| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 55052 | 2005-03-01 10:10:00 | Teleportation / Time travelling... | Renmoo (66) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 329505 | 2005-03-06 04:39:00 | Other authorities don’t necessarily agree with this claim. For example the New International Version of the Bible notes (Joshua ch10, vs13-14): “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. There has never been a day like it before or since…” If the sun stopped in the sky the earth must have stopped rotating (any other theories?), and stayed stopped for a full day, the length of this full day, contrary to the quote above, seems to have been independent of whether the earth was rotating or not. You are confused again, but since you say it is not your religion, then I feel a little freer to make some comments. Quoting the bible in relation to matters scientific is not valid, and religious "authorities" are not necessarily scientific authorities. The scientific method and proof is not the same as religious belief. It is not comparing like with like. Some people believe in UFOs, little green men, that the Earth was created some 5000 years ago, and other things, that is their perogative. Again if people choose to believe what a person the Bible calls Joshua wrote more than two thousand years ago, then as far as I'm concerned they may. What they cannot do is to use such writings when discussing a science to which they do not subscribe. Nothing to do with "comfort zones", a singularly meaningless term. I do not follow your comments about Neil Armstrong, time on the Moon was measured using the time standards and measurement techniques available at that period in time. Coming back to using the Earth/stars as a time keeper, as it was for thousands of years, this Astronomy Picture of the day site is interesting. It says that the recent Sumatran earthquake affected the Earths rotation by 300 microseconds, but the effect is still smaller than what happens during an El Nino. antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov These measurements are only possible because of much more invariant methods of time measurement, like the current atomic clocks. If the Earths rotation was in fact was the absolute time standard, with no other better methods of time measurement, then no matter what the calculations may have said, and no matter what one believed, there would be no way to verify them, since there is no way an absolute standard can be used to measure any variation in itself. Better, more invariant standards may be discovered, and in due course will become the new absolute standards until something even better comes along. An example is the standard metre. At one time this was a metal bar or etalon held in Paris. The metre was the length between the ends. The standard yard was a metal bar with lines engraved at each end, called a line standard. Both of these have been replaced by a wavelength of light method. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 329506 | 2005-03-06 05:07:00 | . Perhaps someone like Neil Armstrong’s activities might be closer to your comfort zone . Now what portion of a day was it that he spent on the moon? I never did quite figure that one out . Cheers, Ab I don't get your point Abdul . I can't remember how many hours Armstrong spent on the moon but the concept of days is a human construct . You could use it for the moon but since it is tidally locked, a moon day is about half an earth month long . Anyway, I think of time in terms of entropy . Time represents the measurement of the gradual running down of the universe . Order dissolving into disorder . Energy being released and being dispersed . But that is not nescessarily correct . It depends on whether the universe is open or closed . And quantum physicists look at time rather differently . I'll leave this to Terry, Graham, and Tony to expand upon 'cos I'm out of my depth . :D |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 329507 | 2005-03-06 06:18:00 | From earth to moon, now comes the topic of Neil Armstrong landed on moon. Just for your information, check this out (www.geocities.com) | Renmoo (66) | ||
| 329508 | 2005-03-06 07:42:00 | OK - I don't lose it often but perpetuating the so-called moon hoax James, is crass ignorance . This arrant nonsense was created by a few Americans who have developed a nice book/lecture tour living . Neil Armstrong et al landed on the moon . Just in case anyone is faintly doubtful, here is a quote from here - . braeunig . us/space/hoax . htm" target="_blank">www . braeunig . us There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail . Objects located in shadows should appear totally black . The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight . Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight (see note below) . Also, the Earth is a significant light source . If we factor in size and reflectivity, the Earth casts about 70 times as much light on the Moon as the Moon does on the Earth, and we are all familiar with how bright the Moon can be . These additional light sources provide the observed illumination . |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 329509 | 2005-03-06 09:38:00 | OK - I don't lose it often but perpetuating the so-called moon hoax James, is crass ignorance. This arrant nonsense was created by a few Americans who have developed a nice book/lecture tour living. Neil Armstrong et al landed on the moon. [/url] Careful Winston (g).MAny people are quite convinced that it did not happen. We were living in Malaysia at the time, and there was a big gathering of Islamic scholars there to debate whether it was possible for man to leave the earth. (The Koran suggested it was not) They debated at length, and despite having watched the TV coverage, finally concluded with the Scottish verdict "Not proven". Cheers Tony ( just mooning around ...) |
TonyF (246) | ||
| 329510 | 2005-03-07 02:48:00 | There are many people who are "quite convinced" that the Earth is flat. | Graham L (2) | ||
| 329511 | 2005-03-07 03:25:00 | Not bad for someone that wants to know why men can't have babies. Or are you just trying out for the dumber than dumbest post Well veale, it might interest you to know that men can have babies. Of course there would have to be some medical intervention. I refer to an instance where a woman had a hysterectomy after a fetus was created but before it was implanted in her uterus, the microscopic fetus was expelled from the uterus during the operation and implanted itself on the wall of the mothers large intestine and grew to close to 40 weeks and was then delivered by caesarian section. There is no reason why a compatible fetus could not be implanted, with Medical help in the abdomen of a man and allowed to grow there until it was mature enough to be delivered by caesarian. Any takers? |
theother1 (3573) | ||
| 329512 | 2005-03-07 04:26:00 | There are many people who are "quite convinced" that the Earth is flat . Arrrrrggggghhhhhh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . You mean to say it isn't flat? :eek: Shatter my illusions why don't you Graham, now I'll have to resign my membership of the FES Inc . And I always thought they were on the level . :( Cheers Billy 8-{) :xmouth: |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 329513 | 2005-03-07 04:47:00 | Not only is the Earth flat, but it is stationary !! Have a look at www.fixedearth.com |
TonyF (246) | ||
| 329514 | 2005-03-07 06:25:00 | Not only is the Earth flat, but it is stationary !! Have a look at . fixedearth . com/ . " target="_blank">www . fixedearth . com Good one Tony :thumbs: It always amazes me that these weirdos are quite happy to use the scientific/technological equipment, gadgets, TV, planes, cars, internet, GPS and so on and so on, which utilise the very sciences and physical laws which they deny . |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 | |||||