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.

[wannabe]

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.

For any point to be recognized, it still requires a focus ,it cant stand alone. Therefore creating a second point of reference.
one observation does not constitute one reference point.

[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.

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)

All you have done yourself is make a heap of unsupported claims. Just saying "science can't know" is an argument from ignorance. Science does know. Go read up on some of that science and learn how we came to know. If you disagree then explain by what mechanism time in different parts of the universe can result in Earth being 6000 years old rather than 4 500 000 000 years old, or the universe itself being 14 000 000 000 years old? Oh wait. Some guy added up years from biblical genealogies and that tells us everything we need to know. Good grief.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #63]

Don't presume to tell me what the thread is about.

No need to ... it is obvious from your responses and nonanswers that you're not the least bit interested in how science works or what it has and has not worked out as far as cosmology and physics. You've already said you don't believe any of it and think Jesus created the universe some 6000 years ago (some 4000 years before he was born!).

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

Really? Do you know what spectroscopy is and how atoms and molecules absorb and emit light? Since you made no responses to any of that I assume the answer is no, but you certainly have not "addressed each item carefully" (unless that means not at all).

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.

Try reading prior posts in this thread.

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.

Shown? You haven't "shown" anything yet ... just posted your personal opinion on not believing science has worked out viable methods for determining the distance to stars. It is personal incredulity and nothing more. Give us some scientific reasons for claiming that time and space might not be "the same" outside of our solar system. Why should anyone believe this baseless claim? Explain why this Wikipedia article (and its 88 references) has it all wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

[Jose Fly]

And they desperately need some new material if they are going to be taken seriously at their science debunking efforts.

Oh for sure. Even years ago I started threads addressing that very topic, i.e., that creationist really, really need new arguments.

Look at TO's "Index to Creationist Claims" (https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html). It's 16 years old, yet it still covers pretty much every argument you'll see from just about every creationist you encounter.

The common argument dad1 is presenting (ie. we can't know anything about space or an environment unless we've physically been there or put a probe there) is old and tired, and completely devoid of any supporting rationale. But if you buy it, it can explain why the bible is right and science is wrong because virtually anything can be made to fit.

Oh I've seen dad do his same tired old schtick for years.

I've never understood why they bother trying to justify a young Earth via these very poor attempts to debunk science, and can't be happy to simply believe it on faith alone because the bible says so and leave it at that.

Because faith and religion aren't very persuasive and authoritative in today's society. If you try and tell people "X is true because the Bible says so" or "...because God revealed it to me", most folks will simply shrug and move on. But if you say "X is true because science has shown it to be", that definitely gets more people's attention.

That's why creationist organizations go through great effort to put up a scientific façade. They know as well as anyone else that they'll get more converts if they can fool folks into thinking their beliefs are scientifically supported.

It's always fascinated me how creationists distrust science ("works of man") while simultaneously craving its credibility.

[Jose Fly]

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".

Yeah, I'm familiar with creationists' refusal to acknowledge the value of expertise.

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.

No cosmologist I've ever met regards the cosmological principle as anything other than a reasonable working assumption.

If you'd been paying more attention you'd see that I cited this article.

Astronomers Cast Doubt on the Cosmological Principle.

e.g.

The survey collected articles which had observed gamma ray bursts of structures with sizes of gigaparsecs, which does not support the averaging put forth by the cosmological principle. “These results are at a strong contradiction with the cosmological principle, which requires a transition scale of homogeneity below the gigaparsec scale,” says Mészáros.

I'm content to let cosmologists do their own work.

Stop pretending that science is some kind of fanatical, dogmatic, intolerance of ideas; it isn't Jose, people are free to speculate any way they want to - all that matters is that their conclusions do not run contrary to observation which as you can see in this is precisely what's been observed with respect to the cosmological principle - which are after all, just assumptions.

Um....not sure where you got the idea that that's my view.

Time after time, many of the "scientism" devotees here in this forum reveal themselves to be the Spanish Inquisition all over again, lacking in the most basic appreciation of the subject's foundations.

Oh, you poor persecuted soul!

[Inquirer]

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".

Yeah, I'm familiar with creationists' refusal to acknowledge the value of expertise.

If "refusal to acknowledge the value of expertise" is how you really choose to interpret being disagreed with then that really is your problem not anyone else's.

[Inquirer]

Time after time, many of the "scientism" devotees here in this forum reveal themselves to be the Spanish Inquisition all over again, lacking in the most basic appreciation of the subject's foundations.

You're comparing discussions on this forum to the Spanish Inquisition?

Yes, it's a rather apt analogy. There are differences of course but from the point of view of evaluating the opinions of others from the viewpoint of conformity to dogma is a most striking similarity.

[Inquirer]

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.

You seem very confused brunumb.

You say that it's fine to examine discrepancies yet also that to disagree with "experts" is somehow not doing science.

Why do you object to questioning the cosmological principle? I just showed you an article where some cosmologists are doing exactly that!

[dad1]

For any point to be recognized, it still requires a focus ,it cant stand alone. Therefore creating a second point of reference.
one observation does not constitute one reference point.

Well, there goes your one observation point I guess. Now you have nothing by your standards

[dad1]

All you have done yourself is make a heap of unsupported claims. Just saying "science can't know" is an argument from ignorance.

Then show us how science knows or you speak in ignorance. You had you opportunity. What's wrong?

Science does know.

Now you make an unsupported claim and argument from ignorance! Pot, meet kettle.

Go read up on some of that science and learn how we came to know.

One would hope people do that before they post a thread or reply to one. What is your excuse?

If you disagree then explain by what mechanism time in different parts of the universe can result in Earth being 6000 years old rather than 4 500 000 000 years old, or the universe itself being 14 000 000 000 years old?

No one needs to present alternate beliefs when belief based models are offered. All we need to do is look at the basis for the models. Once they are clearly shown to have no basis in fact or evidence or knowledge whatsoever, then all we need to do is flush, not offer a new deposit.