[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The Bible talks about Hell, but doesn't mention so-called "black holes" at all, so which is more likely to be there?

The Bible never mentions galaxies either, therefore you can't accept its existence.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

I’ve been reading this thread in the hopes of finding some sense in Tingaling’s arguments: I have singularly failed.

The question he meant to ask, which goes to the heart of the matter is, “What is the point of knowing how old the universe is, as God has already allowed us to calculate this?”, which is a pretty poor question.

The so-called scientists would have us believe that the universe is over 1,000,000,000 years old.

Now you have to understand that no "scientist" ever won a Nobel Prize by merely agreeing with another scientist. So even if one of them invented a reason for their Godless followers to be deceived into believing that the earth was created 1,000,389,229 years, 3 months and 2 days ago and on a Tuesday at tea-time, you would instantly get another scientist saying it was 1,000,389,229 years, 3 months and 3 days ago and on a Wednesday just a bit after breakfast.

And then the whole lot of them would start disagreeing with each other and clear off somewhere agreeable (at taxpayers’ expense) to argue the matter and come to no conclusion.

On top of that, Tingaling – if ever your “scientists” do come up with an age for the earth, the universe and everything – what are you going to do with the information? The best you will be able to say is “Oh…thank you.” It is of no use whatsoever to you!

You can save your thanks for The Almighty; “science” will never give you certainty or an answer. You want certainty? It’s all there in the Bible. KJV1611 of course

The universe is approximately 13.73 billion years old, you're only off by 12 billion. I don't ever see scientists argue on the exact age of the univesre; however, I do see scientists collaborating to progress our better understanding of the universe for the sake of mankind.

How do you know this of no use to me? You don't know what position I'm in, or how I would be able to use this information.

I don't need certainity and if I did, I don't want false certainity given from the Bible. I want evidence that helps progress our understanding of what the universe is and how it works. I don't see any evidence in your Bible.

I would multiquote but you're not worth it. Sorry.

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Re: The "Big Bang"

How do you know this of no use to me? You don't know what position I'm in, or how I would be able to use this information.

Unless you plan to backdate a patent application for the wheel to 6 billion years ago it doesn't matter because you cannot comprehend that length of time.....because it doesn't exist. 6-10,000 years, that's about it.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

however, I do see scientists collaborating to progress our better understanding of the universe for the sake of mankind... How do you know this of no use to me? You don't know what position I'm in, or how I would be able to use this information...

Yes, I've noted the great increase in the benefit to mankind of knowing the rough "scientific" age of the universe since it was put up from 10Billion years to 13Billion years...

Big secret eh? OK, what use would a precise "scientific" date be to anyone?

PS You don't have to tell us your secret, just pretend - say, "Well a friend works at McDonalds and if he knew the "scientific" age of the universe..."

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

"Well a friend works at McDonalds and if he knew the "scientific" age of the universe..."

Better than a friend who works at McDonalds and knew the biblical age of the universe.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Light can travel faster than the given speed of light (983,571,056 feet per second). You probably meant to say anything with mass, so I won't hold a grudge over it.

If you can prove that, you’ll win the Nobel Prize, since that is not what the physicists say. Personally, I think that light travels exactly as fast as God wants it to, no more and no less. But I’m not going to waste time arguing with you, since, as I said before, you are just too tedious. If you have citations to scientific papers to back up your assertions, then I’ll answer your questions. But you can’t just pull stuff out of you’re a$$ or Wikipedia and expect to have a serious discussion, and I couldn't care less if you hold a grudge against me.

Why do you so easily accept that Hell is at the center of our galaxy and not a black hole, which scientists suggest?

I was taking some poetic license, since the galaxy is just a bunch of lights that God put on the firmament of the Heavens. Hell is very clearly below the Earth. The universe looks like this, from top to bottom:

Heaven (Genesis 1:1)*
Water (Genesis 1:7)
Firmament of Heaven (includes stars, meteors, Sun, Moon, etc.—see Genesis 1:6-9, Genesis 1:14-17; Job 37:18, Ezekiel 1:22, Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 8:10, Revelation 9:1, Revelation 12:4)
Earth (Genesis 1:1, 1:9) and Water (Genesis 1:7-9)
Hell (has to be below the Earth, see Numbers 16:31, Psalm 54:16, Isaiah 5:14, Ezekiel 26:20, Philippians 2:10).

* Heaven includes the warehouses that hold snow and hail (Job 38:22).

[I don't see any evidence in your Bible.]And I don’t see any in your posts.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

If you can prove that, you’ll win the Nobel Prize, since that is not what the physicists say. Personally, I think that light travels exactly as fast as God wants it to, no more and no less.

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/07/20/speedlight000720.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

Re: The "Big Bang"

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/...ght000720.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html

At least one of them says that the effect is illusory.
Saying "Light can travel faster than light" is a little like saying, "an antelope can run faster than an antelope."

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2000/...ght000720.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm

http://www.scienceblog.com/light.html

First, the article you cite on changing the speed of waves in an optical fiber isn't relevant. Science tells us that light travels more slowly in a dense body than it does in a vacuum (because the photons keep bumping into things, basically). Nobody has increased the speed of light in a fiber to a speed faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Change the density of the medium, and you change the speed, but the upper limit is still there.

This is a little technical, but I'll do my best to explain it without the equations. In quantum mechanics, particles (including photons) are treated as waves when properties of those particles are not being observed (i.e., QM says a photon is a wave until that wave hits a TV screen and you see a flash of light that tells you where the photon is). A series of photons are treated as a series of waves that describe a field that fills space; it's sort of like the ocean, where the water is the field, and the waves are the "particles" we're interested in.

When you see a wave in the ocean, the water is not moving along with the wave, the wave moves across the water. In QM, you can set up experiments in which the quantum waves appear to travel faster than the speed of light. This effect is very similar to watching a Western movie and seeing a wagon's wheels appear to turn in reverse. The wheels aren't really turning in reverse, and the photons are not really moving faster than light. That's why, the physicists say, nobody has ever shown that they can move information faster than the speed of light in these experiments.

You can read more about it, with the equations, here. I'm not saying I believe everything in QM (like the profoundly religious Albert Einstein, I don't believe that God plays dice with the Universe, which is pretty much what QM is all about), but I do know that, with only a few scattered dissenters, physicists do not believe that light or anything else travels faster than the speed of light.

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

First, the article you cite on changing the speed of waves in an optical fiber isn't relevant. Science tells us that light travels more slowly in a dense body than it does in a vacuum (because the photons keep bumping into things, basically). Nobody has increased the speed of light in a fiber to a speed faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. Change the density of the medium, and you change the speed, but the upper limit is still there.

This is a little technical, but I'll do my best to explain it without the equations. In quantum mechanics, particles (including photons) are treated as waves when properties of those particles are not being observed (i.e., QM says a photon is a wave until that wave hits a TV screen and you see a flash of light that tells you where the photon is). A series of photons are treated as a series of waves that describe a field that fills space; it's sort of like the ocean, where the water is the field, and the waves are the "particles" we're interested in.

When you see a wave in the ocean, the water is not moving along with the wave, the wave moves across the water. In QM, you can set up experiments in which the quantum waves appear to travel faster than the speed of light. This effect is very similar to watching a Western movie and seeing a wagon's wheels appear to turn in reverse. The wheels aren't really turning in reverse, and the photons are not really moving faster than light. That's why, the physicists say, nobody has ever shown that they can move information faster than the speed of light in these experiments.

You can read more about it, with the equations, here. I'm not saying I believe everything in QM (like the profoundly religious Albert Einstein, I don't believe that God plays dice with the Universe, which is pretty much what QM is all about), but I do know that, with only a few scattered dissenters, physicists do not believe that light or anything else travels faster than the speed of light.

I guess if you have to be so literal as to describe light to it's bearest definition, then yes you're right. I don't know much about quantum mechanics, because I'm only a junior in high school and my physics class this year or AP physics class next year won't breach on the study of quantum mechanics, but until I can experience the actual equations and science behind quantum mechanics, I will have to take your word and your analogies.

Albert Einstein was religious through the eyes of a deist/agnostic. He clearly states that no supernatural deity has any effect on mankind.

[Pastor Al E Pistle]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Albert Einstein was religious through the eyes of a deist/agnostic. He clearly states that no supernatural deity has any effect on mankind.

Albert Einstein was a JOO and a whoremonger who is now puffing smoke out of SATAN'S anus. Just Like Eliot Spitzer but without the false moustache.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: The "Big Bang"

I guess if you have to be so literal as to describe light to it's bearest definition, then yes you're right.

It's not my definition, it's Einstein's. BTW, I misread one of the stories you provided; I looked up the original paper and the change in speed in the fiber optics does go above the speed of light in a vacuum. Nevertheless, this is still like the wagon wheel analogy. Any paper that discusses a "group velocity" above the vacuum speed of light is basically a wagonwheel paper.

I don't know much about quantum mechanics, because I'm only a junior in high school and my physics class this year or AP physics class next year won't breach on the study of quantum mechanics, but until I can experience the actual equations and science behind quantum mechanics, I will have to take your word and your analogies.

Ah, I see. I didn't realize you were quite so young. The root of the problem is that what we think of as a beam of light is, in QM, a bunch of repeating waves piled on top of each other, and funny things happen when you measure repeating phenomena (like the spokes on a moving wagon wheel) in certain ways.

I think it's great that you're studying science, but I hope you'll pay attention to the Bible as well, for a couple of reasons. First, the Bible gives moral guidance, something that no physics class can do, and, second, there are limits to what science can tell us, so it's worth turning a skeptical eye toward the scientific view of the world by reading up on the alternative. The more you read the Bible, the more I think you'll discover what the truth really is.

Albert Einstein was religious through the eyes of a deist/agnostic. He clearly states that no supernatural deity has any effect on mankind.

I just said he was religious, not that his religion was right. 8)

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The "Big Bang"

I guess if you have to be so literal as to describe light to it's bearest definition, then yes you're right. I don't know much about quantum mechanics, because I'm only a junior in high school and my physics class this year or AP physics class next year won't breach on the study of quantum mechanics, but until I can experience the actual equations and science behind quantum mechanics, I will have to take your word and your analogies.

Albert Einstein was religious through the eyes of a deist/agnostic. He clearly states that no supernatural deity has any effect on mankind.

Your profile says you're 21. Have you lied to us or are you just mentally slow?

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

Your profile says you're 21. Have you lied to us or are you just mentally slow?

Will I get a refraction if I answer one?

[LyingDingDong]

Re: The "Big Bang"

The more you read the Bible, the more I think you'll discover what the truth really is.

But what makes your religion better than the others. From a scientific view tell me why I should choose Christianity over other religions.

If I were to follow any of three monotheistic religions it would Judaism.