Age of solar system on the premises of the Bible

a reply to: nonspecific

It would make a FANTASTIC fiction novel or movie if you developed it, but frankly Genesis doesn't gel up. Plus you'd need alignment in other cultures' origin stories too. The Hebrews weren't the first people on the planet so if they witnessed something like you suggest then surely the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians, The Babylonians, the Hindus, and the Chinese all witnessed something too. So there would have to be a great amount of overlap in the creation stories of all these different peoples. And creation stories tend to be the most varied among each culture. The reason people think a great regional flood (just not a world covering one) actually happened in the ancient world is because all the different cultures wrote about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

See Keplar's laws aren't opinions. They are mathematical expressions that definitively describe how the celestial objects behave as they orbit the sun. I don't need to wait for your god to do anything because those equations aren't going to magically change. Keplar analyzed and deduced them back in the 1600's and they've held true ever since. It reasons they'll hold true well after I'm dead too.

Are you saying that the laws that govern this existence have not changed since this existence came to exist?
Or did this existence ever come into existence? Were we in a time frame before we are now in a time frame and if we were then what was that time frame? Science and math? What a joke.

In the late 19th century geologists insisted [by evidence and mathematics] that the world was about 100 million years old.
Today the geologists declare [by evidence and mathematics] that the world is about 4.55 billion years old.

quote
In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.
unquote

Tell me, if you will, Kepler was also a mathematician as well as an astronomer and astrologer; Which math would he have used as a German? Some science is true but not all science is true. Most all today is whatever the grants tell you what to believe.

So what is new here? I wonder what Kepler used? Well so much for your change. Who knows how much changed in 4.55 billion years. That is if there ever was a 4.55 billion years.

So you believe that there is zero friction in space? No drag whatsoever? And you have scientific evidence to make that statement? Wow -----------

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Are you saying that the laws that govern this existence have not changed since this existence came to exist?
Or did this existence ever come into existence? Were we in a time frame before we are now in a time frame and if we were then what was that time frame? Science and math? What a joke.

As far as we've observed laws remain consistent throughout time and we've observed all the way back to seconds after the big bang thanks to the Cosmic Neutrino Background. Though it's funny you think that science and math are jokes because they don't say what you want them to say.

In the late 19th century geologists insisted [by evidence and mathematics] that the world was about 100 million years old.
Today the geologists declare [by evidence and mathematics] that the world is about 4.55 billion years old.

So? Admitting when you were wrong and correcting your answers to be more accurate is a good thing.

quote
In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.
unquote

Tell me, if you will, Kepler was also a mathematician as well as an astronomer and astrologer; Which math would he have used as a German? Some science is true but not all science is true. Most all today is whatever the grants tell you what to believe.

Do you not know what a scientific law is and why it isn't the same as a scientific theory?

So what is new here? I wonder what Kepler used? Well so much for your change. Who knows how much changed in 4.55 billion years. That is if there ever was a 4.55 billion years.

So you believe that there is zero friction in space? No drag whatsoever? And you have scientific evidence to make that statement? Wow -----------

Seeing as how proving a negative is impossible, how about you prove that there is enough friction in space to cause orbital decay that slows down the orbits of the bodies around the sun? You are the one making all the outlandish claims. Well prove them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

hint..... the Genesis account, with all that linear lines of thought, which 'we' confound as clues to the liner mind-of-God... is that Creator speaking to us like young parents talk to new-born's... the old go-goo & da-da & ikky-wikky jargon

God is enmeshed in the Past-Present-Future ALL at-the-same moment, & when it is stated the Earth was without form & void it is meaning the Earth as a Globe is still a non-condensed cloud of molecules & elements that is forming into a proto-planet that is distinct from the mostly hydrogen Sun... the majority of heavy metals had to have been separated from the Sun's material or else The Sun would not be a White Dwarf Star.... the Earth and all the inner rocky planets had to have accreted before the leftover materials condensed enough for the Sun to ignite,,, So The Earth was created before the Sun gave off Its' Light

only the Creator God's eyes 'seen' the Earth and created IT, while it was still just a cloud of sub-atomic Quanta which then evolved into physical material/matter.... same with 'Light'...before Photons eventually became atomic particles

the notion that the Deity Day is as 1,000 man years, might have been 50 generations of men is the length-of-a-yawn/or else/one short work-shift in God's reality

God is not of or in this Time-Space we call a 14.55 BY old universe...
when he does step on the Earth at the 2nd coming, the two forces (God as Jesus & Jerusalem-of-Earth) meeting together will cause an enormous and violent Plasma storm as a result. (matter-antimatter ??)

Besides... all your OP mathematics need to be revised to account for the creation period of a 'day' was only the period of the greater light the other 12 hours of the lesser light was resting period from creation... so your calculations are incorrect by that 50%...

so instead of a Week... the creation was accomplished in 6 ea. 1/2 days not 24 hour days... at least to my reckoning

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So? Admitting when you were wrong and correcting your answers to be more accurate is a good thing.

My point exactly. By your own keyboard you say that Kepler laws were law and still are today. How can that be when Kepler lived in the sixteenth century and used math like the " British English billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000)?"

Kepler was a mathematician and his math was so flawed that it borders upon being ridiculous. Common sense tells me that if his laws were based upon a difference of thousand million to a million million and you still accept those laws based on that type of math, then science is in big trouble. No wonder God laughs at you guys.

originally posted by: [post=22829079]Seede]
No wonder God laughs at you guys.

It must be amazing to be so close to your god that you know exactly what's he's (she's?) thinking! It's almost as if your imaginary friend only exists inside your mind!

But, putting that aside, Kepler wasn't British, so his measurements weren't bound by British conventions.

originally posted by: [post=22829079]Seede]
Common sense tells me...

I'm pretty sure common sense alludes you, in favour of religious fervour, based on your posts.

a reply to: Seede

Ok... If Keplar's math is flawed then show me how. Give me some calculations that prove that Keplar's math was wrong.

I'll get you started and list the three laws and their equations for you (Source):
First Law

The orbit of every planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.

Here is the formula for an ellipse: r = p / (1 + e * cos(theta))
r is the radius
p is perimeter
e is actually epsilon and is the eccintricity of the ellipse

Second Law

A line joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.[1]

Here is the formula for the constant areal velocity: dA / dt = 1/2 r^2 * dTheta / dt
all the d's in that equation represent derivatives of that variable btw.

Third Law

The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

The formula is as follows:
P^2/a^3 = 4pi^2/(G(M + m)

I look forward to how you disprove these equations that form the basis of most astronomy.

a reply to: Seede

i assumes we are reffering to kepplers 3rd law here ?

the below is only valid - if thje above is correct

whhat utter bollox

your ignorance of mathematics is so astounding - i laugh at you and your imaginary friend

it does not matter if the brittish billion or america billion is used - as long as the same one is used for both R & T

hey - heres a hhint - using numbers that even you SHOULD be able to grasp :

the relation ship between :

5 and 50 is the same as the relationship between 50 and 500

kepplers 3rd law is a ratio - it does not matter if american or bittish billions are used - as long as both numbers use the same convention


ETA - as you are claiming that kepplers maths is wrong - demonstrate it

a reply to: MarsIsRed

But, putting that aside, Kepler wasn't British, so his measurements weren't bound by British conventions.

I did not say that Kepler was British and I did not say he was American so perhaps you can tell us exactly what the universal mathematics was used in 1600 AD? It most certainly was not the same as used in 1900 BC nor was it the same as being used today. So in that lite of that you can't simply put that aside as you wish. Not with the discrepancy as is shown in my post above.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I look forward to how you disprove these equations that form the basis of most astronomy.

I am not impressed at all in your book material and do not believe you even understand Kepler's three laws.

In the first place Kepler was fully employed by the great mathematician Tycho Brahe [1546-1601 AD] who was not German but was Danish. It was Tycho's work that Kepler inherited and continued in 1601. From this, Kepler was accredited the work of Tycho and developed the the three planetary laws based upon the work of Tycho. From there the work was then refined by Sir Isaac Newton [1642-1727] who was neither Danish or German but was English.

All of this diversion is not needed in our original posts of zero drag or friction affecting heavenly bodies. Neither Tycho, Kepler or Newton enters into this. All you have to do is google NASA and that will give you the answer as to their belief that the rotation of heavenly bodies do change due to drag or friction and that the world has drastically slowed from its creation. What I believe from true science is that the earth has slowed near to 50 percent from its inception.

What that inception is, I do not know and you do not know and neither Tycho or Kepler or Newton actually knew. Kepler and Newton both believed in the God of Abram and were not atheists.

a reply to: Seede

Lol. Nice cop out. Just blanket say I don't understand the topic while you contribute zero knowledge to the discussion that shows why I wouldn't understand the equations. No man, if you want to show I don't understand them then you need to explain why. Giving Keplar's history with Tycho doesn't magically mean his equations aren't sound.

Not that I was expecting anything. I doubt you even understand what those equations say or mean.

All of this diversion is not needed in our original posts of zero drag or friction affecting heavenly bodies. Neither Tycho, Kepler or Newton enters into this. All you have to do is google NASA and that will give you the answer as to their belief that the rotation of heavenly bodies do change due to drag or friction and that the world has drastically slowed from its creation. What I believe from true science is that the earth has slowed near to 50 percent from its inception.

PROVE IT! Prove something already! You do tons of talking yet produce no evidence or backing for anything you say. Plus, based on your demonstrated tenuous grasp on Science I don't believe you for a second. Produce some documentation backing up your claims so I can read it and see if you talking out your ass or not.

I ESPECIALLY want to see proof that the bolded is true. "Belief" in science is backed by evidence. If you believe something is true then you should be able to demonstrate why you believe it. So do it already.

What that inception is, I do not know and you do not know and neither Tycho or Kepler or Newton actually knew. Kepler and Newton both believed in the God of Abram and were not atheists.

This means absolutely nothing. Just because they believed in god doesn't make you correct.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

it does not matter if the brittish billion or america billion is used - as long as the same one is used for both R & T

You have no idea of what you have just written.

the relation ship between : 5 and 50 is the same as the relationship between 50 and 500 kepplers 3rd law is a ratio - it does not matter if american or bittish billions are used - as long as both numbers use the same convention ETA - as you are claiming that kepplers maths is wrong - demonstrate it

You do not make any sense at all. Kepler fashioned his math in 1601 AD of the British understanding one million million equals one billion. That differs from the American understanding in 1601 of one thousand million equals one billion.
Now I can see that there is a difference of one thousand thousands to a million between British and American mathematicians. That is not comparative math value by any means. Maybe that is why the Brits adopted the American math? Comparatively numerology and value are two aspects of the same subject but not necessarily the same solution. Now look at 1,000 million to 1,000,000 million and show me what that ratio is comparative to? Not value, that is for sure.

You have a plot of land that is 1,000 square feet and another plot of land that is 1,000,000 square feet. Regardless of ratio you have one plot of land that is one thousand thousand times larger than the other. I can see that you would not be in business very long thinking the way you think. As you can see math was not accepted as the same value by all people and it still is not accepted today by all people. By the way, how did America score in world math? Got any idea?
PSI results of 2015 -----
U.S.A. -- Math = == 38 out of 71 nations -- Wow ----
U.S.A. -- Science = 24 out of 71 nations

Maybe go back to the old books?

The cubit is a very good example. The royal cubit is vastly different than the common cubit and the cubit is nothing but a method of measure and not a value. The cubit changes with cultures and probably always will in the future. Basic arithmetic and geometry are also means of measure but are vastly different approaches to astronomy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

PROVE IT! Prove something already! You do tons of talking yet produce no evidence or backing for anything you say. Plus, based on your demonstrated tenuous grasp on Science I don't believe you for a second. Produce some documentation backing up your claims so I can read it and see if you talking out your ass or not. I ESPECIALLY want to see proof that the bolded is true. "Belief" in science is backed by evidence. If you believe something is true then you should be able to demonstrate why you believe it. So do it already.

You have not only trouble with your temper but also in understanding what you read.

quote
Four billion years ago, the day was only about seven hours long!
unquote
eclipse2017.nasa.gov...

Now that is evidence according to ?? But is it proof ?? Get real and get your head out of the sand. You need a new set of books.

originally posted by: Seede
You have not only trouble with your temper but also in understanding what you read.

My temper is fine. We don't need a whole side argument about it. Just stay on topic.

quote
Four billion years ago, the day was only about seven hours long!
unquote
eclipse2017.nasa.gov...

Now that is evidence according to ?? But is it proof ?? Get real and get your head out of the sand. You need a new set of books.

So what happened to your friction in space argument? Couldn't prove that so you found an example of a law of conservation of angular momentum that currently only applies to our planet. So you proved that Earth's orbit is decaying thanks to the moon moving away from it but this doesn't show that friction exists in large quantities in the solar system causing orbital decay. The moon is moving away from the Earth because it was originally PART of the earth and go knocked away when a giant object collided into the planet billions of years ago. In other words you just moved the goal posts back.

Also, I'm still waiting for you to debunk Keplar's Laws.

a reply to: Seede

FFS - my post makes perfect sense - unless you are an idiot

your inability to comphreend basic mathematics = your problem not mine

the numbers keppler used are the same numbner - wether you use UB or bittish notions of " billion "

ie - the pupulation of china = 4.629 times the size of the population of the USA

it does not make a difference if you think that the pupilation of china = 1.379 billion [ US ] or 1379 thousand million

its still 1379 000 000

which is 4.629 times greater than

323 000 000

thats ratios for you - it doesnt matter wether aUS or bittish billions are used - its the same number


PS - is this " objection " to keppler - your own idea - or something you plaigerised from a creationist idiot ?

we are still waiting for your reasons that keppler is wrong

a reply to: ignorant_ape

Seede seems to think that calculations performed 400 years ago would some how become less accurate over time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

a reply to: ignorant_ape Seede seems to think that calculations performed 400 years ago would some how become less accurate over time.

Once again there was no mention that calculations of 400 years ago becomes less accurate over time. The subject matter was that Kepler's work that he took from Tycho in 1601 was not accurate and was corrected by Newton in the mid 1600's.
That does not diminish Kepler or his contribution to astronomy or astrology. He simply was not correct with his limited knowledge. Newton corrected his work and that is what you call Kepler's three basic laws.

So what happened to your friction in space argument? Couldn't prove that so you found an example of a law of conservation of angular momentum that currently only applies to our planet. So you proved that Earth's orbit is decaying thanks to the moon moving away from it but this doesn't show that friction exists in large quantities in the solar system causing orbital decay. The moon is moving away from the Earth because it was originally PART of the earth and go knocked away when a giant object collided into the planet billions of years ago. In other words you just moved the goal posts back.

Drag or friction is called resistance is it not? I believe I answered your request as to show where I get that the rotation of the world was 50% faster four billion years ago. That is what you demanded. Now if you have a moon problem with that then take it up with NASA. Regardless of your excuses, NASA claims that four billion years ago a day was but seven of our hours today. That means that the world rotated faster four billion years ago or that someones math is really screwed up.

Whether I believe that or not is not the issue here. The science of U.S.A. through NASA declared that figure and put it in a book so that guys like you will buy that book and swear it is fact. Not my problem at all. Talk to the people who dream this stuff up and sell it to you.

a reply to: ignorant_ape

your inability to comphreend basic mathematics = your problem not mine

I had never said that Kepler used either American or British math. That is you jumping to your own conclusions. Go back and reread the post. Kepler was not correct in his math in his work from 1601 ad.. That work was corrected by Newton. Now if you want to believe that in 1601 a British count of a million million equals one billion while an American count of one thousand millions equal a billion and both are equal in count, then I have no more to say. If you believe that then it must be correct to you. The British had no reason to correct their system according to you. They just changed their system to be on our page?? Right? Wow -----------

quote
In British English, a billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English.
unquote

a reply to: Seede

thankyou - for revealing your evasiveness and dishonesty :

i shall now quote you :

Kepler lived in the sixteenth century and used math like the " British English billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000)?"

you just contradicted your own lie :

I had never said that Kepler used either American or British math.

and again - thhe current population of china = :

1379 000 000

there are still the same number of chinese citizens whether you use a convention that says :

1 379 thousand million

or 1.379 billion

you are now playing the semantics game - and ignoring the actual mathematics

while this does not surprise me - it does demonstrate that you hhave nothing to offer

we are done

a reply to: ignorant_ape

thankyou - for revealing your evasiveness and dishonesty : i shall now quote you :

Kepler dd not use either American or British math. Kepler used German math as he was German and not American or British.

His equivalent in understanding of a billion was likened to the British of one million million to a billion and not the American of one thousand million to a billion.

As I had said -----------
quote
Kepler lived in the sixteenth century and used math like the " British English billion used to be equivalent to a million million (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000), while in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000)?"
unquote

You should learn how to read with clarity. No wonder you have such confusion.