Jump to content

WalterP

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by WalterP


  1. Hello Disillusioned.  :)

     

    Apologies for leaving things hanging for so long.  But there's been an interesting development that's prompted me to refocus. 

     

    The August issue of Scientific American has an article that seems relevant to the topic of emergence.  During the hiatus I have been considering your words, particularly in the context of the Big Bang and how complexity emerged from what seems to be a very simple 'event'.  I know you'll be familiar with the notion of the unification of the four fundamental forces as we move from lower to higher energies.  That process is inferred to have happened in reverse in the very earliest moments of the universe's evolution.  So, from a very simple, single, unified super-force, the other four are assumed to have merged by the mechanism of symmetry-breaking and phase transitions.  That is, the complex emerging from the simple.

     

    I have more to say about this and to ask you your thoughts about what I'm going to refer to as 'potentiality'.  I use that word at the moment to describe some unformed thinking of mine.  Was the complexity we see around us today somehow 'hidden' in the initial simplicity of the Big Bang?'  Putting it another way, was the potential for complexity always there in the initial simplicity?  So that what was hidden has emerged over time? 

     

    I'm mulling this over.  More to come.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.


  2. This is very naughty, Edgarcito.

     

    You began this thread on June 29, proposing a set of conditions that you didn't make good on with examples and evidence.

     

    The next day, in response to midniterider, you shifted the goalposts.

     

    When I pointed this out to you, you wrote... Yes, you're right....I need to decide how I want to continue this....thanks.

     

    On July 2 you posted your rethinking on the matter.

     

    When midniterider asked you for examples you answered him with... Jesus?

     

    But you avoided answered the six points I put to you on the same day.

     

    After that you avoided questions from the RedNeckProfessor, midniterider and myself and my query wasn't even a new one.  It was a re-post of those six earlier points for your attention.

     

    I then made another post for your attention on July 6, which you still haven't addressed.

     

    Two days ago Antichrist wrote... I give up trying to think of how to answer your post.

     

    You answered him on the same day, this time with another re-think and a new set of conditions that you haven't supported with any evidence or examples.

     

     

     

     

    I don't mind you dodging questions, shifting the goalposts and failing to support your claims and assertions.

     

    From what I've seen, that's pretty much normal Christian behaviour in many forums.

     

    But, for my future guidance, I now have to ask you a further question.

     

    Do you want me to continue to point out your failings like this or would you prefer me to just keep asking you questions, even though you don't answer most of them?

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter. 

     

     

     


  3. Do you have an example of God providing guidance? Or Grace? 

    Edgarcito...

     

    Jesus?

     

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Where were you born and raised, Edgarcito?

     

     

    The Punjab?  Then you would have probably answered midniterider's question with... Guru Nanak.

     

    Tel Aviv?  Then you have probably answered with... Moses.

     

    The Hejaz? Then you'd probably have answered with... Mohammed.

     

    Uttar Pradesh?  Then you have probably answered with... Rishabhanatha.

     

    Chiang Mai?  Then you'd have probably answered with... Siddhattha Gautama.

     

    The Iranian province of Fars?  Then you'd probably have answered with... Siyyid Ali Muhammad Shirazi.

     

    The Konkan coast? Then you'd probably have answered with... Zoroaster.

     

     

    So, maybe where you were born and raised often determines who you consider to be God and how he guides us?

     

     

    Walter.

     


  4. Weezer,

     

    The essential point that I'm directing in Edgarcito's direction is that scripture itself and history clearly demonstrate that, contrary to Edgarcito's claim, god has not given clear guidance.

     

    You and I both made eloquent Bible-based arguments for our differing positions - yet the issue remains unresolved. God has not given the church guidance on this important matter.

     

    Do we have free will of does god predestine us to heaven or hell?  Again, vitally important.  Again, both positions backed up by scripture.  Again, where's god's guidance?

     

    Does god still give Christians the gifts of the spirit or did he withdraw the spirit after Bible times?  Some Christians cannot agree on this.  Where's god guidance?

     

    Are the dead judged once they die or do we all sleep until Judgement Day, when we are all judged en masse?  Christians disagree, still waiting on god's guidance. 

     

    Once-saved-always-saved or is it possible to reject Jesus?  (Very pertinent to this forum!)  Where's god guidance on this?

     

    What about the books of Tobit, Judith, Baruch and so on?  Canonical or not?  Why hasn't god guided his sheep?

     

    Edgarcito's guiding god seems to be totally silent. Or non-existent.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  5.   On 7/4/2020 at 3:41 PM, mwc said:

       Likewise they would not have been able to conceive of the various astronomical objects simply "floating" in space. 

     

    Oh okay, as long as you say so....

     He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothingJob 26:7

     

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    mwc is right Justus.

     

    They couldn't conceive of various astronomical objects simply 'floating' in space.

     

    Things only 'hang' when there is a gravitational field acting upon them.

     

    For the Earth to be 'hanging' in space there would have to be a gravitational field 'pulling' downwards upon it.  

     

    There is no such thing. There is no up or down in space.

     

    The Earth orbits the Sun, following a path in curved space-time dictated by the mass of the Sun.

     

    In no way can the Earth be described as 'hanging' from the Sun.

     

    Therefore mwc is right.  

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     

     

     

     

     

     


  6. 14 hours ago, Weezer said:

    Not sure I am following you with this statement.  But my thinking is sometimes concrete.  I don't think anyone needs saving from eternal damnation.  I'm saying mankind benefits from loving one another. 

     

    We are "benefited" by both----- faith in love, and carrying it out in our actions.  And that is how I interpreted salvation as a Christian.  I always thought it strange that people tried to pin "salvation" to one or the other. 

     

    And there you have it, Weezer.

     

    Your quote above is how you interpreted salvation as a Christian.  My take on James is how I interpreted salvation as a Christian. 

     

    As I've said to Edgarcito, both of our interpretations are founded in scripture yet they contradict each other.  

     

    There appears to be no clear guidance coming from god on this issue.

     

     

    (Are you paying attention, Edgarcito?)

     

     

    Walter.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


  7. My point is we have no way of knowing what the right choice is.  We would have to have an understanding of what was meant for our lives.  "Now this is eternal life, that you may know Jesus and God".  They had no reference point for what was successful and what was not. 

     

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Rethinking....it makes sense to me that if I were a guiding God, knowing my creation didn't completely understand, that I would provide guidance and grace.  And across humanity, this is largely what we observe.  Certainly we could make a case through evolution....."survival means love and grace"....so the group continues to eat.  Good guess.

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    Edgarcito, I'd like to direct your attention to what's going on over here.

     

    https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/83312-blessing-is-not-being-happy/?tab=comments#comment-1225872

     

    Weezer and I are respectfully disagreeing on whether Christians are saved by faith alone or by works.

     

    I've cited James 2 and he's cited Ephesians 2.

     

    Both arguments are theologically sound, but they both cannot be true.  They contradict each other.

     

     

     

    You say that we have no way of knowing the right choices.  No understanding of god's plan for us.  No reference points to go on.

     

     

     

    So then why does this guiding god of yours give contradictory messages to his followers in his holy book?

     

     

     


  8. On 7/2/2020 at 7:20 PM, WalterP said:

     

    Some points and questions for you, Edgarcito.

     

    1.

    If you were god it would be within your power to give your creation sufficient understanding to comprehend whatever you wanted them to understand.

     

    2.

    If you were god you'd have foreknown that leaving your creations short on understanding would cause them to reach false conclusions.

     

    3.

    So, why would you then threaten and ultimately punish your creations for reaching the false conclusions that you foreknew they would arrive at?

     

    4.

    What midniterider said.  Please cite examples.

     

    5.

    No. The survival of the fittest has nothing to do with grace.  The nearest evolution will get you to that is altruism and even that is hotly debated.  

    https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.427

     

    6.

    Furthermore, evolution has no overarching plan, objective or goal.  It is simply a way that organisms react to their environments.  If you invoke evolution then you can't use it to argue for some kind of divine plan.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     

    Care to apply your thinking to questions 1,2,3,5 and 6 please, Edgarcito?

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     


  9. 4 hours ago, webmdave said:

    Wrong. If something cannot come from nothing, then your creator god cannot exist, because he must be something. If you say your god has always existed, then I would maintain an eternal universe is a better explanation. In other words, the universe has always existed. 

     

    Evidence supports my position as we know that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter can only be changed from one form to another. Therefore it is apparent that matter has always been in existence in one form or another. There is no evidence that a Hebrew tribal god (or any other god) exists at all. 

     

     

    I would like to point out that the position adopted by the Vatican and by the Christian apologist William Lane Craig on the Big Bang is based upon a theory written by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose in 1970.

     

    Disillusioned, JoshPantera and I have been discussing this topic in this thread.

     

    https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82597-the-failed-cosmology-of-william-lane-craig/

     

    But in 1998 new evidence was discovered that breaches the terms and conditions of that theory under which it applies to the observable universe.

     

    Mainstream science readily accepted this new evidence and the Hawking - Penrose Singularity theory has been discarded.

     

    This means that the current model of cosmic origins no longer posits that all of space and time came into existence 13.72 billion years ago.

     

    The term 'Big Bang' is now taken to mean the hot, dense state of the very early universe and not the event where and when it 'banged' or exploded into existence.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Thanks 1

  10. 2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

    Rethinking....it makes sense to me that if I were a guiding God, knowing my creation didn't completely understand, that I would provide guidance and grace.  And across humanity, this is largely what we observe.  Certainly we could make a case through evolution....."survival means love and grace"....so the group continues to eat.  Good guess.

     

    Some points and questions for you, Edgarcito.

     

    1.

    If you were god it would be within your power to give your creation sufficient understanding to comprehend whatever you wanted them to understand.

     

    2.

    If you were god you'd have foreknown that leaving your creations short on understanding would cause them to reach false conclusions.

     

    3.

    So, why would you then threaten and ultimately punish your creations for reaching the false conclusions that you foreknew they would arrive at?

     

    4.

    What midniterider said.  Please cite examples.

     

    5.

    No. The survival of the fittest has nothing to do with grace.  The nearest evolution will get you to that is altruism and even that is hotly debated.  

    https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2010.427

     

    6.

    Furthermore, evolution has no overarching plan, objective or goal.  It is simply a way that organisms react to their environments.  If you invoke evolution then you can't use it to argue for some kind of divine plan.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

    • Like 1

  11. 4 hours ago, MOHO said:

     

    So, is this an admission that faith is useless and that it is actually action that has value?

     

    Not exactly, MOHO.

     

    What James is saying is that faith on its own is useless unless it is accompanied by action. 

     

    God wants Christians to have faith and to put that faith into action by feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and generally attending to the physical needs of others.  

     

    Belief in God on its own is useless.  That is a dead faith.  James even gives an example. In verse 19 of James 2.

     

    You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

     

    So, if a Christian thinks that they are saved just by believing that there is one god, then they are very much mistaken. 

     

    Demons believe there is one god and that belief has no power to save them from the everlasting fire. 

     

    Therefore, if a Christian is to have a saving faith they have to do more than just believe in god. 

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    • Like 1

  12. 6 hours ago, midniterider said:

    Food, shelter and clothing are are also  helpful. 

     

    James 2 : 14 - 17

     

    What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them?  

    Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 

    If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 

    In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

     

     


  13. 2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

    My point is we have no way of knowing what the right choice is.  We would have to have an understanding of what was meant for our lives.  "Now this is eternal life, that you may know Jesus and God".  They had no reference point for what was successful and what was not. 

     

    Not so, Edgarcito.

     

    We can know what the wrong choices are and narrow down what the right choices must be on the basis of learning from our mistakes.

     

    Or rather, we could learn if faith didn't get in the way.

     

    Sadly, there are those who will always go with faith, even in if it kills them.

     

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2152184/Serpent-handling-pastor-Mack-Wolford-dies--hours-hes-bitten-RATTLESNAKE.html

    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/jamie-coots-snake-salvation-reality-star-dies-from-snake-bite

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/man-dies-from-snake-bite-at-pentecostal-church-service-kentucky-sheriffs-office-says

    https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2004-04-15-0404150130-story.html

    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-dec-13-mn-53450-story.html

    https://www.newspapers.com/clip/4852961/rev-kale-saylor-dies/

    https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4kEaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hyMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7136,1278581&dq=george-went-hensley+death&hl=en

    https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19820825&id=37QwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VfsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7034,2791294&hl=en

    https://web.archive.org/web/20080803025928/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2008%2F07%2F11%2Fnational%2Fa183128D08.DTL

     

    And tragically, there are congregations who believe by faith that their faith-killed pastors made the right choices.

     

    That these dead preachers are valid reference points for what is successful.

     

    If dead people equal success, then Jim Jones must be the greatest success story in history.

     

    918 successful choices, where their subjective beliefs made no difference to the objective fact of the cyanide's toxicity.

     

    Mark 16 : 18

     

     they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

     

     

    Walter.

     

     

    • Like 1

  14. 23 hours ago, WalterP said:

     

    Edgarcito,

     

    When it comes to this simple plan, the prime flaw in your thinking is this.

     

    You are confusing things which you subjectively believe to be true with things that are objectively true, whether you believe they are or not.

     

    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/burundis-president-died-from-covid-19-reports/1878252

     

    Pierre Nkurunziza made the same error and paid the price for it.

     

    He subjectively believed that god had cleared the covid-19 virus from Burundi's skies.

     

    Things that are objectively real, like the covid-19 virus, don't care about anyone's subjective beliefs.

     

     

    Please consider reassessing your thinking.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     

     

     

    Here's some more items for you to consider as you reassess your thinking, Edgarcito.

     

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia-pastor-dies-coronavirus

    https://foxwilmington.com/local-news/former-pastor-musician-with-covid-19-dies-in-concord-n-c-hospital/

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-pastor-dies-from-coronavirus-becoming-first-us-catholic-priest-to-succumb-to-diseases

    https://www.abc12.com/content/news/Church-elders-son-dies-from-coronavirus-3-days-after-he-does-569237181.html

    https://abc13.com/3-houston-church-goes-test-positive-for-covid-19-coronavirus-in-churches-holy-ghost-catholic/6194543/

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52015969

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8335123/Cameroon-pastor-healed-coronavirus-sufferers-laying-hands-dies-Covid-19.html

    https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/harold-hill-church-st-thomas-jso-priest-dies-of-coronavirus-1-6650258

    https://www.derryjournal.com/health/derry-priest-dies-coronavirus-2548732

    https://www.surreycomet.co.uk/news/18408572.norbiton-priest-lost-coronavirus/

     

    Subjective religious belief (faith) confers no benefits and changes nothing, when it comes to things that are objectively real.

     

    Like the covid-19 virus.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.


  15. 2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

    We, or I, most of the time, act with faith that I am making the best choice for another.  Again, I can ONLY act with faith in that I have no idea how my actions will ultimately play out in another person's life.....and even though I act "factually".  Too many variables after the act to predict much imo.

     

    Lol, maybe it is irrelevant but we still do it.....it's inescapable.

     

    That's quite a climb down, Edgarcito.

     

    You began this thread writing about Jesus and god.

     

    Yet what you've described above is something that anyone can do without invoking faith in Jesus or god.

     

    So what happened to them and their role in their simple, truthful plan that you follow?

     

    Why have you quietly dropped all mention of them and are now using the word faith in an entirely different way?

     

    You wouldn't be shifting the goalposts in this thread, would you?

     

    Walter.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     


  16. 2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

    Please explain how this simple plan is not truthful.

     

    We are not omniscient, therefore it's impossible to always act accordingly that we ultimately benefit others.

    In light of this, Jesus says know me, as I am one with God/Love....so that you might better act on others.

    Thirdly, I'm prompting you with the right choice...because I'm not dead, I'm alive.

    And lastly, when you fail to act correctly, there will be grace for you.

     

    So isn't this what we really strive to do daily....say on a good day? 

    Act with loving intent through faith because ultimately we don't know the exact answer?  Hoping we don't screw up their life by our stupidity?

     

    Edgarcito,

     

    When it comes to this simple plan, the prime flaw in your thinking is this.

     

    You are confusing things which you subjectively believe to be true with things that are objectively true, whether you believe they are or not.

     

    https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/burundis-president-died-from-covid-19-reports/1878252

     

    Pierre Nkurunziza made the same error and paid the price for it.

     

    He subjectively believed that god had cleared the covid-19 virus from Burundi's skies.

     

    Things that are objectively real, like the covid-19 virus, don't care about anyone's subjective beliefs.

     

     

    Please consider reassessing your thinking.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

     

     

    • Thanks 2

  17. 16 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

    Please explain how this simple plan is not truthful.

     

    We are not omniscient, therefore it's impossible to always act accordingly that we ultimately benefit others.

    In light of this, Jesus says know me, as I am one with God/Love....so that you might better act on others.

    Thirdly, I'm prompting you with the right choice...because I'm not dead, I'm alive.

    And lastly, when you fail to act correctly, there will be grace for you.

     

    So isn't this what we really strive to do daily....say on a good day? 

    Act with loving intent through faith because ultimately we don't know the exact answer?  Hoping we don't screw up their life by our stupidity?

     

    Certainly.

     

    For this simple plan to be objectively true, the conditions you set down have to objectively confirmed with evidence.

     

    It's not enough for you to believe these things are true.

     

    You have to demonstrate that they are objectively true, with evidence that can be tested, checked and examined.

     

    Thomas had the right idea and Jesus honoured his request.

     

    Unless we can do the same for all the conditions you set down, your simple plan cannot be declared to be true or truthful.

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter. 

     


  18. When it comes to Teleological thinking creationists, science-deniers and conspiracy theorists haven't cornered the market.

     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

     

    Those Christians who do accept science often appeal to the Fine-Tuned universe argument in their apologetics. (See section 6 of this Wiki page.)

     

    Which just goes to show that, even if you accept or deny science, teleological thinking is deeply-ingrained in your psyche.

     

    And it seems to be present very early on in our development, as opposed to being an acquired characteristic.

     

    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-19055-003

    http://nm.cms-devl.bu.edu/cdl/files/2013/08/1999_Kelemen_Scope.pdf

    http://cognitionandculture.net/wp-content/uploads/1999_Kelemen_FunctionsGoalsIntentions.pdf

    https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-01076-008

    https://www.grin.com/document/356506

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5296364/

     

    I'd hazard (without any kind of expertise) that in adults, who are aware of their mortality, it's a kind comfort-seeking policy of terror management.

     

    Better to believe that reality and your life has meaning, rather than face up to the possibility that you and everything else actually mean nothing.

     

    But quite why it seems to be something we are born with, I don't know.

     

    One thing I do know, however, is that both a science-denying creationist and a science-embracing Christian would give the same reason as to why children think teleologically.

     

    God did it.

     

     

    Thank you.

     

    Walter.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  19. 1 minute ago, SilentVoice said:

    I'm not really sure what you're getting at. I don't have the time to look through scientific papers and wikipedia articles to check if my 'working understanding' of what essentially amounts to nonsense, something I already told you twice now that does not interest me in the slightest, conforms to the current definition (no doubt changed in the last 5 years) that I gave in my initial assertion that I knew more about it than the other guy did. Sure, it was probably a bit arrogant but so what? And I already gave you what you're asking for here "Yes, my belief about what the big bang is claimed to be could be wrong". And you probably missed the post I made earlier where I made a mistake about Neil Armstrong and corrected myself and said it was Buzz Aldrin, clearly demonstrating that I don't have any problems admitting when I'm wrong, or re-stating my points when that happens.

     

    No. You have a problem freely admitting you are wrong when others catch you out.

     

    Rectifying your own mistakes is fine.

     

    But you shouldn't have to be pressed by others to admit when you are wrong.

     

    Upon seeing your errors pointed out to you, you should  freely own up to them.

     

    Not deflect or blame changing definitions.

     

    How can we place our trust in someone who does their best to wriggle out of admitting their errors?

     

    Your claims (I know the truth) say one thing, but actions tell us another.

     

     


  20. 23 minutes ago, SilentVoice said:

    Why is it that when I use Wikipedia, logic, established facts, published science articles, interviews of historical figures quoting things that you don't want to hear, you delete my posts, call me mentally ill, call me a troll and fail to respond?

     

    It's not that your brains are damaged, it's because you are trapped by a liar.

     

    Come along truth-bearer, stop deflecting and answer the question.

     

    If the truth-bearer won't admit to his own errors, why should we believe that what he claims to be true isn't another of his errors?

     

     


  21. You could also find my quote where I said they probably updated the buzzwords and I don't care enough about fictional space magic to update my vocabulary of 'scientific terms'. But sure, the explanation that I gave could just be one of the several theories, or a mishmash of them. I'm not here to leave a trail of perfectly integral statements about science or its claims, I'm here to share truth and to ridicule the stupid claims that get publicized and offer alternatives.

     

    Yes, my belief about what the big bang is claimed to be could be wrong.

     

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    If you are here to share truth, then why is it that you didn't see fit to own up to being in error without my pushing you to do so?

     

    If the truth-bearer won't admit to his own errors, why should we believe that what he claims to be true isn't another of his errors?


  22. You're supposed to be arguing against my points, not making them for me.

     

    Or to put it a way you can understand;

    If a satellite is in orbit in space like you believe they are supposed to, why would it need any gas or balloon? Why are engineers and scientists attaching balloons to satellites, that supposedly don't need any assistance to stay up in the air?

     

    The satellite balloons were inflated AFTER they were put "in orbit" because "in orbit" does not exist. The balloons are to keep things in the atmosphere, not orbit. Ergo, satellites are in atmosphere, not orbit. Like, imagine you have a little helium balloon in your house right now, you let go of it and it hits your ceiling. That's how satellites are kept stationary above the Earth, they are near the firmament and don't magically float once they reach a certain altitude.

     

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     

    The purpose of the gas wasn't to provide lift against gravity but to inflate these satellites so that could become passive reflectors of radio signals beamed up from Earth.

     

    https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/about/project-echo.html

     

    No.  The balloons were above our atmosphere.  They were placed there by rockets.

     

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa_appel/4919282223/in/album-72157624664515095/

     

    There are two photos of the rockets in this link and a photo of Lyndon B Johnson holding some aluminized mylar, which is the radio-reflecting skin of the balloon.

     

    It would be impossible to inflate such a fragile thing as a mylar balloon while the rockets engines were still firing and encountering significant atmospheric drag.

     

    Therefore, once the rocket achieved orbit, where there is no significant atmospheric drag, it was safe to inflate the balloon fully.

     

    The fact that these balloons were inflated at all demonstrates that they were above the Earth's atmosphere and in orbit.

     

    Inflation within the atmosphere when the rocket was powered and moving rapidly would destroy the balloon before it could inflate.

     

    A mylar balloon carried by a fast-moving rocket cannot be inflated until it is clear of the atmosphere. 

     

     

     


  23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Closed_system

     

    Here's something for SV.  Please pay close attention.

     

    I posted this link because I thought Bill Nye was referring to the Earth as a closed thermodynamic system.

     

    But having thought about it, I now realize that I was wrong. The Earth receives light, heat and energy from the Sun, so it can't be closed system.

     

    I was wrong.  When I'm wrong I freely admit it. When you are wrong, do you publicly admit? 

     

    Yesterday you were wrong about the big bang.

     

    Big bang; something (maybe a 'quantum wave fluctuation' causing nothing to explode out of a theoretical realm of potentiality that sent incomprehensible amounts of matter ever-expanding outwards from the size of a pin head in a hot dense state that took billions of years to cool down and form condensed pockets of matter which eventually turned in to stars and planets, and you just happen to live on one of them.

     

    Why would a big bang send out trillions of galaxies and make a flat surface that doesn't move? 

     

    So, will you match me in terms of honesty and transparency?

     

    Will you publicly admit you were wrong?

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.