ICANT'S position in the creation debate

Still insiting that time is a purely human construct huh? The fact that identical atomic clocks run slower in stronger gravitational fields regardless of units or measurement is probably beyond you. So how about radioactive half life as a display of time independent to humanity? Would radioactive isotopes stop decaying at fixed rates if humans were not around to measure them?This is just another example of you letting your unevidenced philosophical bias in favour of your self defined concept of "infinte eternity" blind you from the actual physical evidence.

No clocks are the tools. The duration itself is the phenomenon we call time. Would atoms stop vibrating at specific rates if there were no humans to measure these rates? Is that what you are saying?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It has everything to do with it. Which is why Modulus raised GPS as an example. Read and learn ICANT: GPS and RelativityTime as a physical property of the universe. As demonstrated by GPS. You have been ranting on the same subject for years. We finally establish that the position you rail against and the position you advocate (neither of which have anything to do with modern physics BTW) are equally unevidenced and you start getting hissy about it. Get over it.

ICANT this stuff is in text books available to 14 year olds. No. It means it is changing velocity. If you swirl a weight attached to a piece of string in a circle around you head can you feel a force? If you let go of the string (i.e. stop supplying a force towards the centre of the circle) what happens to the weight? If you don't get how a mass moving in an orbit is subject to force and thus acceleration then it is probably fair to say that the subtleties of relativity are not going to come easily. Acceleration/http - Wikipedia>Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I think you are on safe ground assuming that ICANT thinks his God is eternal.

ICANT what is your point here?Are you denying that a clock at the top of a mountain will progress at a faster rate than a clock at the bottom due to the gravitational effects of General relativity? You do know this has been observed, measured, even incredibly accurately predicted by GR?Are you denying that the speed of light is constant whatever "relative" speed you may be travelling at (as per Mod's point). The principle that lies at the heart of everything you are objecting against. Oh so the whole of modern cosmology is a "smokescreen". Devised to bemuse and baffle the rest of us away from the truths that YOU, apparently, know.Despite the evidence, despite the incredibly accurate and detailed predictions it is all wrong and you, ICANT who doesn't even understand why an orbitting body is undergoing an acceleration, have seen through this cosmological witchdoctory to reveal the truth to us lesser mortals.ICANT what exactly is your point here? Let's for the sake of fantasy assume that you have successfully rebutted Cavediver and everyone else into submission. What is it you have demonstrated?This thread is called "ICANTS Position in the Creation Debate" so assuming all your arguments against current cosmological models are superior and flawless what exactly is the model you would like us to replace our current theories with? Be explicit.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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. How do things change without time? 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 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

So not content with disputing the whole of modern physics you are now denying one the founding principles of Newtonian mechanics. Namely Newton's second law F=ma. You have truly excelled yourself this time ICANT. Because the exceptionally well evidenced scientific fact that the universe has evolved from a very hot very dense state is entirely different from modelling the nature of T=0 with which you are so obsessed. It is difficult to take anything that someone in denial of around 300 years worth of established scientific fact says as being anything other than nonsense.It would be desperately funny if it were not so sadly true.