Real time or evo time?

[AirPo]

Bankrupt, then, referring to your old posts that I squashed and exposed and flicked into the garbage heap. Gong.

Never underestimate the power of the !

 

[dad]

If somebody is scientifically illiterate, they can postulate whatever nonsense they like,

Your posts are empty twaddle and whatever so called science you know is either wrong or irrelevant.

without having to contend with contrary evidence;

No such thing, which is why you post none. There is only false ungodly religious bias and belief methodologically imposed on evidences. Busted ye be. For all to see. Heehee

because they wouldn't understand - or even want to understand - why it is contrary evidence.

You can't post you don't even want to post said evidence which does not exist.

And, if they did understand it, they would dream up some ad hoc hypothesis to try and explain it away.

Your lack of proof for your ungodly dream state past is no excuse to pretend God's record is in the same loser category. Pretentious twaddle.

Which hypothesis would itself be untenable, and so it would go on.

What is tenable or not is not measured by the sick belief system of god hating Christ denying so called science. Really.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Bankrupt, then, referring to your old posts that I squashed and exposed and flicked into the garbage heap. Gong.

Nonsense and fantasies about what you have written do not answer the reasonable questions that I have asked you, dad.
21 July 2016 dad: What changes in/replacement of the laws of physics will make ice cores not be natural calendars extending back 420,000 years?
22 July 2016 dad: What changes to the laws of physics will change the carbon dating that goes back ~50,000 years to different dates?
25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Strawman argument and a load of nonsense.....

A load of nonsense about the evidence for an expanding universe, dad. The evidence for an expanding universe is on topic (not a strawman argument) for the evidence for an expanding universe !
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
25 July 2016 dad: Olbers' paradox is that the night sky should be bright in an infinite and eternal static universe.
25 July 2016 dad: Your replies are still empty of science (as in Physical Sciences).
A fact less assertion that the universe contains a finite number of stars is just a speculation. What is observed in the real world is that we see stars as far as we can detect, e.g. galaxies billions of light years away. However a finite universe is a solution to Olbers' paradox. A infinite universe with a finite number of stars, e.g. magically stopping X light years away from us, is more of a fantasy than a solution.

A fantasy about geometry being dogma when geometry is mathematics, dad.
26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !
Parallax is basic geometry that high school children learn about (the application to astronomy is first year physics though). The position of an object against a distant background changes with the viewpoint. We can use that change in position of a nearby star against the distant stars caused by the orbit of the Earth to measure the distance to that star. This has been done for stars that are up to 20,000 light years away, i.e. 20,000 years since the light left them.

P.S.
21 July 2016 dad: What changes in/replacement of the laws of physics will make ice cores not be natural calendars extending back 420,000 years?
22 July 2016 dad: What changes to the laws of physics will change the carbon dating that goes back ~50,000 years to different dates?
25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.

 

[RealityCheck01]

A astrophysicist commenting on the tests on the validity of the laws of physics throughout the universe:
Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013

One of the ways you can test this assumption is by looking at what are known as dimensionless constants. These are constants determined by combining certain physical values so that the units cancel out. For example, the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass or the fine structure constant for electromagnetism. By measuring different physical quantities, we can determine the value of these constants in the lab. We can also make observations of distant objects to determine the constants. If the laws of physics are the same everywhere, then these constants can’t change and our two determinations should give the same result.
Last year, astronomers observed how methanol absorbed light in the distant galaxy PKS 1830-211, pictured below.
From that, they determined the ratio of electron to proton mass. They found it agreed with the lab result to within one part in ten million. The light they observed left PKS 1830-211 seven billion years ago, so this shows that the laws of physics seven billion years away and seven billion years in the past were the same as they are today.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The same author commenting on the unchanging speed of light in a vacuum in SR and the possibility of a dependence on direction or location (anisotropic light).
Burden of Proof by Brian Koberlein 14 February 2015

On its own, relativity doesn’t require isotropy and homogeneity, even though we generally assume it to be true. But when we combine relativity with the confluence of evidence we have in astronomy, we find that assumption is not only justified, but valid to the limits of observation so far.

 

[AirPo]

A astrophysicist commenting on the tests on the validity of the laws of physics throughout the universe:
Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013

The same author commenting on the unchanging speed of light in a vacuum in SR and the possibility of a dependence on direction or location (anisotropic light).
Burden of Proof by Brian Koberlein 14 February 2015

In coming .

 

[dad]

Nonsense and fantasies about what you have written do not answer the reasonable questions that I have asked you, dad.
21 July 2016 dad: What changes in/replacement of the laws of physics will make ice cores not be natural calendars extending back 420,000 years?
22 July 2016 dad: What changes to the laws of physics will change the carbon dating that goes back ~50,000 years to different dates?
25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.

I answered all of them, and you are peddling same state past belief based nonsense.

 

[dad]

The same author commenting on the unchanging speed of light in a vacuum in SR and the possibility of a dependence on direction or location (anisotropic light).
Burden of Proof by Brian Koberlein 14 February 2015

Guess where his vacuum was! Speed depends on time, and unless there was time, forget speed as we think of it in terms of time.

 

[dad]

A astrophysicist commenting on the tests on the validity of the laws of physics throughout the universe:
Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013

Vague circular nonsense. Name the things that agree...don't allude to them. We will soon see it is godless baseless foolish beliefs only. Bet on it.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I answered all of them, ...

Unless you can give links to actual answers with evidence (not fantasies or nonsense), then that statement is a lie, dad and we still have unanswered questions.
21 July 2016 dad: What changes in/replacement of the laws of physics will make ice cores not be natural calendars extending back 420,000 years?
22 July 2016 dad: What changes to the laws of physics will change the carbon dating that goes back ~50,000 years to different dates?
25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.
25 July 2016 dad: Olbers' paradox is that the night sky should be bright in an infinite and eternal static universe.
25 July 2016 dad: Your replies are still empty of science (as in Physical Sciences).
26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Nonsense about a couple of science articles as expected but maybe you have coherent arguments against them, dad.
A astrophysicist commenting on the tests on the validity of the laws of physics throughout the universe: Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013
27 July 2016 dad: Exactly what is "vague" about this clear description of physics in Here and There?
27 July 2016 dad: Exactly where is the "circular argument" in Here and There?

A astrophysicist commenting on the unchanging speed of light in a vacuum in SR and the possibility of a dependence on direction or location (anisotropic light): Burden of Proof by Brian Koberlein 14 February 2015
27 July 2016 dad: Where was the Burden of Proof vacuum and what effect did it have on the tests?

 

[dad]

Unless you can give links to actual answers with evidence (not fantasies or nonsense), then that statement is a lie, dad and we still have unanswered questions.

False again. For example, you mentioned Oklo and I tried to start discussing it. One of the things in the long sequence of supposed events that happened was that the sites there were brought miles under the earth. Later they supposedly resurfaced. Can you evidence this? I think you just need it to be true to make your same state past story work. let's ee what you got. be honest.

21 July 2016 dad: What changes in/replacement of the laws of physics will make ice cores not be natural calendars extending back 420,000 years?
22 July 2016 dad: What changes to the laws of physics will change the carbon dating that goes back ~50,000 years to different dates?
25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.
25 July 2016 dad: Olbers' paradox is that the night sky should be bright in an infinite and eternal static universe.
25 July 2016 dad: Your replies are still empty of science (as in Physical Sciences).
26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work

Yes I will show it cannot work. As for your tactic of linking to your own posts, as if that helped you, forget about it. Bring up an issue here and discuss it. I am not interested in you pretending you said something important or unanswered, buried in a plethora of spam links.

OK, so parallax... as I already clearly took the time to explain to you, the base line for any measure involves esath spacetime. Time is part of the measure and unless it existed and/or existed the same mixed with space in the far universe, your measure is invalid! You are trying to take a slice of time, basically, from here, and use that as a linear measure of miles in distant space that you know nothing much about!

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

Nonsense about a couple of science articles as expected but maybe you have coherent arguments against them, dad.
A astrophysicist commenting on the tests on the validity of the laws of physics throughout the universe: Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013

From your link we see this.

"One of the ways you can test this assumption is by looking at what are known as dimensionless constants. These are constants determined by combining certain physical values so that the units cancel out. For example, the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass or the fine structure constant for electromagnetism. By measuring different physical quantities, we can determine the value of these constants in the lab. We can also make observations of distant objects to determine the constants. If the laws of physics are the same everywhere, then these constants can’t change and our two determinations should give the same result."

You assume the universe is but physical. You claim combining 'physical values' = 'dimensionless constants!! Mumbo jumbo nonsense. Time for one thing is part of our dimension and you but assume for no reason it also is part of the far universe. Then there is the issue of how one determines a fine structure constant in the far universe. Then there is the issue of electromagnetism in the far universe. hen there is the issue of thinking the lab represents the universe! Etc etc etc. You rattle off a story with a few big words, and vague concepts that have no explanation or support, and expect us to believe blindly.

27 July 2016 dad: Exactly what is "vague" about this clear description of physics in Here and There?
27 July 2016 dad: Exactly where is the "circular argument" in Here and There?

Same link as above that I just addressed.

We also see this in that link..

"The light they observed left PKS 1830-211 seven billion years ago, so this shows that the laws of physics seven billion years away and seven billion years in the past were the same as they are today."

Religious drool. Prove time exists, or forget claiming millions of years. You look at light here or in a lab, and assume that what it does here in our space and time and spacetime, it must do in all parts of the created universe. Ho hum. Stop preaching.

A astrophysicist commenting on the unchanging speed of light in a vacuum in SR and the possibility of a dependence on direction or location (anisotropic light): Burden of Proof by Brian Koberlein 14 February 2015
27 July 2016 dad: Where was the Burden of Proof vacuum and what effect did it have on the tests?

I think the gist of this ( correct me if I miss something) .. is that FROM earth, the transitions we see here in objects in deep space are more or less the same. That doesn't help you. You do not know how big or far away those clouds or stars are! Only if time existed there could we know that and you just assumed. So we have some possibly relatively little cloud or star or whatever that we see from earth, in OUR time, and spacetime. Why would I expect it to be so different HERE???? Focus man.

 

[RealityCheck01]

For example, you mentioned Oklo and I tried to start discussing it.

That was your fact less tirade about "magical elevators". More fact less stuff follows in that post.
21 July 2016 dad: Stars demonstrate laws of physics that have not changed measurably over changes of billons of years.
21 July 2016 dad: What changes in/replacement of the laws of physics will make ice cores not be natural calendars extending back 420,000 years?
22 July 2016 dad: An assertion that we do not know how the Sun works.
22 July 2016 dad: The assertion that "Stars may be small for all we know" when we have measured their sizes!
22 July 2016 dad: What changes to the laws of physics will change the carbon dating that goes back ~50,000 years to different dates?
25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.
25 July 2016 dad: Olbers' paradox is that the night sky should be bright in an infinite and eternal static universe.
25 July 2016 dad: Your replies are still empty of science (as in Physical Sciences).
26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work

Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

27 July 2016 dad: Exactly what is "vague" about this clear description of physics in Here and There?
27 July 2016 dad: Exactly where is the "circular argument" in Here and There?
27 July 2016 dad: Where was the Burden of Proof vacuum and what effect did it have on the tests?

27 July 2016 dad: An assertion that parallax is invalidated by fantasies about spacetime is not evidence that parallax does not work.
It also displays ignorance about parallax - the only time involved is the length of a year to get the baseline for the usual parallax method. No imaginary "time slices" extending out to the star.

27 July 2016 dad: A rant about the simple concept of dimensionless constants is not evidence against using them.

I think the gist of this ( correct me if I miss something) .. is that FROM earth, the transitions we see here in objects in deep space are more or less the same.

That is wrong: Burden of Proof, e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was on Earth and showed that the speed of light is not affected by the motion of the Earth.

Fantasies and ignorance about "relatively little cloud or star or whatever" is not evidence against anything but did remind me about the post where I told you how the sizes of stars are measured. Thanks dad.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013 does not mention the actual scientific paper that showed that the proton-to-electron mass ratio has been constant for about seven billion years.
First Cosmological Constraints on the Proton-to-electron Mass Ratio from Observations of Rotational Transitions of Methanol by Ellingsen, S. P.; Voronkov, M. A.; Breen, S. L.; Lovell, J. E. J.; The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 747, Issue 1, article id. L7, 5 pp. (2012).

We have used the Australia Telescope Compact Array to measure the absorption from the 20 --> 3-1 E 12.2 GHz transition of methanol toward the z = 0.89 lensing galaxy in the PKS B1830-211 gravitational lens system. Comparison of the velocity of the main absorption feature with the published absorption spectrum from the 10 --> 2-1 E transition of methanol shows that they differ by -0.6 ± 1.6 km s-1. We can use these observations to constrain the changes in the proton-to-electron mass ratio mu from z = 0.89 to the present to 0.8 ± 2.1 × 10-7. This result is consistent, and of similar precision to recent observations at z = 0.68 achieved through comparison of a variety of rotational and inversion transitions, and approximately a factor of two better than previous constraints obtained in this source. Future more sensitive observations that incorporate additional rotational methanol transitions offer the prospect of improving current results by a factor of 5-10.

 

[dad]

That was your fact less tirade about "magical elevators". More fact less stuff follows in that post.

As just explained again, the sites were said to be dunked and raised millions of years later. Prove it now or you fail. Once you do that, we can start to look at the fable in greater detail.

21 July 2016 dad: Stars demonstrate laws of physics that have not changed measurably over changes of billons of years.
21 July 2016 dad: What changes in/replacement of the laws of physics will make ice cores not be natural calendars extending back 420,000 years?
22 July 2016 dad: An assertion that we do not know how the Sun works.
22 July 2016 dad: The assertion that "Stars may be small for all we know" when we have measured their sizes!
22 July 2016 dad: What changes to the laws of physics will change the carbon dating that goes back ~50,000 years to different dates?
25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.
25 July 2016 dad: Olbers' paradox is that the night sky should be bright in an infinite and eternal static universe.
25 July 2016 dad: Your replies are still empty of science (as in Physical Sciences).26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
27 July 2016 dad: Exactly what is "vague" about this clear description of physics in Here and There?
27 July 2016 dad: Exactly where is the "circular argument" in Here and There?
27 July 2016 dad: Where was the Burden of Proof vacuum and what effect did it have on the tests?
27 July 2016 dad: An assertion that parallax is invalidated by fantasies about spacetime is not evidence that parallax does not work.

It also displays ignorance about parallax - the only time involved is the length of a year to get the baseline for the usual parallax method. No imaginary "time slices" extending out to the star.

You need to show time exists in deep space, not make up slices nonsense.

27 July 2016 dad: A rant about the simple concept of dimensionless constants is not evidence against using them.
That is wrong: Burden of Proof, e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 was on Earth and showed that the speed of light is not affected by the motion of the Earth.

Fantasies and ignorance about "relatively little cloud or star or whatever" is not evidence against anything but did remind me about the post where I told you how the sizes of stars are measured. Thanks dad.

Reading your links, it was about the transition seen in such clouds and things in deep space. Try to debate honestly. You fail to address the fact it is seen in our time and space and spacetime. You fail to prove time even exists in the far universe so you have no sizes or distances..etc. Now address the issues. You lose.

 

[dad]

Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013 does not mention the actual scientific paper that showed that the proton-to-electron mass ratio has been constant for about seven billion years.

Parroting imaginary time based on pure beliefs is dishonest. Prove time even exists in the far universe or you have no times at all. Deal with it.

First Cosmological Constraints on the Proton-to-electron Mass Ratio from Observations of Rotational Transitions of Methanol by Ellingsen, S. P.; Voronkov, M. A.; Breen, S. L.; Lovell, J. E. J.; The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 747, Issue 1, article id. L7, 5 pp. (2012).

Exactly what causes lensing in the far universe is debatable as to whether it is gravity exactly as we experience it here. Since you do not even know how big or far away anything at all is out there, we would not ask you what caused the bent light either. Really.

 

[AirPo]

dishonest

That's the one of the foundational qualities of The HI Theorist. Funny how some can hold in contempt the very qualities that define themselves.

 

[dad]

That's the one of the foundational qualities of The HI Theorist. Funny how some can hold in contempt the very qualities that define themselves.

Pet theories aside, since the latest great white evo hope here has failed to have the honesty or ability to address the key aspects of issues he raised, the issue of dishonesty does arise. In your case you have skirted all issues for so long no one cares an more.

 

[AirPo]

Pet theories aside, since the latest great white evo hope here has failed to have the honesty or ability to address the key aspects of issues he raised, the issue of dishonesty does arise. In your case you have skirted all issues for so long no one cares an more.

The OP sets the tone, and some of us learned years ago that these threads have nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with skirting the issues.

 

[RealityCheck01]

As just explained again, the sites were said to be dunked and raised millions of years later.

That looks like a fantasy, dad: Mechanism of the reactors just has groundwater flooding the uranium deposits.

Try to debate honestly by reading the science that is cited to you and addressing coherent comments to the appropriate citation, dad.
A astrophysicist commenting on the tests on the validity of the laws of physics throughout the universe: Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013 is about how methanol absorbed light in a distant galaxy matching how it does it here.