Google Solarchords com. here is a detailed study of the affect of Gravity upon the tracks of the Sun, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune, about the Barycentre of the Solar System, discovering that the Sun’s orbit precisely matches the production of Sunspots via Acceleration changes & Climate Variation via Earth/Sun distance changes, in a closely linked & highly repetitive sequence, showing that Sunspots do not cause Climate Change but explaining why there is a close pattern match.
The findings and examples are shown with exquisite clarity in diagrams and charts, demonstrating a compelling, unassailable correlation with historic climate records and goes on to provide the mechanism to enable the forecast of Sunspot Cycles and Climate Variation, both of which are discussed and shown in detail.
Oh please! Evidence is not theory, but all the creationist have is a theory
( without a single shred of evidence).
Noahs Ark is enough to instanty discount any religion with this story.
So as I only keep my bible to refer murderous verses in it to the faithful ( You know, the bit's they'd never read in church or show in childrens books), I therefore require other evidence of GOD, ANY GOD.
But onto a much more interesting topic ( like making good science vids)
Just wanna point something out - You say that the wormholes all have to be within 6,000 light years of use, but in Genesis God makes the stars on the fourth day and presumably they're already visible then. So at the most these wormholes would have to be four lightdays away :P
In other words, I think that every atom is expanding at one one millionth it size per second. This expansion of every atom is hidden by the additional expansion of the space between all objects ie. planets. This single idea solves any issues with a recent creation and starlight and the current size of the universe.
@odinata Really, well the theory I gave was one that was developed by the evolutionist: Mark McCutcheon. I think I know who is the idiot is around here!
@elinikk LOL - Mark McCutcheon? Really? That's your authority?? That crackpot has no scientific credentials whatever. He's on the same level as Project Blue Beamers. Yes, we know who the idiot is around here.
@elinikk Yes, you crackpot. It fact, scientific credentials do make observations more credible. Unless you have your own hadron collider in your back yard, I'll stick with the conclusions of people who actually have the means to conduct experiments and not those who randomly muse on subjects on which they're clearly unqualified.
@fdasherv The credentials make someone like you believe the person, but they do nothing to make the statements by the credential holders true! Yes the person with the access to the equipement like the hadron collider will have better access to the data, but their interpretation of the data can be wrong.
@elinikk So all physics, geology and biology are wrong. One crackpot (two, including you) however is right. Relying on a 19th century hypothesis that was eschewed for tectonic science, you overturn literal mountains of evidence. Wow. All this in a desperate defense of yet another crackpot idea: creationism. You people continually and spectacularly top yourselves. Just go away.
@fdasherv I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Much science is good. I have studied science at the university level and I say there is much insight. The problem is that scientist are not unbiased. They are people with presuppositions. They work in their labs desiring to prove their own personal idea of the universe. They are not necessarily in persuit of truth, though I think many want to know what is real, rather they are in persuit of success in their own idea of the universe.
@elinikk But your theories are all bathwater and no baby. This "worldview" argument is the mantra of so many psychopaths it's laughable. Who but an obstinate creationist could have a more dogmatic "worldview" that demands assurance even in the form of lies? Willful lies. Real science is a pack of eager wolves ravenous for acclaim, to be sure. But that's what keeps them all in check. Once anything's presented in a journal, a dozen scientists will try to tear it down. The "method" crackpots lack.
Yes. Can you answer me this;Why do Einstein's field equations completely ignore the EM force (which is 10E39 x stronger than whatever we call gravity)? If the speed of light is the universal limit, how can any mass in the universe 'know' where all other gravitating bodies are, instantaneously, in order to avoid orbital shear forces ensuing from a speed limit to gravity, whether you believe gravity is transmitted by particles or by deformations in some imaginary 'fabric of space-time'?
Unfortunately, the Standard Model fails on so many levels, yet is continually modified in an attempt to fit observations. Fortunately, there is an alternative electric model of the universe which explains observations, based on plasma physics. It's premises can be experimentally and cheaply tested in the lab (unlike the Standard Model's whose will ever remain impossible to verify and costly) and it's adherents are actively and successfully predicting new phenomenon observed in space.
@geeleegoat It's extraordinary that you're in a position to correct Einstein. Plus you're a plasma physicist as well. Bravo. Now explain to all of us what it all means and how it drags god into existence. Yes, I can see the headlines now: Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Einstein, and geeleegoat!
I am a YEC. I do not think that there are white holes. I also do not think that because something is X light years away, that it took X light years for that light to get to us. I think that the universe is expanding like the bible says. The known expansion we call hubbles constant. The unknown expansion is the expansion related to gravity. Since gravity is just an acceleration, all matter is expanding at the atomic level. This expantion is realated to the 32 feet/s/s that we observe.
Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic and I don't believe in the Young Earth Creation, but, you HAVE to remember, that if a God existed that was all-powerful, he COULD have created not only a present point, but also a past before the 6000 years.
@guille4ty If that supposed God did such a thing, he would be incredibly deceitful and spiteful, and therefore not worthy of our attention. Plus if we are talking about an omniscient god that sees and knows all, he wouldve understood his own deception and know we would not accept it.
Hahahhahah, great video. I love the cartoon where all the evidence for evolution on the scale is full to the brim. While Christians have the bible as evidence. Too funny.
@odinata "God doesnt need to prove its existence, he IS existence" J.W.Goethe.... Im very precise in fact, its You who dont understand anything bout Universe....
@odinata saying theres no god is like saying... that we can do on planet anything we want, exploit each other, planet, behave like consumption animals... and nothing really happens... unfortunatelly we do observe the opposite... "God doesnt play dice" Einstein
What you're saying is that because there are consequences to our actions, there is a god. That doesn't follow. Could you elaborate on how that connection is made? Be specific, if you can.
@odinata I dont say what God is... I just say that exists, WHAT god is... is YOUR free choice, cause surelly YOU build his Universe too with your opinion:)
@odinata So surelly the fact that "there is vacuum" is just an opinion too of scientists:) Cause both ideas vacuum as well as God are created by experience of the observer... And you can say whatever you want....
@odinata I dont need to prove that my MIND exists with CERN:) And can create both ideas: God exists, God doesnt exist.... Im totally free like spirit - the origin of all my ideas, I do respect both atheists as well as theists... yet if society is about to function, some conditions are to be kept, if not society perish as the whole... easy to understand? Its like with water, if you dont drink, you die... if ... than, casualty, thats all.
@odinata What is vacuum??? Even philosophically its "the potential of all energy in Universe" empty infinite "no-thing", what is the first information about the change of state, when first particle appears out of "no-thing"? I AM? Because if all this Universe is a manifestation of energy and information, surelly the first light out of nothing bears an information about the change of state of vacuum too, what information I DO ASK YOU???? Do you KNOW???:)
The idea of being in the centre of the universe is concieted. Of course, this bias is spread throughout our species. Indeed, any alien race would start with geocentrism. Personally, I enjoy the mystery and humbling nature of the real universe, instead of the cramped geocentric model
Its easy to messure short distances, and to messure far distances, but distances in the air can not be messured, unless we took a rocket ship and shot them off to all the planets and the sun and have them tell us the distances we might know, but even then it may be inaccurate becuase computers malfunction from time to time reporting incorrect data. Relying on computer technology and devices is not a good thing, the computer does not know it all always. FIN
@CaptianTGA ever heard of parallax or trigonometry? You can work out the distance to any object within 20 parsecs with just a pencil and your thumb! No computer is needed.
with more distant objects L.E.D is used along the Baade-Wesselink and other methods, again no computer needed or even available when they were first used!
"Relying on computer technology and devices is not a good thing,"
The irony here astounds me! aren't you using one of those to make your point?
On a second note, has anyone actually taken a messuring tape into space to messure the distance? I think not... even with the latest in technology I highly doubt distance can be accuratly messured never in our lifetime or the future.
Reason #5 have an a conclusion that im not sure i agree with. Basically it says that because gravitational lensing around a wormhole is divergent (instead of convergent as it is for normal gravitational lensing) we should see this divergence and we dont.
However, i cannot find any way that we could observe this effect even if it did happen, it would simply look as scattered light, something we already observe plenty of for other reasons (actual scatter from dust)
@ExcaliburClan I think what he was pointing out is that if a shell of wormholes surrounded the solar system at his given distance of 6k LY's then from earth the 'divergent' lensing would in fact ensure we see no stars beyond 6k LY whatsoever.... since we do... then that's the end of that idea!
this wormhole thing by creationists is just total bollox fed to the uneducated in case they come across information about distant objects. It was never intended for anyone with an education.
@MumblingMickey yes i know what the idea of it was, and the result would be as he said when it comes to the stars and their distances, but the part about the scattering, i dont see how it would be observable. How would we (potentially) separate normal scatter fomr scatter caused by wormholes ?
The YEC's proposal is a dead idea anyway, it simply doesnt work.
@ExcaliburClan it'd be a pretty black sky full of very few stars for sure... from our perspective anyway... certainly not worth the effort of putting wormholes in the way when making the universe 6k ly in size would do the trick more effectively.. but you might in fact see the effect of this scattered light bending around very large stars within 6k ly... but not too often obviously!
The YEC proposal was never designed to be inspected by anyone with a higher IQ than a rabbit!
with modern day physics we understand that light travels at roughly 299 mil. m / s and this will make this video correct. However, if you know anything about the "big bang" theory you will know of the "horizon problem" stating that light hasn't had enough time to reach from one galaxy to another even in "old earth" theory...seeing that the temp. of the entire universe, according to scientific calculation, is uniform to less than 1 degree. This light travel issue is a problem on both sides.
@rockchrchguitar yeah you're sort of forgetting there that physicists are working on that... and every single time in history someone has pointed the finger and said... 'yeah but you don't know why X happens'... then they are eventually asked to chow down on some humble pie!
Creationism is just a pile of nonsensical gibberish for morons...One guy above thinks you need a measuring tape to measure the distance to stars! I was unaware people could be that dumb without being mentally retarded.
@conservamommy 1- disabled comments prove the author is full of shit. 2- every example of "irreducible complexity", without exception, has been broken down.
@jOWNZin22 Erm... time is a constant. It is affected only by gravity wells and whatever medium it moves through....
It did not magically travel hundreds or thousands of times faster in the past! Constant means constant! That computer you are using depends on that constant!
Seriously are you so determined to sentence yourself to the scrap heap in a world gearing up to consign the uneducated to just that fate?
@klad1991 Good point.... and in fact further to that the wormholes need to be recalibrating themselves with the stars so that they point their lens at them all the time...even when they move around a galaxy! or cluster...etc.
They would also need to be re focusing their lens to account for the speed of expansion observed. Each one individually.
But most creationists would have a serious problem understanding basic math...let alone trigonometry. So best to leave that out.
@JohnGreek4lyf Which makes more sense, that absolutely nothing created what we have now, or that being we can't comprehend (aka God) created everything?
Philosophically either one could be debated for, but scientifically, the latter is more correct, because we have scientific laws saying that order cannot come from nonorder. We can have fun discussing the theories, like evolution, but let's stick to the laws when we make statements.
@Thehuskarl I'm concerned that you don't understand what science is.
SCIENTIFICALLY, you need evidence. Since as of yet there is no evidence for any intelligent being having created the universe, then scientifically speaking, the latter isn't just less likely, but actually isn't scientifically based at all.
@Thehuskarl No-one asserts that nothing created everything. If you want to refer to whatever physical laws caused the universe, as we see it now, to have come into existence as god, then whatever. But there's no evidence of that, so there's nothing to say that it's correct.
Do you understand the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'? The theory of evolution explains the observable facts, is supported by overwhelming evidence and has generated thousands of testable hypotheses.
@Thehuskarl 2) Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology in any case. And if it's the second law of thermodynamics that you want to argue, then at least learn what it is, and that it doesn't support the theistic viewpoint. If 'god' can contravene the laws of nature we'd be continually finding anomalies where natural processes had been tinkered with, and we don't.
By the a way, a scientific THEORY, is a culmination of evidence supporting an idea. Even if it was proven (which it is) it would always be called a THEORY.
Example? We know for a fact that gravity exists... correct? BUT... The THEORY of gravity is still called just that... a THEORY.
you can't travel into a wormhole, not because it's radio - active, but it spins so fast that the force would rip you into a million pieces making it impossible to travel into one.
@pccrybabyhater That would not work... if you considered you were for example traveling head first...then your head would be traveling faster (a lot faster) then your feet...since it is closer. The result would be to extend you in a neat line of subatomic particles into the abyss..
Wormholes mathematically may allow electromagnetic radiation to travel through them, (if they really are out there).
But od course nobody has ever demonstrated a wormhole so assumptions about them are pointless.
these questions can be better answered by very few men right now. these questions i would ask them and who knows maybe if i could sit down with them they might come to some interesting answers. what if in the next few hours the great minds prove that it could be possible through science then what? If the great minds prove it then what? science is two things asking questions and keeping an open mind. science ask how can i be right or how can i be wrong?
@sbz666283 In this analogy you are presupposing there is an answer. In a non meta-cognitive world where you are blind to any such possibilities this mythical answer does not exist. If there is an answer, you are baselessly supposing it exists.
Occams Razor: Either you are hopelessly wrong and can chose the option which actually has evidence or there is a reality-bending answer that has yet to be discovered which allows you to embrace your falsified hypothesis.
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu Great imnds can not only be wrong...they know they can be wrong...after all its sciences goal is discovery...if every idea ever mooted was accurate then science wouldn't exist!
Which is why every idea in science has a way of demonstrating it to be wrong. It can't be classified as scientific otherwise. Even Gravity has ways of demonstrating it to be wrong.
So great minds can indeed be wrong, and frequently are but they are not all wrong, about everything, all the time.
@sbz666283 You´re so right! Listen, this is GOD speaking to you! Buy yourself a good amount of cyanide and drink it. By this action, my son you will be the first standing by my side in the fight against that infidels.
so is it possible that just as the universe expanded out that space time did the same thing? could light as well? could it even happen know we might observe light moving through space at one speed but light could be moving instantly through space time as well so we see things way out there in real time as well? Is it possible that the universe proven by science alone show evidence of a young universe?
@sbz666283 Light did not exist until some time AFTER the initial expansion of the universe.... light did not start at the beginning...it came about as a result of the interactions other properties of the universe. That took some time... about. Between 270-300 million years! light does not move instantly.we know its properties. Instant light traveling is in fact one of the things disproven a long time ago...way back in the 1021 by Ibn al-Haytham... and also in the 1650's by Huygens
is it possible that during the big bang that space and time was much faster. some believe the universe is in fact getting bigger but not as fast as the begaining . and things are slowing down. we are observing the aftermath of the big bang. in other words is it possible that just as the big bang was really fast that the speed of light also was just as fast? without getting into religion then is it possible that time was much faster giving an illusion of billions of years.
@sbz666283 no, thus the universe is expanding, eventually the poxectur universe will crash into our one and the 2 parallel multiverses will eventually go right through each other then come back and finally coalesce.<Just like the milky way
@sbz666283 Also making light 'faster' in fact only compounds the problem.... if you make light faster in the past...then the universe is even older... not younger.
light and time are intrinsically linked... things that move faster...or move slower affect time from the perspective of the observer. So slower light = slower time... and if time is slower from the perspective of you viewing the light from outside... then you are back to square one! And from inside its moving at a steady pace.
@MumblingMickey i'm sorry but this post makes no sense whatsoever. What you are saying is that an objects speed doesn't affect the time it takes that object to reach a specific point, but only increases the distance between objects ... its like saying a faster car wouldn't win the race because by being faster it started further away...how could faster speed possibly cause it to take more time for it to reach from point A to point B?
@rockchrchguitar Well all I can say to that is take a look at my channel page... as a wild guess what would you say I work at? Go on...have a guess.
Now as demonstrated (over the last 70 years) Einstein was indeed correct...which is why we depend on this facility to keep GPS systems working. Do I really need to go into why that is? look it up!
The statement stands... if light were faster in the past (which is impossible)... the universe would be older, not younger!
@rockchrchguitar also light is not an OBJECT... its electromagnetic radiation...
and yes faster moving objects do affect the time as seen from that object by the observer... theres an equation for that... a rather well known one... as a consequence of this known property of light we have whats refereed to in physics as the Mass–energy equivalence... or E=mc^2
Are you going to try explain to me why energy is not equal to the mass of light squared? hey man...I'm all ears...
time is more then the clock on your bed or whatever. nasa showed how two atomic clocks are altered in space. both can be the truth. its called a shortcut the wormhole idea would be laughed out by creationist themselves, time and space are being manipulated. the shortcut is how time factors into things. say light takes 100 billion years to reach us ok, now the whole universe in in space time just like your DVD and or VHS you can fast forward the tape. here we go again still here
@sbz666283 "nasa showed how two atomic clocks are altered in space. both can be the truth" I think you'll find it was a gentleman called Albert Einstein that demonstrated that...a long time before there was a NASA. It has nothing to do with wormholes... and everything to do with the bending of time an space in relation to the mass of an object.
Its referred to as special relativity. Without which your computer there wouldn't be working too well!
there is alot of problems this video claims what creationist think but being around them this is nothing how creationist think and also there are plenty of atheist and others with no ties to religion showing how it is possible for the whole universe to be quite young, time and space have an answer. labs have shown how the speed of light changes through a medium just like sound. in the lab the speed of light has been slowed and speed up. I know even whistle blowers who can show you how.
@sbz666283 "there are plenty of atheist and others with no ties to religion showing how it is possible for the whole universe to be quite young,"
Really? name one. a real controversy would be a few thousand...but lets go with one non-creationist!
Yes light DOES move at different speeds through different mediums. thats been known over 1,000 years! It travels at just 38 miles per hour through sodium gas.
But space is not filled with sodium its filled with nothing... hence the name!
i understand some of this, but defenetly not all of it. but then again, i'm a high school student whose first language is not english so i think i'm doing very good on this series of videos. i love how you explore all of these scenarios and neither of them work and they basicly rip everything apart hahaha.
I'm studying astronomy right now, glad I get most of this.
And I can attest that the methods and mathmatical models to test predictions about "how shit went down" is accurate and not limited to just a one trick pony.
Maybe when God created the protons, neutrons and electrons he also created the photons on the path to earth. Stunning concept. If he created the earth with the proper acceleration to orbit the sun, he it shouldn't be to complicated to create photons in motion also. I don't see why people can't understand this simple concept.
@Thehuskarl Your claim that the photons were put into creation on their way to us tells me that your god has purposefully deceived us. It very well may be that this is the case. However, I don't like to think that if a god took the time to create a universe would be intentionally deceptive to its creation by setting up situations where we are forced to get faulty results.
@lhvinny Look at it this way, we need light to survive. Just like we need the planet to orbit around the sun to survive. Would you say God deceived us by creating our world in motion? We know that if things aren't in motion they won't move without an outside force acting on them. So by your reasoning, God deceives us by making us think that the planet has always been in motion.
Your second point would make sense if God didn't give us an explanation. But he did.
@Thehuskarl In your statement you are assuming that the planet earth has always existed, and thus that a god had to start it in motion. This is false.
The mass that makes up the earth was part of the excretion disk from the supernova that also formed our star Sol which condensed under gravity. The major contributor to our planet's orbit around the sun is to conserve the angular momentum of the sun.
The God created all the photons on the way here theory fails if we don't want God to be a liar. Why are we watching galaxies die, suns fade, implode etc if they are somewhere beyond the 6,000 year time frame (or even longer away) and simply never existed in order to be seen to die.
@Thehuskarl Yeah look at the next video and see that idea disappear in a puff of invalid logic!
Look the bottom line is the list of things you have to deny is huge..You need to discount so many things as being 'all lies' when there is no motive for anyone to lie to you. Nobody in science really cares if you understand or not.
Science is disinterested in what your opinion is because at the end of the day it produces new things based on what it says, And thats why you fear it... you know that!
Really, its not true. God could have just made light travel 12,7 billion years already when he created the universe. Thats the only answer that God believers could say. Absolute shite of course.
I saw a show on the history channel that said scientists now believe that after the big bang the universe spread out faster than the speed of light. I wonder how that would manipulate time? Wouldn't that make things appear to look different than they are relating to time once it slowed down to it's current rate of motion? We know so little.
1 - I know the bible fairly well and nowhere does it say the Earth/universe is 6000 years old. Or that the earth was created in 6 days. The Hebrew word for 'day' (found in Genesis) is YOM (yud alif meem) yom can mean long period of time or even such as a year. So when we read the earth was created in 6 YOM it can mean it 6 billion years. It just means the creation of earth/universe was divided into 6 periods. Creationists, learn Hebrew before you use the Bible for you argument.
2 - Creationists who cares if the earth is more than 6000 years old or a trillion years old... It does not prove or argue against God's existence. It just doesn't matter. The age of our planet shouldn't determine your faith. As for those who say it is 4.5 billion years old... Who cares if it is 6000 years old. This does not prove that God does exists. Simply put the age of the universe does not prove whether or not God exists. This is a stupid argument. Great video though. Peace.
@MistaMayotte finally not another complete dipshit, that 6 days or 6 thousand year thing is bs, but the bible never mentions anything exact on this subject, but everything being created in six periods? far more realisitc. Never take everything completly literaly unless it is meant to be
But if the worm hole makes light from a 13 billion light years away star travel in 6000 years wouldn't that make us measure it that close too? I mean, the whole idea is that we would see it closer, isn't it?
This complex wormhole model YEC apparently have reminds me of the many shell model which geocentricists used to retain their belief that the Earth was at the center of the universe.
This is such an utter waste of time. I highly doubt those YEC's are going to debate you using cosmology. They don't give a rat's azz. You have lack a certain amount of intelligence to be religious, I strongly believe.
all through this you forgot one important thing. ancient civilisations have records of stars in the sky, hundreds of then, so this is even more outragously stupid then you made out.
This all takes as an assumption that the universe was not created with the appearance of age, just as Adam and Eve were. Take that into account, and this whole argument (if you can really call it anything other than a bratty child's rant) falls apart.
@cowchipsbotme Your idea is based on an assumption that the universe WAS created with the appearance of age. The difference is that we have evidence :)
@weboh2 The issue of gravity was touched in videos 2 and 3 already. Are you actually watching these or do you just skip to the next one after 30 secs?
I feel you more on this one than the other ones but even still I thought that wormholes were theoretical more than proven fact. Even with that you disproved a theory used to support a world view, the same has been done to evolution. The age of the earth being 6000 years is a theory in itself so maybe it's time for a new hypothesis in the date of the earth in a creationist time scale. Test and retest right? or does that not apply to creationist?
I don't think it does. I've never seen a creationist do it... Here's a lesson: science NEVER started with the assumption that everything was old. It started with religious assumptions actually, in times where just about everybody was religious. Flat earth, imaginable timescales, sun orbiting us,... The data proved that it was much older than we assumed. The scientists adopted the data, the fundies said "that's not true".
oh come on chase...you can do better than that...its obvious that if God exists, he failed to make mention of all the wormholes and what not in the bible...if you can find the verse, hit me with it and u win, if u cant, then yea...u cant..pointless battle isnt it? (cdk007 ftw, again)
I don't believe in satan. What you're doing to yourself in church is effectively a combination of brainwashing and an acid high. No home-schooled religious kid has ever made any major scientific breakthroughs or had any job outside of a Mcdonalds. In short, christians are gullible, stupid or emotionally distressed. If god doesn't save people from hell for not believing in him i'll be flipping him off all the way down.
Give me one example of a homeschooled religious person that's done anything major for science. They would have millions anyway because I don't even know of any homeschooled religious kid that has a job that pays that much.
@ChristConquers you do not have a very good understanding of light. If a star is more than 6000 light years away, and its light has had 6000 years to travel, it will not have reached us yet.
And yes, you can measure distance to stars. Have you taken geometry? if so then you would know how to measure distance from a point in a circle to the edge of the circle. It isn't very hard to determine distance to a star
I like how you try and make it look like you know what you're talking about. When the obvious reality is that you are a closed minded, scientifically illiterate person who is scared by science because at every turn it disproves everything religion claims to be true.
Creationists don't like proof or logic against their religion. They will make up another crazy story science will have to disprove or dismiss. Crazy creationists.
LOL! Yes, our atmosphere takes part of a giant conspiracy. Because Satan also corrupted the God-made atmosphere to divert us from the truth. This is so funny!!!
I feel really stupid for having to ask this (I'm not a physics buff), but could somebody give me an explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and how isolated white holes in the universe would violate it? This interests me, so any information would be greatly appreciated.
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system that is not in equilibrium, entropy tends to increase. I'm not sure what it has to do with wormholes, though, sorry.
Well, as far as my understanding goes... (I'm no PHD, but I'm into this stuff.)
A wormhole is a form of gravitational singularity, but unlike a black hole, it requires constant energy input to sustain its existence. If it were isolated, it would have nothing to feed on, and would therefore eat itself.
things have been measrued to go faster than light, galaxies moving away faster, quasers spinning faster. Light speed barrier just is a local effect.
bicnarok 1 week ago
As a Christian who believes in an old-earth, I APPROVE of this video. :)
IndependenceHD 1 month ago
Google Solarchords com. here is a detailed study of the affect of Gravity upon the tracks of the Sun, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus & Neptune, about the Barycentre of the Solar System, discovering that the Sun’s orbit precisely matches the production of Sunspots via Acceleration changes & Climate Variation via Earth/Sun distance changes, in a closely linked & highly repetitive sequence, showing that Sunspots do not cause Climate Change but explaining why there is a close pattern match.
howardsway782 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The findings and examples are shown with exquisite clarity in diagrams and charts, demonstrating a compelling, unassailable correlation with historic climate records and goes on to provide the mechanism to enable the forecast of Sunspot Cycles and Climate Variation, both of which are discussed and shown in detail.
howardsway782 2 months ago
Oh please! Evidence is not theory, but all the creationist have is a theory
( without a single shred of evidence).
Noahs Ark is enough to instanty discount any religion with this story.
So as I only keep my bible to refer murderous verses in it to the faithful ( You know, the bit's they'd never read in church or show in childrens books), I therefore require other evidence of GOD, ANY GOD.
But onto a much more interesting topic ( like making good science vids)
This clip certainly is...
johnsergei 4 months ago
Just wanna point something out - You say that the wormholes all have to be within 6,000 light years of use, but in Genesis God makes the stars on the fourth day and presumably they're already visible then. So at the most these wormholes would have to be four lightdays away :P
Ninvus2 6 months ago
@Ninvus2 us*
Ninvus2 6 months ago
In other words, I think that every atom is expanding at one one millionth it size per second. This expansion of every atom is hidden by the additional expansion of the space between all objects ie. planets. This single idea solves any issues with a recent creation and starlight and the current size of the universe.
elinikk 6 months ago
@elinikk
There is nothing more idiotic than a YEC.....
odinata 6 months ago
@odinata Really, well the theory I gave was one that was developed by the evolutionist: Mark McCutcheon. I think I know who is the idiot is around here!
elinikk 6 months ago
@elinikk
What is an evolutionist?
odinata 6 months ago
@odinata An evolutionist is someone who is ignorant of the facts.
elinikk 6 months ago
@elinikk
But the fact is that foxes are related to wolves. Geese are related to ducks.
It can be tested for, genetically.
How is that fact "ignorant"?
odinata 6 months ago
@elinikk LOL - Mark McCutcheon? Really? That's your authority?? That crackpot has no scientific credentials whatever. He's on the same level as Project Blue Beamers. Yes, we know who the idiot is around here.
fdasherv 6 months ago
@fdasherv Yes and credentials make the science more true right? The truth is the truth regardless who says it! You are unreasonable (without reason).
elinikk 6 months ago
@elinikk Yes, you crackpot. It fact, scientific credentials do make observations more credible. Unless you have your own hadron collider in your back yard, I'll stick with the conclusions of people who actually have the means to conduct experiments and not those who randomly muse on subjects on which they're clearly unqualified.
fdasherv 6 months ago
@fdasherv The credentials make someone like you believe the person, but they do nothing to make the statements by the credential holders true! Yes the person with the access to the equipement like the hadron collider will have better access to the data, but their interpretation of the data can be wrong.
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk So all physics, geology and biology are wrong. One crackpot (two, including you) however is right. Relying on a 19th century hypothesis that was eschewed for tectonic science, you overturn literal mountains of evidence. Wow. All this in a desperate defense of yet another crackpot idea: creationism. You people continually and spectacularly top yourselves. Just go away.
fdasherv 5 months ago
@fdasherv I don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Much science is good. I have studied science at the university level and I say there is much insight. The problem is that scientist are not unbiased. They are people with presuppositions. They work in their labs desiring to prove their own personal idea of the universe. They are not necessarily in persuit of truth, though I think many want to know what is real, rather they are in persuit of success in their own idea of the universe.
elinikk 5 months ago
@elinikk But your theories are all bathwater and no baby. This "worldview" argument is the mantra of so many psychopaths it's laughable. Who but an obstinate creationist could have a more dogmatic "worldview" that demands assurance even in the form of lies? Willful lies. Real science is a pack of eager wolves ravenous for acclaim, to be sure. But that's what keeps them all in check. Once anything's presented in a journal, a dozen scientists will try to tear it down. The "method" crackpots lack.
fdasherv 5 months ago
@fdasherv
Yes. Can you answer me this;Why do Einstein's field equations completely ignore the EM force (which is 10E39 x stronger than whatever we call gravity)? If the speed of light is the universal limit, how can any mass in the universe 'know' where all other gravitating bodies are, instantaneously, in order to avoid orbital shear forces ensuing from a speed limit to gravity, whether you believe gravity is transmitted by particles or by deformations in some imaginary 'fabric of space-time'?
geeleegoat 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@fdasherv
Unfortunately, the Standard Model fails on so many levels, yet is continually modified in an attempt to fit observations. Fortunately, there is an alternative electric model of the universe which explains observations, based on plasma physics. It's premises can be experimentally and cheaply tested in the lab (unlike the Standard Model's whose will ever remain impossible to verify and costly) and it's adherents are actively and successfully predicting new phenomenon observed in space.
geeleegoat 1 month ago in playlist Why Young Earth Creationists Must DENY Gravity
@geeleegoat It's extraordinary that you're in a position to correct Einstein. Plus you're a plasma physicist as well. Bravo. Now explain to all of us what it all means and how it drags god into existence. Yes, I can see the headlines now: Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Einstein, and geeleegoat!
fdasherv 1 month ago
I am a YEC. I do not think that there are white holes. I also do not think that because something is X light years away, that it took X light years for that light to get to us. I think that the universe is expanding like the bible says. The known expansion we call hubbles constant. The unknown expansion is the expansion related to gravity. Since gravity is just an acceleration, all matter is expanding at the atomic level. This expantion is realated to the 32 feet/s/s that we observe.
elinikk 6 months ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm agnostic and I don't believe in the Young Earth Creation, but, you HAVE to remember, that if a God existed that was all-powerful, he COULD have created not only a present point, but also a past before the 6000 years.
guille4ty 6 months ago
@guille4ty If that supposed God did such a thing, he would be incredibly deceitful and spiteful, and therefore not worthy of our attention. Plus if we are talking about an omniscient god that sees and knows all, he wouldve understood his own deception and know we would not accept it.
overusedoxymoron2003 6 months ago
@overusedoxymoron2003 Oh, very well agreed. But, just throwing my point out there, because that seems to be overlooked in every other video.
guille4ty 6 months ago
This is just wonderful. I love it.
SuperMrAtheist 6 months ago
Mate I love these vids!
isizinyo 7 months ago
Well still the "observer" does exist independent on ideas (our ideas) how old it is...:)
xlapj001 7 months ago
Hahahhahah, great video. I love the cartoon where all the evidence for evolution on the scale is full to the brim. While Christians have the bible as evidence. Too funny.
angellicvoices 7 months ago
@angellicvoices
Yeah.
Christians are idiots......
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata God is an idiot too:)???
xlapj001 7 months ago
@xlapj001
What "god"????
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata That "I am" or maybe You dont exist...:)
xlapj001 7 months ago
@xlapj001
Maybe you just don't form coherent thoughts......
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata "God doesnt need to prove its existence, he IS existence" J.W.Goethe.... Im very precise in fact, its You who dont understand anything bout Universe....
xlapj001 7 months ago
@odinata saying theres no god is like saying... that we can do on planet anything we want, exploit each other, planet, behave like consumption animals... and nothing really happens... unfortunatelly we do observe the opposite... "God doesnt play dice" Einstein
xlapj001 7 months ago
@xlapj001
What you're saying is that because there are consequences to our actions, there is a god. That doesn't follow. Could you elaborate on how that connection is made? Be specific, if you can.
xlanciferionx 7 months ago
@xlapj001
Saying your personal opinion of what god is and how everybody else is wrong is like saying your favorite food is the only one worth eating...
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata I dont say what God is... I just say that exists, WHAT god is... is YOUR free choice, cause surelly YOU build his Universe too with your opinion:)
xlapj001 7 months ago
@xlapj001
You can say whatever you want about god.
You can't prove anything because its an OPINION.
Your opinion.
Congratulations.
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata So surelly the fact that "there is vacuum" is just an opinion too of scientists:) Cause both ideas vacuum as well as God are created by experience of the observer... And you can say whatever you want....
xlapj001 7 months ago
@xlapj001
You can prove a "vacuum" exists.....
odinata 7 months ago
@odinata I dont need to prove that my MIND exists with CERN:) And can create both ideas: God exists, God doesnt exist.... Im totally free like spirit - the origin of all my ideas, I do respect both atheists as well as theists... yet if society is about to function, some conditions are to be kept, if not society perish as the whole... easy to understand? Its like with water, if you dont drink, you die... if ... than, casualty, thats all.
xlapj001 7 months ago
@odinata What is vacuum??? Even philosophically its "the potential of all energy in Universe" empty infinite "no-thing", what is the first information about the change of state, when first particle appears out of "no-thing"? I AM? Because if all this Universe is a manifestation of energy and information, surelly the first light out of nothing bears an information about the change of state of vacuum too, what information I DO ASK YOU???? Do you KNOW???:)
xlapj001 7 months ago
@xlapj001
You aren't speaking English.
odinata 7 months ago
The idea of being in the centre of the universe is concieted. Of course, this bias is spread throughout our species. Indeed, any alien race would start with geocentrism. Personally, I enjoy the mystery and humbling nature of the real universe, instead of the cramped geocentric model
redjirachi1 7 months ago
Distance = Not Known or Inaccurate
Its easy to messure short distances, and to messure far distances, but distances in the air can not be messured, unless we took a rocket ship and shot them off to all the planets and the sun and have them tell us the distances we might know, but even then it may be inaccurate becuase computers malfunction from time to time reporting incorrect data. Relying on computer technology and devices is not a good thing, the computer does not know it all always. FIN
CaptianTGA 8 months ago
@CaptianTGA ever heard of parallax or trigonometry? You can work out the distance to any object within 20 parsecs with just a pencil and your thumb! No computer is needed.
with more distant objects L.E.D is used along the Baade-Wesselink and other methods, again no computer needed or even available when they were first used!
"Relying on computer technology and devices is not a good thing,"
The irony here astounds me! aren't you using one of those to make your point?
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
On a second note, has anyone actually taken a messuring tape into space to messure the distance? I think not... even with the latest in technology I highly doubt distance can be accuratly messured never in our lifetime or the future.
CaptianTGA 8 months ago
One Sentance we all see in the Mirrors:
WARNING: Objects in Mirror are closer than they appear.
What happens when you have water vapors or ice in the atmosphear? They bend or appear smaller.... think about it...
CaptianTGA 8 months ago
Reason #5 have an a conclusion that im not sure i agree with. Basically it says that because gravitational lensing around a wormhole is divergent (instead of convergent as it is for normal gravitational lensing) we should see this divergence and we dont.
However, i cannot find any way that we could observe this effect even if it did happen, it would simply look as scattered light, something we already observe plenty of for other reasons (actual scatter from dust)
ExcaliburClan 8 months ago
@ExcaliburClan I think what he was pointing out is that if a shell of wormholes surrounded the solar system at his given distance of 6k LY's then from earth the 'divergent' lensing would in fact ensure we see no stars beyond 6k LY whatsoever.... since we do... then that's the end of that idea!
this wormhole thing by creationists is just total bollox fed to the uneducated in case they come across information about distant objects. It was never intended for anyone with an education.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey yes i know what the idea of it was, and the result would be as he said when it comes to the stars and their distances, but the part about the scattering, i dont see how it would be observable. How would we (potentially) separate normal scatter fomr scatter caused by wormholes ?
The YEC's proposal is a dead idea anyway, it simply doesnt work.
ExcaliburClan 8 months ago
@ExcaliburClan it'd be a pretty black sky full of very few stars for sure... from our perspective anyway... certainly not worth the effort of putting wormholes in the way when making the universe 6k ly in size would do the trick more effectively.. but you might in fact see the effect of this scattered light bending around very large stars within 6k ly... but not too often obviously!
The YEC proposal was never designed to be inspected by anyone with a higher IQ than a rabbit!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
with modern day physics we understand that light travels at roughly 299 mil. m / s and this will make this video correct. However, if you know anything about the "big bang" theory you will know of the "horizon problem" stating that light hasn't had enough time to reach from one galaxy to another even in "old earth" theory...seeing that the temp. of the entire universe, according to scientific calculation, is uniform to less than 1 degree. This light travel issue is a problem on both sides.
rockchrchguitar 8 months ago
@rockchrchguitar This has mostly been fixed with inflation theory.
DeadFishFactory 8 months ago
@rockchrchguitar yeah you're sort of forgetting there that physicists are working on that... and every single time in history someone has pointed the finger and said... 'yeah but you don't know why X happens'... then they are eventually asked to chow down on some humble pie!
Creationism is just a pile of nonsensical gibberish for morons...One guy above thinks you need a measuring tape to measure the distance to stars! I was unaware people could be that dumb without being mentally retarded.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
creationists are an extraterrestrial civilization to dumb our species down so they can enslave us. (creationist logic)
thrillzonevideos 9 months ago
@conservamommy 1- disabled comments prove the author is full of shit. 2- every example of "irreducible complexity", without exception, has been broken down.
jimbocidman 9 months ago
convenient white holes cosmology is nuts! that's like inventing an inflationary period to explain away the smoothness of the CMB
IloveYOUviruses 10 months ago
Wow, this guy is an imbecile...using measusrements of current time with no relation to the past.
What a joke...this is ivy league. You mean its my daddy got me into there league.
Or i had sex with a 60 year old male to get in league.
What a joke this guy this.
jOWNZin22 10 months ago
@jOWNZin22 Can you please provide a rebutal to the information presented in the video please.
wowamonn 9 months ago
@jOWNZin22 Erm... time is a constant. It is affected only by gravity wells and whatever medium it moves through....
It did not magically travel hundreds or thousands of times faster in the past! Constant means constant! That computer you are using depends on that constant!
Seriously are you so determined to sentence yourself to the scrap heap in a world gearing up to consign the uneducated to just that fate?
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@klad1991 Good point.... and in fact further to that the wormholes need to be recalibrating themselves with the stars so that they point their lens at them all the time...even when they move around a galaxy! or cluster...etc.
They would also need to be re focusing their lens to account for the speed of expansion observed. Each one individually.
But most creationists would have a serious problem understanding basic math...let alone trigonometry. So best to leave that out.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@JohnGreek4lyf Which makes more sense, that absolutely nothing created what we have now, or that being we can't comprehend (aka God) created everything?
Philosophically either one could be debated for, but scientifically, the latter is more correct, because we have scientific laws saying that order cannot come from nonorder. We can have fun discussing the theories, like evolution, but let's stick to the laws when we make statements.
Thehuskarl 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl I'm concerned that you don't understand what science is.
SCIENTIFICALLY, you need evidence. Since as of yet there is no evidence for any intelligent being having created the universe, then scientifically speaking, the latter isn't just less likely, but actually isn't scientifically based at all.
pkemrin 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl No-one asserts that nothing created everything. If you want to refer to whatever physical laws caused the universe, as we see it now, to have come into existence as god, then whatever. But there's no evidence of that, so there's nothing to say that it's correct.
Do you understand the scientific meaning of the word 'theory'? The theory of evolution explains the observable facts, is supported by overwhelming evidence and has generated thousands of testable hypotheses.
0mniaV1nc1t 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl 2) Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology in any case. And if it's the second law of thermodynamics that you want to argue, then at least learn what it is, and that it doesn't support the theistic viewpoint. If 'god' can contravene the laws of nature we'd be continually finding anomalies where natural processes had been tinkered with, and we don't.
0mniaV1nc1t 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl
Order can't come from chaos? Ha.
By the a way, a scientific THEORY, is a culmination of evidence supporting an idea. Even if it was proven (which it is) it would always be called a THEORY.
Example? We know for a fact that gravity exists... correct? BUT... The THEORY of gravity is still called just that... a THEORY.
Cataclysm31 1 year ago
Science bitches, it works.
saxmanchiro 1 year ago
and the moral? don't fuck with physics bitches!
raverdeath100 1 year ago
A Christian I know once said something akin to this: "Oh logic, thou art a heartless bitch
SuperJasontheman 1 year ago
you can't travel into a wormhole, not because it's radio - active, but it spins so fast that the force would rip you into a million pieces making it impossible to travel into one.
lapfuwong 1 year ago
@lapfuwong unless your spinning at the same speed of the wormhole
pccrybabyhater 1 year ago
@pccrybabyhater That would not work... if you considered you were for example traveling head first...then your head would be traveling faster (a lot faster) then your feet...since it is closer. The result would be to extend you in a neat line of subatomic particles into the abyss..
Wormholes mathematically may allow electromagnetic radiation to travel through them, (if they really are out there).
But od course nobody has ever demonstrated a wormhole so assumptions about them are pointless.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
I will be the 666th comment!!! \\m//
MultiNerve 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Place your classify we offer you naughty women benaughtyman.info
kasunikaanjana 1 year ago
these questions can be better answered by very few men right now. these questions i would ask them and who knows maybe if i could sit down with them they might come to some interesting answers. what if in the next few hours the great minds prove that it could be possible through science then what? If the great minds prove it then what? science is two things asking questions and keeping an open mind. science ask how can i be right or how can i be wrong?
sbz666283 1 year ago
@sbz666283 In this analogy you are presupposing there is an answer. In a non meta-cognitive world where you are blind to any such possibilities this mythical answer does not exist. If there is an answer, you are baselessly supposing it exists.
Occams Razor: Either you are hopelessly wrong and can chose the option which actually has evidence or there is a reality-bending answer that has yet to be discovered which allows you to embrace your falsified hypothesis.
AdHominus 1 year ago
@sbz666283 So what? the great minds can be wrong, too ¬¬
don't forget about that detail =P
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu Great imnds can not only be wrong...they know they can be wrong...after all its sciences goal is discovery...if every idea ever mooted was accurate then science wouldn't exist!
Which is why every idea in science has a way of demonstrating it to be wrong. It can't be classified as scientific otherwise. Even Gravity has ways of demonstrating it to be wrong.
So great minds can indeed be wrong, and frequently are but they are not all wrong, about everything, all the time.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@sbz666283 You´re so right! Listen, this is GOD speaking to you! Buy yourself a good amount of cyanide and drink it. By this action, my son you will be the first standing by my side in the fight against that infidels.
Nicoman008 11 months ago
so is it possible that just as the universe expanded out that space time did the same thing? could light as well? could it even happen know we might observe light moving through space at one speed but light could be moving instantly through space time as well so we see things way out there in real time as well? Is it possible that the universe proven by science alone show evidence of a young universe?
sbz666283 1 year ago
@sbz666283 Light did not exist until some time AFTER the initial expansion of the universe.... light did not start at the beginning...it came about as a result of the interactions other properties of the universe. That took some time... about. Between 270-300 million years! light does not move instantly.we know its properties. Instant light traveling is in fact one of the things disproven a long time ago...way back in the 1021 by Ibn al-Haytham... and also in the 1650's by Huygens
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
is it possible that during the big bang that space and time was much faster. some believe the universe is in fact getting bigger but not as fast as the begaining . and things are slowing down. we are observing the aftermath of the big bang. in other words is it possible that just as the big bang was really fast that the speed of light also was just as fast? without getting into religion then is it possible that time was much faster giving an illusion of billions of years.
sbz666283 1 year ago
@sbz666283 no, thus the universe is expanding, eventually the poxectur universe will crash into our one and the 2 parallel multiverses will eventually go right through each other then come back and finally coalesce.<Just like the milky way
lapfuwong 1 year ago
@sbz666283 Also making light 'faster' in fact only compounds the problem.... if you make light faster in the past...then the universe is even older... not younger.
light and time are intrinsically linked... things that move faster...or move slower affect time from the perspective of the observer. So slower light = slower time... and if time is slower from the perspective of you viewing the light from outside... then you are back to square one! And from inside its moving at a steady pace.
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
@MumblingMickey i'm sorry but this post makes no sense whatsoever. What you are saying is that an objects speed doesn't affect the time it takes that object to reach a specific point, but only increases the distance between objects ... its like saying a faster car wouldn't win the race because by being faster it started further away...how could faster speed possibly cause it to take more time for it to reach from point A to point B?
rockchrchguitar 8 months ago
@rockchrchguitar Well all I can say to that is take a look at my channel page... as a wild guess what would you say I work at? Go on...have a guess.
Now as demonstrated (over the last 70 years) Einstein was indeed correct...which is why we depend on this facility to keep GPS systems working. Do I really need to go into why that is? look it up!
The statement stands... if light were faster in the past (which is impossible)... the universe would be older, not younger!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@rockchrchguitar also light is not an OBJECT... its electromagnetic radiation...
and yes faster moving objects do affect the time as seen from that object by the observer... theres an equation for that... a rather well known one... as a consequence of this known property of light we have whats refereed to in physics as the Mass–energy equivalence... or E=mc^2
Are you going to try explain to me why energy is not equal to the mass of light squared? hey man...I'm all ears...
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
time is more then the clock on your bed or whatever. nasa showed how two atomic clocks are altered in space. both can be the truth. its called a shortcut the wormhole idea would be laughed out by creationist themselves, time and space are being manipulated. the shortcut is how time factors into things. say light takes 100 billion years to reach us ok, now the whole universe in in space time just like your DVD and or VHS you can fast forward the tape. here we go again still here
sbz666283 1 year ago
@sbz666283 "nasa showed how two atomic clocks are altered in space. both can be the truth" I think you'll find it was a gentleman called Albert Einstein that demonstrated that...a long time before there was a NASA. It has nothing to do with wormholes... and everything to do with the bending of time an space in relation to the mass of an object.
Its referred to as special relativity. Without which your computer there wouldn't be working too well!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
there is alot of problems this video claims what creationist think but being around them this is nothing how creationist think and also there are plenty of atheist and others with no ties to religion showing how it is possible for the whole universe to be quite young, time and space have an answer. labs have shown how the speed of light changes through a medium just like sound. in the lab the speed of light has been slowed and speed up. I know even whistle blowers who can show you how.
sbz666283 1 year ago
@sbz666283 yes through which medium are you talking about space is empty as far as we can see
25yearman 11 months ago
@sbz666283 "there are plenty of atheist and others with no ties to religion showing how it is possible for the whole universe to be quite young,"
Really? name one. a real controversy would be a few thousand...but lets go with one non-creationist!
Yes light DOES move at different speeds through different mediums. thats been known over 1,000 years! It travels at just 38 miles per hour through sodium gas.
But space is not filled with sodium its filled with nothing... hence the name!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It is your lucky day with naughty hot chicks mworld5.info
LisesiHeath 1 year ago
i understand some of this, but defenetly not all of it. but then again, i'm a high school student whose first language is not english so i think i'm doing very good on this series of videos. i love how you explore all of these scenarios and neither of them work and they basicly rip everything apart hahaha.
TheArutnev 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 has been flagged as spam show
Online Be Naughty women benaughtyman.info
haritadilani 1 year ago
I'm studying astronomy right now, glad I get most of this.
And I can attest that the methods and mathmatical models to test predictions about "how shit went down" is accurate and not limited to just a one trick pony.
Niveous23 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Naughty women in the lane benaughtyman.info
yasodagangani 1 year ago
goddammit i love knowledge
avetube66223 1 year ago
this is why i didnt vote for palin
uberm0nster1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Meet Russian women for dating 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
very wise my friend
roblesterfilms 1 year ago
I love it! If the creationists right, the univers dies.
Painfulldarksoul 1 year ago
I played this video 5 times, just for the music =)
Also, interesting video.
IcedPhoenix666 1 year ago
Maybe when God created the protons, neutrons and electrons he also created the photons on the path to earth. Stunning concept. If he created the earth with the proper acceleration to orbit the sun, he it shouldn't be to complicated to create photons in motion also. I don't see why people can't understand this simple concept.
God created the universe IN MOTION!
Thehuskarl 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl Your claim that the photons were put into creation on their way to us tells me that your god has purposefully deceived us. It very well may be that this is the case. However, I don't like to think that if a god took the time to create a universe would be intentionally deceptive to its creation by setting up situations where we are forced to get faulty results.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@lhvinny Look at it this way, we need light to survive. Just like we need the planet to orbit around the sun to survive. Would you say God deceived us by creating our world in motion? We know that if things aren't in motion they won't move without an outside force acting on them. So by your reasoning, God deceives us by making us think that the planet has always been in motion.
Your second point would make sense if God didn't give us an explanation. But he did.
Thehuskarl 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl In your statement you are assuming that the planet earth has always existed, and thus that a god had to start it in motion. This is false.
The mass that makes up the earth was part of the excretion disk from the supernova that also formed our star Sol which condensed under gravity. The major contributor to our planet's orbit around the sun is to conserve the angular momentum of the sun.
lhvinny 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl
The God created all the photons on the way here theory fails if we don't want God to be a liar. Why are we watching galaxies die, suns fade, implode etc if they are somewhere beyond the 6,000 year time frame (or even longer away) and simply never existed in order to be seen to die.
Doesn't work.
ozowen 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl
Seems that over 90% members of the america national science academy failed to understand that.
Turan123 1 year ago
@Thehuskarl Yeah look at the next video and see that idea disappear in a puff of invalid logic!
Look the bottom line is the list of things you have to deny is huge..You need to discount so many things as being 'all lies' when there is no motive for anyone to lie to you. Nobody in science really cares if you understand or not.
Science is disinterested in what your opinion is because at the end of the day it produces new things based on what it says, And thats why you fear it... you know that!
MumblingMickey 11 months ago
Really, its not true. God could have just made light travel 12,7 billion years already when he created the universe. Thats the only answer that God believers could say. Absolute shite of course.
BobCassidy 1 year ago
I saw a show on the history channel that said scientists now believe that after the big bang the universe spread out faster than the speed of light. I wonder how that would manipulate time? Wouldn't that make things appear to look different than they are relating to time once it slowed down to it's current rate of motion? We know so little.
weseyedwalk 1 year ago
This video proves one thing: Mozart RULES! Now what was that thing they were talking about?
Mickster6988240 1 year ago
296 creationists voted here.
th3dig1tal0n3 1 year ago
@th3dig1tal0n3 Actually, it's overrepresentation. Many use votebots.
CrazySatanicInfidel 1 year ago
1 - I know the bible fairly well and nowhere does it say the Earth/universe is 6000 years old. Or that the earth was created in 6 days. The Hebrew word for 'day' (found in Genesis) is YOM (yud alif meem) yom can mean long period of time or even such as a year. So when we read the earth was created in 6 YOM it can mean it 6 billion years. It just means the creation of earth/universe was divided into 6 periods. Creationists, learn Hebrew before you use the Bible for you argument.
MistaMayotte 1 year ago
2 - Creationists who cares if the earth is more than 6000 years old or a trillion years old... It does not prove or argue against God's existence. It just doesn't matter. The age of our planet shouldn't determine your faith. As for those who say it is 4.5 billion years old... Who cares if it is 6000 years old. This does not prove that God does exists. Simply put the age of the universe does not prove whether or not God exists. This is a stupid argument. Great video though. Peace.
MistaMayotte 1 year ago
@MistaMayotte finally not another complete dipshit, that 6 days or 6 thousand year thing is bs, but the bible never mentions anything exact on this subject, but everything being created in six periods? far more realisitc. Never take everything completly literaly unless it is meant to be
mailmanofdeth 1 year ago
But if the worm hole makes light from a 13 billion light years away star travel in 6000 years wouldn't that make us measure it that close too? I mean, the whole idea is that we would see it closer, isn't it?
salahhe 1 year ago
Funny. Are there any YECs outside the USA? Don't mention Taliban please.
AnAlienOnEarth 1 year ago
These videos are awesome.
dolphinmagic24fan 1 year ago
<---- The center of the Universe is explained here.
theworldofsmith 1 year ago
This complex wormhole model YEC apparently have reminds me of the many shell model which geocentricists used to retain their belief that the Earth was at the center of the universe.
SirRhetor 1 year ago
epic fucking win
GretnaBlast 1 year ago
@GretnaBlast - Creationshits hit the fan.
Dzotshen 1 year ago
This is such an utter waste of time. I highly doubt those YEC's are going to debate you using cosmology. They don't give a rat's azz. You have lack a certain amount of intelligence to be religious, I strongly believe.
chevon1920 1 year ago
stupid
Antifuzz1 1 year ago
all through this you forgot one important thing. ancient civilisations have records of stars in the sky, hundreds of then, so this is even more outragously stupid then you made out.
still a good video
Strikesnake1994 1 year ago
very good
calanmoss 1 year ago
This all takes as an assumption that the universe was not created with the appearance of age, just as Adam and Eve were. Take that into account, and this whole argument (if you can really call it anything other than a bratty child's rant) falls apart.
cowchipsbotme 1 year ago
@cowchipsbotme @cowchipsbotme Because God takes pleasure in messing with us? Basically you`re saying is a cosmic, almighty, infinite troll?
paolo27th 1 year ago
@cowchipsbotme Wow. There's a scientifically reasoned argument.
innes123 1 year ago
@cowchipsbotme Your idea is based on an assumption that the universe WAS created with the appearance of age. The difference is that we have evidence :)
Mandragara 1 year ago
The 4th video and no mention of the word gravity. Why am I not suprised?
weboh2 1 year ago
@weboh2 The issue of gravity was touched in videos 2 and 3 already. Are you actually watching these or do you just skip to the next one after 30 secs?
paolo27th 1 year ago
I just don't like the music, but I agree, god made magenta and teal holes so that what you say is horshit classical music slang crapola.
zach2408dk 1 year ago
@zach2408dk: Culture has failed you.
IcedPhoenix666 1 year ago
I feel you more on this one than the other ones but even still I thought that wormholes were theoretical more than proven fact. Even with that you disproved a theory used to support a world view, the same has been done to evolution. The age of the earth being 6000 years is a theory in itself so maybe it's time for a new hypothesis in the date of the earth in a creationist time scale. Test and retest right? or does that not apply to creationist?
brewercap 1 year ago
Let's go through it again, shall we?
1) These videos deal with physics and astronomy, not biology, so bringing up evolution is pointless.
2) You're lying about evolution having been "disproven".
MManuRere 1 year ago
I don't think it does. I've never seen a creationist do it... Here's a lesson: science NEVER started with the assumption that everything was old. It started with religious assumptions actually, in times where just about everybody was religious. Flat earth, imaginable timescales, sun orbiting us,... The data proved that it was much older than we assumed. The scientists adopted the data, the fundies said "that's not true".
TakesTwoToTango 1 year ago
in the creation every single scientific thing known to man God is not restricted by because he is the one who put these laws in place for us.
Chase9803 2 years ago
oh come on chase...you can do better than that...its obvious that if God exists, he failed to make mention of all the wormholes and what not in the bible...if you can find the verse, hit me with it and u win, if u cant, then yea...u cant..pointless battle isnt it? (cdk007 ftw, again)
Hadel022 2 years ago
I don't believe in satan. What you're doing to yourself in church is effectively a combination of brainwashing and an acid high. No home-schooled religious kid has ever made any major scientific breakthroughs or had any job outside of a Mcdonalds. In short, christians are gullible, stupid or emotionally distressed. If god doesn't save people from hell for not believing in him i'll be flipping him off all the way down.
Phyerbyrd 2 years ago
1st of all any home schooled religious kid never has ever made any major scientific breakthroughs or had any job outside of a Mcdonalds. is not true.
2nd some don't have millionaires because they spent it to charity, and they are not spoil,
99jesusfreak99 1 year ago
Give me one example of a homeschooled religious person that's done anything major for science. They would have millions anyway because I don't even know of any homeschooled religious kid that has a job that pays that much.
Phyerbyrd 1 year ago
there is also redshift. No guesswork involved there
and even if there was guesswork, it would be off by a ratio of 6000:2500000
MoonKittenJD 2 years ago
@ChristConquers you do not have a very good understanding of light. If a star is more than 6000 light years away, and its light has had 6000 years to travel, it will not have reached us yet.
And yes, you can measure distance to stars. Have you taken geometry? if so then you would know how to measure distance from a point in a circle to the edge of the circle. It isn't very hard to determine distance to a star
MoonKittenJD 2 years ago
Wow ... I can't understand why you put so much time into the ridiculous "The light is transfered by maaaany little white holes" uhm ... "theory"
RazielKain 2 years ago
ROFFLE @ (Not to scale)
MethodicalMadness 2 years ago
To quote the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
"Space is big. Really big."
FiverBeyond 2 years ago
I like how you try and make it look like you know what you're talking about. When the obvious reality is that you are a closed minded, scientifically illiterate person who is scared by science because at every turn it disproves everything religion claims to be true.
Univarman 2 years ago
Thank you for taking the time for these videos, outstanding
razeal113 2 years ago
YECs are obviously NOT thinking with portals.
Omnywrench 2 years ago
Creationists don't like proof or logic against their religion. They will make up another crazy story science will have to disprove or dismiss. Crazy creationists.
chrisinsocalif 2 years ago
LOL! Yes, our atmosphere takes part of a giant conspiracy. Because Satan also corrupted the God-made atmosphere to divert us from the truth. This is so funny!!!
psilocyberspaceman 2 years ago
I feel really stupid for having to ask this (I'm not a physics buff), but could somebody give me an explanation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and how isolated white holes in the universe would violate it? This interests me, so any information would be greatly appreciated.
nylonhead116 2 years ago
The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system that is not in equilibrium, entropy tends to increase. I'm not sure what it has to do with wormholes, though, sorry.
Tyler5794 2 years ago
Well, as far as my understanding goes... (I'm no PHD, but I'm into this stuff.)
A wormhole is a form of gravitational singularity, but unlike a black hole, it requires constant energy input to sustain its existence. If it were isolated, it would have nothing to feed on, and would therefore eat itself.