the self replicating watch argument

[dad]

Relativity tells us your notions are hogwash.


The major tenets of Relativity have been tested via observation and/or experiment. Your notions are mere repetitious mantras made on discussion fora. No need to bother.

Actually that is false. Your post is quashed. Relativity simply assumes an observer out of the fishbowl would see the same sort of thing as in the fishbowl.

 

[dad]

Other than your unyielding need to believe this is so in order to rescue your mythological beliefs, can you provide any rationale or evidence for this assumption?

False?? Have you any evidence to show nature (therefore the same slow evolving we now see) was the same?

We understand you have beliefs, don't confuse that with the facts.

We can observe phenomena today. Lets call an example Phenomenon X. We see the sorts of evidence Phenomenon X leaves behind. When we find the same sort of evidence under many year's worth of strata, what is the logic in NOT concluding that produced by Phenomenon X?

The evidence under strata has nothing to do with a same state past. That puts a chink in your claim.

 

[Speedwell]

No. It isn't. You have no idea how it moves out of the fishbowl.

So Einstein is wrong, and the universe is chaotic?

 

[dad]

So Einstein is wrong, and the universe is chaotic?

Einstein of course was wrong, the universe is fine. Now if all we are talking about is the earth and solar system area, then Einstein seems correct about many things.

But even here, we should be careful. Does time make gravity work? Or does gravity, as Einstein thought basically make time work? Looking at time dilation in relation to gravity would not tell us that

 

[UCDavis]

You didn't ask for the remains for the ancestor between humans and chimps. Finding that particular fossil is not required anyway and is highly unlikely since fossilization is extremely rare.

The genetic evidence alone establishes that we share a common ancestor.

Yes there are many. Also man is by definition part of the ape family.

First you said there are many. Now your saying fossilization is extremely rare?

 

[UCDavis]

The creation vs evolution game is over.
Creation 1 : Evolution 0

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

When in doubt, declare victory.

 

[doubtingmerle]

as i said: even if we assume a 100 years per new species we can get about 40 species of cats "kind" with no problem. so where is the problem again?

The problem is with evolving all the different DNA in the cat family in 4500 years. There are huge differences between the DNA of a lion and domestic cat. Are you saying they both evolved from the same pair of cats, and all those mutations occurred in 4500 years? If mutations were occurring that fast, how could natural selection have caught up to weed out all the harmful mutations?

 

[doubtingmerle]

NO. Of course not. Unless we had time as we know it here there could be no millions of years. All you do is sit in the fishbowl and look how fast light moves here and try to apply that to tall the universe for no reason at all

"Light year" is a measure of distance, not of time . A light year is about 6 trillion miles.

Again, stars have been measured to be millions of trillions of miles away. Do you agree they are millions of trillions of miles away?

For my second question, I see your avitar even says light has a speed limit of c. Do you or do you not believe that light has a speed limit of c?

 

[pitabread]

but it always be outside cars group. right?

No, not necessarily.

To clarify why I included the bicycle, the whole point is to have a deliberate outlier (i.e. a 'vehicle' that is characteristically distinct from everything else) to use as the parent clade or root of the whole tree. If I selected a different vehicle as the root, then the derived tree would be using that particular vehicle's characteristics as the starting point instead. Consequently, the bicycle could show up in different places in the tree depending on which characteristics I build the tree on.

first: were did you get the data of the real cars traits?

They are taken from various manufacturer web sites. Here is the data set I'm using:

second: i see that the truck is almost in identical position in all your trees. its make sense since a truck in general is much more different from a car.

There is more than one truck in the tree. The Mack Truck shows up in more or less the same position, but that doesn't mean it's distinct from all the cars. In fact, in the tree based on all 14 characteristics I used, there are a number of cars more closely related to the Mack Truck as opposed to other cars:

According to the above tree, a Jaguar F-Type is more closely related to the Mack Truck than it is to the Porsche 911, Mazda MX-5, or the Tesla Roadster. Yet the Jaguar is clearly a sports car just like those other cars.

There are other trucks includes as well (Ford F-150, Chevy Silverado, and Toyota Tacoma) which show up in different places depending on the tree. They don't, however, show up as being more related to the Mack Truck as compared to some of the other vehicles.

So while there is some clustering occurring (again, depending on the specific characteristics and derived tree), the vehicles are not falling into explicit, broad-based categories like "truck", "car", etc. And the clustering that is occurring is neither based on vehicle size, weight nor purpose, which is at least partially how vehicle categories are defined.

And on top of all that, if you create a tree based on subsets of the 14 characteristics, you can wind up with entirely different positioning as I had previously posted.

 

[dad]

"Light year" is a measure of distance, not of time . A light year is about 6 trillion miles.

Only because that is how far light would travel in one year if it moved in the time we know here. Too bad we can't ever go a light year away from earth uh? Not even one lousy day yet! So do not talk to us about how far light would go in so much time out where you do not know time exists as we know it. That is religion.

Again, stars have been measured to be millions of trillions of miles away. Do you agree they are millions of trillions of miles away?

Completely false, you do not know the distance to any star in the sky. You have built up a model based on all things being equal in the time dept, when you have no clue they are.

For my second question, I see your avitar even says light has a speed limit of c. Do you or do you not believe that light has a speed limit of c?

In the fishbowl, yes, light has a speed limit!

 

[hecd2]

What you really ought to do is examine some of the reasons scientists think they are are confident that the physical laws were the same in the past as they are now. It is just an assumption, and has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Well that is simply untrue. It is not an assumption but a conclusion based on observation, evidence and reasoning. If you really had taken the time to examine the reasons why physicists accept that the fundamental physics is the same across the universe, you wouldn't be making this false claim.

No. You certainly could not. For starlight, you only see that AFTER it gets here. You have never observed at any other point. All you can say, regarding time, is what it is like here...how much time light takes to move here.

This is wrong. Astronomers can deduce a great deal more about the physics of objects and events in the cosmos than simply the existence of stars. For example, by observing the characteristic spectra of astronomical phenomena such as quasars, supernovae and distant galaxies, we can conclude a great deal about the constitution of these phenomena, and all the observations are consistent with the fact that the fundamental physics is substantially unchanged across the observable universe and as far back in time (13.7 billion years to the surface of last scattering) as we can see.

Let's look at some examples. The Lyman-alpha forest arises from absorption of light from distant objects such as quasars by hydrogen clouds lying between us and the quasars. The Lyman-alpha line is the transition from the n=2 to the n=1 orbital of atomic hydrogen and its energy depends on the fundamental constants of physics such as Planck's constant, the charge on the electron, the mass of the electron and Coulomb's constant. We can see that the relationship between the Lyman and Balmer lines, for example, is exactly the same in distant hydrogen clouds as it is locally. Heck, the very existence of distant hydrogen is evidence that the physics is the same there as here.

Various measurements have been made of the fine structure constant by observing the spectral lines of distant objects. Those observations conclude that the fine structure constant has changed by less than five parts per billion over the lifetime of the universe (Webb et al, arXiv:astro-ph/9803165). Current measurements constrain the change in the fine structure constant to less than 2.5 parts in ten million billion per year and is consistent with zero (Rosenband et al, Science 319: 1808 - 1812). Why does the fine structure constant matter? Because it is affected by almost all the other fundamnental physical constants in the universe including the charge on the electron, Planck's constant, the Coulomb constant, the impedance, permittivity and permeability of free space and the speed of light in vacuum. A change in any or these would cause a change in the fine structure constant. And a significant change in any of these would mean that the universe would not exist as we know it.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts phenomena such as gravitational lensing (the bending of light by local masses). This phenomenon has been observed not just in the local environment of the solar system but in light arising from objects at huge distances and in the distant past. Weak gravitational lensing is used to "weigh" distant galaxies and gravitational lensing also gives rise to characteristic phenomena such as Einstein crosses and rings. It looks like GR works out there just as it does here. (Oh, and by the way, the speed of light appears as a fundamental constant in the basic GR equations, the Einstein field equations so the fact that GR works the same for distant objects and in the past is also evidence for constancy of the speed of light in vacuum). GR predicts gravitational waves from the merger of massive bodies such as black holes and neutron stars, and both black hole and neutron star mergers have been detected by gravitational waves, so again it works there as it does here.

Everywhere and no matter how far back in time we look, the physics looks just the same as it does on Earth. So, no, it's not an assumption but a conclusion based on observation, evidence and deduction.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Only because that is how far light would travel in one year if it moved in the time we know here. Too bad we can't ever go a light year away from earth uh? Not even one lousy day yet! So do not talk to us about how far light would go in so much time out where you do not know time exists as we know it. That is religion.
Completely false, you do not know the distance to any star in the sky. You have built up a model based on all things being equal in the time dept, when you have no clue they are.


In the fishbowl, yes, light has a speed limit!

Uh no, that is not how we measure the distance to the stars. There is a whole series of methods used to measure the distances. Somehow you deny the distance to the stars without even knowing how the distance is measured. Sad, that.

 

[hecd2]

Completely false, you do not know the distance to any star in the sky. You have built up a model based on all things being equal in the time dept, when you have no clue they are.

How we know the distance to stars doesn't depend on time. Would you like to learn how it's measured?

 

[doubtingmerle]

sure it will stay as knife in every step. but you cant improve it in every step toward a watch. so if we will say that we need about 10 steps to evolve a new function, what make you believe that every step can be functional?

Ah, back to this old argument. You are basically arguing:

1) watches can't evolve
2) if a watch cannot do something, then animals necessarily can't do it either.
3) therefore, animals can't evolve.

This argument is bogus. You have already agreed with me that statement 2 is false. If statement 2 is agreed to be false, then it does not follow from statement 1 that statement 3 is true.

 

[dad]

Well that is simply untrue. It is not an assumption but a conclusion based on observation, evidence and reasoning. If you really had taken the time to examine the reasons why physicists accept that the fundamental physics is the same across the universe, you wouldn't be making this false claim.

I did. They have no clue.

This is wrong. Astronomers can deduce a great deal more about the physics of objects and events in the cosmos than simply the existence of stars. For example, by observing the characteristic spectra of astronomical phenomena such as quasars, supernovae and distant galaxies, we can conclude a great deal about the constitution of these phenomena, and all the observations are consistent with the fact that the fundamental physics is substantially unchanged across the observable universe and as far back in time (13.7 billion years to the surface of last scattering) as we can see.

No. Not so much as you thought, and no billions of years exist. You have no idea of the distance to even the nearest actual star (not the sun).

Let's look at some examples. The Lyman-alpha forest arises from absorption of light from distant objects such as quasars by hydrogen clouds lying between us and the quasars. The Lyman-alpha line is the transition from the n=2 to the n=1 orbital of atomic hydrogen and its energy depends on the fundamental constants of physics such as Planck's constant, the charge on the electron, the mass of the electron and Coulomb's constant. We can see that the relationship between the Lyman and Balmer lines, for example, is exactly the same in distant hydrogen clouds as it is locally. Heck, the very existence of distant hydrogen is evidence that the physics is the same there as here.

No. The lyman alpha line is seen only here in our time and area. How electrons behave here does not mean it is the same there. All constants it depends on are here. In our solar system area. That is where we see the spectral info.

But even if we did assume that all the universe had the same rules, that does not mean it has the same time. So whatever you see a spectral line from is from an unknown distance. It could be a few light weeks away for all we know. The existence of hydrogen means nothing there. We do not know what time it exists in or what else also exists there we do not see...etc.

Various measurements have been made of the fine structure constant by observing the spectral lines of distant objects. Those observations conclude that the fine structure constant has changed by less than five parts per billion over the lifetime of the universe (Webb et al, arXiv:astro-ph/9803165). Current measurements constrain the change in the fine structure constant to less than 2.5 parts in ten million billion per year and is consistent with zero (Rosenband et al, Science 319: 1808 - 1812). Why does the fine structure constant matter? Because it is affected by almost all the other fundamnental physical constants in the universe including the charge on the electron, Planck's constant, the Coulomb constant, the impedance, permittivity and permeability of free space and the speed of light in vacuum. A change in any or these would cause a change in the fine structure constant. And a significant change in any of these would mean that the universe would not exist as we know it.

Circular religion. The strength of the electromagnetic interaction between elementary charged particles is seen only here. Whatever time is involved in any interaction is only involving time as we know it here. The charges we see are here. Etc.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts phenomena such as gravitational lensing (the bending of light by local masses). This phenomenon has been observed not just in the local environment of the solar system but in light arising from objects at huge distances and in the distant past. Weak gravitational lensing is used to "weigh" distant galaxies and gravitational lensing also gives rise to characteristic phenomena such as Einstein crosses and rings. It looks like GR works out there just as it does here.

False. We do not know what else affects light and causes lensing, such as perhaps time itself? We do not know how far away any objects are that are giving the gravity to bend. So we do not know how much mass or what size of object is involved. We do not even know that gravity is the same out there. So something, possibly including gravity is bending light out there. That does not confirm relativity.

(Oh, and by the way, the speed of light appears as a fundamental constant in the basic GR equations, the Einstein field equations so the fact that GR works the same for distant objects and in the past is also evidence for constancy of the speed of light in vacuum). GR predicts gravitational waves from the merger of massive bodies such as black holes and neutron stars, and both black hole and neutron star mergers have been detected by gravitational waves, so again it works there as it does here.

No. Simply assigning a value to light speed does not mean anything unless we know it applies. If light took less time to move, then C simply is not the C you know. That doesn't mean that light would not be part of the space out in the far universe -- only that it did not represent what C does here in the fishbowl.

Everywhere and no matter how far back in time we look

You are not looking back, forget that. Yes the sun is 8 seconds away or whatever so IN the fishbowl of the solar system. Once we get outside the solar system area where we do NOT know what time is like, forget it. We could be looking at the future rather than the past for all we know! Certainly since we do not know distances, even it it were the past you have NO idea how far in the past! Your whole model depends on time we know.

So yes, you have a religion with assumptions and know nothing, though you though you did. Man's wisdom is screaming foolishness, outright foolish talking to God.

 

[dad]

How we know the distance to stars doesn't depend on time. Would you like to learn how it's measured?

Yes. Let's see you take time out of the solar system!!! Until you can, when we take hundreds of millions of miles in our solar system, that comes with time. That means the base line for all parallax measure is time and space. NOT just space.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes. Let's see you take time out of the solar system!!! Until you can, when we take hundreds of millions of miles in our solar system, that comes with time. That means the base line for all parallax measure is time and space. NOT just space.

Let's see you put time in the solar system!

 

[dad]

Let's see you put time in the solar system!

No problem. What did you think makes clocks work..tacos?

 

[Skreeper]

First you said there are many. Now your saying fossilization is extremely rare?

Yes fossilization is extremely rare yet we managed to find quite a few fossils that show the progression from "ape" to "human".