Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,230 Year: 5,487/9,624 Month: 512/323 Week: 9/143 Day: 9/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Ether-Based Creation Model
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 181 of 589 (887293)
07-29-2021 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by ICANT
07-29-2021 5:41 PM


Re: Fair Warning
ICANT writes:
Tanypteryx writes:
Like I said before, you are demanding an answer, when you know full well that the data is insufficient to provide an answer.
The answer is "WE DON'T KNOW!!"
I was only asking you.
I know several in the scientific communities answer is ""WE DON'T KNOW!!" as I have been told that by several scientist.
Since no one knows where or how the universe began to exist, how can we know how we got from there to here?
I'm surprised you need to ask.
ICANT writes:
You want to tell me the way you believe we got from T=0 to where we are today is the only correct way possible. Why do you believe that?
What the hell is the matter with you? I have NEVER BEEN INTERESTED in telling you that. I HAVE NEVER EVEN TRIED TO TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT THAT! I keep telling you that I have no interest in speculations unsupported by observational data.
ICANT writes:
I was only asking you.
And you are ignoring what I am saying. You keep making unsupported assumptions about my views.
ICANT writes:
I do claim to know non existence can not produce existence.
More unsupported assumptions on your part.
ICANT writes:
I was raised on a farm and I know life produces life, but a dead animal could only produce a bad odor.
Yep, chemistry! Isn't it grand? I guess you didn't realize that dead animals are consumed by organisms that convert dead animals into their living flesh.
If I remember there was quite a few experiments trying to produce life from non life that all failed.
Yeah well, that was fiction, Dr. Frankenstein was not real.
You have a real collection of assumptions. You remember your definition of an assumption? "a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof."
Piss Off!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by ICANT, posted 07-29-2021 5:41 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2021 12:44 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 589 (887294)
07-29-2021 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by ICANT
07-29-2021 6:19 PM


Re: Get Real.
ICANT writes:
Religion or Metaphysics will have to produce that information.
Now that is funny!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ICANT, posted 07-29-2021 6:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2021 12:57 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 183 of 589 (887295)
07-30-2021 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Tanypteryx
07-29-2021 8:09 PM


Re: Fair Warning
Hi Tanypteryx
Tanypteryx writes:
Yeah well, that was fiction, Dr. Frankenstein was not real.
But the Miller and Urey experiments were real back in the 50's.
They were trying to prove several things.
To see if biological compounds could form spontaneously on early Earth
To see if simple molecules can combine spontaneously.
To find out how biological molecules could have first formed
How life can evolve from nonliving matter
Other experiments.
Redi's Experiment 1668.
Lazzaro Spallanzani's experiment.
Pasteur's Experiment.
All of these experiments proved non life could not produce life. They did prove that life produced life.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2021 8:09 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2021 12:49 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 07-30-2021 12:20 PM ICANT has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 589 (887296)
07-30-2021 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by ICANT
07-30-2021 12:44 AM


Re: Fair Warning
ICANT writes:
All of these experiments proved non life could not produce life. They did prove that life produced life.
You are mistaken. And you know Jack Shit about chemistry too.
Piss Off!

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2021 12:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2021 1:00 AM Tanypteryx has not replied
 Message 205 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:57 AM Tanypteryx has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 185 of 589 (887297)
07-30-2021 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Tanypteryx
07-29-2021 8:15 PM


Re: Get Real.
Hi Tanypteryx
Tanypteryx writes:
Now that is funny!
Glad you thought so but your thoughts don't change reality.
Do you think that in the future time travel will be discovered and someone can go back to T=0 and then return and write a scientific paper as to what was there and how things really happened?
If the first statement was funny this one is probably hilarious.
God Bless,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-29-2021 8:15 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2021 4:41 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 186 of 589 (887298)
07-30-2021 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tanypteryx
07-30-2021 12:49 AM


Re: Fair Warning
Piss Off!
OK
God Bless, and you have a nice life now.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tanypteryx, posted 07-30-2021 12:49 AM Tanypteryx has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 187 of 589 (887299)
07-30-2021 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by ICANT
07-29-2021 6:19 PM


Re: Get Real.
It does tell us what the universe has in it.
Yes, BBT tells us a lot. Not only does BBT tell us what's in the universe, but the way it works, the forces that move all the stuff around which means we can see its history, past and future.
We can even see the invisible stuff. BBT Physics rules. Thank you Dr. Einstein and Fr. Lemaître.
We still have some major holes in our knowledge, but, again, the facts and the models we have today are all very well evidenced (real hard-fact science-type evidence) and you cannot challenge any of them.
The BBT is a reality of this universe as evidenced by the universe itself and you have nothing that can dispute this.
AZPaul3 writes:
Incomplete knowledge of T=0 DOES NOT negate BBT!
But it does relegate it to a hypotheses without certain assumptions.
How?
Good lord, we just went through this.
No, it does not relegate anything. Ignorance of T=0 has no effect on the facts we have in evidence for BBT. Our CMB analysis, a major BBT supporting reality, is as independent from T=0 as it is from bigfoot and the phases of the moon.
This cannot be this difficult to comprehend.
Parametrization is the process of ... (yada, yada, attempted regurgitation of concepts he knows nothing about...)
So what does that explain?
It does tell us what the universe has in it. Not its origin.
That is what everyone has been telling you. Origins we don't have. No one has.
The Big Bang Theory is our best explanation for all the facts and evidence we can presently show and no one on this forum has the standing to challenge that science. None of it involves origins because our knowledge hasn't reached there yet.
And for all our looking and testing and arguing, no one has come up with a better theory, origins or not. No one. Especially not you. But we continue to look.
Just because you believe it does not make it so. Science has changed a lot in my 82 years on this planet.
You have not challenged the science. It stands. And the consensus interpretation of that science also stands.
If you have any challenge to BBT (the real theory, not your origin-centered strawman of the theory) then please present it. Show me how not knowing T=0 affects our gauge of the standard candle. Show me how ANY fact used in BBT is unreasonable or inappropriate or wrong.
Finally, Reverend, you are way old. Congratulations and keep it going.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ICANT, posted 07-29-2021 6:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 2:20 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 203 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:45 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 188 of 589 (887308)
07-30-2021 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by ICANT
07-30-2021 12:44 AM


Re: Fair Warning
ICANT writes:
How life can evolve from nonliving matter
Their experiments were never about that. They simply wanted to see if biomolecules could emerge from simpler molecules.
All of these experiments proved non life could not produce life.
That's completely false. You might as well claim that throwing a rock into the air and watching it come back down is proof that spaceflight is impossible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2021 12:44 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 2:14 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 204 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:53 AM Taq has not replied

  
Michael MD
Member (Idle past 637 days)
Posts: 108
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 189 of 589 (887309)
07-30-2021 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by ICANT
07-29-2021 6:19 PM


Re: Get Real.
Several of the recent posts have discussed "dark energy" and the "expanding universe."
My model of the ether would have a different, but logical (with respect to the rest of my model) explanation for these two assumptions in "consensus physics." -My ether model includes the factor of creational design of our universe. -Alternatively to the consensus model, BBT, this could account for the apparent (to our earthly observation) expansional movement of our universe's outermost celestial bodies (an alternative to our universe somehow "expanding.") - This alternative explanation would be that when our universe was created, by projecting quantal electrons through ether, creational forethought also designed a way for this universe to continue, virtually without end. That would have been done by creating another, younger, universe. Then, when one universe (say ours) had dissipated much of its internal energies, it would be increasingly attracted by external energies: gravitationally, by another similarly-sized gravitational force (a second universe.) -Then, the two universes would gradually approach each other gravitationally, and the younger universe, upon collision, would re-energized the older tired universe (ours.)
To us earth observers, it would appear like our universe was "expanding," but the actual mechanism at work is gravitational motion toward a second universe.
Here, it's worth noting that galaxies have been observed colliding with each other.
"Dark energy," then, in my model, would be an unnecessary hypothesis, since the true mechanism for the acceleration of the outer celestial bodies does not come from an expansion of our universe.
This Forum is called Creationist. -Why aren't members freely open to new creationist ideas? Most of the posters seem to prefer non-creational "random universe" consensus theory and hypothesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by ICANT, posted 07-29-2021 6:19 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 07-30-2021 1:09 PM Michael MD has not replied
 Message 191 by nwr, posted 07-30-2021 1:31 PM Michael MD has not replied
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 1:57 AM Michael MD has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10195
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 190 of 589 (887310)
07-30-2021 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Michael MD
07-30-2021 12:36 PM


Re: Get Real.
Michael MD writes:
My model of the ether would have a different, but logical (with respect to the rest of my model) explanation for these two assumptions in "consensus physics."
They aren't assumptions. They are observations. It is observed that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and the name of the force causing the expansion is dark energy. It is no different than watching two masses being pulled towards one another and calling it gravity.
My ether model includes the factor of creational design of our universe. -Alternatively to the consensus model, BBT, this could account for the apparent (to our earthly observation) expansional movement of our universe's outermost celestial bodies (an alternative to our universe somehow "expanding.")
How does it explain it? Why does your ether model produce a correlation between distance and wavelength independent redshift? Why is this correlation the same in all directions (i.e. why is there a horizon)?
This alternative explanation would be that when our universe was created, by projecting quantal electrons through ether, creational forethought also designed a way for this universe to continue, virtually without end. That would have been done by creating another, younger, universe. Then, when one universe (say ours) had dissipated much of its internal energies, it would be increasingly attracted by external energies: gravitationally, by another similarly-sized gravitational force (a second universe.) -Then, the two universes would gradually approach each other gravitationally, and the younger universe, upon collision, would re-energized the older tired universe (ours.)
If they approached each other gravitationally then we would see stronger expansion on one side of the universe. That's not what we see. We see expansion occurring evenly across the entire universe. All galaxies are accelerating away from us at the same rates no matter which direction we look.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Michael MD, posted 07-30-2021 12:36 PM Michael MD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 2:02 AM Taq has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6445
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.0


(2)
Message 191 of 589 (887311)
07-30-2021 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Michael MD
07-30-2021 12:36 PM


Re: Get Real.
This Forum is called Creationist. -Why aren't members freely open to new creationist ideas?
I am open to new creationist ideas. But they would need actual supporting evidence.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Michael MD, posted 07-30-2021 12:36 PM Michael MD has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 192 of 589 (887312)
07-30-2021 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by ICANT
07-30-2021 12:57 AM


Re: Get Real.
Glad you thought so but your thoughts don't change reality.
That's true, and the reality is, that's funny.
ICANT writes:
Religion or Metaphysics will have to produce that information.
The reality is, for many thousands of years humans tried that and it turned out that it never worked a single time, ever. So, it turns out you don't have any knowledge of history, either.
ICANT writes:
Do you think that in the future time travel will be discovered
Nope, because it was discovered decades ago. We have been observing further and further back in time using the tools of astronomy and particle accelerators.
Along the way in astronomy, we have observed in visible light, Infrared and ultraviolet, radio waves, x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays and several kinds of neutrinos. On top of that we've discovered gravitational lenses and the microwave background that lets us observe even further back in time. And now we have gravity wave detectors.
Particle accelerators have taught us about mass and energy and the forces that are created by them and what some of their properties were in the past.
The recognition of hidden properties of the Universe (Designated dark matter and dark energy for now) that we can only partially understand gives us new frontiers of study. All these methods are pushing the boundaries of what we can observe further and further back.
Actual travel in time happens at the rate of 1 second per second.
ICANT writes:
and someone can go back to T=0 and then return and write a scientific paper as to what was there and how things really happened?
T=0 is fictional and evidence that you have no clue what you're talking about. Your fixation on it is as bizarre as spending years asking everyone you see if Santa Claus has any cavities from all the cookies and milk.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by ICANT, posted 07-30-2021 12:57 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 193 of 589 (887315)
07-31-2021 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Michael MD
07-30-2021 12:36 PM


Re: Get Real.
Hi Michael
Michael writes:
This Forum is called Creationist. -Why aren't members freely open to new creationist ideas? Most of the posters seem to prefer non-creational "random universe" consensus theory and hypothesis.
Actually anyone who believes in the BBT is a creationist whether they admit it or not.
The BBT requires a beginning to exist.
Einstein believed in a steady state universe until it was discovered that the universe was expanding, in 1929, by Edwin Hubble.
But he was not the first to propose an expanding universe. Lemaître was the principal architect. In 1927 he combined his dynamical solutions of the Einstein equations with astronomical observations to conclude that the universe is expanding. https://arxiv.org/abs/1107.2281
If space is what is expanding between galaxies at the speed of light all galaxies should be moving away from each other.
Well that is not what is happening. galaxies have collided in the past and we are on a collision course with Andromeda. This has been known for years. But when talking about expansion this elephant in the room is pushed into a corner and he does not exist.
Space between the Milky Way and Andromeda is not expanding but contracting.
If the fabric of the universe is being stretched in both directions from the halfway point between Andromeda and the Milky Way the space between them would be increasing by 88.234 miles per second.
How would they ever collide?
Maybe some of these smart people would explain the math that would allow them to collide.
So Einstein had to change his thinking.
But if the universe was expanding it would have to have a beginning to exist. You ask why? Well because energy and mass can not be created even though Alan Guth did so with math. Which was rejected except for a few around EvC.
To get around the problem of energy and mass being created it is just said that the laws of thermodynamics just did not apply to the early universe.
I notice in your ether theory you try to solve the energy problem by collision of universes.
But where did all this energy that these universes had in the beginning come from?
I believe the universe has always existed in some form just not in the form we see it today. I believe the universe was created from an energy source that is unlimited in volume. I believe there was a light period that existed eternally in the past that caused the CMBR that we see today.I believe time is a creation of mankind that was determined by the Egyptians using the duration of a light period and a dark period which they divided into 24 hours of 60 minutes per hr. with each minute 60 seconds long. I believe that in the future there will come a time when time will be no more as there will only be light with no darkness. This will take place after the earth and universe has melted with fervent heat.
So don't let these guys get you down. Just keep on searching and one day you may find the answer to where the universe came from and what holds it together today.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Michael MD, posted 07-30-2021 12:36 PM Michael MD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 07-31-2021 12:08 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 214 by AZPaul3, posted 07-31-2021 3:11 PM ICANT has replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 194 of 589 (887316)
07-31-2021 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Taq
07-30-2021 1:09 PM


Re: Get Real.
Hi Taq
Taq writes:
We see expansion occurring evenly across the entire universe. All galaxies are accelerating away from us at the same rates no matter which direction we look.
That is not true.
We are on a collision course with Andromeda.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Taq, posted 07-30-2021 1:09 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:40 AM ICANT has seen this message but not replied

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 142 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


(1)
Message 195 of 589 (887317)
07-31-2021 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by Taq
07-30-2021 12:20 PM


Re: Fair Warning
Hi Taq
Taq writes:
Their experiments were never about that. They simply wanted to see if biomolecules could emerge from simpler molecules.
They were trying to reproduce the early earth and produce life forms.
quote:
Stanley L. Muller and Harold C. Urey performed an experiment to describe the origin of life on earth.
why did miller and urey do their experiments - Search
quote:
Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time (1952) to be present on the early Earth and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions.
Miller–Urey experiment - Wikipedia
Seems like they were trying to produce life from chemicals to me.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Taq, posted 07-30-2021 12:20 PM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024