New Hubble pictures, YEC explanations just don't make sense.

You add them up by finding the limit that they approach. I.e. you do calculus.

but the limit they approach is infinity which cannot be measured so how can you calculate an infinite number of distances

Reef, do you remember the Forum Guidelines? You know, the ones you agreed to when you registered? Note:

quote:

---

Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

---

So when we demonstrate that calculus can supply the solution to Zeno's Paradox, you can't just keep repeating "no it dusnt!" You actually have to hit us with the reason that it can't.Caluclus provides methods for finding the sum of an infinite series of numbers by taking the limit. So your objection to the presented solution is fallacious. Calculus can and has solved Zeno's Paradox.

No. The limit they approach is not infinity. That's what we're trying to tell you. The limit that they approach is the point where Achillies overtakes the turtle.

Reef,Can I assume you accept the YEC timeline is falsified re the Greenland ice cores & the multiple lines of evidence that point to the banded layers being annual deposits, since you never responded to that thread?Mark

Mark,I looked through this convoluted topic for quite a while, and I got an idea, but I'm still a lil unsure of what you mean by the Greenland ice cores. What I think you mean is the layers of types of ice found in Greenland. I'm assuming that it is your belief that each set of layers is created annually. Is that where you were going? Or said?
On the whole faster-than-light-travel issue. I'll let you know all about it after I do it, assuming time travel doesn't take place. Till then, it's kinda' dumb to talk about.Joe[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-12-2004]

"If the universe were of infinite duration in the past then in the present, there would be no energy avaliable for work.Since energy is clearly avaliable for work, the universe must be of finite duration in the past - that is, it had a beginning."You say that the universe had a begining. Did matter then also have a begining?

Obviously.Here's an idea. Every time I get into these cosmology threads, most of it is dealing with the other guy's ignorance about the Big Bang. So why don't you stop at the library and find a copy of "A Brief History of Time"? It'll take you two afternoons to read, tops. And then you'll have a great grounding in modern cosmology. They even have an illustrated version that's really easy to read.That's going to put you in a much better position of comprehending cosmology than my half-assed explanations.

Ouch! It bites! Reel in your claws big fella'! I wasn't asking for the sake of information, I was asking your point of view. Gosh, testy in here arn't we? As for a basic idea on cosmology, I've got a great, fine, well documented public high school education. That should be plenty. Now, the reason I asked before I was so "politely" responded to: Since we've covered the basics and both can agree that both the universe, and the matter it is made of, had a begining, I'd like (if it won't make you too grumpy) to possibly discuss what it was that began them. I would assume that there is where there are some differences. Hopefully we can talk about and discuss those differences like truly rational adults.Your loving friend
Joe[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-12-2004]

More like "cautious". This wouldn't be the first time that a casual inquiry into cosmology turned into a "whoo-whee! them goofy scientists believe what?" situation. Big bang cosmology may be counter-intuitive but it's also supported by all the evidence. Maybe you went to a different public high school than I did, but if all you've got is high school, then you know nothing about anything, much less cosmology. No offense but you must know that to be true?A high school education isn't going to cut it when the subject is science. Sorry, but you're going to have to augment your knowledge via books and other resources. We'll be glad to point you to stuff, though. Your question doesn't make sense. Causality is a property within the universe, not beyond it. There's no "before" before time, so how can anything be said to have begun the universe? Hey, me too. One way for you to hold up your end of the bargain will be to ask questions out of an honest spirit of inquiry, and not to play "stump the chumps." In return I won't treat you like an uneducated hack. We cool? Cuz so far we're not off to a great start, are we?

Navy, Yep, & I said it here; http://EvC Forum: New Hubble pictures, YEC explanations just don't make sense., & presented multiple lines of evidence that attest to the conclusion that annual layers are represented in the Greenland ice cores.Open a new thread if you want to contest this, this one has diverged enough (holds hand up).Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

"lol i did thanx!! but please be my guest how big is the area under the curve f(x)=x ?"You use integration to solve this. In simple steps, since it's a simple problem.The area made is in this case a triangle. It has the lenght x and the height f(x)=x. The formula for the area of a triangle is height * lenght / 2.So, you can just put in values for x and get values for the area out.Now, in calculus you can do something else, which is rather useful. You can say that a variable *approaches* a value. In our case, we want to know what the area approaches as x approaches infinity.In this specific case, we can easily see that it approaches infinity. That is, the area in an infinitely big triangle is infinitely large.Note that this does not mean that all curves gives this answer, but it illustrated easily that math CAN and DO work with infinities, but you have to be careful with them if you want to get something useful out.I'll give you a small test to see if you can understand the basic concept. Take the function x/2x, and let x go towards infinity. What is the actual value of the function in this case?

No, this is not an established fact. In order to observe the beginning of something one must observe two states: 1.) the non-existence of the thing, and 2.) the temporally subsequent existence of that thing. With regard to the universe, no-one has ever observed #1. There is a point in our past where all historical world lines converge that we call the Big Bang, however the latest cosmological models (specifically the M-brane model or the Many Worlds model) do not treat this as a beginning of the universe (as "universe" is typically defined). Instead, it is simply a beginning to the meaningfulness of our common spatio-temporal references.

For true I would say that it that we EXPECT a distance where lack of compenetration exists and the reason we think this is for the "energetic" thought between your post and this or for faluire to partition very small curvatures. Einstein adroitly avoids this issue by visualizing PHYSICAL REALITY as match of the bendableoverlay (no matter the interval between any distance no matter how defined) and Cartesian system alteration. I think Born may have objected to this but I would have to check. If one subsequently INSISTS that the logic dissociate within THE SAME REALITY no matter the level of organization then the difficulty you mentioned now would arise. There may be ways to do this with transfinites but first some issues in the history of logic, Frege on Cantor's demonstable diaglogue and post Godel work would need be aired in what is likely also the physics of the energy which may not be named particles of current physics to which I am not discussing speculatively today would be in need.

Dude, by mentioning this, I'm sure I'm opening myself up to the sneers of elitists, but anyway, I'm 19 years old. A chance at more then a high school education would be tough. The public school comment was joke. Total sarcasm. Actually I spent most of that time under the teaching of my half insane, genius, father. Most of you would call it Home Schooling...but with him, it was something different. And no, I'm not a genius, pretty much a normal guy. I have, however read books from the library conserning the big bang. Right now I'm in the Navy, and so, not in college. I'll be picking up a few night classes as soon as a can, but look, enough to defending my intelligence..."Causality is a property within the universe, not beyond it. There's no "before" before time, so how can anything be said to have begun the universe"Well, first of all, I admire your attempt to define the arguement. However, I do not accept your definition of causality. It rules out options without even looking at them. As to the issue of time, quite honestly, we don't know what time was like "before time". I don't know what time was like before my time.Joe