[_ Old Earth _] No Gravity pre Flood!!

[dad]

"The natural phenomenon of attraction between physical objects with mass or energy." http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitation

Thinking about it, another change in a merged universe* is gravity. There, -why would the distance between, or size of PO objects matter? There are no PO objects! Matter is spiritual and physical. As evidence of this, we simply need to look to New Jerusalem. 1500 miles high and wide and long, and it comes down to earth! It doesn't smash into it!!!!! Floats like a butterfly, and lands in a world where bees sting no more!



Earth, as the center of the universe, with no gravity as we know it! Yet, people still walk those streets of gold! We can go flying off in space if we want, but it is ordered better than gravity. Now, let's apply that to the earth in the past, before the split! We, in our physical fallen state walked like normal, no problem. But not with gravity as we now have in a physical only world!!!!!!! Wow. This gets better all the time'

Now, let's knock off the old problem of how did they build the pyramids right away! If they were built in the still merged world in the century after the flood, (or some before as well) hey, no gravity as we now have!!! How about the canopy or rings?? Piece of cake!

And, for the piece de resistance, the continental sliding--No wonder it was easy!!!!!

* Merged Universe refers to spiritual and physical togetherm rather than just the physical we now live in temporarily.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Ok.
First off, you're making a catagorical mistake. You have a definition of Physical Objects that is completely different from the one used on answers.com.

As an example of this gaffe, say you are talking to a Fleeblit and that Fleeblitese is a language that is almost entirely the same as English, except the phonetic word 'blue' means 'fish' in Fleeblit, and vice versa.
You say "The sky is a wonderful shade of blue this morning."
The Fleeblit is confused, because to him you've just said the English equivalent of "the sky is a wonderful shade of fish."

Now, time for a pop quiz:
When you said the sky is blue, did you in fact mean that the sky is an animal that swims, is cold blooded or did you mean that the sky was radiating light of a certain frequency?

How does this relate? Answers.com said "Gravity is the attraction of physical objects to each other," which you interpreted with your defninition of the term 'physical object,' which is something like 'an extended substance without any spiritual properties or components.' Answers.com was simply using a definition of 'any extended substance.'

A better definition of gravity would be: The interactive force that occurs between objects proportional to their mass and inversely proportial to the square of their distance.

Just drop this silly theo-physicality idea. It's unfounded and nonsensical.

Matter is spiritual and physical.

This is nonsensical, because you have not actually defined what properties a spiritual object has and why objects with both spiritual and physical properties are lacking in properties such as strong nuclear force and gravity. What's next, will electrons cease all movement? Will all particles cease any and all physical interaction in lieu of spiritual interaction?

but it is ordered better than gravity.

How so? How is gravity poorly ordered? What criteria are you using to define order in this manner?

Now, let's knock off the old problem of how did they build the pyramids right away!

They've already solved that problem. It took 20-35k contract workers 20 years, with health care, housing and death benefits provided.(They got nearby cemetary space) This has been solved archeologically.

 

[dad]

Ok.
First off, you're making a catagorical mistake. You have a definition of Physical Objects that is completely different from the one used on answers.com.

...Answers.com said "Gravity is the attraction of physical objects to each other," which you interpreted with your defninition of the term 'physical object,' which is something like 'an extended substance without any spiritual properties or components.' Answers.com was simply using a definition of 'any extended substance.'

No, science only deals with the natural world, as you ought to know. No metaphysical particles or any such thing. No inferance in the site you listed, or anywhere in the world of science defines matter as the state of physical and spiritual materials, or anything like that! Nothing science theorizes involves anything but the natural universe, does it?

[quote:fef51]A better definition of gravity would be: The interactive force that occurs between objects proportional to their mass and inversely proportial to the square of their distance.

That is irelevant to heaven! Objects in the new heavens coming are not subject to the operational peculularities of the former universe that passed away by then! Everything you say applies only, and strictly to the PO universe we live in now! This cannot be denied.

This is nonsensical, because you have not actually defined what properties a spiritual object has and why objects with both spiritual and physical properties are lacking in properties such as strong nuclear force and gravity. What's next, will electrons cease all movement? Will all particles cease any and all physical interaction in lieu of spiritual interaction?

All relationships are affected!
Don't think of no gravity in a merged universe as no gravity here! Think of it more of a different arrangement that made things work.
"
Exchange Forces

All four of the fundamental forces involve the exchange of one or more particles. Even the underlying color force which is presumed to hold the quarks together to make up the range of observed particles involves an exchange of particles labeled gluons. Such exchange forces may be either attractive or repulsive, but are limited in range by the nature of the exchange force. The maximum range of an exchange force is dictated by the uncertainty principle since the particles involved are created and exist only in the exchange process - they are called "virtual" particles."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.ed...s/exchg.html#c1
So, we have PO forces that hold things together, and determine the relationships to each other. If there were spiritual particles in the mix, the relationships would radically change. Doesn't mean atoms would all fly apart, or something better would not replace gravity's role in the former physical only relationships.

If we remember, the sons of god had relationships with physical girls before the split!

How so? How is gravity poorly ordered? What criteria are you using to define order in this manner?

Gravity is just fine for a physical only universe. The arrangements in the new heavens are much better.

They've already solved that problem. It took 20-35k contract workers 20 years, with health care, housing and death benefits provided.(They got nearby cemetary space) This has been solved archeologically.

[/quote:fef51]
Maybe this is right. A couple questions, though. -How do you know what the workers actually did employed, if you are right for that country? Also, where do we get the 20-35 year bit? The fact they died or had benefits doesn't matter much here.

 

[ArtGuy]

Earth, as the center of the universe, with no gravity as we know it! Yet, people still walk those streets of gold! We can go flying off in space if we want, but it is ordered better than gravity. Now, let's apply that to the earth in the past, before the split! We, in our physical fallen state walked like normal, no problem. But not with gravity as we now have in a physical only world!!!!!!! Wow. This gets better all the time.

I will give you a tasty cookie if you can find me evidence of any authority figure anywhere who holds this theory.

 

[peace4all]

No, science only deals with the natural world, as you ought to know. No metaphysical particles or any such thing. No inferance in the site you listed, or anywhere in the world of science defines matter as the state of physical and spiritual materials, or anything like that! Nothing science theorizes involves anything but the natural universe, does it?

science deals with anything that can be tested, proven, or true. something that is impossible under physics, law, and science, is then therefore, not science. Science can't explain something that doesn't exist.. (scientifically atleast)

so, you are either shooting your self in the foot if you are an ID lover in schools, or.. something.

 

[dad]

Earth, as the center of the universe, with no gravity as we know it! Yet, people still walk those streets of gold! We can go flying off in space if we want, but it is ordered better than gravity. Now, let's apply that to the earth in the past, before the split! We, in our physical fallen state walked like normal, no problem. But not with gravity as we now have in a physical only world!!!!!!! Wow. This gets better all the time.

I will give you a tasty cookie if you can find me evidence of any authority figure anywhere who holds this theory.

Show me a man living that can refute it? How would you plunk a city half the size of the USA down on earth?

 

[dad]

...
science deals with anything that can be tested, proven, or true. something that is impossible under physics, law, and science, is then therefore, not science. Science can't explain something that doesn't exist.. (scientifically atleast)

Right, as I said, it deals only with the present!!!!!! Cojnecture on a physical only past is not science, it can't go there, one way or the other. Of course heaven is not science, science is far to limited and handicapped to be able to detect the spiritual, let alone the spiritual in the past or future! It must stick in the present physical only universe, where mere physicas apply. It may not leave that box.
Christians, on the other hand have a wealth of information about both!

 

[peace4all]

Earth, as the center of the universe, with no gravity as we know it! Yet, people still walk those streets of gold! We can go flying off in space if we want, but it is ordered better than gravity. Now, let's apply that to the earth in the past, before the split! We, in our physical fallen state walked like normal, no problem. But not with gravity as we now have in a physical only world!!!!!!! Wow. This gets better all the time.

I will give you a tasty cookie if you can find me evidence of any authority figure anywhere who holds this theory.

Show me a man living that can refute it? How would you plunk a city half the size of the USA down on earth?

you don't have to explain something that didn't happen.... That is the easiest way to refute that.

 

[ArtGuy]

Show me a man living that can refute it? How would you plunk a city half the size of the USA down on earth?

So you're saying that if something can't be refuted, then it's likely to be true?

 

[dad]

....

 

[dad]

Earth, as the center of the universe, with no gravity as we know it! Yet, people still walk those streets of gold! We can go flying off in space if we want, but it is ordered better than gravity. Now, let's apply that to the earth in the past, before the split! We, in our physical fallen state walked like normal, no problem. But not with gravity as we now have in a physical only world!!!!!!! Wow. This gets better all the time.

I will give you a tasty cookie if you can find me evidence of any authority figure anywhere who holds this theory.

Show me a man living that can refute it? How would you plunk a city half the size of the USA down on earth?

you don't have to explain something that didn't happen.... That is the easiest way to refute that.

Fine, long as you want to stick to the observable present, be my guest! You want to talk past or future, you have a problem!

 

[Frost Giant]

Burden of proof.

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

So, we have PO forces that hold things together, and determine the relationships to each other. If there were spiritual particles in the mix, the relationships would radically change. Doesn't mean atoms would all fly apart, or something better would not replace gravity's role in the former physical only relationships.

If we remember, the sons of god had relationships with physical girls before the split!

I ah...wait what? What in the world do the relationships that some people had have ANYTHING to do with the three fundamental forces? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Actually since your "super-photons" can move billions of lightyears in a few thousand years WOULD cause atoms interact in a number of different ways.

momentum = h/wavelength = h*f/v and E = hf

that means that the bigger v gets the smaller momentum that a photon of some frequency has. Photons are what get interchanged when electromagnetic particles interact. What this means is that the electrorepulsive force would diminish. That force is what keeps atoms from fusing together when they come in close contact. Thus the energy required for fusion to occur would be diminshed and any star undergoing fusion would eat itself. Read instant black holes.

 

[peace4all]

sorry, but, nothing that you have been posting Dad, has been found in the bible.. anywhere. basically, you are saying that, Using the physical world today, to describe the past is impossible.

and then you are pretty much making up anything that would fit in there. However, as posted above me, It doesn't work..

If it happened how you say, How come no one else believes that? how come the bible never made ANY reference to the past being diffrent than the present? How come it isnt an invisible unicorn doing it? or just plain old magic? I mean, it can be anything right?

 

[dad]

Burden of proof.

True, if you wanted to deviate from the observable present, you bear the burden of proof.

 

[dad]

....I ah...wait what? What in the world do the relationships that some people had have ANYTHING to do with the three fundamental forces? That doesn't make any sense at all.

A very common interpretaion of 'sons of gos' is spiritual being, and the relationship of the physical and spiritual is germain to the conversation here! In the past, it was not seperate like it is now. Have you had a buddy marry a ghost?

Actually since your "super-photons" can move billions of lightyears in a few thousand years WOULD cause atoms interact in a number of different ways.

momentum = h/wavelength = h*f/v and E = hf

that means that the bigger v gets the smaller momentum that a photon of some frequency has. Photons are what get interchanged when electromagnetic particles interact. What this means is that the electrorepulsive force would diminish. That force is what keeps atoms from fusing together when they come in close contact. Thus the energy required for fusion to occur would be diminshed and any star undergoing fusion would eat itself. Read instant black holes.

No, not in any way applicible! The light that was in the merged universe was not this light. This light stayed the same since it came to be, at the split. No photon frying involved.

 

[ArtGuy]

Burden of proof.

True, if you wanted to deviate from the observable present, you bear the burden of proof.

No, if you want to provide a more complicated explanation for something you bear the burden of proof. The simplest answer, and the one supported by all current evidence, is that the laws of physics have never varied. In order to argue that they have, you need to provide some semblance of evidence.

Are you looking in your pantry right now? I'm guessing you aren't. Well, I submit that there's a rabid badger in there right this very moment. Since you're not currently in your pantry, you can't argue that he's not there. And so the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. If you go there and look and you don't see him, it just means he left. You can't prove me wrong, therefore I must be right. So neener.

 

[dad]

Burden of proof.

True, if you wanted to deviate from the observable present, you bear the burden of proof.

No, if you want to provide a more complicated explanation for something you bear the burden of proof.

Yours is the complicated one! Physics breaking down in the phantom singularity speck, life spouting from something appearing from non life, etc! Dark energy, and matter, and strange theories of what happens in a black hole, etc.
I present nothing more or less complicated for the present. It is what we see and obderve, and test, and live in as we speak. Here is where science lives! You want to fantasize the future and past as physical only but have no evidence it was or was not so!!!! All you do is have an old age belief, and interpret my good evidence with that bias!!!

The simplest answer, and the one supported by all current evidence, is that the laws of physics have never varied. In order to argue that they have, you need to provide some semblance of evidence.

No evidence supports anything but the present (from flood till after Jesus returns, is what I call the 'present')! None, zilch, not a speck, or crumb!!! If you claim the sun will burn out in the future, prove it! If you claim the past was PO, prove it! Otherwise it is belief only! Assumptions of what it 'woulda coulda shouda' been like! The simple idea, and which the christian monk would agree with (Occam), is that we are in a created universe. He would chose a simple temporary split, then merge over Granny and squishing up the universe in a speck! Get real.

Are you looking in your pantry right now? I'm guessing you aren't. Well, I submit that there's a rabid badger in there right this very moment. Since you're not currently in your pantry, you can't argue that he's not there. And so the burden of proof is on you to prove me wrong. If you go there and look and you don't see him, it just means he left. You can't prove me wrong, therefore I must be right...

Tell you what if there is one in my cupboard, or an Indian, for that matter, I'll give the speck another look! If not, you renounce your old age faith!

 

[ArtGuy]

Yours is the complicated one! Physics breaking down in the phantom singularity speck, life spouting from something appearing from non life, etc! Dark energy, and matter, and strange theories of what happens in a black hole, etc.

Wait, you don't believe in black holes?

I present nothing more or less complicated for the present. It is what we see and obderve, and test, and live in as we speak. Here is where science lives! You want to fantasize the future and past as physical only but have no evidence it was or was not so!!!! All you do is have an old age belief, and interpret my good evidence with that bias!!!

You haven't provided any evidence. At all. Neither bibilical nor scientific. That's the whole problem, here.

Let me ask you something. Are you planning for retirement?

No evidence supports anything but the present (from flood till after Jesus returns, is what I call the 'present')!

That's a pretty curious definition of "present". Are you saying there's no evidence of anything that happened pre-flood? No evidence that God created the universe? No evidence for Adam and Eve?

And why do you draw the line at the flood?

None, zilch, not a speck, or crumb!!! If you claim the sun will burn out in the future, prove it!

We have seen stars in the stages of burning out. These are stars which look exactly like our star. Since there's nothing to distinguish our star from these other stars which we see burning out, it stands to reason that ours is going to suffer the same fate.

Beyond that, we know the mechanism by which the sun produces energy from hydrogen. We know that this process can't continue forever, because eventually it will run out of hydrogen. Therefore, it's pretty obvious that, left to its own devices, our sun will someday die. Now, it's possible that God will decide to wrap up this grand experiment before the sun gets that far, but assuming he wishes to keep us around for another 5 billion years, that's the fate our solar system has to look forward to. Perhaps we won't even be here at that point, having decided to explore other solar systems and colonize other planets.

If you claim the past was PO, prove it! Otherwise it is belief only!

What I'm claiming is that the present isn't "PO". But the existence of spirituality doesn't necessitate the existence of Magic Photons.

And your labeling my stance is "belief only" is pretty amusing, when my stance can be backed up by both science and scripture, while yours can be backed up by neither. Which you continue to demonstrate every time you fail to produce one spot of scripture that supports your daydreams.

Assumptions of what it 'woulda coulda shouda' been like! The simple idea, and which the christian monk would agree with (Occam), is that we are in a created universe. He would chose a simple temporary split, then merge over Granny and squishing up the universe in a speck! Get real.

I don't dispute that we're in a created universe. I just dispute the nature of that creation. I prefer a God that works elegantly. You prefer one who has to keep using celestial White-Out to make grand, conspicuous changes to his creation, because he lacks the creativity and nuance to get it right the first time.

Tell you what if there is one in my cupboard, or an Indian, for that matter, I'll give the speck another look! If not, you renounce your old age faith!

Why? Just because you look in the cupboard and don't see a badger doesn't mean he wasn't there. He was. You're just too reliant upon your narrow minded views to see it.

 

[peace4all]

this is ridiculous.

you began making things up, and then said that, because it is in your own little made up world, it doesn't follow rules of this world.

you then ask us to refute it.

That is like trying to deal with ken hovind (sp that was really bad)