Forums » Group W Forums » Topical Tropical Discussions

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 10:56 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 06, 2008
Posts: 2531
Images: 2
Location: Crawfordville, Florida
I wouldn't have a clue......I don't eat jello.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:08 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
I'm comparing the large container with the mass of a star and the small container with the mass of a planet. We could just as easily use molten metal as an example. Without going into a lot of extraneous science stuff, the smaller body with lose it's heat and solidify first. We see in some of the Hubble shots evidence that this happens. The proiblem is, as mentioned before, the light from these take several to hundreds of lightyears to get here, so we simply haven't located enough of them yet that are at the beginning phases of acretion. What I'm seeing, so argue against the main stream, is the planets are formed first and there is sufficient ambient light for even animate life to develop on a life bearer.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Apr 04, 2012 11:09 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
No wiggle room, eh? :D


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 6:46 am
  

Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1375
DrCharbonneau wrote:
I'm comparing the large container with the mass of a star and the small container with the mass of a planet. We could just as easily use molten metal as an example. Without going into a lot of extraneous science stuff, the smaller body with lose it's heat and solidify first. We see in some of the Hubble shots evidence that this happens. The proiblem is, as mentioned before, the light from these take several to hundreds of lightyears to get here, so we simply haven't located enough of them yet that are at the beginning phases of acretion. What I'm seeing, so argue against the main stream, is the planets are formed first and there is sufficient ambient light for even animate life to develop on a life bearer.


This was posted on March 28 in this thread:

heraclitis wrote:

What are you saying? Life blew into are little corner of the universe preformed in the cosmic debris that eventually fell together to form the Earth? In a world of infinite possibilities whose to say, but a world full of infinite possibilities is also a world full of infinite bull shit!


So what is the source of the "ambient" light?


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 7:06 am
  

Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 17, 2010
Posts: 1375
DrCharbonneau wrote:
Actually not. It's likely a letter about his experiences in the 5th Dimension.


So when it comes to the bible Occam's Razor is really Occam's Putty Knife!

John was a Jew who was pissed off because Paul was letting Gentiles in on the secret. That is the path of the fewest assumptions!


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 10:22 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jan 09, 2003
Posts: 2489
Images: 5
Location: Rhododendron, Oregon United States
Goofus wrote:
DrCharbonneau wrote:
And Newtonian Physics might evidence that a stainless steel bowl of Jello poured from a batch made in a same gage stainless steel 10 liter pot, both pot and bowl placed in the same fridge at the same time, will gel quicker. Would you bet on that?


My first response would be who cares, but you claim to be a physicist. Me second would be there would be no significant difference in the time.


No response to this one?


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:03 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
Goofus wrote:
Goofus wrote:
DrCharbonneau wrote:
And Newtonian Physics might evidence that a stainless steel bowl of Jello poured from a batch made in a same gage stainless steel 10 liter pot, both pot and bowl placed in the same fridge at the same time, will gel quicker. Would you bet on that?


My first response would be who cares, but you claim to be a physicist. Me second would be there would be no significant difference in the time.


No response to this one?



Quote:
I'm comparing the large container with the mass of a star and the small container with the mass of a planet. We could just as easily use molten metal as an example. Without going into a lot of extraneous science stuff, the smaller body with lose it's heat and solidify first. We see in some of the Hubble shots evidence that this happens. The proiblem is, as mentioned before, the light from these take several to hundreds of lightyears to get here, so we simply haven't located enough of them yet that are at the beginning phases of acretion. What I'm seeing, so argue against the main stream, is the planets are formed first and there is sufficient ambient light for even animate life to develop on a life bearer.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:15 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Sep 13, 2000
Posts: 8523
Location: Pixley-- Actually An Hr South of Richmond, VA
I guess we'll find out what it means when the end times come.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:38 am
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
Cheryl Harrell wrote:
I guess we'll find out what it means when the end times come.


Or maybe if I get set up to upload videos to youtube...:)


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 9:27 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 06, 2008
Posts: 2531
Images: 2
Location: Crawfordville, Florida
It's the "end times" for lots of folks every day, even little babies. It was the "end times" for one of my neighbor's dogs just the other day. Who knows who it'll be the "end times" for today? It''s early yet.........


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:16 am
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
I was asked about "soul sleeping" once because there is a seeming contradiction between that and the statement by Jesus during His crucifixion. It's like traveling at warp speed. We all arrive at judgement day all at once.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 10:27 am
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 06, 2008
Posts: 2531
Images: 2
Location: Crawfordville, Florida
Sounds like a pretty full docket......


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:39 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
nortonkevin wrote:
Sounds like a pretty full docket......


Consider this:

Dimension has 2 basic meanings. One is a "measurement" the other is taxonomical, such as species, for example, has many subsets. 3D may be 3 measurements, but for taxonomy it would be categorized as "space" or "geometry" possibly interchangeably.

So space breaks down to 3 measurements, but if we think of 3space we would speak of geometry, mass and compaction. With the latter our space definition gets along with the basic concepts of string theory.

If our space begins as nothing save for infinite potential force and the force is negative, we generate an infinitesimal particle that expands at velocity infinitous. The infinite forces from which it came, fold it back upon itself, but not before it has reached a restorative equilibrium, thus approaching zero velocity and Infinity/2 mass. Time's rate at that point is not zero, but half the approach to zero. The return trip to zero point involves potential collisions, or simply interference, so this meso-universe we live in is. There would also be a more violent collision region near point zero, that being closest to infinity on it's anti-space. Anti-space is not to be confused with anti-matter.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:16 pm
  

User avatar
Arlo Fanatic

Joined: Jul 06, 2008
Posts: 2531
Images: 2
Location: Crawfordville, Florida
Sounds like Xeno's Paradox to me. Don't get me wrong - I love Xeno's Paradox as a theoretical way to destroy so-called mathematical laws. I just not really sure that you're speaking theoretically.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 8:20 pm
  

User avatar
Senior ArloNetizen

Joined: Mar 15, 2012
Posts: 408
nortonkevin wrote:
Sounds like Xeno's Paradox to me. Don't get me wrong - I love Xeno's Paradox as a theoretical way to destroy so-called mathematical laws. I just not really sure that you're speaking theoretically.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes

I'm flattered you would compare it as such, but no, although Xeno Paradoxes involve infinite numbers, what I'm describing is more associated with constant creation.

BTW... one of you guys asked me if I was an Atheist. No. I look at pure science from a theoanaesthetic perspective, meaning neutral. What I believe is irrelevant.


          Top  
Reply with quote  
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group