The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 10:47 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:26 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The argument never got started. You have nothing. Nothing you say is worth getting excited about. It's become very clear you have next to no knowledge of either science, or how a debate goes. You failed here miserably. You didn't do what you said you were going to do, and are too dishonest to admit it. As I said earlier, you make up shit which you think sounds "all sciencey" and in fact you really know next to nothing about science, as had been amply demonstrated here. .

Still waiting to hear what "stretching matter" means.
As usual, you ignore everything inconvenience, even after having your crap totally destroyed, in multiple ways.
When something stretches it does not gain mass. It only expands by distancing itself from itself

Metric expansion requires interaction of mass-energy just as any other observable physical process.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:51 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
At work.

(22-01-2016 10:37 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thanks for the Geology class. Now for Physics.
The study of time also falls under Physics
Everything you just said there is dependent on a frame of reference to verify the age. Time isn't that simple.
The age of anything in physics depends on the speed they are going and the frame of reference they are compared to.
A man travelling at light speed will not have aged a single second even if he left for 100 years & then returned home. He will be zero seconds old while you will be 100 years old.

So much did he age? He will say zero, & you will say 100 and you will both be right.

In the story I gave, the expanding bubble was the frame of reference & there existed no other thing that can exist before the expanding bubble at any point in the expansion.
Therefore the world from the beginning of the expansion to the very end only took place in 6 days.
It cannot have taken place any faster than the bubble could have expanded.
Since the bubble was expanding at light speed and only stopped for 6 days it means the world was created in 6 days.
Sorry my friend Physics doesn't support your theory of time.

Great! Thumbsup

So you agree with the geology (Do nothing to refute it) and then post some waffle.... most of which has been done before, exposed as twaddle, hence you've again got nothing on yet another front.

Good to know. I look forwards to yourself posting something of worth some time. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:52 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When something stretches it does not gain mass. It only expands by distancing itself from itself

Lovely. Now all you have to do is prove it happens, and when that happens and who calls it "stretching". I did not ask whether it gains mass, you fraud. You're looking more ridiculous by the minute.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:53 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If there is no such thing as a privileged frame of reference then which frame of reference gets the privilege to make the claim "the universe was created in a minimum of 13 billion years"?

Ours.

It is theoretically possible to construct frames of reference to obtain any desired result. Much as it is possible to construct geocentric reference frames - that's a purely mathematical process. Reconciling models with observable interaction is another matter.
(thus I perhaps misspoke to say there is no privileged reference frame; what I meant to clarify is that you can invent one such that the universe is any age you choose, but insofar as any are "correct" they need to be correlated with actual observation)

(22-01-2016 10:23 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If we aren't allowed to choose a frame of reference then we aren't allowed to claim the age of anything.
Age is dependent on speed & reference frame.
I thought you already knew that?

Neither time nor distance has intuitive meaning at such cosmological scales.

Because everything in the universe shares a common origin according to our best available model, we can (loosely) describe "time elapsed since then" such that it applies to each constituent component, all of them having, on a cosmological scale, the same time evolution.

I have yet to see any evidence that your understanding passes beyond appropriating buzzwords.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that contradicts or proves wrong the expanding bubble story.

The most we will get out of this is a draw if you aren't going to provide evidence to prove me wrong.
Do you wish to call it a draw?
Please don't lock the thread as I am still debating others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:56 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 11:06 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When something stretches it does not gain mass. It only expands by distancing itself from itself

Lovely. Now all you have to do is prove it happens, and when that happens and who calls it "stretching". I did not ask whether it gains mass, you fraud. You're looking more ridiculous by the minute.
Not trying to prove it happened.
Only that it can happen without defying the laws of science.

Guess you have nothing to give huh?
Let me know when you ready to give up.

Don't you see the irony in all this?

You are asking an Academic Skeptic to prove something.
I can't, my world view doesn't allow me to believe I have proven anything even if I did.
All I can ever hope for is a draw.
You get the opportunity to always win or draw though.
Looks like you happy with drawing though.
Wish I had better opponents.
Some of you are cool though. Actually giving evidence for me to argue against is just the most awesome thing anyone can do for an academic skeptic.
Too bad you just wont give it a try for a change and provide some real evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 11:01 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:56 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 10:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Lovely. Now all you have to do is prove it happens, and when that happens and who calls it "stretching". I did not ask whether it gains mass, you fraud. You're looking more ridiculous by the minute.
Not trying to prove it happened.
Only that it can happen without defying the laws of science.

Guess you have nothing to give huh?
Let me know when you ready to give up.

You didn't reference even ONE law of science.
You've proved nothing.
All you did was claim you thought it could.
You can't even define by what you mean by "stretching' much less prove it can happen.
In fact we know it can't. The orbits of electrons and relative distances of the components of matter are known. They don't stretch ... you fucking fake.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2016, 11:04 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I have yet to see any scientific evidence that contradicts or proves wrong the expanding bubble story.

Evidence would only matter if you had something other than physically illiterate spitballing to bring forward.

The universe is not a bubble. The universe is not expanding at the speed of light - or indeed any fixed speed. The universe is most assuredly not expanding in stutter-steps as you propose. It isn't me you need take that up with; it's every astrophysicist alive.

(22-01-2016 10:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The most we will get out of this is a draw if you aren't going to provide evidence to prove me wrong.

I am endeavouring to explain to you that all of modern science disagrees with you. Feel free to blaze your own trail. I eagerly await news of your Nobel prize if you turn out to be correct.

But no, whining about how nobody's bothering with evidence to rebut your own utter lack thereof is also an option.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
22-01-2016, 11:11 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The most we will get out of this is a draw if you aren't going to provide evidence to prove me wrong.

Nope. The entire world will see you made up a ridiculous tale, defined nothing, never said how or why your bullshit was consistent with the known laws of science, which you didn't say one word about until they were linked for you. You asserted your nonsense is consistent with science, but are so ignorant you can't even say how or why.

You yourself said a lack of evidence is not evidence. Yet you claim that very thing is what allows you to claim a "draw".

*Your* are a dishonest ignorant fraud.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2016, 11:13 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 10:51 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  At work.

(22-01-2016 10:37 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thanks for the Geology class. Now for Physics.
The study of time also falls under Physics
Everything you just said there is dependent on a frame of reference to verify the age. Time isn't that simple.
The age of anything in physics depends on the speed they are going and the frame of reference they are compared to.
A man travelling at light speed will not have aged a single second even if he left for 100 years & then returned home. He will be zero seconds old while you will be 100 years old.

So much did he age? He will say zero, & you will say 100 and you will both be right.

In the story I gave, the expanding bubble was the frame of reference & there existed no other thing that can exist before the expanding bubble at any point in the expansion.
Therefore the world from the beginning of the expansion to the very end only took place in 6 days.
It cannot have taken place any faster than the bubble could have expanded.
Since the bubble was expanding at light speed and only stopped for 6 days it means the world was created in 6 days.
Sorry my friend Physics doesn't support your theory of time.

Great! Thumbsup

So you agree with the geology (Do nothing to refute it) and then post some waffle.... most of which has been done before, exposed as twaddle, hence you've again got nothing on yet another front.

Good to know. I look forwards to yourself posting something of worth some time. Thumbsup
Unfortunately age/time isn't a Geology only based subject. It falls under physics. If your not going to rebut the physics points I have written then all I can ever hope to get from you is a draw.
Please provide evidence to prove the the age of the world without by-passing the science of physics.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 11:17 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 11:20 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
Laugh out load

Sure Buckaroo...... you keep waffling. Let me know when you have some geology on yourside to back you up against the geology on my side. Thumbsup

As others have pointed out.... all you've posted are words
. There aren't any physics, or science, or phylosophy or logic in what you're posting.

There's barely any coherancy or useful context within the words and sentences you apply to the board.

Thanks and g'bye.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: