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.

[Jose Fly]

I believe that we - humans - have no idea why we exist, what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, if you think you do the tell me - what is good? what is bad?

I've no interest in debating those things with a solipsist.

[help3434]

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.

So just toss Ockham's Razor out the window and come up with a convoluted and tortured explanation as to how your beliefs don't actually contradict the observed facts. I guess YEC couldn't survive otherwise.

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.

Basic tenants like... Ockham's Razor?

[Inquirer]

I believe that we - humans - have no idea why we exist, what is good and bad, what is right and wrong, if you think you do the tell me - what is good? what is bad?

I've no interest in debating those things with a solipsist.

That's because you'd do very badly if you did, so quite a wise decision.

[Inquirer]

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.

So just toss Ockham's Razor out the window and come up with a convoluted and tortured explanation as to how your beliefs don't actually contradict the observed facts. I guess YEC couldn't survive otherwise.

Ockham's razor is a principle not a law, not a rule. What I said is 100% true, in science and mathematics one is free to assume anything so long as the assumptions or consequences arising from it, do not lead to logical contradictions or conflict with observation, now, do you disagree with that or not?

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.

Basic tenants like... Ockham's Razor?

Please tell me, tell us all, about Ockham's razor! What is it exactly? is it a claim about the natural world? is it a testable, falsifiable hypothesis? go on, tell us all, I'd love to hear your views, I'd love to see your proof.

[help3434]

Ockham's razor is a principle not a law, not a rule.

Of course I know that. Do you have any particular reason for pointing that out? Are you under the impression that only scientific laws are important in when it comes to science?

What I said is 100% true, in science and mathematics one is free to assume anything so long as the assumptions or consequences arising from it, do not lead to logical contradictions or conflict with observation, now, do you disagree with that or not?

Of course you are free. The science police aren't going to come and arrest you for making assumptions. And of course other people are free to say that your assumptions aren't likely to be true.

Please tell me, tell us all, about Ockham's razor! What is it exactly? is it a claim about the natural world? is it a testable, falsifiable hypothesis? go on, tell us all, I'd love to hear your views, I'd love to see your proof.

You already correctly stated that it is a principle. The principle as Ockham said, "“plurality should not be posited without necessity." It is important in science because it is by this principle scientific knowledge is used to formulate scientific theories. That is why you can't just let your imagination go wild and concoct a wild, convoluted explanation with unwarranted assumptions to explain the known facts and expect that to be accepted as a sound theory.

[help3434]

This is a funny video that satirizes the whole "Where you there" argument vs Occam's Razor: