Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,222 Year: 5,479/9,624 Month: 504/323 Week: 1/143 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Ether-Based Creation Model
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 211 of 589 (887333)
07-31-2021 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by Phat
07-31-2021 11:00 AM


Re: Get Real.
Objective reality will in time ...
So you're saying objective reality provides evidence of its existence.
So what else is new?

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 11:00 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 212 of 589 (887334)
07-31-2021 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Phat
07-31-2021 10:57 AM


Re: Fair Warning
Why do you get so mad at him?
I am angered by his habit of making false claims about my views, when I have not expressed them to him. Then he tries to put words in my mouth and expects me to defend his lies about me. He twists words and meanings to try and play gotcha. He acts as if everyone who disagrees with him must "believe" a flawed argument that "he" made up.
He tries to inject his stupid, fictional T=0 into every discussion. There is no such thing as T=0, it is made up in his religion addled brain.
He deliberately lies about how science is taught, i.e. "Big Bang Theory is taught as fact." That's bullshit! It is taught as a scientific theory which is based on observational data, not speculation. He gets it wrong every single time.
I doubt that he and I have a single point of view on any subject that we agree on.
He thinks science is a bunch of answers rather than a systematic method of learning how the Universe works.
Does that answer your question?

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 205 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:57 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 526 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 213 of 589 (887335)
07-31-2021 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
07-31-2021 1:57 AM


Re: Get Real.
ICANT writes:
The BBT requires a beginning to exist.
There's a difference between "a" beginning and "the" beginning. Every person has "a" beginning. That doesn't make them creationists.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 1:57 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2021 1:13 AM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 214 of 589 (887337)
07-31-2021 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
07-31-2021 1:57 AM


Re: Get Real.
Oh, where to begin. OK, just top to bottom.
The BBT requires a beginning to exist.
Remember BBT is a science thing that began in the human mind.
We're talking universe here. I know you chaff at this but universe includes everything we know, everything we see. No outside. No beyond.
You're saying the universe, all there is, requires a beginning.
Why?
If space is what is expanding between galaxies at the speed of light ...
Bad "if". Our latest measurements indicate the hubble constant (H0) to be in the +- 70 km/s/Mpc range. That is way way slower than c.
Since your "if" is bogus so is your conclusion.
But when talking about expansion this elephant in the room is pushed into a corner and he does not exist.
What force is most prominent within a galactic cluster? What force is most prominent between galactic clusters? They are different.
Within our galactic cluster gravity is the driving force because of proximity. Remember the inverse square law.
Your "space expanding at the speed of light" is a rather silly misconception of the reality (the Hubble constant) so I won't bother with it.
At some point in the distance between galactic clusters the cumulative effects of H0 (multiple times 70 km/s/Mpc) exceeds the gravitational constant (G) in the relativity equations and the galactic groups separate while within each local group (closer together, inverse square, stronger gravity) the galaxies continue to close together.
The elephant is still in the room and is stepping on your toes, Reverend.
Space between the Milky Way and Andromeda is not expanding but contracting.
That's right, bunkie. Milky Way, Andromeda, Triangulum and somewhere close to 100 other smaller galaxies (the Local Group) are all gravitationally bound and coming together while this whole local group of galaxies speeds away from every other group of galaxies.
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?
Easy. Get your math right and your physics right and your question is answered.
All those years, all that learning and you still haven't grasped these simple concepts. ICANT, you cannot continue to misrepresent the reality.
Since your message was not to me and I corrected your factual bs I'll leave your belief bs to others.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 1:57 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2021 12:28 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 224 by Phat, posted 08-01-2021 6:33 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5987
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 215 of 589 (887338)
07-31-2021 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Phat
07-31-2021 10:40 AM


Re: Collision Or Expansion?
I just HAD to ask The Oracle at Google for some information about this assertion!
If the universe is expanding, why are we on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy?
I'm still confused.
They have an Oracle now? I thought that was just in database systems.
By analogy, look at one of the Republican idiots in Congress. He brought in a snowball as "proof" that there's no such thing as Global Warming. Such a complete and total idiot! Who does he have to tie his shoes every morning?
What an entire overall system does is not necessarily reflected on all levels within that system.
For example, in cooking we make heavy use of phase changes. You're boiling something in water. What is its temperature? 100°C (212°F for the slow ones). The boiling point of water. Pump more heat into that system and it doesn't get any hotter, but rather it just boils away faster. Same thing with the other very common phase change, ice water. As long as there's still ice in that water, it won't get any warmer but rather will stay at the freezing point of water.
BTW, that's why you have to measure the temperature of the oil you're deep frying with, because oil's boiling point is much higher so you cannot use it. That's also why you have to be so careful when distilling booze: the poisonous alcohol boils off before the potable alcohol does, so you make sure to not plug in that hose until it smells right (saw that on "Chug" regarding making Schnapps, which is no longer on Netflix). That is also why the sun is only "burning hydrogen", because its core is being kept at the temperature for hydrogen fusion and cannot yet creep up to the temperatures needed for helium fusion.
But if you stick a thermometer into ice water, you will most likely not read 0°C (again, 32°F for the unenlightened) but rather something a bit higher. What the entire system is doing is not found faithfully replicated at all levels. While the entire system of that container of ice water remains at the freezing point of water, there are still localized isolated pockets of water which are doing their own thing. That is why when you are doing that experiment you need to keep stirring the ice water (boiling water tends to stir itself). That is also why a calorimeter (burns food stuffs to measure how many calories they contain based on how much that raises the temperature of water) includes some way to keep mixing the water being measured.
Similarly we have the Second Law of Thermodynamics which creationist infamously get wrong all the time (when Drs Gish and Henry Morris spoke at the USGS in the early 70's, most of the conversations afterwards were the actual scientists trying to explain to G&M what they didn't understand about thermodynamics -- Never say that creationists never learn, because Gish & Morris did learn to never ever talk with any scientists again). While the entropy of a closed system does increase overall, there are still localized open systems within that overall closed system where entropy decreases. None of which disproves thermodynamics in the least.
So while the universe as a whole is expanding, you will still experience localized collisions due to gravitation and other causes. No cause for any confusion unless you're a mindless literalist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:40 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 216 of 589 (887341)
07-31-2021 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by AZPaul3
07-31-2021 2:55 AM


Re: Get Real.
Hi Paul
AZPaull3 writes:
However, do understand that objective reality is supreme and requires lots of very strong evidence.
I have the same evidence you do.
There was an eternal light period that ended when darkness began to exist.
That light period is what is seen today and called the CMBR.
There is an expanding universe as it has been stretched out.
There is a energy force that holds the universe together.
The universe and earth are going to melt in fervent heat sometime in the future.
AZPaul3 writes:
And, no, you don't have any viable origin, either.
The universe had a beginning to exist. Remember I believe it has always existed in some form just not the one we see today.
If the universe had a beginning to exist as the BBT requires there had to be an unlimited energy source somewhere to build the universe with however it came to exist.
How long did it take for the universe to form? However long that first light period was.
Whatever that energy source was is what I call God. I have heard it called the God Particle, and Cosmic egg. Neither of those 2 have ever been found.
I have also been told here that the universe just is. As well as something the size of a pin point or pea that produced everything in the universe.
Now if you don't believe it took a unlimited energy source to produce everything in the universe tell me what did produce it.
I don't see any viable alternative.
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 197 by AZPaul3, posted 07-31-2021 2:55 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by AZPaul3, posted 08-01-2021 6:53 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 217 of 589 (887342)
08-01-2021 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by AZPaul3
07-31-2021 3:11 PM


Re: Get Real.
Hi Paul
AZPaul3 writes:
All those years, all that learning and you still haven't grasped these simple concepts. ICANT, you cannot continue to misrepresent the reality.
The reality is that space is contracting between Andromeda and the Milky Way.
That means expansion does not work everywhere.
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 214 by AZPaul3, posted 07-31-2021 3:11 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by AZPaul3, posted 08-01-2021 7:08 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 218 of 589 (887343)
08-01-2021 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by ringo
07-31-2021 12:08 PM


Re: Get Real.
Hi ringo
ringo writes:
There's a difference between "a" beginning and "the" beginning.
What is the difference?
ringo writes:
"a" beginning. That doesn't make them creationists.
No it only makes them a person.
I think you are dancing around my comment where:
I writes:
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.
The Universe required a beginning to exist just like you did. You did not exist until your mother and father had sex and your fathers sperm fertilized
the egg produced by your mother at that moment you began to exist just not in the form you are to day or even at your birth.
According to science the universe began to exist about 13 billions years ago.
Since it did not exist before then it had to be created by some means.
So to believe the BBT makes you a creationist.
On the other hand if you believe the universe is eternal (always existed in some form) you are not a creationist.
That is all I am saying.
You can go back and read posts I made when I first came to EvC. You will find where I said then that I believed the universe had always existed in some form just not as we see it today.
I believe it had to have a major renovation to be what we see today.
By the way renovation is not creation as it was in the beginning.
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 213 by ringo, posted 07-31-2021 12:08 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Phat, posted 08-01-2021 6:14 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 239 by ringo, posted 08-01-2021 10:17 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 219 of 589 (887344)
08-01-2021 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by dwise1
07-31-2021 10:21 AM


Re: This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
Hi dwise1
dwise1 writes:
So then to your fake argument about "t=0".
T=0 stands for Time does not exist.
That would mean space does not exist.
The universe does not exist.
No particles exist.
No vacuum exist.
In other words there is non existence.
In my universe I don't have a T=0 as there has always been existence.
dwise1 writes:
The ultimate mathematical singularity
A singularity is only a mathematical anomaly, a place where the math don't work.
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 198 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2021 10:21 AM dwise1 has not replied

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


(1)
Message 220 of 589 (887345)
08-01-2021 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Phat
07-31-2021 10:34 AM


Re: This Thread Expressed Through Cartoons
Hi Phat
Phat writes:
Did He always exist?
Something had to exist to provide the energy it took to produce the universe in which we live.
If nothing existed then nothing would still exist.
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 200 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:34 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Michael MD
Member (Idle past 636 days)
Posts: 108
Joined: 04-03-2021


Message 221 of 589 (887346)
08-01-2021 5:53 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Phat
07-31-2021 10:53 AM


Re: Fair Warning
Non life to produce life? -My ether model proposes there were intensive fluxing etheric radiations in an ether world that preceded creation of our quantized world. In that earlier world, the intensity and ultra-rarified nature of the radiations could well have included magnetically monopolar areas within ether/quantum entangled fluxes. The unidirectional nature of monopolarity could then have catalyzed appearance of the first life forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Phat, posted 07-31-2021 10:53 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Phat, posted 08-01-2021 6:07 AM Michael MD has not replied
 Message 232 by Percy, posted 08-01-2021 9:52 AM Michael MD has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 222 of 589 (887347)
08-01-2021 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 221 by Michael MD
08-01-2021 5:53 AM


Re: Fair Warning
Are you thus indirectly saying that your Ether Model itself was/is/always could be an explanation for the origin of life? Let's step back a moment and see the bigger picture here.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Michael MD, posted 08-01-2021 5:53 AM Michael MD has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 223 of 589 (887348)
08-01-2021 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by ICANT
08-01-2021 1:13 AM


Re: Get Real.
ICANT writes:
...On the other hand, if you believe the universe is eternal (always existed in some form) you are not a creationist.
Then you say:
ICANT writes:
You can go back and read posts I made when I first came to EvC. You will find where I said then that I believed the universe had always existed in some form just not as we see it today.
Thus is it fair to say that you don't consider yourself a creationist in any way shape or form?
Are you arguing that a Believer in God (the uncaused first cause hypothesis) is NOT a Creationist?
I suppose we could call ourselves Creator-ists.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by ICANT, posted 08-01-2021 1:13 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2021 1:20 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18456
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 224 of 589 (887349)
08-01-2021 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by AZPaul3
07-31-2021 3:11 PM


The elephant In A Room as BIG as the Universe
AZ writes:
You're saying the universe, all there is, requires a beginning.
Why?
Because this concept includes your mind and your mind requires a beginning. If even as much as one subset within the whole requires a beginning, the whole itself cannot eternally exist without a beginning.
AZ writes:
The elephant is still in the room and is stepping on your toes, Reverend.
Let's just hope the elephant doesn't pass gas or we are ALL in trouble!
Get your math right and your physics right and your question is answered.
How would we know when our data is "right?" WHO determines what is and is not "right"?
AZ writes:
Since your message was not to me and I corrected your factual bs I'll leave your belief bs to others.
I'll take his "B.S." and call the abbreviation "Blessed Savior!

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by AZPaul3, posted 07-31-2021 3:11 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8613
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 225 of 589 (887350)
08-01-2021 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by ICANT
07-31-2021 11:47 PM


Re: Get Real.
I have the same evidence you do.
There was an eternal light period that ended when darkness began to exist.
That light period is what is seen today and called the CMBR.
Wasn't very eternal if it ended.
First, Reverend, any differing interpretations you care to fantasize on the evidence outside the consensus is not accepted because you have no standing to make any such interpretations. Your opinions on physics and cosmology are uneducated, uninformed, religiously-based and hold no explanatory powers.
Second, You can show no evidence that anything eternal ever existed or does exist. Your eternal light period is a crock.
There is a energy force that holds the universe together.
The universe and earth are going to melt in fervent heat sometime in the future.
Actually, there is an energy force that is blowing this universe apart in an accelerating expansion of spacetime and the expected long-term results will be the death of the universe by freezing. Eventually, the last photon will be expanded out of existence. The Heat Death of the universe.
A reasonable speculation based on what we know but still pending more evidence.
The flaming death you cite will indeed happen but on the much smaller scale of this solar system, not the scale of the whole universe. Our sun will become a red giant and will swell up to the point of engulfing earth within its superheated plasma. But the universe will mosey on sans Earth, sans humanity, sans god for uncountable trillions upon trillions of millennia yet to come.
Now if you don't believe it took a unlimited energy source to produce everything in the universe tell me what did produce it.
What does it take to build a universe like ours? Nobody knows, ICANT. Especially not you or any of your religious colleagues.
Whatever that energy source was is what I call God. I have heard it called the God Particle, and Cosmic egg. Neither of those 2 have ever been found.
Oh, good god. What a fuckin' mess.
The "God Particle" is the media-hyped-up stupidity-name for the Higgs boson. The various Higgs fields have to do with the property of particle mass not some fantasy eternal energy field. Of course a god particle does not exist. It's a media created fiction. And you didn't know this? Everyone looking at the history knew this.
The cosmic egg idea is an offshoot from Georges Lemaître and his primeval atom hypothesis and if you understood Lemaître's writing then, yes, we have "found" the primal cosmic egg since we live within it.
You operate on a whole big bunch of misinformation and misconceptions. It's a wonder to me how you can not know sooo much.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by ICANT, posted 07-31-2021 11:47 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Phat, posted 08-01-2021 6:59 AM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 241 by ICANT, posted 08-02-2021 11:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024