1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    04 Sep '13 00:13
    Einstein's 4-D Time Theory Confirmed by NASA

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    04 Sep '13 00:274 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Einstein's 4-D Time Theory Confirmed by NASA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

    The Instructor
    We knew that two years ago, I guess it's your attempt to cover something totally scientific. The gravity B probe gave those results in 2011.

    But you don't really believe any of that do you? I can only assume you will jump back on the creationism soap box with some 'refutation' given by some pseudo science video, right? You already told us years ago you didn't believe in malleable space time or did you forget that little tidbit?

    You perhaps forget the amount of typing I did and others about how space and time are malleable and the GPS navigation system HAS to take this into account or the accuracy would be more like 6 miles than 6 feet.

    You maybe remember that little episode? Where you poo poo'd the whole thing?
    If you really believed all this you would see that the whole universe is malleable too and it is in fact expanding which means in the past it was contracting, leading one to inevitably conclude it was extremely small at one point in time and in fact that is just the reverse of the big bang.

    But you don't believe any of that, do you?
    If you really intend to stick to science, you can post this kind of thing all day.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    04 Sep '13 02:562 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    We knew that two years ago, I guess it's your attempt to cover something totally scientific. The gravity B probe gave those results in 2011.

    But you don't really believe any of that do you? I can only assume you will jump back on the creationism soap box with some 'refutation' given by some pseudo science video, right? You already told us years ago you you?
    If you really intend to stick to science, you can post this kind of thing all day.
    I don't know what you are referring to. I have many times mentioned the stretching of the heavens. So what do you think I meant the heavens to be?

    I do disagree with the contracting of the heavens, however. The heavens will eventually be rolled up like a curtain.

    The Fabric of Space-Time

    YouTube

    The Fabric of the Cosmos: "What Is Space"

    YouTube

    The Instructor
  4. Joined
    25 Nov '04
    Moves
    35786
    04 Sep '13 05:47
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    I don't know what you are referring to. I have many times mentioned the stretching of the heavens.
    The Instructor
    What is this heavens to which you refer?
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    04 Sep '13 07:03
    Originally posted by zesty
    What is this heavens to which you refer?
    The heavens that I refer to is the space above the earth. What else could I be referring to?

    The Instructor
  6. Joined
    25 Nov '04
    Moves
    35786
    04 Sep '13 07:362 edits
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The heavens that I refer to is the space above the earth. What else could I be referring to?

    The Instructor
    Well I would normally assume that is what is meant in a forum whose subject is science, but given your propensity to bring the mythical being in the sky into this place, I wondered.....

    However I am still having problems understanding you.

    ..."the space above the earth" seems like something that would be above some flat place, not surrounding a sphere. Though you could stretch a point to say that any direction away from the center of the earth is up, then above means all directions from the center of a sphere.

    However above is part of a dichotomy which requires a below, and there is no below for a sphere in space....
  7. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12730
    04 Sep '13 16:142 edits
    Originally posted by zesty
    Well I would normally assume that is what is meant in a forum whose subject is science, but given your propensity to bring the mythical being in the sky into this place, I wondered.....

    However I am still having problems understanding you.

    ..."the space above the earth" seems like something that would be above some flat place, not surrounding a sphere. ...[text shortened]... is part of a dichotomy which requires a below, and there is no below for a sphere in space....
    In your case, I should have been more clear by saying "above the surface" of the earth. We live "on the surface" and the core of the earth can be referred to as "under the surface" of the earth or just "under the earth" for short. Instead of saying "under the surface" of the earth, one could also say "below the surface" of the earth.

    The Instructor
  8. Standard memberDeepThought
    Losing the Thread
    Cosmopolis
    Joined
    27 Oct '04
    Moves
    78625
    06 Sep '13 02:40
    Well, you just all fell for it if it was a trap. Try not to feed the troll.
Back to Top