Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #13]

It is a fact a, a fact of science that cosmology rests upon the cosmological principle, are you disputing that?

No ... what made you think that? I said the bases for the assumption are valid

There is no evidence for the cosmological principle! It is pure assumption.

It isn't "pure assumption" ... it is based on the fact that there has not yet been any evidence to show that it is not a valid assumption, and the assumption has a sound basis from multiple observations. We have never discovered elements (atoms) outside of our solar system that are not a member of the set that appear in the periodic table. All spectroscopic observations of stars and galaxies, molecular clouds, etc. show known atoms or molecules with the same spectral features (in absorption or emission) that we see here on Earth. So we can assume that chemistry must work the same way "there" as it does here, short of some observation that suggest otherwise. And on and on. The cosmological principle wasn't arrived at by random guesswork.

You can't assume X then use that to infer claim Y then offer claim Y as evidence for X.

Obviously.

It is pure assumption, just like the assumptions that the laws of nature we discern locally have been the same at all times.

In science and mathematics one is free to assume anything so long as the assumptions or consequences arising from it, do not contradict observation, it really is as simple as that.

It seems to me that science isn't being taught very well these days if such basic tenets are really alien to so many people.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #16]

The thing I see repeated over and over in these kinds of forums is a naivety about science. Claims like it doesn't assume stuff and everything is supported by evidence and other utter nonsense that would cause guffaws in a beginners philosophy class.

Or your special interpretation of what science is. What would cause guffaws in a beginners science class would be some comment like "it would be impossible to distinguish a 4.6 billion year old earth from a 6000 year old earth that was made to look old." There's a reason math, physics and chemistry isn't left to philosophers ... we'd be doomed.

Are you referring to something I actually wrote or something you made up? If the former, then just quote me and we'll take it from there.

[Diagoras]

I do not need to know. All that is needed for the creation by God as per the bible argument to win would be showing that science does not really know after all.

How would you distinguish ‘science not knowing’ from you simply not understanding science?

Then it is all a matter of belief.

This suggests that you don’t understand the principles of scientific thought.

Science can't win in that arena.

Science isn’t in that arena.

It doesn't matter at all. People that believe in creation feel that they have a great understanding of origins already.

Well, that’s fine for them. But why then would they feel the need to ‘prove science wrong’?

The game is not who can pretend to be mr know it all here.

Why did you start this thread? If someone attempts to explain the science behind astronomic distances to you, it’s because they believe you may be interested in learning about the observed universe. If you don’t want to know about or understand a scientific viewpoint, then this is the wrong sub-forum to debate in. It’s not obvious that you’re engaging in ‘good faith’ (ironically!).

? For who? For those who, after facing the fact science doesn't know, all problems are solved already when they believe God created it all.

Hearing this makes me rather sad (more for any children you may have based in your username). You’re using a computer on the internet and so have access to literally multiple lifetimes of knowledge. Yet your mindset appears antithetical to any that might seek to better understand the world we live in.

For others who refuse to accept God as Maker of it all, there can never be any solving of problems.

A rather sweeping statement! Perhaps you and your extended family have never needed any form of modern medicine, for instance?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #21]

It is pure assumption, just like the assumptions that the laws of nature we discern locally have been the same at all times.

Since you haven't defined "pure" in this context I have to assume you mean without basis. That is not the case for the cosmological principle.

Are you referring to something I actually wrote or something you made up? If the former, then just quote me and we'll take it from there.

Something you've actually written on at least two occasions that I can remember (ie. that it would not be possible to distinguish a young earth made to look old, from an actual old earth). I'm not going to bother trying to chase down the threads and posts as I expect someone else who participated in the subsequent discussions can back me up. But as a last resort I can find where you did in fact say this.

In science and mathematics one is free to assume anything so long as the assumptions or consequences arising from it, do not contradict observation.

Sure, and the cosmoligical principle has yet to be contradicted by observations. It is a perfectly rational assumption to make given everything we've observed about the universe to date, until someone can show that it is wrong.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #21]

It is pure assumption, just like the assumptions that the laws of nature we discern locally have been the same at all times.

Since you haven't defined "pure" in this context I have to assume you mean without basis. That is not the case for the cosmological principle.

Are you referring to something I actually wrote or something you made up? If the former, then just quote me and we'll take it from there.

Something you've actually written on at least two occasions that I can remember (ie. that it would not be possible to distinguish a young earth made to look old, from an actual old earth). I'm not going to bother trying to chase down the threads and posts as I expect someone else who participated in the subsequent discussions can back me up. But as a last resort I can find where you did in fact say this.

In science and mathematics one is free to assume anything so long as the assumptions or consequences arising from it, do not contradict observation.

Sure, and the cosmoligical principle has yet to be contradicted by observations. It is a perfectly rational assumption to make given everything we've observed about the universe to date, until someone can show that it is wrong.

Just so you're clear: 1. I never said it was contradicted by observations. 2. I never said it was not perfectly rational (in fact I did say "The cosmological principle is rational and reasonable" in the third post here!).

Anyway you seem to agree with me when I say that in science and mathematics one is free to assume anything so long as the assumptions or consequences arising from it, do not contradict observation.

If you personally think it is unwarranted to make alternative assumptions then just say that, however many theoreticians will disagree with you - for example the proponents of string theory.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #25]

Just so you're clear: 1. I never said it was contradicted by observations. 2. I never said it was not perfectly rational (in fact I did say "The cosmological principle is rational and reasonable" in the third post here!).

Then what's the point of claiming it is "pure assumption", which seems to cast doubt on its legitimacy. My point is that we have no better assumption, nor any reason based on observation to believe the cosmological principle is wrong as it is supported by observations we do have. YECs don't like the implications of it because it contradicts a young earth.

Anyway you seem to agree with me when I say that in science and mathematics one is free to assume anything so long as the assumptions or consequences arising from it, do not contradict observation.

And when a contradiction is found the assumption goes out the window and another approach is sought. Nothing is locked in stone like many religious beliefs.

If you personally think it is unwarranted to make alternative assumptions then just say that ...

I never said that.

As for your comments about a young earth being made to look old, it didn't take long to find a couple (in the "A 6 Day Creation" thread, post 96 on page 10, and post 113 on page 12):

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39108&start=90

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=39108&start=110

[dad1]

What is "stellar time"? I've never even heard that term before (or used it in relation to arguing against creationism).

In other word time claimed by using Light years, or other methods regarding how long things take to move. Example, light from star to reach us.

Science may not yet know the exact mechanism for how the universe came into existence, but it can certainly show by nearly every "ology" that it was far longer than ~6000 years ago.

I already limited the scope of discussion in this thread to space. It does no good to plead using supposed other things.

Your argument seems to be that if science doesn't yet understand something, that is proof of creation by a god being of some sort. Fortunately, that isn't how science works ... it is the god of the gaps argument.

If something is not understood (and to prophesy that science will understand it all in the future is foolishness) then we could look at that.

An alternative that has observational support ...

There is and never was and almost certainly never will be human observers in deep space. You have no observers, period.

[dad1]

Yes ... and from its characteristics we can see that is an electromagnetic wave.

It's characteristics HERE! Why would it not exist like that here?

That means that it travels at the speed of light per Maxwell's relationships,

"Maxwell's equations may be combined to demonstrate how fluctuations in electromagnetic fields (waves) propagate at a constant speed, c (299792458 m/s in vacuum)." -wiki

So do demonstrate ho that applies to the distant universe by anything other than assumption and belief?

which we have measured to a high degree of accuracy (2.99792458e10 cm/s in vacuum).

Irrelevant. All vacuums you measure in are here. Period.

If it had different characteristics or speed elsewhere in the universe, and given that we can observe photons arriving at Earth from all directions and distances, from many different sources, you'd expect to see some kind of indication of it behaving differently as a function of direction and distance/time. But there is zero indication of this, so why make it up?

No I would expect that all things once they enter this center of the universe zone here that they would then start to exist as they must here and therefore obey laws here. Operate in space and time here.

If/when there is some anamoly observed to indicate that the speed of light is different elsewhere in the universe, the rational thing to do is assume it isn't and that Earth or our solar system isn't some special place where physical constants and the behavior of matter is different than anywhere else. Why make groundless assumptions?

You would need an ability to test and observe to know if time were different in other places far from earth in space, which you do not possess. Sorry, your wings are clipped.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #27]

There is and never was and almost certainly never will be human observers in deep space. You have no observers, period.

You have no idea how far humans may be able to travel far into the future ... we already have two spacecraft that have travelled past the heliopause (so they are in "deep space", technically). But we can observe photons from other stars and galaxies, as well as see all kinds of physical structures millions and billions of light years away. These photons, the telescopes that better capture them for magnification, and the dispersive spectrometers that show emission and absorption (by distant light passing through things between the light source and the telescope and spectrometers) are the "observers." We also have several LIGO experiments now to measure gravity waves which are incredible instruments.

You can't deny that light from the stars we can see is being emitted from that star, regardless of the distance it is away from Earth. The question is how we know the distance to the stars, and there are multiple methods to estimate distance (eg. parallax, red shifts, Cepheids). Spend some time on this site:

https://sci.esa.int/web/gaia/-/27100-ga ... -astronomy

and you might get an idea of how accurate some of this can be done these days.

[Miles]

Here's what science has determined so far.

"Although there is nothing in physics that says time must flow in a certain direction, scientists generally agree that time is a very real property of the Universe. Our science is thus based on the assumption that the laws of physics, and the passage of time, exist throughout the Universe."
source

And

"From the beginning of the universe to the present day, time is one of the few things we regard as regular and unchanging. Time works by measuring periods between the past, present and future.

But that's a simple, albeit vague answer to an incredibly complex topic.

Time is all around us and is the basis of how we record life on Earth. Civilizations rise and fall, stars are born and extinguished, and our method of tracking how those moments relate to the present remains unchanged. But time is not as constant nor as simple as it may seem.

In the 17th century, physicist Isaac Newton saw time as an arrow fired from a bow, traveling in a direct, straight line and never deviating from its path. To Newton, one second on Earth was the same length of time as that same second on Mars, Jupiter or in deep space. He believed that absolute motion could not be detected, which meant that nothing in the universe had a constant speed, even light. By applying this theory, he was able to assume that if the speed of light could vary, then time must be constant. Time must tick from one second to the next, with no difference between the length of any two seconds. This is something that it's easy to think is true. Every day has roughly 24 hours; you don't have one day with 26 and one with 23.

However, in 1905, Albert Einstein asserted that the speed of light doesn't vary, but is a constant, traveling at 186,282 miles per second (299,792 kilometers per second). He postulated that time was more like a river, ebbing and flowing depending on the effects of gravity and space-time. Time would speed up and slow down around cosmological bodies with different masses and velocities, and therefore one second on Earth was not the same length of time everywhere in the universe.

Decades later, Einstein's theory was proven to be true. In October 1971, physicists J.C. Hafele and Richard Keating tested Einstein's theory by flying four cesium atomic clocks on planes around the world, going eastwards and then westwards.

In their paper published in 1972 in the journal Science, Hafele and Keating reported that the airborne clocks were about 59 nanoseconds slower than a ground-based atomic clock when traveling east, and 273 nanoseconds faster than the ground-based version when traveling west. Their results supported Einstein's theory that time fluctuates throughout the universe."
source

.