Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 12:57 PM
370 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,799 Year: 19,405/21,208 Month: 2,164/3,111 Week: 385/574 Day: 40/59 Hour: 3/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
Panda
Member (Idle past 1187 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 347 of 373 (649985)
01-26-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by ookuay
01-26-2012 7:47 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:

It's not my math; it's Einstein's.


Could you be slightly more specific?
There is no mention of alternate timelines in the link you provided.

If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by ookuay, posted 01-26-2012 7:47 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by ookuay, posted 01-26-2012 11:07 PM Panda has responded

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1361 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 348 of 373 (649999)
01-26-2012 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Panda
01-26-2012 8:09 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
I figured it was sort of general knowledge...Einstein is perhaps the most famous physicist and is best known for his theory of relativity. I'm not Einstein so I can't recreate his thoughts but traveling faster than the speed of light should cause one to experience an alternate slower timeline than the rest of the universe. If you're interested, look up "speed of light time travel" or something.

Edit: Instead of "alternate timeline" I would have been more accurate in saying "time-space frame". The overarching point is that time is not man-made.

Edited by ookuay, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Panda, posted 01-26-2012 8:09 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Larni, posted 01-27-2012 3:14 AM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 350 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 5:30 AM ookuay has responded

    
Larni
Member
Posts: 3943
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 349 of 373 (650008)
01-27-2012 3:14 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by ookuay
01-26-2012 11:07 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
So your point about alternative times lines was factually wrong.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286

Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134


This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by ookuay, posted 01-26-2012 11:07 PM ookuay has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1187 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 350 of 373 (650023)
01-27-2012 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 348 by ookuay
01-26-2012 11:07 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:

I figured it was sort of general knowledge...Einstein is perhaps the most famous physicist and is best known for his theory of relativity. I'm not Einstein so I can't recreate his thoughts but traveling faster than the speed of light should cause one to experience an alternate slower timeline than the rest of the universe. If you're interested, look up "speed of light time travel" or something.

It is also 'general knowledge' that Einstein showed that it was impossible for anything* to travel faster than the speed of light.
"Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."
This rather undermines your claims that he posited anything regarding time and travelling faster than the speed of light.

And your comment regarding time dilation ("alternate slower timeline"?) seems flawed. It happens at sub-light speeds:
"Time dilation: Moving clocks are measured to tick more slowly than an observer's "stationary" clock."

tbh: my basic grasp of Einstein's theories seems to surpass your own.
You can start reading about Relativity here: Your own link.

ookuay writes:

Instead of "alternate timeline" I would have been more accurate in saying "time-space frame".

I think you would not have been more accurate to say "time-space frame".
Are you actually referring to inertial frames?

So - going back to your original post:

ookuay writes:

@JBR: Time is relative to innate biological clocks, and theoretically moving faster than the speed of light can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable.


No. Even allowing for incorrect terminology: none of that is correct.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by ookuay, posted 01-26-2012 11:07 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:48 AM Panda has responded

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1361 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 351 of 373 (650059)
01-27-2012 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by Panda
01-27-2012 5:30 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Lol, I know... The point is that Einstein has reason to say that alternate timelines can exist. Note the words "in a vacuum". Earth is not a vacuum. "Alternate timeline" is not incorrect- it's not the terminology used by physicists but definitely works in this context. Thank you for the time dilation example, it goes to prove my point... You can definitely look up time-space frames on your own. Yes, my former statement is correct.
This returns us to the fact that time is not a man-made invention, refuting what Just Being Real was saying some time ago.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 5:30 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 11:50 AM ookuay has responded
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 01-27-2012 12:07 PM ookuay has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1187 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 352 of 373 (650075)
01-27-2012 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 351 by ookuay
01-27-2012 10:48 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:

Lol, I know

No, you don't.

ookuay writes:

The point is that Einstein has reason to say that alternate timelines can exist. Note the words "in a vacuum". Earth is not a vacuum.

The point is that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about but are convinced that you do.

ookuay writes:

"Alternate timeline" is not incorrect- it's not the terminology used by physicists but definitely works in this context.

Sure, in the context of you making shit up as you go along.

ookuay writes:

This returns us to the fact that time is not a man-made invention, refuting what Just Being Real was saying some time ago.

Which is simply a bare assertion due to none of your arguments being valid.
I would not fault JBR for not being even slightly convinced by your counter-claim of "Nuh uh!".

Are you a Poe?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:48 AM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 3:05 PM Panda has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15647
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 353 of 373 (650077)
01-27-2012 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by ookuay
01-27-2012 10:48 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Hi Ookuay, welcome aboard!

The evolutionists here usually go pretty easy on other evolutionists. It has been my theory that that's because when a fellow evolutionist is wrong it is usually only in minor ways not worth correcting, but that any evolutionist wrong in major ways would receive as much attention as creationists. It appears possible that you are wrong in major ways that you are attempting to gloss over with hand waves and glibness, so this should be a good test of my theory.

Unfortunately that test shouldn't take place in this thread because Einstein's position on alternate timelines is not the topic here.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:48 AM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 3:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1361 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 354 of 373 (650096)
01-27-2012 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by Panda
01-27-2012 11:50 AM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Hi Panda,
I noticed you didn't give any backing evidence this time as I'm sure I made my point. Use any words you wish. You gave your example of an alternate timeline and that settles it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 11:50 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 6:40 PM ookuay has responded

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1361 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 355 of 373 (650099)
01-27-2012 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Percy
01-27-2012 12:07 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Hi Percy,
Seeing as the speed of light can be surpassed since Earth isn't a vacuum and "alternate timeline" is descriptive enough for "time-space frame", I don't see the problem.
Also, I constantly return to the on-topic post by JBR (whereas Panda does not...)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 01-27-2012 12:07 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Straggler, posted 01-27-2012 3:20 PM ookuay has responded

    
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10196
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 356 of 373 (650103)
01-27-2012 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by ookuay
01-27-2012 3:08 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Wrong writes:

Seeing as the speed of light can be surpassed since Earth isn't a vacuum and "alternate timeline" is descriptive enough for "time-space frame", I don't see the problem.

Can you give an example of the speed of light being surpassed because the "Earth isn't a vacuum".....?

Frankly you are so confused as to be almost incoherent here...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 3:08 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 8:09 PM Straggler has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1187 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 357 of 373 (650123)
01-27-2012 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by ookuay
01-27-2012 3:05 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:

I noticed you didn't give any backing evidence this time as I'm sure I made my point.


You have never shown any evidence to support your claims.
The only thing you have shown is a startling lack of reading ability.

Your claims about it being possible to travel faster than the speed of light "because Earth is not [in] a vacuum" is beyond being simply wrong - it is ridiculous.

Are you sure you are not a Poe?


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 3:05 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 8:30 PM Panda has responded

  
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1361 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 358 of 373 (650127)
01-27-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Straggler
01-27-2012 3:20 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
No, the point I'd been making was that Einstein had reason to believe that an alternate time-space frame could be observed by surpassing the speed of light (which is impossible only in a vacuum). Obviously I don't know in-depth physics but I was just throwing it out there that time can be observed. Panda's example of time dilation of clocks seems a better example since it is possible at sub-light speeds.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Straggler, posted 01-27-2012 3:20 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Percy, posted 01-27-2012 8:27 PM ookuay has not yet responded
 Message 366 by Straggler, posted 01-28-2012 11:03 AM ookuay has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15647
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 359 of 373 (650130)
01-27-2012 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by ookuay
01-27-2012 8:09 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:

No, the point I'd been making was that Einstein had reason to believe that an alternate time-space frame could be observed by surpassing the speed of light...

I think people are trying to figure out why you think this. You cited the Wikipedia article on relativity, which doesn't seem to even hint at Einstein ever believing anything like this, but it does make very clear statements that are consistent with what everyone else here understands Einstein to have believed, for example:

Wikipedia article on relativity writes:

Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

What was it from this article that led you to believe that Einstein thought differently?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 8:09 PM ookuay has not yet responded

    
ookuay
Junior Member (Idle past 1361 days)
Posts: 20
Joined: 01-24-2012


Message 360 of 373 (650131)
01-27-2012 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by Panda
01-27-2012 6:40 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
Let me make my point again.
*Theoretically* (though not yet achieved) moving faster than the speed of light (such as neutrinos as per recent Italian experiments) can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable.
Einstein thought that FTL travel would split time-space frames (one slower and more contracted) and never said FTL travel was impossible outside of vacuums.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 6:40 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Panda, posted 01-27-2012 9:28 PM ookuay has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1187 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 361 of 373 (650133)
01-27-2012 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 360 by ookuay
01-27-2012 8:30 PM


Re: If a tree falls in the forest...
ookuay writes:

*Theoretically* (though not yet achieved) moving faster than the speed of light (such as neutrinos as per recent Italian experiments) can create an alternate timeline indicating that time does exist and is observable. Einstein thought that FTL travel would split time-space frames (one slower and more contracted)


Please quote him directly as your understanding of physics is not good enough for us to take your word for it.

ookuay writes:

and never said FTL travel was impossible outside of vacuums.


Apart from here: "Maximum speed is finite: No physical object, message or field line can travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

Maybe it would help if I break up that sentence for you:

  • [Maximum speed is finite] This means that their is a limit to how fast anything can travel. This part of the sentence is just a summary of the latter part of the sentence and can therefore be skipped.
  • [No physical object, message or field line] This encompasses most things and can be summarised as 'No thing' or [Nothing].
  • [can travel faster than] This tells us to compare the speeds.
  • [the speed of light in a vacuum] This is a specific speed. It is ~299792458 m/s. The reason that vacuum is mentioned is because light 'slows down' when passing through a non-vacuum. But, for most laymen, the term [Speed of light] sufficiently conveys what is meant.

So - the sentence reads as follows:
Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.

This directly contradicts your "*Theoretically*" (unless you simply meant *making shit up*).

ookuay writes:

Obviously I don't know in-depth physics


Then why do you insist on posting this utter nonsense?

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


If I were you
And I wish that I were you
All the things I'd do
To make myself turn blue

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 8:30 PM ookuay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Theodoric, posted 01-27-2012 10:40 PM Panda has acknowledged this reply
 Message 363 by ookuay, posted 01-27-2012 10:46 PM Panda has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
20212223
24
25Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017