Real time or evo time?

[TLK Valentine]

Anywhere any lace in spacetime like our solar system is involved. That means in ALL parallax base lines of course. If you need it repeated, copy and paste.

I'll ask again until you give a straight answer: show me how it fits in the equation.

 

[dad]

I'll ask again until you give a straight answer: show me how it fits in the equation.

The measure of stars involves great areas for the base line. Did not your diagram involve two eyes is a head?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The measure of stars involves great areas for the base line. Did not your diagram involve two eyes is a head?

Show me where time comes into the equation.

 

[dad]

Show me where time comes into the equation.

Do you agree that time exists and spacetime? If so, how could it NOT exist in great swaths of space??

 

[TLK Valentine]

Do you agree that time exists and spacetime? If so, how could it NOT exist in great swaths of space??

Show where where it fits into the equation.

 

[dad]

Show where where it fits into the equation.

Name the equation regarding stellar measures and I will do that for you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Name the equation regarding stellar measures and I will do that for you.

D =1/P

P being the angle observed, and D being the distance in parsecs, a parsec being approximately 1.9164 * 10^13 miles

Ok dad -- get to it.

 

[TBDude65]

What evidence or logical reason would cause someone to think that physics behaves differently now from in the past?

 

[sjastro]

I'll ask again until you give a straight answer: show me how it fits in the equation.

Give the man a break.
He can't give you an answer because he has absolutely no understanding of the question.
His posts are motivated by an extreme case of anti intellectualism, to a point where he seems to have a genuine dislike towards anyone who has the ability of thinking for themselves.
Your question is an anathema to him because it would require him to think, as he has no resource in using the Bible as a reference source.

Likewise I am still waiting on a response from Dad who considers the Bible as the source of all knowledge which includes a geocentric view of the Universe, why would he then undermine the Bible and his own beliefs by using parallax as an argument.
As a point of historical interest one of the very few scientific counterarguments used by the Church in defence of the Bible against a heliocentric or Copernican view was the absence of a measurable parallax in stars, an issue which was finally resolved by the astronomer Bessel in the early 19th century.

How ironical of Dad of attacking Science using the Bible by using an example where Science clearly prevailed over the Bible.

 

[Kylie]

D =1/P

P being the angle observed, and D being the distance in parsecs, a parsec being approximately 1.9164 * 10^13 miles

Ok dad -- get to it.

Can't wait to see this.

 

[dad]

D =1/P

P being the angle observed, and D being the distance in parsecs, a parsec being approximately 1.9164 * 10^13 miles

Ok dad -- get to it.

That is not a stand alone formula. Mentioning distance and parsecs doesn't tell us anything. The base line is a distance measure that would be added to the formula. If time was a part of that measure, and not just distance...(as it has to be in spacetime here) then it is part of the equation. Since you do not even know what time is here...or far away...you are dealing with nothing but the unknown.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is not a stand alone formula.

Yes, it is.

Mentioning distance and parsecs doesn't tell us anything. The base line is a distance measure that would be added to the formula. If time was a part of that measure, and not just distance...(as it has to be in spacetime here) then it is part of the equation. Since you do not even know what time is here...or far away...you are dealing with nothing but the unknown.

You asked for the equation. You got it.

Now you babble and make excuses.

 

[TBDude65]

That is not a stand alone formula. Mentioning distance and parsecs doesn't tell us anything. The base line is a distance measure that would be added to the formula. If time was a part of that measure, and not just distance...(as it has to be in spacetime here) then it is part of the equation. Since you do not even know what time is here...or far away...you are dealing with nothing but the unknown.

What evidence or logical reason would cause someone to think that physics behaves differently now from in the past?

 

[TBDude65]

Also on the same vein, there is no separation of timescales in science because we apply the same view of time in the present, the past, and the future. So that means it isn't "evo time" vs "real time." It means it is religious time vs real time because the religious (like the OP) assert that time does not operate the same throughout time.

 

[dad]

Yes, it is.



You asked for the equation. You got it.

Now you babble and make excuses.

Then use it to show the distance to SN1987a. Let's see your stuff here. Your equation does not even relate to a base line used in stellar parallax. Face it.

 

[dad]

What evidence or logical reason would cause someone to think that physics behaves differently now from in the past?

The actual record of the past of Scripture confirms it. Also science doesn't know either way, so hey, why not?

 

[TBDude65]

The actual record of the past of Scripture confirms it. Also science doesn't know either way, so hey, why not?

Do what? Scripture confirms what? It confirms what scripture says, but that hardly gets us anywhere about the nature of reality.

And what do you mean science "doesn't know either way?" Science doesn't know what exactly?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Then use it to show the distance to SN1987a. Let's see your stuff here. Your equation does not even relate to a base line used in stellar parallax. Face it.

Sorry dad -- you don't get to scurry out of this.

You said time was in the equation.

D=1/P

Show me where.

 

[dad]

Do what? Scripture confirms what? It confirms what scripture says, but that hardly gets us anywhere about the nature of reality.

Scripture confirms plants grew fast, people lived about 1000 years, spirits lived with men, and etc etc. So it confirms the idea that the past was different. Since you have diddly squat that confirms the past was the same nature, you lose.

And what do you mean science "doesn't know either way?" Science doesn't know what exactly?

Science doesn't know what forces and laws, or nature existed in the early days of the earth.

 

[TBDude65]

Scripture confirms plants grew fast, people lived about 1000 years, spirits lived with men, and etc etc. So it confirms the idea that the past was different. Since you have diddly squat that confirms the past was the same nature, you lose.
Science doesn't know what forces and laws, or nature existed in the early days of the earth.

The bible asserts without proof or evidence many things (like a flat Earth).

Also, how exactly have you determined that scientists don't know what the forces and laws of nature were in the past?