It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stereologist
So this is from the first creation myth in Genesis.
You have to read verse 1. As a title.
I see you didn't waste time putting your own spin on things.
Verse 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
It says that's step 1 of the recipe.
Verse 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
That's step 2 of the recipe.
OK. So now it is clear that the earth was created at the outset. By verse 2 we have an earth. Doesn't matter if the rest of the words are hard to understand like the Spirit of God concept. There is an earth.
So how come the earth is not the same age as the universe? How come the earth is 4.6 billion years old and the universe is like 13 billion years old? You know it's all science.
The 4.6 billion years you believe in. Ain't more accurate than when Moses says, A day is like a 1000 years.
If you knew what i was talking about you would understand earths age.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
The 4.6 billion years you believe in. Ain't more accurate than when Moses says, A day is like a 1000 years.
I guess you don't follow science.
You go on by claiming cause and effect which is not stated in Genesis. This is where you claim verse 2 causes verse 3.
Then you claim that time begins with verse 5. Light begins in verse 4. Why can't there be time in verse 5? It seems rather explicitly written.
If you knew what i was talking about you would understand earths age.
So is this your stance, an inability to express a consistent idea?
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
Your cause=movement claim I will simply say is wrong. Causality is not shown here. At best it is a coincidence.
Must light be emitted from a source? The big bang says that the early universe had photons but no so-called source. You also claim that time starts with light? Why do you claim that? (see questions below). Comparing light and infinite is an invalid comparison.
And dude that is not science. This is your speculation and a poor one at that. So let me ask you a few questions about your speculation.
If time is caused by light is there time in the dark?
If time is caused by light does time slow down or stop at absolute zero?
Why is there more than 1 type of infinite?
The firmament is heaven, i.e. verse 8, the second day. How can light be from the firmament if light came on day 1 and no firmament till day 2?
BTW, I am trying to simplify this for you.
If time is caused by light is there time in the dark?
If time is caused by light does time slow down or stop at absolute zero?
Why is there more than 1 type of infinite?
Originally posted by stereologist
Just because we measure time using something does not mean that time is affected by the means of measurement. A lack of measurement does not mean that something exists or does not exist. There was matter there before light. It says so in verse 1. There is nothing in the bible about anything other than light.
You are clearly making things up as you go along. You lack understanding if you think that the question about absolute zero answers the other question. Thinking is required.
Don't you see the problem you've created for yourself? You are using a fallacious argument called arguing from ignorance. Your claim is that because you don't know how to do something then it must be wrong.
I must point out to you that absolute zero is not a dimension of absolute zero. Light is not a dimension. Furthermore to compare is to measure is wrong as well.
I think you need to look up Cantor and learn that there is more than 1 type of infinity.
You haven't answered any questions. The reason is simple. You do not understand the material you are posting.
A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
It's abundantly clear that you have no knowledge of anything you are posting. Clueless comes to mind. You understand none of this material. No surprise. I'm hoping you'll learn some basics out of this discussion.
A dimension does not produce light.
Absolute zero has nothing to do with dimensions.
"Can a dimension of absolute zero produce light?" That's a meaning less question.
"Will a dimension of absolute zero have time? " Another meaningless statement.
I think the confusion here is that I asked about absolute zero. Apparently, you do not know what this is.
A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.
This is your conjecture that you take axiomatically. Do you have any evidence for this?
A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.
This is your conjecture that you take axiomatically. Do you have any evidence for this?
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
It's abundantly clear that you have no knowledge of anything you are posting. Clueless comes to mind. You understand none of this material. No surprise. I'm hoping you'll learn some basics out of this discussion.
A dimension does not produce light.
Absolute zero has nothing to do with dimensions.
"Can a dimension of absolute zero produce light?" That's a meaning less question.
"Will a dimension of absolute zero have time? " Another meaningless statement.
I think the confusion here is that I asked about absolute zero. Apparently, you do not know what this is.
A dimension that has finite matter and energies will have time. But a infinite dimension can not.
This is your conjecture that you take axiomatically. Do you have any evidence for this?
Absolute Zero
Absolute zero is the theoretical temperature at which entropy would reach its minimum value.
Originally posted by stereologist
A dimension does not produce light. Go learn something - please. Your logic is a mess. You again show how you know only how to exhibit foolishness.
You have done no math. Show me the math. You wrote, "Do i really have to?" The answer is yes. You should. Don't try to weasel out. Show me the math.
Originally posted by stereologist
Spy is making a direct connection to time and emitted energy. If no energy can be emitted does that affect time is my question. I say no. If that is the case then time is not necessarily connected to the ability to emit energy.
Light travels in a straight line. That is 1 dimension. The source of the light is not the dimension.
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by spy66
Matter is not a dimension. Light is not a dimension.
A dimension is an axis along which positions are specified. Points of a space are mapped to a set of scalars that describe each point. The minimum number of scalars required defines what is known as the dimension of the space.
Light is one dimension within emitted energy.
Energy and matter are dimensions of finite.