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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #54]

It is not I that have anything here to defend. That would be you.

I didn't write the OP making a ridiculous claim ... that was your handiwork. In the debate section you are supposed to defend a position on a subject, and in this section using science to support a position is expected (hence the title). You've not used any science at all, and are defending your position as saying "science doesn't know" over and over, but never being able to refute or even address any of the science issues mentioned (eg. spectroscopy).

I expect part of that is because you don't understand any science (you never claimed to), but mainly because the OP was not about debating the issue you raised, but just another opportunity to do some science bashing and defend a young earth belief based on religion. You certainly have yet to actually debate anything with a counter that has any science basis, or to refute any of the points made beyond just statements that you don't personally believe something.

The basis for the argument of science that distances are what they are is as unscientific as it gets. That is what the thread is about. Your quest is to show us that it is known and science, and you can't do that.

Perfect example of the above ... you've yet to respond or refute any of the science presented and just give nonanswers like this.

So far you have danced around piddling in puddles and picking daisies in left field.

Brilliant, insightful response.

You said in post 41: "Correct. I do not believe a word of it. I chose to believe God. After all, the creator knows." Why bother creating an OP in the Science and Religion section when the going-in position is you don't believe anything science says about the distances to stars, or their sizes, or their inner workings?

[brunumb]

Except brunumb was incorrect to claim "Your question implies that the thousands, or millions, of individuals whose expertise is in cosmology and physics and other related areas of study have somehow been wrong in their conclusions".

That's just another example of an argument from authority except it isn't even that, it is an imagined discrepancy, nothing to do with real working cosmologists, how does he or you for that matter, know what a million astronomers or cosmologists think, utterly ludicrous argument as usual.

If you have some anomalous skin condition do you consult a dermatologist for an expert opinion or your local plumber? Someone believes that the scribbling of ancient goat herders somehow represents the truth about our origins and then suggests their opinions should be regarded above experts in cosmology and related sciences. Utterly ridiculous. Also, we don't need to know what all these scientists are thinking, we can scrutinise the products of their work. If there are discrepancies they can be brought to light and re-examined. The scientific method at work. One then has to show where and why things are wrong, not simply declare that they are wrong because they don't conform to one's religious beliefs. That's all we really have going on in this thread.

[dad1]

.

I didn't write the OP making a ridiculous claim ... that was your handiwork.

It is clear science does not know what time is like in the far universe actually. Pretending will get you nowhere. Your inability to demonstrate otherwise has spoken loud and clear.

In the debate section you are supposed to defend a position on a subject, and in this section using science to support a position is expected (hence the title). You've not used any science at all, and are defending your position as saying "science doesn't know" over and over, but never being able to refute or even address any of the science issues mentioned (eg. spectroscopy).

The position that needs supporting is the claims of science based on time being the same. You have the opportunity to do so. Don't be a sore loser.

I expect part of that is because you don't understand any science (you never claimed to), but mainly because the OP was not about debating the issue

Don't presume to tell me what the thread is about. We get it you are whining because you were soundly defeated. You have attempted to post a few tidbits from science that you thought related to the issue of what time is like and it was shown that they were not related at all. Just admit science doesn't know rather than pretending.

Perfect example of the above ... you've yet to respond or refute any of the science presented

I addressed each item carefully. Apparently your comprehension level is low.

Why bother creating an OP in the Science and Religion section when the going-in position is

My position was not given going in. The thread was for you to try and offer some real scientific evidence if you claimed science did know what time was like out there. You truly failed. Completely. So, unless you can find some evidence and support for your science claim here, you remain busted, and the OP fact remains. Science of course does not know what time is like in the far universe.

you don't believe anything science says about the distances to stars, or their sizes, or their inner workings?

No. Not a word. The basis on which all models rest is false and shown in this thread to be completely unknown.
Why would I believe nonsense based on nothing but dark inspiration? Some of us think there should be a reason to believe stuff.

[dad1]

. One then has to show where and why things are wrong, not simply declare that they are wrong because they don't conform to one's religious beliefs. That's all we really have going on in this thread.

That was done, There is no basis for any claim time is the same in the far universe. I declare them unknown by virtue of reality and the failure of anyone here to be able to offer evidence from science. Did you think the scientific method was to be ignorant and boast about it, while offering nothing at all (except some whiny little blasphemy)

[brunumb]

. One then has to show where and why things are wrong, not simply declare that they are wrong because they don't conform to one's religious beliefs. That's all we really have going on in this thread.

That was done, There is no basis for any claim time is the same in the far universe. I declare them unknown by virtue of reality and the failure of anyone here to be able to offer evidence from science. Did you think the scientific method was to be ignorant and boast about it, while offering nothing at all (except some whiny little blasphemy)

Meanwhile, I declare them known by virtue of reality and the failure of anyone here to be able to offer evidence from science that demonstrates anything to the contrary.

[wannabe]

Time is merely a perception of mankind, since the beginning.
Only relevant to those who share the same measuring device.
Time is mans recognition of the past and anticipation of the future.
Science's role in time is only to measure it to satisfy the requirements of man.
Time will always have at least two points of reference, all depending upon how it pertains you - the individual.
Time itself has no physical elements.

[dad1]

. One then has to show where and why things are wrong, not simply declare that they are wrong because they don't conform to one's religious beliefs. That's all we really have going on in this thread.

That was done, There is no basis for any claim time is the same in the far universe. I declare them unknown by virtue of reality and the failure of anyone here to be able to offer evidence from science. Did you think the scientific method was to be ignorant and boast about it, while offering nothing at all (except some whiny little blasphemy)

Meanwhile, I declare them known by virtue of reality and the failure of anyone here to be able to offer evidence from science that demonstrates anything to the contrary.

We understand you declaring things. We do not see you supporting things. Obfuscation does not support the science that this thread is about. That is, in case you cannot even pay attention, how science cannnot tell us what time is like in the far universe (despite it assuming it is the same to derive stellar distances)

[dad1]

Time is merely a perception of mankind, since the beginning.
Only relevant to those who share the same measuring device.
Time is mans recognition of the past and anticipation of the future.
Science's role in time is only to measure it to satisfy the requirements of man.
Time will always have at least two points of reference, all depending upon how it pertains you - the individual.
Time itself has no physical elements.

OK, so if light from a star is said by science to have taken a million years to get here, does that mean it is actually just a perception of man? There is no measuring device to tell us what time is like in the universe. There is no individual in deep space. So you cannot have two points of reference.

[wannabe]

Time is merely a perception of mankind, since the beginning.
Only relevant to those who share the same measuring device.
Time is mans recognition of the past and anticipation of the future.
Science's role in time is only to measure it to satisfy the requirements of man.
Time will always have at least two points of reference, all depending upon how it pertains you - the individual.
Time itself has no physical elements.

OK, so if light from a star is said by science to have taken a million years to get here, does that mean it is actually just a perception of man? There is no measuring device to tell us what time is like in the universe. There is no individual in deep space. So you cannot have two points of reference.

Point of reference one: The star in question.
Point of reference two: Our standpoint.
Time regardless of the outcome one expects has at least two points of reference.

[dad1]

Point of reference one: The star in question.

That is not a point of reference but a point far away where no observer has ever been.

Point of reference two: Our standpoint.

This is our only observation point.

Time regardless of the outcome one expects has at least two points of reference.

And only one point is observed, experienced and known. That point is here.