dad Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 I've presented my arguments and religion aside you have yet to show a single decent argument. Yet you demand that of us. For shame. Why should we bother when you've obviously refuse to consider our responses with anything other than "you lie, your blinded by faith, we didn't measure anything etc etc etc." If you honestly believe science doesn't use multiple approaches to test it's models your wrong. Every theory in physics is tested rigorously. Especially GR. So far all your posts have shown that you have no understanding of basic physics so showing the higher mathematics is pointless. Redshift for example is an extremely well tested theory that uses time dilation. However your response shows you don't wish to understand how. If anything, every one of your posts suggest your here to preach, not understand the information presented thus far to you. If you interested in learning you would have asked for clarity on how we apply those physics formulas in deep field measurements. Not simply post, " that doesn't mean anything" You offer frequencies or light? Look, if time were not in deep space or spread thinner in the mix with space or whatever, then frequencies here mean nothing or light travel speed. Why? Because here they travel and behave as they must in time. Having trouble admitting you have not yet even addressed the issue? It's like terrorism, Mordred. They use cheap tactics, irrational emotions, and rigor-free bombing of your mainstream explanations, hoping to get a big, disproportionate response from the intellectuals they despise. Cowards, tiny-minded and juvenile, just trying to justify their belligerence and hatred of what they don't understand. Ha. Hatred of the light eh? Now when I look at radiant flux I notice this.. "In radiometry, radiant flux or radiant power is the radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted or received, per unit time, ..." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux#units There is that pesky time again.
Mordred Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) For example the formula I posted earlier. Using the link I supplied earlier with Weins displacement law, coupled with the Rayliegh scale for say the most abundant element hydrogen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series each one of these color bands can represented by a frequency. So by measuring hydrogen at various distances and using the gravitational redshift formula We can measure the time dilation effects via the frequency change (redshift/blueshift) We can calculate time dilation using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift "In astrophysics, gravitational redshift or Einstein shift is the process by which electromagnetic radiation originating from a source that is in a gravitational field is reduced in frequency, or redshifted, when observed in a region of a weaker gravitational field. This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation" Hydrogen is a handy source to measure we know it's spectral index, simplified the emitter frequency any time dilation would alter the spectral index frequencies. The same happens with temperature You offer frequencies or light? Look, if time were not in deep space or spread thinner in the mix with space or whatever, then frequencies here mean nothing or light travel speed. Why? Because here they travel and behave as they must in time. Having trouble admitting you have not yet even addressed the issue? Ha. Hatred of the light eh? Now when I look at radiant flux I notice this.. "In radiometry, radiant flux or radiant power is the radiant energy emitted, reflected, transmitted or received, per unit time, ..." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiant_flux#units There is that pesky time again. Precisely there is that pesky time again. Tipped you admit there is time involved........... Now to measure the time dilation. Use this formula. [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{(1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2})}}[/latex] G=gravitational constant c=speed of light M=mass of gravitational body [latex]\Lambda[/latex] is wavelength, the subscript o denotes the observer wavelength. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavelength https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency Edited April 12, 2016 by Mordred
dad Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) For example the formula I posted earlier. Using the link I supplied earlier with Weins displacement law, coupled with the Rayliegh scale for say the most abundant element hydrogen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series each one of these color bands can represented by a frequency. So by measuring hydrogen at various distances and using the gravitational redshift formula We can measure the time dilation effects via the frequency change (redshift/blueshift) I doubt that. The frequency is only here! Any range is here. How much time that really is depends on if time exists in deep space. We can calculate time dilation using https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift "In astrophysics, gravitational redshift or Einstein shift is the process by which electromagnetic radiation originating from a source that is in a gravitational field is reduced in frequency, or redshifted, when observed in a region of a weaker gravitational field. This is a direct result of gravitational time dilation" Nope. That involves time too. How fast something is moving away that is redshifted depends on what time is like in the apace time mix there! In fact, if time say, thinned out in the mix, or there was less time per space, then we have stars IN that mix. In fact a star would have been either created or born there. (depends on your opinion and belief). So what redshift means here does not equate. Hydrogen is a handy source to measure we know it's spectral index, simplified the emitter frequency any time dilation would alter the spectral index frequencies. The same happens with temperature Glad you brought that up. So how would a lack of time alter a frequency? Edited April 12, 2016 by dad
Mordred Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Then you have pulsars which emit electromagnetic radiation at regular intervals. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar or standard candles... http://www.astronomy.com/news/2014/03/standard-candle-supernovae-are-still-standard-but-why even handier to have luminosity to temperature relations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity Plenty of methods of cross checks using different physics applications All of which can be used via mathematics to distance and time measurements. I doubt that. The frequency is only here! Any range is here. How much time that really is depends on if time exists in deep space. Nope. That involves time too. How fast something is moving away that is redshifted depends on what time is like in the apace time mix there! In fact, if time say, thinned out in the mix, or there was less time per space, then we have stars IN that mix. In fact a star would have been either created or born there. (depends on your opinion and belief). So what redshift means here does not equate. Glad you brought that up. So how would a lack of time alter a frequency? Did you ever look at the formula for frequency? [latex] f=1/T[/latex] Here I shouldn't have to teach high school physics. http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-period.htm If you had a total lack of time the frequency would be zero. Here is a good article on gravitational redshift vs time dilation. . http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture490_ch6.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj9jY-h9IfMAhVU7GMKHVZRB5gQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNHJKHzN5VeOymsT5NXYBj19rUQuQw I chose a simpler article for math level. The arxiv physics articles get a little too deep. Your argument that this represents the physics here but not there is pointless. If you study the material provided you will learn it applies there as well. How can it not. We can measure those physics at any range up to the CMB 46 Mpc away from us. Any change in physics will change those methods. Edited April 12, 2016 by Mordred
dad Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Then you have pulsars which emit electromagnetic radiation at regular intervals. Yes we do and the light is seen here in time that we have and know. Clocks are not time they mark time. or standard candles... See above. even handier to have luminosity to temperature relations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity From your link.. "In astronomy, luminosity is the total amount of energy emitted by a star, galaxy, or otherastronomical object per unit time.." In other words we see it in our time here. Since that doesn't tell us time exists there you are spamming links and preaching faith here. All of which can be used via mathematics to distance and time measurements. Did you ever look at the formula for frequency? Talk to us about that. What does that T stand for? Here I shouldn't have to teach high school physics. I agree you should not be around kids teaching from your posts so far. Total religion and teaddle and pious sounding blabber, devoid of content, real relevance or even all that interesting. Work on that professor. If you had a total lack of time the frequency would be zero. Maybe. Maybe not. How long does it take an angel to move across the universe? Maybe what is out there is beyond the physical only and earth rules? We haven't been there how would you know? What if there were a stretched out space where time was stretched and space as we got further from earth? Why assume uniform time and space? Just admit we don't know. Is that so hard? Here is a good article on gravitational redshift vs time dilation.. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://eagle.phys.utk.edu/guidry/astro421/lectures/lecture490_ch6.pdf&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwj9jY-h9IfMAhVU7GMKHVZRB5gQFggUMAE&usg=AFQjCNHJKHzN5VeOymsT5NXYBj19rUQuQw I chose a simpler article for math level. The arxiv physics articles get a little too deep. Without time how could we have time dilation persay? Without as much time in the space and time mix, how could we have the time dilation we know here? You nerely preach belief that the universe conforms to your little world and misconceptions. How can it not. We can measure those physics at any range up to the CMB 46 Mpc away from us. Nothing is a far as you claim unless time exists and exists as it is here on earth! Nothing. Nada. Zip. Yes we have far away little things in space. More than that you don't know all that much. Any change in physics will change those methods. Change IN physics?? There needs to be physics to have a change in it. If there is no time as we know it in deep space, then your math is in the trashcan. Every formula that has that little T in it is savaged. Edited April 12, 2016 by dad
Mordred Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Why are we talking about angels lol. Honestly the shows yet again a lack in your willingness to learn. It's too bad really, you limit yourself. However that's not my problem. That's your self limitation. The math works with observational evidence plain and simple. You can choose to deny that fact all you want. Personally I couldn't care what your opinion of me is. I happen to be a proud grandfather. So quite frankly insulting me with regards to children makes you extremely petty. Not that your lack of substance in your arguments is particularly worth much merit. Enjoy your ignorance. If you want answers to the meaning of T read the links 3
dad Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 Why are we talking about angels lol.Honestly the shows yet again a lack in your willingness to learn. We were looking for something that might not follow normal rules out in the unknown, that you like to pretend is known. The math works with observational evidence plain and simple. You can choose to deny that fact all you want. No it does not. Only in little imaginary mind games. If there was no time your math is garbage. Useless. Off topic. The T in your formulas isn't there! So quite frankly insulting me with regards to children makes you extremely petty. No, I prefer kids get taught truth. So far you pretend to know it all and try to sound smart but are ignorant and preachy and zealous for beliefs..
Mordred Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Yeah right I forgot your the role model to higher learning and good behavior LMAO. I'm done wasting my time have a good life Edited April 12, 2016 by Mordred
dad Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Yeah right I forgot your the role model to higher learning and good behavior LMAO. I'm done wasting my time have a good life Thank you God. Let's hope you learned how little you know at least. Edited April 12, 2016 by dad -4
MigL Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 Very well, lets assume you're right. Lets assume time passes at different rates in different areas of the universe, and could even be non-existent in some. Lets examine the consequences. We receive radiation from vast distances, the same spectral lines are common to this radiation other than it is red-shifted. That means the same elements are present in these far away galaxies, and we know how they react to give off this radiation. Differing rates of time passage would inhibit these reactions, as we are not talking about relativistic time dilation but differing rates measured in that distant frame. We see the same spectral classes of stars ( and pulsars, and type 1A supernovae ) in distant galaxies as our own. We see no difference. Areas where time is non-existent would exhibit very noticeable boundary effects as everything would be trapped at the boundary. Any and all particles, light included, would reach said boundary and stop as no time implies no events. Eventually these particles would accumulate around this boundary and begin to glow from the radiation heating. We notice no such effects. Maybe next you'll advance the notion that stars and galaxies aren't really far away. They're actually close by but much smaller...
dad Posted April 12, 2016 Author Posted April 12, 2016 Very well, lets assume you're right. Lets assume time passes at different rates in different areas of the universe, and could even be non-existent in some. Lets examine the consequences. We receive radiation from vast distances, the same spectral lines are common to this radiation other than it is red-shifted. That means the same elements are present in these far away galaxies, and we know how they react to give off this radiation. Differing rates of time passage would inhibit these reactions, as we are not talking about relativistic time dilation but differing rates measured in that distant frame. We see the same spectral classes of stars ( and pulsars, and type 1A supernovae ) in distant galaxies as our own. We see no difference. Areas where time is non-existent would exhibit very noticeable boundary effects as everything would be trapped at the boundary. Any and all particles, light included, would reach said boundary and stop as no time implies no events. Eventually these particles would accumulate around this boundary and begin to glow from the radiation heating. We notice no such effects. Maybe next you'll advance the notion that stars and galaxies aren't really far away. They're actually close by but much smaller... At least you're thinking. Now if time thinned in degree in some way as we got away from earth, we could not tell here. Here time is 'thick' or normal to us. Everything that comes in out time fishbowl has to obey OUR time space rules! No way to tell that way. As for galaxies being small, since you cannot know the size anything goes. Why not? Big small, I could go with evidence if there was any.
Daecon Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 How is what you're proposing any different from Last Thursdayism?
Sensei Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) You say time is not a force. So what we are supposed to swallow that by faith alone? Say you have 1 Joule energy, this energy can be used in 1s, giving power P=1 J/1s = 1 Watt or it can be used in 1 ms = 0.001s, giving P=1 J/0.001s = 1000 Watts or it can be used in 1 ns = 10^-9 s, giving P=1 J/10^-9 s = 10^9 Watts. Star which is in deep space release energy per second, in the all directions, using inverse-square law: P=P0/(4*PI*r^2) P-power/area of star recorded at distance r from it, in units Watts/meters square. P0 - initial energy released by fusion from object using its own time per second in Watts = Joules/second. Bright hot star will release plentiful energy (photons) per second, while dying red dwarf will release f.e. thousands times less energy (photons) per second. Star emitting large amount of energy per second, will last short period of time, burns all fuel, and collapse, explode or other way die. Star emitting small amount of energy per second, could live billions years. It's fuel will last for long time. It's estimated that red dwarf can live trillions of years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf Do not deny that you failed to show time exists in deep space. In any way at all. If time would not exist in deep space, star would not be able to emit photons toward us. Edited April 12, 2016 by Sensei
Strange Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Do not deny that you failed to show time exists in deep space. In any way at all. But we have models that work. That is all science does. I don't know what your point is. By the way I notice a trend here of people thinking discussion and debate means sitting at their feet and learning regurgitated nonsense rather than supporting a position. I see someone so entrenched in his beliefs that all you can say is "no". You have nothing positive to say. You have no alternative view. You have nothing to contribute. There is zero value in saying "it could all be wrong" unless you have an alternative. It is just immature posturing. That depends on if we get an answer and support for the position of science on whether time exists as it does here in deep space. Science does not say anything about what really exists. But the same models work in deep space as on Earth. You haven't shown they don't. My position is questioning whether we really know what time is, or whether it exists at all or the same in space. In fact I think you don't. So far all posters confirm this. The "existence" of time (whatever that means) is not a question for science. Yes. It means time is involved. So if there was no time in deep space and something moved (waves for example) that means that when we see it here where there IS time it takes so much time here! Hoo ha. That really doesn't make much sense. You shouldn't be so self-congratulatory when you haven't shown a flaw in any of the models science uses. Who cares what you 'believe'? The question is what you know. Stop talking about belief. He was talking about your baseless beliefs. What we know is that our models work equally well for deep space as they do here. You have repeatedly failed to show any problem there. It doesn't matter if everything we see from deep space is actually faked by, say, a dishonest God. Or if we are living in a simulation. Or nothing exists outside your own mind. None of that invalidates science. As none of those things are testable they are just childish speculations, and a complete waste of time. So why are you wasting your time on this? I assume you are a bored 14 year old; don't you have better things to do? Glad you brought that up. So how would a lack of time alter a frequency? You tell us. You came up with the idea. It is up to you to support it. How is what you're proposing any different from Last Thursdayism? It isn't. It is just childish pseudo-philosophy. I suppose it makes him feel clever. Edited April 12, 2016 by Strange
swansont Posted April 12, 2016 Posted April 12, 2016 This nonsense was closed in another thread, and the OP was warned not to re-introduce it. He's had his five minutes of argument, and then some.
Recommended Posts