# Thread: Physics laws, since Universe began?

1. Creation - have you not yet figured out that light from stars 1,000,000 light years away takes 1,000,000 years to get here? You admit that light hasn't changed since it came into being so you also have to admit that when we observe a star 1,000,000 light years away that it's essentially observing something 1,000,000 years in the past. How have you not figured that out yet?

2. Neutrino; Generally I don't knit-pick, but keeping the distances of of all things in the Universe is very important and hard for most to comprehend;

Our sun is a little over a million miles (1,000,000) and the light reaches us in about 8 Seconds. A light year in miles equals 186,300X60X60x24X365 if you want to figure it out. C (speed of light or all EM energy) is 186,300 miles per second...

3. Oops I meant light-years, lemee edit that word

4. I'm not saying that's the way life is. I'm simply suggesting it's a possibility. Because there are obviously some stars humans can't see in the universe because the distance is too great for even some of the most technological microscopes to see. In spaceships and spacesuits when they aren't facing the sun they have a heater to increase the temperature of the side that isn't facing the sun and when the one side faces the sun it uses freezing discharges to keep the ship or the suit at a stable balance. Gravity probably isn't pure pressure like many think, it could be a combination of frozen atoms on a molecular level which creates forms of pressure, but in order to be itself pressure needs a reacted atom or atoms. Pressure can not stand alone, so maybe when a sun fades away and creates a wormhole it's because the pressure of the frozen atoms didn't have enough heat balancing the two, frozen free pressure atoms and condensed planet's heat equal a galaxy. So in a sense heat and frozen particles could be mutual to each other creating balance and when they no longer consist of each other they fail and con bust and create particles or wormholes.

But the true question lyes. What are the frozen pressured particles that make up gravity, if the theory stated has chance of being correct?

5. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Creation - have you not yet figured out that light from stars 1,000,000 light years away takes 1,000,000 years to get here? You admit that light hasn't changed since it came into being so you also have to admit that when we observe a star 1,000,000 light years away that it's essentially observing something 1,000,000 years in the past. How have you not figured that out yet?
No. It NOW takes our present slow light that long, theoretically to get from A to B. Assuming it always took that long, before we observed it, assumes a same state universe. That is unknown.

6. Originally Posted by jackson33
Neutrino; Generally I don't knit-pick, but keeping the distances of of all things in the Universe is very important and hard for most to comprehend;

Our sun is a little over a million miles (1,000,000) and the light reaches us in about 8 Seconds. A light year in miles equals 186,300X60X60x24X365 if you want to figure it out. C (speed of light or all EM energy) is 186,300 miles per second...
That is how it now works in this, what many consider temporary universe. We have no idea if there was a different universe state in the past, how fast it's light could move.

7. Originally Posted by GreeneggsanHam
Gravity probably isn't pure pressure like many think, it could be a combination of frozen atoms on a molecular level which creates forms of pressure, but in order to be itself needs a reacted atom or atoms. ..
So, if a star has gravity around it, say, real close to it, like our sun, and we get close to it, would it not be hot? Where are your freezing atoms there that make the gravity work?
Nothing would be anywhere near freezing.

8. Originally Posted by creation
Originally Posted by Neutrino
Creation - have you not yet figured out that light from stars 1,000,000 light years away takes 1,000,000 years to get here? You admit that light hasn't changed since it came into being so you also have to admit that when we observe a star 1,000,000 light years away that it's essentially observing something 1,000,000 years in the past. How have you not figured that out yet?
No. It NOW takes our present slow light that long, theoretically to get from A to B. Assuming it always took that long, before we observed it, assumes a same state universe. That is unknown.
It must be nice to just change the laws of the universe on a whim to support your arguments. Which isn't uncommon in creationists - what I don't get is how you maintain the pretense of it being scientific in any way whatsoever. I'll try one last time though I know it's useless.
There is no reason to suspect that the laws have drastically changed. Observation supports the case that they haven't and going with that has led science to be a pretty successful entity. If you want to just pretend science is built upon too many false assumptions, that's fine, but you have nothing to support your argument while the track record of science speaks for itself. From the fraction of a fraction of a second delay between things we "directly" observe here on earth to the billions of years delay we observe in the most distant celestial objects observation seems to be pretty consistent with the same set of laws. (I'm still not sure where exactly you draw the line between where the evidence is acceptable and where it magically becomes too much assumption)
You can pretend you don't hold this view due to your religion all you want but it's as transparent as can be that it's your religion which has caused you to adopt this ignorant position. I don't say this with the intent to condescend but you seriously should go pick up a book or two on science. Even as creationists go you are way behind the 8-ball imo.

9. [Creation wrote:] So, if a star has gravity around it, say, real close to it, like our sun, and we get close to it, would it not be hot? Where are your freezing atoms there that make the gravity work?
Nothing would be anywhere near freezing.

When a planet has a large enough mass and half of it is facing a star and the other half faces opposite to the star then one half opposite has a half maximum frozen point where the planet's half surface mid point, when on rotation, is frozen over. The core isn't frozen just the surface not facing the star. It begins to freeze as soon as the sun is no longer shining upon the planet, which explains fresh dew in the morning. There is a level at which a planet is too close to the sun and the radiation is to great for earth lifeforms but even still when a planet, such as mercury, isn't facing the sun it still has forms of freezing on the opposite mid point surface. Remember this is just a theory based upon my findings. I'm not looking for debate I'm looking for discussion.

10. Originally Posted by creation
Originally Posted by jackson33
Neutrino; Generally I don't knit-pick, but keeping the distances of of all things in the Universe is very important and hard for most to comprehend;

Our sun is a little over a million miles (1,000,000) and the light reaches us in about 8 Seconds. A light year in miles equals 186,300X60X60x24X365 if you want to figure it out. C (speed of light or all EM energy) is 186,300 miles per second...
That is how it now works in this, what many consider temporary universe. We have no idea if there was a different universe state in the past, how fast it's light could move.
Funny thing really; Under BBT, which you call false assumptions, the Universe has changed *state*. From that one cell size singularity to one it was 300 million to a billion (massless) to what it was at different point. Its suggested the first stars were all giant stars, compared to todays. This allowing a quicker burn out and death in millions of years, to the current 10-15 billion year scenario of today. C the same, but a substantially reduced light year and many things said, to conform reality to BBT. You might want to embrace BBT, which does express different states.

Gravity, is an open question for many. My opinion includes motion, velocity or speed which could cause something like friction to a mass.
Its controversial, but could involve hot objects moving through extreme cold, since all mass is continuously moving into that cold. Remember though, heat from energy requires something to effect. Energy has no effect on space, doesn't heat space. IMO...

11. Originally Posted by jackson33

Funny thing really; Under BBT, which you call false assumptions, the Universe has changed *state*. From that one cell size singularity to one it was 300 million to a billion (massless) to what it was at different point. Its suggested the first stars were all giant stars, compared to todays. This allowing a quicker burn out and death in millions of years, to the current 10-15 billion year scenario of today. C the same, but a substantially reduced light year and many things said, to conform reality to BBT. You might want to embrace BBT, which does express different states.
They may envision a lot of differences as well, but have no more science to prove that, than the a myth can have.

Gravity, is an open question for many. My opinion includes motion, velocity or speed which could cause something like friction to a mass.
Its controversial, but could involve hot objects moving through extreme cold, since all mass is continuously moving into that cold. Remember though, heat from energy requires something to effect. Energy has no effect on space, doesn't heat space. IMO...
But, even if you were right, that is simply something about how this universe works in this state. A state that can't be applied to the far past by science.

12. Originally Posted by GreeneggsanHam
[Creation wrote:] So, if a star has gravity around it, say, real close to it, like our sun, and we get close to it, would it not be hot? Where are your freezing atoms there that make the gravity work?
Nothing would be anywhere near freezing.

When a planet has a large enough mass and half of it is facing a star and the other half faces opposite to the star then one half opposite has a half maximum frozen point where the planet's half surface mid point, when on rotation, is frozen over. The core isn't frozen just the surface not facing the star. It begins to freeze as soon as the sun is no longer shining upon the planet, which explains fresh dew in the morning. There is a level at which a planet is too close to the sun and the radiation is to great for earth lifeforms but even still when a planet, such as mercury, isn't facing the sun it still has forms of freezing on the opposite mid point surface. Remember this is just a theory based upon my findings. I'm not looking for debate I'm looking for discussion.
OK, so it so far can't be shown to correlate with the real world. Fine.

13. Originally Posted by Neutrino

It must be nice to just change the laws of the universe on a whim to support your arguments.
It must be nice to pretend they were the same, just on an assumption to support your myth.
Which isn't uncommon in creationists - what I don't get is how you maintain the pretense of it being scientific in any way whatsoever. I'll try one last time though I know it's useless.
Since you offer no science, nor have any to prove the state of the far past and future is as the present, what I don't get is how you maintain the pretense of it being scientific in any way whatsoever. Really.
There is no reason to suspect that the laws have drastically changed.
There is no reason to suspect that the laws we have in this universe were even the same ones in the far past.
Observation supports the case that they haven't and going with that has led science to be a pretty successful entity.
Observation of what, you need to ask yourself. Observation of this present universe. You assume it was the same long ago, and therefore far away. If all the universe changed, far away means nothing. You still observe the far away present state universe.

If you want to just pretend science is built upon too many false assumptions, that's fine, but you have nothing to support your argument
If you want to just pretend science is not built upon too many false assumptions, that's fine, but you have nothing to support your argument. About all we can do is differentiate between actual science, and your falsely so called science that is mere myth.

while the track record of science speaks for itself. From the fraction of a fraction of a second delay between things we "directly" observe here on earth to the billions of years delay we observe in the most distant celestial objects observation seems to be pretty consistent with the same set of laws.
Meaningless, if the universe is now in a different state.

(I'm still not sure where exactly you draw the line between where the evidence is acceptable and where it magically becomes too much assumption)
There is no evidence for a same state past, so no lines are a concern. None.

You can pretend you don't hold this view due to your religion all you want but it's as transparent as can be that it's your religion which has caused you to adopt this ignorant position.

You can pretend you don't hold this view due to your anti religious myth all you want but it's as transparent as can be that it's your myth which has caused you to adopt this ignorant position.

I don't say this with the intent to condescend but you seriously should go pick up a book or two on science. Even as creationists go you are way behind the 8-ball imo.
Except science does not cover the state of the future, or the far past, so one may as well read a cook book. They are not just behind in the game, they are not on the same table!!

14. I thought repeating what other people said went out of style in 3rd grade? Then again if that's all ya got..

15. I know you don't probably care much about the people in this forum, but if you care about science then you'll realize that myths are the drawing board and if you had an example for every myth then discussion and debate would be absolutely pointless. Please take a minute to analyze the fact that we aren't trying to call you out because of your views has a creationist we are discussing possibilities, we obviously don't now what the universe holds for us in the future but the whole point of a forum is communicate your latest findings or discuss. I understand that you have grown up with a form of religion in your home, but how you grew up has nothing to do with what we are discussing. Leave your religion opinions for a forum dedicated to just that. Otherwise your a waste of time.

16. Originally Posted by Neutrino
I thought repeating what other people said went out of style in 3rd grade? Then again if that's all ya got..
The repeating came because it applied. I thought making stuff up went out in kindergarten?

17. [quote="creation"]

They may envision a lot of differences as well, but have no more science to prove that, than the a myth can have.

But, even if you were right, that is simply something about how this universe works in this state. A state that can't be applied to the far past by science.
There are theory, other than BBT or SSU which give other explanation for out universe. Think I have mentioned several. However those two, can be explained in part from what we now know. The creationist ideas or those taken from writing of 2-3,000 year ago philosophy simply cannot be explained, with todays knowledge, but could have been then. What mankind learns in the next thousand years is likely to enhance one of the two current theories, not that of our ancestors.

Your different "state" explanations, are to erratic for clarification. Most with a real desire of understanding science, yet maintaining some philosophy at least try to link the two. I will mention solar burn out, which you know happens and quite obvious from space images and explained quite well from earthly experiments.

On my hypothesis, adding velocity to the gravity formula. No, its not now part of the way "the universe works today". If this were ever found to be true, the entire understanding of just how it does work would change...

18. I will accept the theory of the Big Bang, but I believe that the Universe never 'began' it was always there.

19. Originally Posted by jackson33

There are theory, other than BBT or SSU which give other explanation for out universe. Think I have mentioned several. However those two, can be explained in part from what we now know.
Not at all. That is simply trying to explain it by the universe we now know, and how it works, as if it was the same. No can do.

The creationist ideas or those taken from writing of 2-3,000 year ago philosophy simply cannot be explained, with todays knowledge, but could have been then. What mankind learns in the next thousand years is likely to enhance one of the two current theories, not that of our ancestors.
Yes, it can be in the simple light of a different universe. And science has nothing to say about it, since a same state universe is ONLY assumed.

Your different "state" explanations, are to erratic for clarification. Most with a real desire of understanding science, yet maintaining some philosophy at least try to link the two. I will mention solar burn out, which you know happens and quite obvious from space images and explained quite well from earthly experiments.
The sun would burn out If this universe continued as is. So??? You have no clue. That is dark dreams, and no science. Science ends after the present is observed! That is you limits.
On my hypothesis, adding velocity to the gravity formula. No, its not now part of the way "the universe works today". If this were ever found to be true, the entire understanding of just how it does work would change...
Now, on your 'hypothesis' you seem to indicate that the universe does not work that way today. How would you know it did?

20. Originally Posted by creation
Originally Posted by Neutrino
I thought repeating what other people said went out of style in 3rd grade? Then again if that's all ya got..
The repeating came because it applied. I thought making stuff up went out in kindergarten?
Um...I know you are but what am I? Now are we speaking the same language?

21. Creation; What we think today are based on what we know. There are certainly many things we do not know or fully understand. Gravity for instance in our solar system, does not hold for galaxy. As we learn new things the total of understanding an issue can change. The basics, however may not. What you are suggesting is something totally unknown can change those basics.

We take what happened in the past, is now the present and estimate with some certainty the future. From the science viewpoint, this has been since mankind first reasoned and in all areas of life.

Light as no meaning as an entity. Its simply energy, which give us vision after a series of events, to the limits of our development. Dogs see no color, some life is thought to see in 2D and Tigers can see miles with a clarity we see at 20 foot. Top this off each member of any species can see at different levels. Smell and other senses, no less different. Energy, then from another Universe or dimension, could very well exist, had always, but be meaningless to us. One thing we can be fairly sure of its not on our current understanding of Electromagnetic Energy. Another thing, we know light as understood, is at least 14-15 billion years old or has been around that long. Long before mankind, our planet/solar system or any possible coherent acceptance of a 10k year old anything...

22. Originally Posted by jackson33
Creation; What we think today are based on what we know.
--About today, yes. What you claim about the future or past universe state is another story altogether. I have no problems when you stick to what you know.
There are certainly many things we do not know or fully understand. Gravity for instance in our solar system, does not hold for galaxy.
Say what? Are you trying to say gravity is somewhat different further away?

As we learn new things the total of understanding an issue can change. The basics, however may not. What you are suggesting is something totally unknown can change those basics.
No, I am suggesting you never really knew the basics to begin with, you only assumed you did. The state of the universe is not known in the far past, that can't change, and is as basic as it gets.

We take what happened in the past, is now the present and estimate with some certainty the future. From the science viewpoint, this has been since mankind first reasoned and in all areas of life.
You can't take what was in the past, not the far past, unless the universe was the same. That you do not know.

Light as no meaning as an entity. Its simply energy, which give us vision after a series of events, to the limits of our development. Dogs see no color, some life is thought to see in 2D and Tigers can see miles with a clarity we see at 20 foot. Top this off each member of any species can see at different levels. Smell and other senses, no less different. Energy, then from another Universe or dimension, could very well exist, had always, but be meaningless to us. One thing we can be fairly sure of its not on our current understanding of Electromagnetic Energy. Another thing, we know light as understood, is at least 14-15 billion years old or has been around that long. Long before mankind, our planet/solar system or any possible coherent acceptance of a 10k year old anything...
No, that is dependent on the universe state, and light being the same light in the far past, that is not known at all. All you can really say, is something like 'our light did not change, since it came to be' Which would be when the state of the universe we know came to be! You have only assumed we are in the created state, so to speak.

23. Originally Posted by creation
--About today, yes. What you claim about the future or past universe state is another story altogether.
We can extrapolate.

I have no problems when you stick to what you know.
Sticking to what you know is the zenith of stupidity. You will never gain knowledge, because you have no interest in gaining knowledge. And if what you know proves wrong, then why stick to it.

24. Originally Posted by TvEye
Originally Posted by creation
--About today, yes. What you claim about the future or past universe state is another story altogether.
We can extrapolate.
That means looking at this present universe, and imagining it was the same long long ago. In other words, you try to set the clock of the past to today. That only has value after it is established that the universe was the same. That, however can't be done by science, and has been merely assumed.

Sticking to what you know is the zenith of stupidity. You will never gain knowledge, because you have no interest in gaining knowledge. And if what you know proves wrong, then why stick to it.
Sticking to what you know is all you can do like it or not! The problem is you can't prove it right or wrong when it comes to the state of the future universe, or past.

25. Originally Posted by creation
That means looking at this present universe, and imagining it was the same long long ago. In other words, you try to set the clock of the past to today. That only has value after it is established that the universe was the same. That, however can't be done by science, and has been merely assumed.
It means deducing the most logical conclusion based on the data we have. When that conclusion is refuted, science re-evaluates itself. It's a beautiful changeling.

Sticking to what you know is all you can do like it or not!
No. You stick to what the data supports. When new data comes to light, you discard your previous belief and formulate the optimum viewpoint. Had I stuck to what I knew, I'd still believe in Santa Claus and The Tooth Mouse. I'd be searching gardens the world over for the Cottingley Fairies.

If our ancestors stuck to what they knew, homo habilis would not have used stone tools. The Sumerians and Egyptians would not have invented writing systems. Copernicus would not have proposed heliocentric cosmology.

HIV/AIDS is killing half the planet, but let's not speculate. Let's not work to cure it. Let's just stick to what we know.

26. Originally Posted by Neutrino
Originally Posted by creation
Originally Posted by Neutrino
I thought repeating what other people said went out of style in 3rd grade? Then again if that's all ya got..
The repeating came because it applied. I thought making stuff up went out in kindergarten?
Um...I know you are but what am I? Now are we speaking the same language?
Neutrino
The BBT was born in 1929 and certified in 1960. In the meantimr, all the laws of physics were already in force. So these laws all preceded the BBT by a number of years.

Being as they refuted the BBT, they had to be cast aside as irrelevent.
Is this your idea of science?

Cosmo

27. I don't think we have the right to age light. Its doesn't seem ethical to say that energy has a life span. We can not control energy by giving it dates we can only assume when energy is present. Knowingly predicting energy is impossible, but understanding it is not. I believe that light can only be measured by endless levels or waves. I also believe that "Creation" received to high of a level of light or else he would stop complaining when people complained about him. 50 * 0 = 0. You can be the "0" and if someone complains about you. You times; "their self motivation" by "yourself motivation" to continue a complaint and you will have the answer to why you fight. It's pointless to hate in the present, but only if you can understand in the future. The future only holds what the given boundaries sub side to. If you leave the stove on it will get hot. Settle you haven't learned many things. neither have I, but at least I understand that. Relax my friend hate only leads to destruction, use the American government as an example. I don't need to go into details, but I can tell you right now were screwed, because we didn't rationalize our decisions.

28. Originally Posted by TvEye

It means deducing the most logical conclusion based on the data we have. When that conclusion is refuted, science re-evaluates itself. It's a beautiful changeling.
Basing data on a temporary universe state is not logical, when making claims, say, about the future, unless we know that future is the same universe. The logic ends with the universe state, and we do not know when that begins or ends, that has just been assumed.

No. You stick to what the data supports.
The data we have does not support a claim that the universe was the same or different, that is the point.

When new data comes to light, you discard your previous belief and formulate the optimum viewpoint. Had I stuck to what I knew, I'd still believe in Santa Claus and The Tooth Mouse. I'd be searching gardens the world over for the Cottingley Fairies.
No, because you did not knew what you thought you knew then, any more than now.

If our ancestors stuck to what they knew, homo habilis would not have used stone tools.
We used some stone tools after the flood, some of us, they were easy to make on the fly. We already worked with iron and metal long before that.

The Sumerians and Egyptians would not have invented writing systems. Copernicus would not have proposed heliocentric cosmology.
They resorted to drawing pictures to communicate, after the universe change, when they could no longer talk to each other.
HIV/AIDS is killing half the planet, but let's not speculate. Let's not work to cure it. Let's just stick to what we know.
Something will kill us, as we all die. That is the nature of the present beast.

29. Originally Posted by GreeneggsanHam
I don't think we have the right to age light. Its doesn't seem ethical to say that energy has a life span. We can not control energy by giving it dates we can only assume when energy is present. Knowingly predicting energy is impossible, but understanding it is not. I believe that light can only be measured by endless levels or waves. I also believe that "Creation" received to high of a level of light or else he would stop complaining when people complained about him. 50 * 0 = 0. You can be the "0" and if someone complains about you. You times; "their self motivation" by "yourself motivation" to continue a complaint and you will have the answer to why you fight. It's pointless to hate in the present, but only if you can understand in the future. The future only holds what the given boundaries sub side to. If you leave the stove on it will get hot. Settle you haven't learned many things. neither have I, but at least I understand that. Relax my friend hate only leads to destruction, use the American government as an example. I don't need to go into details, but I can tell you right now were screwed, because we didn't rationalize our decisions.
Whatever energy does doesn't matter, it is present universe energy. You seem to assume it is all that was or will be. The rest of the little rambling post seems in no need of a reply.

30. Originally Posted by GreeneggsanHam
I don't think we have the right to age light. Its doesn't seem ethical to say that energy has a life span. We can not control energy by giving it dates we can only assume when energy is present. Knowingly predicting energy is impossible, but understanding it is not. I believe that light can only be measured by endless levels or waves. I also believe that "Creation" received to high of a level of light or else he would stop complaining when people complained about him. 50 * 0 = 0. You can be the "0" and if someone complains about you. You times; "their self motivation" by "yourself motivation" to continue a complaint and you will have the answer to why you fight. It's pointless to hate in the present, but only if you can understand in the future. The future only holds what the given boundaries sub side to. If you leave the stove on it will get hot. Settle you haven't learned many things. neither have I, but at least I understand that. Relax my friend hate only leads to destruction, use the American government as an example. I don't need to go into details, but I can tell you right now were screwed, because we didn't rationalize our decisions.
If your comment is directed toward me, than you should understand that I write to promote the 'truth' in science or any other subject.
I do not criticize because of hate but just to determine the 'truth'.

Cosmo

31. Its was towards Creation who i now completely give up on.

32. Like all things that exist ,the universe is a bundle of little particles that expand and contract .
Where this particles come human mind can not get it , but i'll try to explain in my way.
This particles define and support all type of energy.
In their hunger for contraction and expantion the known universe was formed in this state that we see today.
All energy and matter is acting as those particles are acting inside,
because when they vibrate in same way(contracting and expending) they get more space, and geting more space to contract and expand is on of their goal.
The purpose for this is to fuse together thru a difrent state of proceses that this particles have in their core .
Their internal reactions are manifested externaly in the fuse process and percepted by our bodys as time and space and energy .
All this particles are there and their congestion is the definition for the universe we talk about and the one that we are in.
Some of this particles that fused spin to atract more particles in their fusing process .
The numer of this paricles is more then human mind can handle so we call it infint.
Is true that the fusing proces if not done right is revesible , but when is done in the right way it makes this particles have a patern and from there life as we know it.
This particles are the main core of all things and in their latent state do not care about nothing.
When their are caught in the fusing proces all their internal paterns are brought to external so the particles start to care about contracting and expandig in their own rate and from this the struggle for space begin(more space to expand and contract more power the particle gets to do what is inside his main core).
What space i am taling about?
I am talking about the space that in our human minds makes them have a shape , and this shape is in the form of a spherical object , the space that is made of core particle elements that keeps them all together like glue as we say.

33. Originally Posted by SolomonGrundy
Like all things that exist ,the universe is a bundle of little particles that expand and contract .
Of course, if it was a different universe in the far past, that does not apply to then, just now.

This particles are the main core of all things and in their latent state do not care about nothing.
All things in the present temporary state universe, maybe.

I am talking about the space that in our human minds makes them have a shape , and this shape is in the form of a spherical object , the space that is made of core particle elements that keeps them all together like glue as we say.
So you think your mind is the glue that holds the present universe together. OK.

34. Originally Posted by GreeneggsanHam
Its was towards Creation who i now completely give up on.
Cause you're beat.

35. Creation, why start a debate if you are a closed minded individual? You seem to lack the common courtesy to at least think about what people are saying and even with some direct evedence (like being able to peer into the past everytime you look up on a clear night) you only want to believe in what you think. All you seem to be is stubborn and unwilling to listen, just criticizing based on your belief's.

I'd love to hear about how you actually came up with the notion that the universe had different laws of physics at some time in the past. What was the lead-up to this idea of yours? What proof do you have?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't take theories at face value untill they have been either proved or disproved but, saying that, I tend to sway in the direction that makes the most sense to myself and my peers. The idea to me that the universe had some major, radical change to it's laws in the past is tom-foolery. Judging by you responses to previous posts you will most likely point out how I am wrong and you are right and that we probably won't see an answer to my quuestion's above.

36. Originally Posted by IrishStu
Creation, why start a debate if you are a closed minded individual? You seem to lack the common courtesy to at least think about what people are saying and even with some direct evedence (like being able to peer into the past everytime you look up on a clear night) you only want to believe in what you think. All you seem to be is stubborn and unwilling to listen, just criticizing based on your belief's.

I'd love to hear about how you actually came up with the notion that the universe had different laws of physics at some time in the past. What was the lead-up to this idea of yours? What proof do you have?

I'll be the first to admit that I don't take theories at face value untill they have been either proved or disproved but, saying that, I tend to sway in the direction that makes the most sense to myself and my peers. The idea to me that the universe had some major, radical change to it's laws in the past is tom-foolery. Judging by you responses to previous posts you will most likely point out how I am wrong and you are right and that we probably won't see an answer to my quuestion's above.
If the universe changed, and all we ever saw was the changed state, how would you know? It would be tom foolery to say it did not change. Unless we know. We don't. Regardless of how you sway, or what you decide to assume, it must remain just a mere assumption.

What clued me into the possibility we live in a temporary universe state now, is that some ancient writings say as much. I look around, and see no science to dispute that. No proof of a same state past universe.
I also see a lot of gaps in man's claims. Like how MOST of the universe is called dark energy and matter! Like how, by following present state assumptions, and extrapolating backwards, leads to the universe itself in some imaginary little teensy hot soup!

37. [quote="creation"]
What clued me into the possibility we live in a temporary universe state now, is that some ancient writings say as much. I look around, and see no science to dispute that. No proof of a same state past universe.
What do these ancient writings say? From what ancient civilisation are they from? What language were the original's written in? Please share this with us so that we may get a better understanding of where your arguments are coming from.

38. Originally Posted by IrishStu

What do these ancient writings say? From what ancient civilisation are they from?
For example the Sumer records,as wrong as I think they are, do tell of long lifespans. Impossible in today's universe.

The bible also, tell of the same. As well as fast tree growth, fast evolution, fast light, etc.

39. Yes... long life spans... A long life span in ancient times could have been the age of 25-30 years old. Don't forget the fact that very few people lived beyond the age of 30 in ancient times. People were LUCKY to see the age of 20 (except for the lucky few). Stories of long lifespans may be people simply reaching the age of 40 or 50. I'm not talking about war or famine here but lifestyle and healthcare

Gonna have to dig out my bible to see what the story is behind this fast tree growth, evolution and light. Or if you could source this it would be great...

40. creation you are one smart person do not others tell you difrent!

41. Originally Posted by SolomonGrundy
creation you are one smart person do not others tell you difrent!
I don't remember calling anyone dumb. But I'm still waiting to see an answer to my questions.

42. Originally Posted by IrishStu
Yes... long life spans... A long life span in ancient times could have been the age of 25-30 years old. Don't forget the fact that very few people lived beyond the age of 30 in ancient times. People were LUCKY to see the age of 20 (except for the lucky few). Stories of long lifespans may be people simply reaching the age of 40 or 50. I'm not talking about war or famine here but lifestyle and healthcare
Guess you missed the point. The bible lifespans were near a thousand years, and the unreliable pagan accounts of the Sumer's were quite a bit higher than that.
Gonna have to dig out my bible to see what the story is behind this fast tree growth, evolution and light. Or if you could source this it would be great...
OK. Plants, says Gen 1 were created only days before man and beast ate the fruit of trees. In fact, the garden we were put in was planted. They had to grow fast. Also, Noah, after the flood let a bird out, to look for vegetation. None was found. A week or so later, another bird, and it found a fresh twig, with leaves.

The kinds on the ark had to be few compared with the millions of species we now have. (35 different tiger species, etc etc). That means they HAD to have evolved from the one kind, since that time several thousand years ago.

And, light, in the future, it says we have another light, and do not need the light of the sun. Also stars were made creation week and Adam saw them. Present light could not travel from far stars in days.

43. Are you trying to combine science and religious beliefs here? If you are, it's impossible. The religious groups have their opinions and the scientific community has theirs. You may aswell be arguing which God is the true God. If you were christian you could have this exact same discussion with a hindu. Each group has it's own ideas about how everyting came to be and how the universe was/is. You could argue until you are blue in the face and still not come to an agreement.

It's a futile discussion to which there is no answer.

44. Guess you missed the point. The bible lifespans were near a thousand years, and the unreliable pagan accounts of the Sumer's were quite a bit higher than that.
The Egyptians and Romans claimed maximum lifespans of around 100 years. Both are believed to be unreliable and unbelievably high. Even if they are correct, that means the highest age an Egyptian could reach was roughly the same as today. Strange how Jews could reach 1000, but the Egyptians, right next door, were looking at 100.

On average the ancient Greek population lived 35 years. This remained the average lifespan in Europe up to the nineteenth century. Until about 1900, the average life expectancy in England was only 47 years.

As you said, the Sumerian's accounts are unreliable. Much like the biblical accounts.

45. Originally Posted by TvEye

The Egyptians and Romans claimed maximum lifespans of around 100 years.
The first kings of Egypt were said to be gods! Don't they live a long time?

Both are believed to be unreliable and unbelievably high. Even if they are correct, that means the highest age an Egyptian could reach was roughly the same as today. Strange how Jews could reach 1000, but the Egyptians, right next door, were looking at 100.
Early Egypt is not well known. That would be the time of a different state, if any. The first kings were considered more than men, Go figure. What came later, doesn't matter.

On average the ancient Greek population lived 35 years. This remained the average lifespan in Europe up to the nineteenth century. Until about 1900, the average life expectancy in England was only 47 years.
Well, so what? That was present state.
As you said, the Sumerian's accounts are unreliable. Much like the biblical accounts.
No, I didn't say that. They were carried down real real real real real real real real real real carefully. I kid you not.

46. Originally Posted by IrishStu
Are you trying to combine science and religious beliefs here? If you are, it's impossible. The religious groups have their opinions and the scientific community has theirs.
No! I try to separate the faith based same past state claims so called science is founded on.

You may aswell be arguing which God is the true God. If you were christian you could have this exact same discussion with a hindu. Each group has it's own ideas about how everyting came to be and how the universe was/is. You could argue until you are blue in the face and still not come to an agreement.
Or one could ascribe to the myth of a same state past, where we rewind the present into some dream speck soup that contained ALL this universe!

It's a futile discussion to which there is no answer.
Not admitting that your same state past is a myth is that. Real science does not know! Doesn't matter what god you pick, science has limits.

Page 2 of 2 First 12
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement