Time is real. Human or not. Animals do things in a certain amount of time, including live their lives. It is natural for us to think of and even try to define time in terms of how it unfolds. That is not what time IS. That is a human attempt to shelve it neatly as possible into our understanding and science.
All your claims here (about time) are unsupported and,
by your own words, are attempts to press your individually held beliefs, by making assertions based on those alone.
What I posted was how science treats time and were supported with external references.
'What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' .. (so I am fully justified in dismissing what you've said).
dad said:
The issue of what time is does not center around humans trying to organize words to fit what we see. What time is is bigger than man. You may name time as you like. You may come up with names for periods of time, but that does not address what time IS. At best you could say that..for all intents and purposes, such words and conceptualizing of what time is like is a working definition for science.
What do you expect?
I am a human .. So are you.
Humans gave you your concept of time.
Humans gave you the meaning of your words.
Humans invented science.
There's no use denying any of that .. (and demonstrating it would be inanely puerile) ..
Yet you persist in those denials!
dad said:
Yes. If we see a decay of isotopes on earth happen at a certain rate, then that rate of time is assigned to that isotope half life decay. If we identify that isotope in a spectrum of light streaming in from beyond this fishbowl, we will see that same rate of decay I would suspect.
Err .. What? Where did all that come from? References please?
dad said:
Why? Because we see it in our time! That does not speak to time out there! Therefore this fishbowl clock is set to the fishbowl only as far as we know.
You cannot decouple what
'we see' from our notion of time.
That was the whole point of what I wrote.
You even used the word 'IS' multiple times over above .. yet you have not shown what you mean by this term independently from any other human mind.
dad said:
So TIME IN THE FAR UNIVERSE IS NOT OBJECTIVELY OBSERVED!
Where's your evidence?
Because you're up against abundant objective evidence to the contrary.
Science 'owns' what 'objective' means you know .. like it or not!
dad said:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why did you repeat my quote from Wiki? Incongruous. I don't have a clue why you did that. Explain.
dad said:
Using time as a part of a drawing in space is all well and good, but does not really tell us what time is. That is just assigning time a letter in an equation, that is supposed to REPRESENT something. ..What exactly science does not know.
Humans perceive and then conceptualise by creating models using language in their descriptions of what they perceive. There is abundant objective evidence and tests for demonstrating that .. you are producing the results of that testing process in your very posts.
You have no evidence or tests for supporting your incessant assertions about 'what time IS' thus far, in this duplicate of many other of your engagements with me (
see here, for eg) and others, on this exact same topic. When are you going to present that evidence instead of just repeating your claim?
dad said:
Well, if you can think of it as some invariant part of a coordinate system for no real reason, I can think of it as possibly very variant! What goes around comes around. So from a Christian or creation standpoint, what is the best fit? One concept leaves earth as the center of the universe clock and stars at an unknown time away from us....(and therefore distance of course). And the other leaves earth a meaningless little speck in an uncreated universe that is far older than the creation in Genesis! Why would I pick one over the other for NO reason?
Fine then.
So you recuse yourself from making any statements or claims based on the produce of scientific research because you see '
NO reason' for doing so ..
dad said:
Show us how this applies to the distant universe regarding time then!? It is one thing to draw a little map based on the realities on earth and solar system here, and then say it applies to the universe...and another thing to show proof.
I don't care for proofs .. because that ain't what science is about. I can make that claim whereas you can't be because you just recused yourself from making claims based on behalf of science.
You should show that you're at least
actively listening to the responses other folk are making in this thread though .. out of courtesy and because you
started this thread .. (For example: responses describing time independent Euclidean parallax measurements, with which I independently concur).
dad said:
I assign time as being relative to God's creation which has man and earth at top dead center! The bible even associates the creation of stars with time and seasons for man! Since you cannot see time, and do not even know what it IS, looks like claims about time especially in the far universe are NOT based on fat or knowledge. Now in this forum people can no longer refer to beliefs used by science as beliefs or religion, so I won't go there. But here is your chance to show us they are more! Ha.
Sure ..
'
A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason'.
Science does not hold any of its models as being
'true' for any reason .. science
tests them.
Time is testable because:
Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.
There are no prerequisted beliefs called for before undertaking the scientific process .. because science
ignores those
beliefs whilst it goes about its business of objective testing.
dad said:
Not sure I need science to be able to verify what we all know and experience? The fact that it can't says a lot about claims based on using time in cosmological math!
Scientific tests must be objectively defined, repeatable and independently verifiable.
The 'cosmological math' you refer to, is a description of a conceptualised physical model described using math syntax and is tested using math's axiomatically based logic processes in order to maintain integrity and consistency.
The model is then subjected to objective tests or observations.
The model is either then verified or not verified.
Your claim that science doesn't do any of the above is nonsensical, given that the process I just gave above, is part of the
scientific process.
dad said:
You have not shown you know what time is, not given any indication science does. Keep that in mind if you proceed anywhere.
Oh yes I have ... but you have to actually
look objectively at what I've posted in order to see that.