Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,103 Year: 5,360/9,624 Month: 385/323 Week: 25/204 Day: 1/24 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
joz
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 84 (3514)
02-06-2002 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by TrueCreation
02-05-2002 11:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
I would just like the more bulkier kind of books you don't find in highschool libraries, even the Marine Geology book has never been checked out, I probably could keep it without them noticing I ever had it if it werent for computers.
If you can afford this I can`t recomend it enough.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0201547309/qid=1013002856/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_66_1/103-7102899-7098227

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by TrueCreation, posted 02-05-2002 11:16 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 84 (3634)
02-07-2002 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Peter
02-07-2002 8:52 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
The 6000 year old earth calculation (as I understand it) stems from the genealogy in Genesis taking us back to the time of Adam, and then adding the 5 extra days before Adam was created.
Wasn't the rest of the Universe created at the same time as this
according to Genesis?

I think what they are trying to do is postulate that the universe was created 6,000 years ago as measured by a clock on earth.
They then claim that the earth was seperated from the rest of the universe by an event horizon (presumeably the result of sitting in the gravitational field of an extremely massive body) Then under general relativity the rest of the universe would age faster than the earth giving them a 6,000 year old earth and a universe with an age of the order of 10`s of billions....
Which is an interesting exercise in mathmatics but lacks any proof whatsoever.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Peter, posted 02-07-2002 8:52 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Peter, posted 02-07-2002 9:46 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 84 (3828)
02-08-2002 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by lbhandli
02-08-2002 10:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
Since Humphreys is clearly not talking about a white hole, well at least any white hole theorized by physics, perhaps a new name should be created for it. While I find white hole thingy quite descriptive, perhaps we could have a white hole thingy naming contest?
Any ideas?

Well if physicists have a sense of humour you could say it would be the butt of a lot of jokes so butt hole...
Or you could argue that he postulated it for the glory of God so glory hole.
Ah the possibilities....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 10:38 AM lbhandli has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 84 (3836)
02-08-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by lbhandli
02-08-2002 10:38 AM


And then there is the fact that the whole theory is *A Rather Silly Empty* theory (I think you can guess the acronym that would precede the hole)...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by lbhandli, posted 02-08-2002 10:38 AM lbhandli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by wj, posted 02-08-2002 11:06 PM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 84 (3968)
02-10-2002 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by KingPenguin
02-09-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
curiousity again. can someone explain gravity wells and event horizon. a link along with it would be awesome.
Look here:
http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/blkhole.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by KingPenguin, posted 02-09-2002 11:24 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by KingPenguin, posted 02-10-2002 1:32 AM joz has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 84 (4181)
02-11-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by wj
02-11-2002 10:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by wj:
Was it a strategic withdrawal?
More like a full blown realization by JP that he was in for an ass whoopin and a nagging concern over Humphrys sanity from the others....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by wj, posted 02-11-2002 10:34 PM wj has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 84 (4387)
02-13-2002 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 11:23 PM


quote:
Originally posted by lbhandli:
And you haven't contributed to it substantively. Now what is your take on the theory? Do you understand how fusion takes place at singularity?
Given that he posted this earlier I doubt he is going to debate the validity of this theory with you:
"okay i finally read all of this thread and i guess im coming to the conclusion that all of this is purely theoretical. I also think we should cut off humphreys hands and sew his mouth shut so no one will ever hear of his "crazy talk" ever again. its pretty bad when the people hes trying to support think hes a moron."-KP
While I don`t agree with the proposed mutilation his opinion of Humphrys theory is pretty clear.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:23 PM lbhandli 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