V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
There is no ball earth in the bible so there is nothing to interpret it differently with except outside, secular sources. If I did that with any other bible topic you would call me out for it.
MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
It is theoretical and an ass ton of complex math to show how it would work. Practically no one would be able to demonstrate it on the scale of the hypothetical I described. You'd have to be a theoretical physicist to really understand the mechanisms. I get the gist of what happens and the basics of the why, but couldn't explain the how.
That's sort of the concept, but not the why. A day is considered one full rotation of a planet, but that's not why a baby on Pluto would age differently. The baby would age differently than someone on earth because Pluto & Earth had different masses/gravity. Gravity changes how fast time moves and speed changes how fast time moves. Like I said, I get the what and why, but not the how.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
Time may not actually exist as such. We only experience time because we are 3 dimensional beings living on a 4 dimensional world. Really it's space-time.
acceptance
Well-known member
You're a smart guy and I am sure you know what you're talking about. But you are part of a self-reinforcing group that has attained power and does not accept challenge. You are biased in that you believe your group is the only one that is objectively seeking truth and has found the truth. My critique is not scientific. It is philosophical.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
It’s shown in practice everyday as well. GPS satellites have to constantly adjust their clocks so they don’t stray from the clocks they are connecting to back on earth
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
You shouldn't be so open minded that your brains fall out.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
The gospel is incompatible with secular logic. Gospel=truth. Secular logic=speculation.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
You aren’t “challenging” anything though. You are just denying things as you see fit.
Back to this quote I posted before, you are the guy without the tools
acceptance
Well-known member
I agree, but this is a subjective assessment. I think you science focused guys have totally missed the forrest for the trees. You believe the most incredibly outlandish things without second thought because some egghead has a math equation.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
You are confusing secular logic with physical truths. Secular logic can be flawed. However there are some things that are hard and fast truth. I don't see a conflict in what the Bible says how the world actually is. The Bible is the inspired word of God. God inspired the ancient people who wrote it. He didn't write it himself. They existed within a context. I am amazed there aren't massive intractable problems with what they wrote but you can actually read what they said between the lines and it still agrees to how things are today. However, I do not believe it's correct to try and adjust your thoughts to be an iron age middle eastern goat herder mate. You have to read it as a modern person.
Dan Gleesak
Well-known member
Because thousands of eggheads over hundreds of years have came up with the same equations. Big difference dude.
MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
I'm not going to pretend a large number of scientists are not reluctant to accept new theories, but you're making some really big assumptions there. I've not met one scientist who is unopen to a challenge. Most welcome it. But when it comes to science the burden is on the challenger to present a new/better theory or disprove the old one. The current working theories have already be put through the paces and so far have held up. That's why they're currently accepted as "truth".
acceptance
Well-known member
What does challenging look like to you then?
You mean I haven't been indoctrinated.
V
VonBonfire
Well-known member
Science draws conclusions based on the data available and is therefore subject to change. Science is logic based, and the gospel is incompatible with secular logic so tell me how you are squaring those two things.
I would keep sheep, not goats.
acceptance
Well-known member
That may be the case in the scientific community, but it is not some kind of universal law. I don't know which theories you are talking about or how they're put through the paces. I've mentioned the example that Newtonian physics have been superseded by Einstein's theories, but that doesn't mean Newton's calculations aren't practical. To that end, the last time we had this debate I put to Dan that as NASA uses a flat non-rotating earth for calculations yet claims the earth is spherical, once doesn't need to have the correct "story" for practical purposes, and furthermore that this example demonstrates how the math doesn't prove a theory.
I appreciate that you're noting the distinction "currently accepted".
Floyd Eye
Well-known member
I can understand that but it is just a clock. I mean it keeps time by bouncing atoms or whatever that clearly bounce slower when they’re moving faster and it is compelling if those equations actually match the ones Einstein came up with but I just have a hard time with the idea that time will obviously appear to pass as usual but my body will age MUCH slower.
I’m not saying it isn’t true I’m just saying I have a hard time wrapping my head around it. It does open up a lot of possibilities as far as traveling very long distances through space or even time travel.
Then again, science fiction is only fiction until it isn’t.
Thumbpicker
Well-known member
That the Earth is round (spheroidal) isn't really science. it just is. It's not a theory that we need to prove with observable fact although you can treat it like that I guess. It's settled. Even I could take a photo of the curve of the earth as a private individual using a weather balloon and a Gopro.
MadAsAHatter
Well-known member
That assessment is way off base. It's not one dude pops out a math formula and everyone goes along with it. Any math is scrutinized from every angle by not an insignificant amount of people. Experiments are designed, tested, retested over and over. If found repeatable then it becomes accepted until a better or more accurate explanation comes along.
And if everyone just accepts the first theory that works then why are there dozens of competing theories in quantum physics that are attempting to explain the same thing. Several of them do fit the picture with none being full accepted. It's not philosophical, it's that they haven't been scrutinized to the point of becoming the one that continues to hold up.
acceptance
Well-known member
This debate purposefully excludes photographic evidence because it can be manipulated. ...Why don't you put a weather balloon up? But don't use a go pro because they have fisheye lenses.