Posted on 08/08/2002 9:06:23 AM PDT by Momaw Nadon
IT'S NOT HARD TO UNDERSTAND! Who said it was? That's easy to understand. We (creationists) are not stupid (most of us anyway). What we can't understand are things like: why isn't the sea saturated with salt by now? how can unstable structures like the rings of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune survive for 10 million years? where do short period comets come from? why are there no transitional forms between species? You know, things like that.
By means of disclosure, I think the Bible is bunk, but have no problem with others believing in it
Thanks. You seem to be one of the few around here.
We are blessed with knowledgeable contributors like Freeper Physicist who is always willing to explain things in lay-speak so everyone who wants to, can understand. This is a wonderful place to learn!!!
Regardless of whether you're stupid or not, you are religious fanatics.
why isn't the sea saturated with salt by now?
Why would it be? Salt concentrations vary. Have you never heard of salt being deposited on a shore?
how can unstable structures like the rings of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune survive for 10 million years?
Because they're not unstable in any meaningful sense of the word. It will likely take billions of years before they disintegrate.
where do short period comets come from?
Kuiper Belt?
why are there no transitional forms between species?
There are many.
You know, things like that.
Actually, I don't know. Your argument seems to be based on selective (mis)readings of scientific data, blind faith in a Near Eastern tract, and a refusal to submit any sort of coherent, falsifiable theory with which to expound your views. Science cannot answer every question in the universe at the moment, and doesn't need to. For some reason, however, you religious folks need an answer to everything, right away. If that isn't selfish egotism, I don't know what is.
As a "religious fanatic", I must say, "selfish egotist" is one of the nicer names I've seen us creationists called. Bless you Andy.
I was going for accuracy, not name calling. I bear no personal illwill towards anybody, no matter how misguided.
I don't know how much longer I can continue to work in obscurity and sacrifice my heath for scientific progress. I could really use some grant money, if you know of anyone. I'd be more then happy to have you co-write and share in the research.
'why isn't the sea saturated with salt by now?' Why would it be? Salt concentrations vary. Have you never heard of salt being deposited on a shore?Concentration of dissolved solids in rivers x flow of rivers x billions of years - salt deposits = saturation
'how can unstable structures like the rings of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune survive for 10 million years?' Because they're not unstable in any meaningful sense of the word. It will likely take billions of years before they disintegrate.No way. NASA was shocked to find rings around Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune, because they were not thought to be stable.
'where do short period comets come from?' Kuiper Belt? Come on. It doesn't exist. Neither does the Oort Cloud. They were both theorized to try to explain where comets come from, but there's no evidence they exist. Deus ex machina. Right, Physicist?
'why are there no transitional forms between species?' There are many.No there aren't. If there were I would still believe in evolution. Name one.
'You know, things like that.' Actually, I don't know. Your argument seems to be based on selective (mis)readings of scientific data, blind faith in a Near Eastern tract, and a refusal to submit any sort of coherent, falsifiable theory with which to expound your views. Science cannot answer every question in the universe at the moment, and doesn't need to. For some reason, however, you religious folks need an answer to everything, right away. If that isn't selfish egotism, I don't know what is.Ego? Look in the mirror. You apparently speak for "Science." I'm just glad you have "no problem" with us poor souls who believe in such "bunk" as the Bible.
What you are not appreciating is that the speed of light is a limitation on relative velocity. There is no such thing as absolute velocity. The speed of light is not some magical brick wall that you smack up against as you go faster and faster.
Relative to yourself, you are always going at a velocity of zero. When we Earthlings say that you are travelling close to the speed of light, we mean that you are travelling close to the speed of light relative to us. If you don't look out the window of your spaceship, you will have no way of knowing how fast you are going. Or rather, you know exactly how fast you are going: you are standing still, and it is the Earth that is moving.
So what does happen, then? You have to understand that time is a dimension. The key feature of the dimensions of space is that there is a transformation--rotation--that transforms one axis of the coordinate system into another. Let's say I have a ruler lying along the x-axis. It has a certain size in the x direction, say 1 meter, and very small size in the y-direction. If I pick a different point of view, by rotating my coordinate system slightly, the x length becomes shorter by a factor equal to the cosine of the angle of rotation, and the y length becomes longer by 1 meter times the sine of the angle. In other words, some of the x size has transformed into y size. Simple.
In the case of time, there is a different transformation that does this: the Lorentz transformation. Instead of turning by a certain angle, different points of view are generated by changing relative velocity. The greater the relative velocity, the shorter the moving object appears, just as our rotated ruler became shorter in the x-direction (this is called Lorentz contraction). At the same time, the time between events--such as the ticks of a clock--becomes longer, just as our ruler became longer in the y-direction (this is called time dilation).
So how does this affect the addition of velocities? Let's suppose you really get cooking in your ship, so that you're only 10 meters per second shy of the speed of light, as viewed from Earth. On board you have a high-powered rifle, which you will fire in your direction of travel. What do you see, and what do we see from Earth?
You see the bullet fly forward at 1000 meters per second, as if your ship were standing still. As far as you're concerned, your ship is standing still. We see something different. Time is moving more slowly on your ship...by a factor of more than 22 million! If we wait long enough, we might see the bullet creep forward by a tiny fraction of an inch with respect to your ship. It may be going ever so slightly faster than your ship, but it certainly isn't going faster than light with respect to us.
Another problem. If nothing can travel faster than light. What about the case of an observer who observes a vehicle traveling toward his left ear at say .9 light speed. And a second vehicle traveling toward his right ear at .9 light. Then aren't the two vehicles traveling at something greater than light speed relative to each other? Einstien groopies say that there is some wierd math that proves that I might observe this condition, but that the two vehicles would observe each other traveling at less than light.
That's exactly right, except that the math isn't weird. In fact, it's accessible to anyone who's had middle school algebra. Each vehicle sees the other closing at a velocity of v1+v2/(1+v1v2/c²)=0.9945 c.
Ok. And I've got a bridge to sell you.
You're hardly in a position to reject it out of hand when you've refused to look into the math (which really is simple). But that's beside the point: all of these claims are experimentally testable. And believe me, they have been tested more thoroughly than you would ever imagine. Nobody has taken Einstein's word for it: clocks really do slow down and lengths really do shrink, to exactly the extent predicted by Einstein.
It has answers to your questions.
Plenty of normal people disagree with me. As Winston Churchill may or may not have said, a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. That would seem to describe most "creationists" I've run into rather well.
Concentration of dissolved solids in rivers x flow of rivers x billions of years - salt deposits = saturation
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
No way. NASA was shocked to find rings around Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune, because they were not thought to be stable.
And they've since modified theories of ring stability to fit the available evidence. That's the way science works.
Come on. It doesn't exist. Neither does the Oort Cloud. They were both theorized to try to explain where comets come from, but there's no evidence they exist. Deus ex machina. Right, Physicist?
I'm not a physicist. I'm a political philosopher and a lawyer, by training. But I do know that the Kuiper Belt exists. Many Kuiper belt objects, including 1992 QB1, 1993 SC and 1998 WWB1 have been photographed.
Name one.
Clepsydrops. Ok, you happy?
You apparently speak for "Science"
I speak for no one but myself. I don't profess to have any special scientific training, but I'd like to think I can address facts put before me in a logical manner.
I'm just glad you have "no problem" with us poor souls who believe in such "bunk" as the Bible.
I don't. You can believe the earth is flat for all I care. Just don't try to impose your cults on others.
Come on, June. I've been there before. Mostly non-answers. I can refer you to FAQs too.
Not necessarily true. "Shepherd satellites" can maintain rings for many 100s of millions of years. NASA was more delighted than "shocked" because the rings hadn't been observed and nobody anticipated them. In fact, their presence cleared up the long standing puzzle over why only Saturn had rings.
It (the Kuiper Belt) doesn't exist. Neither does the Oort Cloud. They were both theorized to try to explain where comets come from, but there's no evidence they exist.
There's plenty of evidence for the Kuiper Belt -- Kuiper hypothesized it on the basis of patterns in hundreds of comet orbits. Over the past 10 years or so dozens if not hundreds of Kuiper objects have been observed and catalogued. The Oort Cloud is another matter, but it's a good hypothesis in that it explains several observations without contradicting physical law.
Not necessarily true. "Shepherd satellites" can maintain rings for many 100s of millions of years. NASA was more delighted than "shocked" because the rings hadn't been observed and nobody anticipated them. In fact, their presence cleared up the long standing puzzle over why only Saturn had rings.
It (the Kuiper Belt) doesn't exist. Neither does the Oort Cloud. They were both theorized to try to explain where comets come from, but there's no evidence they exist.
There's plenty of evidence for the Kuiper Belt -- Kuiper hypothesized it on the basis of patterns in hundreds of comet orbits. Over the past 10 years or so dozens if not hundreds of Kuiper objects have been observed and catalogued. The Oort Cloud is another matter, but it's a good hypothesis in that it explains several observations without contradicting physical law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.