Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #892477 > unrolled thread

age of the Earth

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-19 23:59 -0700
    Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-20 00:12 -0700
      Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-22 06:45 -0700
        Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-22 22:14 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-23 09:47 +0200
          Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-23 11:56 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 00:44 -0700
          Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 22:35 -0700
          Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-24 23:02 -0700
            Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-30 20:40 -0700
              Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-30 20:47 -0700
                Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-01 06:34 +0000
                  Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-05-02 08:58 -0700
                    Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-04 02:29 +0000
    Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-20 14:53 +0200
      Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 13:45 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 13:53 -0500
          Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-21 00:43 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-20 22:10 +0200
          Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-20 23:06 +0000
            Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-21 11:43 +0200
              Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-21 10:27 +0000
                Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-21 13:06 +0200
                  Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-04-21 14:24 +0000
              Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 12:50 -0500
                Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-22 11:03 +0200
                  Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (bertitaylor) - 2025-04-22 10:36 +0000
        Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-20 22:10 +0200
          Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-20 20:44 -0500
            Re: age of the Earth nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-04-21 11:43 +0200
              Re: age of the Earth Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-04-21 13:49 -0500
      Re: age of the Earth The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-04-20 11:27 -0700
    Re: age of the Earth Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-04-21 12:35 +0200
      Re: age of the Earth bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertitaylor) - 2025-05-01 06:36 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#892477 — age of the Earth

At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
number)

He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
wrong...
...he knew
eventually somebody would have
figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.

So he, 'made up a number'!

Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
age of the earth to be
306,662,400 years old.

The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.


So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
come nobody out there sez he lied????


What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
Species????







-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#892478

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> number)
> 
> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> wrong...
> ...he knew
> eventually somebody would have
> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> 
> So he, 'made up a number'!
> 
> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> age of the earth to be
> 306,662,400 years old.
> 
> The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> 
> So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> come nobody out there sez he lied????
> 
> What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> Species????


"Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes." 



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892539

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> > number)
> >
> > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> > wrong...
> > ...he knew
> > eventually somebody would have
> > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> >
> > So he, 'made up a number'!
> >
> > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> > age of the earth to be
> > 306,662,400 years old.
> >
> > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> > invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> >
> > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> > come nobody out there sez he lied????
> >
> > What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> > Species????
> 
> "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
> 


Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..

who knows how he came out with that number?



How about that number 75,000????


In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
 composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.



The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
universe....eventually it will catch up with it.

Somebody is holding you guys back..





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892543

On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 13:45:10 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> The Starmaker wrote:
>>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
>>> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
>>> number)
>>>
>>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
>>> wrong...
>>> ...he knew
>>> eventually somebody would have
>>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>>>
>>> So he, 'made up a number'!
>>>
>>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>>> age of the earth to be
>>> 306,662,400 years old.
>>>
>>> The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
>>> invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
>>>
>>> So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
>>> come nobody out there sez he lied????
>>>
>>> What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
>>> Species????
>>
>> "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
>>
>
>
> Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
>
> who knows how he came out with that number?
>
>
>
> How about that number 75,000????
>
>
> In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
> using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
>  composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
> estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
>
>
>
> The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
> universe....

Which is cyclic in nature for a star; and as a whole, being infinite,
cannot have any beginning, not any end.

Woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor




eventually it will catch up with it.
>
> Somebody is holding you guys back..
>
>
>
>

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892546

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> > > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> > > number)
> > >
> > > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> > > wrong...
> > > ...he knew
> > > eventually somebody would have
> > > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> > >
> > > So he, 'made up a number'!
> > >
> > > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> > > age of the earth to be
> > > 306,662,400 years old.
> > >
> > > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> > > invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> > >
> > > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> > > come nobody out there sez he lied????
> > >
> > > What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> > > Species????
> > 
> > "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
> > 
> 
> 
> Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
> 
> who knows how he came out with that number?

See his
"Scala graduum Caloris. Calorum Descriptiones & signa.",
published anonymously.
The problem with it is that the Earth doesn't cool like a cup of tea.

> How about that number 75,000????
> 
> 
> In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
> using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
>  composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
> estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.

Same errors as Newton.
Before the development of thermodynamics
things like temperature, energy content,
and the various heat conduction processes were poorly understood.

> The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
> universe....eventually it will catch up with it.

The correct answer to the cooling problem
was obtained by Kelvin about a hundred years later.
It is some tens of millions of years.
Kelvin established a sharp conflict between the physical timescale
and the needs of geologists for much longer times.

Finally, in 1904, Rutherford got it right
by also taking radioactive heat into account,

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892547

On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 7:47:13 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> >
>>> > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
>>> > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with
>>> that
>>> > number)
>>> >
>>> > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
>>> > wrong...
>>> > ...he knew
>>> > eventually somebody would have
>>> > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>>> >
>>> > So he, 'made up a number'!
>>> >
>>> > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>>> > age of the earth to be
>>> > 306,662,400 years old.
>>> >
>>> > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
>>> > invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
>>> >
>>> > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But
>>> how
>>> > come nobody out there sez he lied????
>>> >
>>> > What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
>>> > Species????
>>>
>>> "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
>>
>> who knows how he came out with that number?
>
> See his
> "Scala graduum Caloris. Calorum Descriptiones & signa.",
> published anonymously.


Huh? That means Newton did not claim it so it was by some impostor
trying to demean Newton. Suspicious.


> The problem with it is that the Earth doesn't cool like a cup of tea.
>
>> How about that number 75,000????
>>
>>
>> In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
>> using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
>>  composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
>> estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
>
> Same errors as Newton.


Faux Newton, very Einsteinian!


> Before the development of thermodynamics
> things like temperature, energy content,
> and the various heat conduction processes were poorly understood.
>
>> The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
>> universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
>
> The correct answer to the cooling problem
> was obtained by Kelvin about a hundred years later.
> It is some tens of millions of years.
> Kelvin established a sharp conflict between the physical timescale
> and the needs of geologists for much longer times.
>
> Finally, in 1904, Rutherford got it right
> by also taking radioactive heat into account,
>
> Jan

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892560

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> > > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> > > number)
> > >
> > > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> > > wrong...
> > > ...he knew
> > > eventually somebody would have
> > > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> > >
> > > So he, 'made up a number'!
> > >
> > > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> > > age of the earth to be
> > > 306,662,400 years old.
> > >
> > > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> > > invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> > >
> > > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> > > come nobody out there sez he lied????
> > >
> > > What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> > > Species????
> >
> > "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
> >
> 
> Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
> 
> who knows how he came out with that number?
> 
> How about that number 75,000????
> 
> In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
> using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
>  composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
> estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
> 
> The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
> universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
> 
> Somebody is holding you guys back..
> 


Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...

and it stops at  4.54 billion.

Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????



Somebody is holding you guys back..you are not allowed to think...forward. 

Yous need permission to ..think.



I don't have that problem. I already know the age of the earth is the same age of the universe. It's irrefutable!

In fact, look up at the Big Dipper, it's the same age of the universe.


Now yous people don't realy understand Stars and it's arrangement..
Yes, it is arranged as you see it.


Now, this part you never heard before...

every star you see has a twin..
but the twin is at the other side
of the universe...and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe..
and that twin has a twin, and that
twin has a twin at the other side of the universe.


That's a total of 4 stars.

You can actually find each twin by
simply 
drawing a straight line and that line will reach'
directly without any interferences from
any other star.

All stars have 4 twins.

Each twin is located in the next dimension..
4 dimensions...visible dimensions.

The Starmaker


1956???? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????

You science people are soooo fucked up!

Simon sez do...this!



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892569

The Starmaker wrote:
> 

> Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
> 
> and it stops at  4.54 billion.
> 
> Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????

Imagine, it number hasn't changed since 1956!

I guess there hasn't been any...'scientific progress in the scientific
community'.

!956? dats like a thousand years ago!

It's 2025 and dat number hasn't changed.

It's like...yous are waiting for permission from someone else
to...think.


man, dats reaaaal fucked up...


yous poor guys are stuck in 1956 waiting for your moma to throw
yous out of the basement.


There has to be a reason it's stuck at 1956...


and i know why.


Do you?





-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892570

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> > > > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> > > > number)
> > > >
> > > > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> > > > wrong...
> > > > ...he knew
> > > > eventually somebody would have
> > > > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> > > >
> > > > So he, 'made up a number'!
> > > >
> > > > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> > > > age of the earth to be
> > > > 306,662,400 years old.
> > > >
> > > > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> > > > invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> > > >
> > > > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> > > > come nobody out there sez he lied????
> > > >
> > > > What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> > > > Species????
> > >
> > > "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
> > >
> >
> > Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
> >
> > who knows how he came out with that number?
> >
> > How about that number 75,000????
> >
> > In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
> > using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
> >  composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
> > estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
> >
> > The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
> > universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
> >
> > Somebody is holding you guys back..
> >
> 
> Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
> 
> and it stops at  4.54 billion.
> 
> Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????
> 
> Somebody is holding you guys back..you are not allowed to think...forward.
> 
> Yous need permission to ..think.
> 
> I don't have that problem. I already know the age of the earth is the same age of the universe. It's irrefutable!
> 
> In fact, look up at the Big Dipper, it's the same age of the universe.
> 
> Now yous people don't realy understand Stars and it's arrangement..
> Yes, it is arranged as you see it.
> 
> Now, this part you never heard before...
> 
> every star you see has a twin..
> but the twin is at the other side
> of the universe...and that twin has a twin, and that
> twin has a twin at the other side of the universe..
> and that twin has a twin, and that
> twin has a twin at the other side of the universe.
> 
> That's a total of 4 stars.
> 
> You can actually find each twin by
> simply
> drawing a straight line and that line will reach'
> directly without any interferences from
> any other star.
> 
> All stars have 4 twins.
> 
> Each twin is located in the next dimension..
> 4 dimensions...visible dimensions.


All 4 stars are twins or copies of each other..
each one in a different dimension. You can actualy draw a
straight line to each one and it forms a perfect square.

All stars have a copy of itself in another dimension, and
there are only 4 dimensions. 

Now imagine drawing billons of straight lines that form perfect
squares. You have billons of squares. From a far..the stard appear
 to be scattered, but are they?

If each star has a copy of itself, in another dimension, in the
same 'position' of it's copy in each dimension...then
all stars in the universe are arranged in order.
In one dimension it appears scattered..but the second dimension
contains a mirror reflection of it's first dimension.
4 reflections, 4 dimensions....all connected.


There is a center to the 4 dimensions. 

It's a star. One star. No twins.

It holds all 4 dimensions together.



    The Starmaker











-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892618

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> > > > > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> > > > > number)
> > > > >
> > > > > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> > > > > wrong...
> > > > > ...he knew
> > > > > eventually somebody would have
> > > > > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > So he, 'made up a number'!
> > > > >
> > > > > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> > > > > age of the earth to be
> > > > > 306,662,400 years old.
> > > > >
> > > > > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> > > > > invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> > > > > come nobody out there sez he lied????
> > > > >
> > > > > What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> > > > > Species????
> > > >
> > > > "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
> > >
> > > who knows how he came out with that number?
> > >
> > > How about that number 75,000????
> > >
> > > In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
> > > using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
> > >  composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
> > > estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
> > >
> > > The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
> > > universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
> > >
> > > Somebody is holding you guys back..
> > >
> >
> > Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
> >
> > and it stops at  4.54 billion.
> >
> > Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????
> >
> > Somebody is holding you guys back..you are not allowed to think...forward.
> >
> > Yous need permission to ..think.
> >
> > I don't have that problem. I already know the age of the earth is the same age of the universe. It's irrefutable!
> >
> > In fact, look up at the Big Dipper, it's the same age of the universe.
> >
> > Now yous people don't realy understand Stars and it's arrangement..
> > Yes, it is arranged as you see it.
> >
> > Now, this part you never heard before...
> >
> > every star you see has a twin..
> > but the twin is at the other side
> > of the universe...and that twin has a twin, and that
> > twin has a twin at the other side of the universe..
> > and that twin has a twin, and that
> > twin has a twin at the other side of the universe.
> >
> > That's a total of 4 stars.
> >
> > You can actually find each twin by
> > simply
> > drawing a straight line and that line will reach'
> > directly without any interferences from
> > any other star.
> >
> > All stars have 4 twins.
> >
> > Each twin is located in the next dimension..
> > 4 dimensions...visible dimensions.
> 
> All 4 stars are twins or copies of each other..
> each one in a different dimension. You can actualy draw a
> straight line to each one and it forms a perfect square.
> 
> All stars have a copy of itself in another dimension, and
> there are only 4 dimensions.
> 
> Now imagine drawing billons of straight lines that form perfect
> squares. You have billons of squares. From a far..the stard appear
>  to be scattered, but are they?
> 
> If each star has a copy of itself, in another dimension, in the
> same 'position' of it's copy in each dimension...then
> all stars in the universe are arranged in order.
> In one dimension it appears scattered..but the second dimension
> contains a mirror reflection of it's first dimension.
> 4 reflections, 4 dimensions....all connected.
> 
> There is a center to the 4 dimensions.
> 
> It's a star. One star. No twins.
> 
> It holds all 4 dimensions together.
> 
>     The Starmaker



i forgot to mention that all these stars in 4 dimensions are located
Before the big bang.

So, there isn't any fourth dimensions of time.

Time didn't exist until After the big bang....t=0



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892619

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> > > > > > 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> > > > > > number)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> > > > > > wrong...
> > > > > > ...he knew
> > > > > > eventually somebody would have
> > > > > > figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So he, 'made up a number'!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> > > > > > age of the earth to be
> > > > > > 306,662,400 years old.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The equiptment he needed to determine the age of the earth wasn't
> > > > > > invented untill 1905 using radioactive decay.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, he made up any number to fit the facts of his book. He lied. But how
> > > > > > come nobody out there sez he lied????
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What else did Charles Darwin make up? the WHOLE book Origin of the
> > > > > > Species????
> > > > >
> > > > > "Charles Darwin Theory determines what he observes."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hell, Newton came out with the age of the earth at 50,000..
> > > >
> > > > who knows how he came out with that number?
> > > >
> > > > How about that number 75,000????
> > > >
> > > > In 1779 the Comte du Buffon tried to obtain a value for the age of Earth
> > > > using an experiment: he created a small globe that resembled Earth in
> > > >  composition and then measured its rate of cooling. This led him to
> > > > estimate that Earth was about 75,000 years old.
> > > >
> > > > The age of the earth is the exact number of the age of the
> > > > universe....eventually it will catch up with it.
> > > >
> > > > Somebody is holding you guys back..
> > > >
> > >
> > > Okay, if you look at the History of the age of the earth, the numbers go up and up and up and up...
> > >
> > > and it stops at  4.54 billion.
> > >
> > > Why did it stop? and Why did it stop at the year 1956????
> > >
> > > Somebody is holding you guys back..you are not allowed to think...forward.
> > >
> > > Yous need permission to ..think.
> > >
> > > I don't have that problem. I already know the age of the earth is the same age of the universe. It's irrefutable!
> > >
> > > In fact, look up at the Big Dipper, it's the same age of the universe.
> > >
> > > Now yous people don't realy understand Stars and it's arrangement..
> > > Yes, it is arranged as you see it.
> > >
> > > Now, this part you never heard before...
> > >
> > > every star you see has a twin..
> > > but the twin is at the other side
> > > of the universe...and that twin has a twin, and that
> > > twin has a twin at the other side of the universe..
> > > and that twin has a twin, and that
> > > twin has a twin at the other side of the universe.
> > >
> > > That's a total of 4 stars.
> > >
> > > You can actually find each twin by
> > > simply
> > > drawing a straight line and that line will reach'
> > > directly without any interferences from
> > > any other star.
> > >
> > > All stars have 4 twins.
> > >
> > > Each twin is located in the next dimension..
> > > 4 dimensions...visible dimensions.
> >
> > All 4 stars are twins or copies of each other..
> > each one in a different dimension. You can actualy draw a
> > straight line to each one and it forms a perfect square.
> >
> > All stars have a copy of itself in another dimension, and
> > there are only 4 dimensions.
> >
> > Now imagine drawing billons of straight lines that form perfect
> > squares. You have billons of squares. From a far..the stard appear
> >  to be scattered, but are they?
> >
> > If each star has a copy of itself, in another dimension, in the
> > same 'position' of it's copy in each dimension...then
> > all stars in the universe are arranged in order.
> > In one dimension it appears scattered..but the second dimension
> > contains a mirror reflection of it's first dimension.
> > 4 reflections, 4 dimensions....all connected.
> >
> > There is a center to the 4 dimensions.
> >
> > It's a star. One star. No twins.
> >
> > It holds all 4 dimensions together.
> >
> >     The Starmaker
> 
> i forgot to mention that all these stars in 4 dimensions are located
> Before the big bang.
> 
> So, there isn't any fourth dimensions of time.
> 
> Time didn't exist until After the big bang....t=0




and another thing you might not know about...


Gravity, gravitional waves existed Before the big bang.


Gravity then existed in a different dimension...

within the 4 dimensions but not visible to the stars in the 4
dimensions.


(if that make any sense)

In other words, if you can see the gravitational waves, you cannot see
the stars, and visa versa.



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892620

There was no big bang.

We are concepts in a continuum.

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892638

Bertitaylor wrote:
> 
> There was no big bang.



well, it wasn't that loud...


-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, 
and challenge the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892655

On Fri, 2 May 2025 15:58:25 +0000, The Starmaker wrote:

> Bertitaylor wrote:
>>
>> There was no big bang.
>
>
>
> well, it wasn't that loud...

Silent farts from Einsteinian ends.

Woof woof woof-woof woof
>

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892480

The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> number)
> 
> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> wrong...
> ...he knew
> eventually somebody would have
> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> 
> So he, 'made up a number'!
> 
> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> age of the earth to be
> 306,662,400 years old.

You are quote-mining.

In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
===
Hence, under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
length would be a sufficient allowance. At this rate, on the above data,
the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years; or say
three hundred million years. But perhaps it would be safer to allow two
or three inches per century, and this would reduce the number of years
to one hundred and fifty or one hundred million years.
====

It is obvious from the above passage that this is a made up example,
for the purpose of arriving at an order of magnitude estimate.
Darwin was right of of course. Hundreds of millions of years
is a correct estimate for the time scale of geology and evolution.
It was not possible to do better, at the time.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892481

On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
>> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
>> number)
>>
>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
>> wrong...
>> ...he knew
>> eventually somebody would have
>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>>
>> So he, 'made up a number'!
>>
>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>> age of the earth to be
>> 306,662,400 years old.
>
> You are quote-mining.
>
> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
> ===
> Hence,

Huh?

under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
> length would be a sufficient allowance.

500*12*100 is 600000 years.



At this rate, on the above data,
> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;

Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be

306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
Weald, whatever that may have been.

Somebody smelling a really stinking rat or is our canine arithmetic
woefully wrong somewhere?

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof woof-woof

Bertietaylor



Well, the




 or say
> three hundred million years. But perhaps it would be safer to allow two
> or three inches per century, and this would reduce the number of years
> to one hundred and fifty or one hundred million years.
> ====
>
> It is obvious from the above passage that this is a made up example,
> for the purpose of arriving at an order of magnitude estimate.
> Darwin was right of of course. Hundreds of millions of years
> is a correct estimate for the time scale of geology and evolution.
> It was not possible to do better, at the time.
>
> Jan

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892491

On 4/20/25 8:45 AM, Bertitaylor wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>>> age of the earth to be
>>> 306,662,400 years old.
>>
>> You are quote-mining.
>>
>> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
>> ===
>> Hence,
> 
> Huh?
> 
> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
>> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
>> length would be a sufficient allowance.
> 
> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> At this rate, on the above data,
>> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
> 
> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
> 
> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
> Weald, whatever that may have been.
> 
> Somebody smelling a really stinking rat or is our canine arithmetic
> woefully wrong somewhere?
> 


Good catch Hindu. Makes one think the thing was Physfit's dick, pointing 
up.

The foot and hand and leg and dick they use to measure length must be 
the culprit.

One day, Modern Human scientists will take their "Weald" and shove it up 
their cro-magnon asses to stay together intact for the eternity that's 
coming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892501

Looks like the great-great scientists have disdain for mere arithmetic;
sometimes with amusing consequences.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892494

fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> 
> > The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> >> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
> >> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
> >> number)
> >>
> >> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
> >> wrong...
> >> ...he knew
> >> eventually somebody would have
> >> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
> >>
> >> So he, 'made up a number'!
> >>
> >> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
> >> age of the earth to be
> >> 306,662,400 years old.
> >
> > You are quote-mining.
> >
> > In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
> > ===
> > Hence,
> 
> Huh?
> 
> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
> > feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
> > length would be a sufficient allowance.
> 
> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
> 
> 
> 
> At this rate, on the above data,
> > the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
> 
> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be

There you have it, talking again without understanding
of what it is all about.
You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
 
> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
> Weald, whatever that may have been.

FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)

And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
estimate of about 300 000 000 years.

Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#892499

On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 20:10:53 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> fBertitaylor <bertietaylor@myyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 12:53:58 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> At Charles Darwin's time the age of the Earth was thought to be about
>>>> 75,000 years old.  (you won't believe how someone else came up with that
>>>> number)
>>>>
>>>> He was in a rush to publish his book and noticed the numbers were
>>>> wrong...
>>>> ...he knew
>>>> eventually somebody would have
>>>> figured out you cannot change a fish to a man in 75,000 years.
>>>>
>>>> So he, 'made up a number'!
>>>>
>>>> Then when he published his book, (origin of species 1859) he wrote the
>>>> age of the earth to be
>>>> 306,662,400 years old.
>>>
>>> You are quote-mining.
>>>
>>> In reality Darwin wrote:      (second edition)
>>> ===
>>> Hence,
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> under ordinary circumstances, I should infer that for a cliff 500
>>> feet in height, a denudation of one inch per century for the whole
>>> length would be a sufficient allowance.
>>
>> 500*12*100 is 600000 years.
>>
>>
>>
>> At this rate, on the above data,
>>> the denudation of the Weald must have required 306,662,400 years;
>>
>> Whatever the Weald is, *hence* its height gotta be
>
> There you have it, talking again without understanding
> of what it is all about.
> You should have looked up 'The Weald' before shooting your mouth off.
>
>> 306662400/100 inches or 3066624 inches or 3066624/12 feet or 255552 feet
>> or about 8 times the height of Mount Everest was the height of the
>> Weald, whatever that may have been.
>
> FYI, 'The Weald' is the region between the 'North Downs'
> and the 'South Downs'. (so near where Darwin lived)
> The height of the original mountain that was eroded away
> can be estimated from the distance betwen the North and South Downs,
> which is 22 miles. (the Downs are the remains of the original slopes)
>
> And yes, doing the sum with 22 miles to erode gives you Darwin's
> estimate of about 300 000 000 years.


Erosion or height reduction is in the vertical plane. Not horizontal.

Erosion of 255552 feet in the vertical plane gives us in miles
255552/(3*1760) or 255552/5280 or a bit over 48 miles.

Not 22 miles which is beyond the limit of jet engines.

So according to Darwin and his followers there was a mountain in the
Weald whose height was in near space.

Point is, what could erode that much height with no wind or water for
that purpose.

Not that certain physicists need be bothered by such pesky issues.

Woof-woof woof woof woof-woof woof

Bertietaylor


>
> Jan

--

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web