38
   

Why 7 days for Creation?

 
 
cameronleon
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 09:35 am
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:

That's good Cam. I can turn a wrench too. What I meant was can you build a car? Do you, yourself without help have the expertise in the various disciplines required to build a car? I mean mine the ore, smelt the iron, design and cast and finish the parts. Everything, the plastic and the glass and the computer boards. of course not. It takes many, many people. Each have their area of expertise. Each do their part and through many years of design improvements we have a car. Now because you don't have this specialized knowledge, do you doubt those that make it work? Do you have to invoke religious faith before you drive to the coffee shop?
It's the same with the study of evolution and the study of physics (relativity). You don't have the education to make a critique.


My expertise is TROUBLESHOOTING.

You have an incognito, a problem is something that perturbs the functionality of a circuit, a theory shows gaps, an oversaw situation declares the assumed victim to receive compensation when it shouldn't be that way, any kind of case where there is something hidden that needs to be revealed, that is my expertise.

It is a methodical study, analysis, review of a phenomenon, situation, event, whatever, which needs to be explained, solved, fixed, etc.

For this reason, with the proper tools and instruments when needed, a troubleshooter can find the problem.

Here some posters write a convinced statement that impresses the rest. If something fishy is between the lines, I might find it and I can challenge the poster.

The conventional ideas as "flowing time" are just that, ideas, imaginations caused by illusion. The real king of the physical universe is MOTION.

Without motion the known universe shouldn't exist the way does exist today.

MOTION is the key.

Gravity is motion in action.

Light is caused by the motion and collision of particles, and light is just a particle which behaves as such and in a group is taken as "waves" of light.

Physics is very simple to understand when the principles are understood with simple explanations.

When you have the wrong idea of what is time, what is light, etc. is when you complicate yourself in purpose and you have to invent silly arguments to justify your error.

When you defend "time dilatation" you are not defending science, you are defending a group of idiots who are smart enough to pull your legs telling you that Einstein was a genius (when he wasn't) with a theory that was rejected as science but taken as poor philosophy.

Again, if time really dilates, how it comes that time has never ever been detected as a physical entity?

Come on.

Use the basic principles of research.

Find the root of the problem, pay no attention to the claims about the consequences.

Focus in the main point which is time itself.

Before saying that time dilates, ask yourself, what is time?

Answer that question first before continuing with that theory.

If that question is not answering according to that theory, then that theory is poor philosophy. If the theory says a definition of time, and such a definition can't be corroborated by physical means, then that theory is poor philosophy.

My expertise is troubleshooting, and I can guarantee you that no one in this world can argue against my firm statement that time is nothing but a measure. I can prove it using lots of empirical ways.

Go ahead, ask a relativist to do the same, to prove the existence of time "before" its dilatation. You will be banned by his people, you will be ignored, you will be recommended to "learn about relativity first" Lol.

_______________________________________________

If a troubleshooter is nominated as the head of the science department, lots of the current theories of science should be throw to the trash or sent to the shelves of science fiction.

The first verses of Genesis showing a process step by step or day by day is a clear presentation of ORDER. From chaos to order.

This is what is going to rule throughout the whole books of the bible, man will cause chaos, God is order.




brianjakub
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 11:38 am
@cameronleon,
Quote:
A theory must explain the mechanism. Until today, no one has explained the mechanism of how time dilates


A theory does not have to explain the mechanism we just have to predict an outcome and be testable. Newtons theory of gravity does not explain a mechanism either but it is a theory. Quantum mechanics, maxwells equations of electromagnetism all are correct. None of them explain the mechanism.

The mechanism is not mathematical. It is a picture or diagram. It is A physical description of reality. You don't need to understand the mathematics describing the thermodynamics and pressures involved in the cylinder on an engine to understand how an engine works. You can understand an engine because you can tear the engine apart.

If we could see what the Higgs field the Higgs mechanism and how an Electron interacts with the nucleus and the Hrc field we would have a mechanism to explain relativity. Try having that conversation with the physicist. It's not that hard though there's only so many ways these particles could be arranged end up with the Constants we have.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 01:43 pm
@brianjakub,
True. We are able to determine the gravity of the moon to develop the necessary tools to land and take off from that planet. Many satellites and human garbage now roam in space.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 02:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
But why can't we explain the mechanisms that give us gravity strong and weak nuclear forces and the electromagnetic fields we observe? We've been on this earth for 200,000 years. Are we just stupid? Or, do we lack imagination when it comes to imagining the structure of the invisible?
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 02:07 pm
@cameronleon,
Once again Cam, you missed my point. I am trying to say that knowledge is specialized and that we have to depend on those that have that specialized knowledge. Example: I am not an aerodynamic engineer, so I depend on aerodynamic engineers to design safe airplanes for me to fly in. I don't criticize an airplane's design because I'm not expert in that field.
Likewise, how can you criticize advanced physics if you are not expert in that field?
How can you criticize the theory of evolution if you are not expert in that field?
Your idea of "Degeneration of Matter" is just something you made up. There is no overall degeneration of matter. And there is no corresponding degeneration of organisms.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 02:41 pm
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:
how can you criticize advanced physics if you are not an expert?
An aeronatics engineer can tell you why a plane can fly and he can describe the mechanical processes that cause lift. He could draw a diagram of it.

A physicist cannot tell you where gravity or the nuclear forces come from nor describe it in a diagram. If someone could describe it in a diagram whether he has a scientific degree or not I think that person would Accomplish something a lot of physicist would like to do.

Isn't radioactive decay degeneration of matter? Is it matter getting turned into energy never to be returned back to matter again?
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 04:46 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:

Isn't radioactive decay degeneration of matter?
Mass of reactants =Mass of products
Rad "decay" is a change of state. Are you saying that Hydrogen and Helium are more organized than Carbon or Silicon? Your sounding like our resident science denier Cameronleon. ( fortunately your speech patterns arent "forced" as are his)
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 04:54 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Is it matter getting turned into energy never to be returned back to matter again?
Is not E=Mc** not reversible? Le Chateliers principle would say yes(it is reversible)
In fact using some massless bosons (photons) its what happens in particle accelerators. You think this is going on just to keep score?
farmerman
 
  1  
Tue 31 Oct, 2017 04:56 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
aeronatics engineer
Ive worked with many aeronautical and stronatical engineers and each one has a specialty(WE only ask folks to do what they are really trained for). Builing a plane is not for amateurs , Just cause a guy is good at ing tructure, doesnt mean she knows a damn thing about engin design.

I forget who was the lst guy who could do everything. It was when it was a faaar implr time.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 10:49 am
@farmerman,
I was talking about Radioactive decay. We have never witnessed a large Atom being formed. We just assume they have been created in supernovas because that is the only place there is enough energy. there's no place else it can happen we can see the rest of the universe.

The theory that the supernova created heavy Atoms is just a theory. Since the creation of radioactive Atoms they have been deteriorating "decaying" never to return to being the heavy radioactive Atoms they started out to be.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 11:01 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
i've worked with Aeronautical engineers and each one has a specialty


You don't have to be an aeronautical engineer to understand why an airplane flies. I learned why an airplane flies in junior high because the shape of the airplane wing explains why it create lift by creating a low pressure area on the top side of the wing.

If I want to make an airplane that will fly better I think I can have just as good a chance doing that by hiring a mechanic that really understands planes as I do hiring an aeronautical engineer. The way the plane looks and performs can be more important then the math.

Saying you have to understand the math is a good way to keep some real intelligent people out of the discussion.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 11:04 am
@brianjakub,
I disagree. The aeronautical engineer has the knowledge and tools to test wing effectiveness.

Quote:
Sharklets on an Airbus A320 (Credit: Simone Previdi)

Recent years have also seen the advent of design innovations at the wingtips that have significantly improved aerodynamic performance of aircraft. Sharklets (Airbus) or raked wingtips (Boeing) reduce the effects of the “wake” – the swirling vortex of air left behind the wing as it passes through the air at high speed. These usually take the form of small upward-pointing extensions at the tip of the wings. By reducing the disturbance made to the air, the passage of the aircraft is smoother and more efficient. It achieves the same effect of massively increasing the wingspan of the aircraft, but without the added weight. Applied to new aircraft design and even retrofitted to old models, these alterations at the wingtip have realised dramatic drag and fuel efficiencies. Boeing, for example, has shown that, when applied to the 767 aircraft, it realised a 4-5 per cent fuel burn improvement, which translates to 500,000 US gallons of jet fuel and 4,790 tonnes of CO2 per plane per year.

The aircraft wing has undergone a transformation since the Wright Brothers’ first flight. Most excitingly, OEMs are taking advantage of new technologies and design methodologies to drive improvements in aerodynamic performance and reduce the weight of components throughout the wing structure, and airlines are realising huge fuel efficiency savings as a result.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 11:11 am
@cicerone imposter,
If the aeronautical engineer didn't know what the plane looked like and the mechanic could see the shape of the wing which one would have a better chance of understanding it thoroughly?

I would think it's easier to design something you can see rather than something you can only describe mathematically.

Physicists today or try to describe gravity without the picture. But it probably Physicists today are trying to describe gravity without the picture. That is where they're going wrong
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 02:57 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Physicists today or try to describe gravity without the picture. But it probably Physicists today are trying to describe gravity without the picture. That is where they're going wrong
Physicists freely admit their limitations whereas guys like you seem to try to sound definitive about your beliefs

Quote:
That is where they're going wrong
and you know they are "going wrong" how? because they dont buy your rather smug worldviews?? I think that,even though they arent there fully, science is going in the correct direction. You isagree?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 03:32 pm
@farmerman,
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-gravity-exist-How-does-gravity-attract-materials
0 Replies
 
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 05:52 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
An aeronatics engineer can tell you why a plane can fly and he can describe the mechanical processes that cause lift. He could draw a diagram of it.

A physicist cannot tell you where gravity or the nuclear forces come from nor describe it in a diagram. If someone could describe it in a diagram whether he has a scientific degree or not I think that person would Accomplish something a lot of physicist would like to do.

Isn't radioactive decay degeneration of matter? Is it matter getting turned into energy never to be returned back to matter again?


Maybe, just maybe such things cannot be drawn in simple diagrams. Some concepts take a lot of background before they can be understood.
What makes you think everything is so simple that you can grasp it after reading a few paragraphs and looking at a diagram? If it was that simple, anyone could be a physicist. Could you fully grasp the subtleties of heart surgery or brain surgery after breezing through a magazine article on the subject? Would a plumber's critique of a brain surgeon's technique carry any weight? It's been many thousands of years since any one man could do or make everything in use around him.
TomTomBinks
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 05:57 pm
@brianjakub,
[quoteI was talking about Radioactive decay. We have never witnessed a large Atom being formed. We just assume they have been created in supernovas because that is the only place there is enough energy. there's no place else it can happen we can see the rest of the universe.][/quote]
Nor will we ever witness this. It happens in the heart of an exploding star. I'm pretty sure that heavy elements have been detected in the remnants of supernovas. Can you put two and two together?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 07:13 pm
@brianjakub,
Quote:
The theory that the supernova created heavy Atoms is just a theory.
ever hear of spectroscopic analyses?

Nucleosynthesis i a fairly well evidenced theory

[url https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis#Empirical_evidence=] RED THIS ITS INTERESTING[/url]
farmerman
 
  1  
Wed 1 Nov, 2017 07:31 pm
@farmerman,
GRRR
READ THIS
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Thu 2 Nov, 2017 10:34 am
@TomTomBinks,
Quote:
Some concepts take a lot of background before they can be understood.

Interesting that the 'natural selection' argument kind of negates this.

Take this thread's most recent argument about airplane wings. Birds use the same technique to deal with wingtip vortices as Boing et al. I'm sure the bird understands what is going on at his wingtips in some form, but it's not due to his math abilities or 'education'.
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:33:30