Sun has been emitting unknown particles, carbon dating may be completely off

LeSedna said:
The idea of taking the bible as a book of facts is in itself laughably ludacrous !
Click to expand...

this was exactly my whole freaking point

we shouldn't just assume that the original post was saying something accurate just simply because the original post being accurate would line up with something else that's already clearly bullshit

red shift and blue shift are observable, and the age of the universe is something that shouldn't have been in dispute to begin with

the original post was bullshit, just the same as how creationism is bullshit
 
monoxide_child said:
this was exactly my whole freaking point

we shouldn't just assume that the original post was saying something accurate just simply because the original post being accurate would line up with something else that's already clearly bullshit

red shift and blue shift are observable, and the age of the universe is something that shouldn't have been in dispute to begin with

the original post was bullshit, just the same as how creationism is bullshit
Click to expand...

Why are you still talking about this?

Nobody brought up the age of the universe except for you.

Nobody brought up creation except for you.

Nobody brought up the bible except for you.

You are arguing with nobody. Just let it go dude :)
 
and if you want to talk hypotheticals, like you did, concerning the absence of dark matter...then just read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

and it will be plainly clear that our age estimate would be DIFFERENT THAN IT IS NOW since the currently accepted model of the universe would be explicitly incorrect.

You are arguing that the current estimation of the age of the universe, which is computed with the assumtion that the current model (LCDM) is correct, would be unchanged if LCDM was no longer accepted. That is ridiculous and obviously wrong.



This has nothing to do with creationism.
 
kass said:
and if you want to talk hypotheticals, like you did, concerning the absence of dark matter...then just read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

and it will be plainly clear that our age estimate would be DIFFERENT THAN IT IS NOW since the currently accepted model of the universe would be explicitly incorrect.

You are arguing that the current estimation of the age of the universe, which is computed with the assumtion that the current model (LCDM) is correct, would be unchanged if LCDM was no longer accepted. That is ridiculous and obviously wrong.


This has nothing to do with creationism.
Click to expand...
but
if we assume that "dark matter does not exist"
then the uniiverse is still vastly older than "Creation"
based on "observational limits"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Observational_limits

which was my freaking whole point in mentioning "creationism" to begin with

real-world age of universe = much much older than "creationism"
 
monoxide_child said:
but
if we assume that "dark matter does not exist"
then the uniiverse is still vastly older than "Creation"
based on "observational limits"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe#Observational_limits

which was my freaking whole point in mentioning "creationism" to begin with

real-world age of universe = much much older than "creationism"
Click to expand...

Of course it is.

So what?????

Nobody here said otherwise, including the OP and the original article he posted.

You have it in your mind that this thread is about creationism. It isn't.
 
indecizo said:
I think he just wants to point out that creationism is BS, let him be.
Click to expand...

Sure...I don't care about that, but in doing so he misrepresented the OP and the discovery article, asserted that the OP was proved wrong (he wasn't), called them "total bullshit", used arguments that were not exactly true, and is just generally confused about what is going on in the thread. He should stop calling other posts "bullshit"
 
Monoxide_child, I have yet to see a post of yours that has a point. Do you really want to be seen as someone with nothing interesting to say and an uncontrollable urge to say nothing as poorly and extensively as possible?

Jef
 
- let's make this thread either more entertaining with more creationism (and please insert conspiracy theories or UFOlogy to make it spicy, I love that)
- or more interesting by actually talking about sensible and factual things, and legit theories

Any in between or any attempt of one looking more like the other is not acceptable !
 
DanLights said:
+1

Will you go on for 2 more pages now?
Click to expand...

I get sick of myself after about a paragraph, so you'll have to flesh it out with some imaginary "Everyone should die of flaming buttocks!" and a bit of "This is why abortion should be legal until the fetus has passed vector calculus..." on your end.

Jef
 
Interesting, we can add this to the list (emphasis added by me):

http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.3937

Gravitational theoretical development supporting MOND
Edmund A. Chadwick, Timothy F. Hodgkinson, Graham S. McDonald
(Submitted on 15 Jul 2013)

Conformal geometry is considered within a general relativistic framework. An invariant distant for proper time is defined and a parallel displacement is applied in the distorted space-time, modifying Einstein's equation appropriately. A particular solution is introduced for the covariant acceleration potential that matches the observed velocity distribution at large distances from the galactic centre, i.e. Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND). This explicit solution, of a general framework that allows both curvature and explicit local expansion of space-time, thus reproduces the observed flattening of galaxys' rotation curves without the need to assume the existence of dark matter. The large distance expansion rate is found to match the speed of a spherical shock wave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back