|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5246 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
ICANT:
Change is movement in space. Movement, in this instance, means any increase or decrease in length, width, height, distance, direction. spin, etc. Any change requires Time in order to be expressed. But you argue Time does not exist. So I ask a question to you: If Time does not exist, then we should be able to express change without the concept of Time. We currently use the formula Speed = distance/Time to plot the changes in position of a point along the xyz axes over a period of Time. But if you are correct and Time does not exist, then we should be able to express speed without using Time. That's my challenge to you - Express speed mathematically without using Time. Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Hyro,
Hyroglyphx writes: The universe is expanding at a finite rate. That is questionable. It depends on the CMBR being a fact.
Hyroglyphx writes: I'm sure you are away that because light travels in a vacuum at a measurable and constant rate, I have read where light travels x speed in a vacuum. A vacuum being an absence of anything. The light we see in the universe from different objects is not traveling in a vacuum. There is no such thing as empty space as it is said to be inhabited by dark matter.
Hyroglyphx writes: If space and time began at the same moment, Is there any scientific evidence that they did begin simultaneously? What is space? I think I understand what space is. Space is a place where objects exist with some things in that space crowded and some not so crowded. I can see space it is what is between all those objects. What is time? My understanding of time is, that it is a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence. But I am told it is a dimenson. Which is a concept of man. I am told it is a property of the universe. Which is a concept of man. Is time physical? If so what is time made of? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3673 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
why don't you take the time to put together a new dictionary of the english language I help edit several dictionaries of science, physics, and mathematics, most available worldwide. I do not change the definition of anything. The words we use as scientists do not necessarily have the same meaning/definition as those words used by those outside science. So what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Straggler,
Straggler writes: Yet radioactive isotopes will continue to decay at he same half life rates, trees will continue to grow the same rings that we use as a form of scientific clock now etc. etc. etc. Things will exist as they have always existed.
Straggler writes: How do things change without time? They exist.
Straggler writes: No ICANT it isn't. Time actually runs slower in a stronger gravitational field. The mechanism marking man's concept of time runs slower in a stronger gravitational field.
Straggler writes: If you go round a bend still at a speed of 70MPH you are accelerating. That is the point here. This is extremely basic physics ICANT. I have to agree that this is what is taught in physics. I just disagree.
Straggler writes: You also refuse to accept that the answer "we don't know" is a strength of science rather than a weakness.
I don't mind the answer to the question, "what is the origin of the universe?" to be "we don't know". Just in the next breath don't tell me I am ignorant and unlearned and stupid to think I know because some book I have read tells me that God created the heaven and the earth. If you don't know the origin of the universe that book has a good possibility of being correct until proven wrong by scientific, verifiable evidence.
Straggler writes: The problem is that you think you understand the problems What makes you think I think I understand the problems. I have only pointed out problems that are well known and have been put forth by scientist not by me. I had a thread where I asked that those problems be discussed. They were not discussed by anyone. It was admited there was problems but that inflation solved all the problems. End of discussion. The next problem is there is no theory of inflation. There are a lot of hypothesis.
Straggler writes: predictively verified and evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt. Then why do all those questions remain unsolved?
Straggler writes: you can validly just insert your own unevidenced nonsense in place of established science. There is no established science when it comes to the origin of the universe or life. So my unevidenced nonsence is just as valid and your unevidenced scientific nonsence. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Ned,
NosyNed writes: You have muddled up quantum mechanics and relativity. I thought they did a pretty good job of muddying up each other as they are incompatible. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I thought they did a pretty good job of muddying up each other as they are incompatible. You comment is true and utterly irrelevant to the issue of your muddledness. It does help support another facet of your thinking though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Izanagi,
Izanagi writes: Change is movement in space. Explain how an apple changing from green to red is a movement in space.
Izanagi writes: But if you are correct and Time does not exist, then we should be able to express speed without using Time. Grandma is slow but she has existed a lot longer than you have. That dude is traveling at a snail's pace. But that guy in the red car is traveling as the cheetah runs. You are as slow as a turtle.
Izanagi writes: Express speed mathematically without using Time. When did man's concept of math begin to exist? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Ned,
NosyNed writes: You comment is true and utterly irrelevant to the issue of your muddledness. It does help support another facet of your thinking though. I will totally agree that I am looking through dark glasses that have a lot of fuzzy accumulation over the years on them. I just keep looking for the lens cleaner and a few good wipes to clear away a litle of the mud so a little light can shine through, so I won't be so confused. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi Izanagi,
Izanagi writes: Any change on the xyz-axes creates a new event and the duration between the events is what Time is.
The duration between events is what man invented the concept of time to be able to desiginate how far apart these two events were. It could be desiginated as, 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year. If we only had a way to determine how long each of these lasted in duration. I know what we could do. We could divide up the light and dark periods that seem to be on a regular basis. Lets say 12 hours of light and 12 hours of darkness. Then we further divide up 1 hour into 60 minutes and then 1 minute into 60 seconds. Now we can apply that to any duration/existence we desire. It only means that we have decided to decree that according to our concept of time x amount of time has expired between 2 events. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes: The words we use as scientists do not necessarily have the same meaning/definition as those words used by those outside science. So what? If you use the same word and apply a different meaning/definition you have changed the meaning of those words. So wouldn't it have been a lot easier if science, physics, and mathematics, had their own word's rather than using words that would confuse the masses? God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Using your numbers. You can not observe the signal moving away from you at 300,000 kms. Because you are traveling in the opposite direction at 150,000 kms for a total of 450,000 kms. Unless you stop. The speed of light is 300,000 kms so from the point the message was sent it is traveling 300,000 kms and that is the reason it covers one light year in one light year. Because you were traveling 150,000 kms in the opposite direction has no effect on the speed of light. To clarify this point, I meant to make it clear that the ship was approaching earth. If the light seems to be travelling from them at 300,000km/s and they seem to be travelling towards earth at 150,000km/s then it should take less than a year for the light to travel a year. It seems your opinion is that they would actually measure the light travelling away from them at 150,000km/s which is fine, but it disagrees with observation so you need to explain how this occurs.
What is there to square? It seems at the moment you need to square your belief that some observers will measure the speed of light as travelling at a variable relative speed to them depending on their own movement with the fact that that we've performed the experiment and discovered that they don't, the always measure the speed of light to be the same regardless of whether they are rushing towards the photons, or travelling in the same direction as them at some speed. They will always pass us at 300,000km/s. I appreciate that if I am heading towards a train in a car at 100mph relative and the train is moving at 100mph and there are 200 miles that separate us then I will see that we meet after 1 hour. So the train was approaching at a rate of 200mph relative to me. Observation shows that this doesn't happen with light. This has significant ramifications which are relevant to the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Straggler writes: If you go round a bend still at a speed of 70MPH you are accelerating. That is the point here. This is extremely basic physics ICANT. I have to agree that this is what is taught in physics. I just disagree. Your disagreement does nothing to change reality, neither does your ignorance. You are easily proven wrong on this matter. Put water in a bucket, attach a rope to the handle and spin the bucket by the rope in a circle, if you go fast enough the water will stay in the bucket. Why? because the water is accerating away from the center of rotation even when the bucket is rotating at a constant speed. This is grade school physics, have you not heard of centripedal force? It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I have to agree that this is what is taught in physics. I just disagree. Yes, of course and meteors really are falling actual stars. Un f ing believable!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
because the water is accerating away from the center of rotation even when the bucket is rotating at a constant speed. I'm suspecting that this statement is rather seriously flawed. I think the force vector is inward and in line with the rope (or whatever) that the bucket is being spun by, Therefore the acceleration is also in that same direction. Note that the inner end of that rope is note a fixed point, but rather is itself a circle. Also, the force on the pail is actually a composite force of gravity and of that of the rope. A real physics type can surely explain it better. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: If you go round a bend still at a speed of 70MPH you are accelerating. That is the point here. This is extremely basic physics ICANT. I have to agree that this is what is taught in physics. I just disagree. So not content with disputing the whole of modern physics you are now denying one the founding principles of Newtonian mechanics. Namely Newton's second law F=ma. You have truly excelled yourself this time ICANT.
Then why do all those questions remain unsolved? Because the exceptionally well evidenced scientific fact that the universe has evolved from a very hot very dense state is entirely different from modelling the nature of T=0 with which you are so obsessed.
So my unevidenced nonsence is just as valid and your unevidenced scientific nonsence. It is difficult to take anything that someone in denial of around 300 years worth of established scientific fact says as being anything other than nonsense. It would be desperately funny if it were not so sadly true.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024