This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Q&A with MyTie
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Do you think the the moderators/admins/other people in charge try to hide things when they do something wrong?
I'm asking this question after reading your instant relay chat moderation thread
I think that every human makes mistakes, and nobody wants their own mistakes to be obvoius and advertised. Having said that, I don't know about specific moderators. I don't view myself as the bullwark of anti-moderator sentiments. I've had issue with a few of them in the past, but I don't hold grudges.
So, all in all, the answer to your question is, no. I don't think poorly of the moderators. They are human and will error, but I have high regard for the moderators of this sight. Many of them, like ArgentSun and Malgayne and others, have earned my respect over time. I'm sure they will tell you that my respect was not given easily.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So you live in washington and work for a company making airplane parts. I pray that you dont get laid off alot of that going around. Ok for my question
The other day at a bible study where we were studying Genesis, this passage came up.
“16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”
Science tells of that the light from close stars is between 50 and 300 light years away (meaning that’s how long it takes the light to get here). Some stars we see in the night sky are actually galaxies and even more other stars we see are clumps of galaxies so far in the distance that they look like one light. These clumps of galaxies are thought to be millions of light years away.
My question is this: If God made the stars 6000 and some yeas ago we would not be seeing the light from these far away galaxies yet, (we could only see the light from stars less then 6000 light years away)
Two different schools of thought contradict each other here and I believe both.
What do you think?
Just to throw my answer in here.
The Bible doesn't say the universe is 6000 years old.
You can't even logically take the 6 days of creation as "days" because the sun wasn't created until the 4th day.
So, no, they aren't contradictory.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Modibybob
MyTie,
Find a closed form solution to the integral of e^(x^2)dx.
Post by
276825
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
276825
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Modibybob
I would like to see a well thought-out debate over the argument that JELL-O is in fact, better than pudding. (Or vice-versa)
Post by
MyTie
My question is this: If God made the stars 6000 and some yeas ago we would not be seeing the light from these far away galaxies yet, (we could only see the light from stars less then 6000 light years away)
Two different schools of thought contradict each other here and I believe both.
What do you think?This is something I've thought a lot about. I'm glad you asked.
I don't believe they are contradictory at all. I think it is completely possible that the two are both true. It is possible that BOTH of these things are true:
The universe is only 6K (about) years old as the Bible says
Light is reaching us that would have taken over a million years to get here. I mean, our galaxy alone is over 100,000 light years in diameter.
But the question really is, how can these both be true at the same time? In all honesty, I don't
know
if and how they are both correct. I would like to say that it is possible, and to propose a way how:
Let us suppose that the Bible were 100% true. Now imagine you build a time machine, and go back in time to 5 minutes after Adam had been created. What would he look like? Would he look like a microscopic sperm inside of an egg laying on the ground. That is possible, but doubtful. What is more likely is that God would have created Adam at the proper age to sustain himself in the open atmosphere. So, 5 minutes after Adam were created, he might look 20 years old. From an observable standpoint, you would say, that human being is 20 years old. Then when you asked God, He might say, Adam is 5 minutes old. You could present all of the observable proof you wanted that Adam was older than 5 minutes (puberty over, height, weight, adult teeth), but the fact would be that the observable proof is wrong, and that Adam would only be 5 minutes old.
So, why not the universe? If God were an omnipotent being, and created the universe so that he could spend time with humans, why would he create the universe at our conceived starting point, and then wait around for millions of years until it were a more inhabitable place? Why couldn't He have created it
already aged
? It seems very possible to me. I'm not saying that is the way it happened, I'm just saying that the possibility is there.
The most common arguement against this theory is that God doesn't lie, so why would he create light showing something that didn't really happen? This is a weak arguement. Just because God didn't choose to disclose the mysteries of the universe, does not mean that he is either deceptive or non existant. Those can't be the only arguements. Perhaps He thought it was not important for us to understand the speed of light, and how the age of the universe. If He had, then perhaps Jesus would have been a physics instructor, instead of the savior of humanity. It seems His priorities are not your understanding of the speed of light and meaning of time.
Edit:
Skitzorob - why don't you come up with one. It's my saturday, and my wife has errands for me to run.
Modibybob - I decline math questions. Heaven forbid I make a mistake, and people accuse me of being unfit to teach my kids. (I'm looking at you Laihendi)
Post by
387231
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
9.999999...999
- .999999...9999
9.000000...0001
There's you're mistake. I'll let you figure it out.
Post by
397950
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Excuse him.
9.999999...999
- .999999...9999
8.999999...9991
8.999999...9991/9 = .999...
Same result
, would help if he understood me right or could do math.
Essentially your proof is based on the assumption that
(infinity -1) < infinity
Which I would disagree with
And the 3/3 theory thing from before is wrong too.
The last digit of 2/3 is a 7 because you need to round the number somewhere to get it as a set number to add.
_ .333...333
+ .666...667
1.000...000
(underscore is to make it line up)
So you "have" to round up infinitely long numbers when adding (subtracting)? That assumption destroys your previous proof because you can't add and subtract your .999's
Post by
397950
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
Essentially your proof is based on the assumption that
(infinity -1) < infinity
No, I'm assuming that
you can't work with infinite since its not a number
. You have to actually set a number to infinite to work with it. To do that, you have to end the infinite number of repetitions somewhere.
And I don't see where you're going with the last sentence, if we assume that you do round up, .999... does equal one. If you don't, my first way is right.
But
, the original and 3/3 question are different because you can represent .333... as a fraction with integers, but you can't show .999.... as a fraction with integers, so you have to treat them differently since they're different.
You're still wrong, and if you don't like these proofs because they don't agree with your understanding of infinity, try this one:
Infinite sum from n=1 -> infinity of 9*(1/10)^n.
What's the sum, pray tell?
Post by
MyTie
I think this summarizes it nicely.
Post by
Queggy
You should check your email MyTie.
Post by
397950
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Unfortunately I'm only taking Pre-Calculus now so I don't really understand "Infinite sum from n=1 -> infinity of 9*(1/10)^n" or the link. However, I'm simply holding to the basic rule that a number only equals itself, no matter how close to another it may be. I hope that makes sense and that in it you see enough reason for me to search for a reply to what seemed like someone saying purposely difficult questions to disprove reality. In practice I realize that since .999... is the closest number to one which is below it, this issue makes negligible difference. To these ends I would like to respectfully bow out and let the matter lie until I can understand why it seems to be accepted, though there are still several arguments yet in my brain.
In a continuous number system there can't be a "next" number.
Post by
343569
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.