Real time or evo time?

[dad]

But that hasn't happened.

You not admitting science is based on religious twaddle does not mean it isn't. Since you dare not debate on specific issues all you can do is wave. Good luck with that.

 

[AirPo]

You not admitting science is based on religious twaddle does not mean it isn't. Since you dare not debate on specific issues all you can do is wave. Good luck with that.

Claiming that it is based on religious twaddle does not mean it is. Since The HI Theory dare not debate on specific issues all you can do is make things up, wave, and deny.

 

[dad]

Claiming that it is based on religious twaddle does not mean it is.

Some of us have actually put issues on the table, and debated, rather than waving and nonsense. So we know that science actually uses certain things as a basis for it's methodology and models. Either you get up to speed and then try to defend that, or have your posts remain relegated to utter insignificance.

 

[AirPo]

Some of us have actually put issues on the table, and debated, rather than waving and nonsense. So we know that science actually uses certain things as a basis for it's methodology and models. Either you get up to speed and then try to defend that, or have your posts remain relegated to utter insignificance.

You are not one of them .

 

[SelfSim]

Tomato, tomatoe. Time is a not a physical anything.

A quantity is measurable. I think that makes the measure of it, at least, 'physical' (using your venacular?)

To refer to something in a way that pictures a truth is OK.

I can live with that.
And the scientific process isn't really concerned with posited 'truths'. It tests posits (as hypotheses) and seeks results .. that's all.

Because man does not know if there even is time as we thik of it in the far universe. When they include time in their formulas and math, and size and distance calculations...they are dreaming in technicolor. Doing so is blind faith only.

The 'time' included in the math descriptions in Physics, only refers to its measure as per the Wiki definition I provided. That's as far as it goes. Science uses this measurable, physical quantity definition because its a useful way of achieving the objectivity goals of 'doing science'.

What time 'is' or 'isn't', is a philosophical matter, which makes it of no concern in science. One can adopt a philosophical position on it, or not .. and this doesn't affect what the scientific process demands of a scientist whilst doing science.
I think I understand the issue you've raised in your OP, and I think its a fair one, (any particular added mind-dependent reality bits-and-pieces we have (like your 'truth pictures', etc), are really just personal 'add-ons' at the end of the day).

That must be shown, not just spoken into being.

Fair enough.
Of course physical measurements of something defined as being a physical quantity can be executed remotely from Earth's surface (by using telescopes for accurately measuring orbits of remote bodies, etc).

It probably doesn't concern itself with such high minded nonsense. Probably just does what it was made to do, in the place it finds itself, and has no interest in ungodly alternate creation schemes.

Do ya reckon a virus ponders 'goldy creation schemes'?

Baseless religious twaddle then. OK.

No .. its just that religion plays no active role when following the scientific process. There are lots of religious folk doing great science, to y'know. Different modes of thinking.

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using aforce that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.."

wiki

That is impossible to prove for the distant universe.

Well if one leaves 'proofs' to mathematicians and philosophers, one can measure the orbits of distant planets and find that the results match up with the predictions of Newton's law. By inference, one can gain some confidence that the next time one performs the same measurements elsewhere, the results might also line up with Newton's law predictions. (This process of course, also brings in other Laws commonly referred to as Celestial Mechanics .. eg: Kepler's laws of planetary motion, etc).

Just because parts of an atom orbit, for example, does not mean gravity is involved.

It also doesn't mean that gravity is absent, either?

Merely having gravity at work on physical bodies does not tell us how big or far away those bodies are! Nor does it tell us if there is anything else at work, that is unseen, and unknown. Etc.

Depends on the specifics of each case. There's lots of other physical laws that make predictions about such aspects. They also tell us which physical quantities can be measured and make predictions of their value(s), so that we can test out those theories/laws, (which then gives us confidence that those theories/laws give accurate predictions). That's what science is/does.

 

[dad]

You are not one of them .

Actually I am able to discuss the nitty gritty of creation issues. You should be so lucky.

 

[dad]

A quantity is measurable. I think that makes the measure of it, at least, 'physical' (using your venacular?)

Man measures here on and near earth. Time exists here. We use it in measures of the far universe as if time also existed there. Total belief.

I can live with that.
And the scientific process isn't really concerned with posited 'truths'. It tests posits (as hypotheses) and seeks results .. that's all.

Like a little boy emptying the ocean with his teaspoon. He tries...but has limited abilities.

The 'time' included in the math descriptions in Physics, only refers to its measure as per the Wiki definition I provided. That's as far as it goes. Science uses this measurable, physical quantity definition because its a useful way of achieving the objectivity goals of 'doing science'.

That measure only applies here in the ;and of time. We measure things IN time because time exists HERE.

What time 'is' or 'isn't', is a philosophical matter, which makes it of no concern in science. One can adopt a philosophical position on it, or not .. and this doesn't affect what the scientific process demands of a scientist whilst doing science.

What time is must matter to science or it is in the dark.

I think I understand the issue you've raised in your OP, and I think its a fair one, (any particular added mind-dependent reality bits-and-pieces we have (like your 'truth pictures', etc), are really just personal 'add-ons' at the end of the day).

Or adjectives and ways to describe things.

Fair enough.
Of course physical measurements of something defined as being a physical quantity can be executed remotely from Earth's surface (by using telescopes for accurately measuring orbits of remote bodies, etc).

The measure is always and only here on earth and nearby. Therefore time must be a part of the measure...here.

Well if one leaves 'proofs' to mathematicians and philosophers, one can measure the orbits of distant planets and find that the results match up with the predictions of Newton's law. By inference, one can gain some confidence that the next time one performs the same measurements elsewhere, the results might also line up with Newton's law predictions. (This process of course, also brings in other Laws commonly referred to as Celestial Mechanics .. eg: Kepler's laws of planetary motion, etc).
It also doesn't mean that gravity is absent, either?

Give an example.

Depends on the specifics of each case. There's lots of other physical laws that make predictions about such aspects. They also tell us which physical quantities can be measured and make predictions of their value(s), so that we can test out those theories/laws, (which then gives us confidence that those theories/laws give accurate predictions). That's what science is/does.

Only as long as the laws we know will exist and did exist...how long the did or will is the question!

 

[RealityCheck01]

The creation tales from demented so called science is made up.

There is a real thing called science, dad. It is not "demented". It does not contain "creation tales". There are scientific theories about what came before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. They are speculative because they only make few testable predictions.

If you do decide to learn about science and the Big Bang then you will learn that current physics cannot say anything about the beginning of the universe at t=0 because known physics breaks down there. We can however extrapolate to a very small time before t = 0 (10^−43 seconds).

dad: I noticed you liked to Did God Create the Universe?
Unfortunately this article misleads its readers.

• As noted above we do not know what happened at t=0 so "Then in a cosmic explosion--the Big Bang--the universe came into being" is wrong.
• The early universe was not just "full of light" - it was a quark plasma full of quarks and photons.
• The author disproves his own argument with a Weinberg quote:
  

  Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, gives further description, "At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence,

• Steady State theory was not a "relief" to many astronomers.
  A minority of astronomers supported it. The majority were comfortable with a Big Bang.
• The section title "Beginning of the Universe - Science Confirms" is basically a lie because science has no way of confirming whether the universe had a beginning or not.

 

[dad]

There is a real thing called science, dad.

Right, and it really assumes the same laws in the past. They really model accordingly.

It is not "demented". It does not contain "creation tales".

Every origins fable that oozes out of their ungodly mouths that they have ungodly spoken are demented demon tales of the damned.

There are scientific theories about what came before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

There is no proof for the BB or any insane precursor. The redshift and etc they use to reverse expand the universe all are faith based idiocies.

They are speculative because they only make few testable predictions.

ONLY IN the fishbowl of the present state near earth are any actual predictions viable or existent. The foolish usurping circular reasoning so called predictions of things like the CMB could just as easily be read as a creation microwave background.

If you do decide to learn about science and the Big Bang then you will learn that current physics cannot say anything about the beginning of the universe at t=0 because known physics breaks down there.

I been there done that, and flushed the tripe.

We can however extrapolate to a very small time before t = 0 (10^−43 seconds).

Filthy dreamers of so called science can fantasize till the cows come home for all sane men care.

 

[SelfSim]

Man measures here on and near earth. Time exists here. We use it in measures of the far universe as if time also existed there. Total belief.

No not 'belief' .. 'Beliefs' can be distinguished along the lines of: "notions held as being true for any reason".
Science's definition of 'time' however, is chosen for a very specific reason ... ie: empirical objective testing. It therefore differs from a 'belief'.

To accomodate science's specific mind-dependent reality, I would word your statement differently:

"Man measures time here on, and near earth. Man exists here. We use time in measurements of the far universe, as if time also existed there. This is a scientific thinker's mind dependent reality and it is used as a convenient means for making sense of consistencies between what we observe both locally, and from the far universe".

Science's goal is to be an internally consistent method for making sense of our perceptions. It is very sensitive to detecting consistencies, especially consistencies between both local and remotely sourced observations.

Like a little boy emptying the ocean with his teaspoon. He tries...but has limited abilities.

An opinion .. (nothing more).

What time is must matter to science or it is in the dark.

Time is a quantity able to be measured. This has been demonstrated as being incredibly useful by science. (I doubt we'd be having this conversation in this electronic medium if it wasn't).

Or adjectives and ways to describe things.

'Descriptions' are models ... and that's what minds create. 'Reality' is one such description (or model). Science only demonstrably deals in a version of reality that is mind dependent, and it only needs that concept of reality to function, (a 'mind-dependent concept of reality' here, means a recognition that the goal of science is to use our minds, to make sense of our perceptions, with no requirement whatsoever, for any part of that process to be independent of our minds, or any need to imagine that the process "refers to" anything mind independent).

Give an example.

Your post quoted two parts of my response. I'm not sure which part you would like an example for. Please clarify.

Only as long as the laws we know will exist and did exist...how long the did or will is the question!

The laws come 'into existence' (ie: objective reality) whenever their predictions are validated by testing. They do not 'exist' (scientifically) as something independent from our minds. They are descriptions which are useful for consistently explaining our perceptions (or observations). Their predictions give us some measure of confidence prior to actually conducting the tests.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Right, and it really assumes the same laws in the past.

A reasonable assumption that is tested as much as possible in science.
As an example: how stars work is a mixture of nuclear physics, gravitation and gas laws. When we look at stars we see light from the past. So a galaxy a billion light years away is a billon years old. But there is no evidence that the stars in far galaxies are different from local stars. So we have laws of physics that have not changed measurably over changes of billons of years.

A spate of profanity and insults about people is not what I would expect in a Christian forum, dad.

I will address some ignorance:
Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology: What is the evidence for the Big Bang?
This is science
This is the the Big Bang.

 

[AirPo]

Actually I am able to discuss the nitty gritty of creation issues. You should be so lucky.

But can't figure out which forum sanctimonious preaching belongs in. And making stuff up is not nitty gritty. It's just making stuff up.

 

[dad]

But can't figure out which forum sanctimonious preaching belongs in. And making stuff up is not nitty gritty. It's just making stuff up.

Great so post some science based arguments featuring the premises of the issues. At least try to sound a little scienmatiifc.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Great so post some science based arguments featuring the premises of the issues.

How about you state the "premises of the issues" clearly first, dad.
Looking back I can only see some denial of what science contains and opinions with no evidence. The OP starts badly with "Imaginary time used by science..." with an actually imaginary "evo time".

A science based argument that time is real for you dad.
Snow falls on the Antarctic continent. During summer dust is mixed with the snow making it darker than winter snow. The snow is compacted into ice. A core from the ice will have dark layers corresponding to the annual addition of dust in summer. This is a natural calendar. So we count the layers to get a calendar - the Vostok ice cores go back 420,000 years.

Ditto for maybe hundreds of other ice cores taken all over the world which cover from thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

What changes in the laws of physics do you propose to explain measurements of ice being up to 420,000 years old, dad?

You have missed:

As an example: how stars work is a mixture of nuclear physics, gravitation and gas laws. When we look at stars we see light from the past. So a galaxy a billion light years away is a billon years old. But there is no evidence that the stars in far galaxies are different from local stars. So we have laws of physics that have not changed measurably over changes of billons of years.

 

[AirPo]

Great so post some science based arguments featuring the premises of the issues. At least try to sound a little scienmatiifc.

And why would I want to do that?

 

[dad]

No not 'belief' .. 'Beliefs' can be distinguished along the lines of: "notions held as being true for any reason".

Then post the reason. At least tell us what you are talking about, and maybe others can help tell you the reasons science says such and such about it.

Science's definition of 'time' however, is chosen for a very specific reason ... ie: empirical objective testing. It therefore differs from a 'belief'.

Utterly false. Only when in the fishbowl of earth and near earth does the definition even partly apply.

To accomodate science's specific mind-dependent reality, I would word your statement differently:

"Man measures time here on, and near earth. Man exists here. We use time in measurements of the far universe, as if time also existed there. This is a scientific thinker's mind dependent reality and it is used as a convenient means for making sense of consistencies between what we observe both locally, and from the far universe".

False. That is just the way the ungodly try to make sense of creation. Science may measure time but can't even really get a handle on what it actually is...even here.

Science's goal is to be an internally consistent method for making sense of our perceptions.

Circular reasoning and inbred thinking then.

It is very sensitive to detecting consistencies, especially consistencies between both local and remotely sourced observations.

As seen and felt and experienced on earth...and no matter how remote things are that we see...we only see them HERE.

Time is a quantity able to be measured.

Only here in the fishbowl earth.

This has been demonstrated as being incredibly useful by science. (I doubt we'd be having this conversation in this electronic medium if it wasn't).

A watch is useful, as is a laptop...however, they have zero to do with whether time exists in the far universe.

'Descriptions' are models ... and that's what minds create. 'Reality' is one such description (or model).

God and the spirtual are part of the reality of man, and any methodology that ignores that, is mickey mouse.

Science only demonstrably deals in a version of reality that is mind dependent, and it only needs that concept of reality to function, (a 'mind-dependent concept of reality' here, means a recognition that the goal of science is to use our minds, to make sense of our perceptions, with no requirement whatsoever, for any part of that process to be independent of our minds, or any need to imagine that the process "refers to" anything mind independent).

No reality is mind dependent, the mind is just a detector. A good mind will also include God in it's little calculations.

Your post quoted two parts of my response. I'm not sure which part you would like an example for. Please clarify.
The laws come 'into existence' (ie: objective reality) whenever their predictions are validated by testing. They do not 'exist' (scientifically) as something independent from our minds. They are descriptions which are useful for consistently explaining our perceptions (or observations). Their predictions give us some measure of confidence prior to actually conducting the tests.

You mentioned "one can measure the orbits of distant planets and find that the results match up with the predictions of Newton's law.."

Now give an example of doing this in the far universe.

 

[dad]

And why would I want to do that?

Because you feel some compunction to post on evo time versus real time, and have something of substance to contribute.

 

[dad]

How about you state the "premises of the issues" clearly first, dad.

The mother of all premises science uses is assuming the same laws existed in the past. THAT is the premise of all models of origins from science. 100%. What a scam.

Looking back I can only see some denial of what science contains and opinions with no evidence.

Be specific and tell us what 'science contains'??!! Otherwise ye be chewin cud.

The OP starts badly with "Imaginary time used by science..." with an actually imaginary "evo time".

That is correct. The faith based foolish times of origin sciences are trash. Worthless. Garbage. Wrong. Unsupportable.

A science based argument that time is real for you dad.
Snow falls on the Antarctic continent. During summer dust is mixed with the snow making it darker than winter snow. The snow is compacted into ice. A core from the ice will have dark layers corresponding to the annual addition of dust in summer. This is a natural calendar. So we count the layers to get a calendar - the Vostok ice cores go back 420,000 years.

False dichotomy. Yes snow behaves a certain way in our climate and nature and state of forces and laws. Only by assuming that nature and laws were the same did you cook up the silly 420,000 year thing. A good example of imaginary evo time.

Ditto for maybe hundreds of other ice cores taken all over the world which cover from thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.

Ditto indeed.

What changes in the laws of physics do you propose to explain measurements of ice being up to 420,000 years old, dad?

Think bigger! Not changes IN the laws of physics. Different laws!


Be amazed.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Now give an example of doing this in the far universe.

That question is a bit ignorant, dad, because it is impossible to observe planets around stars outside of the Milky Way. When we look at other orbits, e.g. stars in the Milky Way, then we see that there is not enough visible matter to explain the velocity of the stars as they get further from the center of the galaxy. Thus dark matter which is supported by about 9 lines of evidence. Therefore no one expects to confirm Newtonian gravitation in the far universe. A minority of scientists support modifying Newtonian mechanics to explain the evidence for dark matter.

Obviously time exists in the far universe - we see light from stars in the far universe ! The same processes that occur over time in local stars like the Sun are happening in the far universe.

 

[AirPo]

Because you feel some compunction to post on evo time versus real time, and have something of substance to contribute.

Pointing out the farce of evo time versus real time is something of substance. Especially compared to the premise of the thread in the first place.