Real time or evo time?

[lesliedellow]

Time itself. Science doesn't even really know what it is. They have claimed time and space are woven together like a fabric. So, if we take any huge (or small) swath of space, such as the few hundred million miles or whatever of a base line used for parallax measures....it inherently contains time also, not just space.

Nope. Spacetime contains time; space doesn't. The time axis is orthoganol to the three spatial axes in Minkowski Space.

 

[Kylie]

Time itself. Science doesn't even really know what it is. They have claimed time and space are woven together like a fabric. So, if we take any huge (or small) swath of space, such as the few hundred million miles or whatever of a base line used for parallax measures....it inherently contains time also, not just space! Tha is not known to be true in deep space.

You must find a way to measure distance without time therefore, or all your distances are really also time units.

Once again, you demonstrate that you do not know how to science.

If there is a part of the universe, say, where time did not even exist, or existed so differently we would not recognize it, how would we have a light YEAR there? How would it take time for light or anything else to move there if there was no time? That is all pervasive, not negligible!

And again.

Of course, feel free to show me a place in the universe where there is no time.

Well, if something is seen here, or we might say, unfolds in time here a certain way, then it is only seen HERE. How much time it involved to 'decay' or move or whatever is only seen here, where time exists!

And once again...

 

[dad]

Nope. Spacetime contains time; space doesn't. The time axis is orthoganol to the three spatial axes in Minkowski Space.

Science it wrong. It does exist in time. One atom worth of space is under time! You do not even know what time is! Your little axis is a joke. You take a small small space with an atom in it, and another and another, a mile long. Make that a straight line. Time exists in all points, no intersecting involved!

 

[dad]

Of course, feel free to show me a place in the universe where there is no time.

How would we on earth know?? You do not 'do science' by making stuff up.

 

[Kylie]

How would we on earth know?? You do not 'do science' by making stuff up.

If we can see something changing, then there must be time there.

 

[dad]

If we can see something changing, then there must be time there.

Ah...but how much time?! If there were so to speak a lot less, then a million years might be more like a minute. We need to know this, or there can be NO distances to stars.

By the way if there is any spiritual component to it, forget needing time to move also!

 

[Kylie]

Ah...but how much time?! If there were so to speak a lot less, then a million years might be more like a minute. We need to know this, or there can be NO distances to stars.

By the way if there is any spiritual component to it, forget needing time to move also!

Wow, once again you display an alarming lack of scientific knowledge.

If we know of a particular process that leaves a certain trace, then we know that wherever we find that trace, that process has occurred.

For example, we have models of what will happen when a star explodes. We base these models on the laws that we have here and now. And they say that when a star dies and explodes, it will produce certain things in a certain amount of time. For example, we might see a burst of a particular type of radiation, fading to a certain amount after a day. And it will only act like that if - AND ONLY IF - the laws that are in place where that distant star is are the same as the laws we have here.

If the laws where the distant star is were any different, we would see that the behaviour is different to the model we developed. The radiation might take longer to fade. Or the radiation might just get more intense instead of fading. Or maybe we'll see a different type of radiation.

But this never happens. The behaviour of distant stars when they explode fits exactly with the models we have based on present state laws. This would not - COULD NOT - happen if the laws were different for those stars.

 

[lesliedellow]

[QUOTE="dad, post: 70908348, member: 98011"Time exists in all points, no intersecting involved![/QUOTE]

Is that before or after you have finished telling us that time might not exist in some places in the universe? When it comes to contradicting yourself endlessly, you surely have no equal!

 

[Kylie]

First you say...

If there is a part of the universe, say, where time did not even exist...

Then you say...

Time exists in all points, no intersecting involved!

And you claim that you are undefeated? You just destroyed your own argument!

 

[dad]

Wow, once again you display an alarming lack of scientific knowledge.

If we know of a particular process that leaves a certain trace, then we know that wherever we find that trace, that process has occurred.

That shows an alarming lack of logic. We only see traces here on earth, and can associate a certain time to them. Here processes and moving takes a known amount of time. If we see something from some unknown distance in space that looks similar, we cannot tell how much time THERE was involved. We are only ever able to check time here...where there IS time.

For example, we have models of what will happen when a star explodes. We base these models on the laws that we have here and now. And they say that when a star dies and explodes, it will produce certain things in a certain amount of time. For example, we might see a burst of a particular type of radiation, fading to a certain amount after a day. And it will only act like that if - AND ONLY IF - the laws that are in place where that distant star is are the same as the laws we have here.

Several fatal flaws in this argument. One, is that unless time existed where the star exploded, we do not know how big or far away that 'star' was! Nor could we know how much time THERE that any light curve or light or decay TOOK! We only know a part of the equation...that is, how much time the object of unknown size at an unknown distance took HERE (in your example a day) to move or react or whatever it does.

We also do not know what else is out there that the physical only and limited instruments of science can detect! Like dominoes, when we do not know one thing..like size or distance, then how would we know how much gravity exactly exists there? The whole cosmological house of cards comes falling down.

If the laws where the distant star is were any different, we would see that the behaviour is different to the model we developed. The radiation might take longer to fade.

Wrong, because HERE where time does exist and our laws also, reactions take so much time to happen. That does not mean that time is involved the same way where the 'star' is.

Or the radiation might just get more intense instead of fading. Or maybe we'll see a different type of radiation.

Or maybe they assign certain qualities to what they see based on what time it takes here?

The behaviour of distant stars when they explode fits exactly with the models we have based on present state laws.

It would have to since ONLY our laws are used in interpreting what we see! The time things take here is used. Then it is believed that this represented the time it took there. Circular religion.

 

[dad]

Is that before or after you have finished telling us that time might not exist in some places in the universe? When it comes to contradicting yourself endlessly, you surely have no equal!

That is given in miles on or near earth, so time exists here. We know that. In all directions! Even in the tiniest space! It takes time to even exist here. Face it.

 

[Kylie]

That shows an alarming lack of logic. We only see traces here on earth, and can associate a certain time to them. Here processes and moving takes a known amount of time. If we see something from some unknown distance in space that looks similar, we cannot tell how much time THERE was involved. We are only ever able to check time here...where there IS time.

Rubbish. We see traces all over the place. When a distant star changes brightness, that is a trace created by something happening on the star.

Several fatal flaws in this argument. One, is that unless time existed where the star exploded, we do not know how big or far away that 'star' was! Nor could we know how much time THERE that any light curve or light or decay TOOK! We only know a part of the equation...that is, how much time the object of unknown size at an unknown distance took HERE (in your example a day) to move or react or whatever it does.

We also do not know what else is out there that the physical only and limited instruments of science can detect! Like dominoes, when we do not know one thing..like size or distance, then how would we know how much gravity exactly exists there? The whole cosmological house of cards comes falling down.

Again wrong.

If there was no time, then the star could not explode. How can a star go from being a star to being a supernova without taking any time?

Also, you apparently did not read my post, because I said that the models we have based on here-and-now laws match PRECISELY what we see in distant stars. How could there be such a match if the same laws didn't apply there as well?

Wrong, because HERE where time does exist and our laws also, reactions take so much time to happen. That does not mean that time is involved the same way where the 'star' is.

If there is a change, then there MUST be time. If we see a distant star changing brightness, then there must be time where that star is.

Or maybe they assign certain qualities to what they see based on what time it takes here?

Yeah, that's not how radiation works.

It would have to since ONLY our laws are used in interpreting what we see! The time things take here is used. Then it is believed that this represented the time it took there. Circular religion.

No. There is no reason why what we see should match our here-and-now laws if the laws there are different.

And are you trying to discredit science by calling it a religion? Is calling something a religion an insult in your eyes?

 

[lesliedellow]

If there is a change, then there MUST be time. If we see a distant star changing brightness, then there must be time where that star is.

A year or two back he hit upon a completely misunderstood article about General Relativity, and it has been down hill ever since.

 

[dad]

Rubbish. We see traces all over the place. When a distant star changes brightness, that is a trace created by something happening on the star.

Yes something is happening on that maybe tennis ball sized star maybe a few light years away for all we know. We do not know distances or sizes. Whatever we see happening is always here in TIME also! OUR time.

If there was no time, then the star could not explode. How can a star go from being a star to being a supernova without taking any time?

Well, if there was time but it was different, less or more or whatever, all that would be happening is that it did what it did in IT'S time. We then see that event in OUR time!

Also, you apparently did not read my post, because I said that the models we have based on here-and-now laws match PRECISELY what we see in distant stars. How could there be such a match if the same laws didn't apply there as well?

Not true. You do all sorts of believing and assuming.

If there is a change, then there MUST be time. If we see a distant star changing brightness, then there must be time where that star is.

Absurd. That is like saying if an angel moves it must take a lot of time. When the spiritual is involved all usual rules are off. Out the window. No time need be involved in movement when the spiritual is involved. Also, even if there WERE time of some sort, or some degree in deep space, how much time there is compared to ours we do not know! What takes say, a moment to move there might seem to us here IN time, to take a thousand years!

Yeah, that's not how radiation works.

Remember that decay takes so much time. That means what se see here does not need to equal the time somewhere else.

No. There is no reason why what we see should match our here-and-now laws if the laws there are different.

That depends, give an example. I seem to recall them saying that the decay time seemed to best match some cobalt decay or some such.

And are you trying to discredit science by calling it a religion?

Let's call a spade a spade.

Is calling something a religion an insult in your eyes?

Yes, when something pretends not to be!

 

[dad]

A year or two back he hit upon a completely misunderstood article about General Relativity, and it has been down hill ever since.

Vague rubbish.

 

[Kylie]

Yes something is happening on that maybe tennis ball sized star maybe a few light years away for all we know. We do not know distances or sizes. Whatever we see happening is always here in TIME also! OUR time.


Well, if there was time but it was different, less or more or whatever, all that would be happening is that it did what it did in IT'S time. We then see that event in OUR time!

Not true. You do all sorts of believing and assuming.

Absurd. That is like saying if an angel moves it must take a lot of time. When the spiritual is involved all usual rules are off. Out the window. No time need be involved in movement when the spiritual is involved. Also, even if there WERE time of some sort, or some degree in deep space, how much time there is compared to ours we do not know! What takes say, a moment to move there might seem to us here IN time, to take a thousand years!


Remember that decay takes so much time. That means what se see here does not need to equal the time somewhere else.


That depends, give an example. I seem to recall them saying that the decay time seemed to best match some cobalt decay or some such.
Let's call a spade a spade.

Yes, when something pretends not to be!

Wow. There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to start.

Dad, go and learn about this stuff. There are plenty of good resources. Of course, I doubt you actually have any interest in learning what is really going on. I suspect that you would much prefer to stay with your own ideas, regardless of how accurate they are.

 

[dad]

Wow. There is so much wrong here I don't even know where to start.

Dad, go and learn about this stuff. There are plenty of good resources. Of course, I doubt you actually have any interest in learning what is really going on. I suspect that you would much prefer to stay with your own ideas, regardless of how accurate they are.

Only thing wrong is your ingrained misconceptions, and inability to articulate a clear point, or deal with the basic issues at hand.

 

[lesliedellow]

Only thing wrong is your ingrained misconceptions, and inability to articulate a clear point, or deal with the basic issues at hand.

Maybe she knows elementary physics to be aware of the fact that a "tennis ball sized star" could never ignite. If it could, we could have power stations driven by nuclear fusion right now.

 

[dad]

Maybe she knows elementary physics to be aware of the fact that a "tennis ball sized star" could never ignite. If it could, we could have power stations driven by nuclear fusion right now.

How about an atom? Could that be in a reaction that causes some sort of ignition? Your model of stars is simply garbage, so an elementary awareness of it doesn't help much.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How about an atom? Could that be in a reaction that causes some sort of ignition? Your model of stars is simply garbage, so an elementary awareness of it doesn't help much.

Is that what you think happens in stars?