subgenius wrote: I think it's fine if you want to express your personal viewpoints based on your religious beliefs.
When you argue against Issac Newton and the laws of physics, you sound little silly. Stick to what you know (just a tip).
I am of course willing to entertain an argument that clearly illustrates the evidence which concludes that the laws of refraction are universal, eternal, and infinite. As for Newton, i suggest you look into "Planet X"....but it may be simpler to suggest that the theory of general relativity from Einstein did not prove Newton wrong but rather "explained" things differently...(reference: orbit of mercury) Not to mention the laws of motion
practice what you preach my friend....because your post seems to disregard modern science...and that seems a little silly[/quote]
Newton was the first to give a correct explanation of refraction. I think that one still stands. Einstein's later theories did surpass Newton on some things, but not on that one.
I think the burden of proof in regards to refraction being not universal is up to you.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
I read your posts. Although, now looking back, I almost regret that I did. The doublethink involved in the equations are enough to fill ones brain to overflowing. It's like trying to calculate the loss of momentum in earth's orbit due to the sun and moon standing still in the sky (Joshua 10:13).
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
Quasimodo wrote: I think the burden of proof in regards to refraction being not universal is up to you.
Perhaps on planet x. But the courtesy and burden for proof is always on he who makes the claim...and i have yet to claim it as universal. It is not proper for me to charged with contradicting someone else's opinion, especially when they propose it is as an absolute truth! If you claim something to be true, then prove it.....or would find it acceptable to have me just "pray about it"?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Quasimodo wrote: I think the burden of proof in regards to refraction being not universal is up to you.
Perhaps on planet x. But the courtesy and burden for proof is always on he who makes the claim...and i have yet to claim it as universal. It is not proper for me to charged with contradicting someone else's opinion, especially when they propose it is as an absolute truth! If you claim something to be true, then prove it.....or would find it acceptable to have me just "pray about it"?
subgenius wrote:a little later i will gladly dismantle your post's purported logic and confusions. (inadequacies at best)
But to answer your question Does not a rainbow require light to pass through the "mist". Is your assumption that this mist was occurring during a sunny and cloudless day? Simply put, if we are to assume that a mist or rainfall covered the entire earth, then it is quite reasonable that the sun was blocked out by clouds. Furthermore, are you not working on the assumption that rainbows had not been seen before? The notion that they were created at the moment of the covenant is not something the scriptures specifically describe. Furthermore, there is no indication in the scriptures that it had ever rained before (Noah's explicatives may have been censored out) Or, rather you are making assumptions about the laws of refraction for which you can not support....unless you consider them to be universal, eternal, and infinite....do you?
That being said, aren't you really missing the point of the story?
Last thing's first. What is the point of the story, in your opinion? I sort of got "Do exactly what I tell you or I'll smite your ass, only next time it won't be by water."
The rainbow was to be the sign of his covenant. God didn't say ,"You know those bright colored things off in the distance of a rainy sky? Well I put those there to remind you I won't send a flood again. You've seen 'em before but now you know why?" He said, " I have set my bow in the sky and it shall be a sign."
Now I know a lot of daily events covering the time between Adam and Noah have been left out of the Bible. Genesis covers those 2000 years in 10 chapters. Granted no rainbows are mentioned. That would take all the surprise out of the moment for Noah.
But to your question about refraction. Do I consider refraction "to be universal, eternal, and infinite"? No, I do not. We view light on this planet through the particular lens of light from a yellow star, where we have a blue sky. I have no idea whether light is refracted in a similar fashion on a red star planet, or in a black hole, for that matter. I have no idea if light was refracted in a similar fashion prior to the big bang, or, if we are living in collapsible universe, whether light will be refracted in the same way following the gnab gib. I have no idea what infinite means; I have enough trouble balancing my bank account at the end of each month. But should we live in a continually expanding universe that will continually pick up speed as it expands beyond all known limitations I predict that light refraction will desist and everything will be endlessly black.
Or as Stephen Wright says, "If you are in a spaceship that is traveling at the speed of light, and you turn on the headlights, does anything happen?"
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
I apologize in advance to all those I offend by quoting Wikipedia but this was just too good to pass.
Quote: Wikipedia rainbows "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints founder and prophet Joseph Smith stated that the second coming of the Christ would not occur in any year in which a rainbow is seen.
"The Lord deals with this people as a tender parent with a child, communicating light and intelligence and the knowledge of his ways as they can bear it. The inhabitants of the earth are asleep; they know not the day of their visitation. The Lord hath set the bow in the cloud for a sign that while it shall be seen, seed time and harvest, summer and winter shall not fail; but when it shall disappear woe to that generation, for behold the end cometh quickly." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, p.305
"I have asked of the Lord concerning His coming; and while asking the Lord, He gave a sign and said, "In the days of Noah I set a bow in the heavens as a sign and token that in any year that the bow should be seen the Lord would not come; but there should be seed time and harvest during that year: but whenever you see the bow withdrawn, it shall be a token that there shall be famine, pestilence, and great distress among the nations, and that the coming of the Messiah is not far distant." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, p.340
"But I will take the responsibility upon myself to prophesy in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come this year, as Father Miller has prophesied, for we have seen the bow; and I also prophesy, in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come in forty years; and if God ever spoke by my mouth, He will not come in that length of time. Brethren, when you go home, write it down, that it may be remembered." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Six 1843-44, p.341"
So there you have it. Not only did God first show a rainbow at the time of Noah, BUT he's going to take it away the year that Christ comes again. That nails it shut. Christ will come around midnight of a new year. (Can't have a rainbow in the middle of a night, right?) And it will have to be the first morning, prior dawn, of a new year so no daylight will have occurred.
(Damn, I forgot that when it's the middle of the night in SLC, it's daytime in Hong Kong, so there goes that theory)
Ok, now I get it. God will repel the physical effect of light refraction the year that Christ comes again. God will, in his almighty power, stop physics dead in its tracks. He'll probably make water flow uphill and s**t will stop floating just to ensure we all get the message.
And in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love...you make. PMcC
you are in over your head. I asked for proof that rainbows have always been around, here, there, and everywhere....you have not proven that. While we know the physical circumstances that create rainbows, we do not know the origin of these circumstances....or would you rely on "its just because".?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Franktalk wrote:about science according to Barry J. Setterfield
ludwigm wrote:Two excerpt from Setterfield's material, posted: 2009.03.04 and 2011.07.26
I read your posts. Although, now looking back, I almost regret that I did. The doublethink involved in the equations are enough to fill ones brain to overflowing. It's like trying to calculate the loss of momentum in earth's orbit due to the sun and moon standing still in the sky (Joshua 10:13).
These calculations are delightful, if one make them as intellectual play and/or joke. For example:
The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun, and in addition 7*7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the Moon is one 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ... The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (~300K), gives H as 798K (525C). The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed ... [However] Revelations 21:8 says "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C. -- From Applied Optics vol. 11, A14, 1972
The problem of our world is that there are some people who want to use them seriously, and many people who get them as such.
bcuzbcuz wrote:I read your posts. Although, now looking back, I almost regret that I did.
Please ask Shades for smilies. Without them, my posts can suggest that I agree Setterfield. No, I do not. Setterfield is bad, detrimental, evil, harmful, hurtful, ill, injurious, mischievous, deleterious, damaging. Am I clear enough?
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
ludwigm wrote:[ No, I do not. Setterfield is bad, detrimental, evil, harmful, hurtful, ill, injurious, mischievous, deleterious, damaging. Am I clear enough?
You are quite clear. We can disagree with each other. You see that no one can project back in time and not make assumptions. Then using those assumptions build a framework to explain what happened in the past. I happen to disagree with Setterfield and the currently accepted theories. The reason is they fail to include supernatural events which I believe in. So from my view I look at all theories as incorrect but I try and see if there is anything in them that may shed some light on the past. Sadly I have found little other than scripture. I am very curious about the past but I will not compromise my worldview which I personally know to be true.
The reason I brought up Setterfield was to show an alternate theory of the past that would show that rainbows did not come into view until the fabric of space allowed them to. You can disagree all you want. You can not prove that Setterfield is wrong just as he can't prove that current theories are wrong. The past is a mystery and those who think they know the details are fooling them self.
you are in over your head. I asked for proof that rainbows have always been around, here, there, and everywhere....you have not proven that. While we know the physical circumstances that create rainbows, we do not know the origin of these circumstances....or would you rely on "its just because".?
You obviously didn't read the link.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
For example: