Real time or evo time?

[dad]

What a pathetic attempt to divert from the issue that you are incapable of thinking for yourself by now trying to set up deals and conditions for making responses.
Let me play along with your silly little game......momentarily.

Speaking of momentarily, I see this about light cones in wiki..

"In special and general relativity, a light cone is the path that a flash of light, emanating from a single event (localized to a single point in space and a single moment in time) and traveling in all directions, would take through spacetime."

Hoo ha!!!! Now what if there were no time in the far universe, what happens to your little cone??!

I don't answer your "questions" for the simple reason there is no honest intent behind them.

Speaking of honesty, you can't. That seems to be why. How's them apples?

On the subject of light cones you had already decided through your own ignorance, stupidity and bigotry ("You need to show why we should accept your childish notion of space and time (Minkowski)......") that any answer I provide would automatically fall on deaf ears.

There is your little canard again, red herring. You toss it out and do no by explaining how it relates to the issue of no time in the far universe. A scientific or other discussion should deal with specific points.

But since you raised it again, I also see this in the wiki article

"Because signals and other causal influences cannot travel faster than light (see special relativity and quantum entanglement), the light cone plays an essential role in defining the concept of causality: for a given event E, the set of events that lie on or inside the past light cone of E would also be the set of all events that could send a signal that would have time to reach E and influence it in some way."

------------ Now if we look at causality, we see it means this

"Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first."

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

So in the case of you trying to apply it to the unknown far universe we see purest circular reasoning! The fishbowl is like this...so the far universe is like this...etc! Hoo ha.

Where exactly in the 45 pages of this thread have you addressed the scientific issues that time doesn't exist "out there"

It should then be a simple thing for you to show us hard evidence that they do exist out there if they did!! I have not seen one page or sentence where you did this or tried. You lose. Run along.

, instead of engaging in highly offensive behaviour such as cowardly hiding behind the Bible and calling individuals evil.

The truth is I call lies evil. Name one individual I called evil!!?? Busted ye be.

 

[dad]

Time need not exist for one to see that the star is there. You've failed, as always.

False. You would not exist except time existed here. There is no way light here can be seen without time is there? Explain?

Here I thought you were slowly building up to some point of possible merit, and you pop off this??

 

[TLK Valentine]

False. You would not exist except time existed here. There is no way light here can be seen without time is there? Explain?

I exist. Ergo, time exists where I am.

You exist. Ergo, time exists where you are.

The star we see up in the sky exists. Ergo, time exists where it is.

Seems like you just torpedoed your excuse for not giving a straight answer. You still fail, as always.

Here I thought you were slowly building up to some point of possible merit,

Luckily, I harbored no such feelings concerning you -- I knew, as always, that all I had to do is let you babble yourself into a corner.... now we just need to get out to popcorn and watch you come unglued.

 

[dad]

I exist. Ergo, time exists where I am.

You exist. Ergo, time exists where you are.

The star we see up in the sky exists. Ergo, time exists where it is.

False logic. You exist where you are..not where the star is!! You see the star here. All you do is here. Face it.

Seems like you just torpedoed your excuse for not giving a straight answer. You still fail, as always.

As desperate as you may be to win, sorry. Boy did you lose on that attempt.

Luckily, I harbored no such feelings concerning you -- I knew, as always, that all I had to do is let you babble yourself into a corner.... now we just need to get out to popcorn and watch you come unglued.

Speaking of babble, no idea what you are babbling about now. Take it like a man. Learn from it.

 

[sjastro]

Speaking of momentarily, I see this about light cones in wiki..

"In special and general relativity, a light cone is the path that a flash of light, emanating from a single event (localized to a single point in space and a single moment in time) and traveling in all directions, would take through spacetime."
Hoo ha!!!! Now what if there were no time in the far universe, what happens to your little cone??!

The answer is ridiculously simple.
An event is associated with time, whether it be cosmological time, the time on an observer's watch etc.
If in the far reaches of the Universe if there is no time, THERE IS NO EVENT, and therefore there is no past or future light cone in the observer's frame of reference.
The fact that we can observe the past light cones of galaxies billions of light years away indicates that time does exist to the observable reaches of the Universe.

It makes your red herring nonsense of bringing causality into the picture irrelevant since no time=no event=no cause=no effect.

It should then be a simple thing for you to show us hard evidence that they do exist out there if they did!! I have not seen one page or sentence where you did this or tried. You lose. Run along.

Already done, if time doesn't exist objects are not observable as the event of photons emanating from the object never occurred.
The hard evidence is that objects are observable up to the Universe's event horizon
Touche.

 

[TLK Valentine]

False logic. You exist where you are..not where the star is!! You see the star here. All you do is here. Face it.

Are you claiming that stars don't actually exist?

 

[RealityCheck01]

We have covered

• Parallax (a concept that children can understand)
• Parallax applied to clusters of stars
• Secular Parallax
• Cepheid variables (high school level science)
• Type 1a supernova (first year astronomy students)

This is the real world, not A long list of denied science, unanswered questions, fantasies, delusion, etc. started on 4 August 2016 for dad.

The ABC's of Distances lists 26 methods and the next three methods are
Statistical Parallax

When the stars have measured radial velocities, then the scatter in their proper motions can be used to determine the mean distance. It is
(scatter in VR)[in cm/sec]
D[in cm] = ----------------------------------------
(scatter in d(theta)/dt)[in radians/sec]

Kinematic Distance

The pattern of differential rotation in our galaxy can be used to determine the distance of a source when its radial velocity is known.

Expansion Parallax

The distance to an expanding object like a supernova remnant such as Tycho can be determined by measuring:

1. the angular expansion rate d(theta)/dt using pictures taken many years apart, and
2. the radial velocity of expansion, VR, using the Doppler shift of lines emitted from the front and back of the expanding shell. When a spectrograph is pointed at the center of the remnant a double line is seen, with the red shifted emission coming from the back of the shell while the blue shifted emission comes from the front.

The distance is then calculated using
D = VR/d(theta)/dt with theta in radians

This method is subject to a systematic error when the velocity of the material behind the shock is less than the velocity of the shock. In supernova remnants in the adiabatic phase this is in fact the case, with VR = 0.75 V(shock), so the calculated distance can be too small by 25%.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You see the star here.

Well , dad!
We detect the light emitted from a star in telescopes here in the Solar System. It is that which makes time stopping at distance X from us a delusion because we detect the light from stars up to about 13 billion light years which is beyond your mythical X.

Maybe we have the really delusional thought that stars only exist in telescopes ?

 

[AirPo]

You've failed, as always.

You still fail, as always.

Undefeated at failing.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You see the star here.

But we know the star isn't here. The star is there.

Do you know the star is there?

 

[dad]

The answer is ridiculously simple.
An event is associated with time, whether it be cosmological time, the time on an observer's watch etc.
If in the far reaches of the Universe if there is no time, THERE IS NO EVENT,

Nope, you don't get to make stuff up! Prove it. The bible indicates time is not universal in a way you claim. Even if the universe did have to operate according to our peabrain little ideas somewhat, and time was required, the question would become..how much time? If time exited in a different way, that is, that there was less time needed for events in far space, then we could not use our fishbowl earth as the measure for how much time was needed! Or, if there were no time as we think of it, then no time would be needed for events, regardless of how it seems to us, and whether it was intuitive or not!! So you do not know. Face it.

and therefore there is no past or future light cone in the observer's frame of reference.

False, your premise was just demolished, so forget the therefore...!!!

The fact that we can observe the past light cones of galaxies billions of light years away indicates that time does exist to the observable reaches of the Universe.

Cones? Where do we point a telescope to see one of these time cones?! Or are they imaginary? Keep us posted.

It makes your red herring nonsense of bringing causality into the picture irrelevant since no time=no event=no cause=no effect.

Angels do not need time, as I referenced in the example of Gabriel. Since you do not know what spiritual component may exist in deep space, or what time and space mix...you simply have no way to declare time is there and a limit for events. Here in the fishbowl..yes. Obviously. Think out of the box.

Already done, if time doesn't exist objects are not observable as the event of photons emanating from the object never occurred.

False. The way light behaves here in time and space of man is nothing more than the way it comes down for us here. You may not declare the universe to be the same.

The hard evidence is that objects are observable up to the Universe's event horizon
Touche.

Event horizon is a buzzword for how far you can see from the fishbowl. You can't see space or time by the way! So how much time exists way out there you do not know. Period.

 

[dad]

But we know the star isn't here. The star is there.

Do you know the star is there?

Very good. I agree the star is not here. Anything else??

 

[dad]

We have covered

• Parallax (a concept that children can understand)
• Parallax applied to clusters of stars
• Cepheid variables (high school level science)
• Type 1a supernova (first year astronomy students)

The usual rather deluded (time stops so stars & galaxies in the night sky do not exist!, spacetime does the fandango!) replies from dad - see A long list of science, questions, fantasies, etc. started on 4 August 2016 for dad.

The ABC's of Distances lists 26 methods and the next is Secular Parallax

You do realize the base line for parallax is in time and space here?

 

[dad]

Are you claiming that stars don't actually exist?

The little lights we call stars exist out in God's creation, yes, of course. They are not what you thought, when you thought, or maybe even where you thought! Work on that!

 

[dad]

Well , dad!
We detect the light emitted from a star in telescopes here in the Solar System.

Yes light comes here, that is what it is supposed to do. Of course you detect it here.

It is that which makes time stopping at distance X from us a delusion because we detect the light from stars up to about 13 billion light years which is beyond your mythical X.

Closed minded nonsense. Utterly ignorant babble. Nothing takes a billion years unless there is time for it to do that! You do not know time exists in deep space as it does here. The billions of years are religious dreams.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Very good. I agree the star is not here. Anything else??

Do you believe the star is there?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The little lights we call stars exist out in God's creation, yes, of course. They are not what you thought, when you thought, or maybe even where you thought! Work on that!

But they do exist, correct? You see them, they're there? Right?

Or is this line of thinking too abstract for you?

 

[dad]

Do you believe the star is there?

Yes, but that does not mean I believe a star is what science posits, and came from where it thinks.

 

[dad]

But they do exist, correct? You see them, they're there? Right?

Or is this line of thinking too abstract for you?

Speaking of abstract, you do realize that you see stars here near or on earth, right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Yes, but that does not mean I believe a star is what science posits, and came from where it thinks.

But the star is there. Meaning time exists there, otherwise, you wouldn't be able to see it.