Time is the 4th dimension

[james bond]

The maximum velocity in the true fourth dimension is c²: one light-year every three minutes. It has no effect on time.

Humans can't get near the speed of light or c. Sure, we can do that for subatomic particles using very expensive equipment, but traveling that fast isn't natural. What we have in real life is velocity or v. E = mv² is the best we can do. There lies the rub.

 

[james bond]

I just said the Christians use C14 on organic, living materials such as fossils. Not rocks or diamonds unless it was to embarrass the atheist scientists and catch them in their lies. How can diamonds and rocks still have C14 remaining when they're found in millions and billions of years old layers as claimed by the atheist scientists?

Creationists embarrass themselves. A scientist knows they are mistaking noise as signal. Read up on noise floor.

You are a hater. No one thinks much of your posts. You think your posts are smart, but they're ones that float in the tb. You don't answer my questions and are usually wrong or post out and out lies. You love noise and that's what you are. Another lolser.

As usual you are reduced to making insults as a substitute for analytic thinking.

.

I can see that I got to you because you lost the argument again and have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Creation scientists have embarrassed the atheist scientists and long time because they were able to date inorganic rocks and diamonds found in the same layers as their millions and billions of years fossils using C14 dating.

 

[Wuwei]

I can see that I got to you because you lost the argument again and have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Creation scientists have embarrassed the atheist scientists and long time because they were able to date inorganic rocks and diamonds found in the same layers as their millions and billions of years fossils using C14 dating.

My "attack" was toward creation scientists not directly at you. You are essentially saying my ad hominem attack was pointing out that your post was an ad hominem attack! How ironic. That is right from the troll play book. You have not made any cogent reply to the science.

Just what argument do you think I lost?

Here is another example of long life dating.

Rhenium Re-187, decays into osmium Os-187 with a half-life of 41 billion years.
There are 5 stable isotopes of Osmium
Os-187 1.96%
Os-188 13.24%
Os-189 16.15%
Os-190 26.26%
Os-192 40.78%

Some samples of Rh-Os have been found completely encased in diamonds and can be used to date diamonds to several billion years. Contamination is very unlikely. If there were outside unrelated Osmium contamination, then 98% of the Os would not be Os-187 because that isotope is very rare in nature.

The diamonds are billions of years old. C14 dating of diamonds is foolish.

Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News

Diamond inclusion research yields age and insight into earth history

www.gia.edu

.

 

[james bond]

Time doesn't actually exist. It's simply a concept created to explain how we perceive the chronology of events.

It’s official: time doesn’t exist

So what time features should we feed our ML models?

towardsdatascience.com

Don't be stupid. Time exists because we exist. Matter can't exist without time. If there was no time, then we would not exist.

Weirdo Nerds Push Such Nonsense Because They Are Mentally Unbalanced Escapists

Time is merely an attribute, like color.

I was saying time has to have matter to exist. Physics states time is a property of matter. Once that happens, then we get special relativity.

Mind Undermines Matter

Time exists in empty space; no matter is needed. Postmodern physics has to complicate theories that can't stand on their own; that's why it ties time to matter, energy, and the kitchen sink.

Why don't you study physics? Time and space are related and both are necessary. Space itself is matter. What you don't understand is spacetime vs. vacuum.

 

[james bond]

I can see that I got to you because you lost the argument again and have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Creation scientists have embarrassed the atheist scientists and long time because they were able to date inorganic rocks and diamonds found in the same layers as their millions and billions of years fossils using C14 dating.

My "attack" was toward creation scientists not directly at you. You are essentially saying my ad hominem attack was pointing out that your post was an ad hominem attack! How ironic. That is right from the troll play book. You have not made any cogent reply to the science.

Just what argument do you think I lost?

Here is another example of long life dating.

Rhenium Re-187, decays into osmium Os-187 with a half-life of 41 billion years.
There are 5 stable isotopes of Osmium
Os-187 1.96%
Os-188 13.24%
Os-189 16.15%
Os-190 26.26%
Os-192 40.78%

Some samples of Rh-Os have been found completely encased in diamonds and can be used to date diamonds to several billion years. Contamination is very unlikely. If there were outside unrelated Osmium contamination, then 98% of the Os would not be Os-187 because that isotope is very rare in nature.

The diamonds are billions of years old. C14 dating of diamonds is foolish.

Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News

Diamond inclusion research yields age and insight into earth history

www.gia.edu

.

The point is C14 remains and can be done on billions of years old diamonds. If they were truly old, then there would be no C14 present.

Only one of us can be right. One has to accept radiocarbon dating if C14 remains. What it demonstrates is consistency with a young Earth. Furthermore, I've shown that radiometric dating is not accurate in that one doesn't know what was present in the organic and inorganic material in the beginning. If you take dinosaur fossils, there were still C14 remaining and soft tissue present. That is impossible if the Earth layer the fossils were found were millions or billions of years old. I've also pointed out that it is hard to relate to what a million or billion years old Earth is supposed to be. Atheist scientists just made it up in order to fit atheism and evolution. Thus, the radiometric dating of billions of years from meteorites was wrong.

 

[Dadoalex]

Time doesn't actually exist. It's simply a concept created to explain how we perceive the chronology of events.

It’s official: time doesn’t exist

So what time features should we feed our ML models?

towardsdatascience.com

I disagree.
Could gravity warp time if time does not exist?
Also don't agree that time is simply part of a coordinate system.
I think, maybe, we might think of time as a force like gravity.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

We’re so used to the world being in 3 dimensions that we forget that the 4th exist and it’s called time

Space and time are the same thing.

 

[there4eyeM]

"Gravity", as things stand now, is merely a noun to represent an observed but not understood phenomenon.

 

[zaangalewa]

Time doesn't actually exist. It's simply a concept created to explain how we perceive the chronology of events.

It’s official: time doesn’t exist

So what time features should we feed our ML models?

towardsdatascience.com

Don't be stupid. Time exists because we exist. Matter can't exist without time. If there was no time, then we would not exist.

Weirdo Nerds Push Such Nonsense Because They Are Mentally Unbalanced Escapists

Time is merely an attribute, like color.

I was saying time has to have matter to exist.

Why?

Physics states time is a property of matter.

Einstein said the flow of time depends relativelly on the geometrie of the space. And mass curves the space. That's why time flows relativelly faster and slower - but always is past past and future future, although natural laws give results in both directions (what was <-> what will be). But this not means matter creates time or time needs matter to exist. And in quantum mechanical experiments time is unbelievable precise in the measurements - while mass seems not to be measurable, if I understand such experiments correctly.

Once that happens, then we get special relativity.

You never heard of spacetime?

What about if you would start to read and try to understand what others said here?

It's just common sense physics. Your example with Einstein just backs up what I stated. Time has to have matter to exist.

Again: Why?

Time needs mass and space.

The relativity of time correlates with a curved space. Mass curves the so called spacetime (=Minkowski space). But over big distances - even about billions of lightyears - the space is flat, what's unbelievable astonshing. Why has a triangle exactly 180° in such gigantic dimensions?

While I agree time is relatively faster and slower, it depends on altitude or gravitational time dilation.

Mass curving the space is gravity,

Mass is gravity. Gravity curves the spacetime.

another fundamental force discovered by creation scientist Sir Isaac Newton.

?

Moreover, time is past, present, and future; Not just past past and future future. There is no results in both directions.

You are able to calculate where the Earth was and where it will be in the same way.

It's been demonstrated that we cannot go back in time.

How? Name of this experiment or name of the scientist who found this out?

Why? One can't travel faster than light.

Something what has mass is not able to travel faster than light. What about if something has a negative mass?

You believe in science fiction.

You say that mass produces time without to say how mass is doing this.

There is no need to respond to a wacktard who has no understanding of physics nor can write understandable English haha.

Aha.

 

[zaangalewa]

We’re so used to the world being in 3 dimensions that we forget that the 4th exist and it’s called time

Space and time are the same thing.

What about to read what's written here?

 

[Quasar44]

zaangalewa
I am not going to debate this as it’s not a subject that I feel comfortable in
Very abstract

 

[zaangalewa]

zaangalewa
I am not going to debate this as it’s not a subject that I feel comfortable in
Very abstract

Then don't debate it. No one forces you to do so. The interesting thing in this context: Physics is most simple. All other natural sciences base on it.

 

[Quasar44]

zaangalewa
I tend to stick to basic natural phenomenons

 

[Wuwei]

The point is C14 remains and can be done on billions of years old diamonds. If they were truly old, then there would be no C14 present.

The abundance of C14 in a 100,000 year old sample is one Carbon14 per 130,000,000,000,000,000 carbon12 atoms. There are only 384 C14 atoms in 1 mg of a 100,000 year old sample. Carbon 14 is everywhere in the atmosphere. A dug up relic is exposed to the air. Contamination is a real concern that creationists do not understand.

Furthermore, I've shown that radiometric dating is not accurate in that one doesn't know what was present in the organic and inorganic material in the beginning. If you take dinosaur fossils, there were still C14 remaining and soft tissue present.

In Rh-Os dating I showed that the sample is completely isolated in the diamond. Both elements are extremely rare. So scientist do know what is present. Even in the unlikely case there was contamination, isotopic analysis would clearly show that.
C-14 is not rare and can contaminate anything exposed to modern air.

one doesn't know what was present in the organic and inorganic material in the beginning.

In the case of RH-Os the ratio is measured.

I've also pointed out that it is hard to relate to what a million or billion years old Earth is supposed to be.

There are many things in physics that are hard for the mind to relate to. But physics is evidenced based and the evidence must prevail. That is the scientific method.

Atheist scientists just made it up in order to fit atheism and evolution.

Creationists are ignoring the noise limitations of C14 just so they can fit science to the bible.

Only one of us can be right.

This is not between "one of us" it is between thousands of scientists versus creationists who assume their interpretation of the bible is truth and try to distort science to fit it.

I really don't care if you want to believe what creationists say. But when you bring faulty science to a science form, I must object to that.


.......

 

[Likkmee]

The theory of gravitation and electromagnetic fields would fail in a space of any dimension other than three. The inverse square laws depend on 3 spatial dimensions.

Why? Timespace is already defined as being FOUR dimensions!

 

[Feeding Crows]

Time doesn't exist. It's a human construct.

We want to believe it.

 

[Likkmee]

Hubble was able to convince Einstein that time was indeed a dimension, and what was lacking in Einstein's theories.
Because time is a dimension, and Christ and God are inter-dimensional, (as will we be in glorified bodies) they can move forward and backward in the dimension, which is how God can tell us the future accurately. He can visit the future at will...

Nature Is Not Supernatural

That's how this nonsense started. God cannot create a contradiction, such as a square circle. So he also cannot see the future, which is not out there for anyone to see.

scribe
Scribes scribble scripts
Follow the script !

 

[Likkmee]

No doubt earth is somewhere near 1 bil-tril-zil perhaps Googles of years old.

HOWEVER
God flew in(tictac ?) with the others and formed man,in THEIR own image, about 6000 years ago.
It's all been downhill from there.
Politics dictated the need for that fucking tree in the center of the garden.
It was part of the cease agreement during that war in the other realm.
The Script --ure says an ass whippin will take place and the retaliatory third will be bound 1000 years.Then General Lucifer will get parole...for a short while.
The parole violation that will come up results in eternity in some lake.

Prolly be a lot of butt fucking going on as all "angels" are male.
Typical life imprisonment....problem is...life does NOT end.

 

[zaangalewa]

Time doesn't exist. It's a human construct.

We want to believe it.

If time is a human construct (¿how do we create time?) then this has nothing to do with "want". We sense time as real and we could do nothing in this world here without time. What kind of science is it to be able to sense and to measure a phenomenon and to say it is not real what we measure?

When my good old friend Albert Einstein said "time is an illusion" he said it on 2 reasons: The first was a condolence card to the wife of another physicist who had died - and in the other cases he spoke about the direction of time in macro-cosmic structures. The formulas work the same way direction past and direction future. And other people found out that determination not means always to be able to calculate a valid result.

 

[james bond]

The point is C14 remains and can be done on billions of years old diamonds. If they were truly old, then there would be no C14 present.

The abundance of C14 in a 100,000 year old sample is one Carbon14 per 130,000,000,000,000,000 carbon12 atoms. There are only 384 C14 atoms in 1 mg of a 100,000 year old sample. Carbon 14 is everywhere in the atmosphere. A dug up relic is exposed to the air. Contamination is a real concern that creationists do not understand.

Furthermore, I've shown that radiometric dating is not accurate in that one doesn't know what was present in the organic and inorganic material in the beginning. If you take dinosaur fossils, there were still C14 remaining and soft tissue present.

In Rh-Os dating I showed that the sample is completely isolated in the diamond. Both elements are extremely rare. So scientist do know what is present. Even in the unlikely case there was contamination, isotopic analysis would clearly show that.
C-14 is not rare and can contaminate anything exposed to modern air.

one doesn't know what was present in the organic and inorganic material in the beginning.

In the case of RH-Os the ratio is measured.

I've also pointed out that it is hard to relate to what a million or billion years old Earth is supposed to be.

There are many things in physics that are hard for the mind to relate to. But physics is evidenced based and the evidence must prevail. That is the scientific method.

Atheist scientists just made it up in order to fit atheism and evolution.

Creationists are ignoring the noise limitations of C14 just so they can fit science to the bible.

Only one of us can be right.

This is not between "one of us" it is between thousands of scientists versus creationists who assume their interpretation of the bible is truth and try to distort science to fit it.

I really don't care if you want to believe what creationists say. But when you bring faulty science to a science form, I must object to that.


.......

You're really hung up on the age of Earth aren't you? It was an atheist scientist who wanted to date rocks and came up with radiometric dating. As I pointed out, the creation scientists wanted to date fossils, not rocks or diamonds, using C14 dating. Maybe their scientist came up with radiocarbon dating. Regardless, the age of the Earth wasn't a concern to them until the atheist scientists dated meteors and claimed the Earth was billions of years old. Then, they showed the dinosaur fossils weren't with C14 dating and soft tissue still remaining.

This is why you continue to believe in billions of years old Earth even though radiometric dating is faulty. I don't think one can date the oldest Earth rocks accurately when results that do not fit are tossed out. The atheist scientists toss out the results if they do not fit the range of billions of years they are expecting. It's a self-serving way for science to back up evolution, but as I pointed out it doesn't work when one doesn't know how much of the parent element was in the rock at the start. Today, there is question about whether the radiometric decay is constant.

Finally, you're wrong in your belief that creation scientists "are ignoring the noise limitations of C14 just so they can fit science to the Bible." I've already said the Bible does not point out the age of the Earth. The creationists care much more in trusting God’s Word to be true and authoritative. The creationists think the age of the Earth cannot be derived accurately using either method, but use radiocarbon dating to show the Earth is young compared to what the atheist scientists have come up with. To the contrary, it is the atheist scientists who are hung up on dating rocks and fossils to use to back up their false beliefs of evolution. Notice, you didn't argue anything but the age of the Earth in order to discredit creation scientists' findings. You still believe the noise limitations only apply to the creationists and not to the atheists. How wrong, self-serving, and hypocritical is that in order to find something to back up evolution. What we found is it doesn't. Radiometric dating and radiocarbon dating are both faulty methods in terms of accuracy, but I suppose it is the best we have.