Real time or evo time?

[dad]

Please switch off that computer. You must be in a dream state if you think it is working. After all, "science so called" is all nonsense, so it can't be working, can it?

Nice try to attempt to associate yourself with something in the real world and present time, but I won't allow that. You see, the present state and the laws and nature that work now have no relation to the future or far past that you can or have shown. None whatsoever. If one must debate, I would suggest honesty would be called for.

 

[lesliedellow]

Nice try to attempt to associate yourself with something in the real world and present time, but I won't allow that. You see, the present state and the laws and nature that work now have no relation to the future or far past that you can or have shown. None whatsoever. If one must debate, I would suggest honesty would be called for.

In 2005 astronomers pointed a telescope at a galaxy 6 billion light years away, and used it to measure the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron, and to measure the fine structure constant, as they were 6 billion years ago. The values they got were identical to the value those constants have today.

 

[dad]

In 2005 astronomers pointed a telescope at a galaxy 6 billion light years away, and used it to measure the ratio of the mass of the proton to the mass of the electron, and to measure the fine structure constant, as they were 6 billion years ago. The values they got were identical to the value those constants have today.

Googling that I see this..

"The astronomers determined this by effectively looking back in time (in their mind and religion only, because we need time to exist there for this to apply) at a distant quasar, labelled B0218+367. The quasar's light, which took 7.5 billion years to reach us, (in their mind and religion only, because we need time to exist there for this to apply) was partially absorbed by ammonia gas in an intervening galaxy.( show us the way you know this exactly) Not only is ammonia useful in most bathroom cleaning products, it is also an ideal molecule to test our understanding of physics in the distant Universe. (why, the universe is like your bathroom??)Spectroscopic observations of the ammonia molecule were performed (here on earth..ha) with the Effelsberg 100m radio telescope at 2 cm wavelength (red-shifted from the original wavelength of 1.3 cm). The wavelengths at which ammonia absorbs radio energy from the quasar are sensitive (here ..now prove that if we observed from a distant star we would observe the same thing?..or are you peddling fishbowl philosophy here!? Let's see what you got.) to this special nuclear physics number, the proton-electron mass ratio.

"By comparing the ammonia absorption with that of other molecules, we were able to determine the value of the proton-electron mass ratio in this galaxy, ( you compare here, observe here, remember? You also have no way to know how far away the cloud or whatnot is. ) and confirm that it is the same as it is on Earth," (so explain how observing it here equals it being the same as at source? Remember that an ratio we see here and that exists here depends on our time and space and etc HERE) says Christian Henkel from MPIfR, an expert for molecular spectroscopy and co-author of the study."

http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/pressreleases/2008/5

Hoo ha.

 

[lesliedellow]

Googling that I see this..

"The astronomers determined this by effectively looking back in time (in their mind and religion only, because we need time to exist there for this to apply) at a distant quasar, labelled B0218+367. The quasar's light, which took 7.5 billion years to reach us, (in their mind and religion only, because we need time to exist there for this to apply) was partially absorbed by ammonia gas in an intervening galaxy.( show us the way you know this exactly) Not only is ammonia useful in most bathroom cleaning products, it is also an ideal molecule to test our understanding of physics in the distant Universe. (why, the universe is like your bathroom??)Spectroscopic observations of the ammonia molecule were performed (here on earth..ha) with the Effelsberg 100m radio telescope at 2 cm wavelength (red-shifted from the original wavelength of 1.3 cm). The wavelengths at which ammonia absorbs radio energy from the quasar are sensitive (here ..now prove that if we observed from a distant star we would observe the same thing?..or are you peddling fishbowl philosophy here!? Let's see what you got.) to this special nuclear physics number, the proton-electron mass ratio.

"By comparing the ammonia absorption with that of other molecules, we were able to determine the value of the proton-electron mass ratio in this galaxy, ( you compare here, observe here, remember? You also have no way to know how far away the cloud or whatnot is. ) and confirm that it is the same as it is on Earth," (so explain how observing it here equals it being the same as at source? Remember that an ratio we see here and that exists here depends on our time and space and etc HERE) says Christian Henkel from MPIfR, an expert for molecular spectroscopy and co-author of the study."

http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/pressreleases/2008/5

Hoo ha.

Yet more ad hoc hypotheses. Otherwise known as special pleading.

 

[RealityCheck01]

No actual science from dad in reply to the science I have cited so we are left with a long list of science, questions for him, etc. Which I will record here before going onto more science.

1. 21 July 2016 dad: Stars demonstrate laws of physics that h not changed measurably over changes of billons of years.
2. 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?
3. 22 July 2016 dad: An assertion that we do not know how the Sun works.
4. 22 July 2016 dad: The assertion that "Stars may be small for all we know" when we have measured their sizes!
5. 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?
6. 25 July 2016 dad: Show that Oko natural fission reactor worked with the different laws of physics that you are proposing.
7. 25 July 2016 dad: Olbers' paradox is that the night sky should be bright in an infinite and eternal static universe.
8. 25 July 2016 dad: Your replies are still empty of science (as in Physical Sciences).
9. 26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work
10. 26 July 2016: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
11. 26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work without fact less tirades
12. 27 July 2016 dad: Exactly what is "vague" about this clear description of physics in Here and There?
13. 27 July 2016 dad: Exactly where is the "circular argument" in Here and There?
14. 27 July 2016 dad: Where was the Burden of Proof vacuum and what effect did it have on the tests?
15. 27 July 2016 dad: An assertion that parallax is invalidated by fantasies about spacetime is not evidence that parallax does not work.
16. 27 July 2016 dad: Your opinion about the simple concept of dimensionless constants is not evidence against using them.
17. 28 July 2018 dad: "Prove" your unsupported assertion that there is no time in the far universe.
18. 28 July 2018 dad: How do you measure the distance to stars and galaxies in the " far universe" !
19. 28 July 2016 dad: The size of the gas clouds containing the methanol undergoing rotational transitions does not affect the transitions.
20. 29 July 2016 dad: What looks like an insult about scientists faking data with "seek to make the universe conform to what is under your nose".
21. 29 July 2016 dad: What looks like a lot of ignorance about geology!
22. 29 July 2016 dad: Does not know what time is even when its definition is cited!
23. 29 July 2016 dad: If there is no way to measure actual distances then the laws of physics changing in the far universe is a delusion.
24. 29 July 2016 dad: The movement of the reactors by geographical shifts does not change the fact that the Oklo natural fission reactors existed.
25. 8 August 2016 dad: Supply evidence for your assertion that the Oklo natural fission reactors "moved more than any other areas on earth".
26. 15 August 2016 dad: A delusion that time does not exist at Alpha Centauri (4.3 light years away from us!).
27. 15 August 2016 dad: A lie about the relationship between brightness and distance being false which is basic physics - Inverse-square law.
28. 15 August 2016 dad: A link with an irrelevant geological shift of the Oklo reactors after the fission occurred !
29. 2 September 2016 dad: A abysmally ignorant statement that the Sun is not a star!
30. 2 September 2016 dad: Insulting people again and stating delusions is not a rational honest argument.
31. 13 September 2016 dad: A lie because we have many clues about space and time in the far universe, e.g. the simple fact that stars, galaxies, etc. exist in the far universe.
32. 16 September 2016 dad: A lie (parallax has been explained several times to him) and repeated delusions about space and time.
33. 16 September 2016 dad: A delusion that presenting valid real world science is "rage and blather".
34. 16 September 2016 dad: The post ends with a lie since I have already discussed details of several of the items here.
35. 20 September 2016 dad: Do you agree that if time goes faster then all speeds increase?
    No answer in his reply implying ignorance about what speed is.
36. 20 September 2016 dad: The delusion again that parallax involves a T that is time in the far universe.
37. 20 September 2016 dad: A lie that science does not know what time is.
38. 21 September 2016 dad: Denies the real world fact that Type1a supernova have light curves that debunk his time delusions (time ticks at them at the same rate that it ticks here, corrected for SR).
39. 21 September 2016 dad: The "time delusion" is that something happens somewhere to fit his fantasies. Time is faster, slower or dancing the fandango! This is why it is a delusion.
40. 21 September 2016 dad: The baseline for parallax need not be "HERE" as basic reading skills will tell you !

 

[RealityCheck01]

We have covered the first step in the cosmic distance ladder - parallax - which children can understand (hold your hand outstretched, close an eye and align it with a distant feature, swap eyes and see your hand move), high school students know about the geometry involved and astronomy students are taught the details of its use in measuring distance in astronomy.

There are a number of steps on the ladder that are used to estimate distances in our galaxy. However we will skip to the standard candles. If we can work out the intrinsic brightness (absolute magnitude) of an object then measuring its brightness as seen on Earth (apparent magnitude) tells us the distance of the object via the inverse square law.

Cepheid variable stars are an important standard candle.

A Cepheid variable (/ˈsɛfiːɪd/ or /ˈsiːfiːɪd/) is a type of star that pulsates radially, varying in both diameter and temperature and producing changes in brightness with a well-defined stable period and amplitude.

A strong direct relationship between a Cepheid variable's luminosity and pulsation period[1][2] established Cepheids as important indicators of cosmic benchmarks for scaling galactic and extragalactic distances.[3][4][5][6] This robust characteristic of classical Cepheids was discovered in 1908 by Henrietta Swan Leavitt after studying thousands of variable stars in the Magellanic Clouds.[7]

The term Cepheid originates from Delta Cephei in the constellation Cepheus, identified by John Goodricke in 1784, the first of its type to be so identified.

Important measurements using Cepheid variables were done by Edwin Hubble.

• A 1925 paper measured the distance to several spiral nebulae establishing that they were outside of the Milky Way - thus we have billions of galaxies in our universe rather then just a galaxy.
• A 1929 paper was the first widely known measurement that the redshift of galaxies varied linearly with distance.
  It was not the first paper showing this since Georges Lemaitre published a 1927 paper with the theoretical prediction and observational evidence. But the paper was published in French and in a minor journal. For an unknown reason, Lemaitre cut out the observational evidence when he translated his paper for a 1931 publication in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

 

[dad]

Yet more ad hoc hypotheses. Otherwise known as special pleading.

False. I pointed out some facts about the claims in the article dealing with the issue you raised.

"The astronomers determined this by effectively looking back in time (in their mind and religion only, because we need time to exist there for this to apply) at a distant quasar, labelled B0218+367. The quasar's light, which took 7.5 billion years to reach us, (in their mind and religion only, because we need time to exist there for this to apply) was partially absorbed by ammonia gas in an intervening galaxy.( show us the way you know this exactly) Not only is ammonia useful in most bathroom cleaning products, it is also an ideal molecule to test our understanding of physics in the distant Universe. (why, the universe is like your bathroom??)Spectroscopic observations of the ammonia molecule were performed (here on earth..ha) with the Effelsberg 100m radio telescope at 2 cm wavelength (red-shifted from the original wavelength of 1.3 cm). The wavelengths at which ammonia absorbs radio energy from the quasar are sensitive (here ..now prove that if we observed from a distant star we would observe the same thing?..or are you peddling fishbowl philosophy here!? Let's see what you got.) to this special nuclear physics number, the proton-electron mass ratio.

"By comparing the ammonia absorption with that of other molecules, we were able to determine the value of the proton-electron mass ratio in this galaxy, ( you compare here, observe here, remember? You also have no way to know how far away the cloud or whatnot is. ) and confirm that it is the same as it is on Earth," (so explain how observing it here equals it being the same as at source? Remember that an ratio we see here and that exists here depends on our time and space and etc HERE) says Christian Henkel from MPIfR, an expert for molecular spectroscopy and co-author of the study."

http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/pressreleases/2008/5 The fact is that unless you answer the questions raised in red, you are special pleading, and preaching religious rot in the name of science.

 

[dad]

No actual science from dad in reply to the science I have cited so we are left with a long list of science, questions for him, etc. Which I will record here before going onto more science.
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
26 July 2016: Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work without fact less tirades
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.
27 July 2016 dad: Your opinion about the simple concept of dimensionless constants is not evidence against using them.
28 July 2018 dad: "Prove" your unsupported assertion that there is no time in the far universe.
28 July 2018 dad: How do you measure the distance to stars and galaxies in the " far universe" !
28 July 2016 dad: The size of the gas clouds containing the methanol undergoing rotational transitions does not affect the transitions.
29 July 2016 dad: What looks like an insult about scientists faking data with "seek to make the universe conform to what is under your nose".
29 July 2016 dad: What looks like a lot of ignorance about geology!
29 July 2016 dad: Does not know what time is even when its definition is cited!
29 July 2016 dad: If there is no way to measure actual distances then the laws of physics changing in the far universe is a delusion.
29 July 2016 dad: The movement of the reactors by geographical shifts does not change the fact that the Oklo natural fission reactors existed.

Prove that the sites moved more than any other areas on earth, and were dunked miles under and resurfaced conveniently millions of years later.

As for your claim about physics changing in the far universe being related to your inability to know distances...what are you talking about? As for ignorance about geology, show us what you claim we are ignorant about exactly!? The clouds cause transition? Tell us how we know that exactly. Let's look at that. As for your claim I assert there is no time in the far universe, that is false. I don't know. The issue and question is whether time exists, and/or exists as we know it here. You claim the night sky should be a certain way according Olber's paradox -- explain why, and why it relates to anything here?

Finally, about parallax -- for any parallax measurement there is required a base line. You get this much so far? Invariably, that base line represents a section of time and space here near earth! We know time exists here, so that is fine. However, you cannot extend this line with other lines in a triangle added to it that connect out to a star, unless time and spacetime also existed as we know it all the way there also.

 

[dad]

We have covered the first step in the cosmic distance ladder - parallax - which children can understand (hold your hand outstretched, close an eye and align it with a distant feature, swap eyes and see your hand move), high school students know about the geometry involved and astronomy students are taught the details of its use in measuring distance in astronomy.

One can put ones hand in front of one's face on earth...yes. If we align with a 'distant' lightpole, or mountain...fine. Since we all are in time and spacetime here, we can translate THAT into distances IN space time here. However, the same is not true of stars in deep space, that exist where there may not be time as we know it.

There are a number of steps on the ladder that are used to estimate distances in our galaxy. However we will skip to the standard candles. If we can work out the intrinsic brightness (absolute magnitude) of an object then measuring its brightness as seen on Earth (apparent magnitude) tells us the distance of the object via the inverse square law.

From the link on inverse square law..

"In physics, an inverse-square law is any physical law stating that a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity. The fundamental cause for this can be understood as geometric dilution corresponding to point-source radiation into three-dimensional space (see diagram). Mathematically formulated:"

Distance has to be known then...correct?

 

[AirPo]

No science or bible then. OK.

Posting either would be pointless.

 

[AirPo]

Nice try to attempt to associate yourself with something in the real world and present time, but I won't allow that. You see, the present state and the laws and nature that work now have no relation to the future or far past that you can or have shown. None whatsoever. If one must debate, I would suggest honesty would be called for.

If you honestly believed honesty is called for these threads would not exist.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Prove that the sites moved more than any other areas on earth...

Prove that you can read and understand English, dad:
29 July 2016 dad: What looks like a lot of ignorance about geology!
29 July 2016 dad: The movement of the reactors by geographical shifts does not change the fact that the Oklo natural fission reactors existed.
And that you understand the concept of supplying evidence for unsupported assertions:
8 August 2016 dad: Supply evidence for your assertion that the Oklo natural fission reactors "moved more than any other areas on earth".

 

[RealityCheck01]

One can put ones hand in front of one's face on earth...yes.

Yes parallax is the concept which children can understand, dad. A fantasy about time not existing at stars such as Alpha Centauri (4.3. light years away with a measured parallax (π) 754.81 ± 4.11[1] mas :eek!) is delusional because we see the light from these stars. We see light from stars billions of light years away !

Distance has to be known then...correct?

Wrong, dad. There are three variables:

1. absolute magnitude
2. apparent magnitude
3. distance.

If we measure any 2 of these we can calculate the third. A standard candle is an object where we estimate absolute magnitude, we use a telecope to measure apparent magnitude and thus we can calculate the third variable distance.

 

[dad]

Prove that you can read and understand English, dad:

29 July 2016 dad: What looks like a lot of ignorance about geology!
29 July 2016 dad: The movement of the reactors by geographical shifts does not change the fact that the Oklo natural fission reactors existed.
And that you understand the concept of supplying evidence for unsupported assertions:
8 August 2016 dad: Supply evidence for your assertion that the Oklo natural fission reactors "moved more than any other areas on earth".

Cute, you link to your own vacuous posts. Guess you are well supported eh? Ha.

What about 'geology' do you think helps you besides your ability to spell it and add a link to your own empty pots using the word??

Oklo? Still waiting for you to show concrete evidence that all the sites there were dunked miles under and later, when needed, broght back to the surface? Anything special about that area and site, or do you think all places on earth undergo that sort of thing? Fact is you have diddly squat, and just need it to have been so for your idiotic fable to sound quasi credible.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Cute, ....

Not cute is repeated argument by insult and ignorance, dad.
Hinting that you cannot understand English by ignoring a simple question to show that you can read and understand English is also not cute, dad:
29 July 2016 dad: What looks like a lot of ignorance about geology!
29 July 2016 dad: The movement of the reactors by geographical shifts does not change the fact that the Oklo natural fission reactors existed.
And that you understand the concept of supplying evidence for unsupported assertions:
8 August 2016 dad: Supply evidence for your assertion that the Oklo natural fission reactors "moved more than any other areas on earth".

 

[dad]

Yes parallax is the concept which children can understand, dad.

So is the concept of repeating oneself like a little parrot, while saying nothing!

A fantasy about time not existing at stars such as Alpha Centauri (4.3. light years away with a measured parallax (π) 754.81 ± 4.11[1] mas :eek!) is delusional because we see the light from these stars. We see light from stars billions of light years away !

In your head only is that time of any value. The base line for your measure is where!?

Ha. For lurkers, here is a little picture of a sample base line and where it is --

The earth in this example goes round the sun. Measuring six months apart, from earth, looking at a distant star, we have the base line for the triangle measurement. In other words IN our time and space here, we take a spacial coordinate of so many miles, and then use THAT spacetime line HERE as if it equaled time and space where the star is!! Total belief based operation. You see if no time existed where the star was, then OUR time and space would not represent the space or/and time there!

Bing and a bam and a boom.

Wrong, dad. There are three variables:

1. absolute magnitude
2. apparent magnitude
3. distance.

False. There is also the variable of whether space and time as we know it here exist there! Unless they do, then the apparent...anything from earth has no transferable meaning! No distance and no sizes can be known, they depend on time existing.

If we measure any 2 of these we can calculate the third.

Foolish non truth. The third happens to be way out in the unknown, and all you are doing is exercising 'fishbowl' godless logic.

A standard candle is an object where we estimate absolute magnitude, we use a telecope to measure apparent magnitude and thus we can calculate the third variable distance.

No. You project earth spacetime based thinking to the unknown. We see only here. It is apparent to us only here, we have only ONE point and frame of reference.

How sweet it is!

 

[dad]

Not cute is repeated argument by insult and ignorance, dad.

One would not feel insulted by defeat if one learned from it. Not sure how illuminating facts about geology and stellar distance basics could be insulting..but that's not my problem.

8 August 2016 dad: Supply evidence for your assertion that the Oklo natural fission reactors "moved more than any other areas on earth".

Bingo. If you claim a magic elevator ride and back up again miles under, you better prove it or at least offer some sort of support. I have to tell you this????

 

[AirPo]

So is the concept of repeating oneself like a little parrot, while saying nothing!

You've turned that into an art form.

In your head only is that time of any value.

More projection.

 

[dad]

You've turned that into an art form.


More projection.

The black hole of evo dream time modelling has no relation to real time that you can show, eh? I might point out that no one else can either. At least you are defeated and honest enough to not even try to debate intelligently any more.

Speaking of black holes, I notice they admit not knowing all that much about them.

"One of the biggest problems when studying black holes is that the laws of physics as we know them cease to apply in their deepest regions. Large quantities of matter and energy concentrate in an infinitely small space, the gravitational singularity, where space-time curves towards infinity and all matter is destroyed. Or is it?"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160805085747.htm

I suppose they might as well say something like..'black holes are real and based on physics...or are they--maybe we don't really know what we are talking about whatsoever!?' Ha. Lurkers, remember that the claims of so called science really just are 'godless inspiration, that comes from the nethermost regions of the deluded evo mind'

 

[AirPo]

The black hole of evo dream time modelling has no relation to real time that you can show, eh? I might point out that no one else can either. At least you are defeated and honest enough to not even try to debate intelligently any more.

Speaking of black holes, I notice they admit not knowing all that much about them.

"One of the biggest problems when studying black holes is that the laws of physics as we know them cease to apply in their deepest regions. Large quantities of matter and energy concentrate in an infinitely small space, the gravitational singularity, where space-time curves towards infinity and all matter is destroyed. Or is it?"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160805085747.htm

I suppose they might as well say something like..'black holes are real and based on physics...or are they--maybe we don't really know what we are talking about whatsoever!?' Ha. Lurkers, remember that the claims of so called science really just are 'godless inspiration, that comes from the nethermost regions of the deluded evo mind'

Of course I can, but it's not worth the time or effort when dealing with the HI Theory. The HI Theory is just making stuff up, so let's keep with the spirit and leave reality out of it.