the self replicating watch argument

[hecd2]

No more than time is separate from space. Look at anything in the space in our solar system. Things take time to move here, time to decay, etc. You cannot grab a baseline in the solar system of hundreds of millions of miles and claim there is no time also existing with that. So it must involve time ..everything in the world must involve time.

You are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is that parallax does not depend on time. This is a fact, your invincible ignorance and incorrigibility not withstanding. Parallax is a time independent method of determining the distance to an object. This is a fact that I have explained several times, and your inability or unwillingness to understand does not constitute a valid criticism of the results of parallax measurements. We know that the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1.302+/-0.002 pc, and this knowledge exists in spite of your personal and impotent incredulity.

No observation of atoms has EVER been made away from the area of the solar system. You observe atoms HERE.

We observe atoms over the entire universe. They are all observed to behave the same whether they are in the solar system, in the Galaxy or in a galaxy far, far away. That is a fact. You are not entitled to your own facts. We observe them primarily through the photons they emit or absorb. The properties of photons are determined by the properties of what emits opr absorbs them, not by the properties of what detects them. That's why vision works, and it works just the same across the entire universe.

Any transition that involves time (that would be all) is seen in our time. Here. Always here. Only here. You have no other point of observation. You may not speak to the universe.

Do you accept that stars (whatever you believe them to be) exist?

If you have something on distance, other than the silly cosmic ladder belief rungs, now is a great time to show us.

Would you like to learn how we know the distance and the size of astronomical objects? But your belief system depends on the fantasy that we cannot know anything outside the solar system, so naturally you prejudge the science. That too will be noted by people reading this thread.

Time cannot be exorcised, pried, removed, or separated from space in the solar system. The baseline is composed also of time.

It simply isn't and your insistence that it does exposes your ignorance of the method.

There is no 'wherever it is' because it is only HERE we see it!

This is your fundamental argument from ignorance and an absurd obfuscation that everyone can see through: the things that we observe are both here (local) and out there in the Galaxy and extra-galactically, and those things (the behaviour of matter) behave exactly the same both for local and distant objects. That is overwhelming evidence for the proposition that the laws of physics are the same throughout space and time. That conclusion is based on evidence. Yours has no evidence, and is in fact built on wilful ignorance.

How much time out there is involved we don't know. Only what time is like here. Hoo ha.

What is time "like" here and how might it be different there?

The evolution of anything takes time. Involves time. Show us how the evolution of the state of hydrogen is time independent?

You deliberately or helplessly fail to understand anything. The fact that the transitions of hydrogen located throughout the universe are observed to be identical to the transitions of hydrogen located in a lab right here on Earth is overwhelming evidence that the physics is the same throughout time and space. And the same is true of any fundamental physics you care to consider.

Physics is only seen in the solar system area.

Wrong.

Time is not part of physics.

Wrong. Desperately, stupidly, abjectly wrong.

How anything behaves with respect to time here, has nothing to do with how it behaves out in the universe where there may not be time as we know it.

What does that even mean? We observe things in the distant Universe changing in time just as we would expect them to locally.

You observe IN TIME here and then from ignorance claim that this is how time is there.

What does it mean for time to be different elsewhere?

You ONLY observe here. Here, everything will unfold according to our laws and in our time! It is an argument from ignorance to claim that anything takes the same time to move, evolve, spin,etc etc out in the far universe. That is a belief.

No, you have understood nothing. It is exactly the opposite of an argument from ignorance or a belief. It is an argument from evidence and reason. We observe that distant objects behave just the same as same objects in our labs, leading us to conclude (not believe) that the physics is the same there and here. That is not a difficult concept to grasp.

The issue is not how it seems to the observer at one point in the universe who is immersed in a certain time and space!

Can you explain quantitatively, using well understood physics, how being "immersed" in our "space" and "time" affects the observations we make of distant objects. So for example, take a star at fifteen light years distance, say Gliese 876, an M4V red dwarf in Aquarius. By observing photons emitted by Gliese 876 we measure its mass to be 0.37 solar masses, its luminosity to be 0.012 that of the sun and its surface temperature to be 3179K. It is a hydrogen burning star (from its spectral signature) on the main sequence. How, in your mind, does the fact that we make that observation on Earth affect the reality of Gliese 876? Be specific and quantitaive.

Who cares if there are the same materials like hydrogen in far space? Who cares that we as observers here always see the atoms or light or...etc from there behave a certain way here?

Everyone who considers this matter (well, maybe everyone except for you) cares. Everyone (except for you) understands that the observation of hydrogen throughout the observable universe with exactly the same transitions as hydrogen in the lab on Earth is evidence that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and throughout time.

The issue is whether time exists the same out there or not. Or whether you know! You don't! You can't say something like...'some little light is spinning out there, or orbiting some other light of unknown size'..therefore the universe is the same!

Which is a blatant strawman of the evidence I have presented. Really, do learn some basic physics.

If that orbit was in a space out there where time existed in a way, for example, that the orbit took four seconds, and we here in OUR time saw the light from it, and HERE it took say, 100 years to orbit, that does NOT mean it took 100 years there! It just means you as an observer in your time experience time a certain way. Same thing applies to spins, lightspeed, atoms etc!

The concept that time is different in different frames of reference is standard physics. It is explained quantitatively in special relativity and is governed by the Lorentz transform. In addition, the location of events in a gravity well affects time in a way described quantitatively by general relativity. These are quantified effects that have been tested and found to be accurate to a high degree of precision. Whereas your suggestion that times are different in different locations or frames is just a made-up fantasy without empirical or theoretical support.

What evidence do you have they were the same?

The fact that you ask that question after all the evidence that I have presented in the last four or five posts shows that you are not able or willing to understand the evidence. All the evidence indicates that the laws of physics, including relativistic and gravitational time dilation are the same throughout the universe. Everyone else reading this thread will be able to understand that and will realise that you are impotently protecting a prejudiced belief.

The evidence mostly boils down to radioactive decay.

Nope.

We do not even so much as know if any existed in Adam's day, do we?

Who is this Adam of whom you speak?

 

[doubtingmerle]

If indeed that is reality (which I have assumed) that there are too many species to fit on the ark, so that the evolution was rapid after the ark....that doesn't disagree with a different nature in the past. On the contrary!

If a global flood is impossible unless the laws of physics were entirely different, you might want to think twice about whether there was a global flood.

 

[Kylie]

I am not wondering. I assume that the different nature that likely existed on earth in the past was such that most animals and man did not stick around long enough to leave remains or fossils.

So the number or percentage of fossils that do exist is a small fraction of life on earth, and hopelessly incomplete.

So you are assuming. Doesn't matter - what you assume is in direct contradiction with science. And I find your claims to be completely lacking in evidence.

 

[doubtingmerle]

See, XIA, you are up against a lot. I think you need a different nature.

...And Harry Potter needs a different nature?

If we can say nature was different there any time we need to, have all fictional stories now entered the realm of plausible reality?

 

[doubtingmerle]

i wonder what will happen if you will use a single company products. i also wonder what will happen if you will use say 100 traits. i think that eventually we will get a tree were trucks will almost always be out of the cars group. we cant realy say that a tipical truck is more similar to a tipical car then to other trucks in general. its just not make any sense.

Ah,you need to simplify things to get a hierarchy to work. As I explained before, the number of possible trees increases exponentially with the number of "taxa". So when we have millions of animal species and a nested hierarchy works, that is significant.

You struggle to find anything similar for cars.

Your suggestion is that we limit to one manufacturer. Ok, if they make 8 models, you can sort their product into 8 groups. Big deal. Now look at the variations of each model based on option packages. Now you have perhaps 100 car taxa. Now start comparing "organs": antilock brakes, power windows, air conditioning, rear wiper, etc. Now try building a nested hierarchy that shows a representative batch of those 100 models and shows how all those features relate. You might be able to do it with a matrix, but not a unique statistically significant hierarchy.

And if you respond by saying animals also have convergent evolution, I will remind you that we answered that dozens of times.

 

[dad]

The fact is that parallax does not depend on time. This is a fact, your invincible ignorance and incorrigibility not withstanding. Parallax is a time independent method of determining the distance to an object. This is a fact that I have explained several times, and your inability or unwillingness to understand does not constitute a valid criticism of the results of parallax measurements.

Hey, relax. You have an opinion. The actual fact is that time does exist in this world and the solar system. No maybes. So when dealing with any large part of it, we also are dealing with time. You are not entitled to your own facts.

We know that the distance to Proxima Centauri is 1.302+/-0.002 pc, and this knowledge exists in spite of your personal and impotent incredulity.

Wrong. You know we can draw lines with angles. Your problem is that you pretend there is no time in the base line in this solar system where we KNOW time exists. You can't wave it away. Time is part of things here. Looking at hundreds of millions of miles in our solar system and pretending no time is there but only distance is what you are doing. Not sure what sort of crowbar you think you removed time with?

We observe atoms over the entire universe. They are all observed to behave the same whether they are in the solar system, in the Galaxy or in a galaxy far, far away.

False. You observe nothing at any time outside the fishbowl! Of course they behave themselves while here. That should be obvious. What, you though we would get a bunch of rebel atoms coming in refusing to obey the forces and laws and time here?

We observe them primarily through the photons they emit or absorb.

Not only in the fishbowl then, but also indirectly. Nice.

The properties of photons are determined by the properties of what emits opr absorbs them, not by the properties of what detects them. That's why vision works, and it works just the same across the entire universe.

Says who? You know about what photons do far out of the solar system? If you only observe photons here, you ca't say how they work anywhere else, especially in regard to time.

Do you accept that stars (whatever you believe them to be) exist?

I accept the constellations mentioned and seen by the ancients. Now maybe all the little speck of light you think are stars that we do not know the size or distance of are also stars...or maybe they are something else. Who knows? You need to know distances to rank something as a star right?

Would you like to learn how we know the distance and the size of astronomical objects?

Is this some sort of POE parroting? You seem to be pretending secret knowledge you have not been somehow able to yet post. Ha. Sure.

But your belief system depends on the fantasy that we cannot know anything outside the solar system, so naturally you prejudge the science.

False. I just observed the realities and limits of man's science and abilities. My faith does not depend on them.

There are many failed predictions in science and cosmology. Far as I can tell that makes them false prophets. Really. The bible says when a prophet speaks and it comes not to pass, we are not to believe them anymore.

This is your fundamental argument from ignorance and an absurd obfuscation that everyone can see through: the things that we observe are both here (local) and out there in the Galaxy and extra-galactically, and those things (the behaviour of matter) behave exactly the same both for local and distant objects.

Since mas was no further than the moon, and even probes have been not even a light DAY away, NO..you have not observed the universe! You observe in the fishbowl exclusively. Strictly. Absolutely. Any light from stars outside the galaxy is seen here. Not there. Here. Get it?

That is overwhelming evidence for the proposition that the laws of physics are the same throughout space and time. That conclusion is based on evidence. Yours has no evidence, and is in fact built on wilful ignorance.

Big talk for someone stuck in one point of observation. I think it was one of your boys, Carl Sagan, that said something like earth is just a meaningless little blue speck in the universe? Well, science observes all things in the universe only from the little speck!

What is time "like" here and how might it be different there?

Good question. Too bad yo don't know eh?

You deliberately or helplessly fail to understand anything. The fact that the transitions of hydrogen located throughout the universe are observed to be identical to the transitions of hydrogen located in a lab right here on Earth is overwhelming evidence that the physics is the same throughout time and space. And the same is true of any fundamental physics you care to consider.

Since both are seen in the fishbowl of the area of the solar system, who cares? Not a lot of meaning there. Hydrogen appears a certain way here. So?

A lot can happen on the way here. For example, if the hydrogen was from a 'star' the size of the space shuttle for example, and 1 light year away, how would that matter at all? Since you do not know how far anything is, it might as well be!

So, in that example, who really cares if the laws were the same? The light may only have taken, say 12 seconds to reach us from a light year away. (once we get outside the solar system area we do not know what time is like.

We observe things in the distant Universe changing in time just as we would expect them to locally. What does it mean for time to be different elsewhere?

Hey, science doesn't even know what time is here! You are getting above your paygrade there.

Time has to do with how long stuff takes, you realize that? So if time were different, how long anything takes is also different. Do the math. Here it is...?

No, you have understood nothing. It is exactly the opposite of an argument from ignorance or a belief. It is an argument from evidence and reason. We observe that distant objects behave just the same as same objects in our labs, leading us to conclude (not believe) that the physics is the same there and here.

How distant is what matters. What time is like there is what matters. Not what it looks like to you in your little closet! You can't see time. You know that?

That is not a difficult concept to grasp. Can you explain quantitatively, using well understood physics, how being "immersed" in our "space" and "time" affects the observations we make of distant objects. So for example, take a star at fifteen light years distance, say Gliese 876, an M4V red dwarf in Aquarius. By observing photons emitted by Gliese 876 we measure its mass to be 0.37 solar masses, its luminosity to be 0.012 that of the sun and its surface temperature to be 3179K. It is a hydrogen burning star (from its spectral signature) on the main sequence. How, in your mind, does the fact that we make that observation on Earth affect the reality of Gliese 876? Be specific and quantitaive.
Everyone who considers this matter (well, maybe everyone except for you) cares. Everyone (except for you) understands that the observation of hydrogen throughout the observable universe with exactly the same transitions as hydrogen in the lab on Earth is evidence that the laws of physics are the same everywhere and throughout time.

Thanks for admitting that.


In other words, you assume time exists the same. Then you assign distances based on that belief. Then you assign mass...etc etc. We could talk about how transitions in a different space and time may appear to us here to be the same. But that doesn't matter so much. The issue is TIME. Nothing about the photons you observe here tells us what time is like there!

Which is a blatant strawman of the evidence I have presented. Really, do learn some basic physics.

Basic physics is fishbowl physics. Think bigger.

The concept that time is different in different frames of reference is standard physics.

Total belief. You see, you assume all observers are equal or in the same time. Then you dilate time...OUR time. That is only valid as long as time exists at all points of observation. You do not know that for sure. You sit on earth in the fishbowl and rearrange the universe to fit your fishbowl realities.

It is explained quantitatively in special relativity and is governed by the Lorentz transform.

Explain how these tell us what time is like in deep space?

In addition, the location of events in a gravity well affects time in a way described quantitatively by general relativity.

Irrelevant. If an object is tiny the so called gravity you imagine it has is wrong! You NEED sizes and distances. You simply sit in the fishbowl and dream.

These are quantified effects that have been tested and found to be accurate to a high degree of precision. Whereas your suggestion that times are different in different locations or frames is just a made-up fantasy without empirical or theoretical support.

No gravity in deep space is measured. Gravity would depend on several factors there. You assign gravity by faith out there!

Nope. Who is this Adam of whom you speak?

Never heard of Adam, but you think you see time in far space eh? Ha.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Never heard of Adam, but you think you see time in far space eh? Ha.

You think you see time here. Ha indeed.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hey, relax. You have an opinion. The actual fact is that time does exist in this world and the solar system. No maybes. So when dealing with any large part of it, we also are dealing with time. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Wrong. You know we can draw lines with angles. Your problem is that you pretend there is no time in the base line in this solar system where we KNOW time exists. You can't wave it away. Time is part of things here. Looking at hundreds of millions of miles in our solar system and pretending no time is there but only distance is what you are doing. Not sure what sort of crowbar you think you removed time with?


False. You observe nothing at any time outside the fishbowl! Of course they behave themselves while here. That should be obvious. What, you though we would get a bunch of rebel atoms coming in refusing to obey the forces and laws and time here?
Not only in the fishbowl then, but also indirectly. Nice.

Says who? You know about what photons do far out of the solar system? If you only observe photons here, you ca't say how they work anywhere else, especially in regard to time.
I accept the constellations mentioned and seen by the ancients. Now maybe all the little speck of light you think are stars that we do not know the size or distance of are also stars...or maybe they are something else. Who knows? You need to know distances to rank something as a star right?
Is this some sort of POE parroting? You seem to be pretending secret knowledge you have not been somehow able to yet post. Ha. Sure.


False. I just observed the realities and limits of man's science and abilities. My faith does not depend on them.

There are many failed predictions in science and cosmology. Far as I can tell that makes them false prophets. Really. The bible says when a prophet speaks and it comes not to pass, we are not to believe them anymore.

Since mas was no further than the moon, and even probes have been not even a light DAY away, NO..you have not observed the universe! You observe in the fishbowl exclusively. Strictly. Absolutely. Any light from stars outside the galaxy is seen here. Not there. Here. Get it?
Big talk for someone stuck in one point of observation. I think it was one of your boys, Carl Sagan, that said something like earth is just a meaningless little blue speck in the universe? Well, science observes all things in the universe only from the little speck!
Good question. Too bad yo don't know eh?


Since both are seen in the fishbowl of the area of the solar system, who cares? Not a lot of meaning there. Hydrogen appears a certain way here. So?

A lot can happen on the way here. For example, if the hydrogen was from a 'star' the size of the space shuttle for example, and 1 light year away, how would that matter at all? Since you do not know how far anything is, it might as well be!

So, in that example, who really cares if the laws were the same? The light may only have taken, say 12 seconds to reach us from a light year away. (once we get outside the solar system area we do not know what time is like.
Hey, science doesn't even know what time is here! You are getting above your paygrade there.

Time has to do with how long stuff takes, you realize that? So if time were different, how long anything takes is also different. Do the math. Here it is...?

How distant is what matters. What time is like there is what matters. Not what it looks like to you in your little closet! You can't see time. You know that?


Thanks for admitting that.


In other words, you assume time exists the same. Then you assign distances based on that belief. Then you assign mass...etc etc. We could talk about how transitions in a different space and time may appear to us here to be the same. But that doesn't matter so much. The issue is TIME. Nothing about the photons you observe here tells us what time is like there!
Basic physics is fishbowl physics. Think bigger.


Total belief. You see, you assume all observers are equal or in the same time. Then you dilate time...OUR time. That is only valid as long as time exists at all points of observation. You do not know that for sure. You sit on earth in the fishbowl and rearrange the universe to fit your fishbowl realities.



Explain how these tell us what time is like in deep space?

Irrelevant. If an object is tiny the so called gravity you imagine it has is wrong! You NEED sizes and distances. You simply sit in the fishbowl and dream.


No gravity in deep space is measured. Gravity would depend on several factors there. You assign gravity by faith out there!

Never heard of Adam, but you think you see time in far space eh? Ha.

"But officer, I know your radar says I was driving at 100 mph, but the fishbowl of that section of highway 80 last Tuesday had different physics, so I was only doing 50 in that physics."

Surely that argument would lead to a traffic ticket (or a straight jacket, perhaps).

If we are allowed to call for a different physics at will, we would know nothing.

 

[pitabread]

its clear that we will get the bicycle "out of place" if you will choose all those 14 traits. right?

No. It entirely depends on how the tree is rooted.

The thing to understand is that rooting the tree is effectively setting the parent clade from which all subsequent "offspring" clades are derived. So ultimately the position of the bicycle it will depend on how the bicycle clade will be derived based on whatever traits are inherent in the rooted, parent clade.

This is why the use of a distinct, unambiguous outlier is used to root a tree, because otherwise the resulting tree makes little sense.

i wonder what will happen if you will use a single company products. i also wonder what will happen if you will use say 100 traits. i think that eventually we will get a tree were trucks will almost always be out of the cars group.

You're welcome to try if you want. I've provided the characteristic list I was using. Feel free to extend that list and see what results you come up with.

The software I used is Mesquite. You can download it here: Mesquite - home

we cant realy say that a tipical truck is more similar to a tipical car then to other trucks in general. its just not make any sense.

It actually does make sense when you consider how vehicles are categorized and which characteristics define those categories. In general, vehicle categories have to do with function, cargo capacity and weight, which tend to be a limited range of characteristics.

And while characteristics specific to those attributes will generally define that vehicle, things can still vary and some vehicles don't fit well into specific categories. Just consider vehicles like mini-trucks as an example:

Or odd vehicles like the Subaru BRAT. Is it a car? A pick-up truck? Something in between?

Then there are a whole range of characteristics completely independent of vehicle type. You could have a vehicle with 2 doors, forward engine compartment with a 6 cylinder engine, twin leather seats, SatNav system, stereo system with multiple speakers, side view mirrors, front headlamps and rear tail lights, and chrome wheels. These traits could equally apply to a sports car or a heavy duty Mack truck.

This whole discussion started from the idea that it was possible to create independent convergent phylogenetic trees of designed objects based on independent characteristics. But in practice, that just doesn't seem to be the case. Which makes sense considering that designed objects like vehicles aren't subject to hereditary constraints. Designers are free to create whatever they want with whatever characteristics they want. The same isn't true of biological organisms subject to natural evolution.

 

[dad]

You think you see time here. Ha indeed.

No more than I see God. There are many ways to see how time passes and works (God also). The speed of light for example is a time based measurement. Now all you have to do is show us that light takes the same time to move in deep space and you will have a point.

We wait.

 

[dad]

"But officer, I know your radar says I was driving at 100 mph, but the fishbowl of that section of highway 80 last Tuesday had different physics, so I was only doing 50 in that physics."

Surely that argument would lead to a traffic ticket (or a straight jacket, perhaps).

If we are allowed to call for a different physics at will, we would know nothing.

Newsflash: your car does not go out of the solar system area. Really.

 

[dad]

Designers are free to create whatever they want with whatever characteristics they want. The same isn't true of biological organisms subject to natural evolution.

Man is NOT free to design as God does. Man is too dumb and small. But even the modest creations of men can be seen to be intelligently designed. Intelligent folks also can see that an intelligent God created and designed life.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Newsflash: your car does not go out of the solar system area. Really.

News flash: noahs ark did not go out of the solar system either, and you claim a different nature then. If you can claim different laws of physics when you need them, why can't others?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No more than I see God. There are many ways to see how time passes and works (God also). The speed of light for example is a time based measurement. Now all you have to do is show us that light takes the same time to move in deep space and you will have a point.

We wait.

All you have to do is show that light moves at all, dad.

We wait.

 

[dad]

News flash: noahs ark did not go out of the solar system either, and you claim a different nature then. If you can claim different laws of physics when you need them, why can't others?

That depends if you have any evidence and want to call it science. You have none for your same state past. Stick to what you know, as little as it may be.

 

[dad]

All you have to do is show that light moves at all, dad.

We wait.

On a science forum, we expect people debating to be up to a certain bar. Realizing there was a last week and that light moves at a certain speed is not something intelligent people need to discuss.

 

[TLK Valentine]

On a science forum, we expect people debating to be up to a certain bar. Realizing there was a last week and that light moves at a certain speed is not something intelligent people need to discuss.

You don't believe in science, remember dad?

 

[xianghua]

I was able to find a source that estimates that, on average, 1 MILLION years are needed for enough generations to pass to result in a new species in nature. So your 100 years falls very short. Reminder that this is for vertebrates, and that it is a broad generalization.

i think that this estimation base on fossils and thus base on radiometric dating. when i actually gave real time evidence for speciation event:

Watching new species evolve in real time

Rapid Evolution Changes Species in Real Time | DiscoverMagazine.com

 

[doubtingmerle]

That depends if you have any evidence and want to call it science. You have none for your same state past. Stick to what you know, as little as it may be.

Right back at ya. You claim a different physics in the time of Noah and outside the solar system. That depends if you have any evidence and want to call it science. You have none for your same state past. Stick to what you know, as little as it may be.

So there.

 

[doubtingmerle]

On a science forum, we expect people debating to be up to a certain bar. Realizing there was a last week and that light moves at a certain speed is not something intelligent people need to discuss.

And yet we are discussing your claim that light moved much faster outside the solar system. Why are you arguing about the speed of light, if this is something that has been settled (and even written on your avatar)?

You may realize there was a last week, but you also claim that there was a totally different nature in the past. If there was a different nature in the past, how do you know there was not a different nature on Tuesday? And if there was a totally different nature on Tuesday, how do you know that this totally different nature was not one that rewrote everyone's memories? Once you start postulating that bizarrely different physics were at work, how do you know anything?