Real time or evo time?

[RealityCheck01]

One link relating the miles under dunk aspect of the Oklo story is here......

The irrelevant ignorance of geology persists and expands to an absurd level. The summit of Mt Everest is limestone made at the bottom of oceans!

What you also do not know is a standard rule of debating - it is up to the person making an assertion to fully describe it and to support it. Rather than a science article with a vague "few miles" you need to show that you actually looked at the science and found evidence that makes it wrong.
23 August 2016 dad: Exactly what geological movements did the Oklo reactors undergo?
23 August 2016 dad: What is your evidence that these geological movements did not happen? This is not fact less arguments from incredibility or argument. This is physical evidence that the geological movements are physically impossible.

The fact that land rises and falls is standard geology and still does not affect that fact that the Oklo reactors existed !

A long list of science, questions, fantasies, etc. started on 4 August 2016 for dad.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Missed this ignorance back on 8 August 2016:

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

We know everything about black holes except a couple of things. The central singularity is where our current physics breaks down but we expect a quantum gravity theory to remove that singularity. A puzzle is whether information that falls into them vanishes or is returned somehow.

Do black holes have a back door? is in a sense old physics revisited. Wormholes have been an area of theoretical research for many decades. The theoretical research here is a non-GR theory that has black holes with a wormhole in their center.
It is a lie that this article states that we do not know much about black holes.

Black holes are based on physics - namely General relativity ! This is something hat first or second year physics university students work out (been there - done that).

The physical evidence is that black holes are real because we have observed objects that have no other credible explanation, e.g. the supermassive black holes in galaxies such as the Milky Way. 4.3 million Suns packed into a volume that fits inside the orbit of Mercury!

 

[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.
...
Cepheid variable stars are an important standard candle.

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.

The next important rung on the cosmic distance ladder are the Type Ia supernovae standard candles. Astronomers found that the intensity of light from these supernovae (light curves) varied with a characteristic parameter that allows the determination of the supernova's maximum intrinsic intensity. Measuring the supernova's maximum apparent intensity then gives its distance from us.

An important result from Type Ia supernovae was the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe was accelerating which lead to a Noble Prize for 3 astronomers from the two teams who discovered it.

A lesser known result from Type Ia supernovae is an independent measurement of the velocity of galaxies. Galaxy redshifts have only one credible cause - Doppler shifts due to their velocity (due to an expanding universe from overwhelming evidence). Science however is the process of always testing a conclusion. Special relativity tells us that time dilation will make the supernovae happen slower according to their velocity, i.e. redshift.
Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the Big Bang been observed? (Yes!)

This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves.

This also tells us that galaxy redshift does not happen while the light is travelling to us (the already dubious tired light theories).

 

[RealityCheck01]

So we have covered

• Parallax (a concept that children can understand)
• Cepheid variables (high school level science)
• Type 1a supernova (first year astronomy students)

These are the three most often mentioned rungs in the cosmic distance ladder which has over 20 other rungs! The ABC's of Distances lists 26 methods.

Another parallax method is used to measure the distance to clusters of stars.

Not many stars are close enough to have useful trigonometric parallaxes. But when stars are in a stable star cluster whose physical size is not changing, like the Pleiades, then the apparent motions of the stars within the cluster can be used to determine the distance to the cluster.
...
This method has been applied to the Hyades cluster giving a distance of 45.53 +/- 2.64 pc. The average of HIPPARCOS trigonometric parallaxes for Hyades members gives a distance of 46.34 +/- 0.27 pc (Perryman et al.).

N.B. that "Not many stars" is close to 100,000 in the Hipparcos survey alone.

 

[dad]

Insults do not hide that it is delusional to think that time stops anywhere that we observe light that requires time to be created and travel, dad, !

How much time anything takes depends on where it is. Here, where time exists as we know it, it takes so much time.

It needs time for electrons to emit light in atoms.
It needs time for light to travel from the center of stars to their outside.
It takes time for light to travel from a star to Earth!

See above...it takes time here where time exists, that does not even address the issue of whether time exists where the stars are.

 

[dad]

The next important rung on the cosmic distance ladder are the Type Ia supernovae standard candles. Astronomers found that the intensity of light from these supernovae (light curves) varied with a characteristic parameter that allows the determination of the supernova's maximum intrinsic intensity. Measuring the supernova's maximum apparent intensity then gives its distance from us.

Time is involved in a light curve and decay you know! Also, distance is involved, size etc. These cannot be known unless we have time. In all aspects of such a so called distance measure from light intensity, time is involved in fact.
In determining how far away a SN is, they use TIME and timespace based measures, which have zero merit unless time and space and time together were the same at both ends! Gong!!

This also tells us that galaxy redshift does not happen while the light is travelling to us (the already dubious tired light theories).

Strawman argument, who asked about that, and what does it have to do with anything discussed here?

 

[dad]

So we have covered

• Parallax (a concept that children can understand)

Parallax involves a base line in earth area, consisting of time as well as space here. From THAT, they infer distances based on the underlying assumption that time exists also there, where the stars are, as well as spacetime that we know here. That assumption is not proven in any way whatsoever so is worthless religion.

• Cepheid variables (high school level science)

• Type 1a supernova (first year astronomy students)

No use building up on a foundation of sand that cannot stand. Unless the first rungs of your fantasy ladder were strong and true, there IS NO LADDER!

These are the three most often mentioned rungs in the cosmic distance ladder which has over 20 other rungs! The ABC's of Distances lists 26 methods.

Hey, nothing built on a false and unproven foundation has any value at all without the premises being valid.

You are a godless religion thumper.

Another parallax method is used to measure the distance to clusters of stars.

I dare you to try to show us how time is not involved there either!!!!

Ha. How sweet it is.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Parallax involves a base line in earth area, consisting of time as well as space here. From THAT, they infer distances based on the underlying assumption that time exists also there, where the stars are, as well as spacetime that we know here. That assumption is not proven in any way whatsoever so is worthless religion.
No use building up on a foundation of sand that cannot stand. Unless the first rungs of your fantasy ladder were strong and true, there IS NO LADDER!

parallax doesn't need time, only geometry.

If you actually understood what parallax was, you'd know that.

 

[Kylie]

God is beyond your science. So is the past.

Yeah, it's easy to say that about anything.

You're going to need more than slogans to convince me.

 

[Kylie]

Traces from then are seen here and now only! How they got how they are depends on the laws of that day.

And isn't it funny? The laws were, you claim, entirely different to the laws we have today, and yet we never see anything that is entirely different to what we would expect to see if the laws were the same.

Or a DSP...or anything one sets out first using to interpret evidences.

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Are you claiming that a world operating by completely different laws would somehow create things that look like they were made using present state laws?

People see what they want. When we see an isotope with what is now a long half life all that tells us is that the stuff is now in this state and slowly decaying. It does not tell us it all got her from decay.

So once again the best you can do is to claim that it's just an amazing coincidence that the different state past left behind the exact ratios we'd expect from a same state past.

An amazing coincidence.

 

[dad]

Yeah, it's easy to say that about anything.

You're going to need more than slogans to convince me.

Well, if you think science is able to cover God, you would need to show us how. Until then, you cannot dispute that God is above the paygrade of poor little science of man.

 

[dad]

And isn't it funny? The laws were, you claim, entirely different to the laws we have today, and yet we never see anything that is entirely different to what we would expect to see if the laws were the same.

If nature changes, please tell us what a rock would then look like? You seem to think rocks and stuff would need to look radically different. That makes no sense.

Are you claiming that a world operating by completely different laws would somehow create things that look like they were made using present state laws?

If the laws changed in Noah's day how do you think he should look?? I would think we would expect big differences. Living 100 years instead of 1000...etc. That is what bible history records.

So once again the best you can do is to claim that it's just an amazing coincidence that the different state past left behind the exact ratios we'd expect from a same state past.

False. The ratios that existed would naturally have to start obeying the new forces and laws that came to exist. It would not have been our laws that 'left them'.
Perfect planning.

 

[Kylie]

Well, if you think science is able to cover God, you would need to show us how. Until then, you cannot dispute that God is above the paygrade of poor little science of man.

Well, if you think science is able to cover Harry Potter, you would need to show us how. Until then, you cannot dispute that Harry Potteris above the paygrade of poor little science of man.

See the problem? You must start by showing that God exists.

 

[Kylie]

If nature changes, please tell us what a rock would then look like? You seem to think rocks and stuff would need to look radically different. That makes no sense.

If the laws governing how atoms were held together were different, then yes, the rocks would be different, wouldn't they?

Or do you think atoms would behave the same even if the laws governing them were totally different?

If the laws changed in Noah's day how do you think he should look?? I would think we would expect big differences. Living 100 years instead of 1000...etc. That is what bible history records.

Woah, hold on. You just said that it didn't make sense for rocks to be different despite a change in state, and yet now you say that there will be big differences in how long people live.

So why is it that people will be different, but rocks won't be?

False. The ratios that existed would naturally have to start obeying the new forces and laws that came to exist. It would not have been our laws that 'left them'.
Perfect planning.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The logic is no different to this.

 

[dad]

See the problem? You must start by showing that God exists.

God did that, since the dawn of time.

 

[dad]

If the laws governing how atoms were held together were different, then yes, the rocks would be different, wouldn't they?

Or do you think atoms would behave the same even if the laws governing them were totally different?

How atoms behave does not mean rocks look radically different does it? Support that claim.

Woah, hold on. You just said that it didn't make sense for rocks to be different despite a change in state, and yet now you say that there will be big differences in how long people live.

The bible record shows that lifespan change. It also tells us about plants growing fast before this time. It also talks of spirits living with en before this time. It talks of a different climate system, to where we had water from below rather than rain. Noah seemed to be amazed at the rainbow, as if no one saw one before. You would need to show how different forces acting on atoms in a rock would result in some new look for the rock. You can't just claim stuff. Now I would agree there was likely a different consistency to rock in the past, but you would need to prove any claims of radically different appearance for rock.

So why is it that people will be different, but rocks won't be?

Noah was different in many ways, perhaps. But I really doubt his wife didn't recognize him! You seem to be saying the rocks would look different, not just have the atoms in them behave different. After all the rocks would have been here and formed already and had the ratios of isotpes in them already at the time of the nature change.

 

[dad]

parallax doesn't need time, only geometry.

If you actually understood what parallax was, you'd know that.

False, a base line that is needed in every case for any parallax measure, is always taken in OUR space and time! THAT base line is what is used to extend the other triangle lines to the star. THAT base line is the one we have actual distance for. If space and time and spacetime are not the same in deep space, then we cannot use our base line of time and space as something that can be extended to tell us time..(light YEARS etc)

 

[TLK Valentine]

False, a base line that is needed in every case for any parallax measure, is always taken in OUR space and time! THAT base line is what is used to extend the other triangle lines to the star. THAT base line is the one we have actual distance for. If space and time and spacetime are not the same in deep space, then we cannot use our base line of time and space as something that can be extended to tell us time..(light YEARS etc)

Explain what parallax is, dad -- if you can.

 

[dad]

Explain what parallax is, dad -- if you can.

The part you have a problem understanding is the base line, apparently. Look at this pic..

See the sun? The earth? The base line is a measure over six months of time, in our spacetime here. That line is absolutely required to ascertain the distance of the star. You with me so far?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The part you have a problem understanding is the base line, apparently. Look at this pic..

See the sun? The earth? The base line is a measure over six months of time, in our spacetime here. That line is absolutely required to ascertain the distance of the star. You with me so far?

Right -- so far, you've demonstrated a basic knowledge.... now, continue with the definition.