[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Originally Posted by Maria_Tosspot

IMG]http://www.designboom.com/weblog/images/images_2/rodrigo/august/trillion_frame_camera/light04.gif[/IMG]

researchers at the MIT media lab in America have developed a new camera system that processes visual data at a rate of one trillion
frames per second. the technology is capable of detecting light travel,

So... we have got an amazingly fast camera and a lot of guys who know about photography... Just like CGI and Star Wars, isn't it? In fact it it so similar, a reasonable person would conclude that it is merely a trick.

Note how the light stops just as it enters the bottle - that's where they got it wrong.

[Albert The Lunkhead (On Moderation)]

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

Sorry friend. 'Evidence' is not a fact.

Evidence is used to back up what you are trying to prove and strong evidence is the facts. So, yes, in some cases, evidence is facts. But what is derive, conclude, assume, postulate from the factual observations/evidence may have a strong or a week connection.

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

Evidence is like saying because my head got wet, it must be raining.What if I went swimming? Took a shower?

Not really. The evidence is your head is wet. The rain, the show or the swimming are the possible reasons why your head got wet.

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

No friend, you are still guessing with your extremist 'theories'.Facts, facts are irrefuttable...

Do you know what others facts are. Another fact is that people like you, who do not like what scientific theories tell them, will just make up fake definitions, like your definition of evidence. Then, you will use these fake definitions to try and convince themselves that theories are not valid.

Scientific theories are NOT guesses. They are not fact either, though the evidences/observation/data used may be facts. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that a theory is correct if it is based on reliable data.

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

Facts as recorded by observers there at the time of the event.

Have you ever looked at the studies of how different observers record the same events? That is why science uses quantifiable measurements.

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

Facts in the Bible

What facts?

Originally Posted by Bubba McRightman

I ain't never been good at that math stuff and I know it was just Jesus protecting me from all the commie lies.

Well, that's logic What's your evidence is is Jesus protecting you from all the 'lies'? Also, what lies are you talking about in the first place?

Originally Posted by Bubba McRightman

The answer is simple: God said "let their be light" and there was light. Period.

It's not that simple.

Originally Posted by Bubba McRightman

He told my wife to move her fat ass out the way first...

You're a nice Christian. If I was your wife, I would divorce you, so I could be free from your evil.

Originally Posted by Bubba McRightman

but the light was already there long before Einstein came around to try and debunk God's word.

And Einstein achieved well. That's why he is one of the most famous person who ever lived.

Originally Posted by Bubba McRightman

This Einstein guy is now a charcoal briquet in Hell's BBQ.

You have no positive evidence.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Just like CGI and Star Wars, isn't it?

No.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

In fact it is so similar, a reasonable person would conclude that it is merely a trick.

No, it's science. A reasonable person would conclude it isn't a trick.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

Note how the light stops just as it enters the bottle - that's where they got it wrong.

Congratulations! You've clearly shown that you have no idea how science works.

[Bubba McRightman]

Originally Posted by Albert The Lunkhead

Well, that's logic What's your evidence is is Jesus protecting you from all the 'lies'? Also, what lies are you talking about in the first place?

The lies of MATH! It don't say nuthin 'bout math in the bible! Math is a man-made heathen practice, spawned with demon seed in the uterus of man.

E=MC2 looks more like a satanic symbol than this LOL "math" stuff anyways. Your "math" has falsely led you to believe that the earth is billions (LOL) of years old and that I was once a monkey and somehow was changed into a God fearing man of the cross.

What witchcraft do you subscribe to? I wish it were 1692 again and we were in Salem, Mass. You would be THE main attraction at the marshmallow roast!

[Stephenh]

Originally Posted by Bubba McRightman

The lies of MATH! It don't say nuthin 'bout math in the bible! Math is a man-made heathen practice, spawned with demon seed in the uterus of man.

E=MC2 looks more like a satanic symbol than this LOL "math" stuff anyways. Your "math" has falsely led you to believe that the earth is billions (LOL) of years old and that I was once a monkey and somehow was changed into a God fearing man of the cross.

What witchcraft do you subscribe to? I wish it were 1692 again and we were in Salem, Mass. You would be THE main attraction at the marshmallow roast!

You obviously don't know math, and don't know your Bible.

1 Kings 7:23 - And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Stephenh

You obviously don't know math, and don't know your Bible.

1 Kings 7:23 - And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.

The verse you just quoted proves that secular mathematics is wrong. According to the Bible, pi = 3, not 3.14159. If scientists are using flawed math in their calculations, then their conclusions will be wrong, which is why we can't trust dating methods.

[Stephenh]

Originally Posted by Pim Pendergast

The verse you just quoted proves that secular mathematics is wrong. According to the Bible, pi = 3, not 3.14159. If scientists are using flawed math in their calculations, then their conclusions will be wrong, which is why we can't trust dating methods.

Pi does equal to 3 if you rounded it up to the a whole. The thing about math is that it is created from logic. Changing math would mean changing the logic from which it came, which would mean that this new logic would apply to everything as did the logic before. We aren't using flawed maths. It's 100% proof of maths. And we know our conclusions aren't wrong because that would mean maths is wrong, which it isn't because our conclusions aren't.

1 + 1 = 2 ---> That's not wrong.
2 + 2 = 4 ----> That's not wrong.

25/5 = 5

5 into 25: 5 doesn't go into 2, but it's got into 5 once = 1
5 into 20 goes 4 times = 4
= 14

5 * 5 = 25

5 * 14: 5 times 4 = 20
5 times 1 = 5
= 25

14
14
14
14
14
= 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 20
= 1 + 1 + 1 +1 +1 = 5
=25

Now, that's genius mathematics at it's best.

[Zechariah Smyth]

Originally Posted by Stephenh

Pi does equal to 3 if you rounded it up to the a whole. *snip*

You round 3.14 UP to get to 3?



I really need to work on my math.



YiC,

Zech

[Paragon of virtue]

Here's one that I'm sure monkey boy will get wrong:

Solve for 'X'

1 pregnant woman + 1 pregnant woman + 1 pregnant woman + 1 negro + 1 messican = X people


I'll be waiting for the answer.

[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Stephenh

Pi does equal to 3 if you rounded it up to the a whole. The thing about math is that it is created from logic. Changing math would mean changing the logic from which it came, which would mean that this new logic would apply to everything as did the logic before. We aren't using flawed maths. It's 100% proof of maths. And we know our conclusions aren't wrong because that would mean maths is wrong, which it isn't because our conclusions aren't.

But if pi doesn't equal 3 exactly, then the Bible is wrong. But since we know the Bible is right, we know secular math is wrong.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by Evelyn123

The weight of an atomic nucleus will always be a little bit less than the combined total of the particles that make it up. That missing mass is the energy that holds the nucleus together.

It's not missing. In so far as the fools who measure this stuff are concerned the "missing" energy is expressed across some undefined physical co-ordinates (akin to nits clinging to the hairs of your head, for whom your brain is a sort of absent dimension) and the maths is resolved according to symmetrical groups (clusters of nits) by which expedient (inventing new criteria equal and opposite to the abyss twixt quantum befoozlement and relativity) predictions have been made how surprising! that the gaps thereby should be filled.

And sure enough, they did.

Isaiah 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. KJV

[mugley1992]

Originally Posted by lukasekman

E=mc² is Einstein's famous formula which asserts that the energy (E) which makes up the matter in any body is equal to the square of the speed of light (c²) times the mass (m) of that body. It is a meaningless, almost nonsensical, statement that purports to relate all matter to light. In fact, no theory has successfully unified the laws governing mass (i.e., gravity) with the laws governing light (i.e., electromagnetism), and numerous attempts to derive E=mc² in general from first principles have failed. Political pressure, however, has since made it impossible for anyone pursuing an academic career in science to even question the validity of this nonsensical equation. Simply put, E=mc² is liberal claptrap.

Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge predicts that a unified theory of all the laws of physics is impossible, because light and matter were created at different times, in different ways, as described in the Book of Genesis.

Mass is a measure of an object's inertia, in other words its resistance to acceleration. In contrast, the intrinsic energy of an object (such as an atom) is a function of electrostatic charge and other non-inertial forces, having nothing to do with gravity. Declaring the object's energy to be a function of inertia rather than electrostatics is an absurd and impossible attempt to unify the forces of nature, contrary to Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge.

For more than a century, the claim that E=mc² has never yielded anything of value. Often it seems to be used as a redefinition of "energy" for pseudo-scientific purposes, as by the lamestream media. There have been attempts to find some justification for the equation in already understood processes involved in nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons, and in the speculation about antimatter.

Special theory of relativity:
It explains why the speed of light is always the same, no matter what speed an observer is travelling. It predicts that observers travelling at different speeds relative to each other will witness the same event happening in a different way (space and time become altered). It gives the formula for time dilation as one approaches the speed of light. Space and time were once thought to be absolute, but Einstein showed them to be relative depending on the speed of an observer (speed is the measure of space-time like distance is the measure of space).

General theory of relativity.
Explains that acelleration is the same force as gravity. Acelleration traces a curve through space-time, while gravity is a curvature of space-time itself (space-time being a concept invented by Einstein in the special theory). Any object that enters a gravitational field therefore undergoes acelleration, similar to how a "straight" line drawn on a curved surface follows that curve.

Albert Einstien died attempting a grand unified theory, A sad end to one of the greatest minds this world will ever know. i think you wanted to say its gravity that cannot, YET! be unified into the standard model.

What you were talking about is called M theory, Or (super string theory) which is made up of five main areas of string theory. And your missing some key knowledge on that also, Including the name.

[MitzaLizalor]

Originally Posted by mugley1992

Rubbish (contrived to deny The LORD) deleted

What you were talking about is called M theory, Or (super string theory) which is made up of five main areas of string theory. And your missing some key knowledge on that also, Including the name.

Nits. And yet we see God creating Lice directly. We know what they are and why you get them if you don't wash your hair.

EXODUS 8
16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Say unto Aaron, Stretch out thy rod, and smite the dust of the land, that it may become lice throughout all the land of Egypt.
17 And they did so; for Aaron stretched out his hand with his rod, and smote the dust of the earth, and it became lice in man, and in beast; all the dust of the land became lice throughout all the land of Egypt.

Before you get going on "oh that's different they were using magic" it's clearly stated that magic was unable to produce any such outcome

18 And the magicians did so with their enchantments to bring forth lice, but they could not: so there were lice upon man, and upon beast.
19a Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God:
KJV

In your bizarre theory the "universe" is a surface with things attached to it and as it stretches out so the things appear to get farther away until eventually you won't be able to see them at all. You might as well say this universe is remaining the same size and everything is shrinking! You further postulate that when "the universe was very small" particles could not exist and therefore zipped about as radiation in a false vacuum which therefore must have had mass and sure enough you declare that "empty space" still has mass as though it were not yet big enough for some other particle to exist requiring pulsating entities you can neither observe nor define! And they teach this stuff in schools!

As has already been pointed what you want us to call matter made out of particles was created before there was any radiation and which one should I believe? The explanation which although limited is nevertheless quite thorough from our Creator who actually made everything? Or the never ending vicissitudes of your multidimensional graphs drawn in such a way that most of the axes are always viewed end on and can therefore never be seen at all.

I'll take it slowly for you:

GENESIS 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This is what you'd call matter I suppose. Particles.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So this requires what you'd call oxygen, supposedly manufactured in stars
Notice however that the waters do have a surface
There is no light (what you probably think of radiation)

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Next comes light.
Do take time to notice that in creating the earth more "atoms" than H and O are required.

4a And God saw the light, that it was good:
KJV

This idiocy of cooking up a "theory" and testing reality against your hypothesis is the exact opposite of correct understanding. Reality exists. Any proposals regarding its nature must withstand testing against against reality itself. And that is what we do. God has explained what He wants us to know and we don't doubt His Word. But say you did? Then go outside, look around, Everything we see is in accordance with what He has told us and that is how you could, if you wanted to which you don't, "test" your "theories" of creation. And your theories would fail.

NEHEMIAH 9
5 Then the Levites…said, Stand up and bless the LORD your God for ever and ever: and blessed be thy glorious name, which is exalted above all blessing and praise.
6 Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.
KJV .. CONTEXT note in particular confirmation of God's actions in Egypt

You just can't seem to make reality conform to what you want it to be.

But never wonder why.

[walabulu4]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

No kidding!

The very idea is silly! I mean, I was told by one scientist that the stars I was looking at was 11 million "light years" away. He told me that means it took light 11 million years to reach me. I turned to him and asked, "I'm looking at this light right now; do you really think I'm 11 million years old?"

What a goof!

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH! i am so sorry! that statement was just so silly lol. aaahh your ignorance made my day lady thanks! Anyway light is not instantaneous, in fact it is both a wave and a particle it travels at 300,000 meters per second waaay faster than what our eyes can perceive. lambda = h/p. We can actually calculate the frequency of matter. This can be seen when an Opera singer's voice resonates the frequency of a glass, and it breaks

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by walabulu4

...aaahh your ignorance made my day lady ...

Whereas yours just makes everyone sad (especially when you try to promote it as knowledge):

...We can actually calculate the frequency of matter. This can be seen when an Opera singer's voice resonates the frequency of a glass, and it breaks

Completely different phenomena.

Stay in school.

[Mary Etheldreda]

Originally Posted by walabulu4

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH! i am so sorry! that statement was just so silly lol. aaahh your ignorance made my day lady thanks! Anyway light is not instantaneous, in fact it is both a wave and a particle it travels at 300,000 meters per second waaay faster than what our eyes can perceive. lambda = h/p. We can actually calculate the frequency of matter. This can be seen when an Opera singer's voice resonates the frequency of a glass, and it breaks

I've never seen an opera singer take 11 million years to break a glass.

[walabulu4]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

Whereas yours just makes everyone sad (especially when you try to promote it as knowledge):



Completely different phenomena.

Stay in school.

The wave particle duality?? Well no.. its not. It applies to light as well, it was hypothesized that matter also behaves like waves, not only light and sound etc... i just showed one part of it . Point made though i did show the wrong part but the whole nature of light is a very broad topic :| not sure why i went to the wave particle duality thing. Sorry. The speed of light i guess was calculated through observing Jupiter's moons.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by walabulu4

The wave particle duality?? ...

NO.

The part you mentioned about the glass breaking, THAT has NOTHING to do with light, or DeBroglie's wavelength formula that you posted.

My "stay in school" advice still applies, with "for a very long time if you have so much trouble understanding what people are clearly telling you" added.

[Jack Rankan]

Originally Posted by Titus Templeton

E=mc²

Truth=(God+Jesus+Holy Spirit)²

And that is the real formula.

[krunsch]

Originally Posted by Mary Etheldreda

No kidding!

The very idea is silly! I mean, I was told by one scientist that the stars I was looking at was 11 million "light years" away. He told me that means it took light 11 million years to reach me. I turned to him and asked, "I'm looking at this light right now; do you really think I'm 11 million years old?"

What a goof!

Well, did you put on too much or too little makeup

Joking aside, it means the light is 11 million years old. How old you are is something left to you and does not belong here.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by krunsch

Well, did you put on too much or too little makeup

Joking aside, it means the light is 11 million years old. How old you are is something left to you and does not belong here.

Honey, in order for your argument to work we would have to believe that light somehow "travels." Show me where does it say in the Bible, otherwise, we won't believe it.