Spirituality
11 Feb 12
22 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Relative to the observer they the objects would still only be traveling away from each other at the speed of light. However this proves you guys no nothing or play stupid because as an object approaches the speed of light its mass becomes infinite and no objects that we know of can travel at the speed of light. If your trying to wins souls your rudeness would turn people off but so be it be rude jackasses!!!
The speed of light !!!! The speed would be the speed of light.
Manny
PS: Maybe I did struggle with word problems in school so what I'm not a rude jack ass
I find the scientifically minded logical people on this site friendlier sometimes then folks of so called faith.
Manny
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by vistesdI have never said the speed of light changed, I said you do not know the
I understand you to be referring here to the hypothesis, that I believe you have stated many times on here, that (1) distance (either spatially or temporally) affects our ability to measure accurately (2) because the parameters (constants—e.g., the speed of light) may have changed, a fact which we cannot know. This is not just factually, but analytic ...[text shortened]... eliably taken to be the case. You could, of course, be a total skeptic (of the Cartesian sort).
starting state of the beginning.
Kelly
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by menace71I think the Earth is the first physical creation of God. Then He created
Can you refute that the universe did not start from a single point? Were you there when God commanded? No.
Manny
other things to make the Earth compatible with His later creation of
living things.
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by menace71I can say I do not know but believe God did it, I don't see science ever even
Can you refute that the universe did not start from a single point? Were you there when God commanded? No.
Manny
once coming up with how did everything start. The singularity came from
somewhere or it was eternal, if it was eternal then why did change so that
the Big Bang could occur? There isn't a "science version" of a single point
starting point that speaks to it coming from nothing, so it always has to come
from some other state that it was in before, which once again leaves us
begging for how than did it start?
Kelly
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by menace71So if we use other speeds for the same question.
Relative to the observer they the objects would still only be traveling away from each other at the speed of light. However this proves you guys no nothing or play stupid because as an object approaches the speed of light its mass becomes infinite and no objects that we know of can travel at the speed of light. If your trying to wins souls your rudeness w ...[text shortened]... d logical people on this site friendlier sometimes then folks of so called faith.
Manny
X moving left at 5 mph.
Y moving right at 5 mph.
In one hour are they 5 miles away from each other or 10?
If 10 then I'd say they are moving away from each other a little quicker
than 5mph even though both are only moving at 5mph.
Light is just a speed for this question, a rate nothing more.
Kelly
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, I try to pay very close attention to what you write. Hands down I believe
Just wondered if you think what I wrote was bullocks.
you are one of the shapest people here, I just disagree with you on some
points I believe are not as factual as you seem to think they are.
Kelly
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by KellyJayMy bad memory! However, since in my example "not knowing the starting state" would be the same as not knowing the value of b, I think the argument still holds: it is an analytical (logical) error to think that you necessarily have a better prediction of y nearer the y-axis. This is not just about the speed of light, and I was taking the y-axis as the point from which we view events (e.g., looking at stars from the earth, or recalling events in the near or distant past), but I don't think that is critical. As Manny points out, all such measurements are relative to our point of observation.
I have never said the speed of light changed, I said you do not know the
starting state of the beginning.
Kelly
_________________________________________
Note: I also could have mad the argument with knowing b, but with a being an unknown variable. That would have been more analogous to the speed of light changing. So I mixed my analogies a bit, anyway. Sorry.
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by KellyJayI Believe God(intelligence) did it. It's like looking at a watch you can deconstruct the watch and know how it was made. Actually there are a bunch of different models of how the universe began. The big bang or expansion is the most popular. All ideas have anomalies which can't be reconciled.
I can say I do not know but believe God did it, I don't see science ever even
once coming up with how did everything start. The singularity came from
somewhere or it was eternal, if it was eternal then why did change so that
the Big Bang could occur? There isn't a "science version" of a single point
starting point that speaks to it coming from nothing, ...[text shortened]... that it was in before, which once again leaves us
begging for how than did it start?
Kelly
I agree on 2 points one God did it and something came from nothing. I however disagree on age and I don't dismiss science.
Manny
22 Feb 12
Originally posted by vistesdNo worries, I know you have the same issue I have with respect to posts.
My bad memory! However, since in my example "not knowing the starting state" would be the same as not knowing the value of b, I think the argument still holds: it is an analytical (logical) error to think that you necessarily have a better prediction of y nearer the y-axis. This is not just about the speed of light, and I was taking the y-axis as the point ...[text shortened]... ore analogous to the speed of light changing. So I mixed my analogies a bit, anyway. Sorry.
We are involved in several discussions with sometimes the same people and
sometimes not. So it is very easy to mix one thread with another and from
time to time with one poster and another.
I do see your point, if A is moving away from B if we are in the middle then
that rate will be the rate. That wasn't my question, but I see your point.
Kelly
23 Feb 12
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71Did either calendar start with a 'year 1'? I don't believe the Hebrew one did and I am fairly certain that reliable Chinese written records do not go that far back.
Back to calendars. The Chinese lunar calendar is now year 4709 so we can say with absolute certainty that the earth is older than 4000 years.
The Hebrew calendar is now the year 5772
Manny