Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 1:37 PM
385 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,380 Year: 9,986/21,208 Month: 3,073/2,674 Week: 489/961 Day: 102/117 Hour: 2/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
35363738
39
40Next
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
time
Member
Posts: 89
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 571 of 593 (797845)
01-28-2017 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 543 by dwise1
01-26-2017 10:22 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Try to remember it is the claims of the standard model of cosmology, and science that we are asking someone to defend. Try to offer more than bad attitude.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 543 by dwise1, posted 01-26-2017 10:22 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by Admin, posted 01-28-2017 8:04 AM time has responded

    
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 111
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 572 of 593 (797846)
01-28-2017 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 570 by time
01-28-2017 1:54 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
It's rude to answer a question with a question. If you have a good reason to doubt that distant star systems experience time the same as ours, then present it. I suspect you don't.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:54 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by time, posted 01-29-2017 6:42 PM Riggamortis has not yet responded

  
thingamabob
Junior Member
Posts: 23
From: New Jerusalem
Joined: 02-26-2009


(1)
Message 573 of 593 (797847)
01-28-2017 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 567 by time
01-28-2017 1:32 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Hi time

time writes:

You get old. You take a train ride and it takes time. Everything takes time.

I do not experience time by getting old. I get old because I exist. There is duration in existence between events that can be measured with the system mankind has devised.

When I take a train ride there is duration between my boarding the train and my departure from the train. That duration can be measured with the system mankind has devised.

time writes:

Even if we did not measure it, time goes by.


What is time that it can go by?

There is duration in existence that can be measured with the system mankind has devised.

time writes:


How do you measure time?
What is time that you can measure it?
How do you measure radioactive decay?
You see how long they take.

What is the 'they' we are trying to see how long they take?

I have not seen anyone explain what time is that it can be measured.
I can measure the duration between events in existence.

time writes:

So you cannot measure time in the distant universe?


Since I cannot see, feel, smell, or hear time I don't know what I would be trying to measure, anywhere in the universe.

There are those that have posted about the duration between events being shorter the faster one travels.

time writes:


So yes man designed a system to measure duration between events in existence.
Those who believe in God attribute that to Him first.

As I understand it God defined a period of light as a day. He defined a dark period as a night. He further defined the evening of a light period and the morning following a dark period as a day. He left the rest up to mankind to figure out.

Enjoy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 567 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:32 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by time, posted 01-29-2017 6:50 PM thingamabob has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 574 of 593 (797849)
01-28-2017 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 560 by time
01-28-2017 1:03 AM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
Time, replying to

Message 557: Yes I saw that, but he was still talking about SN1987A, and the calculation on that does NOT involve the earth orbit baseline.

See Message 489 where he is definitely talking about the SN1987A calculation in my Message 486 ... and then begins blathering about " the absurd sine rule issue, it does not apply to parallax. ... "

Seems he is very confused, mixing these two different measurements up.

Says

In other words we cannot use the base line from earth and area, because that has time imbedded in it. To use it assumes the other lines have equal time.

There is no baseline on earth used for the SN1987A distance calculation. It is not based on parallax.

Can you explain your comment\objection better in relation to the actual distance measurement method as it is discussed in Message 486?

I can go over it again in even more detail if you need it.

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 560 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:03 AM time has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 575 of 593 (797850)
01-28-2017 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 561 by time
01-28-2017 1:11 AM


Re: Great Debate issues
If I take the time for a demolition derby, I do not want biased mods around.

I can understand that, I wouldn't want them either.

Of course.

Thank you. If I happen to run into moderator interference on your side can I trust you to post what I post on the thread here on that site? I've been on sites where moderators shut me off with no explanation or means to communicate. I know you wouldn't want that to happen to you, so I would promise to do the same here.

Ha you like to make little rules eh? Good luck with that.

No, I am just making suggestions on how to proceed. As noted I have started a new thread proposed for a Great Debate.

Ha. I see you really think you have a chance. Kind of a little sad. But I guess you need to learn.

I am willing to learn, are you? I have learned some things from other creationist debaters, but those actually helped strengthen my arguments.

Flatter yourself all you like. I find your arguments second rate. Passe.

Well I have had communication from people that have 'seen the light' after reading the Age Correlations and An Old Earth threads and thanked me for it.

Curiously I do feel a bit flattered when that happens, but really it is the evidence that is persuasive, not the messenger.

If I take the time for a demolition derby, I do not want biased mods around.

Of course if you like, you could agree to start on the Great Debate and then pull out if you feel you are being suppressed by biased mods.

Another alternative location for the thread is the Free For All forum:

Free For All
Interested in free and wild debate unencumbered by most moderation? Then this is the forum for you. Just stay on topic.

The only requirement there is that you stay on topic. Of course other people will be able to post there too and it gets a little wild (I tend to stay away from those threads).

OR we can ask Admin that staying on topic is the only requirement for the Great Debate. Note that the only concern expressed so far by Admin on the proposed The Age of the Earth Great Debate, RAZD and time (only) in Proposed New Topics was

Message 4: I'd like to get a better sense of Time's sincerity before granting a one-on-one.

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 561 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:11 AM time has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 576 of 593 (797851)
01-28-2017 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by time
01-28-2017 1:56 AM


Time Suspended 24 Hours
Hi Time,

I'm suspending you 24 hours for not debating constructively and seriously or with evidence. You will not be coached into compliance with the Forum Guidelines. Figure it out or not.

Edited by Admin, : Typo.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:56 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by time, posted 01-29-2017 7:01 PM Admin has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 577 of 593 (797853)
01-28-2017 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by time
01-28-2017 1:21 AM


time and distance
Yes time here can be measured. Notice it is here.

And those measurements of time here are accurate, they don't vary. Planet orbits are consistent with our understanding of time.

There IS no distance regardless of time! Time is essential is all distance. At least here in our spacetime where there is time. Is this really all that hard to get?

Spacetime is a 4 dimensional concept. Can I not have a line in spacetime with no height, no width, just length? Such as the length of a lightbeam from time a to time b?

Message 566: That was a long post. ...

Which you basically ignored. This is why you got suspended, not answering questions related directly to your assertions.

Message 566: ... Let me at least address the issue of where time is in parallax. ...

Anyhow time is part of spacetime. You with me so far? If then time is part of space...spacetime...the when we take a slice of space for a base line, that has to include time.

Why? If I can have a line with only one space dimension (the other two space dimensions having zero value) why can I not have one with a zero time dimension. For instance, if I take simultaneous measurements of the angle from earth and from the James Webb Space Telescope:

quote:
The James Webb Space Telescope will not be in orbit around the Earth, like the Hubble Space Telescope is - it will actually orbit the Sun, 1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles) away from the Earth at what is called the second Lagrange point or L2. ...


Being simultaneous, would not that not mean time would have a value of zero? Would that not mean that the baseline would be "1.5 million kilometers (1 million miles)" irrespective of time?

... Time is essential is all distance. ...

Is this not like saying that width and height are essential to all measurements of length? You can't cherry pick one dimension as ruling all the others.

... Is this really all that hard to get?

Sadly there appears to be somewhat of a difference between understanding 'general relativity' (that hypothesizes space-time), and understanding your particular interpretation of it. But thank you for using general relativity (space-time) as our best understanding of how time works in your argument.

What I want to know is how you explain the observed planet in orbit around Fomalhaut (shown in different locations in the inset).

and the observed relative motion of the 4 planets in this video (A Four Planet System in Orbit, Directly Imaged and Remarkable):

How do you explain these observations? Relativity explains them. What is your explanation?

abeMessage 567:

So yes man designed a system to measure duration between events in existence.
Those who believe in God attribute that to Him first.

Don't the 7 days of creation establish time (unit = days) as a constant element for all of creation? Just curious how you meld this with your comments about time.

... The mods are already threatening me here with suspensions. You think anyone could debate here in any honest way??!! Ha. ...

And I see you have been suspended for a day. This affects me as much as it affects you in pursuing this debate.

Suspension expires: 01-29-2017 8:05 AM
22h 3m from now
See last 10 or so messages starting at Message 571 and going back. --Admin

Message 576: Hi Time,

I'm suspending you 24 hours for not debating constructively and seriously or with evidence. You will not be couched into compliance with the Forum Guidelines. Figure it out or not.

I believe that should be coached into compliance.

Do you think it unreasonable to ask that you provide more than your opinion or belief (on a science thread)? Especially when other debaters on this thread have been suspended for not following the Forum Guidelines:

10. Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

I certainly expect more than just blind opinion on your responses to The Age of the Earth Great Debate, RAZD and time (only), because opinion does not refute facts, nor has opinion shown any ability to alter reality.

You have a day to read the Forum Guidelines and plan your replies, time to gather evidence, could be time well spent.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : ....

Edited by RAZD, : .....

Edited by RAZD, : vi

Edited by RAZD, : vii


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 565 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:21 AM time has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member
Posts: 1060
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 578 of 593 (797860)
01-28-2017 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by time
01-28-2017 1:53 AM


The planet's happen to be the same size as an atom?

The ratio of orbit distances are not the same for one. The central mass is too large relative to the orbits as well.

Edited by Son Goku, : Clearer wording


This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:53 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 585 by time, posted 01-29-2017 6:59 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15767
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 579 of 593 (797917)
01-29-2017 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by time
01-28-2017 1:53 AM


The 'planets happen to be almost the exact size of these....

You are wrong. It is not possible to see things the size of electrons 750,000,000,000,000 miles away using a telescope. Indeed, it is not possible to see things the size of electrons at any distance using a telescope, because a telescope is not a microscope.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:53 AM time has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15767
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 580 of 593 (797918)
01-29-2017 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 563 by time
01-28-2017 1:17 AM


Re: Dwise1 and NewCatsEye Suspended 24 Hours
I accept time here on earth. I live it. I experience it.

Yes, but you always experience it where you are, and not, for example, six feet away from you. So where is your proof that there is time six feet away from you?

I accept time in the solar system because we know how long it tales for light or communication to get around here.

Well now that is just circular reasoning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:17 AM time has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 581 of 593 (797926)
01-29-2017 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by time
01-28-2017 1:53 AM


orbital speed
The 'planets happen to be almost the exact size of these....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLyBG4mqZ3s

[youtube=DLyBG4mqZ3s]:

vs

Notice any difference in relative motions? How do you explain those differences?

BTW this video shows a better representation of the Bohr atom model:

and we also know that this model is still inaccurate -- atoms do not behave like planetary systems, electrons are in a spherical cloud around the nucleus, not in a plane.

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 569 by time, posted 01-28-2017 1:53 AM time has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by time, posted 01-29-2017 6:58 PM RAZD has responded

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


Message 582 of 593 (797941)
01-29-2017 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 572 by Riggamortis
01-28-2017 2:09 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Guess who posed the question you rudely refuse to answer?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Riggamortis, posted 01-28-2017 2:09 AM Riggamortis has not yet responded

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


Message 583 of 593 (797943)
01-29-2017 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 573 by thingamabob
01-28-2017 2:30 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
I do not experience time by getting old. I get old because I exist. There is duration in existence between events that can be measured with the system mankind has devised.
Or with the cycles of the moon and etc man did not devise.

What is time that it can go by?
There is duration in existence that can be measured with the system mankind has devised.

If man is there he can measure it how he likes. If a money was noting time maybe it would have more to do with cycles of nature or something. What is time, you ask? Science doesn't know. If you claim it does then tell us.


What is the 'they' we are trying to see how long they take?
The isotopes being looked at.

Since I cannot see, feel, smell, or hear time I don't know what I would be trying to measure, anywhere in the universe.

Finally someone admitting they have no clue.


As I understand it God defined a period of light as a day. He defined a dark period as a night. He further defined the evening of a light period and the morning following a dark period as a day. He left the rest up to mankind to figure out.

Enjoy

Well, there was the bits about new moons, and years too. If Adam lived 930 years or so, then one assumes a year was a thing that they were familiar with.

Edited by time, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by thingamabob, posted 01-28-2017 2:30 AM thingamabob has not yet responded

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


Message 584 of 593 (797944)
01-29-2017 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 581 by RAZD
01-29-2017 1:46 PM


Re: orbital speed
I was talking about the size of the objects going round something else, not the orbit patterns.
If we look at the link here

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

.....we see that objects can be quite small, and still have orbits due to gravity. Then there is the question of what gravity may be like if time and space are different! Then there is the question of what atomic orbits may be like if fundamental forces start to be different...etc. The deeper we look at the issue the more we see you don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 581 by RAZD, posted 01-29-2017 1:46 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 590 by RAZD, posted 01-30-2017 11:47 AM time has not yet responded

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


Message 585 of 593 (797945)
01-29-2017 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by Son Goku
01-28-2017 12:35 PM


The pictures of the atoms and the exoplanets were about the same size. You make too much of the comparison. Besides my last post dealt with that...
This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by Son Goku, posted 01-28-2017 12:35 PM Son Goku has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
35363738
39
40Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017