The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[dad]

The speed of light remains constant because time and distance are variables combined with the velocity variable. You first need to understand why the speed of light remains constant regardless of velocity and the fact that every observer not similarly situated has clocks of a different rate and rulers of a different length and yet read the same speed. I am not sure you do understand why people with different rates of clocks obtain the same answer......

In relativity, I think that is claimed to be the case. [?)

Now how would you test this in deep space? If you see two objects moving toward each other say (in what science considers..) 4 billion light years away, how can we say both or either are moving at 186,000 mi/sec? I would suggest we cannot.

 

[SelfSim]

See what I mean? They do not know what time is. Saying time IS a clock is absurd.

Comprehension issue. Read with an active mind, what I posted!

A clock marks time.

Completely different from what you stated in your first statement! You are one confused individual aren't you?

If a man falls from a high building, that is gravity at work...not a definition of gravity. If you post another time in the thread, that is you posting, not a definition of what computers, and radio signals, and the internet IS.

Observation #1: You have described thought experiments. Nothing here indicating anything existing independently of a mind!
Observation #2: I observe that I hold the same meaning for say, 'gravity' as you do. (Trying doing that without a mind!) Nothing here indicating anything existing independently of a mind!
Observation #3: You conclude by asserting (using your mind) that a verb (posting) and computers, radio signals and the internet (nouns) do not carry the same meanings (which is fair enough). But that these words actually have the meanings English speaking humans gave them, is evidenced by our minds' common understanding of them when they are written (or spoken).
(Non-human minds cannot be said as having them mean the same things as we have them mean, also).
Observation #4: That a clock's display of passing events (denoted by the change of that display), is precisely designed to meet with our mind's perceptions of the passage of what we mean by the word 'time', is clearly evidenced by the long history of how clocks were developed (John Harrison's documented life's work etc). That they directly convey a consistent meaning, is objectively testable and is repeatedly independently verifiable and hence .. and is thus a useful definition for the purposes of doing science. No evidence of anything independent of minds in any of that.

Our minds perceive (visually) a man falling. We use that perception, once described as you just did, to give meaning to the word 'gravity' (in order to explain the perception). Nothing of that, in any way, produces any evidence of anything existing independently of a mind.

Also, if you post it takes time...it is not the essence and definition of what time IS.

Depends what you mean by 'essence' and 'definition' (and 'is'). Oh .. you'll have to use your mind to describe what you mean by those terms!
(I'll bet 'essence' its not objectively testable though .. so that'll be a belief, where a belief is a notion which is held as being 'true' for any reason).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And yet.....

Is Planck’s Constant - A Cosmological Variable?

"With these applications it is possible to say that – during the cosmic evolution, magnitude of Planck’s constant increases with increasing cosmic time. This may be the root cause of observed cosmic red shifts."

That's the beauty of science, people are always publishing proposals based on "speculative and peculiar" (the author's own words) relations. There are papers speculating on the local or universal variability of every physical constant.

But the "International Journal of Astronomy"? seriously? that's just one of the 133 pay-to-publish (free if they don't have enough articles coming in) journals published by 2012 bandwagon publisher 'Scientific & Academic Publishing'. All sounds very plausible until you find the publisher address is the middle of a 6 lane highway intersection, the publisher got a very 'cool' reception (e.g. accused of being 'spammy' and fraudulent) from the scientific community when they started, has a reputation for junk articles (e.g. copied/plagiarised), and their facebook page hasn't been updated since 5 months after they started (January 2012). Oh, and they're on Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers.

Ahhh, so even if you understand the twin has a clock ticking at a different rate than yours, you still believe his clock ticks the same rate as yours?????

We've already been over this at some length; it's special relativity - observations are made with respect to the coordinates chosen for the observer's proper frame, and objects in relative motion will display relativistic time dilation.

The speed of light remains constant because time and distance are variables combined with the velocity variable. You first need to understand why the speed of light remains constant regardless of velocity and the fact that every observer not similarly situated has clocks of a different rate and rulers of a different length and yet read the same speed. I am not sure you do understand why people with different rates of clocks obtain the same answer......

This is too incoherent to comment on. The speed of light drops out of Maxwell's equations. Einstein developed special relativity as a framework in which Maxwell's equations work, and give a constant speed of light in all inertial frames.

 

[dad]

Comprehension issue. Read with an active mind, what I posted!
Completely different from what you stated in your first statement! You are one confused individual aren't you?

You said this

"operationally defined as "what a clock reads"."

You think that is a definition? 'Gee, watch the hands go round and round and that is time'?
Can you be more specific? What is it that you think was read precisely?

Observation #1: You have described thought experiments. Nothing here indicating anything existing independently of a mind!

False. The experiment involves more than a mind. It involves things that exist regardless of whether your mind exists.

Observation #2: I observe that I hold the same meaning for say, 'gravity' as you do. (Trying doing that without a mind!) Nothing here indicating anything existing independently of a mind!

Hey, jump off a tall building and you soon will be without a mind. If you arranged for a ball to fall some minutes after you jumped somehow, then the ball would be experiencing time and gravity after your mind was no more.

Observation #3: You conclude by asserting (using your mind) that a verb (posting) and computers, radio signals and the internet (nouns) do not carry the same meanings (which is fair enough). But that these words actually have the meanings English speaking humans gave them, is evidenced by our minds' common understanding of them when they are written (or spoken).
(Non-human minds cannot be said as having them mean the same things as we have them mean, also).

What, you thought all radio signals would cease to exist if your mind did?

Observation #4: That a clock's display of passing events (denoted by the change of that display), is precisely designed to meet with our mind's perceptions of the passage of what we mean by the word 'time', is clearly evidenced by the long history of how clocks were developed (John Harrison's documented life's work etc). That they directly convey a consistent meaning, is objectively testable and is repeatedly independently verifiable and hence .. and is thus a useful definition for the purposes of doing science. No evidence of anything independent of minds in any of that.

Of course a clock operates in time. The moon takes so much time to orbit earth. Whether than meaning is that a certain moon phase is the best time to hunt, say, for a mountain lion, or maybe a good time for a wolf to howl, the actual orbit of the moon does not depend on the mind of a lion, or you. Nor does the fact that it takes time to happen.

Our minds perceive (visually) a man falling. We use that perception, once described as you just did, to give meaning to the word 'gravity' (in order to explain the perception). Nothing of that, in any way, produces any evidence of anything existing independently of a mind.

The force that exists is independent of your mind. Apples will still fall from trees whether your mind knows it or not.

Depends what you mean by 'essence' and 'definition' (and 'is'). Oh .. you'll have to use your mind to describe what you mean by those terms!

Well, look at what exists outside of your mind. Don't obsess over how important you think you are in that your mind is all that matters. Orbits and time and the force of gravity work without any need whatsoever of your mind. I mean if someone lost their mind and were institutionalized, and had pills or shots given to them each day, that would still involve time, even if that poor soul lost awareness of it.

(I'll bet 'essence' its not objectively testable though .. so that'll be a belief, where a belief is a notion which is held as being 'true' for any reason).

essence
[es-uhns]
See more synonyms for essence on Thesaurus.com
noun

1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features:

I might add that the nature and reality and basic features of a thing do not depend on you or your poor little mind.

 

[SelfSim]

Depends what you mean by 'essence' and 'definition' (and 'is'). Oh .. you'll have to use your mind to describe what you mean by those terms!

Well, look at what exists outside of your mind.

.. and exactly how do you propose that as being an answer to the question of existence independent from a mind?
When I look at something (as you demand), you don't have any clue whatsoever what I've seen.
When I tell you, I use words to describe what I've seen using my mind (or brain). Those words carry meanings which your mind then interprets. That meaning is a model created, parsed and delivered by minds.

You don't agree? Fine ... Take your feeble definition example which you attempt below:

essence
[es-uhns]
See more synonyms for essence on Thesaurus.com
noun

1. the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features:

Where do you think that definition came from, if not from human minds!!!?

I might add that the nature and reality and basic features of a thing do not depend on you or your poor little mind.

.. and never have I claimed that .. you did.
Look again Sunshine!
I've always said 'a mind' and not mine in particular.
You really do have major comprehension challenges don't you?

The rest of what you say above here is unsupported by objective tests or evidence therefrom.
It thus either refers to one of science's testable models, or is just another untestable belief, (where 'a belief' is a notion held as being true for any reason).

You fail .. yet again!

 

[dad]

.. and exactly how do you propose that as being an answer to the question of existence independent from a mind?

Simple, the mind of man can die and gravity still works and time and etc.

When I look at something (as you demand), you don't have any clue whatsoever what I've seen.
When I tell you, I use words to describe what I've seen using my mind (or brain). Those words carry meanings which your mind then interprets. That meaning is a model created, parsed and delivered by minds.

Even if you don't look or say a thing gravity still works. Really.

Where do you think that definition came from, if not from human minds!!!?

It is only some human minds that like to pretend that God has no mind. Regardless of any definition of time or gravity from man, rocks will not start flying off the planet. I kid you not.

I've always said 'a mind' and not mine in particular.

Doesn't matter. Every mind alive 200 years ago is now dead. Yet animals still experience gravity as do we who have minds and are alive at the moment.

The rest of what you say above here is unsupported by objective tests or evidence therefrom.
It thus either refers to one of science's testable models, or is just another untestable belief, (where 'a belief' is a notion held as being true for any reason).

For someone that seems to have a problem recognizing gravity or time or much of anything else..actually exists outside the mind, I would take any claims of objective testing with a grain of salt.

 

[SelfSim]

I might add that the nature and reality and basic features of a thing do not depend on you or your poor little mind.

I've always said 'a mind' and not mine in particular.

Doesn't matter. Every mind alive 200 years ago is now dead. Yet animals still experience gravity as do we who have minds and are alive at the moment.

And where did that model, including: 'nature and reality and basic features of a thing' and; 'Every mind alive 200 years ago is now dead' and; 'animals experiencing gravity as do we who have minds and are alive at the moment' come from? ... Thin air???

Nope! .. Your mind of course ... because that's how you described it! .. (And is probably also shared by the millions of other active minds alive today). No evidence of any mind independence in any of that.

Ya still don't get it do ya?

 

[SelfSim]

For someone that seems to have a problem recognizing gravity or time or much of anything else..actually exists outside the mind, I would take any claims of objective testing with a grain of salt.

Well I guess so .. given that you also believe the miracle that all those things magically popped into existence due to your complete and utter failure in demonstrating any evidence of mind independence of any of it and your apparent blind faith in that what you say is true!!

 

[dad]

And where did that model, including: 'nature and reality and basic features of a thing' and; 'Every mind alive 200 years ago is now dead' and; 'animals experiencing gravity as do we who have minds and are alive at the moment' come from? ... Thin air???

Nope! .. Your mind of course ... because that's how you described it! .. (And is probably also shared by the millions of other active minds alive today). No evidence of any mind independence in any of that.

Ya still don't get it do ya?

Death did not come from within the mind of man either. A kangaroo could see that things die. If a roo saw a dead man on the side of a road, that death would no more be in the roo's mind than in the dead guy's mind.

Men try and describe and define nature the best they can. That does not mean that nature/death/time/gravity are some product of their mind.

If a sparrow, and a man, and an eagle all saw that there was a very strong wind that arose one day, the wind blowing on each of their faces becomes no more or less real, regardless of what happens in the man's head. The kite that gets blown into a tree doesn't care either.

 

[SelfSim]

Death did not come from within the mind of man either. A kangaroo could see that things die. If a roo saw a dead man on the side of a road, that death would no more be in the roo's mind than in the dead guy's mind.

Can you not see that it is you (as an observer) saying all of that?
And all with zero objective evidence supporting your imaginings about this as somehow demonstrating that 'death' is independent of your imaginings as the observer?

Men try and describe and define nature the best they can. That does not mean that nature/death/time/gravity are some product of their mind.

The description is the product of the mind, because you just said 'men try and describe' ... and men have minds! Their desciption is what converys 'men's' meaning! Its all coming from 'men'.
How, in any way, can men decribing things be independent of minds?

For goodness sake, can't you even read what you write?

If a sparrow, and a man, and an eagle all saw that there was a very strong wind that arose one day, the wind blowing on each of their faces becomes no more or less real, regardless of what happens in the man's head.

Can you not see that what you just described came from 'a man's head', (aka .. your head/brain/mind)?

Sheeshhh!!!

 

[tas8831]

I thought we were having and intelligent discussion about abiogenesis.
My evaluation was spot on.

LOL!

It has beaten forensic scientists.

No, it really hasn't. I googled this crap. You have a handful of people either with phony affiliations or having retired from the work making declarations and you simply accept it, no questions asked. I linked to someone that HAD looked into these claims and found them wanting and you engaged in your usual well-poisoning ad hominems to dismiss his research. Typical.

There are several factors that need accounting to even hint at fraud.
1. How do you get cardiac tissue to intimately intermingle with bread at the edges?

Why do you keep embellishing your claims?

2. Why does the blood appear to force out of the bread rather than in?

A trick?

3. Why are leucocytes still viable months or years after, when they die in hours in vitro

The leukocytes with no DNA? Those "leukocytes"?

4. Why does the tissue fail toyield the DNA signature of a once living person, why are there no corpses? If it was a fraud?

Hmmm... DNA does no belong to a living person... Maybe it belonged to no PERSON?

5. How has one instance survived 800 years still recognisable as human tissue and blood without preservatives/
And so on...

The DNA-less "leukocytes"?

My gosh you are gullible.

 

[tas8831]

To distinguish it from "Guided" chemistry - ie the presupposition that life was a random accident of the right molecules happening to be in the right place at the right time, with the right energy, and the rest is history.

What "right molecules" and "right energhy" and all that?

Sounds made-up.

As I said - the idea that the minimum cell jumped into existence from one set of lucky accidents is ridiculous in random chance terms.

I asked you some time ago to demonstrate this.

Believe it or not, just re-writing the same things over and over is NOT a demonstration.

The pathways of even the simplest cells are bigger than any of our chemical factories.

Sounds made-up.

And what of the ingredients?

Yes- what OF the ingredients?

When Jehovah 'created' Adam from 'dust', where did the ingredients of a man come from?
Whence glycerol? Whence deoxyribose? How do you get that from "dust"?

You believe in magic and fairy tales.

Take for example the DNA strands, which would have to exist in primordial soup. There is no evidence that was ever so.

Are you as familiar with using the strawman argument as you are of using the ad hominem argument?

Seems so.

 

[tas8831]

I've read only science in the Bible, nothing that actually requires a supernatural intervention......

 

[sjastro]

My point exactly, who says it will orbit the sun in the new heavens? How can we know it even used to be that way? What we know is that is does so now and has for thousands of years.

What a cop out in avoiding to address my question of finding chapter and verse where the Earth orbits the Sun.

Your evasion response doesn't even make any sense.
If changes did occur then clearly the Bible cannot be a source for 'facts' because the Bible fails to record any such changes.
Alternatively if the Bible is the sacrosanct book you make it out to be, then the changes never occurred and you are making up stories.

What heliocentric fishbowl? Explain. The way I use the term is for the actual real present day known area around the earth and solar system. It simply denotes that fact that man has only been so far in this universe.

How many times do I need to explain it to you!!!
Fishbowl = Baseline = Earth's orbit = Heliocentric.
You defined the existence of a baseline in the solar system with regards to parallax.

Well the flood waters were brought from beyond where the stars are, and it happened one day. That means no great time was involved in transport. The stars also were seen by Adam and made the same week he was. No great time was involved in light being seen on earth. Gabriel was there from the heaven of heavens, again out beyond where the stars are, before Daniel opened his eyes to answer his prayer! That means no time was involved to get here. In the New testament a boat was suddenly on the other side of a big body of water in no time! In another instance, Philip was transported to another place. So time is often and easily bypassed in the bible, both in this ol world and across the universe.

Your critical thinking skills are lacking.
Using your own 'logic' the events occurred on Earth which is in your fishbowl and therefore time is kept 'normally'.
The Bible therefore contradicts your fishbowl; futhermore is your confusion in relating mythology to Science.

It therefore seems foolish to try to impose the exact nature and order of the time we know here onto the whole universe.

An illogical conclusion particularly when your argument is purely based on what the Bible states which is devoid of Science but still contradicts your nonsense.
Above all you failed to provide one single example of chapter and verse where the Earth orbits the Sun and engaged in ridiculous spin doctoring and evasion.

 

[dad]

And all with zero objective evidence supporting your imaginings about this as somehow demonstrating that 'death' is independent of your imaginings as the observer.

Easy to test, get three observers and then you know the dead guy is not in the mind of one. It's real.

The description is the product of the mind, because you just said 'men try and describe' ... and men have minds! Their desciption is what converys 'men's' meaning! Its all coming from 'men'.
How, in any way, can men decribing things be independent of minds?

No sense talking about foolishness and reality denial.

Can you not see that what you just described came from 'a man's head', (aka .. your head/brain/mind)?

Gravity depends on no man's head, deal with it.

 

[dad]

What a cop out in avoiding to address my question of finding chapter and verse where the Earth orbits the Sun.

I explained why years are not denoted as we think of them...365 days. A prophetic year is 360 days.

The point there is that since the current year is a temporary thing, why would God go to the trouble of defining a year that way? Since the bible also does not spell out the orbits, maybe these are temporary also?
We do not know what orbits will be like in the future nor what they were like at creation! Who says we are supposed to have that written?

If changes did occur then clearly the Bible cannot be a source for 'facts' because the Bible fails to record any such changes.

It records lots of changes in the future actually. The past recorded in the bible also is changed from the present! The fact is, then, that if the bible does not say something is here to stay, we can call off all bets.

Alternatively if the Bible is the sacrosanct book you make it out to be, then the changes never occurred and you are making up stories.

Many changes did and will occur. Only a sacrosanct book would record that! Science is clueless on the issue.

How many times do I need to explain it to you!!!
Fishbowl = Baseline = Earth's orbit = Heliocentric.

The base line is not the fishbowl. The base line is IN the fishbowl so therefore represents time and space HERE! The orbits now are a certain way, that does not mean they will always be or that they always were that way here!

Using your own 'logic' the events occurred on Earth which is in your fishbowl and therefore time is kept 'normally'.

Correct, time here is what we consider normal. The thing is we know no other time and space besides here in the fishbowl.

The Bible therefore contradicts your fishbowl

False, the bible does not say the solar system either always was the same time and space, nor always will be! Nor does it say the far universe is the same time and space.

Therefore taking a slice of this current time and space from the fishbowl cannot be said to equate with either time and space in the distant universe, nor with time and space here in the future...or far past.

An illogical conclusion particularly when your argument is purely based on what the Bible states which is devoid of Science but still contradicts your nonsense.

Not correct yet again. My deductions are based on what science claims and what basis exists for those claims as well as the bible.

Remember, then that in the new heavens coming soon, there is no longer any need for the current orbits to exist!!!

 

[SelfSim]

Easy to test, get three observers and then you know the dead guy is not in the mind of one. It's real.

Again .. for the umpteenth time, I have never claimed its 'in the mind' .. that's just your mental block interpretation, (stuck in belief-based philosophical realism), of what I've actually been explaining.

Ok .. How does anyone know what the three observers have seen at all?
Answer: they describe what they've seen .. and when they do that, they use words and concepts. One of those words is 'dead'. The meaning of 'dead' is collectively understood and agreed. In this case, the three are able to come to agreement that what they have seen matches the meaning of 'dead'. 'Dead' is objectively testable in science also .. so scientific thinkers will all agree as well.

What we have here is evidence of minds communicating using pre-defined/agreed meanings that correlate closely with their independent, synchronised (in time) perceptions (or observations).

The word 'dead' and what it means, as it applies in this instance, then becomes real by agreement amongst similar, thinking minds. This is a mind dependent process and not evidence of mind independence in any way, shape, or form!

No sense talking about foolishness and reality denial.

The only sense being made here is coming from what I'm explaining.
All you're doing is demonstrating the fallacy of repeated assertion without offering any semblance of a test which returns consistent results that doesn't involve demonstrations of active minds at play, in how we create our sense of reality, whenever we share meanings between ourselves.

Gravity depends on no man's head, deal with it.

.. the fallacy of repeated assertion again (with zip evidence for anything 'existing' independently from our minds and mind-processes). 'Gravity' is a human mind (english) word. It is used to distinguish what we mean when we say it, from other things we mean when we say those other things.

We didn't just grab 'gravity' while we were drifting around as molecules in a protoplanetary, or planetary nebula, unless you can demonstrate how we can test that without using our minds to do so. If you think you can use the model I just gave as a short-cut .. think again, because protoplanetary and planetary nebulae are themselves models scientific minds invented and gave meaning to. Using time, (which can also be demonstrated as conveying a mind-invented meaning), we can regress backwards to before minds ever existed(!) ... however, all this is still evidence that a mind was needed to perform such a feat .. and not evidence of any reality actually existing independently of a mind!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

In relativity, I think that is claimed to be the case. [?)

Now how would you test this in deep space? If you see two objects moving toward each other say (in what science considers..) 4 billion light years away, how can we say both or either are moving at 186,000 mi/sec? I would suggest we cannot.

And you would be correct. To all of our devices we are stationary and it is everything else that is in motion. Just as to the photon it is stationary and it is everything else that is in motion.

They don’t understand why light travels at c regardless of velocity Dad. And the thing is it is such a very simple answer, but they can’t let go of their belief in the constancy of constants, or why different ticking clock rates give the same answer.

And that’s why “they” have no explanation to give you regarding the speed of c, they are clueless because they are confined to their little box.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Care to show one of those miracles that require a supernatural intervention, or are nonsense remarks your only standard response?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes- what OF the ingredients?

When Jehovah 'created' Adam from 'dust', where did the ingredients of a man come from?
Whence glycerol? Whence deoxyribose? How do you get that from "dust"?

You believe in magic and fairy tales.

Are you as familiar with using the strawman argument as you are of using the ad hominem argument?

Seems so.

He is quite correct actually. It is you that reaches for straw men.

All molecules and elements are made up of the exact same protons, neutrons and electrons. It is only in the number and configuration in which the elements and compounds exist.

You seem to think making compounds and elements from protons, electrons and neutrons would be beyond the One who made those protons, neutrons and electrons and the forces that make it all possible.

Such a small thing to the One who made all matter, although just because puny man can’t create these elements by putting electrons, protons and neutrons together from “dust” doesn’t mean it is magic. One day even we will have the technology to build molecules from scratch....