|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Well, if they say time does exist exactly as it does in our solar system spacetime on the edges of the universe, they DO say that.
Think of our solar system more as a little timepiece in a big universe.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
(re Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and invitation for a new thread on The Great Debate forum)
Maybe I'll just copy the OP and shred it to bits on some other forum! After all, the OP should have your case basically mapped out. Ah, so you really are scared about debating the issues in this forum? Understandable, but it won't change the facts.
Maybe I'll just copy the OP and shred it to bits on some other forum! ... If you do, please be sure to properly cite and reference it with a proper live link to the thread here, and please ensure that it is one that I am able to post on freely. This is at the bottom of the first post, so you can keep this reference:
quote: Where you could change the accessed date to the date you post it. Please be sure to include all the live links in the post (note that I've changed them to be live links below for other forums that use dB codes and I have made this change to the OP so that you can use the peek function to copy the post with all the dBcoding).
Note that I am trusting you to be honest and not change or alter any of my posts and to provide me with full access. Note that I will then copy your replies to a new thread here and shred your arguments here. You will of course have the opportunity to reply, but you won't have the privilege of being the only one that you would have on the The Great Debate forum. If you want I can start a new thread in that forum to post your comments and my replies so that you do have that privilege. Note that if I am not give full access to reply on your chosen forum, I trust that you will then copy and paste the replies I make and to debate those replies with honesty and integrity as well. This could be an interesting experiment in cross forum debate, and it could introduce many more people to my arguments. Might even bring some new people here. You can also check out Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only on The Great Debate forum and see what admin interference was done there. Enjoy ps -- I have set up the new thread at The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1) in Proposed New Topics but it needs to be promoted to The Great Debate before you can comment. Just tell Percy that you want to participate and he can promote it. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : psby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Typical creationist troll. You read something that really convinced you because you don't know anything about it, so you go out and repeat the words without understanding. Since you are incapable of discussing your own claim, you resort to bluff and bluster in order to avoid discussion.
You are being given ample opportunity to discuss and to support your claim, yet you refuse to. That speaks loudly about your claim; ie, that it is bollocks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, if they say time does exist exactly as it does in our solar system spacetime on the edges of the universe, they DO say that. Prove it. Show me. Nobody here has said that.
Think of our solar system more as a little timepiece in a big universe. I know more about this subject than you. If you weren't so conceited you might be able to learn something. But as they say, pride is an abomination.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Your reply to my post appears to be deranged gibberish, would you like to try again? Actually reading my post first might help you, if indeed anything can help you.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Hi Time,
I just suspended Dwise1 and NewCatsEye 24 hours for becoming personal after my warning in Message 527, but I'm putting you on warning, too, to produce constructive evidence-based responses. For one thing I would like you to actually answer Son Goku's question from Message 523:
Son Goku in Message 523 writes: Regardless why do you trust time has passed on bodies like Titania which probes have viewed through telescopes, but you don't trust it when another man-made object in space, Hubble, sees stars via a telescope? This question can, of course, take different forms, for example, "What factors govern where you accept time applies and where you don't?" Pleases do not continue to post responses that leave it impossible to form a coherent picture of your viewpoint. It is fine that you reject the conclusions about time that others draw from the evidence, but discussion here doesn't get to ignore the evidence. It still has to be discussed. Please, no replies to this message.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Not what I've said. But you do say time is the same. I have to call your bluff. What I have said is that time is consistent, not the same. This is not a subtle difference, because it takes into account the effects of relativity in different universe locations.
This is your assertion unsupported by any evidence or reason (how does it change? what causes it to change?). Does it change? Or cease to exist? Or...when you know, then you can talk. Until then you must repeat the following 'I don't know'. Science (all science) approximates reality to the best of our ability to test it. So it is not a matter of "knowing" (can anything be truly "known"), it is a matter of understanding and working to improve our understanding. And again, hypothesis are not proven (known), only disproven or validated by not being disproven. They are an explanation of the observed objective empirical evidence, and as long as they are not disproven we operate on the basis of them providing the best explanation available. The more they are tested and not disproven then the higher confidence we have in their approximation being valid enough to make usable predictions. What we can say is "As far as we know time is consistent throughout the universe and that relativity has not yet been disproven as a means to understand time." Because of the limitations of science, this is as much as we can "know" of the validity of any theory or hypothesis. Or to put it another way "We don't know that our concept of time and relativity is wrong." AND you still provide no reason or cause to wildly assume that time is not something we can approximate with hypothesis or test the hypothesis. For instance relativity predicts that time changes in predictable ways near massive objects, and we can test this: the orbit of Mercury did not comply with standard Newtonian physics, it was anomalous. Then Einstein produce the theory of Relativity, and it properly accounted for the orbit of Mercury by accounting for the alteration of time near the sun. There is no reason given, by you or anyone else, to not assume/hypothesize that this is consistent throughout the universe.
Your assertion does not disprove time being consistent. My assertion is that you cannot prove time is the same or even exists persay out there. Just because we see movements does not mean we must have time there as here. My assertion is proven true because you fail to be able to begin to prove or even support your outlandish claim. You need evidence: that is how science is done. Until then no one needs any alternate explanation for your hunches and wild guesses and beliefs. And you still are not proving/showing/demonstrating that it is not consistent. Science works by disproof, not proof, and failing to understand this just shows basic ignorance of how science works in the real world.
... My assertion is proven true ... Can you prove that you exist? Can you prove that you know anything absolutely? Give it a shot.
My assertion is that you cannot prove time is the same or even exists persay out there. .. So disprove that it is consistent. Should be easy ... if you are correct. Meanwhile science will march on using the current best understanding of time and space. Without reason to change there is no need to do anything else.
This is how science works in every branch, in every field, in every laboratory: we make hypothesis and test them, those that fail are discarded, those that don't fail are used to make predictions, and those predictions are then tested. Big talk NO action! You have not tested each mile to the far stars! ... We have certainly tested in on near stars that can be measured by parallax, and on SN1987A (in spite of your rabid denial). Angles are not affected by time. Actually every time a new more powerful telescope comes on line the previous calculations are reviewed. The latest is the Hubble telescope which is able to resolve even more distant systems. Note that the ability of telescopes to resolve distant object is in itself a test of distance. And scientists are working on new ones. See telescope satellite around sun quote: Please show where time is involved in that measurement.
... There are NO exoplanets that are known if the distances are actually unknown, ... Really?
quote: We know at least one planet orbits Fomalhaut because we can see it, it's existence is a FACT.
We observe that there is no known cause, no known reason, for time to be inconsistent across the universe. The universe must be molded to fit the limits of your experience and lack of knowledge about the basics like time? I think not. No, what what is "molded" is our most current understanding. Note my signature:
quote: Impossible to have some sort of time inconsistencies here where time exists. Especially ones man can 'observe'. ... Actually we used to have one with the orbit of Mercury, and then, because that was inconsistent, the Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity, and then the orbit was explained by the change in time near the sun. That is how science works. And I gave you a short (incomplete) list of possible inconsistencies that have not been observed. Just because none have been observed does not mean it is impossible to see them ... unless none exist.
... Time is invisible you know. We observe the effects. The rest of your post is rabid repeated nonsense, not an argument and not evidence or new argument for any cause or reason to affect our understanding of time. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
time writes: You canot observe planets unless time exists out there exactly woven with space as it is here though. We absolutely require time to know distance. If the distance to a so called planet is not known, which it is not unless time exists there too, then the object could be almost any size or distance. No way to say it is planet sized at all. None. Total belief based hooey that has been thought of as science til now. In a sense, you're absolutely right. Well, you were right, a few hundred (thousand?) years ago. When science first starting attempting to observe and watch the skies, they understood this issue.So they recorded whatever they could, without making any assumptions whatsoever. Because, for all they knew, everything "worked different" out there. Time, mass, energy. Everything. Everything and anything could be different. Then science started to test whatever it could about whatever observations it could make. Everything made sense. We thought this planet should be over there... if it followed the same rules (Newtonian motion) we follow here... and it was exactly there. We made predictions... in 1 years time, this moon should be here, and this planet should be there. In 1 year's time... those bodies were exactly where predicted. Then strange things started to happen.We learned more. We obtained better ways of making observations. We noticed things actually did not line up exactly. But they actually lined up "mostly." This was very weird. Some things didn't really line up at all. Like black holes and satellites orbiting our own planet. We went back to the drawing board. Newtonian motion didn't account for everything we observed. It was wrong.Eventually we discovered Relativity. Relativity included Newtonian motion... but it was more specific. Things started to fall into place again. Observations could all be explained. Things moved and reacted and were predictable in the exact sense again. Which is where we are now. No one is saying we're done.No one is saying time is the same everywhere. No one is saying we know everything. But we do know the things that line up exactly.We do know that although time is not the same everywhere... it acts and reacts the same everywhere-we-have-observations-for the same way we observe here. There are still some weirdness questions out there. A lot less, but still some.Maybe we'll discover another theory that includes Newtonian motion, and Relativity as well as all the 'weridness' we see. But even if that happens... it won't destroy the stuff that works now. Just as Newtonian motion is still used to describe the supports required to build a bridge. Even though Relativity would be more precise... it would be irrelevantly-more-precise (more work, for no gain). If Newtonian motion tells us the bridge needs to have supports 5 feet wide, and Relativity tells us the bridge needs to have supports 4.999999999999 feet wide... it doesn't matter which theory we use because they both give the same, exact answer for the question we're looking for (5'1/16"? 5'0"? 4'15/16"? - both tell use to use a support that is 5'0".) When the exactness-we-need is verified by all observations, it doesn't matter if there's something else we're missing or don't fully understand. We know we need that 5'0" support. We know how far away distant stars are. We know these things. It is possible that we don't know everything... but we do know everything-we-need-to-know to understand that the support needs to be 5'0". We also know everything-we-need-to-know to understand how far away distant stars are.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Think of our solar system more as a little timepiece in a big universe. Great, then you agree that the time between two observations made on earth can be accurately and decisively measured.
Message 486: Both markers start at the star, and thus are in the same time envelope. Let's say the first throw is a 6. Both markers move 6 places, the first along the path directly to earth, the second along the path to the ring (two places from the star) and then towards the earth. The distance from the earth to the star and the ring is assumed to be "n" (unknown) places away for this game, so after that first throw the 1st marker is {n-6} places from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)} places from earth. The distance between them is 2 places. Still close to each other in astronomical distance terms. The next throw is a 3, and the first marker is then {n-6-3} places away from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3} places away from earth, and the distance between them is still 2 places. The third throw is a 5, and the first marker is now {n-6-3-5} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places. The fourth throw is a 1, and now the first marker is {n-6-3-5-1} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5-1} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places. This continues until they reach earth, with the second marker always always always 2 places behind the first marker. This distance is constant, no matter how the "time zones" change between the earth and the star because both markers are affected equally. Once within the solar system "time zone," they are traveling on earth time, and so we record the time of the first marker arriving and then the time of the second marker arriving, convert that to distance by (speed of light/delta time) ... and that distance is necessarily the two places distance between the markers on their entire trip from the star to earth, which is necessarily the distance from the star to the ring. The "places" represent distance regardless of time. It doesn't matter how many "places" actually exist between the star and earth (ie what the distance to the star is) for determining the distance from the star to the ring, because the second marker is displaced behind the first marker by that distance. The only point where time affects the measurement is within "our solar system ... a little timepiece in a big universe" and thus according to your "little timepiece" it is a valid time measurement. Enjoy ps -- I am not replying to your messages that just repeat old claims and that are addressed elsewhere. If you want a review of these responses click on the RAZD Posts Only link and review them. Edited by RAZD, : ps addedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
thingamabob Junior Member (Idle past 2646 days) Posts: 23 From: New Jerusalem Joined: |
Hi time
time writes:
Could you explain how we experience time? Man experiences time in a certain way, I can't see time. Ican't feel time. I can't smell time. Ican't hear time. I do experience existence as I exist. I know there is duration as continual events take place in my existence.
time writes: and it takes so much time for things to happen here. Actually there is duration between events in existence that mankindmeasures by something we have designated as time. time writes: In ancient days, and even today to some extent, the cycles of the sun and moon determine the units or days and months. The length of a day eventually became accepted as so many hours. Exactly
time writes: So, yes, man did fine tune and name the time units but did not invent time. But mankind did invent how to measure the duration in existence between events they observed.
time writes: Man works with created nature even today, with such things used for time measurement as radioactive decay. How do you measure time?What is time that you can measure it? How do you measure radioactive decay? The only things we can measure are length, width, height/depth and duration between events in existence. That means you are measuring the radioactive decay of an object subjected to duration in existence. When the Egyptians divided up the period it takes the earth to causea light period and a dark period to exist they used a base 12 numbering system. This gives us a 24h day made up of 60 minutes per hour (5x12) made up of 60 seconds (5x12) per minute etc.. So yes man designed a system to measure duration between events in existence. Enjoy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Hi mate - quick question, but only if you have time. (Tangential to the topic, but connected, I guess).
Do I recall you or Cavediver once explaining (using the analogy of a meter ruler, touching the table at one end, and moving in an arc from perpendicular to flat), that everything is moving at the speed of light, as a combination of temporal and spatial velocities ? Hence the faster you move spatially, the slower time (from your frame of reference) passes. So for a photon, travelling spatially at the speed of light from the sun to earth, from its perspective, no time passes. (Though of course, from the perspective of the observer on earth, 8 minutes or so passes). And that this is an illustration of how, if one twin popped into a spaceship and zoomed around in space for a while, she'd come back younger than her twin. Edited by vimesey, : TypoCould there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13044 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
I don't know how it happened, but the latex equation color was accidentally switched to black. I have changed it back to white.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I checked Message 445 and it was still showing black on the white background.
... the latex equation color was accidentally switched to black. I have changed it back to white. Is this just for future posts or will Message 445 need to be edited in some future post? Quoting it I get
Removing the blockcolor background I get
Thanks.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
And this just in: NASA has directly imaged the motion of four planets around a star 750,000,000,000,000 miles away.
GIF here: Direct imaging of four planets orbiting the star HR 8799 129 light years away from Earth - GIF on Imgur Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Cool.
Edited by RAZD, : embeddedby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024