Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 501 of 948 (797695)
01-25-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by creation
01-25-2017 3:43 PM


Great Debate issues
re Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
No interference and no moderation of any sort?
That's how The Great Debate threads operate: just two people, 1 on 1.
Ask Percy
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 3:43 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 11:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 504 of 948 (797698)
01-25-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by creation
01-25-2017 3:35 PM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
No, not here, but the two markers are in the same boat, the same time zones (whatever they are) between here and the star.
Ah there is the Achilles heel in your analogy! You DO not have ANY points along the way to a star we can use or refer to. Some mind game exercise pretending we do or could is foolish. Face it. When you get an actual few points we can talk.
Actually there are an infinite number of points between the star and earth, because the light passed along that path, and we obtain that number by integrating the path over total length with ever increasingly small distances, but the fact remains that the second marker trails the first marker by the distance between the star and the ring.
Now I understand that you could be having difficulty accepting that your claim re the distance to the star is false, cognitive dissonance is like that, but you haven't done anything to refute the argument (denial is not a refutation).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 3:35 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 11:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 529 of 948 (797732)
01-26-2017 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 509 by Dr Adequate
01-25-2017 7:17 PM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
The base line is within our solar system and we visit both ends of it. ...
He (time) is blathering about the baseline at SN1987A being the distance between the star and the ring.
You are talking about the baseline for parallax measurements from two extremes of earth's orbit perpendicular to the object being measured.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-25-2017 7:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:28 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 556 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2017 1:19 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 542 of 948 (797747)
01-26-2017 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by creation
01-25-2017 11:00 PM


Re: Great Debate issues
(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 possible, I have tried to follow the standard academic procedure for citing online publications, where if you last accessed this page on 12May2010, and used version 2 number 1, you would cite this as:
Smith, Paul "Age Correlations and An Old Earth" EvC Forum. Ver 2 no 1 updated 27 Jan 2007, accessed 12May2010 from EvC Forum: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.
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).
  • Bristlecone Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
  • European Oaks - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).
  • German Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
  • Lake Suigetsu Varves - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
  • Annual Layers of Ice - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
  • Ice Cores in Greenland - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
  • Ice Cores in Antarctica - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
  • The Devil's Hole - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data
  • Talking Coral Heads - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).
  • Discussion of Radiometric Correlations - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.
  • The Bottom Line - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.
  • Theme Song - just for fun.
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, : ps

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 11:00 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 561 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:11 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 547 of 948 (797757)
01-26-2017 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by creation
01-25-2017 10:57 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
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:
Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.[1][2] .... Due to foreshortening, nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances.
Astronomers use the principle of parallax to measure distances to the closer stars. Here, the term "parallax" is the semi-angle of inclination between two sight-lines to the star, as observed when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun in its orbit.[3] These distances form the lowest rung of what is called "the cosmic distance ladder", the first in a succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects, serving as a basis for other distance measurements in astronomy forming the higher rungs of the ladder.
Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[6] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.
Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1/p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.7687=1.3009 parsecs (4.243 ly).[8]
Please show where time is involved in that measurement.
... There are NO exoplanets that are known if the distances are actually unknown, ...
Really?
quote:
List of nearest exoplanets
From the total of 3,565 known exoplanets orbiting around 2,675 different stars (as of January 22, 2017), only a small fraction are located in the vicinity of the Solar System. At the beginning of 2016, the nearest 74 exoplanets were confirmed to be located within 50 light-years (15.3 pc),[a] ...
Fomalhaut is a star 25 light-years away with an exoplanet (Fomalhaut b) that has been directly imaged in 2013 by NASA.
Among the confirmed the known planetary systems, 24 are located within 40 light-years, 14 are within 30 light-years, and only six are within 20 light-years. The closest exoplanet considered confirmed by NASA is Epsilon Eridani b,[4] 10.5 light-years away from our Solar System, while the closest known rocky planet is Gliese 674 b, 14.8 light-years away.[5] ...
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:
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

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, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 10:57 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:24 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 549 of 948 (797761)
01-26-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by creation
01-26-2017 9:57 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
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 added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:57 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 553 of 948 (797787)
01-27-2017 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by Admin
01-27-2017 7:41 AM


Re: Latex Equation Color
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by Admin, posted 01-27-2017 7:41 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 555 of 948 (797800)
01-27-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Dr Adequate
01-27-2017 10:13 AM


Cool.
Edited by RAZD, : embedded

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-27-2017 10:13 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 557 of 948 (797823)
01-27-2017 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by NoNukes
01-27-2017 1:19 PM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
I was about to apologize for misunderstanding, and then I read the clarifying post. He really was talking about the two extremes of the earth's orbit. ...
Yes I saw that, but he was still talking about SN1987A, and the calculation on that does NOT involve the earth orbit baseline.
See Message 489 where he is definitely talking about the SN1987A calculation in my Message 486 ... and then begins blathering about " the absurd sine rule issue, it does not apply to parallax. ... "
Seems he is very confused, mixing these two different measurements up.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2017 1:19 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:03 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 574 of 948 (797849)
01-28-2017 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by creation
01-28-2017 1:03 AM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
Time, replying to
Message 557: Yes I saw that, but he was still talking about SN1987A, and the calculation on that does NOT involve the earth orbit baseline.
See Message 489 where he is definitely talking about the SN1987A calculation in my Message 486 ... and then begins blathering about " the absurd sine rule issue, it does not apply to parallax. ... "
Seems he is very confused, mixing these two different measurements up.
Says
In other words we cannot use the base line from earth and area, because that has time imbedded in it. To use it assumes the other lines have equal time.
There is no baseline on earth used for the SN1987A distance calculation. It is not based on parallax.
Can you explain your comment\objection better in relation to the actual distance measurement method as it is discussed in Message 486?
I can go over it again in even more detail if you need it.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 560 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:03 AM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 575 of 948 (797850)
01-28-2017 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by creation
01-28-2017 1:11 AM


Re: Great Debate issues
If I take the time for a demolition derby, I do not want biased mods around.
I can understand that, I wouldn't want them either.
Of course.
Thank you. If I happen to run into moderator interference on your side can I trust you to post what I post on the thread here on that site? I've been on sites where moderators shut me off with no explanation or means to communicate. I know you wouldn't want that to happen to you, so I would promise to do the same here.
Ha you like to make little rules eh? Good luck with that.
No, I am just making suggestions on how to proceed. As noted I have started a new thread proposed for a Great Debate.
Ha. I see you really think you have a chance. Kind of a little sad. But I guess you need to learn.
I am willing to learn, are you? I have learned some things from other creationist debaters, but those actually helped strengthen my arguments.
Flatter yourself all you like. I find your arguments second rate. Passe.
Well I have had communication from people that have 'seen the light' after reading the Age Correlations and An Old Earth threads and thanked me for it.
Curiously I do feel a bit flattered when that happens, but really it is the evidence that is persuasive, not the messenger.
If I take the time for a demolition derby, I do not want biased mods around.
Of course if you like, you could agree to start on the Great Debate and then pull out if you feel you are being suppressed by biased mods.
Another alternative location for the thread is the Free For All forum:
Free For All
Interested in free and wild debate unencumbered by most moderation? Then this is the forum for you. Just stay on topic.
The only requirement there is that you stay on topic. Of course other people will be able to post there too and it gets a little wild (I tend to stay away from those threads).
OR we can ask Admin that staying on topic is the only requirement for the Great Debate. Note that the only concern expressed so far by Admin on the proposed The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1) in Proposed New Topics was
Message 4: I'd like to get a better sense of Time's sincerity before granting a one-on-one.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:11 AM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 577 of 948 (797853)
01-28-2017 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by creation
01-28-2017 1:21 AM


time and distance
Yes time here can be measured. Notice it is here.
And those measurements of time here are accurate, they don't vary. Planet orbits are consistent with our understanding of time.
There IS no distance regardless of time! Time is essential is all distance. At least here in our spacetime where there is time. Is this really all that hard to get?
Spacetime is a 4 dimensional concept. Can I not have a line in spacetime with no height, no width, just length? Such as the length of a lightbeam from time a to time b?
Message 566: That was a long post. ...
Which you basically ignored. This is why you got suspended, not answering questions related directly to your assertions.
Message 566: ... Let me at least address the issue of where time is in parallax. ...
Anyhow time is part of spacetime. You with me so far? If then time is part of space...spacetime...the when we take a slice of space for a base line, that has to include time.
Why? If I can have a line with only one space dimension (the other two space dimensions having zero value) why can I not have one with a zero time dimension. For instance, if I take simultaneous measurements of the angle from earth and from the James Webb Space Telescope:
quote:
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2. ...

Being simultaneous, would not that not mean time would have a value of zero? Would that not mean that the baseline would be "1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles)" irrespective of time?
... Time is essential is all distance. ...
Is this not like saying that width and height are essential to all measurements of length? You can't cherry pick one dimension as ruling all the others.
... Is this really all that hard to get?
Sadly there appears to be somewhat of a difference between understanding 'general relativity' (that hypothesizes space-time), and understanding your particular interpretation of it. But thank you for using general relativity (space-time) as our best understanding of how time works in your argument.
What I want to know is how you explain the observed planet in orbit around Fomalhaut (shown in different locations in the inset).
and the observed relative motion of the 4 planets in this video (A Four Planet System in Orbit, Directly Imaged and Remarkable):
How do you explain these observations? Relativity explains them. What is your explanation?
abeMessage 567:
So yes man designed a system to measure duration between events in existence.
Those who believe in God attribute that to Him first.
Don't the 7 days of creation establish time (unit = days) as a constant element for all of creation? Just curious how you meld this with your comments about time.
... The mods are already threatening me here with suspensions. You think anyone could debate here in any honest way??!! Ha. ...
And I see you have been suspended for a day. This affects me as much as it affects you in pursuing this debate.
Suspension expires: 01-29-2017 8:05 AM
22h 3m from now
See last 10 or so messages starting at Message 571 and going back. --Admin
Message 576: Hi Time,
I'm suspending you 24 hours for not debating constructively and seriously or with evidence. You will not be couched into compliance with the Forum Guidelines. Figure it out or not.
I believe that should be coached into compliance.
Do you think it unreasonable to ask that you provide more than your opinion or belief (on a science thread)? Especially when other debaters on this thread have been suspended for not following the Forum Guidelines:
10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.
I certainly expect more than just blind opinion on your responses to The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1), because opinion does not refute facts, nor has opinion shown any ability to alter reality.
You have a day to read the Forum Guidelines and plan your replies, time to gather evidence, could be time well spent.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : ..
Edited by RAZD, : ...
Edited by RAZD, : ....
Edited by RAZD, : .....
Edited by RAZD, : vi
Edited by RAZD, : vii

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:21 AM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 581 of 948 (797926)
01-29-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by creation
01-28-2017 1:53 AM


orbital speed
The 'planets happen to be almost the exact size of these....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLyBG4mqZ3s
[youtube=DLyBG4mqZ3s]:
vs
Notice any difference in relative motions? How do you explain those differences?
BTW this video shows a better representation of the Bohr atom model:
and we also know that this model is still inaccurate -- atoms do not behave like planetary systems, electrons are in a spherical cloud around the nucleus, not in a plane.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by creation, posted 01-28-2017 1:53 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by creation, posted 01-29-2017 6:58 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 590 of 948 (798020)
01-30-2017 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by creation
01-29-2017 6:58 PM


orbital speed and the velocity of disappearance
I was talking about the size of the objects going round something else, not the orbit patterns.
So you admit that your use of a poor (superseded) model of an atom was totally bogus for what we see in solar system planets, asteroids, comets and other "near space" objects.
Forbidden - Stack Exchange
.....we see that objects can be quite small, and still have orbits due to gravity. ...
Indeed, relativity (space-time) explains the observations very well, with repeatability and high confidence. Meanwhile you still have not provided a different explanation than the current space-time relativity explanation for what we observe.
Then there is the question of what gravity may be like if time and space are different! Then there is the question of what atomic orbits may be like if fundamental forces start to be different...etc. The deeper we look at the issue the more we see you don't know.
What if invisible undetectable unicorns are not pink?
And as long as our current understanding of space-time relativity explains the observations we make there will continue to be no rational reason or cause to fantasize about other possibilities.
The deeper we've looked the more advanced our understanding has become, and this is a process that will continue. That we don't know all the fine details does not invalidate our current understanding.
(Message 583)
As I understand it God defined a period of light as a day. He defined a dark period as a night. He further defined the evening of a light period and the morning following a dark period as a day. He left the rest up to mankind to figure out.
Enjoy
Well, there was the bits about new moons, and years too. If Adam lived 930 years or so, then one assumes a year was a thing that they were familiar with.
Would you not agree that their concept of "day" varies with latitude, and that at the north or south pole there would be massive contradictory anomalies between observed "days" there compared to observations at the equator? We can also throw in seasons, and note that the observations on when it is "summer" would also depend on latitude, with southern hemisphere observations being opposite to northern hemisphere observations?
If so, would you not agree with me that those "measurements" were rather crude approximations back then. Years, seasons, months and days. Certainly too crude to make scientific observations in the detail we can do today.
So our understanding of time is built on older systems with increasing accuracy\precision over time, with systems that explain observed anomalies (like day length), until we get to our current understanding (relativity, space-time). This is an ongoing process, so if you know of any aberrant observations, any anomalies, let us know. If you have a better explanation that covers these anomalies let us know. We await your scientific breakthrough concept.
Message 586: I notice I was suspended, guess I missed it as I didn't post for a few days. I am suspending my posts here to punish you for awhile. Fraudulent biased mods will no longer receive responses from me either. Ha,
Sounds more like conflict avoidance behavior, as is your refusal to offer any substantiation for your fantasy argument.
Meanwhile science will continue to use relativity space-time to explain the current observations.
Admin Message 588 Time Suspended 4 Weeks
For indicating he wouldn't respect feedback from moderators.
Poke the dragon enough times it will wake up. Note that your suspension is not because you are a creationist, it is because you don't follow the simple guidelines of the forum. Note that during this debate two (2) people were also suspended that were not creationists. That shows a lack of bias.
... Fraudulent biased mods ...
And yet, curiously, you have not demonstrated that to be the case.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 584 by creation, posted 01-29-2017 6:58 PM creation has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 592 of 948 (798045)
01-30-2017 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by Admin
01-30-2017 7:29 AM


Re: Time Suspended 4 Weeks
Does this include messaging?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 7:29 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 7:13 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024