ICANT'S position in the creation debate

In the thread "How can there be a creator without creation?" you engaged in a similar practice. You seem to think you can know what a person really means, even when it runs counter to what they actually say. In that case, we had the advantage of having that person confirm you had misinterpreted them (Message 95)- doesn't this evidence give you pause that your method for understanding what people mean might be critically flawed?Edited by Modulous, : subtitle

Relativity works. By assuming that time is a property of the universe (or more precisely 'spacetime'), we have GPS.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Distractions aside^*, relativity works which is the scientific evidence you asked for.

---

^* See also, What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity and Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System or even google

No, the evidence is that relativity works.The wiki article was just about relativity and GPS which is just an aside. The article also states:

quote:

---

When combined, the discrepancy is about 38 microseconds per day

---

You might think that the discrepancy is due to some problem with the measuring device or whatever other reason, but that is a distraction. Relativity predicts the magnitude of the discrepancy by assuming time is a property of the universe. By assuming that time is a property of the universe (ie., spacetime), relativity makes predictions that turn out to be true. This is evidence that the assumption is accurate. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm saying that relativity predicts time will pass at different rates for different observers as well as the magnitude of the discrepancy and that relativity postulates 'spacetime'.I'm saying that relativity's predictive success is evidence that its an accurate model and that 'spacetime' means that time is an integral part of the universe.

You do? What has my definition of time got to do with the scientific evidence that time is a property of the universe? Do you dispute that time is an intrinsic part of spacetime in relativity? Do you dispute that relativity makes succesful predictions? Do you dispute that if a theory makes successful predictions this counts as scientific evidence that the theory is 'on to something'?

Really? Could you explain why my definition is relevant to the scientific evidence?

I'm talking about time as being a part of spacetime, and that treating it this way in the sense that relativity does, produces tangible predictions that have been successfully tested. Do you dispute that this constitutes scientific evidence for the claim that time is part of the universe?

The question is, do you dispute that what I presented was scientific evidence in favour of the claim?

Whether or not you dispute the evidence is not relevant to whether it is scientific evidence. You seem to be having difficulty answering that. I simply came into the thread to give you that which you asked for. I asked you a lot of times if you agreed that what I presented constituted scientific evidence in favour of the claim, which I did as a courtesy. You have yet to answer so I am none the wiser as to whether I fulfilled your request. Since repeating the question has not yielded results I'll have to file it under the 'mysteries that aren't likely to be solved'.

I'm a spaceship. Ground control sends me a message which says that by the time that we receive this message we will be 1 light year from earth. We send a reply which says "Hello World!". At this point we are travelling at 50% of the speed of light. So about 150,000 kms (relative to earth).Now - we watch that signal moving away from us and we measure its speed: 300,000 kms (relative to us). Therefore, by addition the light must be travelling at 450,000 kms. This means that the signal will get to earth in less than a year.Why does the earth receive the message, "Hello World!" exactly one year later by their reckoning?I would love to hear how you square the constancy of the measured speed of light with your concept of 'duration'.Or how about this. I have two lasers that fire 'at the same time' in opposite directions. They are aimed at clocks that are equal distance apart. When the clock receives a burst of laser light they will reset to 12:00. I put this arrangement on a train travelling at half the speed of light.Clock..........L..........Clockdirection ------>From inside the train my friend presses the 'on' button. He observes that the light reaches both clocks at the exact same time so they both read "12.00".But I'm outside the train. The clock on the left is moving towards the laser beam and so the laser has less distance to travel. The clock on the right is moving away from the laser beam and so has to move further. So the clocks are not synchronised.Or how about a laser on a train moving at very high speed. We measure time by measuring the distance the laser travels, and using speed = distance / time rearranged to time = distance / speed.But as per the above experiment, two different observers measure the laser beam travelling different distances and so calculate that it takes a different amount of time for the laser to reach its destination.Well, to quote you, "One of {us} is wrong." Who? Or maybe none of this happens and we get a different result. What do you think would happen and why? These kinds of questions might help us to get an understanding of your model of the cosmos.

You should look closer. The natural state is to be curled up more, but we start quite worm like And arches begin to appear within a couple of days of this stage, and within a couple of weeks from there, four pairs of pharyngeal arches clearly develop. Hackel's second illustration is from around 45-50 days it seems, so the first is probably in the 28-35 day period somewhere. {images hotlinked, sorry} No. Brazil nuts aren't strictly speaking nuts. Naming conventions are funny things, and despite a name technically not being accurate they can stick around. This occurs in science too - atom literally means 'indivisible' or 'uncuttable', yet we know that they are. Technically they should be referred to as pharyngeal arches or branchial arches. The name 'gill slits' floats around, but it is becoming less common to refer to them that way unless they do develop into gills.There are probably better threads to discuss this in though. This thread just seems to be swaying all over the place.SearchSearch

Do you disagree that the speed of light will be measured the same no matter the speed of the observer? And if you answer the questions I posed to you, I'd understand what you mean better.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't know what you mean, sorry. If we were travelling that fast, and were travelling zero relative to one another, and you put your headlights on, we would measure the light travelling away from us at 100% of the speed of light. If we were travelling towards each other at 99.9% of the speed of light and I lit my headlamps you'd measure it as approaching you at 100% of the speed of light and I would measure it travelling away from me at the same speed.It is this effect that I am asking you about. We have measured it at speeds of 30kms and the speed of light doesn't increase as we move towards the source or decrease as we move away from it.

We are travelling side by side at the same speed. 99.9% of the speed of light.You turn on your headlights.We measure the distance the photons travel and the time it takes for them to travel that distance.We calculate the speed that the photons are moving away from us.That speed is the speed of light.Agreed? The light won't catch up to you.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.