Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 8:27 PM
396 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,262 Year: 6,868/21,208 Month: 2,629/2,634 Week: 292/525 Day: 51/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
37383940Next
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9353
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 526 of 593 (797725)
01-26-2017 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 513 by time
01-25-2017 11:02 PM


Re: Young earth?
Not the passage of time there...but the existence of time HERE in spacetime...for the base line.

You've already acknowledged that the passage and existence of time here is just fine. Accordingly, there is no question whatsoever about the baseline. What has been put to you is the fact that the passage and existence of time remote at the remote distance is not required for triangulation. In fact, if the distant stars cannot move because of the lack of time at the distance, then triangulation becomes more firmly established. The two angles and the baseline are all measured at our end, where time is established.

Further, the consistency of such measures with our observations of processes at a distance is confirming that time passes at similar rates as it passes here.

Your inability to provide coherent arguments implies that this time thing is simply a mantra to repeat in support of pure denial. It is nothing more. And your ability to maintain your position by simply not answer questions when challenged is not the same as actually winning an argument.

As much as I like to argue with crackpot physics, your approach of not providing responses is no longer all that entertaining. You are welcome to the last word.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by time, posted 01-25-2017 11:02 PM time has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12395
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 527 of 593 (797726)
01-26-2017 7:03 AM


Moderator Warning
Time (the member, not the concept) is not the topic here. Please confine your discussion to the topic and not to the people you're discussing with. This applies to everyone, including Time. This is the last warning, temporary suspension will follow non-compliance.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
jar
Member
Posts: 28468
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 528 of 593 (797728)
01-26-2017 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 517 by time
01-25-2017 11:08 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
time writes:

You seem obsessed with a hatred of 'creationists'.

No one hates Creationists; frankly they do not even rise to a level where they could be considered anything more than humorous.

You make a claim that you can destroy all our arguments out of hand in short order any time, yet like every other Young Earth Creationist you never seem to do that.

There is a reason that Young Earth and Creationism are simply jokes and fantasy and that reality actually exists.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by time, posted 01-25-2017 11:08 PM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 534 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:42 AM jar has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 529 of 593 (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 yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:28 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 556 by NoNukes, posted 01-27-2017 1:19 PM RAZD has responded

  
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 530 of 593 (797733)
01-26-2017 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 521 by thingamabob
01-26-2017 2:41 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Time is the measurement between the events, regardless of where the events occur.

Mankind has determined what the units are that is used where he is at to express the length of duration measured, so as to satisfy his mind.

Man experiences time in a certain way, and it takes so much time for things to happen here. In ancient days, and even today to some extent, the cycles of the sun and moon determine the units or days and months. The length of a day eventually became accepted as so many hours. So, yes, man did fine tune and name the time units but did not invent time. Man works with created nature even today, with such things used for time measurement as radioactive decay.

There is existence.
Who can argue with that?

In that existence there are events that do not happen simultaneously.
In a place where time exists, that is the way it seems, that's for sure. Here, things do take or involve time, we are in time.

That would be true everywhere there was existence.
Everywhere there was time. I don't think we can speak beyond our experience here. You could say something like... 'Because we live in time, it is intuitive to think that time must exist everywhere, we know nothing else'. What you cannot say is that 'millions of trillions of miles beyond where we ever have been, the passage of time happens precisely the same as here'!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 521 by thingamabob, posted 01-26-2017 2:41 AM thingamabob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2017 9:43 AM time has responded
 Message 550 by thingamabob, posted 01-26-2017 2:05 PM time has responded

    
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 531 of 593 (797734)
01-26-2017 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by RAZD
01-26-2017 9:26 AM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
Absurd. The base line for parallax is usually from earth. No idea what you are talking about as some 'base line' at the SN.

If we take a measure from a point on earth, for example, in June, and another in December, that is six months apart. Six months time. Six months time inside a spacetime that already includes time woven into the very fabric. The space the earth travels is IN spacetime! That means time is involved. Here. Not at the stars.

Edited by time, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2017 9:26 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 532 of 593 (797736)
01-26-2017 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 523 by Son Goku
01-26-2017 3:03 AM


Re: Direct evidence
I asked about what is known about time far away, and whether we know it is the same. Using formulas that involved distance, and mass, and other things all based on time here does not do that. Apparently you need more than the theory of Relativity to do that.

Time is relative! Time is relative to the place time exists and exists a certain way!

Edited by time, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by Son Goku, posted 01-26-2017 3:03 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Son Goku, posted 01-26-2017 9:47 AM time has not yet responded

    
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 533 of 593 (797737)
01-26-2017 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by Dr Adequate
01-25-2017 11:37 PM


Re: Creationist Epistemology

Your argument fails in two ways, any one of which is sufficient to eliminate an argument from scientific discourse.

(1) It can be applied to absolutely anything, not just to stars.

Your stated belief that time exists the same can and is applied to everything in the universe! My more reasonable, honest and open minded approach, on the other hand is not a one size fits all like your preferred belief.

If we allow ourselves to suppose that what we see has no underlying reality behind it, then we can apply this ultra-skepticism just as well to marmalade or owls as to stars. It's just a variant of "what if this is all a dream, and we know nothing of reality?" Well, philosophers may discuss this in their armchairs, but it has no place in science. And it has no place arguing against something in particular, such as stars, when it could be used just as well against anything else.
How about quit 'supposing'?
Let's see what you be knowsing.


(2) If applied to stars, it works equally well (or badly) no matter how real stars are, no matter how much time they undergo, and no matter how well-evidenced all this is.
Like a strawberry custard story then, it applies equally to everything. OK. Not impressive, that.

Now it is the absolute hallmark of a vacuous, worthless argument that its goodness (or badness) is not in any way dependent on what the facts are.
Thanks for shooting your own argument in the foot, saves me time.

Go and find an argument that does depend in some way on the evidence --- if you can.
To be honest about what is known or not is science in a far more real sense than hiding in darkness pretending one knows it all.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-25-2017 11:37 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2017 9:46 AM time has responded
 Message 545 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-26-2017 10:35 AM time has not yet responded

    
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 534 of 593 (797738)
01-26-2017 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by jar
01-26-2017 7:32 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Great. I now feel the love. Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by jar, posted 01-26-2017 7:32 AM jar has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 535 of 593 (797739)
01-26-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by time
01-26-2017 9:26 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
What you cannot say is that 'millions of trillions of miles beyond where we ever have been, the passage of time happens precisely the same as here'!

Nobody is saying that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:26 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 536 of 593 (797740)
01-26-2017 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by dwise1
01-26-2017 2:57 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Sorry, don't want to respond to off topic personal posts. If I wanted to deal with the issues you raise, it would be on my time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2017 2:57 AM dwise1 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 543 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2017 10:22 AM time has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11185
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 537 of 593 (797741)
01-26-2017 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 533 by time
01-26-2017 9:41 AM


Re: Creationist Epistemology
To be honest about what is known or not is science in a far more real sense than hiding in darkness pretending one knows it all.

Nobody cares. You're gonna sit there and whine and cry about how much the scientists don't really actually know all the things they say they do, and people are going to continue to accept scientific explanations because they work and solve problems. Nobody cares whether or not you are willing to accept that we know such things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:41 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1059
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 538 of 593 (797742)
01-26-2017 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 532 by time
01-26-2017 9:33 AM


Re: Direct evidence
Fantastic

Why do you trust time has passed on bodies like Titania which probes have viewed through telescopes, but you don't trust it when another man-made object in space, Hubble, sees stars via a telescope?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 532 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:33 AM time has not yet responded

  
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 539 of 593 (797744)
01-26-2017 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by vimesey
01-26-2017 4:44 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
It boils down to this. When we see things moving from one place to another here, we observe that time passes to allow the change in the spatial coordinates of the objects.
Space and time are interwoven here, if science has it right. Naturally things moving here take time.

When we observe distant planets move around distant stars, the best understanding we have is that time is passing there also.

You canot observe planets unless time exists out there exactly woven with space as it is here though. We absolutely require time to know distance. If the distance to a so called planet is not known, which it is not unless time exists there too, then the object could be almost any size or distance. No way to say it is planet sized at all. None. Total belief based hooey that has been thought of as science til now.

Because that's the best understanding we have here, and nothing we observe operates to invalidate that.
I understand and sympathize. You do the best you can living in the little land of time. From there it all seems a certain way, and no one really forced you to think about it before.

If you want to dislodge that understanding, you have to propose an explanation as to how things move without time passing. And then we have to test that explanation.

Before getting to the distant train stop of Explanation, we need to get a cab to the train station.

Edited by time, : No reason given.

Edited by time, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by vimesey, posted 01-26-2017 4:44 AM vimesey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 548 by Stile, posted 01-26-2017 12:10 PM time has responded

    
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 540 of 593 (797745)
01-26-2017 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 537 by New Cat's Eye
01-26-2017 9:46 AM


Re: Creationist Epistemology
Some care.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2017 9:46 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
3435
36
37383940Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017