Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not to jump into you guys conversation, but when you mentioned this 'constancy of light speed' it caught my eye, so I thought I'd share this link and info that I've shared here before. I love this stuff.
Are you sure about the constancy of light speed?
Get that?
A 14 billion year old universe that spans 28 billion light years??!!
As Ricky used to say "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
I do think that is very interesting. The years is time units, the light years are in distance units--do you know the conversion to put them on equivalent units?
Not to jump into you guys conversation, but when you mentioned this 'constancy of light speed' it caught my eye, so I thought I'd share this link and info that I've shared here before. I love this stuff.
Are you sure about the constancy of light speed?
Pretty much, relativity makes predictions based on the constancy of light speed. Needless to say these predictions have come true. The second comes from the supernova 1987a which we can check using simple trigonometry and some patience, unless you want to argue that maths doesn't work im pretty safe in saying that light hasn't changed for some time. It also begs the question of why should it change?
A bigger problem still is that when creationists view this, they immediately make you think that the speed must have changed in such a way as to going back to a ~6-10k old universe which is complete bullsh|t considering the massive amount of other possible values in between 15x10^9 and 6000 last time i checked, having the speed of light be 0.25% percert faster a few billion years ago didn't get these results
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
Get that?
A 14 billion year old universe that spans 28 billion light years??!!
Who the hell is telling you this crap? because the only part that is very true is that on the large scale the universe is homologous
We don't know how big the universe really is, it could be 40 billion light years or 9999999 billion light years(pretty much any value bigger than 15blyrs and not quite infinite). How far we can see however is roughly a mere 15 billion light years away and counting(ie the size of the observable universe). The explanation for this is that the light has only had 15 byrs to get to us.
The question this leads to is then wouldn't this mean that the galaxies had to be moving faster than the speed of light? the problem is that this is not an accurate view of whats really happening. Think of the universe as a balloon that is being filled as the balloon fill each star gets further away from the others but this is because the space between them is getting bigger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha8207
As Ricky used to say "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
I do think that is very interesting. The years is time units, the light years are in distance units--do you know the conversion to put them on equivalent units?
all you have to do is multiply the light year to the number of seconds in a year and you get the number of meters:
Au(Astronomical unit)= good for relatively short distances, 1 Au is the distance between the earth and the sun
light year=63000Au's=60x60x42x365~9.5x10^15 meters
light years are pretty much standard for big distances
Parsec= unit useful for calculating the distances of stars using trig and background stars= 3.1x10^16 m
angstrom=not something you want to measure cosmological distances with
the first lie is here:
not only did these assumptions turn out to be wrong but the same website you copy and pasted from actually say that these things aren't assumed with isochron datings. From here i can infer that you either didn't read the website and just copied whatever sounded appealing to you or you left out the bit where it is mentioned. Conveniently leaving out those important details pretty much counts as lying
then we have this:
My last search of the words "Kaupelehu" "Flow" "Hualalai" and "volcano" only gave me 2 pages ALL from creationist sites which would be ok but one needs to ask where did they get that from? a wider search involving only Kaupelehu and flow double the amount of pages but still no news or scientific articles. These people seems to have gotten this claim from thin air
my second reason to believe that they are bogus comes from comments found in those pages such as how carbon dating gave a date of a few billion years. To put this into perspective its like claiming to have measured a fever of a million degrees when your thermometer can only go up to 100
I've pointed it out to you and rather than commenting on them you just ignored them.
Lastly with tyre:
The pictures i have contradict this. Furthermore it wouldn't even matter because the bible says it would never be rebuilt. This means that even if it was destroyed, the city would never be remade. It is still there. Your initial response was also a copy and paste which is pretty irritating
Im not sure why you are trying to argue this. If you say that london will be turned to ash and it will never be remade, rebuilding london a mile to the left of where it was before still counts as rebuilding it
Lastly is the comment about bringing evidence that shows the age of the earth, you claimed that all the evidence points out to a young one(ie ~10k old one). I challenge this by bringing polar ice caps, radiometry, simple cosmology and you just ignore it or ignore my rebutals to your responses(as in the case of the constancy of light speed). If you can't defend them then don't make the claims because people notice when you ignore pressing things
I just want you to know I donot make us lies to support my position, and I will try to respond to all of your posts.
As for the original city of Tyre, it is nolonger there. The Bible said the waves would cover her, and that is where she will be found today, below the sea. There is a small fishing village near by, but the name of the village is not Tyre. The name is Sur, which again confirms the fulfillment of the prophecy. This village is not the mighty Tyre, it is not built on the site of Tyre, and it does not bear the name of Tyre.
I just want you to know I donot make us lies to support my position,
Well explain away because when someone can quote you on this its not a good sign.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
and I will try to respond to all of your posts.
Why thank you
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
As for the original city of Tyre, it is nolonger there. The Bible said the waves would cover her, and that is where she will be found today, below the sea. There is a small fishing village near by, but the name of the village is not Tyre. The name is Sur, which again confirms the fulfillment of the prophecy. This village is not the mighty Tyre, it is not built on the site of Tyre, and it does not bear the name of Tyre.
hey i can see some of the original ruins plus a much larger area called tyre including the land bridge and lots of other stuff.
Well i guess the tourists guides in lebanon must be in some sort of conspiracy because from this webpage: Tourism in Lebanon
Quote:
Phoenician Tyre was queen of the seas, an island city of unprecedented splendor. She grew wealthy from her far-reaching colonies and her industries of purple-dyed textiles. But she also attracted the attention of jealous conquerors, among them the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar and Alexander the Great.
It even includes a nice picture of some of the old stuff and *oh* what have we here? its above ground level
all you have to do is multiply the light year to the number of seconds in a year and you get the number of meters:
Au(Astronomical unit)= good for relatively short distances, 1 Au is the distance between the earth and the sun
light year=63000Au's=60x60x42x365~9.5x10^15 meters
light years are pretty much standard for big distances
Parsec= unit useful for calculating the distances of stars using trig and background stars= 3.1x10^16 m
angstrom=not something you want to measure cosmological distances with
Thanks. Now to find a calculator since I only have 10 fingers and 10 toes.
I also explained to you why it was crap instead of simply dismissing it, care to comment on that?
Nah, I'm not smart enough. I'm just gonna copy/paste your response and email it to that website and let them know you've figured out the solution to the horizon problem.
So stay tuned, someone might be getting a scientific theory named after them.
The Theory of Coos....that has a nice ring to it, yes?
Nah, I'm not smart enough. I'm just gonna copy/paste your response and email it to that website and let them know you've figured out the solution to the horizon problem.
So stay tuned, someone might be getting a scientific theory named after them.
The Theory of Coos....that has a nice ring to it, yes?
You're implying that the Theory of Coos can't be any more important to cosmologists than the Theory of Goddidit?
I doubt that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
