Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


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 556 of 687 (524769)
09-18-2009 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 539 by cavediver
09-18-2009 4:36 AM


Re: What Is Your Point? What Is Your Model?
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
I appreciate that my posts to you of late will not provoke an attitude of thanks) and go forward having learnt something? Why is your pride and arrogance so huge that you cannot admit to having been wrong on something?
I don't have a problem with your attitude, never have. Each is welcome to his/her being.
But since you keep rewriting definitions for words why don't you take the time to put together a new dictionary of the english language so we can all know the cavediver meaning of words. Rather than the meanings that we can find presently given for the words.
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 539 by cavediver, posted 09-18-2009 4:36 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by cavediver, posted 09-21-2009 10:46 AM ICANT has replied

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


Message 557 of 687 (524770)
09-18-2009 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by ICANT
09-18-2009 12:33 PM


Re: Re Light
I will concede the light is traveling at the speed of light.
But the light is only traveling away from us by 299,792.458 meters per second.
OK, so if we slowed things down, lets say to 30kms-1, do you propose that the light will only be travelling away from us at 299,762,458 ms-1? And if we were travelling 30kms-1 in the opposite direction would we measure the speed of light travelling away from us at 299,822,488ms-1 ?
But since you keep rewriting definitions for words why don't you take the time to put together a new dictionary of the english language so we can all know the cavediver meaning of words. Rather than the meanings that we can find presently given for the words.
The definition of acceleration is quite well defined as it is, look it up.
Edited by Modulous, : whoopsie on the maths.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 552 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 558 of 687 (524773)
09-18-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by ICANT
09-18-2009 11:18 AM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:
Time doesn't exist because it simply does not exist.
There is only now.
Man invented the concept of time. Then devised ways of counting time. So he could measure the length between events in existence/duration.
You are right, we only experience now. At any point in time that we exist, we consider that now. And I agree that change occurs in existence. My question to you is how do you express change without Time and can change occur without Time?
Time exists as a continuum. That means that all past nows and all future nows are bridged by now now. In order to measure any change, we would need a measurement of some past now that we experienced and compare that measurement to some now now we are experiencing. So can we agree that our past nows once were our now nows and our future nows will become our now nows? If you don't agree, explain how we can measure change in existence if there is no relationship between the past, present, and future.
Assuming you agree, I give you an example:
I take a photo of me now. In the photo of me are various devices measuring my height and weight. The photo is in color, so I can describe other characteristics about me as well.
Let 20 years worth of future nows pass by until I am experiencing some future now as now now. I take out the photo and through my measurements from the photo I am able to measure the changes that have taken place since I took that photo. So what?
Well, if you agree that Time is a continuum, then we can imagine Time as a coordinate along an axis, and your idea of change actually fits in very well with Time as a property of the Universe. When we think of spacetime, we are thinking about the standard Cartesian Coordinate System (XYZ) with an additional coordinate which we mark as T.
ICANT writes:
Events happen in existence/duration time only tells us the duration from one event to the next.
Wiki writes:
Spacetimes are the arenas in which all physical events take placean event is a point in spacetime specified by its time and place
An event is a point specified by its time and place. What this means is that if I measure CarA at (x1=0,y1=0,z1=0,T1=0) and later measure CarA at (x2=10,y2=0,z2=0,T2=5), what I have done is taken the measurements of two events and the duration between. Let's define each increment along the xyz axes as 1 km and each increment along the T axis as 1 sec. Because I know the change in position and the duration between when I first measured to when I last measured, I can calculate Velocity as S = (x2-x1)/(t2-t1) = (10-0)/(5-0) = 10/5 or 2 km/s.
As you can see, all I did was take measurements of two events which were two points in spacetime. I was able to mark the change in in position in space and the duration between events because Time, in the concept of spacetime, is a coordinate. Changes takes place on the Cartesian Coordinate System. But in order to mark the changes, we need the Time coordinate to mark the length of each duration.
ICANT writes:
Change is a function in existence.
If change is a function of existence, then how do we express change? We use time to help us express change in existence. Agreed? What is Time? Well, if existence was static, we could not measure Time because we would not have a frame of reference to mark Time since no changes would occur, agreed? Then I could say that Time is a measurement of the duration between events given that a change has occurred between one event to the other, right?
If that is the case, and change is a function of our existence, that makes Time an essential part of our Universe. Before you nay-say, let me say this:
Occupying space is a function of our existence. We exist, therefore we occupy space along the XYZ axes. Because we occupy space on the Cartesian Coordinate System, we can measure length(x), width(y), and height(z). Length, width, and height are all properties of our existence. Without them, we couldn't occupy space and therefore couldn't exist in our Universe.
Change is a function of our existence. We exist, therefore we experience change along the Time axis. Because we experience change along the Time axis, we can measure the duration between events. Time is a part of our existence. Without it, we couldn't mark change and therefore couldn't exist in our Universe.
ICANT writes:
Time doesn't exist because it simply does not exist... Nothing has a concept of time except man.
A word of advice, don't use these arguments to show that Time does not exist. I can just as easily say:
1) God doesn't exist because it simply does not exist.
2) Nothing has a concept of God except man.
Would you believe this argument if I presented it to you? Your first statement is an example of petitio principii and your second statement is a non sequitur. Just because nothing else has a concept of time except for man doesn't mean Time can't exist. I could say the same of a hundred other concepts, like marriage. Nothing else has a concept of marriage between a man and a woman except man, therefore marriage between a man and a woman doesn't exist. Nothing else has a concept of bacteria except man, therefore bacteria don't exist. Etc.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 11:18 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 559 of 687 (524776)
09-18-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by ICANT
09-18-2009 1:41 PM


Re: space and time
Why can't you have space without time?
The answer is Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. Time and space are relative to the motion of an observer and are not independent of each other. Space and time are connected to make four-dimensional spacetime. Think of it this way, when viewing 2-dimensional objects, they are flat. 3-dimensional objects, however, have depth and length. Time is it's own dimension. The 4th is all of them combined. But why?
Distance x's time = speed. Speed x's time = distance. Time divided by distance = speed. One is useless without the other as we define distances by time. It is a necessary prerequisite. The time it takes light to travel between two points. For example, one light year is the distance light will travel in a year. You just cannot have one without the other.
It's the same principle of how matter cannot exist independent of space. Where would you place the mass if mass displaces space or is within space? Same concept.
All you have to have for space to exist is existence.
Define "existence" apart from time, space, and matter, the three physical properties of the universe.
Now if events take place in that existence in space humans need some way of measuring the existence between events. Thus mankind invented the concept of time then came up with numbers to desiginate such interval's.
The intervals are mathematically devised for man's purposes, but time travels on regardless.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 5:28 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 560 of 687 (524777)
09-18-2009 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by ICANT
09-18-2009 1:41 PM


Re: space and time
ICANT writes:
Why can't you have space without time?
Theoretically, you could have Space without Time. Our Universe isn't it. It's sort of a thought experiment. Space without Time would be the Cartesian Coordinate System without a Time coordinate (basically T=0). The problem is that change can't occur. A change along the xyz-axes must be coupled with a corresponding duration along the T-axis. Without a T-axis, all you would have is a three dimensional space with no movement whatsoever. Any change on the xyz-axes creates a new event and the duration between the events is what Time is.
That's why Time is a property of our Universe, because change occurs in our Universe, unless of course you can find a way to express change without Time. If you can, I would very much like to know.
Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:41 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 12:21 PM Izanagi has not replied

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


Message 561 of 687 (524782)
09-18-2009 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 552 by ICANT
09-18-2009 12:33 PM


ICANT writes:
quote:
ICANT'S position on the question at hand. "what do we observe the speed of the light to be in the example?"
The speed of light = 299,792,458 meters per second.
99.9% the speed of light = 299,792,458 meters per second.
.1% the speed of light = 299,792.458 meters per second.
So we observe the light pulling away from us at .1% the speed of light.
But that isn't what we observe. Instead, we see it pulling away from us at 100% of the speed of light.
It's the old joke: If I'm in a car travelling that fast and I turn on the headlights, do they work? And the answer is that yes, they do, precisely as you would expect them to were you not traveling that fast.
The speed of light is a constant and is always measured to be the same velocity no matter your frame of reference.
It's part of the reason why Newtonian physics fails. According to Newtonian physics, if I am on a train traveling at velocity X and I throw something off in the direction of motion at velocity Y, then the velocity of the object with respect to a stationary observer is X + Y while the velocity of the object with respect to me is Y.
But that isn't what we see. Instead, we see the Lorentz transformation. As X and Y approach c, we both see the object moving precisely at c with respect to ourselves.




Get Windows Media Player"
src="http://www.learner.org/vod/asx/ca-csupomona/Mechanical_Universe_42.asx" name="Player" width="320" height="304" showstatusbar="1">
I recommend the entire The Mechanical Universe series as a good introduction to physics.
Edited by Rrhain, : No autostart on the video.

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 552 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:33 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 562 of 687 (524784)
09-18-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by ICANT
09-18-2009 1:29 PM


ICANT responds to me:
quote:
The question was simple.
The answer just as simple. NO
Oh? How do you know? Tell us, when an asexually-reproducing single cell divides, what happened to the original cell? Is it still alive? Did it "die"?
Are gametes "alive"?
It would appear that we can trace life back all the way to the first life which necessarily arose from something that wasn't alive.
Unless, of course, you are saying that there has never been a time in the entire existence of the universe where there hasn't been life.
In which case, you are advocating panspermia.
quote:
The physical part that dies is nothing but a body that the mind and spirit reside in.
And what is life except the physical part? Are you saying that there is something going on inside the cell other than chemistry?
Was there ever a time in the entire existence of the universe where there wasn't physical life?
quote:
That will be determined as to whether man accepts the free full pardon offered by God.
BZZZZT!
Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, ICANT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!
Well, Bob, ICANT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, ICANT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.
But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.
You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?

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 554 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:29 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Rahvin, posted 09-18-2009 3:44 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 563 of 687 (524785)
09-18-2009 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by Rrhain
09-18-2009 3:33 PM


BZZZZT!
Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry, ICANT. Johnny, tell him what parting gifts he has!
Well, Bob, ICANT has won himself a lifetime of anguish in someone else's hell! Yes, that's right. After spending all of his life fighting against Satan and worshipping the Christian god, ICANT gets a reward of going straight to Hades for his hubris. He'll be sentenced to solve a series of puzzles for which the instructions can be read in many ways. Every attempt to glean more information will be met with "Since it would just be a waste of my time to tell you, I won't." Of course, every proposed solution will conflict with something in the contradictory instructions. This being for his continued insistence that those around him are unworthy of explanations.
But, he won't get hungry because he'll have an afterlife-time supply of Rice-a-Roni, the San Francisco Treat.
You didn't really think that the god that truly exists is the Christian one, did you?
You have that saved away for copy/pasting just for these occasions, don't you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Rrhain, posted 09-18-2009 3:33 PM Rrhain has not replied

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


Message 564 of 687 (524792)
09-18-2009 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Hyroglyphx
09-18-2009 2:36 PM


Re: space and time
Hi Hyro,
Hyroqlyhx writes:
Time and space are relative to the motion of an observer and are not independent of each other.
So when mankind is destroyed by the heat of the sun as it dies, Is the universe going to cease to exist because there is no observer?
Existence exists whether there is an observer or not. Things will continue to change without anybody to mark 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 559 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2009 2:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 565 by Perdition, posted 09-18-2009 5:46 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 566 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-19-2009 12:53 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 567 by NosyNed, posted 09-19-2009 2:29 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 571 by Izanagi, posted 09-19-2009 10:12 PM ICANT has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 565 of 687 (524794)
09-18-2009 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by ICANT
09-18-2009 5:28 PM


Re: space and time
Everything is an "observer" of everything else because even an atom will react to the presence of another atom, either by bouncing off of it, bonding to it, or being repulsed around it via electrical opposition. Observation does not mean consciousness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 5:28 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 566 of 687 (524835)
09-19-2009 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by ICANT
09-18-2009 5:28 PM


Re: space and time
Existence exists whether there is an observer or not. Things will continue to change without anybody to mark time.
Let me clarify what I mean.
The universe is expanding at a finite rate. That means from the finite point where time began, which is at singularity (t=0), that is when space also began. If space and time began at the same moment, and light travels at a finite speed, then quite literally as you take a snapshot in to space, you are in essence traveling back in time. Not to say that we are traveling back in time, but we are viewing an image that happened in the distant past.
I'm sure you are away that because light travels in a vacuum at a measurable and constant rate, that with the simple mathematics theorem of distance x speed = time. We then can now how long it will take for us to see an image in the present.
When we look at the Sun what we are actually seeing is an image of what occurred about 6 minutes in the past, because that's how far away it is. It's like a shockwave from a bomb. You see the image of the blast before the shockwave actually hits you.
*sigh*
This is really difficult to explain and I feel like I'm not explaining it well. Here, I suggest you watch the whole thing. It is quite remarkable and they explain it a whole lot better.

"Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." -- Bertrand Russell

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 5:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 10:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

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


Message 567 of 687 (524839)
09-19-2009 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 564 by ICANT
09-18-2009 5:28 PM


so muddled
Existence exists whether there is an observer or not. Things will continue to change without anybody to mark time.
You have muddled up quantum mechanics and relativity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 564 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 5:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 575 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 11:31 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 568 of 687 (524844)
09-19-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by ICANT
09-18-2009 1:41 AM


Re: What Is Your Point? What Is Your Model?
Time does not exist other than as a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence.
Yet radioactive isotopes will continue to decay at he same half life rates, trees will continue to grow the same rings that we use as a form of scientific clock now etc. etc. etc.
Things will continue to change without anybody to mark time.
How do things change without time?
The duration/existence is the same regardless of whether the clock runs fast or slow.
No ICANT it isn't. Time actually runs slower in a stronger gravitational field. As predicted by GR. As observed and measured exactly in accordance with the predictions of GR. This is a fact.
If my car has the cruise control set at 70 mph and I am going down the road at 70 mph my car is not accelerating.
If you go round a bend still at a speed of 70MPH you are accelerating. That is the point here. This is extremely basic physics ICANT.
How about just being honest.
We are being but you don't like and don't understand the answers that you are being given. You also refuse to accept that the answer "we don't know" is a strength of science rather than a weakness.
There are so many problems with the BBT but nobody will discuss them.
The problem is that you think you understand the problems and that this means you can validly fill in the blanks with whatever makes personal sense to you. That is not how science works and it isn't a position the people you are debating with in this thread are likely to accept.
But it appears until one comes along the BBT is the gospel truth.
That the universe has evolved from a prior very hot very dense state that we are calling the "Big Bang" is predictively verified and evidenced beyond all reasonable doubt.
Your relentless obsession with the fact that current physics breaks down at a point in time miniscully fractionally after T=0 neither refutes the above nor does it mean that you can validly just insert your own unevidenced nonsense in place of established science. It just means "we don't know". Yet.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 1:41 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by NosyNed, posted 09-19-2009 5:00 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 574 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 11:20 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 569 of 687 (524855)
09-19-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 568 by Straggler
09-19-2009 4:01 PM


Re: What Is Your Point? What Is Your Model?
icant writes:
Things will continue to change without anybody to mark time.
Stragger writes:
How do things change without time?
But he didn't say there wasn't time just that no one is there to mark it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Straggler, posted 09-19-2009 4:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Straggler, posted 09-19-2009 5:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 570 of 687 (524864)
09-19-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by NosyNed
09-19-2009 5:00 PM


Re: What Is Your Point? What Is Your Model?
Nosy writes:
But he didn't say there wasn't time just that no one is there to mark it.
ICANT has previously said several times in various threads (incuding this one) that time is a human construct alone and not a physical property of the universe.
ICANT writes:
Time does not exist other than as a concept of man invented to measure duration/existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by NosyNed, posted 09-19-2009 5:00 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024