Air weighs more than nothing

[Idolater]

Again, that is the BIG BANG model and is NOT true.

No that is not the Big Bang model, that is the dark energy model. It's independent of the Big Bang. It's as if stars and galaxies are all rocket propelled because they're not only not in stable orbits or even diverging as if they have constant momentum, their momentum is increasing. That's only due to force being applied, F=ma. Force adds momentum. Something (which physical law realists call "dark energy") is propelling everything faster and faster.

Duh.

Dude shut up. If you can't talk to me without condescending, then just stop talking to me. And don't tell me to put you on ignore, I did that. You, stop. Control yourself.

 

[Right Divider]

No that is not the Big Bang model, that is the dark energy model. It's independent of the Big Bang.

No, it's not.

It's as if stars and galaxies are all rocket propelled because they're not only not in stable orbits or even diverging as if they have constant momentum, their momentum is increasing. That's only due to force being applied, F=ma. Force adds momentum. Something (which physical law realists call "dark energy") is propelling everything faster and faster.

Please provide evidence for this "propelling everything faster and faster".
And don't try "red shift".

Dude shut up. If you can't talk to me without condescending, then just stop talking to me. And don't tell me to put you on ignore, I did that. You, stop. Control yourself.

Cry me a river.

BTW, the DUH was me agreeing with you. We both know that there is no "10 billion years" for light to have traveled. Get a grip.

 

[Right Divider]

Are we far enough off topic yet?

 

[Idolater]

No, it's not.

Please provide evidence for this "propelling everything faster and faster".

You provide evidence rather that you even understand why dark energy is even required, why is it proposed? What is being observed which doesn't make any sense at all unless the Universe is literally made up of like 3/4 dark or hidden energy? Prove that you understand just the fundamental concept.

And don't try "red shift".

Red shift is solid reasoning. Atoms have distinctive wavelengths. And when measured wavelengths are shifted by a constant or by a constant proportion, and when that adjustment is made it aligns precisely with the emissions of known atoms here in this neck of the woods, it's not a weak argument to make that other galaxies are "red shifted" on average, but you even know that not all galaxies are red shifted, some are blue shifted and some aren't shifted at all.

That's not what dark energy is about. Dark energy is adding momentum to objects continually so that they are accelerating, not holding steady and not slowing down.

Cry me a river.

BTW, the DUH was me agreeing with you. We both know that there is no "10 billion years" for light to have traveled. Get a grip.

You get a grip! You're constantly insulting me and it's disrespectful and you don't even know me from Adam as far as you know. What if I'm your nextdoor neighbor or someone you go to church with or a friend of one of your kids? What is wrong with you that you can't just deal with me as a human being. We don't have to agree on everything and we also don't have to be indisputably insulting to one another either, there is a happy medium here ---- find it.

 

[Idolater]

Are we far enough off topic yet?

We're right on topic. You were trying to defend the Deist position that physical, natural or scientific laws are immutable. I'm saying the evidence is surprising on that view. The evidence is unsurprising if God is actively acting in the World at all times. He just does it in a generally very reliable and consistent way, but we have evidence from telescopes that it's not reliable and consistent way far away.

 

[Right Divider]

You provide evidence rather that you even understand why dark energy is even required, why is it proposed? What is being observed which doesn't make any sense at all unless the Universe is literally made up of like 3/4 dark or hidden energy? Prove that you understand just the fundamental concept.

Let's get back on topic. Why don't you start a thread about this?

Red shift is solid reasoning.

Except when it's not.

Atoms have distinctive wavelengths.

Try again. Light has wavelengths.

And when measured wavelengths are shifted by a constant or by a constant proportion, and when that adjustment is made it aligns precisely with the emissions of known atoms here in this neck of the woods, it's not a weak argument to make that other galaxies are "red shifted" on average, but you even know that not all galaxies are red shifted, some are blue shifted and some aren't shifted at all.

It is already well known that there are other causes for "red shift" from extremely distant light sources.

So, again, air weighs more than nothing.

 

[Idolater]

Let's get back on topic. Why don't you start a thread about this?

Except when it's not.

Try again. Light has wavelengths.

Yeah, and atoms emit light /photons at distinctive wavelengths when they're undergoing quantum jumps from one electron orbital down to an orbital with a lower energy level. Those wavelengths are like fingerprints.

... air weighs more than nothing.

But why? Because of a law of gravity and gravitation? Or because God's pulling on it?

 

[Right Divider]

But why? Because of a law of gravity and gravitation? Or because God's pulling on it?

Because of mass and gravity. Things that God created.

BTW, this thread is about the RESULTS and not the CAUSE.

 

[Idolater]

Because of mass and gravity. Things that God created.

BTW, this thread is about the RESULTS and not the CAUSE.

It's in the Controversial Theories forum. This is a controversial theory. It's certainly following up on even why there's a thread here to begin with, because you all think @1Mind1Spirit is off his rocker, which, he does literally call himself a literal lunatic, so it's not an off-base position, but regardless, this is either right on topic, or it's at least in the same neck of the woods.

 

[Right Divider]

It's in the Controversial Theories forum.

THREADS have topics. Stay on it.

This is a controversial theory.

Then start your OWN thread about it.

 

[Idolater]

THREADS have topics. Stay on it.

Then start your OWN thread about it.

This is a "call-out thread" which is against the rules. Let's see if @1Mind1Spirit weighs in on whether it's on topic or not. Until then I'll try to just stay away.

 

[Right Divider]

This is a "call-out thread" which is against the rules.

If it were, I would have already been spanked by the administrators by now.

It's more a "clarification thread" or a "break-out thread".

Let's see if @1Mind1Spirit weighs in on whether it's on topic or not.

It's odd that he thought that the video showed the exact opposite of what it really did. Perhaps he completely missed the MINUS sign for the tare weight and didn't actually listen to what the narrator was saying.

Until then I'll try to just stay away.

Cool.

P.S. It's MY thread. I'll determine whether your posts of "on topic" or not.

 

[Derf]

Our math only describes gravitation in our neck of the woods. Therefore it can't be a real, immutable law of nature or physics. In the literature I'd be called a physical law irrealist. (Compare to a moral law irrealist, someone who doesn't believe in evil in any absolute sense, there is no evil ---- that's not me ---- I'm a moral law realist, I'm only a physical law irrealist.) It means I don't believe physical laws exist. This dovetails well with Genesis chapters 1-11, because if physical laws are fake /fictional and only appear to be real, then God is very actively sustaining the World rn. The idea that physical laws exist and have reality is more congruent with Deism than with believing the Bible is literal. We just believe God is very directly sustaining everything. That we've discovered since Newton that He's applying force to masses from other concentrations of mass in a constant manner doesn't mean He's not doing it Himself. And it is obvious because our telescopes tell us so that gravity is far from constant everywhere else. Therefore it can't be a real physical law. That's just obvious.

God tells us numerous times that the world is set on something firm, like "pillars" and "foundations", yet we see nothing holding up the earth. Don't you think these firm things are poetic for a force that holds them in place while allowing them to move?

To say that God would need to be actively moving the worlds make it sound like He wouldn't be able to make something that can operate on its own or keep time accurately.

 

[JudgeRightly]

God tells us numerous times that the world is set on something firm, like "pillars" and "foundations", yet we see nothing holding up the earth.

HPT answers this nicely.

Don't you think these firm things are poetic for a force that holds them in place while allowing them to move?

Nope. They are literal pillars.

To say that God would need to be actively moving the worlds make it sound like He wouldn't be able to make something that can operate on its own or keep time accurately.

I defer to what I said in post #35.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's what the Deists think.

Irrelevant...

That's my point. And plus in broad strokes, don't you disagree with yourself here? In broad strokes, if God "takes His hand off," don't you think this all collapses? In broad strokes anyway?

In a figurative sense, sure. But God isn't literally keeping His "hand" on the creation.

 

[Derf]

HPT answers this nicely.



Nope. They are literal pillars.



I defer to what I said in post #35.

Job 26:7 KJV — He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

And I agree with your post #35.

 

[Stripe]

That's begging the question. In order for it to be constant we must fudge the data we're collecting and recording from the telescopes. The data we fudge is called dark matter and dark energy. Once these hidden things are added in then the constant stays constant. And only if. Otherwise it's not constant.

Even if there were "dark" stuff (there isn't), the constant is based on a simple understanding of physical laws. Ie, the inverse-square law and the constancy of the mass of the universe. Measuring the universal mass and determining the limits of its distribution is beyond our ability to measure, but that does not change the fact that the combination of those numbers — whatever they are — gives a constant.

 

[Stripe]

Job 26:7 KJV — He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

Different earth.

 

[Derf]

Different earth.

You'll have to explain that to me, 'cause I'm not getting your wink. But you don't have to do it here. I don't think it's on topic to spin off about the hydroplate theory, if that's where you're going.

 

[Stripe]

You'll have to explain that to me.

Earth — as used in the Bible, ie, eres — can refer to the planet or the land. The pillars were originally the contacts between the firmament and the then-cold mantle, ie, subterranean stuff. The passage in Job is referring to the globe in space.

After the flood, the pillars would simply refer to in interior of the planet not so deep that things are too hot, but deeper than it's possible to dig.

When presenting ideas about "Earth" and geology from the Bible, it's best to figure out unambiguous terms and use those as much as possible.