Glow surrounds Solar System (fishbowl boundary?)

[RealityCheck01]

Don't try to make it sound like your predictions are anything but ever changing guesses that fit your belief set.

A rational post goes off the rails here.
15 August 2018 dad: Abysmal ignorance yet again about what science is (ever changing is good, not guesses, not a "belief set").
Sceince is a process that uses an increasing body of knowledge to produce an ever closer approximation to what the universe tells us. When we found evidence that Newtonian gravity was wrong we replaced it with a better scientific theory (General Relativity) because that is what the universe says is more correct.

Maybe related to: 24 April 2018 dad: A "All the theories are religious nonsense" lie.

 

[dad]

I vote for following the conclusion of experts: Probably UV light from the heliosphere termination shock.

No problem, you have a vote.

The predictions were pretty close. As often happens the situation was more complex than the models. So we found empirical evidence that will allow the models to be improved. That is good for science.

Well, if the bible said Jesus would be born in Amsterdam to a same sex couple, and be tickled till He was ill for us, some people might think that was close also. I guess the real predictions are so very far above the poor little oft failing 'predictions' of science, that we may need other words for it. Maybe words like hunches, guesses, fringe ballpark speculations...etc.

 

[dad]

Sceince is a process that uses an increasing body of knowledge to produce an ever closer approximation to what the universe tells us.

It uses whatever evidence or lack of it that is needed to conform the universe to a godless earth centered philosophy and belief set. When the facts show that evidence opposes the models it forms, it adopts the models accordingly and religiously to it's beliefs. It is an ongoing process. All things must fit and be explained by it's fishbowl philosophy, for it's fishbowl philosophy.

When we found evidence that Newtonian gravity was wrong we replaced it with a better scientific theory (General Relativity) because that is what the universe says is more correct.

Granted. Yet even today they do not have the theory of everything that includes it all.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It uses whatever evidence or lack of it that is needed to conform the universe to a godless earth centered philosophy and belief set.

15 August 2018 dad: A lie about science which does not "conform the universe" to any "philosophy and belief set".
This is science

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

Sceince takes the empirical evidence that the universe presents and conforms its theories (beliefs) to fit the evidence.
Science is not theist or atheist. Gods are religion not science.

Modern science started with almost exclusively theist scientists (e.g. Galileo and Newton). Today maybe a third of USA scientists would be Christians.

15 August 2018 dad: Abysmal ignorance yet again about what science is (ever changing is good, not guesses, not a "belief set").

24 April 2018 dad: A "All the theories are religious nonsense" lie.

 

[RealityCheck01]

When the facts show that evidence opposes the models it forms, it adopts the models accordingly and religiously to it's beliefs.

15 August 2018 dad: Repeats his science is religion ("religiously to it's beliefs") lie.
This is science. It is not religion.

 

[RealityCheck01]

All things must fit and be explained by it's fishbowl philosophy, for it's fishbowl philosophy.

15 August 2018 dad: A "fishbowl philosophy" lie because he knows that physics has been tested outside of the Solar System.
Time-variation of fundamental constants, e.g. we look for variation in the fine structure constant by looking at light from distant stars and galaxies that are outside of the Solar System. There is some evidence of variation in the constant in light from quasars.

We apply the laws of physics we derive here to create models of stars (like the Sun) and galaxies and see that stars and galaxies outside the Solar System mostly act as predicted.
10 items of scientific evidence that time runs about the same rate in far space as it does in the Solar System.

 

[dad]

15 August 2018 dad: A lie about science which does not "conform the universe" to any "philosophy and belief set".
This is science

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Organizes knowledge!? Ha. You organize facts to fit your religion, that includes some knowledge, some making stuff up, some guesswork, some modelling based on strict fishbowl rules...etc etc.

Sceince takes the empirical evidence that the universe presents and conforms its theories (beliefs) to fit the evidence.

You presented no evidence time existed the same in deep space. Then you turn around and use deductions/models/distances etc based on that belief as if it were empirical.

Science is not theist or atheist. Gods are religion not science.

Science is not science when we include in the word all the origins fables.

Modern science started with almost exclusively theist scientists (e.g. Galileo and Newton). Today maybe a third of USA scientists would be Christians.

In origin 'sciences'?! That would surprise me that creation believers were totally immersed in the Satanistic cunning fable manufacturing elements of what is included as science today...falsely.

 

[dad]

15 August 2018 dad: A "fishbowl philosophy" lie because he knows that physics has been tested outside of the Solar System.
Time-variation of fundamental constants, e.g. we look for variation in the fine structure constant by looking at light from distant stars and galaxies that are outside of the Solar System. There is some evidence of variation in the constant in light from quasars.

Circular nonsense, as the fine structure constant depends on C (time involved with light moving in the fishbowl). The proton or electron charge is also the charge seen here in the fishbowl (regardless of where it comes from). The quantum of action (Planck constant) is action seen here in the area of earth or solar system area. etc etc etc.

" e is the elementary charge;

• π is the mathematical constant pi;
• ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant;
• c is the speed of light in vacuum;
• ε0 is the electric constant or permittivity of free space;
• µ0 is the magnetic constant or permeability of free space;
• ke is the Coulomb constant;
• RK is the von Klitzing constant;
• Z0 is the vacuum impedance or impedance of free space."

wiki
So you pile all these things together that we observe here, and try to use that to say it is the same elsewhere. Even with all that time is not included at all or dealt with!!! Ha. So let's not pretend you evidenced time being the same in far space.

We apply the laws of physics we derive here to create models of stars (like the Sun) and galaxies and see that stars and galaxies outside the Solar System mostly act as predicted.

In other words you apply fishbowl physics. Your predictions were shown to be shoddy at best, and inappropriate to the far universe.

Speaking of the sun, your idea of that is wrong. It might be interesting to see if the probe that hits the sun in Nov yields things NOT predicted or against what is predicted by you. Who knows?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Circular nonsense, ...

20 August 2018 dad: "Circular nonsense" lie about the search for variation in the fine structure constant.
15 August 2018 dad: A "fishbowl philosophy" lie because he knows that physics has been tested outside of the Solar System.
The fine structure constant includes the speed of light c. If c varies then the fine structure constant varies. Likewise for each of the other physical constants in the fine structure constant. We go looking for a variation in the fin structure constant and find an extremely small upper limit (an upper bound on time variation of 10−17 per year). That is not circular reasoning.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Speaking of the sun, your idea of that is wrong. It might be interesting to see if the probe that hits the sun in Nov yields things NOT predicted or against what is predicted by you. Who knows?

20 August 2018 dad: A "Speaking of the sun, your idea of that is wrong" delusion.

For others:
The "idea" of the Sun is a ball of hot gas being compressed by gravity and blown up by thermal pressure with a balance between the 2 giving a stable star (Astronomy 101 ). This leads to predictions. The Sun has to be heated from its core otherwise it collapses to a white dwarf. The conditions at the core allow fusion to happen. We test those predictions. Temperature increases within the depths we can probe. The neutrino flux from the fusion matching solar energy output is detected.

It is Astronomy 101 that tells us that every star we find that is similar to the Sun will have a similar rate of fusion. Changing that rate of fusion by imagining time changing either way leads to stars becoming white dwarfs or exploding. There are ordinary stars throughput the Milky Way with no evidence of white dwarfs magically going more frequent with distance from Earth. We see galaxies with normal stars billions of light years away.
Thus time runs at about the same rate throughout the Milky Way and to the limits of our observations.

There are some outstanding puzzles not related to the basic model with credible explanations. The Parker Solar Probe (which will not actually hit the Sun!) will give better data on the solar atmosphere to decide between those mechanisms or inspire new ones.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You organize facts to fit your religion,..

20 August 2018 dad: An insulting "Satanistic cunning fable manufacturing elements of what is included as science" rant.
I am citing textbook science. Falsely accusing scientists of "organizing facts" or "manufacturing elements" to fit scientific theories is one of the worse insults that can be written.
Insulting Christians who work on science, especially evolution ("origin sciences"?), as believing in the "Satanistic cunning fable manufacturing elements of what is included as science" is bad. What is worse is doing it on a Christian forum where there will be Christians who trust in evolution or that evolution does not conflict with their beliefs.

15 August 2018 dad: A lie about science which does not "conform the universe" to any "philosophy and belief set".

Modern science started with almost exclusively theist scientists (e.g. Galileo and Newton). Today maybe a third of USA scientists would be Christians.

That is a fact. All branches of modern science started as almost exclusively Christian when it was mostly published in Europe and USA. Add other countries and we have almost exclusively theist. Surveys of modern scientists suggest that at least a third are Christian.

.

 

[RealityCheck01]

10 items of scientific evidence that time runs about the same rate in far space as it does in the Solar System.

 

[dad]

[QUOTE="RealityCheck01, post: 73081970, member: 317334""Circular nonsense" lie about the search for variation in the fine structure constant.
15 August 2018 dad: A "fishbowl philosophy" lie be.[/QUOTE] Wrong. It is circular because the ways that the fine constant are determined involve things that cannot be said to also be true out in unknown deep space and time.

 

[dad]

20 August 2018 dad: A "Speaking of the sun, your idea of that is wrong" delusion.

For others:
The "idea" of the Sun is a ball of hot gas being compressed by gravity and blown up by thermal pressure with a balance between the 2 giving a stable star (Astronomy 101 ). This leads to predictions. The Sun has to be heated from its core otherwise it collapses to a white dwarf. The conditions at the core allow fusion to happen. We test those predictions. Temperature increases within the depths we can probe. The neutrino flux from the fusion matching solar energy output is detected.

It is Astronomy 101 that tells us that every star we find that is similar to the Sun will have a similar rate of fusion. Changing that rate of fusion by imagining time changing either way leads to stars becoming white dwarfs or exploding. There are ordinary stars throughput the Milky Way with no evidence of white dwarfs magically going more frequent with distance from Earth. We see galaxies with normal stars billions of light years away.
Thus time runs at about the same rate throughout the Milky Way and to the limits of our observations.

There are some outstanding puzzles not related to the basic model with credible explanations. The Parker Solar Probe (which will not actually hit the Sun!) will give better data on the solar atmosphere to decide between those mechanisms or inspire new ones.

Reciting a fable doesn't make it true. The ways you decide stars are similar to the sun involve you using fishbowl realities and godless origin fables to model how the stars 'must' work, and 'must' have originated.

 

[dad]

.
...accusing scientists of "organizing facts" or "manufacturing elements" to fit scientific theories is one of the worse insults that can be written.

The elements they use in origin theories are religious beliefs. The way the model the universe IS by trying to explain/model it according to those beliefs. The resulting godless lying fables are a deep insult to humanity, God, Scripture, and intelligence.

Insulting Christians who work on science, especially evolution ("origin sciences"?), as believing in the "Satanistic cunning fable manufacturing elements of what is included as science" is bad. What is worse is doing it on a Christian forum where there will be Christians who trust in evolution or that evolution does not conflict with their beliefs.

I am not naming who believes in fables, you are! I am pointing out that the belief based fishbowl philosophy imposed on origin 'sciences' is not factual, or based on knowledge, but belief based. People are welcome to believe as they wish. They can even claim their beliefs are i line with the bible if they so desire. The thing is, it is easy to check Scripture to see if their claim is correct.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...Wrong. It is circular because the ways that the fine constant are determined involve things that cannot be said to also be true out in unknown deep space and time.

24 August 2018 dad: A lie about the meaning of circular reasoning (again?) and a possible lie that he knows anything about the tests of the fine structure constant.
Circular reasoning.
Fine structure constant
There is no assumption the physical constants are the same outside of the System System. Astronomers are looking for variation in those constants that cause variation in
the fine structure constant.

20 August 2018 dad: "Circular nonsense" lie about the search for variation in the fine structure constant.
15 August 2018 dad: A "fishbowl philosophy" lie because he knows that physics has been tested outside of the Solar System.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Reciting a fable doesn't make it true...

24 August 2018 dad: A"Reciting a fable doesn't make it true" lie and his fishbowl delusion.
Astronomy 101 is not a fable. Physical facts are not a fable (the Sun is made of hot gas). Any star that is the same classification as the Sun must have the same balance of gravity and pressure, the same rate of fusion and thus the same passage of time. Ditto for applying our stellar models to stars.

Unsupported delusions about time are fables.

20 August 2018 dad: A "Speaking of the sun, your idea of that is wrong" delusion

 

[RealityCheck01]

The elements they use in origin theories are religious beliefs. .....

I point out:
20 August 2018 dad: An insulting "Satanistic cunning fable manufacturing elements of what is included as science" rant.
and get:
24 August 2018 dad: A delusion that chemistry and physics are is religious beliefs!
Simply put, the "elements" of abiogenesis mechanisms are a series of credible chemical reactions driven by physical conditions.

 

[dad]

Fine structure constant
There is no assumption the physical constants are the same outside of the System System. Astronomers are looking for variation in those constants that cause variation in
the fine structure constant..

They look at how it is on earth and the fishbowl area. The electrical change we now see, how light works here etc.
To use that as some constant is circular.

 

[dad]

Physical facts are not a fable (the Sun is made of hot gas).

Try to phrase your fables and claims appropriately.
In other words, the only explanation of what inside the sun 'must be' like is based on certain beliefs. You have not even been to the inside of earth, forget the sun.

Any star that is the same classification as the Sun must have the same balance of gravity and pressure,

Some arbitrary classification of what you see as a star out in unknown space and time (unknown size and distance etc) is purely a statement of faith.

the same rate of fusion and thus the same passage of time

Wrong. Fusion is your explanation of what stars are all about. As for your declaration that time is the same there also, that is laughable.