Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
False?? Have you any evidence to show nature (therefore the same slow evolving we now see) was the same?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?
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?
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.So Einstein is wrong, and the universe is chaotic?
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.
First you said there are many. Now your saying fossilization is extremely rare?Yes there are many. Also man is by definition part of the ape family.
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?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?
"Light year" is a measure of distance, not of time . A light year is about 6 trillion miles.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
but it always be outside cars group. right?
first: were did you get the data of the real cars traits?
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.
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."Light year" is a measure of distance, not of time . A light year is about 6 trillion miles.
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.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?
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.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.
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. 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.
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.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!
How we know the distance to stars doesn't depend on time. Would you like to learn how it's measured?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.
Ah, back to this old argument. You are basically arguing: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?
I did. They have no clue.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. 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).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. 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Everywhere and no matter how far back in time we look
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.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.
No problem. What did you think makes clocks work..tacos?Let's see you put time in the solar system!
First you said there are many. Now your saying fossilization is extremely rare?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?