admiralWillyWilber

Join Date 05/2009

+99

science question

contradiction

Okay light is constant currently 300000 kilometers per second. Anything that is matter is slower. It doesn't matter what kind of light it is but it runs at the same speed and matter is slower. All the universe came from one particle. The bigger the particle the slower it goes through space. We are seeing the original light. The light that would have outrun us a long time ago. Even if light used to go faster even smaller pieces of matter would have run slower. There is no way we could be seeing the original light. It doesn't matter if its all the light or infared all light runs at the same speed and we are slower because we have mass. There is no way to see the light of the big bang. It is more probable that we are seeing more recent light.

Another problem is that they have multiple big bang particles. Is there a theory that could explain this. First what is the proof that leads to the zero dimension centerI don't know. When the idea of the atom came about it was the smallest mass. Are there smaller particles. Yes. There is a observation of particles mysteriously appearing. I got a theory it forms from particles that are so small that we don't know they exist. I understand this is 1/200 quintillionth of a centimeter. If mass is intimately smaller I think it is impossible to wormhole this way. I'm talking about the big kind. Current science can't prove or disprove non quantum wormholes. Maybe gravity is produced by spinning. According to physics if you keep compacting it explodes big bang particle or exploding black holes you decide.

Y Lets talk about science if you do something a hundred times and it comes up one way 99 times and another way once you go with the 99 right except when it comes to dating. Before I finish radioactive dating has proven to be 200 times more recent if it was reliable. Radioactive dating is reliable until you add or take away water. Anybody believed in a world wide flood or that they can prove it never rained there. Anything grew there. No one pissed or pooped there. Spit on the ground. Every other dating method. AAnotherthing let's say there used to be less of some elements. Even there were all the elements there were fewer of some. Let's say some element's turn into other's. Let's assume that one element came from energy and all other elements formed from one element. Two different things should bring about the Evidence. One thing is the universe was created expanding with all the elements with some elements changing into others. the other conclusion says everything came from energy. Recap creation would leave the same evidence as evolution.

Millerurrey experiment was really good self replicating molecule from a protein was really good 23 of 26 proteins. This stuffrocks. They tried to go further they can't. Matter of fact they gave up and went on to other stuff.The userr interface was invented because the screen was to small on cell phones. Why do I want this on a big computer screen. Why do I want mini programs I mean apps on a big terabyte hardrive. These are reasons smart phones and computers need different operating systems.virtual keyboards are irritating. Scrolling forces to select when you don't want to when you are reading a page and it goes to the wrong page because it doesn't know the difference between scrolling and selecting. Compared to a computer where you use a mouse wheel to scroll and a button to select. Smart phones are inferior to computers but Microsoft will go to a teenager or young adult to find out what to do because there are more of them. That is why Microsoft does not seem to know what thevusets want and we get inferior technology.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1839

In those painful ramblings of a confused mind I see no 'question' posed....

....other than what is the actual point of this post?

Successfully updated karma reason!

admiralWillyWilber

Join Date 05/2009

+99

OK if the universe came from one point and light is consistently one speed no matter what light it is. Matter L's always slower than light and the earth is a big piece of mass how a e we seeing the original light of the big bang.

How come we use the onlydating method that disagrees with the other dating methods. Considering that all other dating methods agree that the earth is not more than 200000 years old.

How come our scientists have not come closer than the miller urray experiment which happened in I think 1967.

If theydon't assume the big bang happened how do the know that all elements came from one element I assume is hydrogen.

I'm not saying that half life doesn't happen where one element doesn't turn into another element. Why would this not happen if god created the universe. I understand everything is based on a assumption that all elements came from energy or hydrogen.

How come if god created the universe why would he not make it expanding.

If scientists proved that the radioactive dating methods is 200 times more recent how come the dates are basically the same. 1987

Is radioactive dating methods ain reliable because if you add or subtract water this mess us the radioactive isotope up unsteady. How can they prove this never happened.

How come if most other dating methods disagree with radioactive dating wedon't use another dating method. This has affected what method we use to date the universe. I looked it up.

How do we know that the multiple big bang particles that they found aren't exploding black holes or even white holes.

How come there are multiple big bang particles.

Again assuming that one element turns into another element through half life how does prove that all elements werent creative just more and less of each other. If this is true then wouldn't this throw off dating methods sonsidering that rock was already there when it was created with different proportions of elements.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1839

Quoting admiralWillyWilber,

reply 2

How come we use the onlydating method that disagrees with the other dating methods. Considering that all other dating methods agree that the earth is not more than 200000 years old.

OK, you now have demonstrated you have no relevance in a 'Science' forum.

Either that or you can't count zeros.

It's fine to question the veracity of the 'big bang' theory but you really need to get out more re geological time-lines.

Understand the phrase 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' ....

Successfully updated karma reason!

admiralWillyWilber

Join Date 05/2009

+99

I noticed you only know about only one dating method. There are actually sveral others. None of the other dating methods seem to agree or come close to radioactive dating methods.which science goes with the majority of experiments except dating. If he con census of scientists found out that radioactive dating is unreliable and if it was it would be 200 times more recent then why would I ignore the majority of proof and goto a incorrect geologic time table. I'm not missing zeros after they proved themselves wrong in this area they didn't change the dates. By he way you are saying dating the earth is not science even though this information has come from scientists or are you saying scientific conclusions that you don't agree with based on a lot of sciencentific information from both sides.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1839

The ONLY objectors to the Universally accepted Geological timeline [age of the Earth] are Creationists who want to think that the Earth is 6000 years old.

Other than that, anything short of thousands of millions [or American billions] is total BS [as are the naive followers of absurdity].

If you think 200,000 years is correct then you're simply deluding yourself and have no understanding of this planet/universe.

To dismiss ALL evidence to the contrary puts you firmily ensconced amongst the Flat-Earthers and the Fundamentalist 'the-Bible-is-literal-truth' oddities of this world.....hint...you cannot 'grow' a woman from a man's rib....biology does NOT work that way.

Next it will be.... Kennedy wasn't shot.....the Moon landings were faked....oh....and that classic....the Holocaust never happened.

Sadly, the advent of 'blogs' and 'blogging' has led to a massive increase in the verbalization of idiocy - all for the sake of wagging one's gums to sound educated.

It's certainly not working in this instance...

Successfully updated karma reason!

admiralWillyWilber

Join Date 05/2009

+99

You can't grow woman from a man's rib and you call me unscientific. According to science microbiology in particular. All you need is one cell. It has all the genetic code of the human body to make a person. According to medicine genetic screening is possible. You are telling that god couldn't genetic screen and engineerin g is impossible. We will being doing this soon and god couldn't do this. Is that because he is primitive. I didn't make up these umteen dating methods the scientists did. Were not talking about apologists were actually talking about the same group of scientists they even lightly talked about these methods they don't use any other dating method even though they can't find one other dating method than radioactive dating. Every other dating they the scientists have used says that the earth isn't older than 200000 years old. Apologists does no more than most scientists they use the same science. The thing is they can't disprove god. They take science and show howgod created the universe. Is the same as taking science applying physiology and saying there is no god. Your forgetting that you think that I'm a christian as a christian I can't deny the holocaust. Besides apologists the scientific community denies the timeline by what they discovered about carbon dating. They just won't admit to what they said or discovered. They are just hoping us unscientific chrisians will forget. The difference is if you haven't checked out both sides of science then who is I don't have a word. I will admit the church not the bible has been wrong about things before. The other stuff you said is silly nice joke. Actually it is not dismissing all evidence. It is saying all the evidence. This is not they do in school, but we aren't taught all the evidence. Once I seen both sides of the coin I had to say that evolution is shaky at best.

Successfully updated karma reason!