Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,809 Year: 3,066/9,624 Month: 911/1,588 Week: 94/223 Day: 5/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 496 of 687 (524075)
09-14-2009 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 487 by Rrhain
09-12-2009 3:06 AM


Re:Life
Hi Rrhain,
Rrhain writes:
Question: Are you saying there has always been life somewhere in the universe or do you think that there was a time when there was no life followed by a time when there was life?
My question was is there anything alive on earth today that was not produced by life? yes/no is all that is required.
God is infinite therefore life has always existed.
Rrhain writes:
Which is it, ICANT? Panspermia or biogenesis?
Panspermia=life seeds came from outer space and planets exchanged life. So if you mean from within the universe, then No.
Biogenesis=The theory of biogenesis states that living things can only arise from living things and cannot be spontaneously generated.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
God gave life to man, as well as all plants and animals, Thus life begat life.
According to the theory of biogenesis definition I found and printed above the Biblical account agrees that life produces life.
Observation:
Life exists today.
According to the theory of biogenesis life can only be produced by life and not by spontaneous generation.
Conclusion:
A life form had to begat the first life form on earth.
Scientific evidence that there is a life giving being.
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 487 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2009 3:06 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by Izanagi, posted 09-16-2009 7:11 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 547 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 8:16 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 497 of 687 (524081)
09-14-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 491 by mike the wiz
09-12-2009 1:56 PM


In the drawing, we get a worm with gills, but in reality, we can not see these arches, as being anything meaningful.
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}
Do all mammals start out as fish? Not from the photograph of a human!
No.
So then logically, how can such rudimentary "shapes" be called "gill slits" in the first place, when you could not relate such primal blobs to anything significant untill they are substantially formed.
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.
Search
Search

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by mike the wiz, posted 09-12-2009 1:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied

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


Message 498 of 687 (524089)
09-14-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by ICANT
09-14-2009 10:12 AM


Re: Time changes
Are you saying that my clock that was built in the earth frame and then put into orbit is not effected by earth's gravity if I am sitting in the satellite with it, (keeps perfect time) but if I am on the ground it does effect it (runs fast}?
Wherever it is, if you are sitting there with it, the clock keeps perfect time. If you are moving relative to it, and/or in a stronger or weaker gravitational field, it will run slow or fast relative to another clock that you are sitting with.
It is affected by the Earth's gravity (and the gravity of all objects in the Universe, although most of those effects are negligible.)
ell that to two entangled particles. Their information is communicated instantly, no matter how far apart they are. That is why Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".
We don't fully understand that yet… but it's not a thing with mass traveling faster than light. Nor is it time running backward for anything. And it's not covered in relativity, which does not work completely when applied to subatomic particles.
try googling "pulitzer prize).
Isn't that what you would get for the greatest story of the decade even if it was science fiction.
We're not discussing science fiction. We're discussing people who claim to have found serious problems with relativity when analyzing conditions found in our solar system and for macroscopic objects. If someone found such a problem no, they wouldn't get the Pulitzer prize. What prize woudl they receive?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:12 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by cavediver, posted 09-14-2009 12:59 PM JonF has replied
 Message 503 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 2:17 PM JonF has replied

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


Message 499 of 687 (524091)
09-14-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ICANT
09-14-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Time changes
If relativity is right, and the amount of travel is enough to see time-dilation (remember, it's a tiny, tiny effect at non-relativistic speeds), those clocks will no longer be in sync.
Doesn't the clocks tick different if one clock is at sea level and one at 29,000' above sea level.
Yes, a little bit. And they tick differently when they are moving relative to whoever is observing them.
Flying clocks around the world in planes is *exactly* the same as putting them in orbit.
Not quite as the ones in orbit are a bit higher and effected a little more by gravity.
It still is exactly the same effect, but the size of the effect is smaller.
The clocks in orbit WILL show a different time from a clock on the ground.
Not the ones in the GPS satellites.
Right, because the real clocks in the GPS satellites have been adjusted to compensate. Now we're discussing the clock that you introduced, a hypothetical clock that is on a GPS satellite but has not been adjusted. That clock will show a different time from the one on the ground. An observer on the ground will observe the clock on the satellite running a little faster than any clock he has on the ground. An observer on the satellite will observe clocks on the ground running a little slower than any un-adjusted clock he has on the satellite.
This isn't theory, these are facts that we observe in the world around us. The theory of relativity is an explanation of these facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:06 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 2:25 PM JonF has replied

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


Message 500 of 687 (524097)
09-14-2009 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by JonF
09-14-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Time changes
ICANT writes:
Their information is communicated instantly, no matter how far apart they are. That is why Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance".
Ignore this, Jon, it's complete crap. There is no communication whatsoever, FTL or STL. It is "simple" quantum statistics. ICANT's bullshit is equivalent to claiming that coins must communicate with each other in order for them to generate a normal distribution approximation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 12:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 1:21 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 501 of 687 (524105)
09-14-2009 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by cavediver
09-14-2009 12:59 PM


Re: Time changes
Ignore this, Jon, it's complete crap. There is no communication whatsoever, FTL or STL. It is "simple" quantum statistics. ICANT's bullshit is equivalent to claiming that coins must communicate with each other in order for them to generate a normal distribution approximation.
Well I certainly don't understand it. My one exposure to a course in QM was in the early 70's, and I've forgotten most of it. But whatever it may be, it's irrelevant to the idea of macroscopic objects or subatomic particles moving faster than light.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by cavediver, posted 09-14-2009 12:59 PM cavediver has not replied

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


Message 502 of 687 (524108)
09-14-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by ICANT
09-14-2009 10:16 AM


Re: Re ICANT'S cosmos
When did any of these experiment's take place?
I didn't know we had spaceships and trains that could travel 93,000 miles per second.
Do you disagree that the speed of light will be measured the same no matter the speed of the observer?
ICANTS position on the cosmos.
Space exists in eternity.
Things exist in space.
And if you answer the questions I posed to you, I'd understand what you mean better.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:16 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 2:53 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 503 of 687 (524114)
09-14-2009 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by JonF
09-14-2009 12:20 PM


Re: Time changes
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
Wherever it is, if you are sitting there with it, the clock keeps perfect time. If you are moving relative to it, and/or in a stronger or weaker gravitational field, it will run slow or fast relative to another clock that you are sitting with.
It is affected by the Earth's gravity (and the gravity of all objects in the Universe, although most of those effects are negligible.)
So my clock or any atomic clock in a satellite at 11,000 miles that has not been adjusted to be in sync with the earth clock will be running 38,000 ns faster per day.
This is because of gravity and motion affecting the tick of the atom.
Is that correct?
JonF writes:
We're discussing people who claim to have found serious problems with relativity
I actually thought we were discussing spacetime and it's existence.
If it existed what it was.
The question I raised was concerning:
quote:
Perhaps readers who are not familiar with the current impossibility of reconciling relativity and quantum theory, may be visiting this site expecting to find an answer to the question "what is space-time?". Alas, there is no answer,
The question "what is space-time?", remains unanswered.
Everything else was just responses to the smoke screen that was put up concerning this question.
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 498 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 12:20 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 7:02 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 504 of 687 (524117)
09-14-2009 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by JonF
09-14-2009 12:29 PM


Re: Time changes
Hi JonF,
JonF writes:
An observer on the ground will observe the clock on the satellite running a little faster than any clock he has on the ground. An observer on the satellite will observe clocks on the ground running a little slower than any un-adjusted clock he has on the satellite.
This isn't theory, these are facts that we observe in the world around us. The theory of relativity is an explanation of these facts.
So what makes these two clocks report a different time?
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 499 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 12:29 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2009 2:53 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 514 by JonF, posted 09-14-2009 7:03 PM ICANT has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 505 of 687 (524126)
09-14-2009 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by ICANT
09-14-2009 2:25 PM


Incorrect statement
An observer on the ground will observe the clock on the satellite running a little faster than any clock he has on the ground. An observer on the satellite will observe clocks on the ground running a little slower than any un-adjusted clock he has on the satellite.
I'm not actually sure that JonF's statement above is correct. I was waiting for cavediver to correct it.
If only SR effects are considered then both observers will see the others clock as running slower I think.
This is because, again I emphasize I think because it isn't the clocks that are changed but space and time itself. All the clocks run just fine but the space and time involved with the different observers isn't the same.
Remember space and time are not separate things. Spacetime is what we are really talking about. If you mess with one part (by moving in space for example) then you mess with the other part (time).
As usual I await a check from cavediver.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 2:25 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by cavediver, posted 09-14-2009 3:04 PM NosyNed has replied

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


Message 506 of 687 (524127)
09-14-2009 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Modulous
09-14-2009 1:45 PM


Re: Re ICANT'S cosmos
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
Do you disagree that the speed of light will be measured the same no matter the speed of the observer?
Let me see said the blind man:
I have just constructed 2 super bikes powered by dark energy engins.
You and I race off from earth on these two bikes and we are traveling at 99.99% the speed of light.
Now I really put the hammer down and begin to speed away from you at 99.99% the speed of light.
If that is what you are saying is possible in relativity I think I will disagree. Unless you can explain how that is possible.
I believe the speed of light in a vacuum is constant but that really depends on the photon being massless.
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 502 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2009 1:45 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2009 7:12 PM ICANT has replied

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


Message 507 of 687 (524130)
09-14-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by NosyNed
09-14-2009 2:53 PM


Re: Incorrect statement
I'm not actually sure that JonF's statement above is correct. I was waiting for cavediver to correct it.
Sorry, wasn't actually paying much attention - everything seemed in hand
Observations of clock in orbit from the Earth: red-shift due to SR time dilation, but blue-shift as the photons are falling to the Earth-based observer. If blue-shift is greater than red-shift, we will see the orbiting clocks running a bit faster.
Observations of clock on Earth from orbit: red-shift due to SR time dilation, and red-shift as the photons are climbing up to the orbit-based observer. So in all cases, Earth clock both appears to be and *is* running slow.
ABE: sorry, that's a bit of a "physicsy" answer - we can look at it from a space-time perspective if you like, but I'll have to leave that till later...
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
Edited by cavediver, : ABE goes at the bottom, not in the middle

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2009 2:53 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by NosyNed, posted 09-14-2009 5:18 PM cavediver has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 508 of 687 (524147)
09-14-2009 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by ICANT
09-14-2009 10:06 AM


Re: Time changes
JonF schooled you well enough on this, I think, but this paragraph was especially egregious:
All the GPS satellite clocks agree with the clock on the ground.
My clock is the only one that does not agree with all the others. It does not agree because it was not adjusted for a different tick rate which is necessary for them to agree, because my clock in the satellite is 11,000 miles from the earth. The gravity effect on the clock is a lot less therefore it ticks faster.
Your clock "not agreeing" would be because, if you could put your amazingly accurate clock into space, you wouldn't adjust it for the time dilation effect.
The GPS satellite clocks agree with the ones on the ground precisely BECAUSE they are adjusted to compensate for the time dilation which has been experimentally proved to occur, and is a continuous thing they have to deal with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:06 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 3:57 PM greyseal has replied

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


Message 509 of 687 (524150)
09-14-2009 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 508 by greyseal
09-14-2009 3:46 PM


Re: Time changes
Hi greyseal,
greyseal writes:
The GPS satellite clocks agree with the ones on the ground precisely BECAUSE they are adjusted to compensate for the time dilation which has been experimentally proved to occur, and is a continuous thing they have to deal with.
Are you saying gravity does not have anything to do with the clock in the satellite running faster?
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 508 by greyseal, posted 09-14-2009 3:46 PM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by greyseal, posted 09-14-2009 4:05 PM ICANT has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 510 of 687 (524152)
09-14-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 509 by ICANT
09-14-2009 3:57 PM


Re: Time changes
Are you saying gravity does not have anything to do with the clock in the satellite running faster?
er, nooooo...I'm saying that the ones in space have to be adjusted for time dilation, for really realz.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 509 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 3:57 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 10:24 AM greyseal has replied
 Message 640 by Guiri, posted 09-29-2009 5:37 AM greyseal has not replied
 Message 642 by Guiri, posted 09-29-2009 5:42 AM greyseal 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