Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 5:26 PM
362 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, hooah212002, jar, JonF, kjsimons, Meddle, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (10 members, 352 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,620 Year: 29,226/21,208 Month: 1,292/1,847 Week: 215/452 Day: 89/126 Hour: 4/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
45Next
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
time
Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


(1)
Message 586 of 663 (797946)
01-29-2017 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Admin
01-28-2017 8:04 AM


Re: Time Suspended 24 Hours
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,
This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Admin, posted 01-28-2017 8:04 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by vimesey, posted 01-30-2017 4:46 AM time has not yet responded
 Message 588 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 7:29 AM time has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 888
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(7)
Message 587 of 663 (797979)
01-30-2017 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 586 by time
01-29-2017 7:01 PM


Re: Time Suspended 24 Hours
I am suspending my posts here to punish you for awhile.

How will we know that there is a genuine period of self-suspension though, if we don't know that time is passing where you are ?


Could 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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by time, posted 01-29-2017 7:01 PM time has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 591 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-30-2017 12:03 PM vimesey has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 588 of 663 (797982)
01-30-2017 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 586 by time
01-29-2017 7:01 PM


Time Suspended 4 Weeks
For indicating he wouldn't respect feedback from moderators.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by time, posted 01-29-2017 7:01 PM time has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2017 1:13 PM Admin has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(2)
Message 589 of 663 (797998)
01-30-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 564 by time
01-28-2017 1:19 AM


Re: A bridge to the stars
time writes:

Stile writes:

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.

Try to stop patting your science on the back long enough to admit you do not know here.

We know the distance to stars as well as we know how thick a support beam for a bridge must be.

We may not know how thick a support beam must be to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... 0.00000000001 inches). But such a thing isn't necessary to know it needs to be 5'0".

We may not know how far away distant stars are to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... a few miles). But such a thing isn't necessary to know they are billions upon trillions of miles away.

When you say "you do not know here" it is not enough information.
There are many, many things we don't know, in many places. What we need to identify is if the level-of-precision you're talking about is required in order to know the stars are far away from us.

If you could explain what, specifically, it is you think we "don't know" then we can look to see if it's relevant or not.
Take your time to respond, these messages don't disappear, you don't have to reply as fast as possible. Do some thinking and try to put together a meaningful response with some content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:19 AM time has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:25 AM Stile has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 590 of 663 (798020)
01-30-2017 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 584 by time
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.

http://space.stackexchange.com/...-for-another-body-to-orbit

.....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 time, posted 01-29-2017 6:58 PM time has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15987
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 591 of 663 (798024)
01-30-2017 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 587 by vimesey
01-30-2017 4:46 AM


Re: Time Suspended 24 Hours
How will we know that there is a genuine period of self-suspension though, if we don't know that time is passing where you are ?

You are the wind beneath my wings.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 587 by vimesey, posted 01-30-2017 4:46 AM vimesey has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 592 of 663 (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 responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by Admin, posted 01-30-2017 7:13 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12536
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 593 of 663 (798088)
01-30-2017 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by RAZD
01-30-2017 1:13 PM


Re: Time Suspended 4 Weeks
Messaging works while suspended, plus Time's email address is public.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2017 1:13 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
starman
Inactive Member


Message 594 of 663 (823010)
11-05-2017 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by Stile
01-30-2017 8:41 AM


Re: A bridge to the stars
To know distances in the universe you need to have time exist there as it does here. Can you demonstrate that it does exist there and exist the same as here?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Stile, posted 01-30-2017 8:41 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 595 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 8:41 AM starman has responded
 Message 607 by Stile, posted 11-07-2017 10:18 AM starman has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 595 of 663 (823017)
11-05-2017 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by starman
11-05-2017 2:25 AM


Re: A bridge to the stars
To know distances in the universe you need to have time exist there as it does here. Can you demonstrate that it does exist there and exist the same as here?

The decay curve for cobalt was observed to match the curve we see here on earth.

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 594 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 2:25 AM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:12 PM RAZD has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 596 of 663 (823025)
11-05-2017 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 595 by RAZD
11-05-2017 8:41 AM


Re: A bridge to the stars
So? Why wouldn't it? Let's say the distances were vastly different than what we think they are, based on the calculations that depend on time existing as we know it here. So let's just use 9 light years instead of 70,000. That would affect a lot of the math.
Since time is involved in a light curve we might want to check our facts again..

If the size and distances are very wrong, assumptions such as expansion velocity, (how the distance approx proportional to center of sn etc). They also adjust the math for many things like thermal velocity, escape probability of protons...time since core collapse..dipole allowed transitions..forbidden transitions...temperature...mass...distance to the SN...etc etc to name a few.
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibc...

Edited by starman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 595 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 8:41 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 1:37 PM starman has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 597 of 663 (823033)
11-05-2017 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 596 by starman
11-05-2017 1:12 PM


Re: A bridge to the stars
So? Why wouldn't it? Let's say the distances were vastly different than what we think they are, based on the calculations that depend on time existing as we know it here. So let's just use 9 light years instead of 70,000. That would affect a lot of the math.

Nope. Assumptions don't affect math at all. We KNOW the distance from the star to the ring (see below). We KNOW the angle that the star and the ring subtend by direct measurement.

The law of sines gives us the distance, no assumptions made. Simple high school math.

That distance also confirms the speed of light has been consistent from there to here.

Since time is involved in a light curve we might want to check our facts again..

Already done, many times over.

If the size and distances are very wrong ...

They aren't. See above.

... assumptions such as expansion velocity, (how the distance approx proportional to center of sn etc). ...

... are irrelevant to the calculation.

... They also adjust the math for many things like thermal velocity, escape probability of protons...time since core collapse..dipole allowed transitions..forbidden transitions...temperature...mass...distance to the SN...etc etc to name a few.

Also irrelevant.

If you are interested we can play a little game that demonstrates why we KNOW the distance from the star to the ring.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibc...

We don't debate by links, are you prepared to discuss the details here?

I note that it doesn't have anything to do with the decay curves for 56 Co .... it talks about the temperature curves, and compares them to a model they developed.

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 596 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:12 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:46 PM RAZD has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 598 of 663 (823038)
11-05-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 597 by RAZD
11-05-2017 1:37 PM


Re: A bridge to the stars
No, you don't know distances at all. You see, you CANNOT grab a huge swath of TIME and space HERE in the earth solar system (base line) and then try to pretend it is a distance only measure! Ha.

Go ahead and play your little game about knowing distance from ring to star though. Ha.

Edited by starman, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 1:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 3:35 PM starman has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19332
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 599 of 663 (823061)
11-05-2017 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 598 by starman
11-05-2017 1:46 PM


Re: A bridge to the stars
No, you don't know distances at all. You see, you CANNOT grab a huge swath of TIME and space HERE in the earth solar system (base line) and then try to pretend it is a distance only measure! Ha.

Sadly, ignorance is not an argument, it is just ignorance.

Go ahead and play your little game about knowing distance from ring to star though. Ha.

Okay, ... I like to call the game star checkers:

It's a board game with two pieces, their movement is determined by the throw of a di, both move the amount shown on the di.

One takes a path from the star to the earth, the other takes a detour to the ring and then to the earth

Click on the image to enlarge it.

The ring is shown highly eccentric to show that we use the major axis as the diameter of the ring, the eccentricity is caused by the ring tilting away from a perfectly perpendicular plane to our line of sight. We KNOW the ring is actually circular because the whole ring lit up at the same time.

Each of the three lines is composed of dots with the exact same spacing from dot to dot, they are distance increments.

We start with both playing pieces at the star and throw the di, then move both pieces the amount of dots shown on the di, which varies from 1 to 6 in a random pattern.

Player piece A moves along the line from the star (lower left) to the earth (at the right)

Player piece B moves along the lines from the star to the ring (upper left) and then from the ring to the earth without stopping at the ring.

When player piece A reaches the earth we are in the modern (1987) era with consistent speed of light and travel distances ...

so we keep repeating the last distance thrown on the di until player piece B reaches the earth.

The difference in time between player piece A reaching the earth and player piece B reaching the earth is then multiplied by the modern (1987) era speed of life both are experiencing gives us an accurate measure of the distance from the star to the ring.

This time is known. This calculation of the distance between the star and the ring is thus a known fact.

Thank you for playing.

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 598 by starman, posted 11-05-2017 1:46 PM starman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 600 by starman, posted 11-06-2017 1:44 AM RAZD has responded

  
starman
Inactive Member


Message 600 of 663 (823095)
11-06-2017 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 599 by RAZD
11-05-2017 3:35 PM


Re: A bridge to the stars
quote:
Sadly, ignorance is not an argument, it is just ignorance.

One example of a base line for parallax measurement is the distance earth moves in six months. That is a huge distance. It involves a big piece of spacetime. If you admit time exists here, then time exists with the space. Not sure what you are missing here.
Sadly, ignorance is not an argument, it is just ignorance.

Go ahead and play your little game about knowing distance from ring to star though. Ha.

quote:
Okay, ... I like to call the game star checkers:
It's a board game with two pieces, their movement is determined by the throw of a di, both move the amount shown on the di.

One takes a path from the star to the earth, the other takes a detour to the ring and then to the earth

Click on the image to enlarge it.

The ring is shown highly eccentric to show that we use the major axis as the diameter of the ring, the eccentricity is caused by the ring tilting away from a perfectly perpendicular plane to our line of sight. We KNOW the ring is actually circular because the whole ring lit up at the same time.

Each of the three lines is composed of dots with the exact same spacing from dot to dot, they are distance increments.

We start with both playing pieces at the star and throw the di, then move both pieces the amount of dots shown on the di, which varies from 1 to 6 in a random pattern.

Player piece A moves along the line from the star (lower left) to the earth (at the right)

Player piece B moves along the lines from the star to the ring (upper left) and then from the ring to the earth without stopping at the ring.

When player piece A reaches the earth we are in the modern (1987) era with consistent speed of light and travel distances ...

so we keep repeating the last distance thrown on the di until player piece B reaches the earth.

The difference in time between player piece A reaching the earth and player piece B reaching the earth is then multiplied by the modern (1987) era speed of life both are experiencing gives us an accurate measure of the distance from the star to the ring.

This time is known. This calculation of the distance between the star and the ring is thus a known fact.

Thank you for playing.



The speed of anything around the SN is not known unless the distance to the SN is known. To get that distance you cannot assume that a slice of time and space in the solar system is equal to a slice of time and space where the stars are!
For your checker game, we know that exists IN our space and time so we CAN determine size and distances.

My Blog where comments and debate are welcome
https://mountaintwentyone.wixsite.com/home/blog

This message is a reply to:
 Message 599 by RAZD, posted 11-05-2017 3:35 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 601 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2017 7:30 AM starman has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
3839
40
4142
...
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017