Has anyone heard of the hypothesis that right after the big bang occured, any matter that collided with dark matter was destroyed, and only about 2% of it remained in existence?
Educational. I have a few questions. How did we come to be? How did the universe come into existence. Where did energy and mass come from? I believe what you say about the age and size of the universe but did it just happen to appear 13.7billion years ago?
I think there is no Raw energy in the universe. Energy, to be observed, must carry mass. We can not observe anything individual and separated from mass. Light futons mus t carry very little mass to be observed. Am I correct?
@cdk007 You know, your video will not be understood by Creationists & by the vast majority of people on the planet, as a matter of fact. Basically, you're playing straight into their hands by appearing to them as an elitist. Just saying, it ain't reaching them.
Here is another way of pointing out the problem with a changing value for c…
If the universe is really 6,000 light years in radius – then all of the 10^22 stars must be within that sphere. What would be the density of stars within that sphere? What would be the night sky brightness if the 10^22 stars where within 6000 light years of Earth.???
Also, if light's speed was higher in the past, this means that electromagnetism was different from how it is now and photons produced by electrons/atoms would be based on different quantum mechanics.
I'd say they'd get rid of the conservation of energy. After all, their God supposedly had no creator. Meaning either their God spent eternity twiddling his thumbs, or popped into existence from nothing. The latter raises the point on why, if that's possible, the cosmos didn't just originate from nothing. So God is eternal, has an origin or not necessary. Or he doesn't exist. Take your pick
@redjirachi1 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Why do you equate science with a lack in belief of god? There's plenty of theists in the fields of science. Not one of them has EVER submitted a peer reviewed paper supporting a theory of god or young earth. Any scientist would jump at the opportunity to disprove theories, such as evolution, or any laws. And if a theist scientist COULD prove a young earth or their god, don't you think they would be all over it like flies on shit? And yet all we hear are crickets. Can you explain this?
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
@1tabligh You sound as if there is some kind of conspiracy going on with science. Science makes no claims but develops theories based on verifiably repeatable observations. Even if we could prove the big bang it will still be just a theory. Even after being told that there are plenty of religious people in the fields of science you still pretend there isn't. Why is that? Again I ask, where are the peer reviewed papers from the religious scientists overturning evolution and many other theories?
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
@1tabligh Are you serious when you ask "how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings"? Um, maybe because of the fact thats what we are made of? Can you have a house before the wood, nails and concrete, are even created? I think you would make an excellent scientist with your insight. You should submit a paper.
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
@1tabligh It would be just wonderful if someone could prove the existence of a universal creator, It would be even more fantastic if this person could prove what it's name was and what it wanted. Hey, maybe YOU can prove all of this for us! What would be your first piece of evidence a god created the universe. I hope it's juicy with rational information and facts. Do tell.
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
@thybigballs Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
@1tabligh So, you're not going to provide any evidence...er, truths in how you know your god created the universe? After this, we will move on to how you know what it wants, if you like. But please, now would be a great time to fulfill the request. Remember, assertions without proof require no further rebuttals.
@thybigballs Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
@1tabligh Science makes no claims as to whether a god exists or not. If you want to make an assertion then please note that assertions without evidence requires no further rebuttal. You certainly made an assertion of god when you said, "All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe". So, no evidence= no rebuttal. Philosophy does not circumvent this no matter how hard you try.
@thybigballs Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
@thybigballs If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
Nice vid. But you ignored the fact that Energy conservation only holds for closed systems. If we assume that God exits and that he (or she) created the universe, as well as medling in it after creation, then the universe is not a closed system and therefore energy conservation does not hold.
i have yet to come across evidence that the universe is actually a closed system.
of course that doesn't mean that the c was higher in the past. there is no evidence to my knowledge, that supports it.
So is Erik Verlinde, a theoretical physicist and string theorist, actually a creationist? After all, he says, “For me gravity DOESN’T EXIST” (“A Scientist Takes on Gravity,” NYT, July 12, 2010).
He also said, “what I mean by that it’s an ILLUSION is that one would eventually like to know where it comes from, an explanation” (“Why is gravity an illusion?” bigthink(dot)com/erikverlinde).
So according to a "brilliant" physicist, gravity is just an illusion? LOL!!
@IloveYOUviruses "this is why every bigbanger must deny the first law of thermodynamics"
Presumably you accept the Doppler effect so you yourself according to your reasoning reject the first law of thermodynamics but then again you did not account for the whole picture which includes relativity and thus not only makes the Doppler effect but also redshift compatible with the first law.
Where is your humility? How can you possibly believe the smartest physicists overlooked something like that?
@infinit888 Humility is shown in admitting ignorance when it's adequate.
Astronomer Halton Arp (Lopez corredoira and others) has proposed that there are other explanations for the redshift of starlight, this is because there are huge exceptions for the Hubble "law", Hubble and Hawking were arrogant by excluding other causes for the redshift.
I'm just sayin', cosmological redshift violates the 2nd law of thermodinamics according to the Planck–Einstein equation E=hv.
@IloveYOUviruses "Humility is shown in admitting ignorance when it's adequate." - Yet I still don't see you do it. Either you do not know how relativity solves the problem OR you are deliberately being dishonest.
"proposed that there are other explanations" - Indeed he has but fails to provide a mechanism and a large collection of galaxy surveys were unable to produce statistically significant results to reject the null hypothesis. Further some evidence even falsifies his hypothesis.
@IloveYOUviruses "this is because there are huge exceptions for the Hubble "law"" - I'm sorry you mean because there USED to be a large statistical variance for the Hubble law values. Back in the 60's the detractors were already in a minority position but now because we have better measuring instruments and have gathered much more data even more so.
@IloveYOUviruses "Hubble and Hawking were arrogant by excluding other causes for the redshift."
Show me where these men said there is no other cause for redshift.
"cosmological redshift violates the 2nd law of thermodinamics" Yeah someone who has a 19th century understanding of Physics and mixes up the laws of thermodynamics is probably not only qualified to have this discussion but not at all arrogant for believing he has a better grasp on the universe then almost every living astrophysicist.
Yes, Hawking and Penrose showed that singlarity happened 14-16 billion years ago right? Wrong, particle theorists tell us that the first amount of time was greatly accelerated, if not all matter would be unstable. due to these facts no one knows the age of the universe. I am just wondering is it that the person making this video know this and is not telling the truth or are they just pretending to have advanced scientific knowlege?
@songwriterdad But the brief time when the speed of light may have been acclerated would have happened long before the stars that were looking at came into being. For us to see them, the speed of light would of had to be accelerated after their creation, or we still couldn't see them.
@songwriterdad No, think about it. If was something was created 100,000 years ago that was 50000 lightyears away, it doesn't matter what the speed of light might have been right after the bigbang, if the speed of light was constant since then we would see it as it was 50000 years ago.
@TimofAwsome There are a couple of issues here. Particle theorists tell us that the intitial expansion was much faster than we can imagine. That space was expanding accross a void of some sort, so the physics were different and the speed of light did not apply. The fact is that at creation all things were right next to each other. As space expanded it would distort the speed of light . That said you appear to not have understood what I said about there being a afaster than light expansion.
@songwriterdad Its true that the orginal expansion seconds after the big bang was enormously accelerate, but your saying that everything then was beside each other? It wasn't, many things, including our solar system didn't arrise until 10 billion years after the big bang, when it was still of course expanding, but stable. Every physicist agrees space is expanding, but other then right after the big bang the speed of light appears to have been constant.
I wrote a paper years ago explaining that being that time is discrete and can not be subdivided smaller than a Planck Time, if you do the math you willfind that the speed of light is exactly the same speed as it would be if time could be divided no smaller. Therefore the speed of light may actually be much faster than thought, which would explain why it seems to go at the same speed no matter what your speed or direction is. It is the max amount that we can see it move given time.
@songwriterdad I don't think I'm getting your point. If time can't be subdivided smaller than a planck time and that correlates with the speed of light, how would that make the speed of light faster then physicists thought? All that would suggest is that the speed of light is the max speed you could possible go, which is already what was said. And the speed agreed on is roughly 186 000 miles/sec. Unless scientists are unaware planck time and SoL correlation to it, which I dont think they are.
@TimofAwsome the speed of anything is the time x distanance, therefore if there is a min amount of time that can go by that means that light could be traveling much faster than we think. It is important to point out though that it has never been proven that there is a min amount of time that can go by. All of your top people in the sub atomic field insist there is. It only makes sense if space and time are the same thing and the min amount of space is a Planck space then in space time likewise.
Ok, I do not support young earth and that bullshit, but in the video...what if the constant G was higher? Also, if Forces were lower, but masses too, then the radia acceleration would still be the same and plants would have formed, a I right? For the argument about the stars, well that one was right. And the argument of a = F/m, u say that the acceleration would be too big, but not really since the force would be low bcuz of low masses. So...well, I wonder were is my or ur mistake
@rolingpingu That's an interesting thought but I'm not sure it's right. The problem is that you can't make the force of gravity drastically lower because the stars would fall apart. This isn't linked to f=ma, so lowering the force of gravity wont balance out the accleration do to loss of mass. The f=ma was used for the notion that there was a hiccup of drastic change, which would destroy the universe to do extreme accleration. I could be wrong though,
This video begins with one giant assumption, that because E=mc^2 today, it has always been E=mc^2.
If the speed of light were doubled some time in the past, how do you know that at that time E=m(c/2)^2? If the 'constant' c is inversely proportional to the change in the speed of light from today's speed, then the equation stays in balance. The solutions given on the video are not the only possibilities.
@pat34lee You obviously didn't bother to watch the first part of this series where he goes over this very point. The reason why he uses it as an assumption in part 3 is because of the explanation he gave in part 1. It's QED, no need to restate the premises with every video in a series. Please go back and watch the first. It typically helps to go in order with educational material like this series.
@pat34lee- "This video begins with one giant assumption, that because E=mc^2 today, it has always been E=mc^2."
That's not a giant assumption at all. The giant assumption is to think that it was different as we have no indication that the equation can be changed. We don't have any indication that light can naturally go fast that the current constant either, but that's a whole different discussion.
(cont'd)- "If the speed of light were doubled some time in the past, how do you know that at that time E=m(c/2)^2? If the 'constant' c is inversely proportional to the change in the speed of light from today's speed, then the equation stays in balance."
Yeah, and if I divide my debt by my car payments my checkbook would be balanced too. But unfortunately for my debt and your wishful thinking you can't just add terms to an equation without demonstrating that they represent a real phenomenon.
@pat34lee This will drive them nuts, According to a Physics paper I wrote Being that Velocity=Time X Distance and that a Planck Time means that if light moved instantly the speed of light would still appear to be 299 792 458 m / s, because a min amount of time needs to pass before we perceive the movement of the light. Light could be 2 times or 1000 times faster than we think it is. Physicists actually backed into Planck time using the speed of light. Not realizing this other implication.
@songwriterdad There is another problem counting on the speed of light in space. C is only constant in a total vacuum. Space is anything but a total vacuum. Besides the hydrogen that is known to be spread out through space, there is ice, dust and all types of elements floating out there in unknown quantities and densities. Since C changes through any medium, how many times could it change in the distances between stars?
young earth creationist never said that light was faster in the past the Bible says "GOD stretched out the heavens" that would imply that he created the planets and by his unmeasurable power stretched out the heavens
Also the theory of gravity is currently being reviewed because everyone knows that it doesn't fit in with the study of quantum mechanics. The new theory(s) are based on Eddingtons theorys and they actually disprove the Big Bang from oscilating and/or exploding and from being a singularity, ie. from ever happening, and the origins of the universe for big bangers will be rethought.
@kranked354 Even if that were true the point of science is to come up with a naturalistic explanation of things. Any new theories will still contradict the bible.
Um, no, the point of science is to take detailed observations, and compare them with the observations of others. Science is not inherently naturalistic, and it would be dubious to mix the two, in my opinion.
I doubt that science will corroborate the bible, but considering that you are unlikely to possess powers of prophecy, I don't know how you could possibly be sure of that. But then, that's induction for you.
@Jcolinsol WRONG! You forgot about the part where they compare empirical data to actual results. I suggest you look up the scientific method. The fact that you type your message on a computer means we have a pretty solid understanding of the properties of matter and how to manipulate them to our needs, we don't know everything about physics but as you can see we have a pretty good grasp. And I don't need to be a soothsayer to see that science has already proved the bible wrong in many areas.
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
Maybe you should be the one looking science, ya maroon.
Honkys rarely know of what they speak. We agree that science is about observation. I don't consider that to mean anything more than shared observation, actuality doesn't enter into it. I consider the inductive reasoning used by some scientists to be unreliable, and I consider it odious to appeal to science while making unscientific statements and holding unscientific beliefs.
You didn't really make an argument supporting your assertion that naturalism is part of science.
@Jcolinsol I love this. Gotta pull out the race shit now eh? Ok, well here is some non-creationist creative and realistic thinking for you. The american black population accounts for only a fraction of the total american population, yet blacks account for over 80% of violent crimes? Interesting. Perhaps you motherfuckers like to cornhole each other in prison because all of your women look exactly the same and smell like burnt bacon grease you stupic fucking uneducated pole-smoker. Now go pray.
@LRWarrior. Wow that's hurtful, I don't smell like bacon grease. Actually I don't know any black people who do. Maybe its cause I'm Canadian. Either way, personal attacks is not a way of logical argumentation.
@Jcolinsol Wow. Your first sentence discredited your whole argument. Personal attacks are not part of logical reasoning or discussion. And its not even funny, btw.
@Jcolinsol Ok before I go on I want to clarify something. So you do acknowledge that science helps us understand the world we live in? You just think that the theory of evolution is unscientific?
Science does not help us understand the world. It illustrates what scientists agree that they are observing
As far as I can tell, evolution is at least partially scientific. It is stated in a scientific way. I'm not sure about the proof, I don't consider fossil evidence an airtight proof (you can't observe one species evolving into another, you have to infer that with reasoning)
What, is my opinion of evolution some kind of litmus test? Personally, I prefer emergence theory
That video didn't really illuminate the subject for me. Showing that fish can evolve into other kinds of fish, doesn't really demonstrate that a fish can evolve into a mammal over time.
@Jcolinsol I didn't try to teach you how evolution works. If a big catastrophe appears, a particular form of evolution happens. And a species can evolve into another in a short amount of time.
@Jcolinsol If you accept a fish can change over time, which i believe you have just acknowleged, then do you not see how a little change over a very large amount of time can result in a LOT of change? By admiting mico evolution you must accept macro evolution as they are both the SAME, just 1 is on a lrger time frame! That is the only difference!
And just to make sure everyone knows, I do not support this possibility. For there is enough observable evidence to point to an old universe that agrees with the light constant. Many geological evidence on earth plus all the billions of evidence for formation of stars/galaxies all point to an universe MUCH older than 6000 yrs.
From the previous, what i mean is that at the beginning maybe light was moving very fast but very little mass was in the universe, I am sure it was fairly chaotic during the initial moments of the big bang. As time passed then possibly raw energy turned to mass and light speed slowed down and became fairly constant allowing formation of rotational systems. Now I am not supporting this belief, just saying that to completely debunk something every possibility needs to be looked at.
@Mooker777 In the Bible it says in the book of Isaiah that "God stretched out the heavens". The creationists who know what they're talking about interpret that as God stretching out the universe as/once it was created, meaning that it is possible for light to be seen from many light years away.
I would simply point out that if mass was changing to compensate for change in light speed to keep energy the same, then how could simple steady and constant rotational systems such as galaxies and our solar system form with a constantly changing gravitational pull.
Also, what it raw energy turned into mass? I always thought that through nuclear means mass can turn to energy and that the reverse "energy into mass" were possible. If this happened there may still be a plausibility for yec.
Wow, another video that has nothing to do with gravity. And mass is not a form of energy; it is a constant used to calculate energy. And gamma, the derivative of the sine at a velocity of object divided by c, is much more important than E=mc^2. Perhaps, you don't know special relativity.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
What is the beginning? The beginning of what? The Earth was not in the beginning, the earth was created not too long ago. There probably was a big bang, but the big bang could not have created space and time, for it that be the case, who created the singularity that exploded? For how long had it been existing before the big bang?
I guess the big bang created demons too eh? Some of you need to be attacked by demons
Now, I came up with something that a YE Creationbot might try to say.... c was much faster at a time when there wasn't as much mass in the universe (those first few instants), and then c decreased as mass increased.
The problem of course is that with lower mass (and hence lower gravity), the stars and galaxies could not have formed at all
This video is nonsense, we can test and demonstrate gravity and see the process occuring, this is not true of evolution. It's funny how you expect us to believe in evolution which we can't see, but then get mad at us for believing in a God we can't see! Science supports God, but not evolution.
You can test evolution, it's called genetics. It's similar to how DNA can show whether you are someone's dad/son/relation, well, the same idea applies, and when the DNA of various species are tested, it fits to the model presented by evolution.
A good example is the chromosomes of chimps and humans. You can see where 2 chromosomes of the chimp, fused to form one chromosome of humans. And I don't just mean roughly, but you can see exactly where this process happened.
No your wrong. Evolution would be changes to morphology. Please PM me with that insane chromosome 2 fusion claim and I'll show you what really happened, and like your claim, it's not based on assumption.
Could someone please clarify for me: If we are seeing a galaxy like JKCS041 that is 10.2 billion light years away and is accelerating away from us (and everything else) then we are seeing it where it was 10.2 billion years ago? Is that correct? If so how long did it take to get it there? And where is it now? It's mind boggling to think about. Would it be possible to map out where everything came from to a single point of origin?
lol its more complicated that that because space-time is expanding. So in otherwords its farther away then it actually looks. As for if we could "map" where the single point was, no....you couldnt. That single "point" is all of existance. All of space was compressed to a point. So there is no one point in space now, that everything was.
Thanks for answering my question. Not that I'm all that less confused now! But I appreciate your response. I guess I was thinking that the universe must still be expanding from the initial point as that was most likely the event to give everything the initial momentum. And that it might be possible to at least find a point everything is expanding away from. I now see how much more complicated it is than that.
Ya when people think of space expanding they think of "more" space being added to the outside. Like sewing more cloth onto a blanket. What is actually happening is the blanket is being stretched. if you draw dots on a blanket and then squished the blanket to infinite...all the dots would be in the same place, which is all of the blanket.
You have no evidence of such a stretching to have actually happened. The only way you can even arrive at that conclusion is to read it first, and then try to find evidence. But even at that you have no evidence.
All of the data supports a big bang model. Even if there would be flaws in such a model we know for certain that the universe is expanding, and that it is roughly 13.7 billion years old. You cannot refute that, no matter how hard you try.
That's silly. UV radiation is harmful to current forms of life but that isn't to say life couldn't evolve with UV. Many of the first plant organisms that produced the ozone that protects us had some defense mechanisms early in their evolution. It is not a far cry to say that life could exist without an Ozone layer.
It's like you're taking one detail of the perspective, and isolating it so you can defeat it.
Nah, a straw man is when you take the argument and twist it just a bit so that you are creating a similar but different argument and then attack that argument. "Evolutionists claim the eye just popped into existence out of nothing! That can't happen!!" That's a straw man. Christ conquers is simply ignoring evidence he doesn't like/understand and asserting a position he hasn't researched or grasped. It's not really dishonesty it's just overassertion with limited understanding.
Unlike the christian bible, science doesn't look to strengthen it's theories, it's constantly attempting to disprove them. We don't test theories in only the right circumstances, we test them to see if they work in every circumstance.
Christians are always defending the bible and twisting it's words to fit the modern day.
I did it for 19 years of my life, and I don't regret it. I'm glad I learned for myself. The bible mentions questioning everything, not defending something you don't know about
Yeah we should have looked at immaginary fairy tales to describe reality...
I like your "they look back at reality" because at least you admit we are looking at REALITY, while you can't distinguish reality from immagination.
BTW looking back at reality is not closing and opening eyes, it's making predictions with a theory that can be falsified and test them. For example ERVs, human chromosome fusion etc... all predictions come true, unlike Ezekiel cap.29
"the stars do not have to be less than billions of light years away"
except that if light was created in the 1st day then we shouldn't be able to see objects more than 6000light years away. They can still exist but their light should not reach us, unless your god is a deciever and made the universe as a monumental lie, however in your bible somewhere it states that god cannot lie and therefore he can't decieve us like that.
@ChristConquers: the presence, or absence, of oxygen is not mandatory to the evolution of life. There is CURRENTLY plenty of microorganisms living on Earth that can only live in oxigen-deprived environments. Take them and put them in an oxygen-rich environment, and they die. Put oxigen-dependent organisms and deprive them of oxygen, and they die.
Life can take many forms, there is not just one possible chemistry of life. Life develops and evolves to survive it's environment.
No wonder those YECs suck so much at science: their facial hair is appalling! They're either clean-shaven or possess face fuzz that would only be found on a hobo or child molester. Now Darwin- there's a beard that rocks the science lab.
This is a misrepresentation of Setterfield. He assumes that the speed of light was very fast for only a very short period of time. Thus gravity could be very weak for a very short period of time. That is consistent with the galaxies flying apart from each other. The arguement with Setterfield is about the possibility that the speed of light is constant. Dark matter may have an easier explanation if we did not assume that the speed of light was constant......
my friend is a YEC.. and whenever i try to tell him he is wrong he says in quote "everything you are saying is based only on theory and assumption"
i tried explaining what i saw in this video, and he said all the math, and science in it was based on theory and assumption, it is just impossible to get through his thick skull.
We know that the nearest star is still very far away. Most of the stars in our galaxy are much further away from our system than 6,000 light-years, and with very sensitive instruments it is likely possible to measure this by parallax, proving that those stars must've either existed for more than 6,000 years, or God created the light from those stars en route to Earth before the star existed to fool us.
To those people who say that people are silly because they believe the earth is 6000 years old and then say that to argue their point with them is foolish - you are all wrong. The whole point is that despite ALL the evidence, these people, and there are many, believe the Universe is 6000 years old, that means the argument is not about the age of the Universe, but the need for YAC's to prove the unprovable due to their 'Faith'. It's an ideological argument not a scientific one.
this is blasphemy, it clealy states in ISAIah 41:33 that the devil brought about the delusion of how you stick to the ground and the lights in the sky are just "there" for your deception........in verse 34 the devil chuckles at you evolutionist.
I was born OK the first time, but born better the second time
Your vids are neat. And they really illustrate what the "Creationists" are doing. Instead of hiding behind mysticism and morality, they turn themselves into nutcases arguing blatant untruth. And in science a hypothesis has to be attacked to see if a better one can come along, and even the 'laws' are subject to a better explanation. By constantly attacking, more energy is spent explaining them, educating the public further. Thus they get more known and accepted.
1 thing i don't get: why can't option 1 (2:47) be true?
E(total) = E(raw) + mc^2
If c^2 used to be higher (and hence mc^2 used to be higher), why couldn't the raw energy have been lower? this means the light ended up converting kinetic energy into other forms. photons slowed, presumably because they split up into other particles (which accounts for the increased raw energy) that took some of the kinetic energy.
God wouldn't be stupid enough to create a universe that would simply implode in on itself, he could only have created it with apparent age. So tell me, how did the universe begin since you've successfully proven that our universe (at less that 6000 years old) would implode in on itself? Hey, what's a couple thousand years between friends, right? And if you can't explain it, maybe God has a little something for you to learn.....
And whether or not current scientific minds have an explanation, all this video is showing is that YEC is not an adequate one. An irresponsibly bad one in fact. The naturalistic explanation of the universe's origin is irrelevant to the topic of this video.
never mind that science has disproved the 6000-year-old universe. science can't (yet) explain the entire subject, so god must have done it 6000 years ago! wtf kind of logic is that?
what will you do if/when we do figure out how the universe began? deny it like you deny evolution? we've figured out the water cycle. why don't you deny it to defend the biblical account of god opening windows in the sky to allow the waters above it to fall as rain?
photons are governed by quantum mechanics and will exhibit wave-particle duality they exhibit properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when quantitative mass is measured.
Nope, I know. To every process, there is irreversibility. I never said that you are going to smash trucks to a brick wall for expirement thats stupidity in practical sense, but if mc trucks attain a speed of light, you can generate particles somehow. m=E/c2 tells you so.
By the definition you used, E = gamma mc², not E = mc².
But if you take kinetic energy to be "raw" energy, as you put it (and since you included thermal energy, I guess you do), then your equation is accurate.
Of course, it doesn't really matter, because while decreasing the speed of light WOULD increase gamma, it would do so by SUCH a small extent (gamma is still very close to one for the vast majority of objects), that it wouldn't significantly affect the calculations.
How should the creator of the creator be produced, when your thoughts can never even understand the universe. Accept it that the idea of GOD exist and it is logical to believe therefore.
Whether I can produce or not the creator of the creator, It does not change the fact that there is a creator. Its for you to believe, not everything are visual. Not everything are in the form of material.
Now, i cooked you a pizza, you then ask for pancake, while before you only ask for the pizza, get it?
Particle accelerators convert energy into matter in the form of subatomic particles. There are reasons why a substantial quantity of matter cannot be created and contained, the first being the amount of energy required, E=mc².
Forget about the creator of the creator, you cannot even produce your creator of matter.
You are disingenuous, science does not make Christians no more than it makes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
You fail from the beginning, science can and does create matter.
Definitely what you have posted fact is a failure as you describe it. Its a way blackholes are made, materials in it center compress and mass in this state, a teaspoon of material could have a mass the same as the the mass of a continent.
E= v dm/d2t, is undenyingly (one way direction so far) tell me have you ever known any experiments of matter gaining atomic mass? i know one so far, but losing atomic mass.
Energy is eternal but matter is destructible. Matter occupies space and has mass, but the logic is, if it has mass but dont have volume is it matter? or Just energy?
"light from a terawatt laser is sent into SLAC's highly focused beam of 47-GeV electrons. Some of the laser photons are scattered backwards, and in so doing convert into high-energy gamma ray photons. Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- light scattering of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.) "
Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?
The Answer
It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles. "
Light itself is matter/particle, and what accelearated in atom smasher are particles. You are not creating/making matter. You are actually separating it into several new particles, i guess(but hazy). If there would be a means of measuring all accounted energy from accelerating that particle and the out put potential energy of the dervied particles i guess, if it gains mass(derived particles), i guess, i will say its true perhaps, that matter can be created, but there always an exception.
Consider my simple presentation, (m dv/d2t mass conserve, purely mechanical) H2 + O2 = energy + H2O it could be reversed, right? H2O + electrolysis = H2 + O2 v dm/d2t (*Nuclear Energy) Uranium(Initial state:radiating)= Energy + Uranium(decayed) But, can you reverse this process? Decayed Uranium(decayed) + energy = Uranium (Initial state) Possible or not? Imagine(dot)monkey brain(dot)same(slash) all
Obviously there is more to particle physics than the math, otherwise you might conclude that you can study particle physics by smashing Mac trucks into brick walls. Purely mechanical.
A particle accelerator is needed because a lot of energy must be focused into a small area to create matter. A high energy particle beam makes this possible.
If the Particle Physicists say they create matter and the Biblical Physicists say you can't, I think I'll side with the Particle Physicists.
But, it was never said that particle made was an anti-matter or matter itself.
" Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.
Partial, but theres no proof that you can totally convert energy into mass/matter. If so, the fate of mass will lies to this fact, that once, decayed or consumed its irreversebly can not be created.
Blackhole has mass, and yet, its wierd, its try to suck of matter, even photons could not escape.
This will be the equation describing irreversibility of the process of making mass/particle
m <= E/c2; therefore, energy itself can not be totally converted to matter, so as the fate of matter will be extinct, less otherwise proven of rebirth, and entropy production goes negative
Wave-particle duality, that fit. photon is basic particle from the 12 particles that compose matter and yet, all of them considerably has no mass. Thats why physisct are trying to find the HIGGS particle, these days.Particles are building blocks of matter, they are matter itself. How can it not be consistent?
Why can't scientists build a time machine so that we can send creationists back to the Middle Age they love so much?
saguhh00 6 days ago
Has anyone heard of the hypothesis that right after the big bang occured, any matter that collided with dark matter was destroyed, and only about 2% of it remained in existence?
thybigballs 3 months ago
Educational. I have a few questions. How did we come to be? How did the universe come into existence. Where did energy and mass come from? I believe what you say about the age and size of the universe but did it just happen to appear 13.7billion years ago?
jmwhthd 3 months ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@jmwhthd Science can only hypothesize about the causes of the big bang. Maybe one day we will figure it out.
thybigballs 3 months ago
I think there is no Raw energy in the universe. Energy, to be observed, must carry mass. We can not observe anything individual and separated from mass. Light futons mus t carry very little mass to be observed. Am I correct?
apspacking 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cdk007 You know, your video will not be understood by Creationists & by the vast majority of people on the planet, as a matter of fact. Basically, you're playing straight into their hands by appearing to them as an elitist. Just saying, it ain't reaching them.
GaolisVideoLog 4 months ago
Here is another way of pointing out the problem with a changing value for c…
If the universe is really 6,000 light years in radius – then all of the 10^22 stars must be within that sphere. What would be the density of stars within that sphere? What would be the night sky brightness if the 10^22 stars where within 6000 light years of Earth.???
apeek7 6 months ago
Wonderful educational material
UsqueAdNauseam 6 months ago
I love the videos mate Keep em coming!
isizinyo 7 months ago
Also, if light's speed was higher in the past, this means that electromagnetism was different from how it is now and photons produced by electrons/atoms would be based on different quantum mechanics.
crocaduck 7 months ago
I'd say they'd get rid of the conservation of energy. After all, their God supposedly had no creator. Meaning either their God spent eternity twiddling his thumbs, or popped into existence from nothing. The latter raises the point on why, if that's possible, the cosmos didn't just originate from nothing. So God is eternal, has an origin or not necessary. Or he doesn't exist. Take your pick
redjirachi1 8 months ago
@redjirachi1 Then how can the atheists delude themselve and believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 6 months ago
@1tabligh Why do you equate science with a lack in belief of god? There's plenty of theists in the fields of science. Not one of them has EVER submitted a peer reviewed paper supporting a theory of god or young earth. Any scientist would jump at the opportunity to disprove theories, such as evolution, or any laws. And if a theist scientist COULD prove a young earth or their god, don't you think they would be all over it like flies on shit? And yet all we hear are crickets. Can you explain this?
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs The atheist Delusion!
How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh You sound as if there is some kind of conspiracy going on with science. Science makes no claims but develops theories based on verifiably repeatable observations. Even if we could prove the big bang it will still be just a theory. Even after being told that there are plenty of religious people in the fields of science you still pretend there isn't. Why is that? Again I ask, where are the peer reviewed papers from the religious scientists overturning evolution and many other theories?
thybigballs 3 months ago
Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?
No?
Then how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?
1tabligh 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Are you serious when you ask "how can the duped and the brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings"? Um, maybe because of the fact thats what we are made of? Can you have a house before the wood, nails and concrete, are even created? I think you would make an excellent scientist with your insight. You should submit a paper.
thybigballs 3 months ago
What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent
All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.
1tabligh 3 months ago
@1tabligh It would be just wonderful if someone could prove the existence of a universal creator, It would be even more fantastic if this person could prove what it's name was and what it wanted. Hey, maybe YOU can prove all of this for us! What would be your first piece of evidence a god created the universe. I hope it's juicy with rational information and facts. Do tell.
thybigballs 3 months ago
@thybigballs The atheist Delusion!
Your delusions that science has put out the notion of God is purely *rhetorical* and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.
Your claim is nothing more than a *fanatical* illusion based on unproven theories.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@thybigballs Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.
To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be *treason* to science.
1tabligh 2 months ago
@1tabligh So, you're not going to provide any evidence...er, truths in how you know your god created the universe? After this, we will move on to how you know what it wants, if you like. But please, now would be a great time to fulfill the request. Remember, assertions without proof require no further rebuttals.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs Even if the followers of a religious school of thought had no proofs for their claim, to conclude firmly and forcibly that non- being reigns beyond the sensory realm would be a non-scientific choice, based on imagination and speculation.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1tabligh Science makes no claims as to whether a god exists or not. If you want to make an assertion then please note that assertions without evidence requires no further rebuttal. You certainly made an assertion of god when you said, "All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe". So, no evidence= no rebuttal. Philosophy does not circumvent this no matter how hard you try.
thybigballs 2 months ago
@thybigballs Some people try to propagate this *fantasy* in the garb of science and to present their choice as having been dictated by scientific thought. In the final analysis, however, the denial involved in such an assertion is unworthy of science and philosophy, and even *contradicts* empirical logic.
1tabligh 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thybigballs If man, through the application of scientific instruments and criteria, cannot perceive the existence of a thing, he cannot deny its existence simply because it is incompatible with material criteria, unless he disposes of some proof that the thing in question is impossible.
1tabligh 2 months ago
Nice vid. But you ignored the fact that Energy conservation only holds for closed systems. If we assume that God exits and that he (or she) created the universe, as well as medling in it after creation, then the universe is not a closed system and therefore energy conservation does not hold.
i have yet to come across evidence that the universe is actually a closed system.
of course that doesn't mean that the c was higher in the past. there is no evidence to my knowledge, that supports it.
beyondEV 10 months ago
So is Erik Verlinde, a theoretical physicist and string theorist, actually a creationist? After all, he says, “For me gravity DOESN’T EXIST” (“A Scientist Takes on Gravity,” NYT, July 12, 2010).
He also said, “what I mean by that it’s an ILLUSION is that one would eventually like to know where it comes from, an explanation” (“Why is gravity an illusion?” bigthink(dot)com/erikverlinde).
So according to a "brilliant" physicist, gravity is just an illusion? LOL!!
AA32m7io1 10 months ago
Repent, Jesus is coming soon. Be saved from the coming destruction.
nftprd 10 months ago
390 ppl realized that cosmological redshifts also makes photons lose energy according to the Planck–Einstein equation E=hv
this is why every bigbanger must deny the first law of thermodynamics AND the Planck relation ;)
THINK ABOUT IT
IloveYOUviruses 10 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses "this is why every bigbanger must deny the first law of thermodynamics"
Presumably you accept the Doppler effect so you yourself according to your reasoning reject the first law of thermodynamics but then again you did not account for the whole picture which includes relativity and thus not only makes the Doppler effect but also redshift compatible with the first law.
Where is your humility? How can you possibly believe the smartest physicists overlooked something like that?
infinit888 7 months ago
@infinit888 Humility is shown in admitting ignorance when it's adequate.
Astronomer Halton Arp (Lopez corredoira and others) has proposed that there are other explanations for the redshift of starlight, this is because there are huge exceptions for the Hubble "law", Hubble and Hawking were arrogant by excluding other causes for the redshift.
I'm just sayin', cosmological redshift violates the 2nd law of thermodinamics according to the Planck–Einstein equation E=hv.
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses "Humility is shown in admitting ignorance when it's adequate." - Yet I still don't see you do it. Either you do not know how relativity solves the problem OR you are deliberately being dishonest.
"proposed that there are other explanations" - Indeed he has but fails to provide a mechanism and a large collection of galaxy surveys were unable to produce statistically significant results to reject the null hypothesis. Further some evidence even falsifies his hypothesis.
infinit888 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses "this is because there are huge exceptions for the Hubble "law"" - I'm sorry you mean because there USED to be a large statistical variance for the Hubble law values. Back in the 60's the detractors were already in a minority position but now because we have better measuring instruments and have gathered much more data even more so.
infinit888 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses "Hubble and Hawking were arrogant by excluding other causes for the redshift."
Show me where these men said there is no other cause for redshift.
"cosmological redshift violates the 2nd law of thermodinamics" Yeah someone who has a 19th century understanding of Physics and mixes up the laws of thermodynamics is probably not only qualified to have this discussion but not at all arrogant for believing he has a better grasp on the universe then almost every living astrophysicist.
infinit888 7 months ago
I don't understand this video therefore god exists.
gimmepassword 10 months ago
@gimmepassword As well as Santa, Unicorns, Bigfoot etc.
xTheFBP 10 months ago
at 0:40 who are the dudes there? I thought i recognized the middle one, but i'm not sure.
LianellEsorrasilome 11 months ago
@LianellEsorrasilome from the left: ken ham,ted haggard,kent hovind. three of americas greatest nut jobs.
flyinj1000 10 months ago
@LianellEsorrasilome Left - Bob Dutko, right - kent hovind, middle - IDFK.
gimmepassword 10 months ago
Yes, Hawking and Penrose showed that singlarity happened 14-16 billion years ago right? Wrong, particle theorists tell us that the first amount of time was greatly accelerated, if not all matter would be unstable. due to these facts no one knows the age of the universe. I am just wondering is it that the person making this video know this and is not telling the truth or are they just pretending to have advanced scientific knowlege?
songwriterdad 11 months ago
@songwriterdad But the brief time when the speed of light may have been acclerated would have happened long before the stars that were looking at came into being. For us to see them, the speed of light would of had to be accelerated after their creation, or we still couldn't see them.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
@TimofAwsome Well that may or may not be true. We have neither the time nor the space (no pun intented) to go over that subject here.
songwriterdad 11 months ago
@songwriterdad No, think about it. If was something was created 100,000 years ago that was 50000 lightyears away, it doesn't matter what the speed of light might have been right after the bigbang, if the speed of light was constant since then we would see it as it was 50000 years ago.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
@TimofAwsome There are a couple of issues here. Particle theorists tell us that the intitial expansion was much faster than we can imagine. That space was expanding accross a void of some sort, so the physics were different and the speed of light did not apply. The fact is that at creation all things were right next to each other. As space expanded it would distort the speed of light . That said you appear to not have understood what I said about there being a afaster than light expansion.
songwriterdad 11 months ago
@songwriterdad Its true that the orginal expansion seconds after the big bang was enormously accelerate, but your saying that everything then was beside each other? It wasn't, many things, including our solar system didn't arrise until 10 billion years after the big bang, when it was still of course expanding, but stable. Every physicist agrees space is expanding, but other then right after the big bang the speed of light appears to have been constant.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
@TimofAwsome
I wrote a paper years ago explaining that being that time is discrete and can not be subdivided smaller than a Planck Time, if you do the math you willfind that the speed of light is exactly the same speed as it would be if time could be divided no smaller. Therefore the speed of light may actually be much faster than thought, which would explain why it seems to go at the same speed no matter what your speed or direction is. It is the max amount that we can see it move given time.
songwriterdad 11 months ago
@songwriterdad I don't think I'm getting your point. If time can't be subdivided smaller than a planck time and that correlates with the speed of light, how would that make the speed of light faster then physicists thought? All that would suggest is that the speed of light is the max speed you could possible go, which is already what was said. And the speed agreed on is roughly 186 000 miles/sec. Unless scientists are unaware planck time and SoL correlation to it, which I dont think they are.
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
@TimofAwsome the speed of anything is the time x distanance, therefore if there is a min amount of time that can go by that means that light could be traveling much faster than we think. It is important to point out though that it has never been proven that there is a min amount of time that can go by. All of your top people in the sub atomic field insist there is. It only makes sense if space and time are the same thing and the min amount of space is a Planck space then in space time likewise.
songwriterdad 10 months ago
Ok, I do not support young earth and that bullshit, but in the video...what if the constant G was higher? Also, if Forces were lower, but masses too, then the radia acceleration would still be the same and plants would have formed, a I right? For the argument about the stars, well that one was right. And the argument of a = F/m, u say that the acceleration would be too big, but not really since the force would be low bcuz of low masses. So...well, I wonder were is my or ur mistake
rolingpingu 11 months ago
@rolingpingu That's an interesting thought but I'm not sure it's right. The problem is that you can't make the force of gravity drastically lower because the stars would fall apart. This isn't linked to f=ma, so lowering the force of gravity wont balance out the accleration do to loss of mass. The f=ma was used for the notion that there was a hiccup of drastic change, which would destroy the universe to do extreme accleration. I could be wrong though,
TimofAwsome 11 months ago
...OR they can deny Einstein's theory of general relativity altogether ^_^
lapkine77 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
kasunikaanjana 1 year ago
LOL, Ken Ham looks like such a douche.
adkinsjr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is your lucky day with naughty hot chicks mworld5.info
LisesiHeath 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
World s no 1 Russian women dating site here gettop5.info
RileyDarlem 1 year ago
This video begins with one giant assumption, that because E=mc^2 today, it has always been E=mc^2.
If the speed of light were doubled some time in the past, how do you know that at that time E=m(c/2)^2? If the 'constant' c is inversely proportional to the change in the speed of light from today's speed, then the equation stays in balance. The solutions given on the video are not the only possibilities.
pat34lee 1 year ago
@pat34lee You obviously didn't bother to watch the first part of this series where he goes over this very point. The reason why he uses it as an assumption in part 3 is because of the explanation he gave in part 1. It's QED, no need to restate the premises with every video in a series. Please go back and watch the first. It typically helps to go in order with educational material like this series.
lhvinny 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pat34lee- "This video begins with one giant assumption, that because E=mc^2 today, it has always been E=mc^2."
That's not a giant assumption at all. The giant assumption is to think that it was different as we have no indication that the equation can be changed. We don't have any indication that light can naturally go fast that the current constant either, but that's a whole different discussion.
califoniania 1 year ago
(cont'd)- "If the speed of light were doubled some time in the past, how do you know that at that time E=m(c/2)^2? If the 'constant' c is inversely proportional to the change in the speed of light from today's speed, then the equation stays in balance."
Yeah, and if I divide my debt by my car payments my checkbook would be balanced too. But unfortunately for my debt and your wishful thinking you can't just add terms to an equation without demonstrating that they represent a real phenomenon.
califoniania 1 year ago
@pat34lee This will drive them nuts, According to a Physics paper I wrote Being that Velocity=Time X Distance and that a Planck Time means that if light moved instantly the speed of light would still appear to be 299 792 458 m / s, because a min amount of time needs to pass before we perceive the movement of the light. Light could be 2 times or 1000 times faster than we think it is. Physicists actually backed into Planck time using the speed of light. Not realizing this other implication.
songwriterdad 11 months ago
@songwriterdad There is another problem counting on the speed of light in space. C is only constant in a total vacuum. Space is anything but a total vacuum. Besides the hydrogen that is known to be spread out through space, there is ice, dust and all types of elements floating out there in unknown quantities and densities. Since C changes through any medium, how many times could it change in the distances between stars?
pat34lee 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Online Be Naughty women benaughtyman.info
haritadilani 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Naughty women in the lane benaughtyman.info
yasodagangani 1 year ago
young earth creationist never said that light was faster in the past the Bible says "GOD stretched out the heavens" that would imply that he created the planets and by his unmeasurable power stretched out the heavens
D3ATH5TRIKE 1 year ago
@D3ATH5TRIKE It continues to amaze me how an adult can so happily through all reason and logic out the window when it comes to religous matters!
wearsil09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Kind Russian girls for marriage gettop5.info
IsabjCobhy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Marginal value naughty ladies here ***mworld5.info***
ValeriaWenda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Sexy Girls in Your Area busizz4me.info
bolgendolki 1 year ago
The Fact that light can be manipulated tells a lot about it[its Nature].
Airlightf 1 year ago
Also the theory of gravity is currently being reviewed because everyone knows that it doesn't fit in with the study of quantum mechanics. The new theory(s) are based on Eddingtons theorys and they actually disprove the Big Bang from oscilating and/or exploding and from being a singularity, ie. from ever happening, and the origins of the universe for big bangers will be rethought.
kranked354 1 year ago
@kranked354 Even if that were true the point of science is to come up with a naturalistic explanation of things. Any new theories will still contradict the bible.
tragicblackness 1 year ago
@tragicblackness
Um, no, the point of science is to take detailed observations, and compare them with the observations of others. Science is not inherently naturalistic, and it would be dubious to mix the two, in my opinion.
I doubt that science will corroborate the bible, but considering that you are unlikely to possess powers of prophecy, I don't know how you could possibly be sure of that. But then, that's induction for you.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol WRONG! You forgot about the part where they compare empirical data to actual results. I suggest you look up the scientific method. The fact that you type your message on a computer means we have a pretty solid understanding of the properties of matter and how to manipulate them to our needs, we don't know everything about physics but as you can see we have a pretty good grasp. And I don't need to be a soothsayer to see that science has already proved the bible wrong in many areas.
tragicblackness 1 year ago
@tragicblackness
The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment. A central concept in science and the scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.
Maybe you should be the one looking science, ya maroon.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol So you're agreeing with me then... Also I'm white not maroon.
tragicblackness 1 year ago
@tragicblackness
Honkys rarely know of what they speak. We agree that science is about observation. I don't consider that to mean anything more than shared observation, actuality doesn't enter into it. I consider the inductive reasoning used by some scientists to be unreliable, and I consider it odious to appeal to science while making unscientific statements and holding unscientific beliefs.
You didn't really make an argument supporting your assertion that naturalism is part of science.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol I love this. Gotta pull out the race shit now eh? Ok, well here is some non-creationist creative and realistic thinking for you. The american black population accounts for only a fraction of the total american population, yet blacks account for over 80% of violent crimes? Interesting. Perhaps you motherfuckers like to cornhole each other in prison because all of your women look exactly the same and smell like burnt bacon grease you stupic fucking uneducated pole-smoker. Now go pray.
LRWarrior 1 year ago
@LRWarrior
Can't take a joke huh?
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
Comment removed
angelchik54 1 year ago
@LRWarrior. Wow that's hurtful, I don't smell like bacon grease. Actually I don't know any black people who do. Maybe its cause I'm Canadian. Either way, personal attacks is not a way of logical argumentation.
Btw. Good vid, cdk007.
angelchik54 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol Wow. Your first sentence discredited your whole argument. Personal attacks are not part of logical reasoning or discussion. And its not even funny, btw.
angelchik54 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol Ok before I go on I want to clarify something. So you do acknowledge that science helps us understand the world we live in? You just think that the theory of evolution is unscientific?
tragicblackness 1 year ago
@tragicblackness
Science does not help us understand the world. It illustrates what scientists agree that they are observing
As far as I can tell, evolution is at least partially scientific. It is stated in a scientific way. I'm not sure about the proof, I don't consider fossil evidence an airtight proof (you can't observe one species evolving into another, you have to infer that with reasoning)
What, is my opinion of evolution some kind of litmus test? Personally, I prefer emergence theory
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol watch?v=KLNoRlxjvJI
Painfulldarksoul 1 year ago
@Painfulldarksoul
That video didn't really illuminate the subject for me. Showing that fish can evolve into other kinds of fish, doesn't really demonstrate that a fish can evolve into a mammal over time.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol It's one species evolve into another. If you want a big leap, cause a catastrophe! Or just wait and in a few years, it comes on it's own.
Painfulldarksoul 1 year ago
@Painfulldarksoul
I understand how evolution is supposed to work, I'm just querying the proofs.
Jcolinsol 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol I didn't try to teach you how evolution works. If a big catastrophe appears, a particular form of evolution happens. And a species can evolve into another in a short amount of time.
Painfulldarksoul 1 year ago
@Jcolinsol If you accept a fish can change over time, which i believe you have just acknowleged, then do you not see how a little change over a very large amount of time can result in a LOT of change? By admiting mico evolution you must accept macro evolution as they are both the SAME, just 1 is on a lrger time frame! That is the only difference!
wearsil09 1 year ago
@tragicblackness Yeah, good one mate. Real smart. "Any new theories will still contradict the Bible".
kranked354 1 year ago
And just to make sure everyone knows, I do not support this possibility. For there is enough observable evidence to point to an old universe that agrees with the light constant. Many geological evidence on earth plus all the billions of evidence for formation of stars/galaxies all point to an universe MUCH older than 6000 yrs.
Mooker777 1 year ago
From the previous, what i mean is that at the beginning maybe light was moving very fast but very little mass was in the universe, I am sure it was fairly chaotic during the initial moments of the big bang. As time passed then possibly raw energy turned to mass and light speed slowed down and became fairly constant allowing formation of rotational systems. Now I am not supporting this belief, just saying that to completely debunk something every possibility needs to be looked at.
Mooker777 1 year ago
@Mooker777 In the Bible it says in the book of Isaiah that "God stretched out the heavens". The creationists who know what they're talking about interpret that as God stretching out the universe as/once it was created, meaning that it is possible for light to be seen from many light years away.
kranked354 1 year ago
I would simply point out that if mass was changing to compensate for change in light speed to keep energy the same, then how could simple steady and constant rotational systems such as galaxies and our solar system form with a constantly changing gravitational pull.
Also, what it raw energy turned into mass? I always thought that through nuclear means mass can turn to energy and that the reverse "energy into mass" were possible. If this happened there may still be a plausibility for yec.
Mooker777 1 year ago
Wow, another video that has nothing to do with gravity. And mass is not a form of energy; it is a constant used to calculate energy. And gamma, the derivative of the sine at a velocity of object divided by c, is much more important than E=mc^2. Perhaps, you don't know special relativity.
weboh2 1 year ago
google Doe's Account.
Yellowwatts 1 year ago
@Yellowwatts
fraud.
mcpencil 1 year ago
As a physicist, I lol'd.
AkiThePirate 1 year ago
So THAT'S how the Egyptians were able to lift those big stones to make the pyramids! :-p
Fudmottin 1 year ago
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
What is the beginning? The beginning of what? The Earth was not in the beginning, the earth was created not too long ago. There probably was a big bang, but the big bang could not have created space and time, for it that be the case, who created the singularity that exploded? For how long had it been existing before the big bang?
I guess the big bang created demons too eh? Some of you need to be attacked by demons
Sundaysunny2 2 years ago
Great series, CDK
Now, I came up with something that a YE Creationbot might try to say.... c was much faster at a time when there wasn't as much mass in the universe (those first few instants), and then c decreased as mass increased.
The problem of course is that with lower mass (and hence lower gravity), the stars and galaxies could not have formed at all
But Creationbots would ignore than part....
:-)
ikvsabre 2 years ago
Breaking News! "God: Hidden Science" - Google it!
byScrooby 2 years ago
This video is nonsense, we can test and demonstrate gravity and see the process occuring, this is not true of evolution. It's funny how you expect us to believe in evolution which we can't see, but then get mad at us for believing in a God we can't see! Science supports God, but not evolution.
micah1116 2 years ago
@micah1116
You missed the point of the video entirely
Takua38000 2 years ago
You can test evolution, it's called genetics. It's similar to how DNA can show whether you are someone's dad/son/relation, well, the same idea applies, and when the DNA of various species are tested, it fits to the model presented by evolution.
A good example is the chromosomes of chimps and humans. You can see where 2 chromosomes of the chimp, fused to form one chromosome of humans. And I don't just mean roughly, but you can see exactly where this process happened.
MKelly1919 2 years ago
No your wrong. Evolution would be changes to morphology. Please PM me with that insane chromosome 2 fusion claim and I'll show you what really happened, and like your claim, it's not based on assumption.
micah1116 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The reason Evolutionists/Naturalists attack Creationists is because it's too late to cry
Facts with NO religious spin:
(1) DNA code is language.
(2) Language originates in a mind.
(3) Information exists independent of its medium.
(4) Information and language are not matter or energy.
(5) Biological life forms are the creative and purposeful product of information and language.
Those are the scientific facts.
There are only two known languages to man:
(1) of human mind origin (2) DNA code
Mr88playmaker 2 years ago
@ChristConquers nope its not...its science. Hip hip hooray for science!
boorens18 2 years ago
Could someone please clarify for me: If we are seeing a galaxy like JKCS041 that is 10.2 billion light years away and is accelerating away from us (and everything else) then we are seeing it where it was 10.2 billion years ago? Is that correct? If so how long did it take to get it there? And where is it now? It's mind boggling to think about. Would it be possible to map out where everything came from to a single point of origin?
HMSBeagleDVM 2 years ago
@HMSBeagleDVM
lol its more complicated that that because space-time is expanding. So in otherwords its farther away then it actually looks. As for if we could "map" where the single point was, no....you couldnt. That single "point" is all of existance. All of space was compressed to a point. So there is no one point in space now, that everything was.
boorens18 2 years ago
Thanks for answering my question. Not that I'm all that less confused now! But I appreciate your response. I guess I was thinking that the universe must still be expanding from the initial point as that was most likely the event to give everything the initial momentum. And that it might be possible to at least find a point everything is expanding away from. I now see how much more complicated it is than that.
HMSBeagleDVM 2 years ago
@HMSBeagleDVM
Ya when people think of space expanding they think of "more" space being added to the outside. Like sewing more cloth onto a blanket. What is actually happening is the blanket is being stretched. if you draw dots on a blanket and then squished the blanket to infinite...all the dots would be in the same place, which is all of the blanket.
boorens18 2 years ago
@HMSBeagleDVM
There is no way to plot the center of the universe, it was all in the center, now it is all moving apart.
gregrutz 2 years ago
@ChristConquers
You have no evidence of such a stretching to have actually happened. The only way you can even arrive at that conclusion is to read it first, and then try to find evidence. But even at that you have no evidence.
All of the data supports a big bang model. Even if there would be flaws in such a model we know for certain that the universe is expanding, and that it is roughly 13.7 billion years old. You cannot refute that, no matter how hard you try.
snoman99991 2 years ago
@ChristConquers
That's silly. UV radiation is harmful to current forms of life but that isn't to say life couldn't evolve with UV. Many of the first plant organisms that produced the ozone that protects us had some defense mechanisms early in their evolution. It is not a far cry to say that life could exist without an Ozone layer.
It's like you're taking one detail of the perspective, and isolating it so you can defeat it.
Oh wait, that's called a STRAWMAN.
snoman99991 2 years ago
Nah, a straw man is when you take the argument and twist it just a bit so that you are creating a similar but different argument and then attack that argument. "Evolutionists claim the eye just popped into existence out of nothing! That can't happen!!" That's a straw man. Christ conquers is simply ignoring evidence he doesn't like/understand and asserting a position he hasn't researched or grasped. It's not really dishonesty it's just overassertion with limited understanding.
HMSBeagleDVM 2 years ago
"What's a few orders of magnitude among friends?"
Great stuff.
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
Unlike the christian bible, science doesn't look to strengthen it's theories, it's constantly attempting to disprove them. We don't test theories in only the right circumstances, we test them to see if they work in every circumstance.
Christians are always defending the bible and twisting it's words to fit the modern day.
I did it for 19 years of my life, and I don't regret it. I'm glad I learned for myself. The bible mentions questioning everything, not defending something you don't know about
Ither1 2 years ago
" looked back again at reality"
Yeah we should have looked at immaginary fairy tales to describe reality...
I like your "they look back at reality" because at least you admit we are looking at REALITY, while you can't distinguish reality from immagination.
BTW looking back at reality is not closing and opening eyes, it's making predictions with a theory that can be falsified and test them. For example ERVs, human chromosome fusion etc... all predictions come true, unlike Ezekiel cap.29
kyagh 2 years ago
"the stars do not have to be less than billions of light years away"
except that if light was created in the 1st day then we shouldn't be able to see objects more than 6000light years away. They can still exist but their light should not reach us, unless your god is a deciever and made the universe as a monumental lie, however in your bible somewhere it states that god cannot lie and therefore he can't decieve us like that.
kyagh 2 years ago
@ChristConquers: the presence, or absence, of oxygen is not mandatory to the evolution of life. There is CURRENTLY plenty of microorganisms living on Earth that can only live in oxigen-deprived environments. Take them and put them in an oxygen-rich environment, and they die. Put oxigen-dependent organisms and deprive them of oxygen, and they die.
Life can take many forms, there is not just one possible chemistry of life. Life develops and evolves to survive it's environment.
Neerie79 2 years ago
No wonder those YECs suck so much at science: their facial hair is appalling! They're either clean-shaven or possess face fuzz that would only be found on a hobo or child molester. Now Darwin- there's a beard that rocks the science lab.
Omnywrench 2 years ago
This is a misrepresentation of Setterfield. He assumes that the speed of light was very fast for only a very short period of time. Thus gravity could be very weak for a very short period of time. That is consistent with the galaxies flying apart from each other. The arguement with Setterfield is about the possibility that the speed of light is constant. Dark matter may have an easier explanation if we did not assume that the speed of light was constant......
fitDavid123 2 years ago
my friend is a YEC.. and whenever i try to tell him he is wrong he says in quote "everything you are saying is based only on theory and assumption"
i tried explaining what i saw in this video, and he said all the math, and science in it was based on theory and assumption, it is just impossible to get through his thick skull.
rothril 2 years ago
One word. PARALLAX.
We know that the nearest star is still very far away. Most of the stars in our galaxy are much further away from our system than 6,000 light-years, and with very sensitive instruments it is likely possible to measure this by parallax, proving that those stars must've either existed for more than 6,000 years, or God created the light from those stars en route to Earth before the star existed to fool us.
N7a7v7i 2 years ago
he not only believes earth is 6,000 he thinks the whole universe is 6,000 years old. and that the stars are only about 1 to 100 light years away
rothril 2 years ago
To those people who say that people are silly because they believe the earth is 6000 years old and then say that to argue their point with them is foolish - you are all wrong. The whole point is that despite ALL the evidence, these people, and there are many, believe the Universe is 6000 years old, that means the argument is not about the age of the Universe, but the need for YAC's to prove the unprovable due to their 'Faith'. It's an ideological argument not a scientific one.
TightfittingUnderpan 2 years ago
this is a sign of the end times, revelation 99;88.......prepare yourself, advice on my comments page.........save yourself!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BornOKtheFirstTime 2 years ago
this is blasphemy, it clealy states in ISAIah 41:33 that the devil brought about the delusion of how you stick to the ground and the lights in the sky are just "there" for your deception........in verse 34 the devil chuckles at you evolutionist.
I was born OK the first time, but born better the second time
BornOKtheFirstTime 2 years ago
Your vids are neat. And they really illustrate what the "Creationists" are doing. Instead of hiding behind mysticism and morality, they turn themselves into nutcases arguing blatant untruth. And in science a hypothesis has to be attacked to see if a better one can come along, and even the 'laws' are subject to a better explanation. By constantly attacking, more energy is spent explaining them, educating the public further. Thus they get more known and accepted.
GreenGestalt 2 years ago
cdk,
1 thing i don't get: why can't option 1 (2:47) be true?
E(total) = E(raw) + mc^2
If c^2 used to be higher (and hence mc^2 used to be higher), why couldn't the raw energy have been lower? this means the light ended up converting kinetic energy into other forms. photons slowed, presumably because they split up into other particles (which accounts for the increased raw energy) that took some of the kinetic energy.
why is this understanding flawed?
SatyaVenugopal 2 years ago
God wouldn't be stupid enough to create a universe that would simply implode in on itself, he could only have created it with apparent age. So tell me, how did the universe begin since you've successfully proven that our universe (at less that 6000 years old) would implode in on itself? Hey, what's a couple thousand years between friends, right? And if you can't explain it, maybe God has a little something for you to learn.....
ThisNameIsNotProfane 2 years ago
This comment made no sense.
What exactly are you contesting about the video?
And whether or not current scientific minds have an explanation, all this video is showing is that YEC is not an adequate one. An irresponsibly bad one in fact. The naturalistic explanation of the universe's origin is irrelevant to the topic of this video.
Logos385 2 years ago
this is a pathetic god of the gaps argument.
never mind that science has disproved the 6000-year-old universe. science can't (yet) explain the entire subject, so god must have done it 6000 years ago! wtf kind of logic is that?
what will you do if/when we do figure out how the universe began? deny it like you deny evolution? we've figured out the water cycle. why don't you deny it to defend the biblical account of god opening windows in the sky to allow the waters above it to fall as rain?
SatyaVenugopal 2 years ago
photons are governed by quantum mechanics and will exhibit wave-particle duality they exhibit properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when quantitative mass is measured.
Wekipedia
noudge 2 years ago
Energy and matter are interchangeable, your quote mining to save face is only showing you have no clue what you are talking about.
A photon acting as a particle thus allowing measurement of quantitative mass does not mean photons are matter.
Go back and read the entire Wikipedia article on the Photon, note the Rest Mass = 0, note a photon is the gauge boson for electromagnetic energy.
Photons are carriers of electromagnetic energy, they are not matter.
chaogenus 2 years ago
Nope, I know. To every process, there is irreversibility. I never said that you are going to smash trucks to a brick wall for expirement thats stupidity in practical sense, but if mc trucks attain a speed of light, you can generate particles somehow. m=E/c2 tells you so.
noudge 2 years ago
By the definition you used, E = gamma mc², not E = mc².
But if you take kinetic energy to be "raw" energy, as you put it (and since you included thermal energy, I guess you do), then your equation is accurate.
Of course, it doesn't really matter, because while decreasing the speed of light WOULD increase gamma, it would do so by SUCH a small extent (gamma is still very close to one for the vast majority of objects), that it wouldn't significantly affect the calculations.
EebstertheGreat 2 years ago
PUT THIS IN YOUR MIND, ATHEIST, NOT ALL CLAIMING TO HAVE GOD ARE WITH GOD. THERE ARE ALOT OF FALSE PREACHERS, THEY ARE OF SATAN, NOT WITH GOD.
GOD never hated science, for it reveals facts and the truth.
And studying science brings me closer to HIM.
noudge 2 years ago
Please produce this creator that he may teach scientists this process of creating matter.
And while your at it, can you produce the creator of the creator?
And the creator of the creator of the creator?
And .... well, you get the idea.
chaogenus 2 years ago
How should the creator of the creator be produced, when your thoughts can never even understand the universe. Accept it that the idea of GOD exist and it is logical to believe therefore.
Im never interested, the logic is there.
noudge 2 years ago
Whether I can produce or not the creator of the creator, It does not change the fact that there is a creator. Its for you to believe, not everything are visual. Not everything are in the form of material.
Now, i cooked you a pizza, you then ask for pancake, while before you only ask for the pizza, get it?
noudge 2 years ago
Particle accelerators convert energy into matter in the form of subatomic particles. There are reasons why a substantial quantity of matter cannot be created and contained, the first being the amount of energy required, E=mc².
Forget about the creator of the creator, you cannot even produce your creator of matter.
You are disingenuous, science does not make Christians no more than it makes Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc.
You fail from the beginning, science can and does create matter.
chaogenus 2 years ago
Definitely what you have posted fact is a failure as you describe it. Its a way blackholes are made, materials in it center compress and mass in this state, a teaspoon of material could have a mass the same as the the mass of a continent.
Its never creating mass, its bombarding.
noudge 2 years ago
E= v dm/d2t, is undenyingly (one way direction so far) tell me have you ever known any experiments of matter gaining atomic mass? i know one so far, but losing atomic mass.
Energy is eternal but matter is destructible. Matter occupies space and has mass, but the logic is, if it has mass but dont have volume is it matter? or Just energy?
noudge 2 years ago
Pay attention:
"light from a terawatt laser is sent into SLAC's highly focused beam of 47-GeV electrons. Some of the laser photons are scattered backwards, and in so doing convert into high-energy gamma ray photons. Some of these, in turn, scatter from other laser photons, affording the first ever creation of matter from light-on- light scattering of real photons in a lab. (D.L. Burke et al., Physical Review Letters, 1 September 1997.) "
chaogenus 2 years ago
Pay attention 2:
"The Question
(Submitted July 24, 1997)
Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?
The Answer
It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles. "
imagine (dot) gsfc (dot) nasa (dot) gov
chaogenus 2 years ago
Light itself is matter/particle, and what accelearated in atom smasher are particles. You are not creating/making matter. You are actually separating it into several new particles, i guess(but hazy). If there would be a means of measuring all accounted energy from accelerating that particle and the out put potential energy of the dervied particles i guess, if it gains mass(derived particles), i guess, i will say its true perhaps, that matter can be created, but there always an exception.
noudge 2 years ago
Wrong, light is not matter.
Fermion particles make up what is known as matter.
Boson particles make up the carriers of force, or energy.
A photon is a boson particle that carries the electromagnetic force., or electromagnetic energy.
The experiment in 1997 that created matter from photons was converting boson particles to fermion particles, in other words matter from energy.
chaogenus 2 years ago
noudge 2 years ago
m=E/c2 , Einstein was indeed a genius.
and E could be expressed for a particle accelerator as
E= m" dv/d2t (purely mechanical) and
so m = (m" dv/d2t)/c2 but
m= m1+m2+m3...+m n (masses of particles derived from collision)
if so, that is true to every matter it should be that m" could be any type of matter, either carbon or silica, or metals(not selective)?
noudge 2 years ago
Obviously there is more to particle physics than the math, otherwise you might conclude that you can study particle physics by smashing Mac trucks into brick walls. Purely mechanical.
A particle accelerator is needed because a lot of energy must be focused into a small area to create matter. A high energy particle beam makes this possible.
If the Particle Physicists say they create matter and the Biblical Physicists say you can't, I think I'll side with the Particle Physicists.
chaogenus 2 years ago
But, it was never said that particle made was an anti-matter or matter itself.
" Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.
Partial, but theres no proof that you can totally convert energy into mass/matter. If so, the fate of mass will lies to this fact, that once, decayed or consumed its irreversebly can not be created.
Blackhole has mass, and yet, its wierd, its try to suck of matter, even photons could not escape.
noudge 2 years ago
This will be the equation describing irreversibility of the process of making mass/particle
m <= E/c2; therefore, energy itself can not be totally converted to matter, so as the fate of matter will be extinct, less otherwise proven of rebirth, and entropy production goes negative
noudge 2 years ago
If light is not matter, tell me PARTICLES are not matter?
noudge 2 years ago
Particles are not matter.
Happy? :P
Fermion particles are matter, they occupy space and no two particles and occupy the same space.
Boson particles are energy, they occupy space, more than one particle can occupy the same space.
Photons are boson particles.
In 1997 through experiment Photons, one of the Boson particles which are energy particles, were converted into matter, fermion particles.
Your belief that energy and matter are not interchangeable is wrong, get over it.
chaogenus 2 years ago
Wave-particle duality, that fit. photon is basic particle from the 12 particles that compose matter and yet, all of them considerably has no mass. Thats why physisct are trying to find the HIGGS particle, these days.Particles are building blocks of matter, they are matter itself. How can it not be consistent?
happy, too?
noudge 2 years ago
"If the Particle Physicists say they create matter and the Biblical Physicists say you can't, I think I'll side with the Particle Physicists.
Matter as matter itself has mass and occupy space(defined existence).
Blackholes are these not matter?
Well, it has mass and it occupy space.(negation of existence)
What are the difference of the two? Totally diffirent.
Show me an article that blackholes are rebirth of matter(defined existense with its own conversion.
noudge 2 years ago
"Obviously there is more to particle physics than the math,
What? Mathematics directed the path of physics, and Newton's integral and derivative is the framework of physics.
Physicist reasoned using equation, find relevance of every analogy by equation, and now you tell me, there more to physics than math.
I say, math is bread and physics is butter.
noudge 2 years ago
Do you not understand the word MORE?
"E= m" dv/d2t (purely mechanical)"
E for the Tevatron at Fermi Lab is up to 1 TeV
E for a 4500kg Mac truck smashing into a brick wall at 8.94m/s is 1 122 222 865 100 TeV
The math says there is a lot of energy in the Mac truck hitting a brick wall. But you can't use the truck to study particle physics.
Makes sense now?
chaogenus 2 years ago
take note also, that
"some of the kinetic energy was converted into new particles"
If you think particles are not matter, you are not consistent to what you just have said.
note "some kenetic energy" it did not say all, was'n it?
Therefore, I have only one distinct conclusion, and