# Space (Not Outer Space)



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Not long ago I saw an article that I want to go back to but I'm having a hard time searching for it. It was talking about "space" as in "space and time". Not Outer Space. Does anyone know of another term I could use for space? Every time I search for the word "space" I get outer space.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I'm not exactly certain what your interest is, but you could try spacetime.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Space, as in "Give me some space"?


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

I like the suggestion of spacetime. They are also referred to as the third and fourth dimensions sometimes.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

spacetime was more of what i had in mind. The article I saw popped up to me (because of analytics no doubt) and discussed space only. It was a fairly lengthy article but unfortunately it does't look like I can find it. There is plenty to read about spacetime however.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Space , in philosophy , may be _'as far as you can see_' . This implies a boundary . Symbolically space can be a circle of three dimensions - beyond , within , and then the boundary . Yet the boundary is indeterminate to the adventurous . And inwardness may be skeptical . And beyond could possibly be unknowable .

Space can be the great Ahhh! Mouth wide open , as a cave , the essential and expansive vibration within .


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Space , in philosophy , may be _'as far as you can see_' . This implies a boundary . Symbolically *space can be a circle of three dimensions* - beyond , within , and then the boundary . Yet the boundary is indeterminate to the adventurous . And inwardness may be skeptical . And beyond could possibly be unknowable .
> 
> Space can be the great Ahhh! Mouth wide open , as a cave , the essential and expansive vibration within .


You mean a sphere, don't you? A circle is a closed plane figure (2 dimensional) with all points equal distant from a given point.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

A mathematical space can have any variables you want, of any number, whether they be classical (x,y,z) or Minkowski (x,y,z,-it) or even Hilbert (x1,x2,x3...) used in QM, with an infinite # of variables... the properties of the space can be defined by set relations, metrics, completion theorems...

Another kind of useful space is a time-ordered state space, such as Markov chains where each state has a certain probability of evolving to another state. These are similar to the spaces used in classical and quantum dynamics, where a system changes with time, and are used by engineers in communication and information systems, or actuaries evaluating complex risk mechanisms, etc...

So when someone says "space", these are some of the possibilities that come to mind for me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2019)

haydnguy said:


> Not long ago I saw an article that I want to go back to but I'm having a hard time searching for it. It was talking about "space" as in "space and time". Not Outer Space. Does anyone know of another term I could use for space? Every time I search for the word "space" I get outer space.


Have you tried looking for it in your browser history list?


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Joe B said:


> You mean a sphere, don't you? A circle is a closed plane figure (2 dimensional) with all points equal distant from a given point.


O
Isn't a sphere more difficult to draw ?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> O
> Isn't a sphere more difficult to draw ?


Well a circle is impossible to draw, so yes


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Space and time are merely different aspects of the same thing. One can be converted to another. Example: I dig a hole in my back yard a foot by a foot by a foot. Since I work carefully, this takes five minutes. I have converted five minutes of time to one cubic foot of new space. See, you don't even need complicated formulas for this! :lol:


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Space and time are merely different aspects of the same thing. One can be converted to another. Example: I dig a hole in my back yard a foot by a foot by a foot. Since I work carefully, this takes five minutes. I have converted five minutes of time to one cubic foot of new space. See, you don't even need complicated formulas for this! :lol:


It's disconcerting that some physicists say the guys at Cern are using the wrong value for a quantum mass. - see below - They're off by many magnitudes! Theorists debate back and forth.
Since there's a dispute about the rest mass of the quantum mass, those guys at CERN might destroy the universe with their probings.

It's a scary idea that most all emerging tech-civs build a supercollider and something goes terribly wrong, at least locally. Curiosity kills the cats (aliens). There's so few emerging tech-civs nearby and in our time window that we probably wouldn't notice their self-destruction. Maybe we should pull back from Cern until we know what the quantum mass actually is, from more than one theory.
Because if we dismiss time as a substantial dimension then the velocity of an object is not a function of increasing its speed in any direction, but rather the reorientation of its component energimes which are already moving at c so that -- the net vector of the component energimes provides a net velocity along an axis of motion. And so, the constancy of the speed of light is fundamentally more accurately expressed as the constancy of the speed of the energime. And a photon becomes nothing more than a system of bound energimes all moving in perfect alignment along the axis of motion. If we eliminate TIME like this - the quantum mass becomes 2.9 x 10^-73 kg. This is a dangerous conclusion for the CERN experimenters. They don't want to hear it.﻿


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Space and time are merely different aspects of the same thing. One can be converted to another. Example: I dig a hole in my back yard a foot by a foot by a foot. Since I work carefully, this takes five minutes. I have converted five minutes of time to one cubic foot of new space. See, you don't even need complicated formulas for this! :lol:


How do you model "carefulness" in this formula?


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

"they don't want to hear it"

They don't want to dig carefully... what would Ken (or yourself) do in their position?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Space and time are merely different aspects of the same thing. One can be converted to another. Example: I dig a hole in my back yard a foot by a foot by a foot. Since I work carefully, this takes five minutes. I have converted five minutes of time to one cubic foot of new space. See, you don't even need complicated formulas for this! :lol:


If you fill the hole back in thus losing the cubic foot of new space, will you get the 5 minutes back?


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

But in space I can walk forward and then backward (carefully). In time I cannot do that. If they are the same why can't I do both?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> If you fill the hole back in thus losing the cubic foot of new space, will you get the 5 minutes back?


Sorry, no. Thus we speak of "the arrow of time."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

haydnguy said:


> But in space I can walk forward and then backward (carefully). In time I cannot do that. If they are the same why can't I do both?


Of course you can. But it takes practice.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

KenOC said:


> Of course you can. But it takes practice.


haha, you got me on that one. I mean why can't we go back in time.

For what it's worth. I don't think time really exists. The idea of a day being equal to the earth turning once seems to me to be contrived for our benefit.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

haydnguy said:


> haha, you got me on that one. I mean why can't we go back in time.
> 
> For what it's worth. I don't think time really exists. The idea of a day being equal to the earth turning once seems to me to be contrived for our benefit.


that problem also occupied Einstein and he also concluded that time does not exist, that there is no privileged "now" moment, but that it is only produced in the brain as illusion of time. The real entity is the timeless spacetime existing in eternity. 
https://curiosity.com/topics/einstein-worried-that-science-cant-explain-the-now-curiosity/

of course there are interesting questions how to reconcile it with quantum indeterminism if the whole 4D spacetime already exists etc.
https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/1.14912!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/507421a.pdf
I like Mermin precisely because he was philosophically minded. Most physicist just mindlessly repeat the mantra "shut up and calculate" misattributed to Feynman
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.1768652?journalCode=pto


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Jacck said:


> that problem also occupied Einstein and he also concluded that time does not exist, that there is no privileged "now" moment, but that it is only produced in the brain as illusion of time. The real entity is the timeless spacetime existing in eternity.
> https://curiosity.com/topics/einstein-worried-that-science-cant-explain-the-now-curiosity/
> 
> of course there are interesting questions how to reconcile it with quantum indeterminism if the whole 4D spacetime already exists etc.
> ...


Thank you for this, Jaack. I will have to read it more thoroughly and think about it. I love reading stuff like this!


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Mermin's editorials in Physics Today were one of my favorite things about the magazine in the 80s and I still have the copies with those EPR articles..

ed: Mermin, not Merwin the poet


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I got to see Feynman lecture a small group in grad school, when he was proposing that negative probabilities could be acceptable when encountered as a mid-stream computation artifact. I'm pretty sure that one could easily feel that "shut up and calculate" spirit if not hear it directly from the master's mouth. I believe those lectures are now considered foundational to quantum computing science.

It might be said that the SUAC thing is cultural, probably uttered by thousands of QM teachers and students over the years.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Seems to me there is singular now moment everywhere , and then I'll assume the eternity of just one thing . That would be the consciousness of existence in one's moment of death . Space has a boundary . O


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Jacck said:


> ...of course there are interesting questions how to reconcile it with quantum indeterminism if the whole 4D spacetime already exists etc.


Maybe no problem? In a fixed universe where the future already exists, the outcome of our measuring the spin of that entangled particle is predetermined. The seeming randomness is simply our own inability to know the outcome in advance.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Maybe no problem? In a fixed universe where the future already exists, the outcome of our measuring the spin of that entangled particle is predetermined. The seeming randomness is simply our own inability to know the outcome in advance.


possibly, but since it cannot be tested and verified by science, it is not a scientific hypothesis.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2019)

Jacck said:


> possibly, but since it cannot be tested and verified by science, it is not a scientific hypothesis.


more like, since it is a not a hypothesis that is falsifiable by an appeal to evidence it is not a scientificc hypothesis.


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Space, as in "Give me some space"?


Gimme more like Britney says.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Maybe no problem? In a fixed universe where the future already exists, the outcome of our measuring the spin of that entangled particle is predetermined. The seeming randomness is simply our own inability to know the outcome in advance.


Unless you believe in a many-worlds quantum reality..


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

The answer was on my back and I just realized it


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

haydnguy said:


> Not long ago I saw an article that I want to go back to but I'm having a hard time searching for it. It was talking about "space" as in "space and time". Not Outer Space. Does anyone know of another term I could use for space? Every time I search for the word "space" I get outer space.


try this search line:

space -outer

But *here is a good book* that includes discussion of spacetime.

The book discusses the theoretical possibility of traveling into the future, and even traveling into the past (must travel faster than the speed of light). Of course travel into the past is technically impossible, but future... perhaps someday.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> try this search line:
> 
> space -outer
> 
> ...


Sorry, that is pure pseudoscience. Do you really believe some guy at the Biblical Science Institute is right and Einstein and every other legit physicist is wrong about General Relativity?


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> The book discusses the theoretical possibility of traveling into the future, and even traveling into the past (must travel faster than the speed of light). Of course travel into the past is technically impossible, *but future... perhaps someday.*


We are all traveling into the future, every second we get one second farther into the future...


----------



## atsizat (Sep 14, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Space, as in "Give me some space"?


Give it to me, baby


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Sorry, that is pure pseudoscience. Do you really believe some guy at the Biblical Science Institute is right and Einstein and every other legit physicist is wrong about General Relativity?


The author is an astrophysicist, so if I somehow misrepresented him in my brief summary, don't take him to be a hack. And I did not see anywhere in the book where he claimed that Einstein was wrong. I believe he is in agreement with Einstein's theories.



Baron Scarpia said:


> We are all traveling into the future, every second we get one second farther into the future...


Of course, but if we could travel much faster in a spaceship, we could go on a trip of say 2 years and when we return the people we knew would have aged several decades, depending on our speed in the spaceship.

As for our travelling into the future, why is it we never arrive in the future but always remain in the present?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Of course, but if we could travel much faster in a spaceship, we could go on a trip of say 2 years and when we return the people we knew would have aged several decades, depending on our speed in the spaceship.


That is the "twin paradox" which you will find in every elementary exposition of relativity. If an object is accelerated to speed comparable to the speed of light it's clock will appear to have run slower compared with clocks that are in the original frame of reference. If you go on such a trip when you return you will be younger than your twin. The effect has been experimentally confirmed. If you launch an unstable particle with a particle accelerator it will appear to last longer before decaying than the same particle at rest. Presumably it would work on people, but the energy required to accelerate an object of substantial mass to a speed comparable to the speed of light is enormous.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

There was a young lady named Bright
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.

--Punch, 1923


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Fritz Kobus said:


> The author is an astrophysicist, so if I somehow misrepresented him in my brief summary, don't take him to be a hack. And I did not see anywhere in the book where he claimed that Einstein was wrong. I believe he is in agreement with Einstein's theories.
> 
> .


C'mon, Lisle, while a trained astrophysicist, is a YEC who works for Answers in Genesis whose sole goal is to try to warp or debunk the astronomical evidence that shows the universe is older than a few thousand years


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It has been apparent to geologists and others for the past several hundred years that the world is much older than 6,000 years. And the universe is older yet.

“The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years, based on a number of studies which all gave extremely similar figures for the age. These include studies of the microwave background radiation, and measurements by the Planck spacecraft, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes.”

The YECers have the unenviable task of explaining this all away, but to their credit they do give it the college try! Tinfoil hats to all as consolation prizes.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> It has been apparent to geologists and others for the past several hundred years that the world is much older than 6,000 years. And the universe is older yet.
> 
> "The current measurement of the age of the universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model. The uncertainty has been narrowed down to 21 million years, based on a number of studies which all gave extremely similar figures for the age. These include studies of the microwave background radiation, and measurements by the Planck spacecraft, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and other probes."
> 
> The YECers have the unenviable task of explaining this all away, but to their credit they do give it the college try! Tinfoil hats to all as consolation prizes.


Apparently, things are apparent in keeping with a person's world view. If you read the YEC information it is very apparent that the geological formations and fossils are the result of the worldwide flood and mass burials, but then we would not expect people to believe in a real god who created everything. Of course if anyone says there is no god they are self contradicting as how would they know unless they had god-like omniscience to know all things. The age of the universe studies are fraught with assumptions. If you were not there, then you can't really know.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Apparently, things are apparent in keeping with a person's world view. If you read the YEC information it is very apparent that the geological formations and fossils are the result of the worldwide flood and mass burials, but then we would not expect people to believe in a real god who created everything. Of course if anyone says there is no god they are self contradicting as how would they know unless they had god-like omniscience to know all things. The age of the universe studies are fraught with assumptions. If you were not there, then you can't really know.


I suggest you visit the Grand Canyon and look down through the strata that contain fossils of animals long extinct, footprints of gigantic sauropods, and so forth. Then think, as you gaze downwards more than a mile, "Oh yeah, 6,000 years…"


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I suggest you visit the Grand Canyon and look down through the strata that contain fossils of animals long extinct, footprints of gigantic sauropods, and so forth. Then think, as you gaze downwards more than a mile, "Oh yeah, 6,000 years…"


No, not 6000 years. It is mostly, if not all, flood deposits, so would date to about 4500 years ago. You need to read outside your world view. Read this: *How Noah's Flood Shaped our Earth*. About the authors:

Michael Oard has a Masters Science degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington and is now retired after working as a meteorologist with the US National Weather Service for 30 years. He has researched and speaks on the compelling evidence for Noah s Flood and the Ice Age that followed, and has published many papers in his field in widely recognized journals.

John Reed earned a Ph.D. in geology and worked for over 20 years in industry and academia.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

For YECs, credentials only matter for people who hold their views. The credentials of the 99.9999% of scientists wthat dont believe the Earth is 6000 years old can be disregarded. What matters is that they can produce some stooge with better credentials than a layman


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

The article I read (I remember only vaguely) was not really about space/time so much as just space itself. It was saying that space was not really "empty" as we think of it. That it was more like the waves of water. I am going to find that article. It was very interesting even if it was not correct.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> No, not 6000 years. It is mostly, if not all, flood deposits, so would date to about 4500 years ago. *You need to read outside your world view.* Read this: *How Noah's Flood Shaped our Earth*. About the authors:
> 
> Michael Oard has a Masters Science degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington and is now retired after working as a meteorologist with the US National Weather Service for 30 years. He has researched and speaks on the compelling evidence for Noah s Flood and the Ice Age that followed, and has published many papers in his field in widely recognized journals.
> 
> John Reed earned a Ph.D. in geology and worked for over 20 years in industry and academia.


Maybe you should also consider the advice about considering other worldview.

The age of the universe and of the earth is not based on a single scientific result. It is based on a combination of results from many disciplines (particle physics, statistical physics, quantum physics, general relativity, astronomy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, etc) that all come together in a huge, self-consistent network of observations which are strongly justified individually, and which are consistent with each other.

How can the universe be 6,000 years old when distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is such that light would take 2 million years to reach us? We see it as it was 2 million years ago.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Maybe you should also consider the advice about considering other worldview.
> 
> The age of the universe and of the earth is not based on a single scientific result. It is based on a combination of results from many disciplines (particle physics, statistical physics, quantum physics, general relativity, astronomy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, etc) that all come together in a huge, self-consistent network of observations which are strongly justified individually, and which are consistent with each other.
> 
> How can the universe be 6,000 years old when distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is such that light would take 2 million years to reach us? We see it as it was 2 million years ago.


What difference does it make?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

haydnguy said:


> The article I read (I remember only vaguely) was not really about space/time so much as just space itself. It was saying that space was not really "empty" as we think of it. That it was more like the waves of water. I am going to find that article. It was very interesting even if it was not correct.


What you are describing sounds vaguely like a poetic description of "dark energy." Another possibly relevant factoid is that quantum uncertainty dictates that the electric field at any given point in space isn't literally zero, there is a base level of fluctuation (vacuum fluctuations). That means that there is a non-zero energy density of empty space (which, awkwardly, is infinite). You might also read up on gravitational waves, but that is space-time, not a pure space phenomenon.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Baron Scarpia said:


> How can the universe be 6,000 years old when distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is such that light would take 2 million years to reach us? We see it as it was 2 million years ago.


Well, just ask Dr. Lisle - it took no time at all to reach us:

_So we may choose to regard the speed of light as being instantaneous when travelling toward us, providing the round-trip speed (in empty space) is always 186,000 miles per second. In this case, the light from distant stars takes no time at all to reach the earth since the light is travelling toward us. So distant starlight is not an issue.

This convention could be called the "anisotropic synchrony convention," or ASC, because it claims that light travels at different speeds in different directions (anisotropic). Of course, it's perfectly fair to use other conventions as well.

Einstein tells us that we may freely choose which convention to use. For the sake of simplicity, most physicists choose to regard light as moving at the same speed in all directions (isotropic). However, there is no fundamental reason that we cannot use ASC instead.

It appears that the biblical writers used the ASC convention. Genesis 1:15 tells us that the lights in the heavens were designed to give light upon the earth, and it also tells us "and it was so." This strongly suggests that the stars immediately began fulfilling their God-ordained purpose to give light upon the earth._
https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/starlight/distant-starlight-thesis/


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Well, just ask Dr. Lisle - it took no time at all to reach us:
> 
> _So we may choose to regard the speed of light as being instantaneous when travelling toward us, providing the round-trip speed (in empty space) is always 186,000 miles per second. In this case, the light from distant stars takes no time at all to reach the earth since the light is travelling toward us. So distant starlight is not an issue.
> 
> ...


Oh dear, someone tell those engineers that developed the GPS system! It is based on the time it takes radiation from GPS satellites to reach us, evaluated using the arbitrary and ungodly "ASC" convention. It is all wrong, GPS doesn't work! But wait, why does my GPS device actually know where I am? The answer is inescapable; Satan!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"Debating" the age of the earth with Young Earth Creationists is like debating a block of granite. No argument, no fact or facts can be produced that have not been thoroughly examined and countered--usually by rewriting wholesale the findings of generations of scientists that have been accumulated and tested for decades if not centuries. "Experts" can be found--living and dead--to explain patiently to the vast outer world that everything you thought you knew about such things as the speed of light, radiometric dating, sedimentation rates, DNA and evolution, etc., are just wrong. Science for centuries has struggled to roll the boulder of empirically-based, experimentally-verified, or otherwise overwhelmingly corroborated knowledge up the hill of human ignorance and folly, only to see it roll back down in an instantaneous flash of religious ideology. Depressing.

https://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group-d1218-good-news-about-evolution.html


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Its sad, Genesis is this beautiful myth regarding the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture. To trash Genesis then trash Evolution and General Relativity, two crowning achievements of humanity takes a real Philistine (not in the Biblical sense)

_Eden, in this reading, is the long-gone life of the hunter-gatherers, where there was no agriculture and people lived well merely by picking the fruit from trees whenever they so desired. While this certainly was an idealization of hunting and gathering, the onset of agriculture did require far greater discipline and harder and more consistent work than had hunting and gathering._
https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...genesis/997c9c3a-7666-4cc3-acd9-0b85b8c04a84/

.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

ASC sounds like another variation on ether proven wrong by Michelson-Morley. 

"round-trip time"?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> "Debating" the age of the earth with Young Earth Creationists is like debating a block of granite.


Quite true! There's not much point to it because, in the final analysis, YECers simply say, "God did it." But the amount of illogic, misrepresentation, and outright falsehood before getting to that point can be truly impressive!

There is an entire branch of quasi-academics called "creation science." But it has no predictive power, explains nothing, and leads nowhere. That is because it has no interest in explaining anything, only in explaining away obvious facts and well-supported theories wherever they conflict with a specific religious belief system.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Who said Genesis is a myth? Who is trashing Genesis but those who refuse to take it at face value. 

Who is trashing general relativity? As I recall, Lisle has high regard for Einstein and his theories.

Nobody is trashing evolution. We just reject it. 

Distant starlight in a young universe is not necessarily because of ASC. There are other explanations. But we probably will never know because nobody can go back and observe the actual events of the past, so all explanations are to some degree speculations.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Bwv 1080 said:


> Well, just ask Dr. Lisle - *it took no time at all to reach us*:


Certainly true from the perspective of a photon in that stream of light. As the photon is traveling at the speed of light, no time passes from the photon's perspecitve, no matter how far the photon travels.

Lisle offers that ASC could explain the distant starlight question, but he is not dogmatic about it. He allows that there may be other explanations.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> "Debating" the age of the earth with Young Earth Creationists is like debating a block of granite.


Likewise, debating the age of the earth with an evolutionist is like debating a block of granite. They are unyielding in their commitment to deep time.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Its all just a case of Quantum Entanglement and the big note vibrating too hard, happens quite often


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Likewise, debating the age of the earth with an evolutionist is like debating a block of granite. They are unyielding in their commitment to deep time.


The purpose of science is to understand the way the world works and predict what will happen, not to invalidate a particular belief. It seeks principals which explain what is observed in the simplest way. Evolutionary biology has made extremely detailed predictions, that were later verified, and is used to discover drugs and therapies that work. Geology is used to successfully predict where oil or minerals will be found. Special and general relativity is used to create technologies such as GPS, that work. YEC seeks to formulate a science to justify an ideology, and falsifies the science that has led to these successes.



> Certainly true from the perspective of a photon in that stream of light. As the photon is traveling at the speed of light, no time passes from the photon's perspecitve, no matter how far the photon travels.
> 
> Lisle offers that ASC could explain the distant starlight question, but he is not dogmatic about it. He allows that there may be other explanations.


The first sentence is a factoid that is true, but not really relevant. The second sentence is telling. Lisle has decided what the conclusion is, and will entertain any notion that will justify that conclusion. How does GPS actually work, then, since it is based on receivers at different locations getting signals from different satellites at different time delays. According to ASC there is no delay if the light is coming towards you?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The purpose of science is to understand the way the world works and predict what will happen, not to invalidate a particular belief. It seeks principals which explain what is observed in the simplest way. Evolutionary biology has made extremely detailed predictions, that were later verified, and is used to discover drugs and therapies that work. Geology is used to successfully predict where oil or minerals will be found. Special and general relativity is used to create technologies such as GPS, that work. YEC seeks to formulate a science to justify an ideology, and falsifies the science that has led to these successes.
> 
> The first sentence is a factoid that is true, but not really relevant. The second sentence is telling. Lisle has decided what the conclusion is, and will entertain any notion that will justify that conclusion. How does GPS actually work, then, since it is based on receivers at different locations getting signals from different satellites at different time delays. According to ASC there is no delay if the light is coming towards you?


Maybe this is just an entanglement between fact and fiction:lol:


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> The purpose of science is to understand the way the world works and predict what will happen, not to invalidate a particular belief. It seeks principals which explain what is observed in the simplest way. Evolutionary biology has made extremely detailed predictions, that were later verified, and is used to discover drugs and therapies that work. Geology is used to successfully predict where oil or minerals will be found. Special and general relativity is used to create technologies such as GPS, that work. YEC seeks to formulate a science to justify an ideology, and falsifies the science that has led to these successes.
> 
> The first sentence is a factoid that is true, but not really relevant. The second sentence is telling. Lisle has decided what the conclusion is, and will entertain any notion that will justify that conclusion. How does GPS actually work, then, since it is based on receivers at different locations getting signals from different satellites at different time delays. According to ASC there is no delay if the light is coming towards you?


If you had very good information that you would live in bliss forever if you could convince yourself to disregard opposing views, wouldn't you defy them with all your energy? It's a simple question. I would.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> If you had very good information that you would live in bliss forever if you could convince yourself to disregard opposing views, wouldn't you defy them with all your energy? It's a simple question. I would.


Disregard, yes. What is the value of formulating illogical, self-contradictory pseudo-scientific theories? Just believe what you are required to believe and say Satan put all those phony dinosaur bones, blips on our oscilloscopes and lines on our chromatographs there to seduce us to evil. Then go to the store and buy a smartphone that uses all the technology created by the poor saps duped by Satan into believe the science the device is based on.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Disregard, yes. What is the value of formulating illogical, self-contradictory pseudo-scientific theories? Just believe what you are required to believe and say Satan put all those phony dinosaur bones, blips on our oscilloscopes and lines on our chromatographs there to seduce us to evil. Then go to the store and buy a smartphone that uses all the technology created by the poor saps duped by Satan into believe the science the device is based on.


This is why atheists appear to be disingenuous to me. If you had very good information that you would live in bliss forever if only you could convince yourself to disregard opposing views, wouldn't you defy the opposing views with all your energy? And the atheist's answer is, "No."?


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> This is why atheists appear to be disingenuous to me. If you had very good information that you would live in bliss forever if only you could convince yourself to disregard opposing views, wouldn't you defy the opposing views with all your energy? And the atheist's answer is, "No."?


I don't have any information that I would live in bliss forever if only I could disregard an opposing set of views. I am curious about how the world works. Science is the best source of information. When I look at scripture I see a record of an ancient civilization's attempts to figure out how the world works, a civilization that had a lot less information available to it than we have today. Wisdom can be found in those books, and a lot of foolishness.

Now we are off topic, and I won't elaborate further.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

> The Two Most Common Elements in the Universe Are Hydrogen and Stupidity


 Zappa .


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't have any information that I would live in bliss forever if only I could disregard an opposing set of views. I am curious about how the world works. Science is the best source of information. When I look at scripture I see a record of an ancient civilization's attempts to figure out how the world works, a civilization that had a lot less information available to it than we have today. Wisdom can be found in those books, and a lot of foolishness.
> 
> Now we are off topic, and I won't elaborate further.


My favorite cosmological picture - now they've formulated the origin of our universe out of the concept of the eternally inflating multiverse. This multiverse runs on the energy leaking out of old universes which are rapidly expanding in their old age. There's a mathematical description of an improbable sequence of quantum fluctuations causing the energy level of the Higgs Field to momentarily reach the top of the energy 'sombrero', become super-cooled, and then snap back through a phase transition which strongly pushes the inflation of spacetime outward at more than 40 million times the speed of light (for an extremely short interval before slowing rapidly). The eternally-inflating multiverse is the ultimate source for spacetime and these fluctuations.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> My favorite cosmological picture - now they've formulated the origin of our universe out of the concept of the eternally inflating multiverse. This multiverse runs on the energy leaking out of old universes which are rapidly expanding in their old age. There's a mathematical description of an improbable sequence of quantum fluctuations causing the energy level of the Higgs Field to momentarily reach the top of the energy 'sombrero', become super-cooled, and then snap back through a phase transition which strongly pushes the inflation of spacetime outward at more than 40 million times the speed of light (for an extremely short interval before slowing rapidly). The eternally-inflating multiverse is the ultimate source for spacetime and these fluctuations.


Now you've come back to science (sort of). Not my field, but it sounds more like poetry than science. Speed is defined as the motion of an object through space(-time). Seems self-contradictory to define the "speed" of space expanding. The sort of speculation which seems unlikely to ever be confirmed or falsified.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> This is why atheists appear to be disingenuous to me. If you had very good information that you would live in bliss forever if only you could convince yourself to disregard opposing views, wouldn't you defy the opposing views with all your energy? And the atheist's answer is, "No."?


I can hardly believe I'm reading the above. Tell us what that "very good information" is that convinces me I will live in bliss forever. It seems I've missed it entirely.

Everyone is born as a blank slate, which is then written upon by parents and the surrounding culture: "You have to be carefully taught." Hence, despite all of the claims of exclusive truth of this, that, or the other religion, most people who profess religion, profess the religion of their parents or culture. We all know this to be true. Some do wander off into other faiths, either because they want either less or more rigor in their belief systems. But most stick with what they are familiar with. Parsees in a sea of Hindus grow up to be Parsees because their parents were Parsees. How not weird is that?!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Oh dear, someone tell those engineers that developed the GPS system! It is based on the time it takes radiation from GPS satellites to reach us, evaluated using the arbitrary and ungodly "ASC" convention. It is all wrong, GPS doesn't work! But wait, why does my GPS device actually know where I am? The answer is inescapable; Satan!


No. Actually it is not the time for radiation to reach earth from the satellites, but the difference in the speed of time recorded in the satellite vs time recorded on earth:


> Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion [2].
> 
> Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
> 
> The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time.


Source page.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Disregard, yes. What is the value of formulating illogical, self-contradictory pseudo-scientific theories? Just believe what you are required to believe and say Satan put all those phony dinosaur bones, blips on our oscilloscopes and lines on our chromatographs there to seduce us to evil. Then go to the store and buy a smartphone that uses all the technology created by the poor saps duped by Satan into believe the science the device is based on.


I don't know about anything we are "required to believe." There is a thing called free will. As for phony dinosaur bones, the bones are real, but there were Christians once upon a time who said that God put the fossils there to test them. So why would a Christian want to study Science? So they would not say stupid things like that. And because we want to learn about the world around us. Forget about your oscilloscopes, chromatographs, etc. They don't prove evolution. Any YEC scientist in the applicable field can show how the data is either mistaken or, if it is actually good data, fits a creation model.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Maybe you should also consider the advice about considering other worldview.
> 
> The age of the universe and of the earth is not based on a single scientific result. It is based on a combination of results from many disciplines (particle physics, statistical physics, quantum physics, general relativity, astronomy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, etc) that all come together in a huge, self-consistent network of observations which are strongly justified individually, and which are consistent with each other.


Combining results from various disciplines proves nothing. Each of those results has enough assumptions and extrapolations to make them worthless. If you put ten different pieces of garbage in a can you still have a can of garbage.



> How can the universe be 6,000 years old when distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is such that light would take 2 million years to reach us? We see it as it was 2 million years ago.


How about you answer the big bang's light-travel-time problem first:


> The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB [Cosmic Microwave Background] maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel-time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.


Source page.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)




----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2019)

Fritz Kobus said:


> Combining results from various disciplines proves nothing. Each of those results has enough assumptions and extrapolations to make them worthless. If you put ten different pieces of garbage in a can you still have a can of garbage.


You consider yourself competent to pronounce science "garbage?" 



> How about first you answer the big bang's light-travel-time problem first:
> 
> 
> > > The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB [Cosmic Microwave Background] maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel-time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem.
> ...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> "Debating" the age of the earth with Young Earth Creationists is like debating a block of granite. No argument, no fact or facts can be produced that have not been thoroughly examined and countered--usually by rewriting wholesale the findings of generations of scientists that have been accumulated and tested for decades if not centuries. "Experts" can be found--living and dead--to explain patiently to the vast outer world that everything you thought you knew about such things as the speed of light, radiometric dating, sedimentation rates, DNA and evolution, etc., are just wrong. Science for centuries has struggled to roll the boulder of empirically-based, experimentally-verified, or otherwise overwhelmingly corroborated knowledge up the hill of human ignorance and folly, only to see it roll back down in an instantaneous flash of religious ideology. Depressing.
> 
> https://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group-d1218-good-news-about-evolution.html


Winston Smith Encounters Duckspeak:

...Winston turned a little sideways in his chair to drink his mug of coffee. At the table on his left the man with the strident voice was still talking remorselessly away....He held some important post in the FICTION DEPARTMENT....It was just a noise, a quack-quack-quacking....Every word of it was pure orthodoxy, pure Ingsoc....Winston had a curious feeling that this was not a real human being but some kind of dummy. It was not the man's brain that was speaking, it was his larynx. The stuff that was coming out of him consisted of words, but it was not speech in the true sense: it was noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.

Syme had fallen silent for a moment, and with the handle of his spoon was tracing patterns in the puddle of stew. The voice from the other table quacked rapidly on, easily audible in spite of the surrounding din.

"There is a word in Newspeak" said Syme, "I don't know whether you know it: duckspeak, to quack like a duck. It is one of those interesting words that have two contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it is abuse: applied to someone you agree with, it is praise."

From _1984_: George Orwell


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2019)

^^^Best to stick to the ideas, rather than focus on personalities.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Baron Scarpia said:


> ^^^Best to stick to the ideas, rather than focus on personalities.


Both are dead ends. I know from literally years of experience downstairs. If not granite, then metaquartzite, even more infrangible.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Seems this thread started as whimsy but look where it is now. All the humor has been sucked out by scientism.


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2019)

Are you implying that science is not fun and whimsical?


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

YECs are impossible to argue with, same camp as anti-Vaxxers, flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. They are too far gone in their own circle jerk of confirmation bias. There is also this



> in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.
> 
> It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.


Now having invoked Hitler this thread can now be put to rest


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2019)

Bwv 1080 said:


> YECs are impossible to argue with, same camp as anti-Vaxxers, flat-earthers and holocaust deniers. They are too far gone in their own circle jerk of confirmation bias. There is also this


Well, yes, but if we discuss that actual knowledge there will be some breadcrumbs of information with which the rest of us can entertain ourselves, even if the true believers are immune. One could even flatter oneself that this can reduce the rate at which true believers gain new adherents. Saving the world, one classical music fan at a time.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I can hardly believe I'm reading the above. Tell us what that "very good information" is that convinces me I will live in bliss forever. It seems I've missed it entirely.
> 
> Everyone is born as a blank slate, which is then written upon by parents and the surrounding culture: "You have to be carefully taught." Hence, despite all of the claims of exclusive truth of this, that, or the other religion, most people who profess religion, profess the religion of their parents or culture. We all know this to be true. Some do wander off into other faiths, either because they want either less or more rigor in their belief systems. But most stick with what they are familiar with. Parsees in a sea of Hindus grow up to be Parsees because their parents were Parsees. How not weird is that?!


The question begins with "if".

Haven't you asked a question like that?

Wouldn't you like to know the answer? The obvious answer is "yes", but I get a lot of "no" from atheists. How can they be believeable when they're so biased like that?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> I don't have any information that I would live in bliss forever if only I could disregard an opposing set of views. I am curious about how the world works. Science is the best source of information. When I look at scripture I see a record of an ancient civilization's attempts to figure out how the world works, a civilization that had a lot less information available to it than we have today. Wisdom can be found in those books, and a lot of foolishness.
> 
> Now we are off topic, and I won't elaborate further.


You didn't answer the question. I really don't know what your answer would be. Do you think answering would make you vulnerable to the religionists? That's one response I've gotten..


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> The question begins with "if".
> 
> Haven't you asked a question like that?
> 
> Wouldn't you like to know the answer? The obvious answer is "yes", but I get a lot of "no" from atheists. How can they be believeable when they're so biased like that?


"If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride." Here's a similar question for you, courtesy of Bart Simpson ( or maybe it was Homer): Can God microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Well, yes, but if we discuss that actual knowledge there will be some breadcrumbs of information with which the rest of us can entertain ourselves, even if the true believers are immune. One could even flatter oneself that this can reduce the rate at which true believers gain new adherents. Saving the world, one classical music fan at a time.


"Saving the world, one classical music fan at a time."

You would have to get them to desire science more than their religious stories.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> "If wishes were horses, then beggars would ride." Here's a similar question for you, courtesy of Bart Simpson ( or maybe it was Homer): Can God microwave a burrito so hot that He couldn't eat it?


Oh, by the tenor of your reply I thought you missed the "if".


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Oh, by the tenor of your reply I thought you missed the "if".


But what about that burrito?


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2019)

Luchesi said:


> "Saving the world, one classical music fan at a time."
> 
> You would have to get them to desire science more than their religious stories.


Science has better stories!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Yes, I know we're not supposed to be talking about outer space. But: Nasa said to be investigating first allegation of a crime in space


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Are you implying that science is not fun and whimsical?


Not at all, obviously by my choice of words. But the science v religion think is typically not in that category. One might even ask if secularism and spiritualism can coexist down the final lap for the human "race"...


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Please , would science and religion please co-operate in explaining miracles ? One space-miracle I'm especially curious about is teleportation . Seems there is an aspect of space that screams for mathematical discovery .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Please , would science and religion please co-operate in explaining miracles ? One space-miracle I'm especially curious about is teleportation . Seems there is an aspect of space that screams for mathematical discovery .


and be good (possibly) for Climate Change - no need for Jets lol but would make any form of security a problem- as in addition to some Yogis, all of us could transcendentally transportate, I think its best left an untouched area of science ...............


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> and be good (possibly) for Climate Change - no need for Jets lol but would make any form of security a problem- as in addition to some Yogis, all of us could transcendentally transportate, I think its best left an untouched area of science ...............


Somebody will touch this science of space . But as you propose , the act of teleportation involves morality ; the science of discovery being harmless and full of heart .


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Somebody will touch this science of space . But as you propose , the act of teleportation involves morality ; the science of discovery being harmless and full of heart .


We could also have ether bandwidth problems- i don't want to end up with Donald Trumps Hair :lol:


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> But what about that burrito?


wiki says - The name burrito, as applied to the dish, possibly derives from the tendency for burritos to contain a lot of different things similar to how a donkey would be able to carry a lot. Humans are funny!

I guess the temperature would need to be hotter than the Big Bang. A temperature at which any particles with mass would be moving faster than the speed of light? But then they could never have formed anyway. Under those extremes you can find your answer (but I don't know what the answer is).


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Baron Scarpia said:


> Science has better stories!


Even as a small child I liked dinosaurs and the story of evolution. The story of finding Tiktaalik seems surreal to me.

Now there's the story of our sister galaxy being much younger (and bigger) than our own galaxy! and it will collide with us very soon in cosmological timescales.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> wiki says - The name burrito, as applied to the dish, possibly derives from the tendency for burritos to contain a lot of different things similar to how a donkey would be able to carry a lot. Humans are funny!
> 
> I guess the temperature would need to be hotter than the Big Bang. A temperature at which any particles with mass would be moving faster than the speed of light? But then they could never have formed anyway. Under those extremes you can find your answer (but I don't know what the answer is).


Excellent reply to my "If" question! Here is Rudyard Kipling's If:

If you can keep your head when all about you 
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, 
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too; 
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream-and not make dreams your master; 
If you can think-and not make thoughts your aim; 
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same; 
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone, 
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, 
Or walk with Kings-nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, 
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, 
And-which is more-you'll be a Man, my son!


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

^^^^^^^

I read that many many years ago. Why does it impress me so much more now? We all know why...


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> We could also have ether bandwidth problems- i don't want to end up with Donald Trumps Hair :lol:


Should you desire earthly power , His hair
you shall receive . Take long a hat .


----------

