Those crazy creationists

[gozzer]

Surely we all know that time is relative. Relative to a persons age, gender and what they are or about to do.

 

A teenagers "minute' can be an infinite measurement, as in "I'll do it in a minute".

A female getting ready for a night out can take two/three hours to be ready "in five minutes".

A tradesmans time is measured in some variable scale that depends on his mood and something called "parts".

"I'll be round tomorrow, depending on the parts", usually means, "It'll be next week before you see me".

 

Then of course how many anglers have had, "just another 5 minutes"?

Only to be still fishing an hour later.

 

Old Einstein was right, it is relative.

 

John.

[snakey1]

Cory, I didn't say that the speed of light can be topped, I said it cannot be proved - "Physics doesn't do proofs", yet anything else is provable.

For the others - anyone who says God must be true, the Bible says so - the Bible must be true God said so, is a Pratt!! Where did God say so?

There are two halves to the Bible The old testament mostly relates to the Law (Sharia Law)

The New testament says forget Sharia Law

I'm just curious but why do you think the old testament refers to Sharia law, surely as it is a early history of the jews it refers to Halakha (Jewish religious law including biblical law see here ) where as Sharia is the islamic religious law ( Scholars believe much of the Old Testament was written in Mesopotamia. It is believed the Old Testament was composed and compiled between the 12th and the 2nd century BC where as the Qur'an upon which Sharia law is based was compiled and composed between 610 & 632 AD).

[chesters1]

Yes, but that is something else altogether - a definite piece of time travel. Put on your overalls and greasetop cap, pick up an oil feeder, and you are instantly transported back to the Golden Age, when postage stamps were line-engraved, The Times front page consisted entirely of adverts, the working class doffed their caps to the squire, childhood ailments were treated with brimstone and treacle, and a pint of ale was fourpence.

 

Interestingly enough, you can still see the modern world (fat birds showing their midriffs an' all) passing by outside the Victorian ethos of the locomotive, and even lean over the cab door to chat them up.

 

damn going slower than normal undoes some of the conclusions that going faster than normal makes you live longer ,or is that age slower? or time travels faster/slower?

Edited August 11, 2009 by chesters1

[kleinboet]

Snakey - If you look at the Q'ran you will find the same laws there as you will find in the OT.

stoning for adultery etc. but it stops there. most Muslims will tell you that Jesus is mentioned as a major prophet, but not as the Messiah. Jesus came and 'liberated' the believers by giving them a NEW commandment (that they loved one another), stopping all the scourging and stoning etc. It didn't help him much, but as word of what he had done and said got around, people began realising that the oppressive laws were just that, oppressive! Unfortunately those that don't believe have jumped on the OT as "the Bible" quoting all the oppressive bits and ignoring the NT. If it hadn't been for the NT we would be "living" as they do in Muslim countries.

Edited August 11, 2009 by kleinboet

[snakey1]

Snakey - If you look at the Q'ran you will find the same laws there as you will find in the OT.

stoning for adultery etc. but it stops there. most Muslims will tell you that Jesus is mentioned as a major prophet, but not as the Messiah. Jesus came and 'liberated' the believers by giving them a NEW commandment (that they loved one another), stopping all the scourging and stoning etc. It didn't help him much, but as word of what he had done and said got around, people began realising that the oppressive laws were just that, oppressive! Unfortunately those that don't believe have jumped on the OT as "the Bible" quoting all the oppressive bits and ignoring the NT. If it hadn't been for the NT we would be "living" as they do in Muslim countries.

Ok but the Qur'an was written much later than the old testement so it is no surprise that jesus is mentioned as a prophet in the same way that the christian religion lifted parts of the old pagan religions and absorbed them into christianity to make it more acceptable to new converts and to ease out the old religion ( i.e replacement of sol invictus with christmas and Samhain with all hallows eve) the old testement is about Halakha law not Sharia law, the qur'an wasn't written and Muhammad hadn't even been born when the old testement was written so how can it be about sharia law ?

Edited August 11, 2009 by snakey1

[Vagabond]

going slower than normal undoes some of the conclusions that going faster than normal makes you live longer ,or is that age slower? or time travels faster/slower?

 

Travelling tender first by steam locomotive may reverse the time difference. Certainly travelling that way on a cold winter's night (especially if it was raining or snowing) will make you FEEL older! We used to run "wine and dine" trains on Saturday nights and the return journey was always bunker first. Damned cold, and of course at the end of the evening we would be running the fire down.

[Emma two]

Snakey - If you look at the Q'ran you will find the same laws there as you will find in the OT.

stoning for adultery etc. but it stops there. most Muslims will tell you that Jesus is mentioned as a major prophet, but not as the Messiah. Jesus came and 'liberated' the believers by giving them a NEW commandment (that they loved one another), stopping all the scourging and stoning etc. It didn't help him much, but as word of what he had done and said got around, people began realising that the oppressive laws were just that, oppressive! Unfortunately those that don't believe have jumped on the OT as "the Bible" quoting all the oppressive bits and ignoring the NT. If it hadn't been for the NT we would be "living" as they do in Muslim countries.

 

You have if nothing else tenacity, and a heap of brass neck. Quite recently suggesting that 'I' know nothing of religion, while post like the above show just what a 'Mr Muddle' you are about the subject (all subjects really), displaying the understanding and depth of reading of a six year old with only a medioca sunday school attendance record.

 

Ok some questions, I don't suppose you will answer as you never do, but simply rattle on a load of old pants.

 

If the old testament is so oppressive then why is it still part of the bible?

 

If the old testament laws were repealed by the jesus character then why do you lot (christians) still use them to condem and direct hate towards people? for example Leviticus 18:22 upheld by JC in Romans (1:26-27)?

 

Your latest howler, how do you come to the notion that were it not for the new testament that we would be living like Muslems? The new testament provided the basis of the spread of christianity into northern Europe, there is nothing to suggest that the old testament alone would have been enough to overturn the religions and spititualities allready in place here, nor that anyone would have bothered to try.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Emma two

[kleinboet]

Snakey, you are playing with words here, most people would not know what the difference in laws are (they would have to go and check the laws for themselves).

If you look at sharia law and the laws of the OT, the laws (and punishments!) are virtually identical!

 

I have been told all my working life that as an analytical chemist, I should not believe - IMHO it is the way that you interpret what is written. I don't treat the Bibles NT as the end all and be all - after all, it was written long after the event, by scribes, and very little (if any) was actually written material that they used, and if you tell the story to enough people it comes back totally different to how you told it! There are too many questions unanswered for me not to believe!

Edited August 11, 2009 by kleinboet

[Alan Stubbs]

Time dilation remains a theory as it relies heavily on something that has not been proved yet, namely it uses the speed of light as a constant and that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. This has not been proven without a doubt.

 

The argument to support it was that if the speed of light was NOT the absolute, we would have 'time-machines visiting us!

 

 

I saw a programme on television a few years ago, it was one of the Royal Society's Christmas Lectures.

 

2 identical atomic clocks were set simultaneously, 1 remained in London and the other travelled by airliner to Hong Kong and back, reaching speeds of over 600mph, ie, nearer the speed of light than the stationary clock. Upon it's return, the clock which had been on the round trip to Hong kong as several seconds slower, by the amount predicted.

 

This led me to talk to my better half - who has a degree in astrophysics. She explained the phenomenon to me and handed me a text book. Even I could understand the gist of what was being presented.

 

Time dilation was postulated by Einstein and demonstrated by Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating in October 1977. A few years later, the University of Maryland managed to predict this to within a margin of 1%. If I had the keyboard skills, I could show you the mathematical calculation to jsutify what was said.

 

If it was just a theory rather than fact, why today when atomic clocks are moved from one place to another for calibration, is the time dilation due to movement is taken into account?

 

Source: Fundamentals of Physics Extended, Halliday, Resnick and Walker

 

In the same book are really good explanations of the relativity of time length and simultaneity (I'm getting my head around that one!)

 

 

The issue about the speed of light being a constant is irrelevant to the issue of time dilation. Time will dilate in relation to an object in motion, and has been proven.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Alan Stubbs

[snakey1]

Snakey, you are playing with words here, most people would not know what the difference in laws are (they would have to go and check the laws for themselves).

If you look at sharia law and the laws of the OT, the laws (and punishments!) are virtually identical!

 

I have been told all my working life that as an analytical chemist, I should not believe - IMHO it is the way that you interpret what is written. I don't treat the Bibles NT as the end all and be all - after all, it was written long after the event, by scribes, and very little (if any) was actually written material that they used, and if you tell the story to enough people it comes back totally different to how you told it! There are too many questions unanswered for me not to believe!

Kleinboet, your the one who claimed the old testement was about sharia law (which it isn't as it was written between 700 - 1500 years before muhammad was born, the qur'an was written and sharia law came about, although sharia law and the Qur'an may have taken elements from it when they were compiled years later)you may not like it but why not just admit your wrong, the old testement is about Halakha law and the ancient history of the jewish people.

Edited August 11, 2009 by snakey1