zorro

Science can't go from nothing to everything and the rules whereas creation is exactly that. Science can't take you to an after life the Creator can. Science can't find the God particle the Creator made it. Science can't create species and set in-place the engines of evolution, the Creator did.

The Creator can do anything that Science can even create Science itself.

Nonsense.

 

Very much was said in the trial about Behe's rejection by the scientific community. Behe embarrassed himself at that trial. The creationist / cdesign propentist / ID movement was given yet resounding rejection by this case.

 

The defense argued that intelligent design was science, not religion, and thus should be taught as science, with irreducible complexity forming the central point of their argument. The proponents argued that irreducible complexity is nonscientific claptrap, that intelligent design is religion, not science, and this should not be taught in public schools. The defendants failed completely.

Ridiculous! You are not reading what I said apparently??

1. But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific resolution. This as in WIKI, ruled that it was religious and contrary to Church and State as I have said.

2. He wasn't condemned, his tests on some blood stuff was. To argue that the Scientific Community somehow rejected his testimony would necessitate a listing of the community and their credentials, which wasn't done because this was a Church and State Case. His problem with the judge was that he was ill prepared and wouldn't furnish experts to back up his experiments for some reasons.

3. For sure It wasn't a "The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2] as moo put it. The Courts findings are as an interpreter of the Constitutional officer as to the Church and State Case. Science nor personalities were not addressed, Weather ID was religious. To condemn Behe would require a complete listing of the stated Scientific Community for him to counter and condemn their credentials and scientific work..

4. In any case, you seem to avoid the instant case for complexity that put forth in Post #85 which argues from an MD> outside the Court and the Court's inherent Political twists.:

# 85 Thanx, schr:

This is a Religion Thread.

The assertions as you seem to say cover many grounds and may never fit in your faith mold. I present fact that many others here do that offers a solution to questions stymied by other disciplines. The proof is in the observable reality, the complexity and everything comeing from nothing, which are precepts of the Big Bang and other assertions of the Pseudo sciences. The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

http://www.detecting...m/humaneye.html

Others have made similar posts which is an indication that it is true and relevant. They as you have a high purpose to present their facts and faith, do they not?

All is relevant to the Forum as it is to the illumination of the Cosmos. Wouldn't you agree??? Sciences and atheist's don't have many of the answers as of yet, but they are low on the learning curves.

5. Your post statment "Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court. " Isn't inline with either moo or I . It also denegertes his ref which is in my view acceptable to forum rules. ...so thus you are totally rejected.

What "critical infraction" did Moontanman make? Read the court's ruling, http://www.pamd.usco...zmiller_342.pdf. Jump to page 79. We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

 

Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court.

No, No, No.

Per Wiki " Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.

Nothing was said about his rejection by the Scientific Community, What was said is that generally the Scientific Community dismissed some of his blood complexity works. But gave no conclusionary ruling on it since it was a separation of Religion and State Case not a Scientific Critique.

see: ...http://www.pamd.usco...zmiller_342.pdf

Page 78..... We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory ofevolution. As a further example, the test for ID proposed by both Professors Beheand Minnich is to grow the bacterial flagellum in the laboratory; however, no-oneinside or outside of the IDM, including those who propose the test, has conducted

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 79 of 139

Professor Behe conceded thatthe proposed test could not approximate real world conditions and even if it could,Professor Minnich admitted that it would merely be a test of evolution, not design.(22:107-10 (Behe); 2:15 (Miller); 38:82 (Minnich)).

We therefore find that Professor Behe’s claim for irreducible complexity hasbeen refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by thescientific community at large. (17:45-46 (Padian); 3:99 (Miller)). Additionally,even if irreducible complexity had not been rejected, it still does not support ID asit is merely a test for evolution, not design. (2:15, 2:35-40 (Miller); 28:63-66(Fuller)).

We will now consider the purportedly “positive argument” for designencompassed in the phrase used numerous times by Professors Behe and Minnichthroughout their expert testimony, which is the “purposeful arrangement of parts.”Professor Behe summarized the argument as follows: We infer design when we seeparts that appear to be arranged for a purpose. The strength of the inference isquantitative; the more parts that are arranged, the more intricately they interact, thestronger is our confidence in design. The appearance of design in aspects ofbiology is overwhelming. Since nothing other than an intelligent cause has beendemonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian

Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 80 of 139

claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design isrationally justified. (18:90-91, 18:109-10 (Behe); 37:50 (Minnich)). Aspreviously indicated, this argument is merely a restatement of the ReverendWilliam Paley’s argument applied at the cell level. Minnich, Behe, and Paleyreach the same conclusion, that complex organisms must have been designed usingthe same reasoning, except that Professors Behe and Minnich refuse to identify thedesigner, whereas Paley inferred from the presence of design that it was God. (1:6-7 (Miller); 38:44, 57 (Minnich)). Expert testimony revealed that this inductiveargument is not scientific and as admitted by Professor Behe, can never be ruledout. (2:40 (Miller); 22:101 (Behe); 3:99 (Miller)).

......

H. Conclusion

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the factsof this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates theEstablishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed theseminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, andmoreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious,antecedents.

.....To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an orderpermanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any schoolwithin the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate ordisparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer toa religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratoryjudgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and theCommonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions.Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them bythe Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants toliability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominaldamages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costsincurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

fine print:

This is not a legal review and no ascertains has been made of appeals if any that finalized the Court or Scientific issues.

Zorro

FYI; The Professor Behe rebuttals : http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html

 

First of all, it's a theory, but it's supported by many theories ..Quantum theory, Singularity, String Theory, and Super Symmetry which tell us that

 

all matter in the universe sums up to Zero, since every matter has ananti-matter, where I think that the creation operator in quantum theory takes

 

energy and should create the exact amount of matters opposed byanti-matters, in order to preserve the symmetry, Now you can imagine that if

 

everything was taken into a single point at the universe, all mattersand anti-matters will collide back into energy, and back to the Zero.

 

I've learned all of that from a talk given by Lawrence Krauss

Mr. Krauss is an unreliable theorist and an atheist with an ax to grind.

http://www.slate.com...f_anything.html

Lawrence Krauss, a professor of physics and astronomy at Case WesternReserve University, has a reputation for shooting down pseudoscience. Heopposed the teaching of intelligentdesign on The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer. He penned an essayfor the New York Times that dissedPresident Bush's proposal for a manned Mars mission. Yet in his latest book, Hiding in theMirror, Krauss turns on his own—by taking on string theory, theleading edge of theoretical physics. Krauss is probably right that stringtheory is a threat to science, but his book proves he's too late to stop it.

There is no anti-matter, anti-universe, anti-energy. They are all figments of the psudosciences theoretic religionists , IMHO. You can't destroy matter or energy so extrapolating back to before the Big Bang for this Universe you get to nothing. Then, majestically out the open space, it explodes, makes all matter and energy, it's rules then set on its way and still travels making the Cosmos, and it's species.

1. do youreally know what 'everything' and 'nothing' really means in "everythingfrom nothing", hint: it's related to matter

Yes. In this context, "everything" is all matter, energy, rules, entropy ….. in this Universe. "Nothing"is a theoretical extrapolation back to time zero an instant before the Big Bang when nothing existed of this universe just a hole in space awaiting a command.

2.Multiverse theory, String theory, .. they are theories that discuss theprobability space of a quantum state (not real state) in the future (not thepast)

String theory is all but debunked now. The all serve to define the pieces of the atom and must be true at the Big Bang past this time and on to the end. These theories have to pass thetests of the extremely hot Big Bang time as well as the cold of dark matter. Wearen't there yet.

There isonly 1 universe, that was created from a specific amount of energy from the bigbang .. the next moment you think they become more, that even break the principle of Energy Preservation.

Very true, however there were, are and future, many Universes with many Big Bangs and we have yet to find any yet.

zorro,

 

 

These are along my thoughts on the subject, but good luck getting anybody to listen.

 

The singularity was before the BB. We can break it down that far, but how does a singularity incite action? If there was something else, then it wouldn't be a singularity now would it?

You are soooo right. The Psudo Sciences will dismiss this and go on to a newer song and dance to keep Creationist back even if there is no basis at all for their proposed way to go to everything from nothing.

BTW, there must have been trillions of Universes prior to the Big Bang according to miltiverse theory.

!

Moderator Note

There is no fraudulence or critical infraction here. Moontanman quoted a Wikipedia article on Irreducible Complexity and zorro quoted one on Michael Behe. The two give different reference numbers for the same court quote: ""We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." Moontanman's article is reference #2, zorro's article is reference #54, not the #2 reference he states is fraudulent.

I'll stick with wiki on Michael Behe. It measures Behe on a case of Separation of Religion and State and Intelligent Design is heavy into religion and seeks to be a factor in competitive biological dogma of Darwinistic thought . The courts didn't rule on Intelligent design but on his blood views anyway.

Woo did not distinguish or refute it so is still vulnerable. His retort is: ....Well then, you need to report me, in fact I think I'll report me....

What "critical infraction" did Moontanman make? Read the court's ruling, http://www.pamd.usco...zmiller_342.pdf. Jump to page 79. We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

 

Behe and his claptrap have been dismissed by the scientific community over and over and over again, and he most certainly was dismissed by the court.

dh

Moontanman infractions are as I stated above in misquoting wiki. ..... Behe may be a problem with you and moo, but don't corrupt the record of him. Like I said before, this is the inquisition in reverse where pseudo sciences is on the throne with it's daggers pointed at people of religion.

I hesitate to start this irreducible complexity horse feathers... but here we go... again....

 

Quote

 

Irreducible complexity (IC) is an argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally occurring, chance mutations.[1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community at large,[2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience.[3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments used by intelligent design proponents, the other being specified complexity.[4]

Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning".[5] Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can evolve,[6] and that Behe's examples constitute an argument from ignorance.[7] In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

Correct Quote: http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1

You have falsified the Behe record. This is what the court said:.....Behe has testified in several court cases related to intelligent design, including the court case Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District that resulted in a ruling that intelligent design was religious in nature.^[2]

Your corruption: http://en.wikipedia....ible_complexity What you fraudently issued was:

Instead of ....The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."[2]

Behr was religious in nature and not dismissed by the court or the scientific community.

This is a critical infraction on the Forum !

http://en.wikipedia....ehe#cite_note-1

Irreducible complexity and intelligent design

See also: Irreducible complexity and Intelligent designBehe says he once fully accepted the scientific theory of evolution, but that after reading Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, by Michael Denton, he came to question evolution.^[14] Later, Behe came to believe that there was evidence, at a biochemical level, that there were systems that were "irreducibly complex". These were systems that he thought could not, even in principle, have evolved by natural selection, and thus must have been created by an "intelligent designer," which he believed to be the only possible alternative explanation for such complex structures. The logic is very similar to the watchmaker analogy given by William Paley in 1802 as proof of a divine creator.

After the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court barred the required teaching of creation science from public schools but allowed evolutionary theory on the grounds of scientific validity, some creationists felt that new strategies and language were necessary to return religious notions to science classrooms.^{[citation needed]} The supplementary school textbook Of Pandas and People was altered to change references to creationism to use the term intelligent design. The books of lawyer Phillip E. Johnson on theistic realism, which strayed away from direct statements about a Young Earthand stuck to criticisms of evolutionary theory and purported biased "materialist" science, aimed to legitimise the teaching of creationism in schools. In March 1992 a conference at Southern Methodist University brought Behe together with other leading figures into what Johnson later called the wedge strategy. In 1993 "the Johnson-Behe cadre of scholars" met at Pajaro Dunes, and Behe presented for the first time his idea of 'irreducibly complex' molecular machinery. Following a summer 1995 conference, "The Death of Materialism and the Renewal of Culture," the group obtained funding through theDiscovery Institute. In 1996 Behe became a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (later renamed theCenter for Science and Culture) dedicated to promoting intelligent design.^[15][16]

In 1993, Behe wrote a chapter on blood clotting in Of Pandas and People, presenting arguments which he later presented in very similar terms in a chapter in his 1996 book Darwin's Black Box. Behe later agreed that they were essentially the same when he defended intelligent design at the Dover Trial.^[17][18]

The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

 

Where is your evidence for that? Have you recreated the last few billion years and taken data from it?

Fuz, Please read the Ref.

Zorro. The parts of your post that aren't just assertions with nothing to back them up are an argument from ignorance. Many of your points have also already been covered.

Please post something relevant and useful to the discussion that hasn't already been posted if you are going to say anything.

Thanx, schr:

This is a Religion Thread.

The assertions as you seem to say cover many grounds and may never fit in your faith mold. I present fact that many others here do that offers a solution to questions stymied by other disciplines. The proof is in the observable reality, the complexity and everything comeing from nothing, which are precepts of the Big Bang and other assertions of the Pseudo sciences. The proof of creation surrounds us. One is the complexity of the eye. It comes from something, is extremely complex and time is to short for it to evolve even if it could.

http://www.detecting...m/humaneye.html

Others have made similar posts which is an indication that it is true and relevant. They as you have a high purpose to present their facts and faith, do they not?

All is relevant to the Forum as it is to the illumination of the Cosmos. Wouldn't you agree??? Sciences and atheist's don't have many of the answers as of yet, but they are low on the learning curves.

The Creator (He/She) created everything from nothing. Sometime called cause and effect.

The Creator created the rules that govern them as gravity, magnetism, force fields, conservation of angular rotation, entropy……

The Creator created the purpose and plan.

The Creator developed the deaths of the Cosmos.

Creating everything from nothing is a principal feature of the Creator. By definition the Cosmos exists and formed from the Big Bang. Back at time zero, before the Big Bang nothing of the Universe existed and then emergedfrom the Creator. How ever it is explained, The entire mass and energy of the Cosmos exists and has blasted into space. To deny a beginning from zero is tothwart the Big Bang. To espouse another measure of this singularity is but to describe the Creator in another way.

Nothing of this glob of mass end energy would work without the rules that govern it. It is impossible to imagine a universe without gravity and the remaining rules. These are all measureable Scientifically effects are observable and flow in all equations and nit the Cosmos into its configurations. The rules do not evolve but are subject to Einstein's modifications. On the basis of complexity and a fundamental feature, a Creator had to derive them. Sciences uses them but has no idea how they originated.

The purpose and plan is a reflection of a builder and a creation this is the concept of Will. In this case the cosmos is an exquisite ballet of form and motion embraces complexity, form and elegance. This is the attributes projected by the Creator and signifies that He/She extends to the infinite. With Life and the nanoworld. This elegance and complexity is without equal.

Death is a reality of Creation. All entities come to adeath. The cosmos will be overcome be entropy just as life dies to make a place for the new and a new God is not formed. Death means a new beginning and is as real as a white dwarf that makes the large elements some of which are here on earth. Death brings about new evolvement and development of entities that counters other threats. This to isn't known by conventional science and predicting the perfect time and places for this to happen is beyond our reach but in the realm of the Creator.

The inquisition upside down. Now it is pseudo science Papals lashing an religionist intelligent design folks.

LOS ANGELES — A computer specialist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory is going to court over allegations that he was wrongfully terminated because of his belief in intelligent design.

http://www.msnbc.msn...e/#.T197r3ic-uQ

The speed of a wind turbine is controlled by the offset tail at tail angle reductions the blade turning the blade into the wind.

1. What created Big Bang? What created the thing that created Big Bang?

 

2. And why is there something rather than nothing?

1. The essence of a "Big Bang" is at the fringes between Religion and Physics. It produces everything out of nothing. The creator, created the Big Bang one per Universe. Since multiverses have Big Bang in the past and others in the future; the future "Big Bangs" is yet to happen and its "nothing" remains static until set off by the Creator.

2. The Universes are filled with something. Even the most simplistic makeup of the quarks and all the rules has to emerge from somewhere. That somewhere is the Creator and He uses the the "Big Bang".

Hi all.

 

New to forum, my first goal is to follow the rules, and act in a respectful manor.

 

My question is related to a torque induced precession vs. a Torque-free precession.

 

It is said that earth is precessing as we speak. my valid reasoning is the earth axis has shifted two time in two years. This is verified by Nasa, and also an Italian research team.

 

This statement is true, or false?

False. The precession of the earth is produced by the moon and sun acting on the earth's bulge in the equatorial zone. This bulge moves the center of mass away from the center of the earth thus causing a torque. http://www.math.nus....ONOFTHEMOON.htm

Incidentally this precession is why the zodiac moves and we are at the "Dawning of the Age of Aquarius".

http://en.wikipedia....Age_of_Aquarius

My second question is if this is a fact, then does the precession follow the tourque induced precession, or the Torque-free precession?

 

When you comment, and i hope you will, include what precession model you support.

No. The precession model is shown in the reference. ...http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-phase/ORIENTATIONOFTHEMOON.htm

notan

God is not finite, therefor God has always been and will always be. From beyond minus infinity to beyond plus infinity. God is beyond infinite and thus is every even beyond the Universes. http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/eternity.html

There are a number of things wrong with your post.

 

First off, this thread was dead for more than six years. Let old threads die a graceful death. Don't necromance them back to life!

 

Secondly, there's that silly font and color business. Don't do that. It is almost always best to tust go with the defaults.

My font is to help you distinguish your stuff from mine. It is very close to black. What is the problem.

Thirdly, there's the technical content.

I speak to the kinda-eliptical Orbit of the earth. This simple Astrodynamics 101.

Not since 1956. any more. See below.

???

Not since 1656, when Christiaan Huygens invented the pendulum clock. See below.

???

That's called a year, not a day.

Maybe so. I trust yuo to clarify mistake, I can't see it here anyway.

This makes no sense.

 

Not since 1582, when the Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar.

The calendars were off much of the centuries and had to be adjusted at the end of the year.

Humans have developed three basic techniques for measuring time: Sundials, the motions of the planets, and mechanical devices. Sundials are the oldest and also the worst of these techniques. Sundials measure what is called apparent solar time. Apparent solar time varies markedly over the course of a year and also varies with latitude. A solar day on February 11 is considerably shorter(half an hour shorter!) than a solar day on November 3, and the length of a apparent solar day today for you probably is not the length of a solar day for me. This discrepancy is called the equation of time. Sundials are a rather lousy timing device.

No No. the Harrison chronometer Grandfather clock, telephone, Computer GPS ... and all have to be adjusted as I present above. Sundials are off as the gnomon goes thru it's figure 8. except at beginning of the year.

People began moving away from time as measured by a sundial to time as measured by a mechanical device (i.e., a clock) as soon as good clocks were widely available. Although the equation of time was known to the ancients, it was more or less a scientific curiosity until Huygen's invention of the pendulum clock. Those mechanical clocks measure what is called mean solar time. Mean solar time stays in synch with apparent solar time on average, but removes that 30+ minute variation from February 11 to November 3. Even after removing these huge swings, there's yet another problem with time based on the Earth's daily rotation: A day now is about 2 milliseconds longer than a day in 1800. The international standards committee switched from time based on the Earth's daily rotation in the 1950s to time based on the Earth's yearly orbit, and then in the 1960s switched again to using atomic clocks (a quantum mechanical device).

Yes, and the must all be adjusted to the earth and not the earth to the time piece.

The motions of the planets provides yet another way to measure time. Measuring time was the obvious solution to solving the longitude problem. The problem was how to measure time. The issue of clocks versus celestial observations until recently was not fully resolved. A problem with clocks on the Earth is that they vary by a slight amount as the Earth moves from perihelion to aphelion and back again. The best approach is to combine the concepts of clocks and celestial observations, and this is exactly what the various organizations that model the motions of the planets do.

Yes because Harrison's chronometer's time had to be corrected because the earth goes at different speeds in its kinda- elliptic orbit.

I don't see it to be closed. but if it is, it is dead as is this conversation.

Basically what D H said, in perhaps a little more detail:

 

http://blogs.science.../archives/11054

http://blogs.science.../archives/11058

 

We haven't used the notion that the sun is overhead at noon for quite some time. We went with a standard interval of time instead, trying to make each day nominally the same length, until we stopped using earth rotation as a guide.

Is this thread closed ?????

zorro

I would suggest you start with an NACA airfoil configuration http://www.allstar.f...aero/wing31.htm . Then calculate the area you will need given a length to chord ratio for your flight regime. Then develop an aluminum box to take all the loads and the torsion, Then check for flutter, then see if it will fit into 9inch limitation. Then design the Ailerons that will take control of the aircraft with the fuel moving outward to inward in knowing where the center of gravity of your aircraft is fully loaded. Make sure that it will takr the landing wheel loading and cycles you need if you have wheels

Your wing is very important to your very life so I recommend that you have an aircraft company in Germany or Switzerland that has built 100s of them do the design and build you one and maybe the entire aircraft.

In my view, no one knows to date knows how the Pyramids were built. The sand ramps and pulling them with ropes and humann Power seems the most logical to me.

Time is the measure of the rotation of the earth so that it casts its shadow precisely North at noon when the earth makes exactly one revolution around the Sun. It is thus corrected by the orbit adding one rotation and the kind-of Kepler elliptical orbit of the earth. This becomes one year of 365.25 days which is divided to a day, then a minute, then a second and so on.

The notion that this time stretches, and bends is a theoretical relativity notion.

hello tyler1

Correct PaulS1950: .....The Light specks we see today have to be different now than when the got under to here. The red shift, bending as they pass: black holes, massive stars and Galaxies ..... are surely different now than 3 billion years ago. By now they can be dead, turned to "Dark Matter" or the materials making the light has changed.

To your question of Space Time ripples, I am no expert; but t seems to me that some light could be moving away or that others could be moving away so fast that its relative lightspeed is now traveling faster than its "shock wave" thus it will no longer arrive here.

Listening to a bit of Randy.

Hello. ....... I am new here and my spell checker is erratic sometime. I am interested in your conversations and wish to apologies in advance for the mistakes I make. I invite you all to check-out my profile and give me appropriate comments,

zorro

.................................