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.

[brunumb]

[Replying to dad1 in post #1]

Science, or more appropriately the scientific method, is not a thing or entity but a means by which people investigate this universe we find ourselves in. 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 about time and distance in space. Instead of coming to a religion forum to question these things, wouldn't it be logical to seek answers from more appropriate sources? As it is, I am satisfied that your question has probably been considered and and dismissed after thorough investigation of all the relevant data that has been accumulated since such research began. Nevertheless I look forward to what might emerge in this thread.

[Inquirer]

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.

You raise some great questions! One of the cornerstone assumptions of cosmology is that the universe is isotropic and homogenous, this is in fact known as the cosmological principle.

We certainly don't have the universal time that Newton asserted in the Principia, we now know that time is subjective, different observers can observe a "clock" and will note different observations, two events that might be simultaneous for one observer might not be so for some other observer - this is the essence of special relativity.

We cannot measure time or rates and so on, at remote locations without first assuming certain things, if we assume different things we'll get different results.

The cosmological principle is rational and reasonable but some cosmologists and theoretical physicists do question it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #1]

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.

First, there is no need to use cosmology in any way to prove that a six day creation only thousands of years ago (around 6000 per biblical chronology) it not how things happened (or a global flood some 4300 years ago, etc.). This can be debunked using geology, archeology, biology and genetics, and other areas of science without any consideration of cosmology.

But if you want to challenge the current understanding of how time behaves "out there", what alternative can you offer that makes more sense than how science presently treats the problem? What other descriptions or assumptions would help humans to better understand nature and the cosmos that isn't just entirely made up without any basis (or postulated simply because our present framework contradicts the biblical narrative, for example)?

All you've suggested is that time may behave differently and so the distances to stars derived from our present framework may be wrong. This doesn't help solve any problems, and is no different than Answers in Genesis (and other creationist organizations) putting forth the idea that a creator god being may have used "primordial material" with different radioactive decay rates than elements exhibit today? They offer that up with no supporting evidence other than that it is one possibility someone thought of that might explain meteorite dating and similar things that show that the Earth is, in fact, about 4.6 billion years old.

If you offered up some viable alternative to how time might behave "out there", then offered up some supporting evidence or rationale for it, it might be worthy of debate and discussion. But simply suggesting that time could behave differently far away from Earth leaves nothing to debate ... give us a reason to consider why this is even worth considering as an option.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to dad1 in post #1]
But if you want to challenge the current understanding of how time behaves "out there", what alternative can you offer that makes more sense than how science presently treats the problem? What other descriptions or assumptions would help humans to better understand nature and the cosmos that isn't just entirely made up without any basis (or postulated simply because our present framework contradicts the biblical narrative, for example)?

This is a logical fallacy probably an example of the "false dilemma" fallacy.

Note:

A false dilemma is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.

You are limiting the options by saying "unless you have an alternative to the cosmological principle then you have no place questioning it".

This position incidentally is known as "dogma":

...is applied to some strong belief (i.e. the cosmological principle is true) which its adherents are not willing to discuss rationally.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #3]

We certainly don't have the universal time that Newton asserted in the Principia, we now know that time is subjective, different observers can observe a "clock" and will note different observations, two events that might be simultaneous for one observer might not be so for some other observer - this is the essence of special relativity.

But what ties the clocks and observers together is the constancy of the vacuum speed of light. Einstein's Relativity describes what different observers will see in different reference frames that are moving relative to each other (constant velocity (Special), or accelerating (General)) and better describe what we actually see. We can get better GPS locations by making relativistic corrections to the clock on the satellites, better predict the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, etc. using Einstein's results. It extends Newton and provides better accuracy, and it makes sense to assume that it is a better description of the real world in cases where Newton's simpler description from 200+ years (!) earlier fell short (in those times they were more interested in having the cannonball hit the castle at the right place, and Newton's formulas were just fine).

We cannot measure time or rates and so on, at remote locations without first assuming certain things, if we assume different things we'll get different results.

What justification would there be for assuming that the vacuum speed of light is NOT constant? What justiication would there be for assuming that the universe is NOT expanding as red shifts indicate? The goal of science is to try and explain nature and constantly update its assumptions and analysis based on observations. When we can directly measure photons on Earth that came from a distant star and see the spectrum of hydrogen with its line pattern exactly the same as we see it on Earth, but shifted to longer wavelengths. There is a lot of variation in the amount of red shift between different stars and galaxies that is consistent with an expanding universe and the distances to those emitters, and it is also direct observational evidence that hydrogen atoms have the same atomic structure and energy levels as hydrogen atoms here on Earth (otherwise they would not have the same emission spectrum). It isn't all guesswork but has a solid observational basis.

We could assume different things about the speed of light, or what causes redshifts, but why do that? There would have to be some justification for it (besides support of a religious belief, for example).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #5]

This is a logical fallacy probably an example of the "false dilemma" fallacy.

No it isn't.

You are limiting the options by saying "unless you have an alternative to the cosmological principle then you have no place questioning it".

No again. I'm saying that wild guesses without any observational support or justification are useless at helping to explain things. You can question the cosmological principle all day, but without a better explanation, or some evidence to support a claim that it is incorrect, you're just rambling.

This position incidentally is known as "dogma":

So now you're claiming that science is dogma. Got it. Good luck selling that one!

[dad1]

[Replying to dad1 in post #1]

Science, or more appropriately the scientific method, is not a thing or entity but a means by which people investigate this universe we find ourselves in. 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 about time and distance in space. Instead of coming to a religion forum to question these things, wouldn't it be logical to seek answers from more appropriate sources? As it is, I am satisfied that your question has probably been considered and and dismissed after thorough investigation of all the relevant data that has been accumulated since such research began. Nevertheless I look forward to what might emerge in this thread.

Yes. The implication is clear

[dad1]

We cannot measure time or rates and so on, at remote locations without first assuming certain things, if we assume different things we'll get different results.

The cosmological principle is rational and reasonable but some cosmologists and theoretical physicists do question it.

So give an example about how if we assume time is different, the results regarding the far universe change. I thought I did, in that if time itself were different, then what is a million years here might be 4 seconds out there. How that would change things is that a star would not be a million light years away, it may be actually 40 light days away.

[Inquirer]

We cannot measure time or rates and so on, at remote locations without first assuming certain things, if we assume different things we'll get different results.

The cosmological principle is rational and reasonable but some cosmologists and theoretical physicists do question it.

So give an example about how if we assume time is different, the results regarding the far universe change. I thought I did, in that if time itself were different, then what is a million years here might be 4 seconds out there. How that would change things is that a star would not be a million light years away, it may be actually 40 light days away.

Well what do you want to assume? that clocks far away tick more slowly? or something else? I'm not sure what you're asking here.