Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 75 (9011 total)
50 online now:
PaulK, vimesey (2 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Post Volume: Total: 881,566 Year: 13,314/23,288 Month: 244/795 Week: 40/33 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 145 of 687 (521158)
08-26-2009 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by ICANT
08-26-2009 9:24 AM


food for thought?
No I am saying he is a hypocrite because he does not say what he believes. He says what the party line is while believing something entirely different.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by ICANT, posted 08-26-2009 9:24 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 314 of 687 (522514)
09-03-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by ICANT
09-03-2009 5:00 PM


time
Do you have scientific evidence that time is a property of the Universe?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by ICANT, posted 09-03-2009 5:00 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by ICANT, posted 09-03-2009 9:13 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 344 of 687 (522714)
09-04-2009 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by ICANT
09-03-2009 9:13 PM


Re: time
I thought we had GPS because of...

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by ICANT, posted 09-03-2009 9:13 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:26 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 346 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 4:22 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 348 of 687 (522743)
09-04-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by ICANT
09-04-2009 4:22 PM


Re: time
Thank you for your presentation of Wikipedia as your evidence.

No, the evidence is that relativity works.

The wiki article was just about relativity and GPS which is just an aside.

Neither of them predict that the duration in the satellite is different from the duration at the land based station.

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.

So explain how that is scientific evidence that 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 4:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 6:04 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 353 of 687 (522767)
09-04-2009 6:20 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by ICANT
09-04-2009 6:04 PM


Re: time
Are you saying the clocks tick slower because time is a property of the universe?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 6:04 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Sasuke, posted 09-04-2009 6:25 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply
 Message 355 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 7:53 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 358 of 687 (522808)
09-05-2009 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by ICANT
09-04-2009 7:53 PM


Re: time
I need to know what your definition of time is.

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'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 7:53 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:22 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 365 of 687 (523025)
09-07-2009 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by ICANT
09-07-2009 6:22 PM


Re: time
What has my definition of time got to do with the scientific evidence that time is a property of the universe?

Everything.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:22 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 7:15 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 367 of 687 (523033)
09-07-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 366 by ICANT
09-07-2009 7:15 PM


So when you are talking about time it would be nice to know what you are talking about.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 366 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 7:15 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 5:34 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 373 of 687 (523081)
09-08-2009 8:03 AM
Reply to: Message 369 by ICANT
09-08-2009 5:34 AM


Re: Talking about
I don't dispute any scientific evidence.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 5:34 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 383 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2009 3:53 PM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
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 yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 483 of 687 (523571)
09-11-2009 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by ICANT
09-10-2009 11:03 PM


Since the pulse rate of the atom has been altered it is not measuring duration properly as it is pulsing at less than a second.

So my clock and the ground clock can not both be correct.

One of them is wrong.

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..........Clock

direction ------>

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2009 11:03 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 10:16 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
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 yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
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 responded

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

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 515 of 687 (524192)
09-14-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by ICANT
09-14-2009 2:53 PM


Re: Re ICANT'S cosmos
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 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by ICANT, posted 09-14-2009 2:53 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 10:34 AM Modulous has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 760 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 522 of 687 (524413)
09-16-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by ICANT
09-16-2009 10:34 AM


Re: Re Light
You lost me there.

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?

Will that light catch up to me or will I remain in darkness forever?

The light won't catch up to you.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 10:34 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by ICANT, posted 09-16-2009 12:16 PM Modulous has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020