Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 2:39 PM
397 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,863 Year: 16,469/21,208 Month: 2,358/3,593 Week: 471/882 Day: 92/97 Hour: 1/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3536
37
383940Next
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
time
Member (Idle past 47 days)
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 541 of 593 (797746)
01-26-2017 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 535 by New Cat's Eye
01-26-2017 9:43 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Well, if they say time does exist exactly as it does in our solar system spacetime on the edges of the universe, they DO say that.

Think of our solar system more as a little timepiece in a big universe.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2017 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-26-2017 10:28 AM time has not yet responded
 Message 546 by Admin, posted 01-26-2017 11:25 AM time has responded
 Message 549 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2017 12:46 PM time has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 542 of 593 (797747)
01-26-2017 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 512 by time
01-25-2017 11:00 PM


Re: Great Debate issues
(re Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and invitation for a new thread on The Great Debate forum)

Maybe I'll just copy the OP and shred it to bits on some other forum! After all, the OP should have your case basically mapped out.

Ah, so you really are scared about debating the issues in this forum?

Understandable, but it won't change the facts.

Maybe I'll just copy the OP and shred it to bits on some other forum! ...

If you do, please be sure to properly cite and reference it with a proper live link to the thread here, and please ensure that it is one that I am able to post on freely.

This is at the bottom of the first post, so you can keep this reference:

quote:
Where possible, I have tried to follow the standard academic procedure for citing online publications, where if you last accessed this page on 12May2010, and used version 2 number 1, you would cite this as:

Smith, Paul "Age Correlations and An Old Earth" EvC Forum. Ver 2 no 1 updated 27 Jan 2007, accessed 12May2010 from http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&t=6288.


Where you could change the accessed date to the date you post it. Please be sure to include all the live links in the post (note that I've changed them to be live links below for other forums that use dB codes and I have made this change to the OP so that you can use the peek function to copy the post with all the dBcoding).

  • Bristlecone Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 8,000 years by annual tree rings in California.
  • European Oaks - The minimum age of the earth is 10,434 years by annual tree rings in Europe (different environment, different genus, not just different species and from two different locations ).
  • German Pines - The minimum age of the earth is 12,405 years by adding more annual tree rings in Europe (different environment and species), confirmed by carbon-14 levels in the samples (different information from the same sources).
  • Lake Suigetsu Varves - The minimum age of the earth is 35,987 years by annual varve layers of diatoms in Japan (different process, biology and location).
  • Annual Layers of Ice - The minimum age of the earth is 40,000 years by annual layers of ice in China (different process altogether).
  • Ice Cores in Greenland - The minimum age of the earth is 37,957 years by visually counting layers, 60,000 years by counting dust layers, 110,000 years by measuring electrical conductivity of layers, and up to 250,000 years by counting of layers below a discontinuity, all counting annual layers of ice in Greenland (different location).
  • Ice Cores in Antarctica - The minimum age of the earth is 422,776 years by annual layers of ice in the Vostok Ice Core, extended to 740,000 years with the EPICA Ice Core with an estimated final depth age of 900,000 years. (different location again).
  • The Devil's Hole - The radiometric age of the earth is validated to 567,700 years by annual deposition of calcite in Nevada and correlation to the annual ice core data
  • Talking Coral Heads - The minimum radiometric age of the earth is of coral is >400,000,000 years by radiometric age correlated with the astrono-physics predicted length of the day correlated with the daily growth rings in ancient coral heads. (different location, different environment, different methods).
  • Discussion of Radiometric Correlations - the radiometric dates for a number of specific events show a consistent accuracy to the methods used, and an age for the earth of ~4,500,000,000 years old.
  • The Bottom Line - the bottom line is that the valid scientific age for the earth is ~4,500,000,000 years old.
  • Theme Song - just for fun.

Note that I am trusting you to be honest and not change or alter any of my posts and to provide me with full access.

Note that I will then copy your replies to a new thread here and shred your arguments here. You will of course have the opportunity to reply, but you won't have the privilege of being the only one that you would have on the The Great Debate forum. If you want I can start a new thread in that forum to post your comments and my replies so that you do have that privilege.

Note that if I am not give full access to reply on your chosen forum, I trust that you will then copy and paste the replies I make and to debate those replies with honesty and integrity as well.

This could be an interesting experiment in cross forum debate, and it could introduce many more people to my arguments. Might even bring some new people here.

You can also check out Age of the Earth in Stages, Great Debate, S1WC and RAZD only on The Great Debate forum and see what admin interference was done there.

Enjoy

ps -- I have set up the new thread at The Age of the Earth Great Debate, RAZD and time (only) in Proposed New Topics but it needs to be promoted to The Great Debate before you can comment. Just tell Percy that you want to participate and he can promote it.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ps


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

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

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 543 of 593 (797748)
01-26-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 536 by time
01-26-2017 9:44 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Typical creationist troll. You read something that really convinced you because you don't know anything about it, so you go out and repeat the words without understanding. Since you are incapable of discussing your own claim, you resort to bluff and bluster in order to avoid discussion.

You are being given ample opportunity to discuss and to support your claim, yet you refuse to. That speaks loudly about your claim; ie, that it is bollocks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:44 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 562 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:13 AM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 571 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:56 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 544 of 593 (797749)
01-26-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by time
01-26-2017 9:57 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Well, if they say time does exist exactly as it does in our solar system spacetime on the edges of the universe, they DO say that.

Prove it. Show me. Nobody here has said that.

Think of our solar system more as a little timepiece in a big universe.

I know more about this subject than you.

If you weren't so conceited you might be able to learn something. But as they say, pride is an abomination.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:57 AM time has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 545 of 593 (797750)
01-26-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 533 by time
01-26-2017 9:41 AM


Re: Creationist Epistemology
Your reply to my post appears to be deranged gibberish, would you like to try again? Actually reading my post first might help you, if indeed anything can help you.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:41 AM time has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 546 of 593 (797754)
01-26-2017 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by time
01-26-2017 9:57 AM


Dwise1 and NewCatsEye Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Time,

I just suspended Dwise1 and NewCatsEye 24 hours for becoming personal after my warning in Message 527, but I'm putting you on warning, too, to produce constructive evidence-based responses. For one thing I would like you to actually answer Son Goku's question from Message 523:

Son Goku in Message 523 writes:

Regardless 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 question can, of course, take different forms, for example, "What factors govern where you accept time applies and where you don't?"

Pleases do not continue to post responses that leave it impossible to form a coherent picture of your viewpoint. It is fine that you reject the conclusions about time that others draw from the evidence, but discussion here doesn't get to ignore the evidence. It still has to be discussed.

Please, no replies to this message.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:17 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(4)
Message 547 of 593 (797757)
01-26-2017 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by time
01-25-2017 10:57 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Not what I've said.
But you do say time is the same. I have to call your bluff.

What I have said is that time is consistent, not the same. This is not a subtle difference, because it takes into account the effects of relativity in different universe locations.

This is your assertion unsupported by any evidence or reason (how does it change? what causes it to change?).
Does it change? Or cease to exist? Or...when you know, then you can talk. Until then you must repeat the following 'I don't know'.

Science (all science) approximates reality to the best of our ability to test it. So it is not a matter of "knowing" (can anything be truly "known"), it is a matter of understanding and working to improve our understanding.

And again, hypothesis are not proven (known), only disproven or validated by not being disproven. They are an explanation of the observed objective empirical evidence, and as long as they are not disproven we operate on the basis of them providing the best explanation available. The more they are tested and not disproven then the higher confidence we have in their approximation being valid enough to make usable predictions.

What we can say is "As far as we know time is consistent throughout the universe and that relativity has not yet been disproven as a means to understand time." Because of the limitations of science, this is as much as we can "know" of the validity of any theory or hypothesis. Or to put it another way "We don't know that our concept of time and relativity is wrong."

AND you still provide no reason or cause to wildly assume that time is not something we can approximate with hypothesis or test the hypothesis.

For instance relativity predicts that time changes in predictable ways near massive objects, and we can test this: the orbit of Mercury did not comply with standard Newtonian physics, it was anomalous. Then Einstein produce the theory of Relativity, and it properly accounted for the orbit of Mercury by accounting for the alteration of time near the sun.

There is no reason given, by you or anyone else, to not assume/hypothesize that this is consistent throughout the universe.

Your assertion does not disprove time being consistent.
My assertion is that you cannot prove time is the same or even exists persay out there. Just because we see movements does not mean we must have time there as here. My assertion is proven true because you fail to be able to begin to prove or even support your outlandish claim. You need evidence: that is how science is done. Until then no one needs any alternate explanation for your hunches and wild guesses and beliefs.

And you still are not proving/showing/demonstrating that it is not consistent. Science works by disproof, not proof, and failing to understand this just shows basic ignorance of how science works in the real world.

... My assertion is proven true ...

Can you prove that you exist? Can you prove that you know anything absolutely? Give it a shot.

My assertion is that you cannot prove time is the same or even exists persay out there. ..

So disprove that it is consistent. Should be easy ... if you are correct.

Meanwhile science will march on using the current best understanding of time and space. Without reason to change there is no need to do anything else.

This is how science works in every branch, in every field, in every laboratory: we make hypothesis and test them, those that fail are discarded, those that don't fail are used to make predictions, and those predictions are then tested.
Big talk NO action! You have not tested each mile to the far stars! ...

We have certainly tested in on near stars that can be measured by parallax, and on SN1987A (in spite of your rabid denial). Angles are not affected by time.

Actually every time a new more powerful telescope comes on line the previous calculations are reviewed. The latest is the Hubble telescope which is able to resolve even more distant systems. Note that the ability of telescopes to resolve distant object is in itself a test of distance. And scientists are working on new ones. See telescope satellite around sun

quote:
Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines.[1][2] .... Due to foreshortening, nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances.

Astronomers use the principle of parallax to measure distances to the closer stars. Here, the term "parallax" is the semi-angle of inclination between two sight-lines to the star, as observed when the Earth is on opposite sides of the Sun in its orbit.[3] These distances form the lowest rung of what is called "the cosmic distance ladder", the first in a succession of methods by which astronomers determine the distances to celestial objects, serving as a basis for other distance measurements in astronomy forming the higher rungs of the ladder.

Distance measurement by parallax is a special case of the principle of triangulation, which states that one can solve for all the sides and angles in a network of triangles if, in addition to all the angles in the network, the length of at least one side has been measured. Thus, the careful measurement of the length of one baseline can fix the scale of an entire triangulation network. In parallax, the triangle is extremely long and narrow, and by measuring both its shortest side (the motion of the observer) and the small top angle (always less than 1 arcsecond,[6] leaving the other two close to 90 degrees), the length of the long sides (in practice considered to be equal) can be determined.

Assuming the angle is small (see derivation below), the distance to an object (measured in parsecs) is the reciprocal of the parallax (measured in arcseconds): d(pc) = 1/p(arcsec). For example, the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1/0.7687=1.3009 parsecs (4.243 ly).[8]


Please show where time is involved in that measurement.

... There are NO exoplanets that are known if the distances are actually unknown, ...

Really?

quote:
List of nearest exoplanets

From the total of 3,565 known exoplanets orbiting around 2,675 different stars (as of January 22, 2017), only a small fraction are located in the vicinity of the Solar System. At the beginning of 2016, the nearest 74 exoplanets were confirmed to be located within 50 light-years (15.3 pc),[a] ...

Fomalhaut is a star 25 light-years away with an exoplanet (Fomalhaut b) that has been directly imaged in 2013 by NASA.

Among the confirmed the known planetary systems, 24 are located within 40 light-years, 14 are within 30 light-years, and only six are within 20 light-years. The closest exoplanet considered confirmed by NASA is Epsilon Eridani b,[4] 10.5 light-years away from our Solar System, while the closest known rocky planet is Gliese 674 b, 14.8 light-years away.[5] ...


We know at least one planet orbits Fomalhaut because we can see it, it's existence is a FACT.

We observe that there is no known cause, no known reason, for time to be inconsistent across the universe.
The universe must be molded to fit the limits of your experience and lack of knowledge about the basics like time? I think not.

No, what what is "molded" is our most current understanding. Note my signature:

quote:
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

Impossible to have some sort of time inconsistencies here where time exists. Especially ones man can 'observe'. ...

Actually we used to have one with the orbit of Mercury, and then, because that was inconsistent, the Newtonian physics was replaced by relativity, and then the orbit was explained by the change in time near the sun. That is how science works.

And I gave you a short (incomplete) list of possible inconsistencies that have not been observed. Just because none have been observed does not mean it is impossible to see them ... unless none exist.

... Time is invisible you know.

We observe the effects.

The rest of your post is rabid repeated nonsense, not an argument and not evidence or new argument for any cause or reason to affect our understanding of time.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:24 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 2896
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(5)
Message 548 of 593 (797759)
01-26-2017 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by time
01-26-2017 9:53 AM


A bridge to the stars
time writes:

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.

In a sense, you're absolutely right.

Well, you were right, a few hundred (thousand?) years ago.

When science first starting attempting to observe and watch the skies, they understood this issue.
So they recorded whatever they could, without making any assumptions whatsoever. Because, for all they knew, everything "worked different" out there. Time, mass, energy. Everything. Everything and anything could be different.

Then science started to test whatever it could about whatever observations it could make.

Everything made sense. We thought this planet should be over there... if it followed the same rules (Newtonian motion) we follow here... and it was exactly there. We made predictions... in 1 years time, this moon should be here, and this planet should be there. In 1 year's time... those bodies were exactly where predicted.

Then strange things started to happen.
We learned more. We obtained better ways of making observations. We noticed things actually did not line up exactly. But they actually lined up "mostly." This was very weird. Some things didn't really line up at all. Like black holes and satellites orbiting our own planet.

We went back to the drawing board. Newtonian motion didn't account for everything we observed. It was wrong.
Eventually we discovered Relativity. Relativity included Newtonian motion... but it was more specific. Things started to fall into place again. Observations could all be explained. Things moved and reacted and were predictable in the exact sense again.

Which is where we are now.

No one is saying we're done.
No one is saying time is the same everywhere.
No one is saying we know everything.

But we do know the things that line up exactly.
We do know that although time is not the same everywhere... it acts and reacts the same everywhere-we-have-observations-for the same way we observe here.

There are still some weirdness questions out there. A lot less, but still some.
Maybe we'll discover another theory that includes Newtonian motion, and Relativity as well as all the 'weridness' we see.
But even if that happens... it won't destroy the stuff that works now.

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.

It is possible that we don't know everything... but we do know everything-we-need-to-know to understand that the support needs to be 5'0". We also know everything-we-need-to-know to understand how far away distant stars are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 539 by time, posted 01-26-2017 9:53 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:19 AM Stile has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 549 of 593 (797761)
01-26-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by time
01-26-2017 9:57 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Think of our solar system more as a little timepiece in a big universe.

Great, then you agree that the time between two observations made on earth can be accurately and decisively measured.

Message 486: Both markers start at the star, and thus are in the same time envelope.
Let's say the first throw is a 6.

Both markers move 6 places, the first along the path directly to earth, the second along the path to the ring (two places from the star) and then towards the earth.

The distance from the earth to the star and the ring is assumed to be "n" (unknown) places away for this game, so after that first throw the 1st marker is {n-6} places from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)} places from earth. The distance between them is 2 places. Still close to each other in astronomical distance terms.

The next throw is a 3, and the first marker is then {n-6-3} places away from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3} places away from earth, and the distance between them is still 2 places.

The third throw is a 5, and the first marker is now {n-6-3-5} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places.

The fourth throw is a 1, and now the first marker is {n-6-3-5-1} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5-1} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places.

This continues until they reach earth, with the second marker always always always 2 places behind the first marker. This distance is constant, no matter how the "time zones" change between the earth and the star because both markers are affected equally.

Once within the solar system "time zone," they are traveling on earth time, and so we record the time of the first marker arriving and then the time of the second marker arriving, convert that to distance by (speed of light/delta time) ... and that distance is necessarily the two places distance between the markers on their entire trip from the star to earth, which is necessarily the distance from the star to the ring.

The "places" represent distance regardless of time. It doesn't matter how many "places" actually exist between the star and earth (ie what the distance to the star is) for determining the distance from the star to the ring, because the second marker is displaced behind the first marker by that distance.

The only point where time affects the measurement is within "our solar system ... a little timepiece in a big universe" and thus according to your "little timepiece" it is a valid time measurement.

Enjoy

ps -- I am not replying to your messages that just repeat old claims and that are addressed elsewhere. If you want a review of these responses click on the RAZD Posts Only link and review them.

Edited by RAZD, : ps added


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

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

  
thingamabob
Junior Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


Message 550 of 593 (797767)
01-26-2017 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 530 by time
01-26-2017 9:26 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Hi time

time writes:

Man experiences time in a certain way,


Could you explain how we experience time?

I can't see time. Ican't feel time. I can't smell time. Ican't hear time.

I do experience existence as I exist. I know there is duration as continual events take place in my existence.

time writes:

and it takes so much time for things to happen here.

Actually there is duration between events in existence that mankind
measures by something we have designated as time.

time writes:

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.

Exactly

time writes:

So, yes, man did fine tune and name the time units but did not invent time.

But mankind did invent how to measure the duration in existence between events they observed.

time writes:

Man works with created nature even today, with such things used for time measurement as radioactive decay.

How do you measure time?
What is time that you can measure it?
How do you measure radioactive decay?

The only things we can measure are length, width, height/depth and duration between events in existence.

That means you are measuring the radioactive decay of an object subjected to duration in existence.

When the Egyptians divided up the period it takes the earth to cause
a light period and a dark period to exist they used a base 12 numbering system. This gives us a 24h day made up of 60 minutes per hour (5x12) made up of 60 seconds (5x12) per minute etc..

So yes man designed a system to measure duration between events in existence.

Enjoy


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 567 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:32 AM thingamabob has responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 868
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 551 of 593 (797775)
01-27-2017 1:47 AM


Quick question for Son Goku
Hi mate - quick question, but only if you have time. (Tangential to the topic, but connected, I guess).

Do I recall you or Cavediver once explaining (using the analogy of a meter ruler, touching the table at one end, and moving in an arc from perpendicular to flat), that everything is moving at the speed of light, as a combination of temporal and spatial velocities ?

Hence the faster you move spatially, the slower time (from your frame of reference) passes. So for a photon, travelling spatially at the speed of light from the sun to earth, from its perspective, no time passes. (Though of course, from the perspective of the observer on earth, 8 minutes or so passes).

And that this is an illustration of how, if one twin popped into a spaceship and zoomed around in space for a while, she'd come back younger than her twin.

Edited by vimesey, : Typo


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 ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Son Goku, posted 01-27-2017 3:16 PM vimesey has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12516
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 552 of 593 (797784)
01-27-2017 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by Son Goku
01-24-2017 3:13 PM


Latex Equation Color
I don't know how it happened, but the latex equation color was accidentally switched to black. I have changed it back to white.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Son Goku, posted 01-24-2017 3:13 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2017 8:31 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 553 of 593 (797787)
01-27-2017 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 552 by Admin
01-27-2017 7:41 AM


Re: Latex Equation Color
I checked Message 445 and it was still showing black on the white background.

... the latex equation color was accidentally switched to black. I have changed it back to white.

Is this just for future posts or will Message 445 need to be edited in some future post? Quoting it I get

Message 445 -

Removing the blockcolor background I get

Thanks.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by Admin, posted 01-27-2017 7:41 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15934
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 554 of 593 (797792)
01-27-2017 10:13 AM


And this just in: NASA has directly imaged the motion of four planets around a star 750,000,000,000,000 miles away.

GIF here: http://imgur.com/BVXrHQM

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 555 by RAZD, posted 01-27-2017 11:33 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded
 Message 569 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:53 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 555 of 593 (797800)
01-27-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 554 by Dr Adequate
01-27-2017 10:13 AM


Cool.

Edited by RAZD, : embedded


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

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

  
RewPrev1
...
3536
37
383940Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017