Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
39 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,774 Year: 16,810/19,786 Month: 935/2,598 Week: 181/251 Day: 10/59 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ICANT'S position in the creation debate
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 163 of 687 (521243)
08-26-2009 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Perdition
08-26-2009 2:48 PM


Dark Ages
Technically wrong. The "dark ages" was a span of time after the big bang where light was still not able to move freely. The oldest light would be from the end of these dark ages.

I am pretty sure (so sure I won't look it up) that this is wrong. The universe was all "light" for the first 300,000 years while the matter was so dense (and ionized) that light wasn't free to move through space.

After that the "haze" cleared and light moved freely. This started the dark ages because there was nothing emitting light anymore.

Then the first stars formed and the dark ages ended. I don't remember how long that was (100 million years?).

Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Perdition, posted 08-26-2009 2:48 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 185 of 687 (521503)
08-27-2009 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by lyx2no
08-27-2009 3:04 PM


Beach Ball Dimensions
To help get around this difficulty we reduce the space-time problem to the two spatial dimensions of the ballon's surface and one time dimension of the balloon's expansion.

Sometimes trying to help only muddies things.

In the current analogy that CaveDiver is using There is only one dimension of space and one of time (since the beach balls surface is 2 dimensional that is all we have to work with).

The space dimension is along lines of latitude and the time dimension is along lines of longitude.

In the more common beach ball analogy space has the two dimensions you describe for the surface of the ball and time is represented by a third dimension as the ball expands when pumped up.

I believe CaveDiver is, in this case, using a better analogy since the universe is understood to exist for all time and all space (all spacetime) all at "once" ("once" being a bit fuzzy here). T=0 is marked as one "pole" of the ball and the end of time as another. But the are both "frozen" and there(existing) just as much as the point in space you occupy is there while a point on the far side of the moon also is still there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 3:04 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by cavediver, posted 08-27-2009 4:21 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 195 by lyx2no, posted 08-27-2009 8:59 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 336 of 687 (522666)
09-04-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by ICANT
09-04-2009 8:49 AM


GPS calculations
That is how the GPS can figures out where it is at. By the difference in the amount of time it takes for the signal to reach it.

If the GPS is mobile it can calculate where it is with every signal received. If it has a program with maps in it, it can place itself on that map. That is what I was referring to.

But, ICANT, those calculations do not work because space time itself is twisted by the motion and position of the satellites. They only work if both general and special relativity are included to account for that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 8:49 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 12:50 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 425 of 687 (523273)
09-09-2009 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 376 by mike the wiz
09-08-2009 2:52 PM


There is no design
The fact of design is observable. Your only argument can be; "there is no design".

That is not the case.
See thread Message 1 which tells you why we can, in fact, observe that nature is clearly not designed. We have hard evidence that you are wrong.

You can take your answer there if you think you have one.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:12 AM NosyNed has responded
 Message 427 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:16 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 432 of 687 (523321)
09-09-2009 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by mike the wiz
09-09-2009 11:12 AM


Re: There is no design
I think evolution tries to deal with the problem of design but doesn't actually tell us anything useful about such wonderfully different yet brilliant design.

Then you didn't read the thread. Evolution tells us very clearly that you designs were not the result of any brilliance at all. They are exactly the kind that is produced by utterly mindless processes. The signature of those processes is carved into each animal and plant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by mike the wiz, posted 09-09-2009 11:12 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 442 of 687 (523383)
09-09-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by ICANT
09-09-2009 9:12 PM


Time changes
Does the velocity and gravity cause the pulse to change?

What difference would it make if you were on the satellite with the clock?

The pulse timing changes to us on earth.

If you are with the clock it is running perfectly normally.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:12 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Sasuke, posted 09-09-2009 9:29 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 445 by ICANT, posted 09-09-2009 9:42 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


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 yet responded

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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 511 of 687 (524170)
09-14-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by cavediver
09-14-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Incorrect statement
But I think then, that I got it right. I did say that as far as SR only is concerned both clocks will appear to be running slow to each other. Yes? The GR part modifies that as you describe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by cavediver, posted 09-14-2009 3:04 PM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 512 by cavediver, posted 09-14-2009 5:36 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 534 of 687 (524642)
09-17-2009 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 533 by ICANT
09-17-2009 10:59 PM


space and time
Space exists.

Time does not exist except when man uses the concept of time to measure duration/existence.

There is no time. There is no space. There is only spacetime where the two are tangled together and related by relativistic equations. You can not pull them apart and that is why the clocks don't run in synchronization.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by ICANT, posted 09-17-2009 10:59 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by ICANT, posted 09-18-2009 12:04 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


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 responded

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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


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 responded

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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 576 of 687 (525056)
09-21-2009 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 575 by ICANT
09-21-2009 11:31 AM


Re: so muddled
I thought they did a pretty good job of muddying up each other as they are incompatible.

You comment is true and utterly irrelevant to the issue of your muddledness. It does help support another facet of your thinking though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 11:31 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 578 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 12:05 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8860
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 583 of 687 (525077)
09-21-2009 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by ICANT
09-21-2009 11:20 AM


Disagreement
I have to agree that this is what is taught in physics. I just disagree.

Yes, of course and meteors really are falling actual stars.

Un f ing believable!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by ICANT, posted 09-21-2009 11:20 AM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019