Originally posted by sonhouseAnd he named it the "Big Bang" because of its claim that the observable universe began with the explosion of a single particle. 😏
It would have been a real stretch for you to have just googled it. Intellectual laziness is your calling card. Fred Hoyle was the proponent of the everlasting universe, no beginning, no end. He called it the Big Bang as a pejorative. Just as you do. Why am I not surprised.
You apparently did not google that.
26 Dec 15
Originally posted by RJHindsThe big bang was an injection of energy not a particle. But you don't give a rats ass about any of that BS, it doesn't matter what people say, you are right and everyone else who doesn't think the Earth is 6000 years old, ALL of them are dead wrong.
And he named it the "Big Bang" because of its claim that the observable universe began with the [b]explosion of a single particle. 😏
You apparently did not google that.[/b]
And that with no science needed thank you, I have my bible and I believe everything not only written in the bible, but I fully believe what ANY human who calls him or herself a preacher, I believe whatever they say about the bible and how old everything is, because I know it makes sense.
Therefore the entire planet of infidels will go to hell and I will be laughing my ass off when those end days get here and all the demons and devils are swept out of the land.
Well, good luck with all that utter bullshtye.
26 Dec 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThanks for your best wishes.
The big bang was an injection of energy not a particle. But you don't give a rats ass about any of that BS, it doesn't matter what people say, you are right and everyone else who doesn't think the Earth is 6000 years old, ALL of them are dead wrong.
And that with no science needed thank you, I have my bible and I believe everything not only written in th ...[text shortened]... e demons and devils are swept out of the land.
Well, good luck with all that utter bullshtye.
15 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsYou call yourself a lover of science but only those sciences that stay away from age questions, how old is Earth, the stars, the universe, how big is it, and all that.
Thanks for your best wishes.
Other sciences that don't touch on that question, now all of a sudden, those science using the exact same logic but say Earth is a few billion years old, NOW that science is bogus even though there are 10 completely separate technologies used for that measurement and they all agree within some window, not one saying Earth is 100 million years old and another 1 billion and another 4 billion.
They differ by a few percent max so one will say 4.3 billion, another 4.4 another 4.2 billion years old, they are in agreement so it is very safe to say Earth is 4+ billion years old.
But any and I mean ANY evidence to that effect will be scoffed at by you and your YEC buddies.
And that not based on one word of your god, only the deductions of what? Lets see, I have it here on the tip of my tongue.
Oh yeah.
MEN, that's who said how old they THINK Earth is based on BS genealogy of who begat whom. And of course we know EVERY WORD of your bible is totally infallible so they COULDN"T have made the tiniest mistake now, could they.
16 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseGeological Dating - Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling
You call yourself a lover of science but only those sciences that stay away from age questions, how old is Earth, the stars, the universe, how big is it, and all that.
Other sciences that don't touch on that question, now all of a sudden, those science using the exact same logic but say Earth is a few billion years old, NOW that science is bogus even t ...[text shortened]... your bible is totally infallible so they COULDN"T have made the tiniest mistake now, could they.
Radioisotope dating
NASA engineer says big bang theory is NOT true
17 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsYou mean THIS "Dr" Snelling?
Geological Dating - Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling
[youtube]dW708SzKAgM[/youtube]
Radioisotope dating
[youtube]nVvGDu9mDuQ[/youtube]
NASA engineer says big bang theory is NOT true
[youtube]efIpleLsnvM[/youtube]
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/snelling.htm
17 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseI am not aware of Dr. Snelling twisting any findings. Some people that do not want to believe his findings may have made false claims by bearing false witness.
You mean the one who twists his findings to 'prove' Earth is 6000 years old? The guy perverting his science for a religious agenda? THAT Dr?
17 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsIf you want to post a video, you should at least only post the ones where the sound and the video are in sync.
I am not aware of Dr. Snelling twisting any findings. Some people that do not want to believe his findings may have made false claims by bearing false witness.
17 Jan 16
Originally posted by RJHindsIt doesn't make for a readable video when the audio is off by what looks like 5 seconds. I suppose YOUR brain can deal with that but when I first fired up that video, the audio was at least 5 seconds ahead and it sounded like there was another audio track or some advert from another source.
What does it matter. Isn't your mind smart enough to correct it? 😏
You take anything and turn it into a pejorative just like your buddy Trump.
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseIt is only off by about a second and you can here him fine without looking at his mouth unless you are near deaf. Is that your problem? 😏
It doesn't make for a readable video when the audio is off by what looks like 5 seconds. I suppose YOUR brain can deal with that but when I first fired up that video, the audio was at least 5 seconds ahead and it sounded like there was another audio track or some advert from another source.
You take anything and turn it into a pejorative just like your buddy Trump.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
18 Jan 16
4 edits
Good article on people possibly being rather "duped" by pop science naivete of the Star Trek generation's hopes of colonizing the galaxy.
a sample -
That array of living beings has to function in a dynamic balance for us to be healthy, and the entire complex system co-evolved on this planet’s surface in a particular set of physical influences, including Earth’s gravity, magnetic field, chemical make-up, atmosphere, insolation, and bacterial load. Traveling to the stars means leaving all these influences, and trying to replace them artificially. What the viable parameters are on the replacements would be impossible to be sure of in advance, as the situation is too complex to model.
The article was in Scientific America . No, it was not in "Christianity Today"
"There is no planet B: We’re not colonizing the Milky Way any time soon"
https://www.salon.com/2016/01/17/what_exactly_would_it_take_for_humans_to_ever_colonize_the_milky_way_partner/
18 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonshipSure, like I have said before, science as a whole is less than 500 years old. In another 500 years, assuming we MAKE it the next 5 centuries and able to have science funded like today, all that will be a different story.
Good article on the possible being rather "duped" by pop technology hopes of colonizing the universe.
a sample -
[quote] That array of living beings has to function in a dynamic balance for us to be healthy, and the entire complex system co-evolved on this planet’s surface in a particular set of physical influences, including Earth’s gravity, magnetic ...[text shortened]... lon.com/2016/01/17/what_exactly_would_it_take_for_humans_to_ever_colonize_the_milky_way_partner/
You seem to think because a dude says something is impossible, then that must be true.
It was also said it was impossible to fly maybe 2 years before the Wright brothers didn't know about that particular impossibility.
It was also said rockets will never work because they 'have nothing to push against'.
I think we have proven that bit of garbage wrong.
As will all the other objections to mankind daring to do stuff you would say belongs only to the realm of god.
Tell that to Armstrong on the moon then.
Science is very young and you never know what development will be a game changer,
for instance, the Vasimr rocket motor has an astounding specific impulse rating in the tens of thousands, depending on how you throttle it so it uses 1/10th the fuel and runs 24/7 as opposed to the standard O2/H2 burner which runs out of fuel in maybe 20 minutes.
Vasimr accelerates ions inside a thruster assembly powered by either solar power or more likely, nuclear. So it can go further faster than any chemical rocket so the means of getting to the stars are already in the works,
For instance, the closer you get to the speed of light, the slower your time goes and so a trip that would take say 10 years at half the speed of light could take 6 weeks when you get to say 99.9% of c.
So the amount of food, air, everything, all those resources will last a lot longer so there would not be the problem of supplying stuff for decades or centuries.
That is what we already know. What things will be like in another 200 years we can only guess.
One of those guesses is we will crack the problem of anti-matter rockets which are pretty much the ultimate in thrusters, it would make Vasimr look like a kayak paddle.
We already know the engineering of such a rocket is relatively simple, a lot simpler than fission or fusion rockets and a LOT more powerful pound for pound.
In THIS century however, we don't have a clear idea of how to either make or find the ounces needed for a real journey to the stars. It would only take a few ounces of the stuff, maybe a kilogram, it is so powerful.
If you had an antimatter rocket, the space shuttle could have been launched with just a few MILLIgrams of the stuff.
So time will tell but for sure, with a surviving civilization doing the research we will eventually go to the stars, nay sayers aside.
One of the motivations for getting off Earth permanently is to ensure the survival of mankind in case something dreadful happens here like an asteroid coming in from the blue, where even if you survive, science is for sure gone for a thousand years.
So even if we don't get to the stars, say having a thriving civilization on Earth and Mars and maybe some of the moons of the outer planets, maybe even Pluto, which seems now to be very intriguing, an asteroid hitting and destroying Earth will not cause the extinction of mankind.
Of course you will put the religious slant on it, whereby we should never be doing such a dastardly thing because the end days are surely upon us, but that never stopped humans from doing the things the religious set hates.
The big thing is we have to survive as a thriving civilization for the next few hundred years for any of that science stuff to pan out.
I think we will. I think we will be in trouble in century 22 but by century 23 we will have done a work around to survive and thrive.