Tashah said:Walrus writes:
The above is known as *Olbers Paradox*. The foremost answer to this paradox is that the "observable universe" is finite. One must also remember that existant light photons farther away than our cosmic horizon (our current peer-back capability) have not yet reached us.
A secondary reason for Olbers Paradox is that as our universe expands, distant light becomes more redshifted. In astrophysics, "z" is the notation which denotes redshift. The farther one peers into the universe, the greater the value of z. Contrary to intuitive thought, this increasing value of z applies not to celestial objects per se, but to the accelerating fabric of the universe.
geekgrrl said:What comprises this "fabric of the universe", how is it different from other celestial objects, and its acceleration is measured with respect to what object? With respect to observers on earth? Then with respect to what do we measure the earth's acceleration? To the "fabric of the universe"?
Just wondering.
GetVictd said:[snip]
Vast deposits of fossilized plants, insects and animal life attest to the occurrence of a catastrophic flood on the earth. Fossils are formed only when they are rapidly buried by sediment and placed under pressure. During a great flood you would expect vast numbers of life on earth to be buried and preserved. It is not interesting that on earth today, few if any fossils are being preserved! Why? The force to make them in vast amounts, such as the Great Flood, is no longer operating.
Could not the flood have changed some things on earth giving them the impression of being older than they are?
geekgrrl said:If you're waiting for geological events to happen before your eyes, don't. They won't. You'll be disappointed. And you may even believe that things don't happen now the way they have before, as your question suggests you already think that way.
Give up on the 6000-year thang. It's a non-starter. Listen to the scientists. They have no agenda except the advancement of knowledge. They aren't going to try to sell you anything. There is no punishment for not believing them, unlike with the Bible-thumper contingent who preach fire and brimstone unless you believe the way they do.
Don't be a dupe. Read. Study. Think for yourself, just for once. Do it for yourself. Do it for your kids, so they won't grow up believing fairy tales to the point that they will be unemployable in a technological society. Please.
Tashah,Tashah said:
The fabric of the universe is composed of 3 spatial attributes plus the attribute of time. This is commonly refered to as space-time and is denoted in physics by the mathematical notation 3:1.
Every celestial body in the universe is in motion. Defining motion in this sense of usage depends upon the frame(s) of reference...
1) The Earth spins on its axis.
2) The Earth and rotates around the Sun.
3) Our solar system is embedded in a rotating spiral galaxy.
4) Our galaxy is part and parcel of a moving Local Cluster.
5) The moving Local Cluster is part and parcel of a moving Super Cluster.
6) The Super Cluster is embedded in an expanding space-time.
Using Type 1a Supernova as a standard candle (object of reference), Cosmologists attempt to define the expansion rate of space-time by measuring redshift (z). This is a bit tricky because all subserviant motions have to be accounted for and then mathematically subtracted. The currently accepted value of 3:1 acceleration (motion) is roughly between 50-70 kps. Contrary to what was expected, this value is not a constant. In other words, the universe is expanding more rapidly now than it was in the past.
One must remember that the laws of physics apply to what is contained in space-time, but not to the fabric of space-time itself. As an example, the speed of light constant (c) is valid for what is within space-time, but not to space-time itself. The expansion rate of the universe itself is thus not constrained by the value (c). In theory then, the universe can attain a rate of acceleration greater than the speed of light constant or >(c).
The reference constancy of (c) is also dependent upon mass. Let's take a quanta such as a photon of light which has no mass. From our frame of reference, a photon must obey (c) which also dictates a time-parameter... such as a photon of light takes nine minutes to travel the distance between the Sun and the Earth. If you consider this event from the reference frame of the photon itself however, something very counter-intuitive happens. From the photon's frame of reference, no time at all has elapsed in its journey between the Sun and Earth. How can this be so? If a photon did indeed sense time, this would imply that it had mass and thus could not ever attain the speed of light. In other words, a photon that sensed time would be a contradiction of terms and an impossibility.
I hope some of this helps
Sorry to disappoint you but our orbit around the Sun is always changing. It is never the same....milkrun said:Tashah,
Try and explain this. Other than the proposed expansion type motion of the Universe, what keeps the planets and their moons in constant, rhythmic, elliptical orbits with no visible source of power, other than gravity. In other words, if the gravity of our Sun is so great, why don't we crash into it instead of circling it from the same distance year after year. And the same for all the other heavenly bodies. What keeps everything in perfect balance. And don't tell me that everything is not in perfect balance, because it is.
Quick note here. The original scriptures actually say that the earth was created in 7 yohm. This can also mean period of time undisclosed. This is obviously the translation that is now accepted among the knowledgeable, due to scientific findings.26 X World Champs said:Sorry to disappoint you but our orbit around the Sun is always changing. It is never the same....
Why don't we crash into the Sun? Gravity works in more than one direction. Do you think the Moon is the same distance from the Earth it was 1 million years ago (or 9,994,000 years before the bible said the Earth was created?)
Did you ever study Astronomy? It's fascinating and chock full of facts that are provable...unlike the Creationist theory.
Acceleration toward the Sun can be attributed to gravity. But acceleration away from the Sun needs another factor. An elliptical orbit has an acceleration point which slings the smaller object away from the larger one with sufficient speed to escape the gravitational pull of the larger mass. This can only be accomplished by a lateral shifting of the larger object which keeps the smaller mass in a perpetual motion elliptical orbit. Otherwise the orbit would be circular and would decay rather quickly.nkgupta80 said:the earth's velocity (perpendicular to the acceleration caused by the sun's gravity) causes the earth to move around the sun in an elliptical orbit. And remember there's no air resistance in space to keep an object (in this case the earth) from moving.
walrus said:I had heard this moon-dust story before, but something about it struck me this time. I assume they had calculated the amount of dust they expected to find based on an assumed age of the moon of 4+ billion years. For the sake of argument let's use 4.5 billion. To err on the side of your argument, let's say they expected to find dust 100' deep (they expected to find far less). You say that the amount they actually found gave an age of 6-8 thousand years. In order for that to be the case, they would have only found 1/1000 of an inch of dust on the moon - which I am going to assume is too little to accurately measure. Remember, this was using an assumed depth of 100', and in fact the astronauts found around a foot of dust.
The moon dust story does not, in my opinion, pass the common sense test.
Quertol said:THe problem is that the scientists who did the calculations originally weren't basing the age of the moon as 4.5 billion years. They were estimating a lot less time...
walrus said:Ok, you brought up this little fable, so what age were they using? If you cut the assumed age in half (2.25 billion years) you are still looking at far less than 1/100 of an inch of dust. Even if they only assumed 1 million years (and scientists have believed the Earth far older than that since well before 1969) you would still only have 1/2" of dust (and remember, this is using a depth of 100' of dust equals the age of the Earth - scientists didn't expect to find anywhere near 100' of dust). This is a charming anecdote, and I am sure it convinces some people - just not me.
By the way, I am not denying that there was less dust than expected. That is a pretty well established fact. There was in fact around 1' of dust found most places. What I am objecting to is the idea that the actual measurement came out to 6,000 years. a) from all the information I have found, combined with common sense it isn't true and b) what kind of an instrument would you use to measure dust-depth that is accurate to less than 1/10000 of an inch? (you would have to measure accurately to this level to obtain any sort of estimate of age - an error in measurement of 1/100 of an inch would result in a difference of over 100,000 years)
nkgupta80 said:what is omni-science.
Quertol said:Human science can not match Omni-science.
Tashah said:
Omni-science? Perhaps you mean Deistic Design?
Your offering here is pretzel-logic. To state that human science is no match for *Omni-science* implies that you yourself understand omniscence and are able to evaluate and judge each status (human science vs. Omni-science).
Human science and theology are separate realms and comparisons are disingenuous and counterproductive.
nkgupta80 said:Well sure we're inferior to God. God may be all knowledge, theology isn't all knowledge. No theological doctrine showed us how to build an integrated circuit, cure smallpox, fly in airplanes. And no theological doctrine can even begin to give us the extent of god's knowledge.
Quertol said:There is a difference from comparing human knowledge to all knowledge , and comparing human knowledge to theology...
Tashah said:
Last time I checked... all theologic material was duly written by our hand.
milkrun said:The universe is eternal because matter cannot be destroyed, it can only change forms. This means that, for an example, there is as much water today as there has always been. It's form changes from liquid to solid to gas in different amounts over time. But the total quantity can't increase or decrease over time.
The same goes for all forms of matter. It can't be destroyed. So how will the universe end? Only by it's creator willing it to be gone. Are we just game pieces to amuse God? The Greeks thought so thru their religion.
Religion is a business. God doesn't exist. Life will go on forever under it's own power. We are temporary minds trying to feel immortal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?