[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Originally Posted by Throe up

I don't see you answering his question.

That's because you are too lazy to read the whole thread to see which questions have already been asked and answered.

I hate to reward laziness, but here it is again.

Originally Posted by Pastor Billy-Reuben

That would be the sides of the firmament.

I'm not sure, but I would assume they are guarded by angels.

The sun is probably directed light, like a spotlight. That's why it can be sunny in one place, twilight in another, and dark in yet another.

The sun doesn't move in the same path year round. In the summer, the sun moves in a tighter circle closer to the center, meaning the center is always lit, and the edge doesn't get any light at all. In the winter, the sun is in a larger circle following close to the edge, and the center doesn't get any light.

Because things look smaller when they are further away.

For an omnipotent being, all tasks are equally easy. No matter what shape you pick, it isn't any easier or harder for God to make the earth into that shape.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

Originally Posted by Throe up

Maybe your arguments aren't quite as ironclad as you think?

Maybe your questions aren't as stumping as you think.

Originally Posted by Throe up

Also, as to your "gravity bending light" idea, I think I can put that to rest.
First, we have the equation for the force of gravity between two objects.

F=G* (M#1 *M#2)/ D^2

...

F= 2.1963643*10^-23
So, F= 0.0000000000000000000000021963643
That's an EXTREMELY small number. Almost no effect WHATSOEVER.

But you aren't finished yet. You have correctly calculated the force, but you stopped short of showing the effect of that force upon the photon.

First, let's see what is the effect of the force on the Earth.
2.1963643*10^-23 m∙kg/s2 / 5.96*10 ^24 kg ≅ 3.68*10^-48 m/s2.

So virtually no effect on the Earth.

But, we weren't talking about the effect of the photon on the Earth, were we? We were talking about the bending of light, which is the effect of the force on the photon.
2.1963643*10^-23 m∙kg/s2 / 5.525*10^-36 kg ≅ 3.98*10^13 m/s2, or about 40,000,000,000,000 m/s2.

Of course, that number isn't right because I haven't accounted for relativity, and Newton's laws completely break down when we start talking about numbers this large. Some of the force applied to the photon increases the acceleration, and the rest of the force increases the mass.

However, the number is close enough that we can say that the effect of the Earth's gravity upon the photon is HUGE, and that your attempt to dazzle us with 9th grade physics has utterly failed.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Throe up]

So you say. I'm not done.

Basically, I'll start off telling you that the assumption that photons have mass is incorrect, since they are wave particles. Got ya there, didn't I?

Photons don't have mass, they momentum. They're affected by gravitational fields not because they have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong ones) warp space-time. The photons are responding to the curve in space-time made by the gravitational field, not the field itself.

The gravitational field of the Earth is not sufficient to warp space time enough to trap light so that we attain permanent daylight. Since we're using science here, I'll use a star as an example. A star (with a mass and gravitational field far bigger than that of the earth), only SLIGHTLY bends light. Thus, no permanent day for us.

(In case you need a definition of space-time, it's the four dimensions we live in. We have three spacial dimensions, and we have time.)

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Originally Posted by Throe up

Photons don't have mass, they momentum.

Momentum = Mass * Velocity.
If mass is zero, momentum is zero.

Originally Posted by Throe up

They're affected by gravitational fields not because they have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong ones) warp space-time. The photons are responding to the curve in space-time made by the gravitational field, not the field itself.

If you really believed that, then why did you attempt to use a series of irrelevant equations earlier? Are you learning via Wikipedia as you go along?

Originally Posted by Throe up

The gravitational field of the Earth is not sufficient to warp space time enough to trap light so that we attain permanent daylight.

I will expect you to back that up. Show your work and tell us how much space-time is warped by the gravitational field of the Earth, and tell us how much warping would be required, and what would the mass of the Earth need to be, to attain permanent daylight on a sphere with a radius of 6378.137 km.

Originally Posted by Throe up

(In case you need a definition of space-time, it's the four dimensions we live in. We have three spacial dimensions, and we have time.)

Last I heard, the scientists thought there were eleven dimensions. Are you behind the times, or were those scientists smoking crack?

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[StarrKingGrad]

Originally Posted by Pastor Billy-Reuben

We were talking about the bending of light, which is the effect of the force on the photon.
2.1963643*10^-23 m∙kg/s2 / 5.525*10^-36 kg ≅ 3.98*10^13 m/s2, or about 40,000,000,000,000 m/s2.

I don't pretend to know much about science, but one of my parishioners is a professor of astrophysics at Cal Berkeley. I ran this by him, and I've rarely seen anyone laugh so hard in my life. He said that your scribblings--and this is a direct quote--"bear as much resemblence to real physics as Gilligan's Island does to the life of real castaways." I'm of a more charitable bent, so I'd like you to submit your calculations for the mass of the photon to the good folks at MIT, since I'm sure that would be quite a revelation to them.

BTW, my astrophysicist parishioner asked me to ask you if your parents were biochemists. I have no idea what he meant by that.

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Originally Posted by Throe up

So you say. I'm not done.

Basically, I'll start off telling you that the assumption that photons have mass is incorrect, since they are wave particles. Got ya there, didn't I?

Photons don't have mass, they momentum. They're affected by gravitational fields not because they have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong ones) warp space-time. The photons are responding to the curve in space-time made by the gravitational field, not the field itself.

The gravitational field of the Earth is not sufficient to warp space time enough to trap light so that we attain permanent daylight. Since we're using science here, I'll use a star as an example. A star (with a mass and gravitational field far bigger than that of the earth), only SLIGHTLY bends light. Thus, no permanent day for us.

(In case you need a definition of space-time, it's the four dimensions we live in. We have three spacial dimensions, and we have time.)

Even if we accept the unsound principles of particle physics, sometimes called quantum theory, there is no such animal as a "wave particle". It has to be one or the other.

First, let me describe the experiment of Schroedinger's cat as explained by my colleague Cecil Adams over at thestraightdope.com.

Here is a letter sent to him by someone as confused as you are:

Cecil, you're my final hope
Of finding out the true Straight Dope
For I have been reading of Schroedinger's cat
But none of my cats are at all like that.
This unusual animal (so it is said)
Is simultaneously live and dead!
What I don't understand is just why he
Can't be one or other, unquestionably.
My future now hangs in between eigenstates.
In one I'm enlightened, the other I ain't.
If you understand, Cecil, then show me the way
And rescue my psyche from quantum decay.
But if this queer thing has perplexed even you,
Then I will and won't see you in Schroedinger's zoo.
— Randy F., Chicago


Dear Randy:
Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough @#&!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."
— Cecil Adams

Now then, we have demonstrated that you are wrong about particles. Let us move on to photons, which are particles as well. First, photons are emitted by GOD, and this prove His existence. Second, photons don't stop. They move. If a photon is massless, then staring at the sun cannot harm your vision. But don't try it. Remember what happed to Galileo.

Did you mention Gravity? If Pastor Billy-Reuben did not explain that to your satisfaction, I'll give it a try later. Right now I have to go outside and marvel at the Lesser Light GOD made to light the night sky. The moon! Which glows by itself and would provide warmth and comfort if the Sun went out. Which it can't, because GOD made it too.

[Rachael Van Helsing]

You know, Pastor Al, I don't get why someone who seems as smart as you do subscribes to this whole bible nonsense.

You don't believe in a flat earth as well.....?

[Throe up]

Photons are a particle that acts like a wave. Therefore, "wave particle".

1.Light is a special case in terms of momentum. There is no other particle like it.

2. I used a series of irrelevant equations earlier to see if you would pick up on the fact that they were irrelevant before I had to tell you. You didn't.

3. Alright, here we go. To attain permanent daylight, one would have to permanently trap the light from the sun. The gravitational field needed to to that is the gravitational field of a stellar mass black hole, the final point in the life of a star 10 to 15 times the mass of our sun. Our sun has a mass of 1.989*10^30, that would be, at the minimum, 1.989*10^31. The earth, for reference, has a mass of 5.9742*10^24, which is 10000000x less.

I'll even reference the entire equation. G=8(Pi)T, where G is the gravitational field, and T is the mass.

G for a black hole.
G = 8(Pi)(1.989*10^31)
G = 1.5912*10^32 *(Pi) (We'll just go with Pi being 3.14, for simplicity)
G= 4.996368*10^32 (This is the field that the earth would have to have to trap light.)

G for the Earth.
G = 8(Pi) (5.9742*10^24)
G = (Pi) (4.7796*10^25) (Again, 3.14 for Pi)
G = 1.5007944*10^26

Also, there are eleven dimensions suggested by some scientists. These have not yet been proven. Four dimensions is generally accepted, and is the official definition of spacetime.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Originally Posted by Throe up

1.Light is a special case in terms of momentum. There is no other particle like it.

Sounds like an ad-hoc theory to me.

Originally Posted by Throe up

2. I used a series of irrelevant equations earlier to see if you would pick up on the fact that they were irrelevant before I had to tell you. You didn't.

Sure.

Originally Posted by Throe up

To attain permanent daylight, one would have to permanently trap the light from the sun.

Why would light have to be "permanently trapped"? The gravitational field of this hypothetical sphere would only have to be strong enough so that a photon that just misses it is pulled in and strikes the opposite side. Why do you think that the gravitational field has to be so strong that the escape velocity equals or exceeds the speed of light in order to accomplish this? No one said that the photon can't bounce off after it strikes.

This is all irrelevant academics anyway. None of this really matters, because the Earth is not a sphere, and these formulas are all made up by men. Every time a formula gives a result that the scientists don't like, they just change the formula.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[Nobar King]

Why would you want permanent daylight? Even if you could attain those conditions, would life even be possible there? How would you get evidence that it actually happened?

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by Throe up

1. Time zones were put into place at a meeting in Washington D.C. In AMERICA. Also, racist? That's hilarious coming from you.

Under a Demoncrat administration, no doubt.

2. I did have a response, but thought you were not deserving of it. I'll give it to you now. It has been ASSUMED in some parts of the world that it is flat. They had no evidence of it. In other parts of the ancient world, it was known to be round by many people. It was proven by their mathematicians.

Were these mathematicians? No. Then why should we trust them?

3. He never said anything Anti-God. Not once, in his post.

I can't be bothered finding the relevant post now, so let us just agree that I'm right and you're wrong.

4. How is Islam Satanic? They merely state that there was one different prophet, and they have a different name for their spiritual entity. (God)

They worship the moon and a paedophile and blow themselves up for kicks. It doesn't take a genius to work out there's something not right there.

You stated, with these quotes to support you, that science and God were two different masters. Christian scientists use SCIENCE to attempt to prove God's word. Are they unclean? Are they traitors?

1) No, God and secular logic are two different masters. True Christian Science has nothing to do with secular "rationality".
2) Christian scientists only have one master (God); they use science as a means to further that end. I use my computer to spread God's word, but that doesn't make it my master.

[ellandroadhero]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

It's flat, not two-dimensional, fool! It's not like a sheet of paper, as evidenced by our ability to dig mines and bring up presents God left for us in the soil and rock. It's at least two miles thick; we've dug holes that deep.

Really, you atheist God-mockers just have no common sense at all.

As for gravity? God made that, just like the rest of the universe.

Not the sharpest crayon in the box, are you?

You have just made yourself look really dumb. It being 3-d would not stop people from falling off the edge. My table is 3-d but things can still fall off it.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Originally Posted by Throe up

I used a series of irrelevant equations earlier to see if you would pick up on the fact that they were irrelevant before I had to tell you. You didn't.

We are used to having tons of BS thrown at us by you unsaved trash. We don't have time to address it all, so we tend to ignore the stuff that is so obviously wrong on its face that nobody would possibly take it seriously.

To attain permanent daylight, one would have to permanently trap the light from the sun. The gravitational field needed to to that is the gravitational field of a stellar mass black hole, the final point in the life of a star 10 to 15 times the mass of our sun.

If the gravity from a star ten or 15 times the mass of the sun permanently traps light, then how is it that we see light from stars that are more than 10 or 15 times the mass of the Sun? This is the kind of nonsensical result you get when you scientist types make assumptions about things that you cannot measure, such as the mass of the sun.

I'll even reference the entire equation. G=8(Pi)T, where G is the gravitational field, and T is the mass.

Gravity is a force, and the strength of a force field is given in units of mass x distance / time ^2. Your formula is expressed only in units of mass.

Try taking a high school physics class before you start lecturing us on science. The physicists are wrong about most things, but at least they keep their inaccuracies consistent, which is more than I can say for you.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by Take That

No, you are traveling in a circle, but in the same sense, you can follow the equator of the earth around, making a complete circle around the earth.

Yes, a circle.

When you use a compass, what does the needle point to?

That's right, magnetic north.

When you travel around the circle of the Equator, it keeps pointing toward magnetic north . . . the MIDDLE of the CIRCLE.

Magnetic north only proves that God put a big magnet in the MIDDLE of the flat Earth. Imagine you use a drawing compass, and you put the point on your sheet of paper and draw a circle. That's how your trip around the Equator looks.

[Mister Brasil]

Every time one of these undergrad physicists starts talking about space-time, I know I'm dealing with a crazy kook who will never amount to anything.

I live in three dimensions, not four. It's not difficult to locate myself in respect to other known locales in three dimensions. All I need is a GPS.

But I can't localize myself in four dimensions. Where am I at 1980? At 2010? Your model lacks predictive capability.

That's also how I know the round-earth hypothesis is wrong. Where am I when I am at 30 degrees latitude? What longitude? At 31 degrees?

The flat earth model accurately answers these questions. At 30 degrees latitude, I'm at the convenience store, perusing refrigerated fermented beverages. At 31 degrees longitude, I'm on a Greyhound.

It's like you're an alchemist, relentlessly pursuing the philosopher's stone, when gold spray paint is easily available at the Ace Hardware, five blocks away.

[jessev]

If I may interject something here, I think a bit of clarity should be said as well between the difference of mass, density, and volume. Mass is how heavy something is ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass ). Density is its mass per unit volume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density ). And Volume is how much space it takes up ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volume ). Size of a star by itself is not important so much as a star can be very large (high volume), but not very dense, so it's mass is not particularly a lot. On the other hand, some stars are small, but very dense. So, it has a fair bit of mass.

Black holes are a singularity that doesn't particularly have any volume. It is just a single really really dense point in which past the event horizon, gravity is so great and space-time is so warped that nothing can escape it. It's actually a good example of the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein (not that anyone here probably cares).

As for the trapping of light by gravity, I don't know exactly how much gravity would be required. I couldn't quite find it. There are some stars that have this effect though. Where it does have a great enough gravity to effectively trap light. But mostly, blackholes are mostly what traps light completely.

Other stars, like neutron stars, have the same mass as the Sun, but takes up an amount of space roughly equivalent to a city, thus having a much much greater density as the Sun.

So, all in all, our sun is not even close to having enough mass or density to trap light. Most stars do not. That's why you don't see them. Light has properties of both waves and particles. It can travel through a vacume like a wave, but has inertial mass (such that can move things using a solar sail), like a particle.

As for calculating the mass of stars (because it can be calculated, just not directly by measuring weight on a galactic size scale), look here: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/970609f.html

Alright. That's all I'm going to say here. Sorry if it's a bit much.

Originally Posted by Ahimaaz Smith

We are used to having tons of BS thrown at us by you unsaved trash. We don't have time to address it all, so we tend to ignore the stuff that is so obviously wrong on its face that nobody would possibly take it seriously.

If the gravity from a star ten or 15 times the mass of the sun permanently traps light, then how is it that we see light from stars that are more than 10 or 15 times the mass of the Sun? This is the kind of nonsensical result you get when you scientist types make assumptions about things that you cannot measure, such as the mass of the sun.

Gravity is a force, and the strength of a force field is given in units of mass x distance / time ^2. Your formula is expressed only in units of mass.

Try taking a high school physics class before you start lecturing us on science. The physicists are wrong about most things, but at least they keep their inaccuracies consistent, which is more than I can say for you.

[Nobar King]

Originally Posted by jessev

That's all I'm going to say here. Sorry if it's a bit much.

It's a bit much. Did you just prove the universe in twelve sentences? I think not.

[Pastor Billy-Reuben]

Originally Posted by jessev

So, all in all, our sun is not even close to having enough mass or density to trap light.

Of course it doesn't, because we wouldn't be able to see it otherwise.

Besides, we've already established the size of the sun in another thread. Meet me over there in about half an hour and I will have calculated the mass.

Pastor Billy-Reuben

[jessev]

Just a bit of a curious read for anyone who is interested. I found a well written and informational article that I'm not going to explain myself because the author of the article explains it much better than I could. But it makes a great deal of sense from what I see, personally.

http://www.christianmuse.com/a4mc/mc14.shtml

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by jessev

Just a bit of a curious read for anyone who is interested. I found a well written and informational article that I'm not going to explain myself because the author of the article explains it much better than I could. But it makes a great deal of sense from what I see, personally.

http://www.christianmuse.com/a4mc/mc14.shtml

Hmmm... my advice to you is twofold: (i) avoid sites with multiple font colors unless wearing a tinfoil helmet (ii) the writer thinks that he has found something interesting, whereas an 11 year old Landover student in the late 18th century would have been able to put him right.

[jessev]

Well, perhaps you don't agree with his interpretation. But can you then explain to me how your interpretation is better? And as for sites with multiple font colors. It's a fairly decent way of organizing a page, is it not? Makes it easier to tell the difference between different things. And I'm not really sure what a tinfoil hat has to do with anything, to be honest. And I wasn't aware that the Landover Baptist school existed in the 1700's. Has it been around that long? If so, that's pretty cool at least. Few places from that time still exist. Except for certain forts and other such stone structures.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Hmmm... my advice to you is twofold: (i) avoid sites with multiple font colors unless wearing a tinfoil helmet (ii) the writer thinks that he has found something interesting, whereas an 11 year old Landover student in the late 18th century would have been able to put him right.