What is time?
- Thread starter dad
- Start date
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
You and I have talked about this before too. I have to agree with @Ken Rank though, you really do wear your ignorance as armour, completely discarding any and all points that disagree with you or that you don't (or won't?) understand. As a refresher, here's how we know the nature of time throughout the universe:
Parallax,
Spectral Analysis,
Observed exoplanet transits,
Type 1a Supernova
Hubble's Law
Theory of Relativity (both General and Special)
Spectral Analysis,
Observed exoplanet transits,
Type 1a Supernova
Hubble's Law
Theory of Relativity (both General and Special)
All of these have been used to cross-verify the other methods to varying degrees. We've built predictive models that give us useful and accurate results and your denial of all this is never going to change these facts. I think at one time, you were trying to say that there was no time where these other stars were (which is patently nonsense) despite them emitting light consistent with nuclear fusion at comparable time to our own.
In any case, fwiw - Time is an intrinsic property of this universe and varies with gravity and velocity currently best predicted by Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We've been able to verify and in fact use these theories to put satellites in orbit, setup and run GPS systems accurately and even communicate with probes around and past gravitational wells that cause these time variances.
Do you have a model that has a better predictive framework that is able to provide useful and usable results?
Upvote
0
Your circular arguments do not even address the issue of what time is like in the far universe. Also, as some have admitted, science does not so much as know what time is!
I am saying science doesn't know if time exists there in the way it exists here.
Seeing something HERE in the fishbowl decay means that tings decay here where we see them. That is how they exist here. When you look at something far far away that you do not know how far away it is or how big it is, the calculations simply are rendered useless.
Religious statement.
You have never put anything up even one light day away actually, so that is not relevant.
You seem to fail to grasp that once we see science has no clue, no one cares what the false prophets predict any more. World without end. Amen.
Upvote
0
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
Parallax, you assume time exists where stars are as it does in the baseline here
Nope! Time has no bearing on the outcome of this observation given the measurement deals with us shifting place here i.e. it is an A-temporal result - please demonstrate otherwise.
Spectral Analysis, all light you analyze is here, not there, so it tells us nothing of time there
Light originated at the Star we observe - if it weren't the same in nature as it is here, then we'd see radically illogical results that have no correlation with anything we'd predict of it.
Observed exoplanet transits, see answer 1 no distances known without time existing there as here
Bunk, if time didn't exist there, then planets wouldn't move and the starlight would never be seen here.
Type 1a Supernova see answers 1 and 2
Bunk for the same reasons. Your failure to comprehend the science doesn't invalidate it.
Hubble's Law what about it?
it predicts the redshift of spacetime between us and objects at great distances giving us useful predictive capabilities when determining composition and size of distant stars and galaxies. If it were vastly different as you seem to want to imply, then none of these predictions made using Hubbles Law would match the observations.
Theory of Relativity (both General and Special) neither deal with time in the far universe, except by faith without any reason
Gravity wave predictions are one example.
except they form part of a predictive framework that demonstrates not only that we're on the right track, but that we're able to make predictive assessments that match observations made against them.
Even if that were the case, it still gives us predictive and useful models with practical applications.
except all the same principles we use to get them there and to communicate with them, are the same ones used to make the celestial measurements you don't like.
I'll take that as a "No, none at all". well, excuse us as the rest of us continue on with the model that does have a useful predictive framework and that provides applicable results we can use to solve real problems here and now.
Upvote
0
UNless there was NO time in our solar system, where they get the hundreds of million mile long baseline for parallax, there is time. What you mean is that take a slice of space and time here, and chose to use it only as space for a baseline. No can do. Time is inexorably joined at the hip with space here in the fishbowl.
Yes it originated out there. But it is only seen here. If you are in a dark box, and light comes in a pinhole to you, who knows what filters or changes we could have made to that light before it got in your box? You only see it IN the fishbowl. In the box. In the solar system area here. Whatever you predict is based on what you see here. Interpreted only as seen here.
Who made that rule? Maybe there is also a spiritual component out there that we lack here? Or maybe time does exist, but not the way we know it here. What may take a thousand years here, might take a half hour there or some such. Who knows? You cannot sit here at the one observer point and claim how time is experienced and felt and seen by you represents all points! Relativity is relative to the fishbowl!
Irrelevant. Redshifted light involves time you know! Since you do not know what time is like there, redshift loses meaning here. Now if you are talking redshift IN the fishbowl of the solar system and area...fine. We do know what it means here in our time and space.
Show us how. You see if you do not know if a galaxy is as big as my fist, or as big as a milky way....whatever gravity it produces changes. Whatever waves you see may not be due to what you believed.
No. They do not. You can 'predict' the sun will go out in say 5 billion years, that is not observed. You did predict sn1987a should have a neutron star or at least black hole...false prophesy!
In the fishbowl? Irrelevant.
Projection. You use fishbowl realities projected to the great unknown to get so called measurements. Those measurements are bible opposing nonsense.
Science doesn't know and cannot know! Evermore. I look forward to the day real science will take over forever.
Upvote
0
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
Please point out the Time quotient necessary in the formula used to triangulate distance here: Measuring distances by parallax method
Is it your assertion that there's something out there (like an all-omnipotent being) that is fiddling the figures to give us very accurate observations that could only point to a vastly older universe than 6,000-10,000 years? It seems to be an incredibly unlikely case for all the observations we make to be exactly supportive of the same "Old Universe" conclusion by accident... Predictions here in our alleged "fishbowl" wouldn't match the observations of conditions and events outside it - I shouldn't, but I do still find it surprising how you fail to grasp this.
Ahh, Again with the Trickster God! Sure, if you want to ascribe to a lying God then there's not more to discuss past your unfounded assertions now, is there? If time exists somehow different to ours, then we'd be able to detect that. We've talked about all this before - essentially, the translation from that whatever time outside our timezone exists, into our timezone would render the visible light from it to invisible. We know it's not rendering the equivalent invisible light into visible light because we know the type and strength of light emitted and we know the absorption bands that should be there and where they need to be in relation to each other in order to match their spectral outputs. They wouldn't match if they were even slightly out. It's up to you to disprove what we observe and I know you'll never be able to given you don't even have a handle on the basics.
Incorrect because redshifting is an ever gradual gradient that is measurable and extends out almost without break into the early universe. We crossreference it with other measurements such as parallax and type 1a supernova to name just two.
Well, the problem you have to overcome is their useful predictive capability and actual application in the real world, so unless you can give us a reason to think any different of all these observations we've made that correlate to what was predicted for them, there's no reason to think your immensely bizarre assertions should be considered.
Feel free to cite the science and disprove the evidence we have - perhaps start with this First observation of gravitational waves - Wikipedia :
"The first observation of gravitational waves was made on 14 September 2015 and was announced by the LIGO and Virgo collaborations on 11 February 2016.[3][4][5] Previously gravitational waves had only been inferred indirectly, via their effect on the timing of pulsars in binary star systems.
The waveform, detected by both LIGO observatories,[6] matched the predictions of general relativity[7][8][9] for a gravitational wave emanating from the inward spiral and merger of a pair of black holes of around 36 and 29 solar masses and the subsequent "ringdown" of the single resulting black hole.[note 1] The signal was named GW150914 (from "Gravitational Wave" and the date of observation 2015-09-14).[3][11][note 2]
It was also the first observation of a binary black hole merger, demonstrating both the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems, and the fact that such mergers could occur within the current age of the universe.
This first observation was reported around the world as a remarkable accomplishment for many reasons. Efforts to directly prove the existence of such waves had been ongoing for over fifty years, and the waves are so minuscule that Albert Einstein himself doubted that they could ever be detected.[12][13] The waves given off by the cataclysmic merger of GW150914 reached Earth as a ripple in spacetime that changed the length of a 4-km LIGO arm by a thousandth of the width of a proton,[11] proportionally equivalent to changing the distance to the nearest star outside the Solar System by one hair's width.[14][note 3] The energy released by the binary as it spiralled together and merged was immense, with the energy of 3.0+0.5
−0.5 c2 solar masses (5.3+0.9
−0.8×1047 joules or 5300+900
−800 foes) in total radiated as gravitational waves, reaching a peak emission rate of about 3.6+0.5
−0.4×1049 watts – a level greater than the combined power of all light radiated by all the stars in the observable universe.[3][4][15][16][note 4]
The observation confirms the last remaining unproven prediction of general relativity and validates its predictions of space-time distortion in the context of large scale cosmic events (known as strong field tests). It was also heralded as inaugurating a new era of gravitational-wave astronomy, which will enable observations of violent astrophysical events that were not previously possible, and potentially allow the direct observation of the very earliest history of the universe.[3][18][19][20][21] The second observation of gravitational waves was made on 26 December 2015 and announced on 15 June 2016.[22] Three more observations were made in 2017, including GW170817, the first observed merger of binary neutron stars, which was also observed in electromagnetic radiation."
The waveform, detected by both LIGO observatories,[6] matched the predictions of general relativity[7][8][9] for a gravitational wave emanating from the inward spiral and merger of a pair of black holes of around 36 and 29 solar masses and the subsequent "ringdown" of the single resulting black hole.[note 1] The signal was named GW150914 (from "Gravitational Wave" and the date of observation 2015-09-14).[3][11][note 2]
It was also the first observation of a binary black hole merger, demonstrating both the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems, and the fact that such mergers could occur within the current age of the universe.
This first observation was reported around the world as a remarkable accomplishment for many reasons. Efforts to directly prove the existence of such waves had been ongoing for over fifty years, and the waves are so minuscule that Albert Einstein himself doubted that they could ever be detected.[12][13] The waves given off by the cataclysmic merger of GW150914 reached Earth as a ripple in spacetime that changed the length of a 4-km LIGO arm by a thousandth of the width of a proton,[11] proportionally equivalent to changing the distance to the nearest star outside the Solar System by one hair's width.[14][note 3] The energy released by the binary as it spiralled together and merged was immense, with the energy of 3.0+0.5
−0.5 c2 solar masses (5.3+0.9
−0.8×1047 joules or 5300+900
−800 foes) in total radiated as gravitational waves, reaching a peak emission rate of about 3.6+0.5
−0.4×1049 watts – a level greater than the combined power of all light radiated by all the stars in the observable universe.[3][4][15][16][note 4]
The observation confirms the last remaining unproven prediction of general relativity and validates its predictions of space-time distortion in the context of large scale cosmic events (known as strong field tests). It was also heralded as inaugurating a new era of gravitational-wave astronomy, which will enable observations of violent astrophysical events that were not previously possible, and potentially allow the direct observation of the very earliest history of the universe.[3][18][19][20][21] The second observation of gravitational waves was made on 26 December 2015 and announced on 15 June 2016.[22] Three more observations were made in 2017, including GW170817, the first observed merger of binary neutron stars, which was also observed in electromagnetic radiation."
That predictions (or subsequent observations) aren't perfectly accurate doesn't disprove the model in its entirety, because there have been orders of magnitude more predictions that have been validated by observation. Also, we don't know if there's a black hole there yet because our observation of sn1987a is still ongoing, and we may yet validate this prediction - we just currently don't know. This raises another question though, what more accurate and predictive model do you suggest we use?
...lol!
nope, everywhere. Too bad you don't like it, you just have to Deal with it and move on because it isn't going away. it's people like you who burn books.... which is antithesis to knowledge and learning.
Only because you're making it so according to your particular interpretation, other Christians (and in fact, many, many other religions) are doing just fine.
Your whiney handwaving has zero effect on the useful predictive and applicable science in full effect here. You my friend, are on the wrong side of history on this. It's only a matter of time before education throughout the generations will reduce your useless fundamental religious thinking to a fringe footnote in history and societies of the future.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Easy.
The baseline is from our solar system. In our solar system we know time exists, and exists with space. When you take a huge swath of space in our solar system it comes complete with time. Unless time also existed with space all the way you cannot connect the dots. You cannot use a fishbowl slice of time and space and pretend there is no time here. All you have done is tried to make the space equal to any star, simply by virtue of drawing a line. That is faith based.
There is no accurate figures. You have only blind and pure faith and faith alone. You have never been far from the solar system to experience and test and measure time. Parallax is strictly a fishbowl measurement!
When we make the same mistake over and over in calculations, they may seem to support each other. That is like a cult.
Regarding time...we would not know by only looking at things here! Observations are here. Only. Always. Nowhere else, ever. There is no outside the fishbowl for man. You are stuck in it. Any guesses about time outside of that are pure fiction. Religion.
Yo pretend to know what changing time would be like? You never get to any other zones! You are only IN the fishbowl zone.
You know the light after the fact actually. You get all emissions here. You see the light here. Your idea of the 'strength' of light is only as perceived from earth.
Irrelevant. The bands are seen here. From how far away the star was we do not know. From what size a star we don't know. So spectral outputs do not matter.
Why would anything we see here be out? It has to exist a certain way in time here.
If we observe it, why would I want to disprove it? We see a star...yes. The time you claim exits there we do not see. You only thought you had a handle on basics.
Time can be gradual. Things seen in time appear gradual. The question is what makes the grade? Here on earth we know what makes light red shift. Think about it though, even here time is involved in red shift.
Meaningless if the same belief is involved in it all. Show us how you cross referenced redshift in sn1987a?
All you have to do is show us one such application.
The sizes are wrong. The distances are wrong. So, in what way did GR fit? Sounds to me like it fit a fantasy. Show the details of the fit.
You have no clue what you are seeing. Nor any ages. Of course whatever merged could happen within the age of the universe...whatever age that may be. So?
So something in the far universe was bright and had a lot of energy. Great. Now what was it really? You do not know. Every part of your claim is absolutely faith based and all hinges on the same belief. No maths are better than the concepts they are based on.
False. We need to know what gravity is involved on what size objects and how far away. ALL that requires time to exist at all points. You have merely assumed that was the case and made things fit that belief the best you can.
Ha
I think the name of the game for cosmology is that most things will never be able to be disproven..or proven. The so called validations are circular religion, and the hilarious predictable fails are waved off.
For me...the bible. I can tell you the fate of every star. I can tell you the origins.
For science...there is no possibility of coming to any knowledge of truth. They are lost in space.
False prophesy. It is going away forever to be replaced by true science.
To do fine we need to believe His word.
More false prophesy. I am on the winning side.
Yet more false prophesy. The knowledge of creation and God will cover the earth as waters cover the seas.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
Nothing you've said here makes any sense with respect to triangulation. Time has no bearing on measuring angles from two positions other than the time it takes to get there. For example, let's say we take the measurements as such:Easy.
The baseline is from our solar system. In our solar system we know time exists, and exists with space. When you take a huge swath of space in our solar system it comes complete with time. Unless time also existed with space all the way you cannot connect the dots. You cannot use a fishbowl slice of time and space and pretend there is no time here. All you have done is tried to make the space equal to any star, simply by virtue of drawing a line. That is faith based.
Could you kindly point out the time based requirement in this functionally identical calculation?
so argument from ignorance. Discarded as such.
argument from ignorance. Discarded as such.
Except for all the observable evidence of the universe. this is just more argument from ignorance. You need to learn the subject matter if you want to be taken seriously...
No need to pretend, we've observed it. We see the effect of gravity wells on space/time both in our solar system as well as outside of it. This is just more argument from ignorance. I also note you didn't address my points about a lying God...
Absorption bands only appear at certain frequencies over time - so if time is different, those absorption lines move in the spectra, and we'll see that shift. We do this all the time when observing supernovae and distant stars. You just fail to science, is all.
maybe, unless time doesn't exist at all there... but again, we've talked about this before. Let's talk about sound instead. If I'm moving toward you at the speed of sound, all the talking I do until I go past you will literally hit you all at once and probably blow your eardrums out, depending on how long I was approaching you while flapping my gums. Then, if I've passed you and turned to scream back at you, I'll be barely perceptible for the twice as deep and twice as weak output, even if you could hear me.
Likewise, if you played a record at half speed, you can barely make out what's being sung. If you stopped the record altogether (i.e. stopped time), then you would hear exactly what we'd expect to hear from something not in time - nothing. Same with light, only the visible spectrum of light is much smaller in the electro-magnetic radiation spectrum compared to the audible frequencies amongst all frequencies available.
but we do see it, we see stars and their planets doing things. we see them explode, etc. you have to refute that first.
That's right, Time is a measurable and quantifiable variable in our equations for which we can solve for. We can measure time for its direct impact on the observations we make in ways we can predict and verify.
Not my claim. Go find the study on SN1987A and refute the science. Not holding my breath though...
LMGTFY
Argument from ignorance - just because you don't know what you're looking at doesn't mean everyone else is as uneducated in the sciences as you are.
not sure how to refute a nervous giggle.
Sorry, Wassat? You have a more accurate model? Feel free to plop it on the table for all of us to look at then... Let's start by seeing how it explains the composition of stars, distance and sizes, maybe explain the process behind supernova and gravitational lensing - let's see all these accurate and meaningful results from this model of yours...
Argument from ignorance - discarded as such.
Nope again, We're all doing just fine, all us Christians, Atheists, Jews, Bhuddists, Hindus, etc.
aaaaaaaaannnnd rounded off with a final argument from ignorance because you fail at Science. Discarded as such.
Well, so nothing meaningful in any of that - not sure why you even bothered to reply @dad ...
Upvote
0
Nothing you've said here makes any sense with respect to triangulation. Time has no bearing on measuring angles from two positions other than the time it takes to get there. For example, let's say we take the measurements as such:
See the circle around the sun? Well imagine a circle a bit bigger. Now let's call this the fishbowl. In that circle time exists, but not outside of it that we know. At least we don't know it exists the same way as in the circle. When you take any area inside that fishbowl, such as we have done to get a baseline for trig measurements, you are dealing with the existence of time. NOT just space. So we cannot make a slice taken from inside the fishbowl to equal space and time outside of the circle.
You cannot simply draw a line with a ruler making it all equal. Yes, parallax is fine IN the fishbowl. On earth, for example. NO, it cannot work outside. Not uless you prove time also exists and exists the very same as here. What takes an hour to happen here, for example, needs to be shown to also take a hour of time there. Your problem is that you live in the fishbowl and have no idea about time anywhere else! You don't even know what time IS here.
Since light and everything is observed HERE in the fishbowl exclusively, you have NO evidence from anywhere else. You experience it all in time here. Your argument therefore is exactly an argument from ignorance.
That has no meaning. You do not know how big an object is producing this gravity. You can have no idea how far away or big anything is there without knowing time is homogeneous. So you claiming it is gravity of some huge mass has no merit. You do not know what is attracting what out there or how.
Over TIME...as seen HERE!
Observing HERE. Always. How distant a 'star' you have no idea.
Shortened...may address the rest later.....
Upvote
0
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
Nope! You continue on with epic fail in addressing the question. What, if Anything does Time have to do with Angles measured from two points?? I'm calling Poe on this. I'm not going to insult your intelligence even pretending to believe you're this daft.
Sorry, we've been able to cross-confirm various techniques for measuring distances, sizes and compositions of various stellar objects. You flapping about in a hissy not liking it doesn't make all the correlating evidence and observations go away. Address the science with meaningful rebuttals rather than all this hollow talk about how ignorant you are and how ignorant you insist everyone else has to be too.
Yep! After the stellar object emissions and absorptions of electro-magnetic spectra occurs in a way that's only possible if time exists there as it does here. You have no explanation for how it could even be possible to have some other time, or speed of light work without the fabric of this universe unravelling, so you still have all your work in front of you. No stress though, I hold no expectations.
well, you should probably take a few years to go study the science before delving too far further on this... ymmv though given your propensity to ignore all other knowledge besides your particular unmoving interpretation of one particular translation of one particular faith written by unknown authors who didn't understand the universe they found themselves in thousands upon thousands of years ago, I don't hold much hope you'll learn anything new.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Time permeates space here. You can't have space with no time. So when we take say, 200,000,000 miles of space in out solar system that comes with time. Time and space. So if the points are here where time exists, then we can use the area for measurements of distance. However, if there was not time existing with space, then a slice of space where no time existed would not equal a slice here. You cannot declare the universe to be the sort of space time we know here and live in.
So if I took 200,000,000 miles of space outside this fishbowl, and there was no time or different time in that slice of space, then it simply would not be like our space and time. So if we had light moving through this area with different time, we could not say that light would take the same time to get anywhere. Elementary.
You have circular beliefs that when applied to imaginary lines give certain measures. Those measures have zero worth, unless time exists at all points and you have never been out of your front porch in this universe, so have no idea if time is the same at all points. You have blind faith.
Wrong.
It only is seen IN time HERE. So you cannot claim that absorption lines represent time there!
Your universe in your head might be unraveling. God's universe is fine, thanks. I do not need to know how it all works, or what time may be like...or not...in the far reaches of creation. What we do know is that the stars were placed in the universe for planet earth, to mark times and time for us!
Upvote
0
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, you have provided absolutely no justification for this Bald ASSertion aside your desperate need to not accept the empirical data we have showing a universe with pervasive spacetime. Do you even have any idea how electro-magnetic energy could oscillate at a frequency that denotes a necessary time quotient, without time?
Well, all those measurements and observations correlate and give us meaningful and predictive results so again, your flapping doesn't do squat to explain it all away. Put some effort in if you don't want to come across as a bitter old crank who's upset nobody's buying into your conspiracy theory.
and if they didn't represent time there, then these observations wouldn't look the way they do to us and we wouldn't be able to make the predictions we make based on them. You're literally asking everyone to be dumber so you don't have to deal with the evidence - it just doesn't work like that. Articulate your case for this far-fetched idea of yours, otherwise we're better off keeping these useful models that explain a great deal of the universe around us.
not even slightly.
Well if that's the case then, why all the frictioning resistance to everyone else knowing more about the universe than you? Regardless why God put them there, they are there and we can, and do make accurate predictions on the models we've been able to make based on these observations - even if they are some sort of heaven sponsored holographic illusion. Your God is doing a great job of allowing us to predict celestial events and phenomena while keeping this alleged illusion going, so he's obviously okay with us continuing on with it all.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Without time, or without time as it exists here?
Your predictions about the speed of the universe accelerating just bit it. I would not brag of prophesy when science has false prophesies.
The bible does not, it has true prophesies.
How else would or could anything look IN time here but how it does? Try to think out of the box, and not just about how it looks to you here.
You can't. There is no prediction based on time outside the fishbowl that is true.
Three words....you don't know.
They know squat.
No. Your predictably failing so called predictions are either inapplicable or vague beliefs.
Science predict the sun will go dark one day and all the universe die. Science predicted a neutron star or black hole that do not exist for SN1987a. Sorry, science is a false prophet.
Upvote
0
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
Without time as it exists here.
You don't even believe a Universe out there exists, so who are you to pass opinion on what scientists observe?
None of these so called 'true prophecies' have ever been independently verified, and quite a number that have failed.
You're the one failing to see outside the box - my record analogy is apt, if a record turntable is stopped (i.e. stopped time), then the record emits no sound. Likewise, if the player turntable was sped up, the artist would sound like the chipmunks. In both cases, we would know the record isn't playing at the correct speed and this is directly analogous to your different time elsewhere conjecture and light - it's unworkable without our knowing about it through observations.
Do you understand how absurd it sounds for you to say the equivalent of :
"...But the record could be playing at any speed next door and you wouldn't know it, because you're hearing it HERE! in THIS HOUSE! You're not in that house, are you?? it could be playing at a thousand times faster and you don't know because you're hearing it at normal speed HERE! not THERE! .... how else could you hear it here in this normal house, but normally."
More wishful conjecture...
I understand you prefer everyone not 'know' but what you want and what is actual are two very different things.
*POOF* ..... Nope! no change, everyone still knows more stuff about the universe than you do.
Wish harder. Much, Much Harder. Maybe pray more about the problems you're having & see if your God can do something about it.
Science has a far, far better track record than every other method ever tried, so Prove it. Demonstrate something doesn't exist at SN1987a. Demonstrate the universe isn't going to die. Demonstrate the Sun isn't going to go dark one day.
Upvote
0
We have no way of knowing time in far space. If something took 1000 times less time to move, for example we would have no idea. We only see the light from there here...IN our time.
Creation and stars exist. Don't confuse big bang fairy tales with the universe.
No? So what makes someone independent...they need to be an unbeliever? Jesus was born in Bethlehem, what, you think we need a birth certificate stamped by Herod?
Not a good analogy.
It is not a matter of speeding up. Time is just how we measure what is happening, not a speed. In our time a record might spin so far in so much time. If we were in deep space, and time itself was not the same, a record player there might spin the same distance, but not in the same time. Time may be relative. Not relative to the fishbowl. You only see a record player here in the fishbowl.
The time involved in movement depends on the nature of time where the movement is. If it takes a million years for a record to move one inch here, that is just telling us about what time is like here. If the same spin movement took, say, an hour in deep space, it would not be the movement that changed but time. We see movement and light and all things here, only here and always here. We cannot comment on what time elsewhere is like just by observing movement or light here.
How would you know Science is recent thing. The application of science to origins is an imaginary thing!
Your prophets are on trial here. Not mine. I have no prophesy about some little speck of light some unknown size and distance. Science did. Ha.
Or get stirred into strawberry custard?
It is. The bible says so. Not billions of imaginary years in the imaginary future for imaginary reasons like science prophesies though.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
We would. Your ignorance is yours.
These observations are directly from your 'Creation' universe.
Well, that'd be a decent start... I'm not sure I have a problem with a 'Jesus' character being alive - it's the supernatural add-ons.
Sure it is. Time IS relative - haven't you heard of Einstein's Theory of Relativity? We see the results of light that could only be emitted in a similar time frame of reference existing there. You haven't shown anything to justify this bizarre idea of yours where it's totally different but looks identical to our own time frame of reference. You're literally wishing it's somehow inexplicably different because you don't like what the evidence indicates.
Do you know why we can't see Black Holes? They distort spacetime so harshly with immense gravity that time is all but stopped. Because of that, pretty much all light fails to escape and what light does escape is so stretched and delayed (i.e. stopped record) that we can't even detect it with finely calibrated optics let alone see it in the visible spectrum...
Oh, Look, more wishful conjecture!
Yep, another accurate prediction of mine comes to pass.
Sure, whatever weird and wonderful assertion you'd like to put forward, Demonstrate it is so.
Sure. Any day now, right? Aaaaaaanny day now.... It's been any day now for nearly two thousand years. So much for "some of you will not taste death before I return"... they've all passed on to the next life..... or not. Either way, they've tasted death - so there's a failed prediction for you.
Upvote
0
No, you would not having any way of knowing what time is like far away here actually. That is why we see you fail to be able to do so.
No. All star light is seen here near earth actually. It supposedly takes a lot of time to get here, remember?
He was a supernatural add on.
Yes and that does not deal with time in the far universe at all.
Correct, time exists here so our reference is in this time.
You sitting on earth in our time observing is evidence of nothing at all but that you are sitting here on earth observing. You just thought that made all the universe relative to your observation point. No. Sorry.
Something distorts. But you don't even know what time is, let alone what distorted black hole time is. Gravity may distort spacetime near earth. But we do not know that time itself is distorted by gravity.
That is how the theory goes that is based on some idea of space and time that is wrong.
Interesting that proponents of science origins invariably seem to have an underlying fight with God going on. Ever consider that this may color the way you see creation?
Upvote
0
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
We make predictions on it all the time. You're just wrong, no matter how hard you complain about it.
Correct. That boots your 'Young Universe' conjecture right out of the park.
Prove it.
It is exactly dependent on the time in the far universe being the same as it is here. That's why we know you're wrong. You really should try to come up with better reasons besides your ignorance.
Just like it is there too. Seriously, are you even attempting to address the science on this?
Well, the facts are what they are. Refute the science or be ignored as a crank.
We do. I get that you don't. Feel free to submit a research paper on your "ground breaking" insights any time you're ready though.
Great! Show us your corrected/more accurate model then, because the model we have gives us predictive and useful results.
Nope, Vishnu, Shiva and even Brahma aren't even a consideration in matters of Science.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Most false prophets do. The problem for science is that many predictions are wrong.
False. Merely claiming it takes so many years for light to move in unknown space does not mean it does.
Prove God is supernatural? Ha.
Not sure why you cannot comprehend the basic fundamental issue here. I do not see how what is experienced in time here equates to what an observer in different time out in the unknown far universe would experience? You cannot take your experiences in time here as the measure of experiences in time far far far away from the fishbowl.
There IS no science dealing with what time is like in the unknown distant universe. They do not even know what time is here.
There is no science dealing with time in the far universe to refute. You looking at light in time here on earth and area does not need refuting. There is time here. What is refuted is your baseless claims that you know time also exists the very same in all the universe. That is religion.
The bible is proven correct all through history. I will use that model and predictions about the stars and heavens in the future. The stars are going out while men watch them go out. The sun and moon also. Then the heavens will roll up like a scroll....whoosh...and be no more. Game over. They are temporary...not what you thought at all.
Who asked about demons? I did notice a statue of I think it was Shiva at CERN.
'Human sacrifice' at CERN in front of Shiva statue? - Rediff.com India News
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Bugeyedcreepy
Well-Known Member
Many, many predictions of science have supported than have not by orders of magnitude more. Again, I get you need to narrow down on those outliers... At least science can make accurate predictions ahead of time unlike your religion...
Not a claim, this has been demonstrated time & time again, you just won't acknowledge it. The fact that your smartphone and computer works is testament to this. The very same principle that tells us light takes as long as it does to travel those distances, is what allows solid state electronics to work.
yep, didn't think you could.
Again, the emission of light there that we can see here in the way we see it is directly dependent on time there existing as it does here. I completely get what you're saying, you're just wrong. You fail to grasp the fundamental principles of how the universe operates and refuse to acknowledge it.
Nonsense. We don't even know what causes the quantum universe to act as weirdly as it does and get away with it, but your electronics work because of the scientific method being applied, even though we don't understand what it's doing and why. Do you accept your electronics work, or do you deny that's a thing too?
Hubble's Law, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Raychaudhuri equation, Einstein field equations, Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, there's actually quite a few scientific theories you can have a crack at refuting. All of them require time to be pervasive otherwise they literally wouldn't work at all let alone provide useful predictions for me to laugh at you over.
Nope. Nebuchadnezzar never conquered the fortress city of Tyr (Ezekiel 26), Egypt hasn't become a barren wasteland (Ezekiel 29:8-15), the Nile never dried up (Ezekiel 30:12), the King of Judah did get harmed by his enemies (Chronicles 28:1-8) despite being told by God Himself that he wouldn't be harmed by his enemies (Isaiah 7:1-7), Egyptians never spoke the language of the Canaans (Isaiah 19:18) - there are so many failed prophecies, so little space to write it up and discuss at length - so let's see you respond to these first.
not me. I'm not even sure I believe the supernatural is a thing. Anyhoo, none of these Gods are considered in Science.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
