Originally posted by googlefudge
You are changing your mind about what you are talking about.


If something can't be detected [b]ever, then it can have no effect on the world or that effect
would be detectable and thus the existence of the thing detected.

Something that has no effect and is undetectable IS by definition indistinguishable from something
that doesn't exist. ...[text shortened]... ng that has no effect at all and is thus indistinguishable from it's own non-existence?[/b]

Something that cannot be detected ever would still be able to affect that which
we see, being able to detect later would just push it into a discussion on why.

The only difference between the two would be our limitations, which I think are
still large. Even those things that we do see we do not always get it right when
we give credit and have to update our thoughts from time to time.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I like how people don't have an issue saying that time can be altered from
something that is constant and at the same time think they can claim they
know how old things are. If you believe time can be altered how do you know
it cannot be altered to move at a faster rate and a slower one, your ability to
judge events would be seriously hindered if for so ...[text shortened]... n't difficult
to monitor, but on a larger scale I think you are just assuming to much.
Kelly

That is because you have no clue what you are talking about.

How do you measure the rate at which time passes?

The amount of stuff happening per unit interval.
If time runs faster then that stuff happens faster.
If time runs slower then that stuff happens slower.

But as we measure and experience time based on how much stuff happens (for us its the rate at which we have thoughts)
then we experience time at the same rate regardless of how fast or slow it appears to happen by some external 'clock'.

In fact in relativity there IS no external clock.
That is kind of the point.

So if you are measuring the age of a thing based on radioactive decay (for example) and a certain amount of the materiel will decay in a
given amount of time then that amount of time will have passed for that thing will directly relate to the amount of time that it has experienced
regardless of how much time has past for someone else.


We sit deep inside earth's gravity well, which slows down time (seriously starting to bug those who keep super accurate atomic clocks because
for the new ones it literally makes a difference how high up the wall you keep them) which is why your GPS system has to account for this because
for the satellites up in orbit time is passing faster so there clocks run faster then they do at sea level.

So time passes slower for us on the earth than it does up in orbit, but any ageing process will also run slower on the earth, and faster in space.


This is a very complex and difficult topic.
If you don't understand it that's fine, most people don't.

But its very arrogant (and demonstrably wrong) to claim that just because you don't understand it nobody does or can.

People who study this (astronomy, cosmology, physics) dedicate their lives to the study and exploration of these topics.
Thinking you know better because you have read a 2 thousand year old book of mythology is both arrogant and idiotic.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Something that cannot be detected ever would still be able to affect that which
we see, being able to detect later would just push it into a discussion on why.

The only difference between the two would be our limitations, which I think are
still large. Even those things that we do see we do not always get it right when
we give credit and have to update our thoughts from time to time.
Kelly

NO!

please pay attention.

IF something has ANY effect on the universe then it MUST be detectable in some way.
It might not be detectable to us now, but might at some point in the future.

However.

IF something has NO effect on the universe then it is by definition indistinguishable from
something that doesn't exist (and thus also has no effect on the universe)


This is indisputably and tautologically true.

For something to be existent it must have detectable properties and evidence of its existence.
Something that is undetectable has no detectable properties which makes it by definition identical
to something that is non-existent.



So I ask again.

Are you talking about something that has NO effect on the universe and thus can't EVER be detected and
thus is identical to and must be considered to be non-existent?

OR

Are you talking about something that DOES have an effect that we COULD at some point detect but that
we can't CURRENTLY detect or observe? (and thus can't CURRENTLY claim to be existent)

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]However, the creation account along with the other information provided us is enough for us to rule out a million year or older Earth.

By 'creation account' I assume you are referring to the first of two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis, the one where God creates the world in six 'days'. And you are insisting, I assume, on reading th to your modernist, literal understanding of ancient, metaphorical texts.[/b]

You are assuming God is as ignorant as we are. God did not need the Sun, moon,
stars, and the earth to tell time. He created those for various purposes and one
of those purposes was for us to be able to tell the time. He was the one that
told Moses to start their day in the evening at sunset instead of at sunrise like
the Egyptians and to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, because He
made the Heavens and the Earth in six days and rested on the seventh day so
they would rest the same length of time. The first day started in the dark and
then God created the light in the middle of that day and there was light. This
is the way God wants us to understand how long it took him to do these works.
He is an awesome God and Creator.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are assuing God is as ignorant as we are. God did not need the Sun, moon,
stars, and the earth to tell time. He created those for various purposes and one
of those purposes was for us to be able to tell the time. He was the one that
told Moses to start their day in the evening at sunset instead of at sunrise like
the Egyptians and to remember the ...[text shortened]... ants us to understand how long it took him to do these works.
He is an awesome God and Creator.

PROVE IT!

Originally posted by googlefudge
That is because you have no clue what you are talking about.

How do you measure the rate at which time passes?

The amount of stuff happening per unit interval.
If time runs faster then that stuff happens faster.
If time runs slower then that stuff happens slower.

But as we measure and experience time based on how much stuff happens (for us its ...[text shortened]... cause you have read a 2 thousand year old book of mythology is both arrogant and idiotic.

"The amount of stuff happening per unit interval.
If time runs faster then that stuff happens faster.
If time runs slower then that stuff happens slower.
"

Yes, unless time is constant these sped up events or slower events would
be moving at different rates than everything else. So anything could have
been moving faster or slower as far as we are concern. Not having a constant
frame or reference would make it impossible to determine real times since
everything could have been moving slower or faster rate at different times.
Again short term we can measure a great deal a lot more accurate than
we can long distances or time frames.
Kelly

Originally posted by googlefudge
PROVE IT!

I am not in the business of proving anything to those that will not listen to reason.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The Big Bang is an event that has matter spread through space, it does not
talk about how the matter got here, there isn't anything what so ever from
the mind of man that talks about that! There is no how the matter got here
period, nothing that goes from nothing to something. Creation has a eternal
God creating who does not have a beginning or end, not ...[text shortened]... to the point of the Big Bang, then we can ask the same thing, where did
that come from!
Kelly

“...The Big Bang is an event that has matter spread through space, it does not
talk about how the matter got here, ...”

actually it does. You obviously don't know much about the big bang. Matter such as hydrogen came from energy being converted to mater in occurrence to E = MC2

“...nothing that goes from nothing to something. ...”

and nobody who has understood the big bang claims it does. The big bang is not a theory of how something came from nothing and, according to the theory, at no point in time was there 'nothing'.
Again, you obviously don't know much about the big bang.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"The amount of stuff happening per unit interval.
If time runs faster then that stuff happens faster.
If time runs slower then that stuff happens slower.
"

Yes, unless time is constant these sped up events or slower events would
be moving at different rates than everything else. So anything could have
been moving faster or slower as far as we are ...[text shortened]... an measure a great deal a lot more accurate than
we can long distances or time frames.
Kelly

God has already told us how long it took for the creation, so we don't have to
accept any time different from some duffus that says otherwise.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You error about the universe and comparing that to the avalanche you have
seen or could have seen an avalanche start and stop to do comparisions.
With the universe you've no idea what an old one or new one looks like, you
have guesses, but you really do not know. You look at this one and think it is
old, not knowing how it got here and what it looked li ...[text shortened]... at have nothing to do with age, you'd never
know it, but you believe you got it right.
Kelly

“...With the universe you've no idea what an old one or new one looks like, you
have guesses, ...”

that is simply not true. You keep repeating the same falsehood over and over again. Science is NOT just “guesses” but knowledge based on EVIDENCE and REASON.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Originally posted by humy
“...The Big Bang is an event that has matter spread through space, it does not
talk about how the matter got here, ...”

actually it does. You obviously don't know much about the big bang. Matter such as hydrogen came from energy being converted to mater in occurrence to E = MC2

“...nothing that goes from nothing to something. ...”

and nobody who has ...[text shortened]... oint in time was there 'nothing'.
Again, you obviously don't know much about the big bang.

So where did it come from? Again your source "energy" is part of the current
makeup of the universe and it came from? All you have given me is this
part of the universe, came from that part of the current universe, you've offered
nothing again just as I said just an ever ending process without a beginning.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not in the business of proving anything to those that will not listen to reason.

You aren't in the business of proving anything. Enough said.

Originally posted by humy
“...The Big Bang is an event that has matter spread through space, it does not
talk about how the matter got here, ...”

actually it does. You obviously don't know much about the big bang. Matter such as hydrogen came from energy being converted to mater in occurrence to E = MC2

“...nothing that goes from nothing to something. ...”

and nobody who has ...[text shortened]... oint in time was there 'nothing'.
Again, you obviously don't know much about the big bang.

Sorry, misprint: “..hydrogen came from energy being converted to mater in occurrence to E = MC2 ...”
should have been “..hydrogen came from energy being converted to matter in accordance to E = MC2 ...”

Originally posted by KellyJay
So where did it come from? Again your source "energy" is part of the current
makeup of the universe and it came from? All you have given me is this
part of the universe, came from that part of the current universe, you've offered
nothing again just as I said just an ever ending process without a beginning.
Kelly

“...So where did it come from? Again your source "energy" is part of the current
makeup of the universe and it came from? ...”

Energy came from the singularity that in turn contained mass. And before you ask where that singularity (along with that mass) 'came' from, the most 'obvious' interpretation of the equations that imply time began at the singularity implies that it did not “come” i.e. it was causeless. There are less 'obvious' interpretations of the equations that don't imply that time began at the singularity but they don't require a god either (if that is what you are hoping).

“...All you have given me is this
part of the universe, came from that part of the current universe, ...”

don't understand your above statement: “...came from THAT part of the CURRENT universe” ?
Which part of the “CURRENT” universe is “THAT” part?

“...you've offered
nothing again just as I said just an ever ending process WITHOUT a beginning. ...” (my emphasis)

Assuming time began at the singularity, the “beginning” was at the singularity in every sense of the word “beginning” . I fail to see in what sense this explanation offers “just an ever ending process WITHOUT a beginning” as you claim above. Perhaps you would be kind enough to elaborate on what you meant:
In what way would the beginning of time not be the beginning of the universe?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not in the business of proving anything to those that will not listen to reason.

Is that what you call it, *REASON*? The clap trap from the bible is "REASON"?

If that is reason, then I am Margaret Thatcher.