Real time or evo time?

[RealityCheck01]

Parroting ...

Fact less fantasies and insults are not science, dad.

In the real world, GR predicts many things that have been confirmed, e.g. that gravitational lensing exists. Astronomers then observe gravitational lensing exists !
A lie about "you do not even know how big or far away anything at all is out there" has no effect on the fact that gravitational lensing has been observed, i.e. we see multiple images of a galaxy around a foreground galaxy.

We know how big stars are. We know how far stars are away from us.
22 July 2016 dad: The assertion that "Stars may be small for all we know" when we have measured their sizes!
26 July 2016 dad: Thinks that the geometry of parallax is dogma !+ please show that parallax does not work without fact less tirades

FYI (and to be denied as usual ) dad, some lensing of quasars was disputed when first observed. It was possible that they were similar but different quasars. It took the observation that the images changed intensity in sync to convince astronomers that this was lensing.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Prove time even exists in the far universe or you have no times at all.

28 July 2018 dad: "Prove" your unsupported assertion that there is no time in the far universe.
28 July 2018 dad: How do you measure the distance to stars and galaxies in the " far universe" !
After all you have been going on about not being able to measure the distance to anything.

I have evidence that a child understand that time exists as far as we can see light - no time and no light from stars ! It takes thousands of years for light from the fusion at the cores of star to get to their surface and be emitted. If time does not exist that light does not escape. Even worse the idiotic act of making time not exist stops all physical processes !

 

[RealityCheck01]

Reading your links, it was about the transition seen in such clouds and things in deep space. Try to debate honestly. You fail to address the fact it is seen in our time and space and spacetime. You fail to prove time even exists in the far universe so you have no sizes or distances..

Reading my links you will read

First Cosmological Constraints on the Proton-to-electron Mass Ratio from Observations of Rotational Transitions of Methanol by Ellingsen, S. P.; Voronkov, M. A.; Breen, S. L.; Lovell, J. E. J.; The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Volume 747, Issue 1, article id. L7, 5 pp. (2012).

and would not make really ignorant statements about "sizes or distances".

An honest person will note that these transitions happen in the far universe - not in "our time and space and spacetime", i.e. locally.

The observation is that the rotational transitions of methanol "toward the z = 0.89 lensing galaxy in the PKS B1830-211 gravitational lens system" match the ones we measure on Earth.
The fact that the transitions are observed means that time exists at the z = 0.89 lensing galaxy !
The size of the gas clouds containing the methanol does not affect the transitions.

 

[dad]

The OP sets the tone, and some of us learned years ago that these threads have nothing to do with honesty and everything to do with skirted the issues.

It would be honest to try to defend and support the imaginary ages you hold to heart. You can't. So you wave.

 

[lesliedellow]

It would be honest to try to defend and support the imaginary ages you hold to heart. You can't. So you wave.

Dad is the world's foremost practitioner of Last-Thursday-ism.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I have not read an explicit statement of "dad time" but I suspect that it goes something like this:
We exist in an era of slow time where time ticks along at 1 second per second.
In the past (say last Thursday!) there was fast time where time ticked along at a thousand/million/billion/googolplex seconds per second.
We can make up any story we like for when that fast time changed to slow time and how fast it was.
Thus we (including dad) have no evidence for the age of the universe - it could be a nanosecond old, a week old, a decade old, a century old, a thousand years old, a million years old, a billion years old, a trillion years old, a googolplex years old.

 

[dad]

That looks like a fantasy, dad: Mechanism of the reactors just has groundwater flooding the uranium deposits.

Before getting into the later aspects of your fable, address the question you were asked.

Give some solid evidence that the magic dunk happened in that exact area..

"He explained that, after the fission process had finished, a geological shift caused the Oklo reactor to sink a few miles below the surface - where it was preserved from erosion. A few million years ago, another shift brought the uranium deposits back to the surface."

http://www.livescience.com/75-natural-nuclear-reaction-powered-ancient-geyser.html

There are many other wonderful tall fibs in the fable we could have fun with if you get past the basics here. This should be fun watching you wiggle rather than admit you have zero proof.

A astrophysicist commenting on the tests on the validity of the laws of physics throughout the universe: Here and There by Brian Koberlein 12 November 2013 is about how methanol absorbed light in a distant galaxy matching how it does it here.

How distant you don't know unless you first prove time as we experience it here exists out there.

A quick google rendered th

"
Protons are positively charged elementary particles. Together with neutrons and electrons, they make up the atoms that build our universe.

Scientists discovered the surprising anomaly by shooting laser beams at an exotic version of a hydrogen atom, which most often consists of one proton and one electron. The new measurement has improved the accuracy of the known proton radius by a factor of ten, the researchers said.

The finding means that either the theory governing how light and matter interact (called quantum electrodynamics, or QED) must be revised, or that a constant used in many fundamental calculations is wrong, the researchers said."

http://www.livescience.com/6703-pro...nds.html?_ga=1.165152955.504801721.1469666079


Now, you can start by explaing how you can tell what size these things are in the distant universe?

 

[dad]

Dad is the world's foremost practitioner of Last-Thursday-ism.

lesliedello comments from the peanut gallery.

 

[dad]

28 July 2018 dad: "Prove" your unsupported assertion that there is no time in the far universe.

Be honest, is is not the same asking how science knows something, as claiming something. I don't know if there is time there. Neither, apparently do you.

28 July 2018 dad: How do you measure the distance to stars and galaxies in the " far universe" !
After all you have been going on about not being able to measure the distance to anything.

You can't measure in light years. You just do not know actual sizes or distances. The cosmic ladder is a religious crutch.

I have evidence that a child understand that time exists as far as we can see light - no time and no light from stars !

Not at all. Who says we need time for movement if there is no time? Or who says if there is time, but it is different, and woven into space differently there, that things take the time to move that they do here???

It takes thousands of years for light from the fusion at the cores of star to get to their surface and be emitted.

Only inside your head and religion. Not in reality. How would a star have a core if it were small for example? Since you know no distances you know no sizes far outside our solar system! What else might exist in the universe that manscience cannot even detect? How about some spiritual component also as well as physical? Who knows? Science just tries to shoehorn all creation into their little box, and say it is all physical etc.

If time does not exist that light does not escape.

How would we know?? We have only ever seen light here in time!

Even worse the idiotic act of making time not exist stops all physical processes !

In eternity to come time will not exist we are told by God's word. We step out of time, and into eternity! Who says time as man knows it here and now is all there is?? Why pretend you have the smallest inkling?

 

[dad]

I have not read an explicit statement of "dad time" but I suspect that it goes something like this:
We exist in an era of slow time where time ticks along at 1 second per second.
In the past (say last Thursday!) there was fast time where time ticked along at a thousand/million/billion/googolplex seconds per second.
We can make up any story we like for when that fast time changed to slow time and how fast it was.
Thus we (including dad) have no evidence for the age of the universe - it could be a nanosecond old, a week old, a decade old, a century old, a thousand years old, a million years old, a billion years old, a trillion years old, a googolplex years old.

Hey, science doesn't so much as know what time is. Forget what it is like with no time, or different time! Fess up.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Hey, science doesn't so much as know what time is.

Ignorance and irrelevance does not impress people, dad: time
28 July 2016 dad: Is your idea a time version of last-Thursdayism that theows away any hope of knowing the age of the universe?

 

[RealityCheck01]

Give some solid evidence that the magic dunk happened in that exact area.

There is the delusion of a "magic dunk" that happens to be standard geology and then you shoot yourself in the foot with
Natural Nuclear Reaction Powered Ancient Geyser

With all the complicated engineering and physics needed to build a nuclear reactor, it is rather remarkable that one turned on spontaneously two billion years ago.

Evidence for this natural reactor was found in 1972 at the Oklo mine in the West African country of Gabon. New research confirms that water regulated the nuclear reactions in a cyclic pattern similar to that in a geyser.

Alex Meshik and his colleagues at Washington University of St. Louis have determined that the Oklo reactor, which comprises several separate sites, ran for 30 minutes and then shut off for 2.5 hours, before starting over.

"The time is characteristic of water infiltrating rocks and then being boiled off once reactions started," Meshik told LiveScience.

The movement of the reactor by geographical shifts does not affect the fact that the natural fission reactor existed.

Repeating the delusion of needing to know the size of things in the distant universe is bad and needs to be recorded for prosperity.
28 July 2016 dad: The size of the gas clouds containing the methanol undergoing rotational transitions does not affect the transitions.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Proton is Smaller Than Thought, New Measurement Finds is about a 2010 result on the size of the proton.
The important point is that was done using a new technique with muonic hydrogen (a proton + a muon). That should give a more accurate measurement but gives a radius about 4% less than using electrons end other techniques. In a later 2013 article one of the authors of the experiment says

These sensitive muon measurements are the ones that gave the smaller-than-expected result for the proton radius, a totally unexpected discovery, Pohl said. Now, physicists are racing to explain the discrepancies.

One possibility is that the measurements are simply wrong. Pohl said this "boring explanation" is the most probable, but not all physicists agree.

"I would say it's not the experimental side," said Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Jan Bernauer.

The electron-based measurements have been repeated many times and are well-understood, Bernauer said, and muon experiments have the advantage that if they're done wrong, they don't provide results at all.

If experimental error turns out not to be the culprit, there may be some calculation issue, "so we actually know everything that goes on but we are just not calculating it quite right," Bernauer told reporters.

What really excites scientists is the possibility that this is new physics, e.g. an unknown particle being involved.
A more mundane explanation is that previous electron-scattering experiments were wrong so they are being tested again. On the other hand there is one 2015 paper that finds that the electron-scattering results are consistant with the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift measurements and it is the atomic hydrogen measurements that are the outliers.

 

[AirPo]

It would be honest to try to defend and support the imaginary ages you hold to heart. You can't. So you wave.

But these threads are not about being honest.

 

[dad]

But these threads are not about being honest.

Yes. They are. Start anytime. Find a real and relevant issue and make an honest attempt to support it, explain it etc.

 

[dad]

Ignorance and irrelevance does not impress people, dad: time

From your link..

"Time is the indefinite continued progress of existence and events that occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[1][2][3] Time is a component quantity of various measurements used to sequence events, to compare the duration of events or the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change of quantities in material reality or in the conscious experience.."

Hilarious. You kidding?! Existence of events does not define time. Apparently moving from past to future!!? That says a lot. What makes it past or future, what is time itself? Can time be independent of clocks? Various measurements used to sequence events? That does not tell us what time is, just how you mark time on earth!

28 July 2016 dad: Is your idea a time version of last-Thursdayism that theows away any hope of knowing the age of the universe?

I don't know what time is. Once you admit that also you lose any right to add time in the math that you model the universe with. And you have no real choice but to admit that!

How sweet it is!

 

[dad]

There is the delusion of a "magic dunk" that happens to be standard geology and then you shoot yourself in the foot with
Natural Nuclear Reaction Powered Ancient Geyser

The movement of the reactor by geographical shifts does not affect the fact that the natural fission reactor existed.

It is PART of the fable. So defend it or lose. A vagur mention of geological shifts does zero to prove that in that exact area it was dunked miles under, and then resurfaced at the right moment!! What a load of pathetic dreams. Let's see the evidence for the dunk...there. There is a long list of foolish parts of that fable we could get into, but deal with this first.

Repeating the delusion of needing to know the size of things in the distant universe is bad and needs to be recorded for prosperity.

The basis of your 'knowing' is believing time exists exactly as it does here in the far universe. Stop pulpit pounding ungodly nonsense here.

28 July 2016 dad: The size of the gas clouds containing the methanol undergoing rotational transitions does not affect the transitions.

How about the size of the protons and etc you claim changed? Let's see the proof for that? Ha.

You be hooped man.

 

[dad]

Proton is Smaller Than Thought, New Measurement Finds is about a 2010 result on the size of the proton.

Please tell us that the poor little proton you measured was not on earth??! Ha.

The important point is that was done using a new technique with muonic hydrogen (a proton + a muon). That should give a more accurate measurement but gives a radius about 4% less than using electrons end other techniques. In a later 2013 article one of the authors of the experiment says

On earth? Irrelevant!

What really excites scientists is the possibility that this is new physics, e.g. an unknown particle being involved.

Hilarious. You invoke physical particles or dark stuff as needed wily nily. Just because you need it, and refuse to admit there may be other things out of your little earth fishbowl that are unknown to you.

A more mundane explanation is that previous electron-scattering experiments were wrong so they are being tested again.

Ha.

On the other hand there is one 2015 paper that finds that the electron-scattering results are consistant with the muonic hydrogen Lamb shift measurements and it is the atomic hydrogen measurements that are the outliers.

From your link..

" In an attempt to understand the discrepancy, we review high-precision electron scattering results from Mainz, Jefferson Lab, Saskatoon and Stanford. "

Ha. A lab on earth does not equal the far reaches of creation that we know. Face it. You seek to make the universe conform to what is under your nose. No can do.

 

[AirPo]

Yes. They are. Start anytime. Find a real and relevant issue and make an honest attempt to support it, explain it etc.

No they are not.

 

[dad]

No they are not.

Name any dating method that does not require present physics.