Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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 346 of 687 (522737)
09-04-2009 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 344 by Modulous
09-04-2009 3:14 PM


Re: time
Hi Mod,
In Message 314 You informed me:
Modulous writes:
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.
Then you follow with this message.
Modulous writes:
relativity works which is the scientific evidence you asked for.
Thank you for your presentation of Wikipedia as your evidence.
From your article.
Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground clocks by about 7.2 s per day.
SR predicts the atomic clock will tick more slowly. That means the pulse has been changed due to gravity.
For the GPS satellites, general relativity predicts that the atomic clocks at GPS orbital altitudes will tick more rapidly, by about 45.9 microseconds (s) per day, because they have a higher gravitational potential than atomic clocks on Earth's surface.
GR predicts the atomic clock will tick more rapidly. That means the pulse has changed. Then explains gravity as the cause.
Duration does not change just because the atomic clock's pulse rate is changed.
Conclusion:
SR predicts the tick will be slower.
GR predicts the tick will be faster.
Neither of them predict that the duration in the satellite is different from the duration at the land based station.
It does predict that the atomic clock will be affected by gravity.
So explain how that is scientific evidence that time is a property of the universe.
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 344 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2009 3:14 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 4:26 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 348 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2009 5:04 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 361 by JonF, posted 09-05-2009 5:40 PM ICANT has not replied

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


Message 347 of 687 (522738)
09-04-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by ICANT
09-04-2009 4:22 PM


Re: time
How about relativistic speeds. If something would normally decay in a few miliseconds, and we speed them up to as close to c as we can get, they last longer than those few miliseconds, showing that duration is relative, as it's duration was supposed to be a specfic value, and it changed in a different reference frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 4:22 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
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 replied

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

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


Message 349 of 687 (522761)
09-04-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Modulous
09-04-2009 5:04 PM


Re: time
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes:
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.
Are you saying the clocks tick slower because time is a property of the universe?
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 348 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2009 5:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-04-2009 6:14 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 353 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2009 6:20 PM ICANT has replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 350 of 687 (522764)
09-04-2009 6:14 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?
Yes ICANT. Time is a property of the universe, because the "universe" is just the combination of "space" and "time" in to "spacetime." Now we're getting somewhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 6:04 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Sasuke, posted 09-04-2009 6:18 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 351 of 687 (522765)
09-04-2009 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Teapots&unicorns
09-04-2009 6:14 PM


Re: time
ICANT,
from a philosophical perspective sure time could not exist but from a scientific perspective, based on current models, time is a product of the universe. Sure time variations or understandings could change but that does not change that based on science time is a product of the universe.

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-04-2009 6:14 PM Teapots&unicorns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Teapots&unicorns, posted 09-04-2009 6:19 PM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 4887 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 352 of 687 (522766)
09-04-2009 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Sasuke
09-04-2009 6:18 PM


Re: time
Thank you Sasuke.
(I love that manga)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Sasuke, posted 09-04-2009 6:18 PM Sasuke has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by Sasuke, posted 09-04-2009 6:25 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 355 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 7:53 PM Modulous has replied

  
Sasuke
Member (Idle past 5154 days)
Posts: 137
Joined: 08-21-2009


Message 354 of 687 (522768)
09-04-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Modulous
09-04-2009 6:20 PM


Re: time
Mod,
I wonder what he will do when the gravitons escape, if they do, from our spacetime during the LHC experiment.
Edited by Sasuke, : err

OPEN YOUR MIND!
Sasuke!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2009 6:20 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 355 of 687 (522775)
09-04-2009 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Modulous
09-04-2009 6:20 PM


Re: time
Hi Mod,
I need to know what your definition of time is.
Thanks,
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 353 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2009 6:20 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by lyx2no, posted 09-04-2009 7:57 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 358 by Modulous, posted 09-05-2009 5:06 AM ICANT has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 356 of 687 (522776)
09-04-2009 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by ICANT
09-04-2009 7:53 PM


Re: time
I need to know what your definition of time is.
Time is the distance between events.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 7:53 PM ICANT has not replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3862 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 357 of 687 (522801)
09-05-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by ICANT
09-04-2009 8:32 AM


Re: Time
icant writes:
The Physics definition says time is a quantity of measuring duration.
Duration is what happens.
Time is the tool used to determine the length of that duration.
Now as I said to CS.
If you got some scientific evidence present it.
ok, sure, whatever dude. you're off in your own delusional world and I won't wrap my brain around the stupid.
If you can't see that time is a physical property of the universe (as evidenced by the fact that atomic clocks run at different speeds according to the gravitational gradient, along with the fact we can actually measure it) then just rant on.
duration is time. It's that simple. You can't even accurately describe the static, timeless universe you're talking about without using words to do with chronology.
so, whatever - crow how smart you are about "proving" time is a figment of the imagination. maybe tomorrow you'll realize you're wrong about what you said yesterday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 8:32 AM ICANT has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
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 replied

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

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 359 of 687 (522817)
09-05-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICANT
08-21-2009 10:48 PM


Anything But That
This would have been so much easier if you'd just have said "My position in the creation debate is whatever doesn't say Gen 1:1 & Gen 2:7 are wrong. Outside that, anything goes." Then you wouldn't have to pretend you don't know what time is, or even that time has anything to do with your position.

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.
Anon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICANT, posted 08-21-2009 10:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:45 PM lyx2no has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 360 of 687 (522855)
09-05-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by ICANT
09-04-2009 12:50 PM


Re: GPS calculations
Atomic clocks on all the orbiting GPS satellites initiate a precisely simultaneous series of data transmissions.
Boy, your ignorance is even more painful that the usual fundamentalist ignorance.
The point is that if Einstein's theory were not taken into account in the design of the GPS satellites, GPS would not work. This is strong verification of Einstein's theory.
The GPS satellite clocks are deliberately set so that they run slightly slow, about 45 ns per day, when sitting in the manufacturing facility on the Earth's surface. This is because the relativistic effects of the satellite moving relative to the Earth's surface and being subject to less of Earth's gravity combine to speed up the clock by about 45 ns per day.
If relativity were wrong, your GPS unit would be useless.
See Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by ICANT, posted 09-04-2009 12:50 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by ICANT, posted 09-07-2009 6:37 PM JonF 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