light years

[dad]

Forget about the real Sun for a second.

That's what we have to do when talking old age speculation, I am used to it.

If I model a mass of gas of the solar composition

Right here we assume that the sun came from gas then, more or less, and proceed from there. Basically a what if, starting from old age gas.

and calculate its physical properties and let it evolve in time -

Right, and only it's physical properties, assuming that at one time in the past, or the future there are not also spiritual properties. In other words, if that is all there ever was, this is how we think it must have worked, and more or less created itself.

using the basic physical laws of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, statistical mechanics, gravity, atomic and nuclear physics, radiative transfer theory etc etc.

Hey, I got it, every law in the box. So we end up with a program that assumes only the box. Get it?

then the model will exhibit the observed properties of stars of this mass/composition.

Whoopee do, what other models will exibit what we see? All you have there is an old age assumption based model.

Even without calibration the the model will change over time and exhibit the observed properties of sub-giants and eventually red giants on time scales of (for solar mass) of billions of years.

So, you assume what, they all were created the same, uniformly for some reason, or worse, they proceeded out of a little less than speck sized (at one time) hot soup?

Now since in this example I have not calibrated the model

Calibrate it with the past and future merged universe, and this one passing away and see what you come up with.

then the ages will be off by perhaps 20% or so the fact is a 20% error on say 12 billion years at the tip of the red giant branch ..

20% error and you think it's a hot theory? Sounds more like the Ps don't meet the Qs right even with tender loving care!

still means out based in physics model gives long ages WITHOUT any assumption.

Can you hear yourself? Comedy at it's finest!

 

[KerrMetric]

That's what we have to do when talking old age speculation, I am used to it.

I said that so you couldn't throw out a bias question of using the observed properties of the Sun a priori into the model.

Right here we assume that the sun came from gas then, more or less, and proceed from there. Basically a what if, starting from old age gas.

Complete crackpot codswallop. I know what it is made of. So I model that substance. There is no such concept of "old age gas". What a load of childish nonsense you spout.

Right, and only it's physical properties, assuming that at one time in the past, or the future there are not also spiritual properties. In other words, if that is all there ever was, this is how we think it must have worked, and more or less created itself.

What another load of childish nonsense. You have no argments to bring to the table do you. As soon as anything technical goes over your head you bring out some infantile rubbish

Hey, I got it, every law in the box. So we end up with a program that assumes only the box. Get it?

More appeals to fantasy. You are bankrupt on technical issues.

Whoopee do, what other models will exibit what we see? All you have there is an old age assumption based model.

There is NO assumption here. You are pathetically grasping for straws and the straws don't even exist.

So, you assume what, they all were created the same, uniformly for some reason, or worse, they proceeded out of a little less than speck sized (at one time) hot soup?

No such assumption required or used. Again, you don't know a thing about this topic do you?

Calibrate it with the past and future merged universe, and this one passing away and see what you come up with.

You don't even understand the terms I am using. I knew this was futile with someone without a college science education.

20% error and you think it's a hot theory? Sounds more like the Ps don't meet the Qs right even with tender loving care!

20% is excellent. And I can make it far better than that with calibration - but I didn't utilise that in this example so you couldn't throw out the a priori assumption charge.
Of course - since you can't handle the subject matter you have thrown it out in a very amateurish way anyway.

Can you hear yourself? Comedy at it's finest!

It's not a comedy and it is without the assumptions you claim - having said that you are so out to sea on technical material that you don't even know what you are claiming yourself. The only comedy is the paroDADy you maintain.

 

[caravelair]

The only comedy is the paroDADy you maintain.

i think that's the only thing of value dad has ever contributed to this forum.

 

[dad]

I said that so you couldn't throw out a bias question of using the observed properties of the Sun a priori into the model.

Hey, if you want the real sun out of the picture, I understand.

Complete crackpot codswallop. I know what it is made of. So I model that substance. There is no such concept of "old age gas". What a load of childish nonsense you spout.

No? Let me see, you start out with some gas, then age it for billions of years! Of course it is not officially named 'old age gas'. That is a description of some gas you made up, that aged for old ages! Don't blame me, it's your gas!

What another load of childish nonsense. You have no argments to bring to the table do you. As soon as anything technical goes over your head you bring out some infantile rubbish

You mentioned some natural universe laws like gravity, decay and such. In your words...using the basic physical laws of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, statistical mechanics, gravity, atomic and nuclear physics, radiative transfer theory etc etc.
These are pretty basic things, and you reciting them doesn't mean it is over my head. I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.

More appeals to fantasy. You are bankrupt on technical issues.

You are bankrupt on spiritual and physical properties together! Stop appealing to the fantasy that the past or future must be put in PO irons and chains!

There is NO assumption here. You are pathetically grasping for straws and the straws don't even exist.

YES there IS. You assume almost everything, and seem to have lost track of what is really going on. Sad.

No such assumption required or used. Again, you don't know a thing about this topic do you?

The topic of what? The big bang? Or ages of stars in a cluster are considered similar? Or your model that exibits properties of stars at various stages? But here's the thing there, they all were made 6000 years ago. So, whatever stage they are at stems from how they were made to begin with, and changes since then. 'One star differeth from another in glory' We and the stars were all made different. If you look at one and the color, or whatnot matches what your old age model predicts, it has almost no meaning! You can't go ahead and say 'See, we predict in the model a star that is that size, and far away, and etc etc etc is so and so old. That would only have merit if stellar evolution had occured over long ages, which it didn't.

20% is excellent. And I can make it far better than that with calibration - but I didn't utilise that in this example so you couldn't throw out the a priori assumption charge.
Of course - since you can't handle the subject matter you have thrown it out in a very amateurish way anyway.

Calibrate it all you like it won't help your case.
I can calibrate it with the bible.

It's not a comedy

So much a comedy that it will be remembered after the earth and heavens pass away! How wrong man could get!

You aren't even close.

 

[goat37]

Hey, if you want the real sun out of the picture, I understand.


No? Let me see, you start out with some gas, then age it for billions of years! Of course it is not officially named 'old age gas'. That is a description of some gas you made up, that aged for old ages! Don't blame me, it's your gas!


You mentioned some natural universe laws like gravity, decay and such. In your words...using the basic physical laws of thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, statistical mechanics, gravity, atomic and nuclear physics, radiative transfer theory etc etc.
These are pretty basic things, and you reciting them doesn't mean it is over my head. I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.



You are bankrupt on spiritual and physical properties together! Stop appealing to the fantasy that the past or future must be put in PO irons and chains!


YES there IS. You assume almost everything, and seem to have lost track of what is really going on. Sad.


The topic of what? The big bang? Or ages of stars in a cluster are considered similar? Or your model that exibits properties of stars at various stages? But here's the thing there, they all were made 6000 years ago. So, whatever stage they are at stems from how they were made to begin with, and changes since then. 'One star differeth from another in glory' We and the stars were all made different. If you look at one and the color, or whatnot matches what your old age model predicts, it has almost no meaning! You can't go ahead and say 'See, we predict in the model a star that is that size, and far away, and etc etc etc is so and so old. That would only have merit if stellar evolution had occured over long ages, which it didn't.



Calibrate it all you like it won't help your case.
I can calibrate it with the bible.



So much a comedy that it will be remembered after the earth and heavens pass away! How wrong man could get!

You aren't even close.

I can't figure out why anyone tries to debate with dad any longer. I mean, I've only been back to this board for about 10 seconds, and he threw any and all credibility out the window with his postings about the magical "spiritons"

This board is to discuss science, creation and evolution... not incoherant, delusional, schitzophrenic-type ramblings.

 

[KerrMetric]

These are pretty basic things, and you reciting them doesn't mean it is over my head.

Well it does, that much is obvious.

I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.

Ta da. The key point - I do know how this can be done and you don't. Happy now.

YES there IS. You assume almost everything, and seem to have lost track of what is really going on. Sad.

No there isn't. You are simply (stress on that) wrong.

But here's the thing there, they all were made 6000 years ago.

Ta da #2. Now here is the silly kiddie assumption that is contradicted by evidence.

That would only have merit if stellar evolution had occured over long ages, which it didn't.

Ta da #3. Another assumption of your that is contradicted by evidence.

Calibrate it all you like it won't help your case.
I can calibrate it with the bible.

LOL. Calibrate it with a spiritual guide and old Jewish mythology.

 

[nvxplorer]

So much a comedy that it will be remembered after the earth and heavens pass away!

Remember what?

 

[dad]

....
Ta da. The key point - I do know how this can be done and you don't. Happy now.

Yes. Thank you! This leaves all assumptions and belief based on what can't be done, or evidenced as beliefs only, and you are welcome to yours.

No there isn't. You are simply (stress on that) wrong.

Then prove you are right, or that I am wrong, one or the other, at least show concrete evidence andd support if you can, rather than just ramblung on about some fantasy based on nothing!! Heavens sake. And you just admitted you can't do that! As you said, "I do know how this can be done"
( assume them into the future or distant past. )

Ta da #2. Now here is the silly kiddie assumption that is contradicted by evidence.

No, it is not! Just your unsupportable beliefs on what the evidence means. Like the OP here, regarding light. I believe that the universe was different, and the light in the past allowing the light of the time to get here quickly. You believe, apparently the present variety is all there ever was or will be. But you can not back up such a claim by any stretch of the imagination.

Ta da #3. Another assumption of your that is contradicted by evidence.

Evidence you have not produced yet, by some cosmic coincidence.

LOL. Calibrate it with a spiritual guide and old Jewish mythology.

No, calibrate it with the white hot, sexy, vibrant, universal secret possessing, mystery unlocking, extension of the Almighty Himself, that tells us where it's really at, and was at, and will be. World without end, amen.

 

[KerrMetric]

The proof I am right is that these models work and produce results WITHOUT the nonsensical claims of assumption you whine about. When I explain the methodology about this and what is NOT assumed you don't respond with anything but some gobbledygook poetic nonsense and PO and spiritual this or that.

You have produced nothing here - mainly becuase you don't understand the terminology or how this work is performed or what really goes into it. You are in effect a Stone Ager trying to figure out quantum mechanics, you aren't equipped to do so.

In my first post on this I explained what goes into the modelling. You then said some rubbish. What am I to do? How can I prove rubbish is rubbish when it has no bearing on the science here.

 

[caravelair]

Then prove you are right, or that I am wrong, one or the other, at least show concrete evidence andd support if you can, rather than just ramblung on about some fantasy based on nothing!!

ha! as if you have ever supported anything you have said on this board with evidence. everything you have ever contributed to this board is "just ramblung[sic] on about some fantasy based on nothing!!" as far as i have seen, nothing you claim is supported by evidence or even by biblical references.

 

[dad]

The proof I am right is that these models work and produce results WITHOUT the nonsensical claims of assumption ...

In my first post on this I explained what goes into the modelling. You then said some rubbish. What am I to do? How can I prove rubbish is rubbish when it has no bearing on the science here.

OK, thanks, it was fun playing PO modelling.

 

[Grengor]

It was only a matter of time before dad de-railed this thread.

Did shinbits ever actually explain in detail his argument? Last I checked he just restated it with different words, but no actual explaining.

 

[KerrMetric]

OK, thanks, it was fun playing PO modelling.

How can it be fun playing something you don't know the rules or understand the game?

 

[dad]

How can it be fun playing something you don't know the rules or understand the game?

I didn't say I have some insane urge to spend untold years exploring just the natural temporary universe. You have shown how you model everything only and strictly, and devoutly on the PO. You have resorted to insults, rather than trying to explain your position, and reasoning as simply and articulately as possible.
Fine with me.
You assume a PO past with no back up, enjoy your beliefs.

I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.

"Ta da. The key point - I do know how this can be done " (KerrMetric)

 

[KerrMetric]

You assume a PO past with no back up, enjoy your beliefs.

I simply pointed out that these laws are well and good and applicible now, but you can't magically assume them into the future or distant past. Unless you know something I don't how that could be done.

"Ta da. The key point - I do know how this can be done " (KerrMetric)

I assumed no such thing. Its not my fault you cannot see this. I can measure these laws did apply in the past with no assumption necessary.

Thanks for playing anyway.

 

[dad]

I assumed no such thing. Its not my fault you cannot see this. I can measure these laws did apply in the past with no assumption necessary.

Thanks for playing anyway.

I can only see what you provide. You have not done this, I don't believe you. Go ahead, make my day, prove me wrong, -that you can do it, if you can. Be concise, and clear, and try to be understood, hit us with your best shot! How do we know for sure the past was not spiritual and physical but only physical? (with the physics laws)
Pretend you are talking not to me, but to some nice high school student, explain your position.

Or not.

 

[KerrMetric]

I can only see what you provide. You have not done this, I don't believe you. Go ahead, make my day, prove me wrong, -that you can do it, if you can. Be concise, and clear, and try to be understood, hit us with your best shot! How do we know for sure the past was not spiritual and physical but only physical? (with the physics laws)
Pretend you are talking not to me, but to some nice high school student, explain your position.

Or not.

When you have a specific and cogent scientific point about assumption I'll answer. I answered you plenty earlier. It's not my fault you haven't the education or knowledge is it?

When you mention "spiritual" that is all you will do. No matter what anyone ever says that is your "get out of jail card" in your mind. To every other poster on this board it screams nonsense.

 

[dad]

When you have a specific and cogent scientific point about assumption I'll answer.

PO point you mean. My point is that it is ALL based on an assumption!

I answered you plenty earlier. It's not my fault you haven't the education or knowledge is it?

Do you post on evc forum? You sure sound like someone over there. Anyhow, you said "....based in physics model gives long ages WITHOUT any assumption."
A physics model is the assumption. One you cannot evidence as existing in the past, despite your claims. Why pretend, and be condesending? Do you think trying to make others sound dumb makes you sound smart?

When you mention "spiritual" that is all you will do.

Where it comes to the future and the past one has to or one ends up like you. Completely assuming only the physical.

No matter what anyone ever says that is your "get out of jail card" in your mind. To every other poster on this board it screams nonsense.

Not as applied to the future, I don't think you'll find many christians denying that this heavens will pass away and is temporary, and a new universe is coming. You seem to be kind of far gone even for that much?

 

[KerrMetric]

Do you post on evc forum? You sure sound like someone over there.

No but I know who you mean I think.

Anyhow, you said "....based in physics model gives long ages WITHOUT any assumption."
A physics model is the assumption. One you cannot evidence as existing in the past, despite your claims.

As I said earlier - you are basically a solipsist. And yes I can evidence it in the past. You just cannot comprehend this.

Why pretend, and be condesending? Do you think trying to make others sound dumb makes you sound smart?

I'm not even trying. Your words speak for you.

 

[dad]

...
As I said earlier - you are basically a solipsist. And yes I can evidence it in the past. You just cannot comprehend this....

The past and future you old agers preach is not evidenced, nothing wrong with denying that. As for your computer model, based on present laws, that starts with gas, in non existant ages imagined gone by, it is a joke.

You cannot comprehend this.