Light years is a time measure

[Old Ned]

Great. Especially in the minds of the unstable I guess. Now that we cleared that up....any actual point?


Speak for yourself. We of sound mind disagree.

You of "sound mind" also disagree with most brilliant minds on the planet.

The only thing that is proven 100% concrete is mathematics.

Don't accept that? Enjoy your world of denial.

 

[freezerman2000]

Well the hourglass itself would have some Gravity , so would any local observer. But if they're using an Hourglass as a standard, they just need to take it to the moon.

Enough to make the sand fall?

 

[pgp_protector]

Enough to make the sand fall?

On the moon, I'd hazard to guess that their's enough gravity to make the sand fall, Though I wouldn't want to put any money on the speed that it would fall.

 

[freezerman2000]

Baloney. We do not know that. Try to phrase your thoughts properly. Something like 'On and near earth, as far as we know, light moves at a certain constant speed, unless interfered with..etc etc'


If you mean physical only present state fishbowl earth and area, and the bending of space and 'spacetime' by gravity and affected other ways, you might have a point. Even there, I would ask for proof. You see we can't rule out that perhaps there is a universal time difference starting at earth, that is only somewhat affected by any gravity or velocity here, and would exist anyhow even if there was a different set of rules!!!!!?? That coulld mean that a part of the difference of time we see could be due to something other than the spacetime we know. The margin of error is too big to declare otherwise in the tests.

I suspect that spacetime is not time itself. That is just space and time in our neck of the woods.

C is the speed of light..According to the fellow in your Avatar,Energy =Mass CONSTANT2.CONSTANT being the speed of light..If it were NOT universally CONSTANT,why would your fellow in the Avatar,call the speed of light CONSTANT?
If you don't believe what is in your Avatar,why have it there in the first place?
BTW,I suspect that Mr. Einstein was far more knowledgeable about the subject matter than you...

Spacetime-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

 

[kevinmaynard]

Of course c is a constant. Stars are nuclear reactors. The process of both fission and fusion would be unpredictable if c wasn't constant. We know a megaton bomb is a megaton bomb because c is a constant. Cause the energy E of the explosion is found by E=mc2.

Anyway This whole lying for Jesus bit is rampant on this forum. We all know who the father of lies is. So take all these threads with a grain of salt.

 

[Strathos]

Not on my part.

Yes it is. It's a form of solipsism.

 

[Strathos]

Of course c is a constant. Stars are nuclear reactors. The process of both fission and fusion would be unpredictable if c wasn't constant. We know a megaton bomb is a megaton bomb because c is a constant. Cause the energy E of the explosion is found by E=mc2.

Anyway This whole lying for Jesus bit is rampant on this forum. We all know who the father of lies is. So take all these threads with a grain of salt.

While I may not agree with dad on many things, I think accusing him of being Satanically inspired is a bit beyond the pale.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While I may not agree with dad on many things, I think accusing him of being Satanically inspired is a bit beyond the pale.

I don't know about that. dad's arguments are so poor that they are more likely to turn Christians away rather than the opposite. Could you think of a more perfect "cover"

And someone should drop kevin a note about accusing people of lying. I may agree with him one hundred percent, but that accusation is clearly against the rules here. Though on unmoderated sites it is one of my favorite sayings too.

 

[dad]

On the moon, I'd hazard to guess that their's enough gravity to make the sand fall, Though I wouldn't want to put any money on the speed that it would fall.

Exactly. Time as measured on earth is not a reliable method for the universe.

 

[dad]

C is the speed of light..According to the fellow in your Avatar,Energy =Mass CONSTANT2.CONSTANT being the speed of light..If it were NOT universally CONSTANT,why would your fellow in the Avatar,call the speed of light CONSTANT?

Because he was a denizen of the fishbowl, and could not really think out of the box.

 

[dad]

Of course c is a constant. Stars are nuclear reactors.

Prove it. One could say your body is a nuclear reactor. So? If the star is small, and we know not how far, or how long the reactions really take...etc etc...what meaning does being a supposed reactor have??

The process of both fission and fusion would be unpredictable if c wasn't constant. We know a megaton bomb is a megaton bomb because c is a constant. Cause the energy E of the explosion is found by E=mc2.

You can't prove a star works like you claim though. Why talk??

Anyway This whole lying for Jesus bit is rampant on this forum.

What exactly are you insinuating?? Be brave.

We all know who the father of lies is. So take all these threads with a grain of salt.

This thread deals with viewing the universe as created and science as wrong in opposing the truth of God's word.

 

[sfs]

I don't know about that. dad's arguments are so poor that they are more likely to turn Christians away rather than the opposite. Could you think of a more perfect "cover"

Walker Percy, the American Catholic novelist, notes in one of his novels that Christianity would be a lot more plausible if it weren't for 30 million Baptists. (Or something like that.)

 

[kevinmaynard]

Prove it. One could say your body is a nuclear reactor. So? If the star is small, and we know not how far, or how long the reactions really take...etc etc...what meaning does being a supposed reactor have??
You can't prove a star works like you claim though. Why talk??

What exactly are you insinuating?? Be brave.

This thread deals with viewing the universe as created and science as wrong in opposing the truth of God's word.

I am saying I won't be baited by lies. Of course I am not speaking of you but in general. Each reader makes up their own mind. I was just making an observation. Only you know if you are sincere. My statement that Satan is the father of lies inky applies to you if you are being dishonest. Only you have that information.

Only you know if you honestly in you heart believe earth exist inside a giant fish bowl.

Do you believe dishonesty can represent Christ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Walker Percy, the American Catholic novelist, notes in one of his novels that Christianity would be a lot more plausible if it weren't for 30 million Baptists. (Or something like that.)

Read the Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll.

The Catholics, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Calvinists put feet to your Mr. Percy's notes and tried to rectify that "problem."

Sorry about your luck, but God intervened.

 

[RealityCheck]

Prove it. One could say your body is a nuclear reactor. So? If the star is small, and we know not how far, or how long the reactions really take...etc etc...what meaning does being a supposed reactor have??
You can't prove a star works like you claim though. Why talk??

What exactly are you insinuating?? Be brave.

This thread deals with viewing the universe as created and science as wrong in opposing the truth of God's word.

More of this useless blather. There really is no point in trying to teach dad anything at all.

One of the things that we've learned (or re-learned) in the past 500 years or so is that we are not able to know something with absolute certainty. This realization has come, not terribly coincidentally, alongside a Reformation that rejected the absolute authority of the Catholic Church and the development of the Scientific Method, both of which also coincided (roughly) with discoveries that showed that our universe was much larger and more complex (and hardly the perfection espoused by the church) than we could imagine. We began to understand what the limits were to our knowledge.

Philosophers and theologians love to make hay of this, claiming that there must be some source of absolute knowledge that allows us to know anything at all. But that's only if we actually "absolutely" know anything.

The reality is we do not. We do not operate on absolute knowledge, we operate on practical knowledge. We do not "absolutely" know that the sun is going to rise again tomorrow in the eastern sky and then set in the west. But for all practical purposes, we do know that it will behave exactly like that. And that's because *all* of the evidence we have indicates that this is what will happen, and *no* evidence that the sun will not rise in the east and set in the west. We therefore have good and solid reason to say we "know" that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

This is how knowledge actually works. We "know" something based on what evidence informs us of that thing, and we reject other possibilities that have no evidence supporting those possibilities. Sure it's possible that there are unicorns in our universe. We can't absolutely know that there are no unicorns anywhere in the universe. But for all practical purposes we know there are no unicorns because *all* the evidence we have indicates there are not, and *no* evidence suggests there might be. We can't absolutely know that the speed of light is actually constant everywhere in the universe at all times. But we can know this at a practical level because *all* the evidence supports a constant speed and *no* evidence points otherwise.

Merely positing that something could possibly work otherwise is insufficient to cast real doubt on the evidence that supports "it works this way and not some other way." The only reason we would have to actually doubt that the speed of light in a vacuum is other than the constant c is evidence to support that position. Just like the only reason we would have to actually doubt the non-existence of fairies is actual evidence of the existence of fairies.

So there's really no point in trying to point dad in the right direction. He is intractably attached to this idea of absolute knowledge.

 

[freezerman2000]

Because he was a denizen of the fishbowl, and could not really think out of the box.

-and was far more knowledgeable than you.

 

[freezerman2000]

Exactly. Time as measured on earth is not a reliable method for the universe.

I venture to say that where there is no gravity,the hourglass will cease to work.Does that mean that time ceases to exist there?
Gravity has nothing to do with time,much less the amount of it(gravity).
Hour glasses are not the most reliable way of telling time..Internet time is not based on it..it is based on GMT,which is dependent on the atomic clock.
Even quartz clocks are far superior to your vaunted hourglass.

 

[AV1611VET]

I venture to say that where there is no gravity,the hourglass will cease to work.

There is no such thing as zero gravity anymore.

There used to be, but science has now deemed that an electron on one side of the universe can exert a pull on the electron on the opposite side of the universe in accordance with Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

"Zero gravity" has been plutoed to "microgravity."

Keep up.

 

[RealityCheck]

There is no such thing as zero gravity anymore.

There used to be, but science has now deemed that an electron on one side of the universe can exert a pull on the electron on the opposite side of the universe in accordance with Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

"Zero gravity" has been plutoed to "microgravity."

Keep up.

While technically correct, the hourglass would still effectively cease to work in any recognizable way. Inc the hourglass is sufficiently far away from any objects with a mass at least equal to the mass of a sand grain, the net gravitational field operating on the sands is so close to zero in all directions that the sands will not move in any time period less than about 1000000 times the present age of the universe... effectively the sands never fall. If anything the sands at on end will remain clumped together under their own gravity.

 

[sfs]

There is no such thing as zero gravity anymore.

There used to be, but science has now deemed that an electron on one side of the universe can exert a pull on the electron on the opposite side of the universe in accordance with Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup].

"Zero gravity" has been plutoed to "microgravity."

Keep up.

You do know that Gm[sub]1[/sub]m[sub]2[/sub]/r[sup]2[/sup] was Newton's theory of gravitation and that it was formulated well over 300 years ago, right? Just when do you think this era of zero gravity was?