Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?
From: Double-A (double-a_at_hush.com)
Date: 10/17/04
- Next message: mike3: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: mike3: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Imperishable Stars: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Next in thread: nightbat: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 17 Oct 2004 01:29:10 -0700
Imperishable Stars <belt@of.orion> wrote in message news:<_IadneGDLucQQezcRVn-rQ@rogers.com>...
> Double-A wrote:
>
> > jhelfand@umd.edu (Joe) wrote in message news:<e62610ea.0410151401.21d54ba@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >>>Hello everybody,
> >>>
> >>>Last week I was wandering the shops during my office lunch break when
> >>>I was harassed by a religeous zealot selling magazines and CDS.
> >>>
> >>>Feeling argumentative I asked him whether he was (1) a creationalist
> >>>and (2) a "Young Universe" creationalist - i.e. one who believes that
> >>>dinosaurs etc didnt exist and that the universe is about 4,500 years
> >>>old...
> >>>
> >>>When he replied that, yes, he didnt believe in evolution, dinosaurs
> >>>(and women's rights I assume) I suggested that he was a little
> >>>misguided.
> >>>
> >>>In evidence I said "how come you can see all of the stars at night
> >>>then? After all, many of them are clearly more than 4,500 light years
> >>>away?"
> >>>
> >>>He told me that "astronomy is a souless science - they lie to you".
> >>>
> >>>Hmmph. He was obviously a twat, but is my line of arguemnt sound -
> >>>i.e. that you can see (or even detect) stars more than say 10,000
> >>>lightyears away a robust argument against a "young" view of
> >>>creation/existance?
> >>>
> >>>Cheers!
> >>>
> >>>Rob
> >>>Sheffield
> >>
> >>I can't go through all the posts to see if anybody has pointed this
> >>out, but there are some attempts to reconcile this:
> >>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c005.html
> >
> >
> >
> > This is easy to reconcile. We know from SR and GR that the rate of
> > time flow varies, depending on your inertial frame. High velocity and
> > gravity make clocks run slow. Whose clock is right?
>
> High velocity of matter encounters magnetic forces. Any faster than
> light travel must employ the use of multiple lines of magnetic force
> with the use of photon color codes because there is a color code in
> everything.
Well, quarks have colors. They also have flavors. They even have
qualities such as charm. Some are ups and some are downs. Quite a
diverse community are the quarks.
> Phase shifting matter wave experiments by means of this
> type of electromagnetic pulling is one possible solution to quantum
> gravity results.
>
> >
> > The universe could be only 6000 years old, if God has a slow clock!
> >
> > Double-A
>
> Gravity coexists with magnetic fields because it is a flatline to
> pyramidal space
Pyramid power?
> (electromagnetic) but is such a long wavelength and
> almost infinitely small that we can only see its influence in matter
> waves. When the two are combined we have the ability to move faster
> than the speed of light because we will have tapped into gravity's
> "magnetic moment" through time. So the gravitational universe appears
> almost flat.
>
> Think of it as a human being wondering which person on the planet really
> knows which way is "up". LOL
- Next message: mike3: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- Previous message: mike3: "Re: How to tell if a theory is a good one"
- In reply to: Imperishable Stars: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Next in thread: nightbat: "Re: Hmmm - a robust arguement?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
