[_ Old Earth _] Gen 1 Defies Physics Laws

[Guest]

[
This is vague and unclear. As I said, when you post, make sure that you provide the details.

That is as much, more or less as we need to know about the different light of the different past. The only issue is, was the universe the same, and will it be in the future, or, are there different heavens, as the bible indicates? In that different state, light gets around at spiritual speeds.
Here, it exists as slow light. Not knowing yet every thing about heaven does not mean it is not real. Likeiwise, not knowing great details beyond out physical temporary state universe is nothing more than a reflection of our limitations.

Well, here it exists as "slow light" and "slow light" takes 50k years to travel 50k light years. So we see the light, therefore it must have traveled 50k years, it's simple math!

 

[dad]

Well, here it exists as "slow light" and "slow light" takes 50k years to travel 50k light years.

No, only the slow light exists. The former light existed. Yes the speed of our light is known. So?

So we see the light, therefore it must have traveled 50k years, it's simple math!

We see the present light, it was the former light that got here fast. Our state light simply kept coming the best it knew how, in the form it found itself in. It cannot be used to measure light travel speed in the past.

 

[Guest]

Well, here it exists as "slow light" and "slow light" takes 50k years to travel 50k light years.

No, only the slow light exists. The former light existed. Yes the speed of our light is known. So?
I don't see where in that sentence I claim that "fast light" exists or "slow light" exists, so I don't know why you're arguing the existence there, it has nothing to do with what I wrote. And yes, the speed of light is known so see below why that's important.

So we see the light, therefore it must have traveled 50k years, it's simple math!

We see the present light, it was the former light that got here fast. Our state light simply kept coming the best it knew how, in the form it found itself in. It cannot be used to measure light travel speed in the past.

OK, as you self-admitted the "speed of our light is known", you also admitted that it takes 50k years to travel 50k light years (nothing to admit there, that's just simple math), and you also say that "the split" happened 4400 years ago. By simple math, we assume that for a moment you are correct and "our light" came to exist 4400 years ago, therefore we would not see stars at 50k light years distance because they would need another 45600 years to get here... This is simple math! It doesn't matter if light is coming "as best as it could", because the best it could is a fixed number which according to you has been the same for 4400 years.

This is really simple math stuff, "current light" came to exist 4400 years ago, any objects emitting current light would not be visible unless they are close than 4400 light years. The "past light" is not relevant AT ALL, it has nothing to do with what stars we're seeing NOW! Again, I'm recycling the same thing, trying to put it in as simple terms as I can, and you still fail to understand. I don't know why this is so difficult for you? What is so difficult to comprehend in the simple math that I'm showing you?

 

[dad]

OK, as you self-admitted the "speed of our light is known", you also admitted that it takes 50k years to travel 50k light years (nothing to admit there, that's just simple math), and you also say that "the split" happened 4400 years ago. By simple math, we assume that for a moment you are correct and "our light" came to exist 4400 years ago, therefore we would not see stars at 50k light years distance because they would need another 45600 years to get here...

The stars were not created at the split, they were created at creation. The light of the former state universe was already getting here, and had for many many centuries. Our light that hits us here from far stars never started out from any of the stars as our light. As the universe changed, the former light also changed. Naturally.


Now if you can't get that, I will suspect you are being trollish.

 

[Guest]

OK, as you self-admitted the "speed of our light is known", you also admitted that it takes 50k years to travel 50k light years (nothing to admit there, that's just simple math), and you also say that "the split" happened 4400 years ago. By simple math, we assume that for a moment you are correct and "our light" came to exist 4400 years ago, therefore we would not see stars at 50k light years distance because they would need another 45600 years to get here...

The stars were not created at the split, they were created at creation. The light of the former state universe was already getting here, and had for many many centuries. Our light that hits us here from far stars never started out from any of the stars as our light. As the universe changed, the former light also changed. Naturally.


Now if you can't get that, I will suspect you are being trollish.

First of don't call me trollish, because no sane person would ever agree with you. Second, there is a gap in your theory.
The gap in your theory is that you assume that the light that hits us now was not emitted in its current state, but it was emitted in the "past state". The problem is that the "fast light" traveled instantaneously, which means that at the moment of the "split" the light would have been here already. So the stars would have to emit "slow light" in order to be seen again, because the "fast light" has reached its destination already.

Every time I show you gaps in your theory you have to modify it so it "fits", well you've done plenty of modifications, showing that you don't know what you're talking about and that your theory is a hoax.

 

[dad]

.
The gap in your theory is that you assume that the light that hits us now was not emitted in its current state, but it was emitted in the "past state". The problem is that the "fast light" traveled instantaneously, which means that at the moment of the "split" the light would have been here already. So the stars would have to emit "slow light" in order to be seen again, because the "fast light" has reached its destination already.

No. Since all the light was changed, that means far away light as well. There was no need to be seen "again" because the light kept coming, first in the former state, then, in this state universe. No gaps anywhere except as usual in your understanding.

Every time I show you gaps in your theory you have to modify it so it "fits", well you've done plenty of modifications, showing that you don't know what you're talking about and that your theory is a hoax.

That would be never. The gaps are where I explained they are, in your understanding of what was said. Before you can know what you are talking about, you need to get some sort of handle on what it is you are supposed to be knowing.

 

[Guest]

.
The gap in your theory is that you assume that the light that hits us now was not emitted in its current state, but it was emitted in the "past state". The problem is that the "fast light" traveled instantaneously, which means that at the moment of the "split" the light would have been here already. So the stars would have to emit "slow light" in order to be seen again, because the "fast light" has reached its destination already.

No. Since all the light was changed, that means far away light as well. There was no need to be seen "again" because the light kept coming, first in the former state, then, in this state universe. No gaps anywhere except as usual in your understanding.

Every time I show you gaps in your theory you have to modify it so it "fits", well you've done plenty of modifications, showing that you don't know what you're talking about and that your theory is a hoax.

That would be never. The gaps are where I explained they are, in your understanding of what was said. Before you can know what you are talking about, you need to get some sort of handle on what it is you are supposed to be knowing.

Perhaps there are "gaps in my understanding", because there are gaps in your explanations. The biggest of issues come from the fact that light traveled infinitely fast, which would yield an immediate transportation of light from the source to Earth, even if the source is billions of light years away- I'm talking about the so called "fast light" now. At the time of the split there would have been a moment where fast light must have "slowed down", which you rejected in previous statements, but in that moment you say that the "past light" was simply replaced by the current light. The high speed of light would yield this: at the moment of the split all of the "fast light" in the universe would be wiped out, it technically never traveled, since it was so fast.

To expand on this hypothetical event, we look at what should logically happen next. The state of the universe changes: the natural cannot exist in the supernatural, therefore light "as we know it" comes to exist, but since the "current universe" is in place, "our light" needs a source. The source is 50k light years away, thus light needs to travel 50k years.

If you assume that "our light" came to exist before the "split", that is at the moment when we had a "supernatural universe", then you are contradicting yourself... it's that simple.

Once we get that stuff out cleared up, then we can move on to bigger and better things, such as the proof of all of this nonsense.

 

[dad]

Perhaps there are "gaps in my understanding", because there are gaps in your explanations.

We shall see.

The biggest of issues come from the fact that light traveled infinitely fast, which would yield an immediate transportation of light from the source to Earth, even if the source is billions of light years away-

I am with you so far (except maybe it took days, or some such, so maybe not immediate)

I'm talking about the so called "fast light" now.

Doesn't exist in man's universe.

At the time of the split there would have been a moment where fast light must have "slowed down", which you rejected in previous statements, but in that moment you say that the "past light" was simply replaced by the current light.

What I reject is that 'light slowed down'. That means our light was faster. No. That is impossible, as science I think, knows. The universe and light were so different that only referring to them as different light, or former light is appropriate, despite the fact that a bit of the former remains in some form or other.

The high speed of light would yield this: at the moment of the split all of the "fast light" in the universe would be wiped out, it technically never traveled, since it was so fast.

False. Who says the process took a moment?? Maybe it was a week, or weeks, etc. Also, who says that the process was homogenious? -That it happened everywhere in the universe at once? Were some areas first changed, and it took while to be universal? And I already pointed out that it may have taken some time to get here as well. It was replaced.

To expand on this hypothetical event, we look at what should logically happen next. The state of the universe changes: the natural cannot exist in the supernatural, therefore light "as we know it" comes to exist, but since the "current universe" is in place, "our light" needs a source. The source is 50k light years away, thus light needs to travel 50k years.

The source was also from the star for the former light. Same creation, different state!

If you assume that "our light" came to exist before the "split", that is at the moment when we had a "supernatural universe", then you are contradicting yourself... it's that simple.

No, I don't. Our light is a part of this temporary universe fabric.

Once we get that stuff out cleared up, then we can move on to bigger and better things, such as the proof of all of this nonsense.

Hopefully it is clear.

 

[Guest]

The high speed of light would yield this: at the moment of the split all of the "fast light" in the universe would be wiped out, it technically never traveled, since it was so fast.

False. Who says the process took a moment?? Maybe it was a week, or weeks, etc. Also, who says that the process was homogenious? -That it happened everywhere in the universe at once? Were some areas first changed, and it took while to be universal? And I already pointed out that it may have taken some time to get here as well. It was replaced.

That's pure speculation... you don't know how long this "process" took or what the process was. You are simply cooking it to suite your taste, this is contradictory, because so far you have suggested that the natural and the supernatural did NOT coexist. You seemed to describe a pretty distinct separation between the two, and you seemed to suggest that there was a "moment" where the "past universe" switched to the "current one"... It seems that you would be contradicting your other statements if you suddenly start supporting this one.

To expand on this hypothetical event, we look at what should logically happen next. The state of the universe changes: the natural cannot exist in the supernatural, therefore light "as we know it" comes to exist, but since the "current universe" is in place, "our light" needs a source. The source is 50k light years away, thus light needs to travel 50k years.

The source was also from the star for the former light. Same creation, different state!

But as I pointed out, you don't know what the process was. With the properties of both lights which you vaguely stated so far, and the type of light which the source emits has suddenly changed would really produce the above described effect.

If you assume that "our light" came to exist before the "split", that is at the moment when we had a "supernatural universe", then you are contradicting yourself... it's that simple.

No, I don't. Our light is a part of this temporary universe fabric.

But your theory "gradual" change would mean that the "temporary universe" overlapped with the "eternal universe", this is a strange suggestion and it contradicts your idea that the natural and supernatural did not co-exist (so far your arguments have suggested that they did not co-exist).

Once we get that stuff out cleared up, then we can move on to bigger and better things, such as the proof of all of this nonsense.

Hopefully it is clear.

It's definitely getting clearer, we're starting to communicate a lot clearer, which makes the discussion go a lot faster. That's all you have to do, express yourself clearly so we can get to the point.

 

[dad]

That's pure speculation... you don't know how long this "process" took or what the process was.

Neither do you.

You are simply cooking it to suite your taste, this is contradictory, because so far you have suggested that the natural and the supernatural did NOT coexist.

No, I say they used to exist together, and are now separate. Of course the spiritual still exists! But I looked at a broad spectrum of evidences, and some things require, it seems a little time. Such as the continental separation, that happened, likely, at that time.

You seemed to describe a pretty distinct separation between the two, and you seemed to suggest that there was a "moment" where the "past universe" switched to the "current one"...

Well, there was a time, in the days of Peleg. How long, I don't know. I would say let's look at the evidences, and see if anything requires a little time.

But as I pointed out, you don't know what the process was. With the properties of both lights which you vaguely stated so far, and the type of light which the source emits has suddenly changed would really produce the above described effect.

Say what??

But your theory "gradual" change would mean that the "temporary universe" overlapped with the "eternal universe", this is a strange suggestion and it contradicts your idea that the natural and supernatural did not co-exist (so far your arguments have suggested that they did not co-exist).

Well, the spirits couldn't take that long to shoo away. How much time a spiritual and physical universe took is all that needs looking at.

 

[Guest]

That's pure speculation... you don't know how long this "process" took or what the process was.

Neither do you.

So we can't argue neither point LOL... If you don't know what the "process" was, then don't speculate about it.

You are simply cooking it to suite your taste, this is contradictory, because so far you have suggested that the natural and the supernatural did NOT coexist.

No, I say they used to exist together, and are now separate. Of course the spiritual still exists! But I looked at a broad spectrum of evidences, and some things require, it seems a little time. Such as the continental separation, that happened, likely, at that time.

But you just admitted that you don't know what the "process" was, so you're still speculating on what happened, although you don't know either way.

You seemed to describe a pretty distinct separation between the two, and you seemed to suggest that there was a "moment" where the "past universe" switched to the "current one"...

Well, there was a time, in the days of Peleg. How long, I don't know. I would say let's look at the evidences, and see if anything requires a little time.

You called it a "split", that implies a sudden event... Again, it's a speculation about what happened.

[quote="dad"

But as I pointed out, you don't know what the process was. With the properties of both lights which you vaguely stated so far, and the type of light which the source emits has suddenly changed would really produce the above described effect.

Say what??[/quote]
Clarification: you described certain properties for "fast light"... The properties of the "fast light" would imply that at the moment of the "split" the light seized to exist, because it traveled so fast that it was nearly being teleported from a star billions of light years way to Earth in an instant. As I said, that kind of speed would imply that at the moment of the "split", the "past light" would literally stop shining and the "current" light would have to be emitted from the stars, because the current universe does not hold conditions which support the existence of light without a source.

But your theory "gradual" change would mean that the "temporary universe" overlapped with the "eternal universe", this is a strange suggestion and it contradicts your idea that the natural and supernatural did not co-exist (so far your arguments have suggested that they did not co-exist).

Well, the spirits couldn't take that long to shoo away. How much time a spiritual and physical universe took is all that needs looking at.

LOL , you can speculate on that... but you can't prove it. Moreover, we still have the issue of "current light" being emitted without a source, but this contradicts "present state" universe conditions which require "present light" to have a "present source"...

 

[dad]

Neither do you.

So we can't argue neither point LOL... If you don't know what the "process" was, then don't speculate about it.[/quote]
Well, we do have a time frame it has to fall within. For example, it already happened, so it had to take less than 4400 years. Then we go down the line to say, the time of Jesus, that was the same, so it had to be less than 2000 years ago. Etc. Our records only really go back to Egypt, and Sumeria. In the bible, the last mention of angels marrying man was before the split, and flood. There was the famous 120 year warning from God. So, basically we can zoom in close to the time of the days of Peleg. (and all the things, like lifespans that are different)
Then, we can look to science. How long could a rapid continental slide have taken? How long could light take to have been left as is from the former state? Etc. Oh, and how long could a planet full of flood water take to recede, by, perhaps, being carried somehow off the earth?

But you just admitted that you don't know what the "process" was, so you're still speculating on what happened, although you don't know either way.

No, I said we don't know how long it took. But, of course, we also can't know the way the eternal spiritual included state worked. But we can follow the clues enough to know that a separation of the spiritual took place, leaving the universe fabric different.

You called it a "split", that implies a sudden event... Again, it's a speculation about what happened.

Anything that affected the universe, and earth, that took minutes, hours, or days, or maybe weeks is pretty sudden.

Clarification: you described certain properties for "fast light"... The properties of the "fast light" would imply that at the moment of the "split" the light seized to exist, because it traveled so fast that it was nearly being teleported from a star billions of light years way to Earth in an instant. As I said, that kind of speed would imply that at the moment of the "split", the "past light" would literally stop shining and the "current" light would have to be emitted from the stars, because the current universe does not hold conditions which support the existence of light without a source.

No, because it was a universe change. In a short time. That means that the stream of former light, (or however it used to travel) kept coming in as a stream of present light. It never started from the star as present light. They are too far away to ever get here in 4400 years!

LOL , you can speculate on that... but you can't prove it.

Well, science can't, any more than it can prove a same state past. It does not know. I get my clues from the ancient accounts of the bible. Nothing else really has a good pre flood/split history.

Moreover, we still have the issue of "current light" being emitted without a source, but this contradicts "present state" universe conditions which require "present light" to have a "present source"...

Say what?? The source was the stars, or etc far away, for the light that was there when they were created. The same source is here for our light, but since our light and universe state can only support present light, that is the only way light can exist now.

 

[Guest]

Well, we do have a time frame it has to fall within. For example, it already happened, so it had to take less than 4400 years. Then we go down the line to say, the time of Jesus, that was the same, so it had to be less than 2000 years ago. Etc. Our records only really go back to Egypt, and Sumeria. In the bible, the last mention of angels marrying man was before the split, and flood. There was the famous 120 year warning from God. So, basically we can zoom in close to the time of the days of Peleg. (and all the things, like lifespans that are different)
Then, we can look to science. How long could a rapid continental slide have taken? How long could light take to have been left as is from the former state? Etc. Oh, and how long could a planet full of flood water take to recede, by, perhaps, being carried somehow off the earth?

Well, as I said, you can only speculate about those things... you can't use science to judge the them, because science is based on methods and evidence which so far has not supported any of the above mentioned ideas.

As I said, all you have is speculations about the "process" which occurred during the split, and those speculations cannot be proven as you admitted yourself.

But you just admitted that you don't know what the "process" was, so you're still speculating on what happened, although you don't know either way.

No, I said we don't know how long it took. But, of course, we also can't know the way the eternal spiritual included state worked. But we can follow the clues enough to know that a separation of the spiritual took place, leaving the universe fabric different.

When I said: That's pure speculation... you don't know how long this "process" took or what the process was.
You said: "Neither do you."
Confirming that you don't know either. Scientific evidence points to the contrary, so the clues are out the window.

You called it a "split", that implies a sudden event... Again, it's a speculation about what happened.

Anything that affected the universe, and earth, that took minutes, hours, or days, or maybe weeks is pretty sudden.

And you can only speculate about the length of this event...

Clarification: you described certain properties for "fast light"... The properties of the "fast light" would imply that at the moment of the "split" the light seized to exist, because it traveled so fast that it was nearly being teleported from a star billions of light years way to Earth in an instant. As I said, that kind of speed would imply that at the moment of the "split", the "past light" would literally stop shining and the "current" light would have to be emitted from the stars, because the current universe does not hold conditions which support the existence of light without a source.

No, because it was a universe change. In a short time. That means that the stream of former light, (or however it used to travel) kept coming in as a stream of present light. It never started from the star as present light. They are too far away to ever get here in 4400 years!

Exactly my point, too far away to get here in 4400 years. Again, the fundamental contradiction is that "current light" existed in a state where it did not need a source, but it can't be "current light" because the conditions in this Universe require that light has a source. You tie "current light" with "current universe", and you can't have light without a source.

LOL , you can speculate on that... but you can't prove it.

Well, science can't, any more than it can prove a same state past. It does not know. I get my clues from the ancient accounts of the bible. Nothing else really has a good pre flood/split history.

It can because it is based on consistent evidence, your arguments are based on almost no evidence, high amount of speculation and little support from the bible. Again, you admitted yourself that you can't prove it, and I am pointing out that you're only speculating.

Moreover, we still have the issue of "current light" being emitted without a source, but this contradicts "present state" universe conditions which require "present light" to have a "present source"...

Say what?? The source was the stars, or etc far away, for the light that was there when they were created. The same source is here for our light, but since our light and universe state can only support present light, that is the only way light can exist now.

According to your definitions so far, what is in the current could not apply in the "past state" so the "current light" needs "current state" conditions to exist, and the current conditions require that the light has a source... what you're saying is that in mid-cosmos the "past light" was replaced by "current light", therefore there is no physical source which emitted the "current light".

 

[dad]

Well, as I said, you can only speculate about those things... you can't use science to judge the them, because science is based on methods and evidence which so far has not supported any of the above mentioned ideas.

A same past state is not included there, so science deals in the present only. The rest is myth.

As I said, all you have is speculations about the "process" which occurred during the split, and those speculations cannot be proven as you admitted yourself.

Yes, the basic ones are a bible case. Science cannot say anything on the topic.

Confirming that you don't know either. Scientific evidence points to the contrary, so the clues are out the window.

No, science points no where of the kind! The baseless myth is all that points there. But that is out the window.

[quote:7d1ae]And you can only speculate about the length of this event...

No, I can be modest, and keep the precise times in a narrow range.

Exactly my point, too far away to get here in 4400 years. Again, the fundamental contradiction is that "current light" existed in a state where it did not need a source, but it can't be "current light" because the conditions in this Universe require that light has a source. You tie "current light" with "current universe", and you can't have light without a source.

Let's make this real clear, so you cannot possibly keep missing the point. The former light changed in transit. Our light keep transiting. The star it comes from is the source, but the light changed, as well as the universe, on the way.

It can because it is based on consistent evidence, your arguments are based on almost no evidence, high amount of speculation and little support from the bible. Again, you admitted yourself that you can't prove it, and I am pointing out that you're only speculating.

You are dreaming. There is not a tiny shred of any evidence for a same state past. The evidenced to the hilt bible, on the other hand clearly puts us in a temporary state universe.

According to your definitions so far, what is in the current could not apply in the "past state" so the "current light" needs "current state" conditions to exist, and the current conditions require that the light has a source... what you're saying is that in mid-cosmos the "past light" was replaced by "current light", therefore there is no physical source which emitted the "current light".

[/quote:7d1ae]
Since it is partially the same light, in a different universe state, it carries info from the source.

 

[Guest]

Well, as I said, you can only speculate about those things... you can't use science to judge the them, because science is based on methods and evidence which so far has not supported any of the above mentioned ideas.

A same past state is not included there, so science deals in the present only. The rest is myth.

As I said, all you have is speculations about the "process" which occurred during the split, and those speculations cannot be proven as you admitted yourself.

Yes, the basic ones are a bible case. Science cannot say anything on the topic.

As I said, you admitted that you can't prove it... you can only speculate. When I said that you can't prove it you said: "Neither can you." therefore admitting that you can't prove it either. Speculating is fruitless, but keep doing it .

Since it is partially the same light, in a different universe state, it carries info from the source.

In "this universe state" it is required that "current light" has a source, without a source you don't have light. You draw a clear distinction between current and past, and you say that observations about the current are only true for the current, therefore it is TRUE that light cannot exist without a source in its "current state" in the "current universe". I'm not speculating about the "past universe", I'm only showing what is true for the "current one".

 

[dad]

As I said, you admitted that you can't prove it... you can only speculate. When I said that you can't prove it you said: "Neither can you." therefore admitting that you can't prove it either. Speculating is fruitless, but keep doing it .

That is only true of science, it can't prove a same or different past. It is not true of the bible. That puts our universe we live in as created, and the state we now live in as temporary. It also clearly speaks of stark differences in the past that present laws cannot accommodate.
The conclusion that has been reached by most is that the bible was wrong. It is useful to point out that that conclusion is not based on science at all, in any way.

[quote:5f2b0]
In "this universe state" it is required that "current light" has a source, without a source you don't have light. You draw a clear distinction between current and past, and you say that observations about the current are only true for the current, therefore it is TRUE that light cannot exist without a source in its "current state" in the "current universe". I'm not speculating about the "past universe", I'm only showing what is true for the "current one".

[/quote:5f2b0]
The source of todays light is being leftover from the former light, which did have it's source as the far stars, etc.

 

[Guest]

The source of todays light is being leftover from the former light, which did have it's source as the far stars, etc.

That's not the kind of source that is required in order to produce current light in the current universe. The source needed to produce light in this state universe is a current state physical body (star). What you're talking about is an indirect relationship, while in this universe the relationship between light and source is DIRECT.

 

[dad]

In "this universe state" it is required that "current light" has a source, without a source you don't have light. You draw a clear distinction between current and past, and you say that observations about the current are only true for the current, therefore it is TRUE that light cannot exist without a source in its "current state" in the "current universe". I'm not speculating about the "past universe", I'm only showing what is true for the "current one".

No, not at all, you only thought it was direct. The part of the former light we see, in the state it is in now is direct, but different. It was NOT this state light that started out at the star.

 

[Guest]

In "this universe state" it is required that "current light" has a source, without a source you don't have light. You draw a clear distinction between current and past, and you say that observations about the current are only true for the current, therefore it is TRUE that light cannot exist without a source in its "current state" in the "current universe". I'm not speculating about the "past universe", I'm only showing what is true for the "current one".

No, not at all, you only thought it was direct. The part of the former light we see, in the state it is in now is direct, but different. It was NOT this state light that started out at the star.

Regardless, in the "current state" "our light" needs a source, this is true for "this state", if you argue that "our light" did not start at an actual light source (i.e. star), then you're arguing that the "current state" is not as we observe it to be .

 

[dad]

Regardless, in the "current state" "our light" needs a source, this is true for "this state", if you argue that "our light" did not start at an actual light source (i.e. star), then you're arguing that the "current state" is not as we observe it to be .

The current state is not as think you obderve it to be, no. You think that the light started off from the far star as is, in this universe state, that is only what you think you observe. What we actually observe is merely light coming in!
Unless you prove that the universe was the same, how it now comes in from the source is meaningless.