Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 406 of 687 (523182)
09-08-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 405 by Straggler
09-08-2009 6:33 PM


Re: Acceleration
Beat you

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2009 6:33 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 407 of 687 (523183)
09-08-2009 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by cavediver
09-08-2009 6:23 PM


Re: Time
Explain how something can be accelerating and continuint to circle the earth in just under 12 hrs.
If it is continually accelerating that means it is getting faster and faster doesn't it?
Oh, god, I wish I were still lecturing, just so I could pass this one around.
This is proof positive that there is some fundamental ignorance of even basic physics that is a barrier to real discussion on this issue. It is unfortunate that it is also being paired with a lack of humility.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. --Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2009 6:23 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2009 6:54 PM Jazzns has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 408 of 687 (523185)
09-08-2009 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by ICANT
09-08-2009 3:53 PM


mysterious
In message 369 to you I presented a paper that dispute your statements. You did not mention anything in the paper.
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'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 3:53 PM ICANT has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 409 of 687 (523189)
09-08-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by Rahvin
09-08-2009 6:33 PM


Re: Time
This has consequences, because acceleration means that work is being done, and so entropy must increase.
Careful. Work done = F.d
In a circular orbit, acceleration, and hence force, is perpendicular to the direction of travel, so the dot product is zero. Thus an orbit is conservative: no work is done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by Rahvin, posted 09-08-2009 6:33 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 410 of 687 (523190)
09-08-2009 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 407 by Jazzns
09-08-2009 6:35 PM


Re: Time
It is unfortunate that it is also being paired with a lack of humility.
There is no crime in ignorance, but the level of arrogance portrayed in simply astounding. Each time ICANT comes back, I fall for his ploy that he is actually interested in learning. And each time, I end up feeling betrayed, used, and abused

This message is a reply to:
 Message 407 by Jazzns, posted 09-08-2009 6:35 PM Jazzns has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Sasuke, posted 09-08-2009 7:13 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 411 of 687 (523196)
09-08-2009 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by cavediver
09-08-2009 6:54 PM


Re: Time
I never knew you were a blond dike..
Edited by Sasuke, : No reason given.

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2009 6:54 PM cavediver has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 412 of 687 (523199)
09-08-2009 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by ICANT
09-08-2009 6:20 PM


Re: Time
If it is continually accelerating that means it is getting faster and faster doesn't it?
You are confusing velocity with speed. Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is instantaneous speed and direction. So, changing either speed or direction is an acceleration. An orbiting body is always changing direction.

AbE:
Hi Straggler
ICANT this stuff is in text books available to 14 year olds.
Derision noted.

Ab2E:
Hi Ravin
Beat you
Beat me too, you child beater.
Edited by lyx2no, : PS to Straggler
Edited by lyx2no, : Ab2E to Rahvin.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 6:20 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 415 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 9:44 PM lyx2no has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 413 of 687 (523202)
09-08-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by ICANT
09-08-2009 6:20 PM


Re: Time
Explain how something can be accelerating and continuint to circle the earth in just under 12 hrs.
Wow. I just have to echo the others. You hope to understand how the clocks on the satellites can stay in sync and you don't even know that any motion other than a straight-line motion involves acceleration? You have a good couple of years of studying before you have a hope of understanding the explanations.
Well I just look at all the examples and just don't see how the clocks going in different directions can stay in sync if relativity is correct.
Oh, I believe that you don't see it. It's too bad for you that reality is not affected by your inability to comprehend it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 6:20 PM ICANT has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 414 of 687 (523205)
09-08-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by cavediver
09-08-2009 6:21 PM


Re: Time
Outstanding, ICANT, you've done it! With this simple observation, you have proven the past 100 years' physics completely wrong:
Actually it's not his observation; it's his nutjob pal's observation from The Direct Verification of Length Contraction and Time Dilation in Modern Satellite Systems and Cosmological Studies. If you're looking for howlers you can't go wrong looking there. He actually derives an equation for "the work done on an object to confine it to motion in a circle": dE/dt = mv2/2.
ICANT's specifically referring to Figure 5 and the surrounding text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 402 by cavediver, posted 09-08-2009 6:21 PM cavediver has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 415 of 687 (523211)
09-08-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by lyx2no
09-08-2009 7:18 PM


Re: Time
Hi lyx2no,
lyx2no writes:
You are confusing velocity with speed. Acceleration is a change in velocity. Velocity is instantaneous speed and direction. So, changing either speed or direction is an acceleration. An orbiting body is always changing direction.
Velocity to me is the speed the bullet exits the barrel of my gun.
Speed is what ever the rate is you are whatever is traveling.
Acceleration is what I get when I jam the accelerator to the floor of a 2000 HP engin in a funny car running nitro and 3.7 seconds later deploy the chute to stop the thing.
Like I said I am old school. But I am learning.
It is gonna be hard to get used to thinking I am accelerating when I deploy that chute though.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by lyx2no, posted 09-08-2009 7:18 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by DrJones*, posted 09-08-2009 10:22 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 418 by lyx2no, posted 09-08-2009 10:35 PM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 416 of 687 (523214)
09-08-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by JonF
09-08-2009 5:30 PM


Re: Talking about
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
They don't adjust the frequency. They can't control that. They change the number of transitions that pass before the clock registers one second. An atomic clock on Earth counts 9,192,631,770 transitions before it registers one more second. A GPS satellite clock on Earth counts 9,192,631,770 - 26,316 = 9,192,605,454 transitions (26,316 = 1/38*10-6, the difference between satellite time and Earth time) before it registers one second. In orbit, the clock continues to count 9,192,605,454 transitions before it registers one second… and these 9,192,605,454 transitions take the same amount of time as 9,192,631,770 transitions on the Earth-based clock because time is running faster on the satellite.
(How it's actually done is more complex, involving PLLs and computers and all sorts of fancy circuitry, but what's actually done is equivalent to what I described above.)
Lets see if I wanted to build an atomic clock what would I need.
First I would need a place with all the equiptment necessary.
Then I would need some cesium 133.
I would have to first heat the cesium so the atoms would boil off and pass down a tube maintained at a high vacuum.
The atoms would have to pass through a magnetic field and the ones with the right energy field be selected.
Then they would have to go through an intense microwave field.
Each cycle the field crosses the frequency of exactly 9,192,631,770 Hertz.
The atoms that changed their energy state have to be separated in another magnetic field
A detector at the end of the tube peaks in output when the microwave frequency is exactly correct.
The peak is used to make the slight correction necessary to lock the microwave field exactly on frequency.
This locked frequency is then divided by 9,192,631,770 to give the familiar one pulse per second required by the real world.
To adjust my clock to operate on a satellite I have to adjust the pulse rate. to account for the environment it is going to be in.
JonF writes:
I'm not impressed that you can find a uneducated nutjob to back up your claims; you can find anything on the Intertubes.
I'm not impressed by your rebutal either.
Would you classify Godel and Kant as uneducated nutjob's also? I guess you would, because you did.
JonF writes:
The duration of a second once had something to do with the rotation of the Earth, but it has not had anything to do with the rotation of the Earth for decades. The duration of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation corresponding to the transition between two energy levels of the cesium-133 atom (at Earth's surface) and has been since 1967.
Lets see: the rotation of the earth is slowing down so we have to add a leap second to the atomic clock so it can be in sync with the earth's rotation but the earth's rotation has noting to do with the length of a second.
JonF writes:
time itself (really spacetime) is not dependent on the tools we use to measure it
You want to tell me what spacetime is?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by JonF, posted 09-08-2009 5:30 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 423 by JonF, posted 09-09-2009 8:16 AM ICANT has replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 417 of 687 (523217)
09-08-2009 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by ICANT
09-08-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Time
Velocity to me is the speed the bullet exits the barrel of my gun.
Velocity is a vector, by definition it has a magnitude and direction. When you say the bullet leaves the barrel at 200 fps (or whatever is a reasonable speed) you're only giving the magnitude of the velocity vector.
Speed is what ever the rate is you are whatever is traveling.
This is actually correct.
It is gonna be hard to get used to thinking I am accelerating when I deploy that chute though.
You are experiencing a negative acceleration, or more accurately an acceleration opposite to the direction of your motion (positive or negative really depends on how you've set up the coordinate system).
Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 9:44 PM ICANT has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4715 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 418 of 687 (523219)
09-08-2009 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by ICANT
09-08-2009 9:44 PM


Re: Time
to me
"To me" is not the standard you need to appeal to.
Like I said I am old school.
Physics is older then you. Why did you go to all the trouble to learn it wrong.
But I am learning.
Not so long as you appeal to "To me " you ain't.

I have a Weatherby Mark V Deluxe in .270 with a 27" heavy barrel, adjustable cheek and Leupold VX-3L scope. And a Remington 700 BDL in .308 rebedded in a Bell & Carlson 2094 stock with a Swarovisk 3-9x36 American scope. At 50 meters I'll keep 7 mm three shot groups with the Mark V and 11 mm three shot groups with the Remington all day. .308 is a bit heavy for me yet.
Edited by lyx2no, : Forgot to enter range.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 9:44 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 419 of 687 (523237)
09-09-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 375 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 2:47 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
I thought I told you I was finished with you forever.
Someone is forcing you to reply?
quote:
no really, I find you very argumentative which makes our exchanges futile.
Indeed. I take the discussion seriously, actually read your words, analyze them, see where they lead, and ask questions regarding your justifications of your own claims rather than simply accepting them at face value.
Of course you find it futile.
When you cannot support your own argument, it is very frustrating to have someone point it out.
quote:
I do not remember the names of the textbooks.
Then you'll understand when I call bullshit on your claim.
This is a common creationist whine, but the names of the books in question never seem to be available.
quote:
I believe they still show the branchial arches to be gill slits even though they form into the ear canal, tonsils, etc...nothing to do with breathing.
Well, you would be wrong, then. Gill slits are present in all chordates. It is one of the three characteristics that define chordates (the notochord and the dorsal nerve cord). In water-breathing animals, they eventually become the gills. In air-breathing animals, the gill arches develop into other structures.
It would be a failure of education not to mention this to students in the course of explaining comparative embryology.
quote:
If you mean abiogenesis, the problems are well know, such as the racemic aminos being left-handed in lifeforms.
Chirality is not a problem. We can create self-replicating, autocatalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve in the lab. You need to keep up on the state of the science. This has been a possibility for well over a decade. This has been brought up many times here. Why are you continuing to proclaim something that isn't true?
quote:
Time is also an enemy. The time-lengths involved are too great a problem, as the make-up for life would break down before it was made.
Huh? There is no problem with time, either. In fact, it appears that life started on this planet almost immediately from a geological perspective.
quote:
There is no evidence for abiogenesis.
There isn't any evidence for anything else, either. Is there a particular reason why you cannot accept "We don't know"? That's why it isn't called the "theory" of abiogensis. That's why investigations into the organic chemistry of origins continues.
By your logic, we shouldn't have looked into calculating the age of the universe since before we were able to measure the distances, understand the nature of light, etc., there was no evidence that it was billions of years old.
Your argument is that because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.
quote:
There will be no response, I have given my opinion but it's already a tatty affair because you wildly jump from one issue to the next.
Huh? I respond to your post and I'm the one jumping from one issue to the next? That makes no sense.
quote:
Perhaps you should just read the conversation between me and modulous.
In other words, you know you cannot justify it so rather than simply say, "Oops, I have made a mistake," you're going to whine about it.
Because somebody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to respond.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 375 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 2:47 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:17 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 420 of 687 (523238)
09-09-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 2:52 PM


mike the wiz responds to me:
quote:
When I mention evidence I mean the induction so far shows that all life comes from life, nothing more.
So? The chemistry of replication is different from the chemistry of origins. There are lots of ways of making various chemicals. Certain reactions are easier to sustain than they are to initiate.
Take the simple act of making water. If you mix two moles of hydrogen gas and a mole of oxygen gas at STP, they'll sit there forever and never react to make water. You have to spark it. But you don't need to have a spark the entire mixture. All you need is to spark a small area: The energy from the reaction of those molecules will provide the energy of reaction for the rest of the mixture. The reaction feeds off itself. So long as there is hydrogen and oxygen to react, the reaction keeps going. From the point of view of the molecules late to the reaction, it appears that water is only created from the energy released from hydrogen and oxygen reactions, but we know that there was another step that started it, that is different from what we see now.
That's the entire point behind self-replication and auto-catalysis: The molecules themselves drive the reaction. The chemistry involved in creating the first molecule is different from the chemistry involved in replicating the molecule. Once the molecule comes into existence, it becomes much easier to get a second molecule because the molecule self-replicates and it its own catalyzer. The reaction to get these molecules is much more likely to occur from the self-replicating reaction rather than from the original reaction...and because of that, all the molecules get used in that reaction rather than the original one.
As the self-replicating, auto-catalysing process evolves and diversifies, we should expect that it takes over and that we never see the original reaction anymore: There is a much more favored reaction that is using up all the reagents.
And we can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochiral molecules that evolve.
quote:
The fact of design is observable.
So give me an example. Why is it every single proferred piece of "design" has been shown in reality to have evolved?
quote:
Can God make things evolve? By definition he must, he is God - but it doesn't follow that it happened because of this.
Huh? That isn't what I asked. I simply asked if god can create life that evolves. If he can, then what is the problem with evolution not telling us how life began? You've just demonstrated that evolution is completely independent of origins. Life could have arisen chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, extraterrestrially through alien seeding or panspermia, or any other possible means you care to imagine. Evolution doesn't care where life began, only that life doesn't replicate perfectly from generation to generation and that the environment constrains which variants of the current generation will reproduce the next one.
quote:
I believe the bible's literal Genesis is the best explanation of the facts
Unfortunately, the literal reading of Genesis directly contradicts the observations that we see. For example, Genesis claims that fruit-bearing plants appeared before insects. The fossil record clearly shows that it's the other way around: Insects first, then fruit-bearing plants.
quote:
I only have "doubts" against this, no reasons, other than weak ones that require giving natural processes a 0% interest rate.
Oh, so the fossil record is bullshit? There is absolutely nothing to learn from examining the remains of the life that existed before we were here?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 376 by mike the wiz, posted 09-08-2009 2:52 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 7:41 AM Rrhain has replied
 Message 424 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 8:28 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024