Is the ocean broken?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by daiquiri, Oct 24, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Edwin Hubble discovered the universe is expanding in 1929 but the evolutionists didn't like Hubble's constant, so they doubled the distances to get more time for evolution. Same kind of data doctoring still going on today. Science never had a reputation for honesty. Did Edison invent movies or the Frenchman Louis Aimé Augustin Le Prince? Le Prince european patents predate Edisons US patent. Le Prince was murdeed on his way to the US to file a patent.years ahead of Edison. Scientists are not priests. And I don't trust priests either!

    How many scientists agreed with AGW untill they retired then promptly reversed their position when their careers are over and can't be damaged? A bunch!
    Why Hubble's Distances Later Had To Be Doubled (Cosmology: Ideas) https://history.aip.org/exhibits/cosmology/ideas/hubble-distance-double.htm
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2021
  2. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Interesting article. I didn't know there were two types of Cepheid variable stars. It's very gratifying when a scientific conundrum is resolved.
     
  3. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    You missed the point. Politicized science is not to be trusted. The article only hints that they were unhappy with Hubble's age of the universe because it disagreed with their estimates. What agenda drove their estimates? Evolution, and later thay increased the distance some more, because they realized evolution needed even more time! You have to take agendas into consideration. People like to support their personal beliefs.

    Iam skeptical of beliefs and data contrary to my own world view. That is what everyone does, including scientists.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2021
  4. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    You missed the point. Politics had nothing to do with the discovery of Cepheid variables or the Hubble Constant. Curiosity, and an honest desire to understand how the Universe works, was the compelling motive.

    Science is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Scientists assume all the pieces fit together to create a coherent picture. The challenge is figuring out how all the pieces fit together. Sometimes their first guess where a particular piece goes is incorrect, and they have to revise what they think. But the more pieces they can fit together, the more likely those pieces are in their correct location.

    Since science never will have all the pieces, we can never be totally, absolutely sure we have all the pieces in the correct location. That is why it is improper to expect science to "prove" anything.
     
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Curiousity was Hubbles agenda. Research it some more, and you'll find out it was the evolution factor at play that changed Hubble's estimate! Not curiosity. They didn't like Hubble's figures and sought an excuse to change them..

    It's pretty obvious to anyone who visits the grand canyon, it was created by a lot of water leaving in a hurry, but evolutionists insist it was created slowly by a little stream over a long time, in contradiction to the evidence. I don't hope to convince you, Imaginary. I hope to convince others to be skeptical of what you post.

    Discovery of Cepheid variables? Or a convenient fairy tale? Stars are different over there where we can't inspect.so take Baades word for it. Nope!

    Did you notice the straw man argument? Hubble was asked if it's reasonable the earth is older than the universe. Obviously not, so his age of the universe is wrong because it can't be right. Their estimate of the earth's age wasn't called into question! Duh! Hubble's calculations had to be modified to agree with the earth's supposed age. A reasonable supposition? Hubble had evidence, but the earth scientists only had conviction! Why does conviction win over evidence? People insist upon it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2021
  6. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    No, two pieces of the puzzle didn't fit together, and for many years they didn't know how to resolve that discrepancy. Then they found out that their error was that there were two types of Cepheid variable stars, which allowed them to fit the two pieces together correctly -- or almost correctly, as more information required even further adjustments of puzzle-piece locations.

    That's the way science works. It's always an approximation of reality. Never absolute "truth."
     
  7. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    How convenient, the evolutionist age for the earth didn't need correcting.except to get even older. Ussually people, thinking people, get tired of frauds and call them as they see them. Unless they identify with the fraudsters.
     
  8. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Likewise.

    Neither Creationism or Evolution has successfully created a model in which all the jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together coherently. However, the evolutionary model has fit far more pieces together than has the Creationism model. That is why most scientists (but not all) have accepted some version of the evolutionary model. If someone could create a Creationist model that better fit the jigsaw pieces together than an evolutionary model, it would be strongly considered by the scientific community.

    Many of the early scientists were devout Christians. Darwin himself briefly trained to be a minister. Many current scientists still are religious, though infrequently conservative fundamentalists. Many of those would love to come up with a scientific model that included Creationism. But so far, non-evolutionary models have not been as successful as evolutionary models in fitting the pieces together.

    The reason why I provide references for what I present is to show how science is logically fitting the pieces of the puzzle together. I'm expecting that readers of this thread note how infrequently you, Hoyt, and Will, provide solid references to back up your claims. Your ideas are wild speculation. Nothing wrong with that; that's how new ideas are generated. But then you have to find empirical evidence to support those ideas. If you can't come up with that evidence, maybe there is a good reason why you can't.
     
  9. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    You provide references by colleagues of the article writers, or "peer reviewed' meaning, in the same club. You defame any reference not in the "club" SO, i REFERENCE AS i CHOOSE AND IGNORE YOUR USURPATION AS THREAD BOSS!. Your criteria isn't THE CRITERIA!

    AGWERS BACKING UP AGWERS ISN'T A SURPRISE OR A VALID ENDORSEMENT. IT'S THE CHOIR CHIMING IN!
     
  10. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    Actually, science tries to follow where the evidence leads, even if it results in lower age estimates. Religionists should try that technique too.

    Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger
     
  11. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    You and I each have different ways of presenting our arguments to others.

    I try to present the logic and cohesiveness of the scientific method.

    You prefer yelling with aggressive ALL-CAPS, misspelled words and unfounded assertions.

    Judging by a certain recent four years, you may win. :(
     
  12. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Misspelled words is because my keyboard doesn't always respond with a letter when I hit a key. I go back and correct the most obvious. Want to play chess? Your estimate of my mind might be improved.
    The all caps is because I am too lazy to go back and retype and didn't realize caps were on. I'm not watching the screen as I one finger type.Never needed to learn to type, just hunt and peck suffices.

    It's an old computer with small screen and keyboard, a Panasonic Toughbook I bought second hand. It takes a beating and keeps on working, my main need. I run a light weight Linux OS to maximize it's limited electronics. It'a a 2010 model originally with windows 7 installed.

    It suits me, we both are old and function. I'm the elder.by a few decades.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2021
  13. ImaginaryNumber
    Joined: May 2009
    Posts: 436
    Likes: 59, Points: 28, Legacy Rep: 399
    Location: USA

    ImaginaryNumber Imaginary Member

    I don't play chess, but I did enjoy The Queen's Gambit. Still trying to get that chess board to materialize on my ceiling.

     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    If my wife stops watching Netflix and gives me a turn, I'll watch it. It's a miniseries.
     

  15. Will Gilmore
    Joined: Aug 2017
    Posts: 939
    Likes: 434, Points: 63
    Location: Littleton, nh

    Will Gilmore Senior Member

    upload_2021-7-11_5-55-31.png
    The Richát Structure or the Eye of Africa [Richat Structure - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richat_Structure], is not an impact crater, but a geological phenomenon caused by an upwelling of magma beneath the bedrock. [Laccolith - Wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laccolith]
    The particularity of the Richát Structure is its concentric circular organization. While it is reasonably suggested to have been the site of the real Atlantis, the evidence for its creation and geological history is older and includes repeated periods of changing surface heights. It is surrounded by desert sand, a mountain range to the North and exposed bedrock with clear satellite imagery that supports the idea that it that entire area was flooded with water before lifting up to dump the water out to the Atlantic. The repeated concentric rings suggest it has done this several times.

    In my more vigorous youth, I have had a number of concussions. My last being a bicycle accident in my early forties... or was it my late thirties, I can't remember :confused:. Anyhow, It was explained to me by my doctor that a lot of times, the more serious damage done from a concussion occurs on the opposite side of the brain from the impact. The brain crashes against the inside of the skull on the opposite side and can suffer harm.

    Directly opposite of the Richát Structure is the Marianas Trench. If the core swung back and forth inside the Earth, it would be cyclic and could have an effect similar to those two surface phenomena.

    -Will
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.