Creation Story

[nastynice]

Here's another article where scientists show the second law of thermodynamics breaks down at the quantum level, which allows for the flow of time to move backwards or forwards:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/articl...um-experiment/

"the result shows that the arrow of time is not an absolute concept, but a relative concept. Different systems can have arrows of time that point in different directions. While the arrow was apparently reversed for the two quantum particles the researchers studied, for example, the arrow pointed in its typical direction in the rest of the laboratory."


Heck, there was just an entire movie that came out around this concept. I advise you to go see the movie Tenet by Christopher Nolan. First, it was excellent. Second, he actually consulted with physicist Kip Thorne on how such time manipulations may be possible. He previously worked with Kip Thorne on Interstellar to consult on how time is manipulated by gravitational fields.


But bottom line: your thinking on time is inelastic and you are simply incorrect regarding how time must function; and scientists all agree what you think is impossible is indeed very possible.

I'm not entirely familiar with this stuff..

Thats why earlier I had mentioned quantum physics suggesting other dimensions..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

He's just saying that the math adds up forward and backward. Which is like, duh.

1 - 1 = 0
1 + (-1) = 0

Big whoop.

They're saying far more than that, here's more of that article:

Julian Barbour and his colleagues in the UK published a paper back in 2014 arguing that this arrow of time is being governed by gravity, rather than thermodynamics. Publishing in Physical Review Letters, they describe how they ran a computer simulation of 1,000 particles that were all governed by Newtonian gravity - the most simplistic simulation of the Universe you could imagine.

They found that, thanks to gravity, the particles ended up with the smallest amount of distance between each other - which they called the Janus point. The particles would then expand back outwards in different directions, signifying how time could move forwards and backwards in an actual multiverse.


So no, they are very clearly saying they believe time could move forwards or backwards.

But look at yourself. You're very close minded and it's obvious you have no intention to actually want to learn or understand anything. Your first instinct wasn't to even read the article and to try to ignore it (you definitely ignored the second article I posted).


It's honestly kind of sad, for someone who bills themselves as an intellectual, that you are so resistant to even considering ideas simply because they go against your opinion.

[valade16]

I'm not entirely familiar with this stuff..


Thats why earlier I had mentioned quantum physics suggesting other dimensions..

Obviously. It explains your stubborn insistence that anything beyond the one way you perceive time isn't possible.

[nastynice]

Obviously. It explains your stubborn insistence that anything beyond the one way you perceive time isn't possible.

Bro, even you gotta admit that lack of substance in any of these theories..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[nastynice]

But look at yourself. You're very close minded and it's obvious you have no intention to actually want to learn or understand anything. Your first instinct wasn't to even read the article and to try to ignore it (you definitely ignored the second article I posted).


It's honestly kind of sad, for someone who bills themselves as an intellectual, that you are so resistant to even considering ideas simply because they go against your opinion.

lol, it's funny you say this, I'm sitting here geeking out over this stuff and you're sitting here telling me this.

Strange loop is one of the most fascinating things I've come across in a long time.

I even thought we were bonding, lol.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[valade16]

lol, it's funny you say this, I'm sitting here geeking out over this stuff and you're sitting here telling me this.

Strange loop is one of the most fascinating things I've come across in a long time.

I even thought we were bonding, lol.

I am coming off harsher than intended (and for that, I apologize).

I'm glad you're geeking out.

[nastynice]

They're saying far more than that, here's more of that article:

Julian Barbour and his colleagues in the UK published a paper back in 2014 arguing that this arrow of time is being governed by gravity, rather than thermodynamics. Publishing in Physical Review Letters, they describe how they ran a computer simulation of 1,000 particles that were all governed by Newtonian gravity - the most simplistic simulation of the Universe you could imagine.

They found that, thanks to gravity, the particles ended up with the smallest amount of distance between each other - which they called the Janus point. The particles would then expand back outwards in different directions, signifying how time could move forwards and backwards in an actual multiverse.


So no, they are very clearly saying they believe time could move forwards or backwards.

But look at yourself. You're very close minded and it's obvious you have no intention to actually want to learn or understand anything. Your first instinct wasn't to even read the article and to try to ignore it (you definitely ignored the second article I posted).


It's honestly kind of sad, for someone who bills themselves as an intellectual, that you are so resistant to even considering ideas simply because they go against your opinion.

I don't know, im reading what you're saying, reach a Janis point (some sort of zero point or limit, I'm assuming) then EXPAND BACK OUT in different directions.

Is that not
1-1=0
1+(-1)=0
?

I didn't dig into this, but it seems to me probably everything is legit up to this janus point, after that everything is just reciprocal math..

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Crovash]

The bible is essentially a scattered collection of short stories — almost all of them, like Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark, pure fiction.

Maybe there was a Moses, but his story; like those of David, Job, and Jesus; was — shall I say enhanced? — by use of robust poetic license.

Overall, I would say it makes for good children’s stories (with illustrations of course).

[brett05]

The bible is essentially a scattered collection of short stories — almost all of them, like Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark, pure fiction.

Maybe there was a Moses, but his story; like those of David, Job, and Jesus; was — shall I say enhanced? — by use of robust poetic license.

Overall, I would say it makes for good children’s stories (with illustrations of course).

You can advertise your inability to understand but it does not invalidate what is told.

[SiteWolf]

The bible is essentially a scattered collection of short stories — almost all of them, like Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark, pure fiction.

Maybe there was a Moses, but his story; like those of David, Job, and Jesus; was — shall I say enhanced? — by use of robust poetic license.

Overall, I would say it makes for good children’s stories (with illustrations of course).

you're entitled to your opinion

[Crovash]

you're entitled to your opinion

Gee, thanks. I like my opinion.

[mike_noodles]

The bible is essentially a scattered collection of short stories — almost all of them, like Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark, pure fiction.

Maybe there was a Moses, but his story; like those of David, Job, and Jesus; was — shall I say enhanced? — by use of robust poetic license.

Overall, I would say it makes for good children’s stories (with illustrations of course).

And like all good stories, it mixes in with some things that we know are true, like the Hebrews being enslaved by the Egyptians. I agree with you Crovash.

[SiteWolf]

Gee, thanks. I like my opinion.

well, I think you know what I mean....it's your opinion that you can safely refer to all that as pure fiction.
That doesn't, however, necessarily mean it is.
But like I've said, from my standpoint, how much of the Old Testament story is true (and how much truth) is of less impact to my overall belief system than the New Testament.

[Crovash]

well, I think you know what I mean....it's your opinion that you can safely refer to all that as pure fiction.
That doesn't, however, necessarily mean it is.
But like I've said, from my standpoint, how much of the Old Testament story is true (and how much truth) is of less impact to my overall belief system than the New Testament.

And don’t get me wrong. There’s some good stuff in the bible, and some of it could even be good philosophy/theology/psychology.

Here’s an example. A big thing is “original sin”, right? Now the bible couches this in a story about Adam and Eve disobeying god, and so on and so forth. We know the rest: expulsion, mortality, hard labor times two, etc.

I think there is a kernal of not only wisdom, but truth, embedded in that story. The fact is that there seems to be something a little off about humans (you know, we’re not always all that good to each other, to our planet, even to ourselves — and at times, we just can’t seem to help it).

Now, I am inclined to attribute this “original sin” as a function of our genes. In effect, we are hardwired for survival — the quintessential opportunists as David Attenborough would say — which in turn leads us “astray” as often as not.

I think composer of the A&E story understood this and used it as the core of his/her message, using narrative features available at the time. Good stuff — still mostly fiction.

[fanofclendennon]

And like all good stories, it mixes in with some things that we know are true, like the Hebrews being enslaved by the Egyptians. I agree with you Crovash.

There's no evidence whatsoever the Jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians. Exodus is a Biblical tale, not an accurate historical depiction of anything.