Jump to content
Science Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by coldcreation

  1. Ah, not always... This is exactly what I'm saying: the conversation is not about you and your endeavors to reinterpret the bible. Read the OP. You don't have to leave it to the experts. Everyone can have their say. Anyone can make mistakes. Interpretations are open to discussion and deliberation. CC
  2. First of all, this is a discussion that revolves around theology, not history, and so would be better appreciated in the Theology Forum rather than in the History Forum. Secondly, what you write above does not help explain why it is so difficult explaining human evolution to the faithful. The so-called mysteries of life are simply dealt with (in the bible) by piling on more mysteries of life. It is not an alternative to evolution at all. Just because half (or more) of the population believes that dolphins are fish does not make them fish. Maybe half the population should take a fie
  3. Dduckwessel, Your dducktive vs inducktive reasoning seems to have little bearing on the topic of this thread. Your personal ddifficulies are irrelevant here. You appear to be trying to wessel your 'closed thread' topic into this one, i.e., how you arrived at your biblical interpretation cconclusion. There is nothing wrong with participating in other threads, but highjacking the topic for one's personal interests are a benefit to no one, especially not to you at this point.
  4. "Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just" (Francis Scott Key 1814, The Star Spangled Banner)
  5. Though the conditions in which metaphysical (supernatural) phenomena are thought to manifest may not be reproducible for scientific examination—since they are anormal, unique and uncontrollable—supernatural events (described by CraigD above) are often associated with the physical world, even if just once in a lifetime happenings. Religious miracles, for example, are typically perceived as supernatural claims, as are spells, curses and divination—just as afterlife experiences—yet they each are believed to act on the natural world. This, inversely, suggests the possibility of interacting with
  6. Your link puts not everything into proper perspective. The author writes: "To tell anyone who identifies with an idea that her ideas are stupid is tantamount to calling her stupid no matter what gloss Dawkins wants to put on it." This is simply not the case. The two are not the same. In certain instances Dawkins may question personal conduct, character, or motives, but these types of attacks are legitimate when relevant to the issue. The author may have been referring to a sentence published in the New York Times, April 9, 1989: "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody
  7. Hey Little Bang, That would be an effect similar to gravitational time dilation, as CraigD pointed out. Just out of curiosity, why do you ask? Are you thinking there exists such an effect in strong electric fields, and if so, for what reason would you suspect the effect to exist? CC
  8. This thread isn't about trying to find out what motivates creationists behavior. It's about what creationists should learn here at Scienceforums.com. Modest summed up the problem at the outset of the thread (post #4): Incidentally dduck, all you proved in your Adam Was A Primate thread, and your Interpreting Method For The Bible And Some Apocrypha thread, is that practically anything you wish can be interpreted or extrapolated from the bible, i.e., you proved nothing. And Turtle set the stage, with post #7: Lambast complete. :) CC
  9. Continued from post #763 Again, I am not advocating a return to the original 1917 Einstein model as described by Einstein and the field equations of the time. The metric signature and the interpretation of the time element, amongst other components, are open to re-evaluation. Once the spacetime metric is known, the equivalence principle determines how matter and fields respond to it. “From this correspondence follows that it is impossible to discover by experiment whether a given system of coordinates is accelerated, or whether its motion is straight and uniform and the obser
  10. Ernst Fischer's response to cruel2Bkind (via email exchange with Coldcreation, dated 24 May, 2011) [Edit: I've tried to fix some of the notations, but they may not all be in the form sent to me by email: sorry if that's the case: CC] Obviously cruel2Bkind still struggles with the definition of [imath]\sigma[/imath] in my paper. It denotes the distance between two arbitrary points of a manifold. In Euclidean geometry it is the length of a vector connecting these points. In curved space it is the length of the shortest line connecting the points. In this case there exists no unique vect
  11. Ernst Fischer's response to cruel2Bkind (via email exchange with Coldcreation, dated 24 May, 2011) I will be reposting in a few minutes, in order to fix a few symbols. CC
  12. You seem to be confusing the concept of local gravitational redshift and time dilation (of the type that occurs in an inhomogeneous gravitational field of a massive body, where observers are located at different altitudes) with the concept of a global redshift z and time dilation observed in a homogeneous and isotropic curved spacetime manifold. The latter situation is entirely symmetric; meaning that both observers far-removed from one another will observe shifts in spectral lines towards the less refrangible end of the spectrum (redshift z) and the associated time dilation factor. Each obser
  13. Einstein himself was confused about his original static model. Or more precisely, there was a difficulty (that began as early as 1916) in constructing a simplified model of the real universe based on the general principle of relativity. He obviously was not the only one to struggle with the relation between gravitational theory and cosmology. And that confusion persists to some extent still today. The current understanding of general relativity in the domain of strong gravitational fields, small scales and highly dynamical configurations are not the only areas that remain limited. Perhaps m
  14. Actually, the following would appear to support your claim: Address of Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 22, 1951 Hawking refutes the claim though: Source CC
  15. "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." ~Jimi Hendrix
  16. You repeatedly claim this to be true despite a mathematical argument to the contrary. Either supply mathematical proof of your claim or prove that the disproof is in error. Merely reiterating a statement does not establish its veracity. Certainly, in a flat Newtonian, Euclidean or Minkowski universe cosmological redshift and time dilation do not occur (unless the universe is expanding for whatever reason). Most certainly too, the geometry of curved spacetime (such as that of an Einstein universe) affects the electromagnetic spectrum. It would be ludicrous to imagine a general relativistic
  17. What follows is Ernst Fischer's response to the queries raised by cruel2Bkind regarding Homogeneous cosmological solutions of the Einstein equation (Fischer 2009). I fear that Cruel2Bkind has not really grasped the essentials of differential geometry. Generally speaking it describes the relations between points of a manifold by the local spatial connections between neighbouring points, expressed by the curvature tensor. Only in special cases it is possible to introduce global coordinates (if there exists a Killing vector field, so that the Lie derivative along this vector field vanish
  18. . Posted below is Ernst Fischer's response to cruel2Bkind's critique of Homogeneous cosmological solutions of the Einstein equation Astrophys Space Sci (2010) 325: 69–74, DOI 10.1007/s10509-009-0159-7 (SpringerLink): "First I have to thank Cruel2Bkind for his critical and detailed review of my paper. It really contains a few formal inconsistencies, which I had overlooked. But these formal errors do not change the physical content and its application to realistic models of the universe. I do not see where the calculations are ambiguous or dubious and Cruel2Bkind was apparently able
  19. it was inspiring...so I shot it... The Earth's Troposphere over the Gulf of Mexico 20cm200dpi DSC03255.jpg CC
  20. From the album: Divers

    The Earth's Troposphere over the Gulf of Mexico 20cm200dpi DSC03255.jpg
  21. I found this graffiti tag near a train station. Thought is was kinda cool, so I took a picture of it. Cold Dark Matter :rolleyes: CC
  22. From the album: Divers

    CDM tag Peniscola Spain 15cm200dpi DSC05516.jpg
  23. As long as the spacetime manifold in which observers A and B are located is of constant positive Gaussian curvature, both will observe redshift and time dilation. This is a fallacy known as irrelevant conclusion: you are diverting attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly. We are not talking about things we know are moving radially (e.g., cars). Galaxies are not seen to move. The interpretation of radial motion comes from redshift, which can be interpreted as either a Doppler effect, expansion or stretching of space, or a curved spacetime effect. That wa
  24. The predictions of GR include gravitational time dilation, the gravitational redshift of light, the gravitational time delay, etc. (see Tests of GR). The predictions of GR do not include the postulation of a "dense hot plasma roughly 14 billion years ago." CC
  25. Nonsense. The entire paper Homogeneous cosmological solutions of the Einstein equation (Ernst Fischer, 2009), treats mathematically the topic of global curvature. The "irresolvable problem" in your thought experiment, was dealt with and resolved above (Post #748). It's always good to question someone's perspective, although here we disagree. I was under the impression that Ernst Fischer's grasp or GR was rather robust. In looking at your criticism so far, it seems as if you have not yet grasped some of the essentials of general relativity: the covariance of the basic equations
  • Create New...