.

LOL Nope. Incorrect. Einstein's theory of Relativity has not been shown to be incorrect in any way required to show it to be incorrect.

Yawn LOL

You just made the same argument warmizombies make, i.e. that if Stefan-Boltzmann "were" correct then the earth would be a lot colder than it is.

So stop wanking off and start reading up on the scientific method LOL.


.


Actually NASA has clocked entire galaxies at 5 times light speed and entanglement has been measured at over 10000 times light speed. Thus the need for dark matter.

Yawn


NASA doesn't clock galaxies. Entanglement isn't a speed.


Wrong on both accounts

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2131889-weird-energy-beam-seems-to-travel-five-times-the-speed-of-light/#:~:text=An%20energy%20beam%20that%20stabs,by%20the%20Hubble%20Space%20Telescope.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150207-chinese-physicists-measure-speed-of-einsteins-spooky-action-at-a-distance-at-least-10000-times-faster-than-light

Chinese physicists measure speed of Einstein's 'spooky action at a distance': At least 10,000 times faster than light

A team of Chinese physicists have clocked the speed of spooky action at a distance — the seemingly instantaneous interaction between entangled quantum particles — at more than four orders of magnitude faster than light. Their equipment and methodology doesn't allow for an exact speed, but four orders of magnitude puts the figure at around 3 trillion meters per second.

In fact for all practical purposes on the Earth quantum entanglement is instant which mocks relativity as Einstein was completely wrong. Physicist know this already, they also know that gravity on a universal scale can not be pushing the universe apart because there is just not enough mass.

So your books are just wrong, as reality is being slowly revealed
04-02-2021 16:18
James___
★★★★★
(4152)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:You're not aware that astronomers say that dark matter shapes spiral galaxies?

I believe you mean astrophysicists. Astronomers just simply look at the stars and enjoy the view.

On that point, no astrophysicist has ever examined any dark matter, except for maybe coal and black ink. I thought that was basic knowledge.


.



Astrophysics is a field of astronomy. This means that astrophysicists are astronomers. Maybe you should read some about how spiral galaxies behave and what astronomers have to say about that?
This link is to an Australian web page.
ROTATION CURVE: When studying spiral galaxies it is invariably found that the stellar rotational velocity in the disk remains constant, or "flat", with increasing distance away from the galactic center. This result is highly counterintuitive since, based on Newton's law of gravity, the rotational velocity would steadily decrease for stars further away from the galactic center. Analogously, inner planets within the Solar System travel more quickly about the Sun than do the outer planets (e.g. the Earth travels around the sun at about 100,000 km/hr while Saturn, which is further out, travels at only one third this speed). One way to speed up the outer planets would be to add more mass to the solar system, between the planets. By the same argument the flat galactic rotation curves seem to suggest that each galaxy is surrounded by significant amounts of dark matter. It has been postulated, and generally accepted, that the dark matter would have to be located in a massive, roughly spherical halo enshrouding each galaxy.

http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~jerjen/researchprojects/darkmatter/darkmatter.html#:~:text=Dark%20Matter%20in%20Spiral%20Galaxies.%20By%20the%20same,a%20massive,%20roughly%20spherical%20halo%20enshrouding%20each%20galaxy


Who knows, dark matter and neutrinos might be the same thing (from first link quoted)
is a kind of matter that does not produce detectable amounts of light but it does have a noticeable gravitational effect.


and what they say about neutrinos;
"As neutrinos pass through and interact, they produce charged particles, and the charged particles travelling through the ice give off light," Conway said. "That's how they're detected. It's like having a telescope for neutrinos underground."
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/what-is-a-neutrino-and-why-should-anyone-but-a-particle-physicist-care


How are you not aware of this stuff?

Edited on 04-02-2021 16:23
04-02-2021 16:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
James___ wrote: By the same argument the flat galactic rotation curves seem to suggest that each galaxy is surrounded by significant amounts of dark matter.

Rule #18: ALWAYS delete as invalid anything involving the words "seem to suggest."

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-02-2021 16:50
James___
★★★★★
(4152)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: By the same argument the flat galactic rotation curves seem to suggest that each galaxy is surrounded by significant amounts of dark matter.

Rule #18: ALWAYS delete as invalid anything involving the words "seem to suggest."

.


Such a weak response using psychology that you demand proof of concept before considering the concept. It's like admitting defeat.
04-02-2021 17:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8621)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: By the same argument the flat galactic rotation curves seem to suggest that each galaxy is surrounded by significant amounts of dark matter.
Rule #18: ALWAYS delete as invalid anything involving the words "seem to suggest."
Such a weak response using psychology that you demand proof of concept before considering the concept. It's like admitting defeat.

You don't have to rush to admit defeat. Just delete anything involving the words "seem to suggest." After all, it's Rule #18. It's there for your protection.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate The science is absolutely not settled:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Land Conflicted Area Will Be Settled Via Plant Trees Competition227-01-2021 19:21
Bill Nye, the science guy3512-12-2020 20:23
The Ultimate Secret Of Language, Number, Religion, Education, Science, Technology126-08-2020 08:58
There is still no Global Warming science.34122-07-2020 19:51
Etymology of Science5908-02-2020 12:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact