Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 669 of 948 (826965)
01-15-2018 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 666 by creation
01-14-2018 11:19 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
quote:
We have hard evidence for how far away stars are,...
Let's see it. You seem to believe you do. Ha.
The paragraph you extracted that sentence from explains in summary form how we know how far away stars are, and it includes a link to Wikipedia that contains a great deal more detail. Here's the full paragraph, including the link to Wikipedia:
Percy in Message 648 writes:
It's just about the word "accepting." We have hard evidence for how far away stars are, with the error ranges growing with increasing distance. There's also something called the cosmic distance ladder. It starts with the distances to close stars established through the parallax of Earth's orbit (e.g., Alpha Centauri) as a basis for establishing the distance to more distant stars, and moves outward from there using a variety of techniques.
We can discuss the details of how the distances to stars are established as much as you wish.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 666 by creation, posted 01-14-2018 11:19 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 671 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:25 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 674 of 948 (827021)
01-15-2018 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 671 by creation
01-15-2018 1:25 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
percy writes:
..explains in summary form how we know how far away stars are, and it includes a link to Wikipedia that contains a great deal more detail
Dealt with in last post to razd.
Except that it wasn't. RAZD explained this issue in the message references he provided you that you're evidently either not reading or not understanding. The way I would briefly explain it myself would be to say that we know how fast time is proceeding at great distances from Earth by observing the rate of the passage of time through observing the natural processes taking place there, such as the frequencies at which various gases emit or absorb light.
I think it's great to be skeptical of scientific knowledge, but your issue seems less of skepticism and more of ignorance.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 671 by creation, posted 01-15-2018 1:25 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 676 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 10:03 AM Percy has replied
 Message 677 by Astrophile, posted 01-16-2018 11:14 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 678 of 948 (827074)
01-16-2018 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 676 by creation
01-16-2018 10:03 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
How fast time is proceeding? We only see things here.
We see many more things than are here - we see the planets and stars and they are very far away. Maybe you meant, "We only see things from here," but that isn't true either, as I'll explain.
Only here can we measure anything moving in time.
We not only see things from here, we also see things from our space probes. Obviously space-time is the same all the way out to the Voyager spacecraft that are now way way out beyond Pluto, since they continue to work normally as designed.
If we see something far far far out of our time and space area here, we still see it in our time.
Yes, according to relativity each observer has a unique perspective looking out into the universe from his own coordinate system.
We could call it a fishbowl.
We could have, but the term we actually adopted was relativity.
All you seek to do is equate the way things move and behave in time here, to how it does far away from here. How? You merely use the time here that we see things from far away as the measure for how much time is involved.
That could only work if time also existed the same out there as it does here. That you do not know.
Actually we do know. We use red-shift (or sometimes blue-shift) to tell us how fast something is moving relative to us, then we use relativity to tell us how to predict its future motions, both locally in its own coordinate system and relative to us. We know how to calculate how space/time will behave in coordinate systems in relative motion.
So careful tossing the word ignorant around.
Why? There's no shame in ignorance. We're all ignorant of most of human knowledge. In your case you seem to be ignorant of cosmology and relativity.
I understand almost every poster here almost, it seems is also a mod, so there is the natural problem of having a lost argument silenced by misusing the mod power. Resist the temptation.
Moderators are discouraged from moderating in discussions where they're participating. It's in the Moderator Guidelines:
  1. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility
    Be very careful when moderating in any thread where you are also a participant. Never use moderator powers to provide an advantage in discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 10:03 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 10:04 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 685 of 948 (827184)
01-19-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by creation
01-19-2018 10:04 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
Circular reasoning.
There's no circular reasoning.
You see redshifted light involves time.
Actually, it involves space-time.
How fast something is going away from us (or toward us) involves time.
How fast anything happens involves space-time, and the rate at which processes at remote distances occur relative to here on Earth tells us the degree of effect on space-time.
Yes, we have probes, but (anomalies aside) no probe is even ONE light day away, so all probes are basically in the fishbowl! Even if they were near the fringes, we do not yet really know. That has no relevance to deep space.
You're repeating yourself, and the answer hasn't changed. Voyager 1 is about .7 of a light day away. Is a light day your threshold? If a probe reaches a distance of a light day from the sun and still perceives things out there as being the same as here, will that settle it for you? Because in about 15 years Voyager 1 will be about a light day away.
Your "fishbowl" is a made up term. You have no definition for it, have no idea how big it is, how far it extends, you just made it up.
Relativity is fine, but basically cannot be shown to be applicable in deep space, correct?
That would be incorrect, for the reasons given above, that we can tell how fast an object is approaching/receding by blue/red shift and by the rate at which natural processes are proceeding, for instance the frequency of emission/absorption of gases, which also tells us how much of the red shift is due to expansion of space.
Remember that if there were no time as we know it,...
But we know a great deal about space-time, because we can see it and measure it.
...we also need to question gravity and other things as being necessarily the way they are here. So gravitational lensing for all we know, out in deep space might be either something else entirely, or partially.
But we know the nature of space-time wherever we look in the universe, because the electromagnetic radiation arriving from far away tells us all about it. And we know that gravity out there behaves like gravity here because of the way stars and galaxies and galactic clusters move, and because of effects like gravitational lensing that produce things like Einstein rings.
For example it could also be partially some sort of time lensing effect.
You mean where the further out we look into the universe the further back in time we're seeing objects? That couldn't produce red/blue shift or changes in the rate at which natural processes proceed.
Even if it were just gravity, we need to ask how much gravity, and how much mass and size objects being affected really represent!
The motion of objects relative to one another tells us how much gravity and mass, and often the density.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 10:04 AM creation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 688 of 948 (827206)
01-19-2018 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by creation
01-19-2018 4:15 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
So? You only see it HERE! How much time is involved here is all you see and know!
You're repeating yourself instead of responding to what was said.
The answer hasn't changed. We know how much time passes for objects at great distances because we know how certain processes occur here on Earth, and we can observe how fast those processes proceed for distant objects. For example, you can find the spectra of absorption for some common elements at Stellar Spectra, and here's the spectra for hydrogen:
We see this same absorption spectra when we look at distant stars, confirming that what happens here also happens there, but shifted toward lower longer wavelengths because of speed of recession and the expansion of space.
How in the world do you cross the street? If you see a car moving down the street, do you just ignore it since time down the street doesn't exist, time only exists where you are?
The streets we cross are here. Face it.
Depends how you define here. Your house? Your neighborhood? Your city? Your country? Your planet? Your solar system? Your galaxy? Your universe? Here in our universe, everywhere we look the laws of nature are the same out there as they are here.
All you are doing is rejecting direct observations because they don't fit with your religious beliefs.
False. I do not reject what we see. It does take light so much time to move so far here...etc etc.
What is true both observationally and theoretically is that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:15 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 698 of 948 (827324)
01-22-2018 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 689 by creation
01-21-2018 2:40 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
percy writes:
You're repeating yourself instead of responding to what was said.
The answer hasn't changed. We know how much time passes for objects at great distances because we know how certain processes occur here on Earth,
Hilarious!!
This response indicates a lack of comprehension.
You just admitted you think you know how time is there because you are here and time works a certain way here.
When we look at the spectrum of light emitted from the sun, we can tell what gasses are present in the suns atmosphere by the lines of absorption. Different elements absorb light at different wavelengths. When we look at the spectrum of light arriving from distant stars and galaxies we see the same absorption lines, only shifted according to their velocity of line-of-sight recession. This means that these distant stars are composed as the same elements as our sun, though of course in differing amounts and at different temperatures. The relative position of the absorption lines means that time passes there in the same way it passes here. This is based on observations and not on beliefs.
and we can observe how fast those processes proceed for distant objects.
NO. You only observe HERE IN time!
We observe from wherever we happen to be at the time, whether with or own eyes or by way of remote probes. And no matter where we happen to observe from, the laws of physics that we observe are always the same.
For example, you can find the spectra of absorption for some common elements at Stellar Spectra, and here's the spectra for hydrogen:
We see this same absorption spectra when we look at distant stars, confirming that what happens here also happens there, but shifted toward lower longer wavelengths because of speed of recession and the expansion of space.
So what!!??
We see light here, and apparently it tells us certain elements exist in the star. That does not tell us how much time is involved.
Note: If you want to copy a part of a message that includes dBCodes for images or formatting, click on Peek Mode so you can see the raw text used to create the message.
Most certainly it tells us how much time is involved. f = c / λ, where f is cycles/second and c is meters/second. Most certainly time is a critical component.
Depends how you define here. Your house? Your neighborhood? Your city? Your country? Your planet? Your solar system? Your galaxy? Your universe? Here in our universe, everywhere we look the laws of nature are the same out there as they are here.
How about what we know? What star have you crossed a street at?
The actual question was why you think we can only know time exists where we are. Crossing the street was just an example. Try to keep up.
I have been generous and called the fishbowl the solar system and area. That is further than you will ever go, or any probe. Remember, your probe is less than a light day away. Get back to us when it is a whole week away!
The probe is just an example of your ever shrinking religious claims. As the probe becomes more distant your religiously based claims dwindle. But the Voyager probes are just one of the sources of data we have for why the laws of nature here are the same out there.
All you are doing is rejecting direct observations because they don't fit with your religious beliefs.
Absurdly false.
Patently obvious, actually. You have neither provided evidence nor engaged any evidence offered.
I do not reject what we see here, or the time it takes here to move or etc etc! I reject beliefs that involve what is not seen.
The evidence provided is what we see.
What is true both observationally and theoretically is that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe.
Based on what? How do you measure speed of light say, 10 billion light years away?? Ha. You made the claim, so let's see what you got.
c is a fundamental constant of the universe, and because f = c / λ we know from our observations of the behavior of matter in distant stars and galaxies that the speed of light is the same there as here.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 689 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:40 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 699 by NoNukes, posted 01-22-2018 6:52 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 703 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:54 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 705 of 948 (827482)
01-26-2018 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 700 by creation
01-26-2018 9:33 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
From your Message 700, Message 701 and Message 702:
creation writes:
The evidence for a same time in deep space is zilch.
...
Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.
...
You have never taken any clock out of the fishbowl actually. We know you believe the whole of creation has to be just like the fishbowl, but you do not know that at all.
Much, much more than zilch evidence has been presented to you. You're just avoiding addressing it.
God any actual science?
Little Freudian typo there?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 700 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:33 AM creation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 710 of 948 (827512)
01-26-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 703 by creation
01-26-2018 9:54 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:
percy writes:
When we look at the spectrum of light emitted from the sun, we can tell what gasses are present in the suns atmosphere by the lines of absorption. Different elements absorb light at different wavelengths. When we look at the spectrum of light arriving from distant stars and galaxies we see the same absorption lines, only shifted according to their velocity of line-of-sight recession. This means that these distant stars are composed as the same elements as our sun, though of course in differing amounts and at different temperatures. The relative position of the absorption lines means that time passes there in the same way it passes here. This is based on observations and not on beliefs.
Not in any way is that true.
Given the stuff you make up, why would anyone believe you?
The position of lines tells us nothing about time there.
Given that the positions of the spectral lines are at specific frequencies, and given that frequency is a function of time, how could the position of the spectral lines fail to tell us about space-time out there?
Yes there are elements and gasses out there. However that is only what we see, so who knows what else is also out there that we cannot detect?
Anything that has an effect on what we *can* see is detectable. What we see in spectral lines does not appear distorted or altered beyond the expected effects of Doppler shift and the expansion of space.
Science admits seeing only 5% remember?
More accurately, only 5% of the universe consists of baryonic (normal) matter. The rest is dark matter (25%) and dark energy (70%), which are present here on Earth and in our solar system, in other words, inside your "fishbowl," an entirely inappropriate and poorly chosen term for a phenomenon that has never been observed and for which there is no evidence, and certainly no theoretical foundation.
Dark matter is invisible. It cannot be "seen" except by its gravitational effects on things that are visible, like galaxies and galactic clusters. It can affect the shift of spectral lines. Dark energy is just a placeholder term for whatever is causing the accelerating expansion of the universe, and it, too, can affect the shift of spectral lines, though the mechanism is not gravitational but is a result of its effect on space-time.
We observe from wherever we happen to be at the time, whether with or own eyes or by way of remote probes. And no matter where we happen to observe from, the laws of physics that we observe are always the same.
IN ALL cases you are in the fishbowl of earth and solar system area! No exceptions. Thus far and no further.
As long as observations are adjusted according to the laws of general relativity, all observers see the same thing regardless of location. There is no evidence of your 1.4 light day diameter "fishbowl" centered on our sun where the laws of nature are different from the rest of the universe. You're just making things up. You'd be making just as much sense if you claimed griffins and unicorns were real, since there's just as much evidence for them as for your fictional "fishbowl."
We see this same absorption spectra when we look at distant stars, confirming that what happens here also happens there, but shifted toward lower longer wavelengths because of speed of recession and the expansion of space.
It is almost meaningless that the light we see here behaves a certain way here.
The light we observe here, whether it originated locally or from another galaxy, appears to behave the same.
That tells us nothing about time there.
The expansion of space is a significant factor when observing objects at great distances from here - there's a red shift that we observe in spectral lines. Doppler shifts are a factor when observing objects moving relative to ourselves - there can be a red or blue shift in the spectral lines. Most cosmological objects moving relative to us at any significant speed are receding (red shift), though the nearby Andromeda galaxy (blue shift) is an exception.
Without time there being as here,...
Whatever the contributions to the shift, it is more accurate to talk of space-time rather than just time.
...no distances/mass/sizes etc etc are known.
The cosmic distance ladder allows us to know the distance to most cosmological objects with a fair degree of accuracy. The masses of many objects can be calculated from the effects of gravity. The sizes of stars are a rough function of star type and age, which we know from inherent brightness and examination of the spectra. The sizes of galaxies can be inferred using analogous techniques.
We could get spectra from the space station of hydrogen also...so? That would be significant because we do know how far away that is.
On the space station you'd need a glowing gas that contained hydrogen. If you performed the experiment in such a way that you could observe the glowing gas both from the space station and also from the ground here on Earth, you'd find that the spectral lines observed here on Earth had been shifted by the slightest amounts from those observed on the space station because of the gravity well that light from the space station falls into.
Most certainly it tells us how much time is involved. f = c / λ, where f is cycles/second and c is meters/second. Most certainly time is a critical component.
Most certainly not actually. The C is only representing light acting and moving IN time HERE.
This would be false. c is a universal constant, the same throughout the universe.
In fact all the symbols and letters in your formula are fishbowl figures!
Your "fishbowl" is a fiction with no evidence or data, not even some offbeat theoretical basis. All the evidence we have says that f = c / λ holds true everywhere.
The actual question was why you think we can only know time exists where we are. Crossing the street was just an example. Try to keep up.
The actual point was that a street on earth is not appropriate in measuring deep space.
Well in that case you should say what you mean. How do you know what the distance is for the diameter of your "fishbowl"? You have no data, so how do you know what light from outside the "fishbowl" looks like? Maybe it looks just like light from inside the "fishbowl." How would you know? Given your complete lack of data, the "fishbowl" might extend to the end of your nose, or maybe to your front door, or maybe to the next street, or maybe to the next town, or maybe to the next country, or maybe (gasp!) across the entire universe. Who knows? You certainly don't, because all you have is something you made up.
The probe is just an example of your ever shrinking religious claims. As the probe becomes more distant your religiously based claims dwindle. But the Voyager probes are just one of the sources of data we have for why the laws of nature here are the same out there.
The Voyager is on the fringes (at best) of the fishbowl. That has zero to do with nature in the past.
The fictional "fishbowl", you mean? The one with no evidence that you made up?
When we receive radio signals from the Voyagers, they're from about 17 hours in the past.
The evidence provided is what we see.
Then you see less than I thought.
No one could see less than you thought.
c is a fundamental constant of the universe,
You are mistaken as shown. C is the speed of light in the fishbowl! You only assumed it reflected the whole universe.
c is a universal constant, and I believe it is always lowercase, even at the beginning of a sentence. There are no assumptions. If the laws governing the universe were different out there than they are here, we would observe distant objects obeying those different laws. We don't. We observe them obeying the same laws that apply here.
and because f = c / λ we know from our observations of the behavior of matter in distant stars and galaxies that the speed of light is the same there as here.
Not at all. You do not just get to declare the speed of light in the fishbowl some universal constant. The fine constant structure also is a fishbowl concept. So is any force or anything else here. Energy also.
The reason we don't get to declare the speed of light or the fine structure constant or forces or energy in the "fishbowl" as universal is because there's no such thing as the "fishbowl." Things that exist that make a difference leave evidence behind, and your "fishbowl" ain't got no evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 703 by creation, posted 01-26-2018 9:54 AM creation has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 727 of 948 (827556)
01-27-2018 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by creation
01-27-2018 1:35 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Responding to a number of your messages...
Regarding your Message 713 to NoNukes:
creation in Message 713 writes:
nonukes writes:
...
Still having trouble with quoting, I see.
The only place you see anything progress is here. Face it. Light we see here is here. No matter where it is from it is seen here, and unfolds in time here. No denying it.
You're still babbling the same nonsense. Evidence has been presented that you've ignored. You've instead chosen to repeat the same objection without elaboration like a broken record, and you've presented no evidence yourself, nor even a description of what you think is causing the distant universe to appear to behave the same as the local universe when it really isn't. From the Forum Guidelines:
  1. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
The relevant portion of this rule is, "Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration."
Regarding your Message 714 to RAZD:
creation in Message 714 writes:
razd writes:
..
Still having trouble with that pesky quoting, huh. Well hang in there, you'll get it eventually.
God is not a cheerio God is not a dollar bill, and God is not science.
God is also not the topic of this thread. This is a science thread.
Since God is known by a plethora of infallible proofs outside of science, reason demands that the inability of science to detect God does not mean much outside of science. They just have pathetic detecting ability.
Gee, you should propose a thread to discuss this over at Proposed New Topics.
You have not dealt with time in far space so it is disingenuous to pretend some evidence was offered.
Not time, space-time. And multiple people have described how we know that the distant universe follows the same laws as the local universe. As already pointed out above, you've ignored this information and repeated your original claim without elaboration.
Regarding your Message 715 to Taq:
Still can't get that quoting right, huh. Well, genius, at least you've got consistency going for you.
Since all the fishbowl represents is the extend of what man knows and where he has been, the evidence is clear and undeniable and overwhelming.
You have presented no evidence for a "fishbowl". It's just something you made up, and made up things are easily refuted and overwhelmed.
We only been so far,...
But have seen much further.
...and we only know so much.
True, but even more true of you.
Regarding your Message 716 to Taq:
creation in Message 716 writes:
Nothing about time far away was presented actually.
As already pointed out above, a great deal of evidence was presented that you've ignored, and you've presented no evidence of your own.
Regarding your Message 718 to RAZD:
creation in Message 718 writes:
All that I ask is that you cease and desist ignoring the lack of evidence you have, and admit it is belief.
Pretending that evidence hasn't been presented to you when it most obviously has (just read the thread) is just you demonstrating how irrational the religious can be when their beliefs are threatened.
Every test scientists have made show a continuous pattern of time-space, and there is no cause, no rational, no reason, to believe anything else.
Utterly meaningless.
I grant that your response has this quality.
They put a clock in a plane. Whoopee do. They have no ability to test what time is outside this area. Heck, they don't even know what it is here!
Time in physics has a clear and unambiguous definition. A second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of a radiating cesium atom.
Amusingly the star space checker game accounts for things being different.
Mind games may loom large inside your head. They have no bearing on reality though.
The star space checker exercise is not a mind game, but it is worth mentioning that thought experiments have played an important role in science, for example, in Einstein's development of relativity.
The star spacer checker exercise models three distances involving the Earth and the SN1987A system. One distance is from the star to the Earth. Another distance is from the right to the Earth. And a third distance is from the star to the ring. RAZD used this diagram:
Click on the image to expand it to a viewable size.
The exercise examines how long it takes to go from the star directly to the Earth versus how long it takes to go from the star to the ring and then from the ring to the Earth. Rolling the die allows you to model the possibility that the speed of light was different and varied in the past. RAZD can correct me if I've bungled this description in some way.
You do not get to try and make the universe a checkerboard where the squares are all equal for no apparent reason...as clever as you might think your little invented games are.
But the distances must have remained consistent over time (taking into account the relative velocities of moving objects), else everything we see from the distant universe would be distorted.
In addition you have failed to present any evidence whatsoever that there has been any kind of change. You want us to 'prove' you wrong when you have provided no evidence to evaluate for truthiness.
I assume you are back on earth again? Well, science can't tell us if there was or was not a nature change here in the far past.
The Oklo natural reactor has already been described for you, which covers natural physical laws here in the distant past pretty well. And we've described how we know that the natural physical laws were the same in the distant past at great distances from here. Science *can* tell us whether natural physical laws were different in the past both here and far out in the universe.
So you may not claim either by science. I don't. I simply point out science doesn't know. Why not be honest also?
Yes, Creation, why not be honest and a) address the evidence that's been presented to you instead of just repeating yourself; and b) present your own evidence for the fictional "fishbowl".
Wishing is not science, denial of science is not science, making stuff up out of the blue is not science.
Great. So when you get some science get back to us.
Scientific evidence has been presented to you. Please stop ignoring it. Please stop repeating your ignorant blather about a "fishbowl".
You need to show the errors and evidence that it is errors (not make it up) if you want to say the current understanding of time and space is wrong. The onus is on you.
Easy to do. The error is that they base all models on belief only. The error is in deep space, that they just believe time exists there as here with no evidence. The error on earth is that they use present nature to model the past when they do not know what nature existed. Check and mate.
You're just repeating the same errors over and over again. Evidence has been presented to you. Ignoring it doesn't help you make your case. Addressing this evidence and showing how it is wrong, or presenting your own evidence, or both, is how you make your case.
Once again you provide a stellar example of the ridiculous lengths evos...
Evos? We're not talking about evolution.
...will go to pretend that the so called reality which is really religion, does exist as described by science -- you have to make everything illusion with not one thing based on fact. That origin science.
You're very confused. SN1987A is a cosmological phenomenon having nothing to do with evolution or the origin of life.
Regarding your Message 719 to RAZD:
creation in Message 719 writes:
The fishbowl is just a term to describe the solar system and area where man has actually been and has some direct knowledge.
You have presented no evidence for a "fishbowl" defining a boundary of demarcation between two different sets of natural physical laws. It is something you've made up.
Regarding your Message 720 to Tangle:
creation in Message 720 writes:
tangle writes:
Fantastic, let's see these proofs.
You want to get into proofs that are outside of science on a science forum?
Hey, congratulations, you finally figured out quoting.
I'll just repeat the suggestion I made earlier, that you propose a new thread over at Proposed New Topics to discuss your proofs about God.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Clarify cesium atom comment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by creation, posted 01-27-2018 1:35 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 728 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:03 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 734 of 948 (827625)
01-28-2018 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by creation
01-28-2018 4:03 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
Responding to several of your messages...
Regarding your Message 728 to me:
Boy did you ever make a mess of the quoting in that message! Let me know if you want me to go in and fix it for you. I've already fixed your mess where I quote you here.
creation in Message 728 writes:
percy writes:
You're still babbling the same nonsense. Evidence has been presented that you've ignored that shows the supposed...
evidence you cite is beliefs only.
No, it's evidence that you either dismiss or ignore.
You've instead chosen to repeat the same objection without elaboration like a broken record, and you've presented no evidence yourself, nor even a description of what you think is causing the distant universe to appear to behave the same as the local universe when it really isn't.
I do not think the universe is any way.
Well, your first four words are correct.
You think time is the same, and we see no evidence given for that.
I provided spectral line evidence and described how the shifts tell us the shape of space-time and are consistent with the theory of relativity. You had no answer other than to call it all just a belief, which is really just your belief since there is no evidence for your position.
Pointing out science does not know is not claiming I know.
Clearly you do not know.
Nothing you have posted deals with time in the far universe.
Actually I've talked about space-time, and once again you're engaging in gross misrepresentation. The evidence I've posted was about what the light arriving from objects millions and billions of light years away tells us.
Seeing light here is seeing light IN time here.
Yes, of course. The light we see, whether it originated across the street or across the universe, is seen wherever we happen to be at the time, or as you put it, "here".
That does not even address if time exists the same far away.
Again, we have to talk about space-time. The shape of space-time is not the same everywhere. It is bent by the gravity associated with mass, and by the relative velocities of coordinate systems. Observations are consistent with theory.
Remember the forum guidelines.
Follow the Forum Guidelines.
Regarding your Message 729 to Tangle:
creation in Message 729 writes:
Jesus rising from the dead as observed by hundreds of people.
I again suggest you take your religious arguments to the religious forums. This thread is in one of the science forums.
Regarding your Message 730 to RAZD:
creation in Message 730 writes:
razd writes:
Please define the limits of your "fishbowl" ... is it your brain? the earth? the solar system? the galaxy? the universe?
Where's the line?
How do you know?
How can we tell if you are right?
Since the furthest probe is not even a light day away, we can stat there. The limits of where man has been are clear. Since the fishbowl is just a term referring to what we know and where we have been, the limits are self evident.
Your "fishbowl" is fictitious, just a belief you have with no evidence. You have no answer for RAZD's question, "How do you know?" The evidence we do have indicates the laws of the universe are the same everywhere.
We can analyze any electromagnetic radiation arriving here on Earth or reaching our probes, so your Voyager claims are spurious. And anyway, they were launched around 40 years ago, so were you writing 40 years ago you would have claimed we only knew the nature of the universe out as far as Mars. The Voyagers are just an illustration of how religious claims about the nature of the universe shrinks as our knowledge expands. Religion should stick to the spiritual realm.
Regarding your Message 731 to Caffeine:
creation in Message 731 writes:
caffeine writes:
Nobody has ever been to the centre of the earth. Do you then think that we have no way of knowing if and how time passes at the centre of the earth? If not, why not?
Time is not the issue there. But science does not know what the inner earth is like.
Science will never know all there is to know, but we do know a great deal about the interior of the Earth.
They assume it obeys the laws we see on the surface.
If the laws were different we couldn't fail to detect it. Plus there's evidence from oil drilling and magma from deep within the Earth from volcanic eruptions that tells us that the laws down there are the same as up here. So is gravity, since we know the mass of the Earth and the moon and the other planets and the sun, and their motions obey our calculations.
However, since the bible indicates some spiritual component down there, they can assume all they like.
This is a science thread.
They do not know.
You're repeating yourself.
Having one sort of seismic wave not go through an area there does not tell us, for example, it is liquid.
Since S-waves (as opposed to P-waves) will not travel through a liquid, that is how we know the region of the Earth's interior that is molten.
How would we know what that sort of wave would do if trying to pass through something that was more than just physical?
There is no evidence of any type of matter that is "more than just physical."
We see that on the surface of the earth, such waves would not go through a liquid. Then we assume that if the waves do not pass through something in the unknown interior of the earth, that also 'golly gee, just must' also be liquid.
Obviously the interior of the Earth must have a molten liquid component - magma has to come from somewhere.
Regarding your Message 732 to NoNukes:
creation in Message 732 writes:
False. Nothing you post needs denying.
But that's all you've been doing is denying. You haven't engaged in any discussion or consideration of the evidence.
You didn't even deal with the issue of time far far away.
Again, that would be space-time, and NoNukes did "deal with the issue of time far far away." He said:
NoNukes in Message 699 writes:
I think the more important argument is that it implies that the same processes (the ones that are responsible for the light emission in the first place) are occurring at the same rate. In short by verifying that sun-like stars have spectra that look like our own sun, we have evidence that physics, including the passage of time, is the same as it is here even at places that are monstrous distances away.
The absorptions and emissions that make the spectra look different from a pure blackbody spectrum, are things that we know actually took place at the place where the light was emitted, and are governed by exactly the same physics as we use here.
Try not to deny that seeing some light in time here has no relation to what time may or may not be elsewhere.
Again, you should say space-time, and the light we see and analyze behaves the same regardless of point of origin.
Or do you have some other point? Spit it out.
NoNukes point was clear.
I assure you it will not be worthy of any denial either. You flatter yourself pretending otherwise.
Denial is all you've shown you're capable of so far. Discussion and consideration of evidence seems to be beyond your capacity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by creation, posted 01-28-2018 4:03 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 742 by creation, posted 10-03-2018 2:08 AM Percy 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