CMB claims are religion

[dad]

And we have proved that time is the same elsewhere. I can't remember the user name but you were shown this many times.

Not true. What a joke. You may be talking about the spammer 'reality check' who spammed a list that included things like 'a star exists, so time must exist also' Hahaha

 

[dad]

Many people have no difficulty accepting both as true.

So was Jesus cracked by talking about the first man and Noah? (as well as Peter and etc etc)

There is no reason or evidence to suppose that physics is different out there as opposed to here.

Time is not physics.

Indeed, quite the opposite, the conservation of momentum is intricately related with the idea that space is homogeneous. "the invariance of physical systems with respect to spatial translation (in other words, that the laws of physics do not vary with locations in space) gives the law of conservation of linear momentum".

That says nothing. Seeing something move out there, we know not how far away, or how fast or how big the objects may be does not tell us much. It is no surprise that things move out there. How much time is involved in that moving is another issue.

Regardless, we know the earth is billions of years old from measurements right here on earth.

Trying to move the goal posts eh, don't blame you. The problem is that I have an even stronger case for earth.

Dad, have you been defeated by a 5th grade word problem?

Guess you missed the point. That point is that what moves here in the fishbowl does so in fishbowl space and time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So was Jesus cracked by talking about the first man and Noah? (as well as Peter and etc etc)

I dunno. Talk amongst your fellow Jesus followers.

Time is not physics.

Oh yeah? We call it "t" and put it in physics equations.

Trying to move the goal posts eh, don't blame you.

No. It's just that you seem to have particular objections to measurements made at a distance, so I brought up measurements not at a distance. I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm trying to communicate with you, given your stated objections. The universe is old if you look far. And the universe is old if you look near. My goalposts have stayed at 'billions of years'.

The problem is that I have an even stronger case for earth.

And that is...?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. What a joke.

Of course we have dad, that you do not understand does not make it a joke. That is why I offered to explain this bit of science to you, but you ran away again. In case you did not know not entering into a conversation is running away.

 

[dad]

Of course we have dad, that you do not understand does not make it a joke. That is why I offered to explain this bit of science to you, but you ran away again. In case you did not know not entering into a conversation is running away.

You offered only tossing out the words doppler shift, and failed to relate it to time in deep space.

 

[dad]

I dunno. Talk amongst your fellow Jesus followers.

Ah, right, I checked your avatar and see atheist. It sounds so much like many 'believers' here I assumed you were a nominal 'christian'.

Oh yeah? We call it "t" and put it in physics equations.

Don't be fooled by that. The only time represented is fishbowl time when talking about the far universe. All based on time as we know it here. You could render that little 't' 'the unfolding of fishbowl time, as observed in the fishbowl' Nothing to do with time itself.

No. It's just that you seem to have particular objections to measurements made at a distance, so I brought up measurements not at a distance. I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm trying to communicate with you, given your stated objections. The universe is old if you look far. And the universe is old if you look near. My goalposts have stayed at 'billions of years'.

Well, I will point out that your dating on earth is at least as faith based as your cosmo dream date attempts.

And that is...?

..That your dates are belief based in entirety.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Ah, right, I checked your avatar and see atheist. It sounds so much like many 'believers' here I assumed you were a nominal 'christian'.

That's because, for the most part, people who understand science are in agreement about the age of the earth and the universe ... regardless of their religious faith.

Well, I will point out that your dating on earth is at least as faith based as your cosmo dream date attempts.

..That your dates are belief based in entirety.

Those are not arguments. Those are conclusions. What are your arguments?

 

[dad]

That's because, for the most part, people who understand science are in agreement about the age of the earth and the universe ... regardless of their religious faith.

fixed....


People who believe come from many different other beliefs. Believing in creation opposing fiction at the same time as claiming to also believe the bible is very possible. Just as we could claim to believe in Santa, and also believe in Buddha.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Those are not arguments. Those are conclusions. What are your arguments?

That's rich. This thread is nothing but Subduction Zone and I patiently explaining some of the arguments, and you refusing to even answer whether you understand what the Doppler Effect is. You appear to be in such fear of an elementary problem calculating time from information about distance and speed, that you can't bring yourself to answer it, even in the context of discussion.

We have arguments based on evidence. We have shown you the path. The fact that you are unwilling to take even a single step does not mean the path doesn't exist.

 

[dad]

That's rich. This thread is nothing but Subduction Zone and I patiently explaining some of the arguments, and you refusing to even answer whether you understand what the Doppler Effect is.

Seriously?? Doppler effect? Must we explain primary math also? I said that he needed to show how it applies in far space. It is one thing to hear a train go by or car lights, and note some effect. It is another to claim this same effect applies in all of God's creation with no proof.

"In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted."

What is the difference between the "Doppler" redshift and the "gravitational" or "cosmological" redshift? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

I assume SZ was trying to talk about deep space cosmological redshifting? So, he must show how we know time is the same out there. Otherwise, the so called expansion speed is unknown, or non existent, since we could be dealing with time having an effect on the light also.


"you cannot tell observationally whether a single redshift measurement is caused by the expansion of the universe or by something moving away rapidly."

'Doppler redshift' Vs 'Cosmological redshift'

You need to explain exactly what aspect of 'Doppler shift' you think applies out there and why!!!!

You appear to be in such fear of an elementary problem calculating time from information about distance and speed, that you can't bring yourself to answer it, even in the context of discussion.

Of course we calculate time, such as the time radioactive decay here takes. That has no relation to the distant universe. All this tells us is that HERE, time unfolds and exists with space a certain way.

We have arguments based on evidence. We have shown you the path.

WE know the path already thanks. Speaking of paths, you don't know the path of light out there either!! Ha.

Job 38: 19 Where is the way where light dwelleth? and as for darkness, where is the place thereof, 20 That thou shouldest take it to the bound thereof, and that thou shouldest know the paths to the house thereof?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Of course we calculate time, such as the time radioactive decay here takes. That has no relation to the distant universe.

What is your argument for that?

 

[dad]

What is your argument for that?

" Doppler effect

The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source.."
Doppler effect - Wikipedia


Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time
Frequency - Wikipedia

The important points here you need to address for deep space are these..the observation point from where the objects moving are see...i.e. the fishbowl and only the fishbowl. And also, you need to prove time exists in deep space exactly as it is here! Ha.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The important points here you need to address...

And also, you need to prove...

You, dad, made the claim "Of course we calculate time, such as the time radioactive decay here takes. That has no relation to the distant universe."

What is your argument for that claim?

 

[dad]

You, dad, made the claim "Of course we calculate time, such as the time radioactive decay here takes. That has no relation to the distant universe."

What is your argument for that claim?

Well, do you admit all calculation AND OBSERVATIONS ARE DONE HERE IN THE AREA OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM? So how would we know how much time out there was involved in ---anything--- if all we experienced was time here? Here a half life may be, say, silver 108, 418 years. How many years would the same decay process take in deep space? How would you know since you could only see it here!?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, do you admit...

How would you know...

We can discuss my views later. I have already taken a great deal of time in this thread and others doing so.

You, dad, made the claim "Of course we calculate time, such as the time radioactive decay here takes. That has no relation to the distant universe."

What is your argument for that claim?

 

[98cwitr]

The entire concept of an "expanding universe" seems asinine to me. An infinite universe seems to be much more plausible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The entire concept of an "expanding universe" seems asinine to me. An infinite universe seems to be much more plausible.

Those are not actually contradictory. Although the verdict is still out on the global geometry of the universe, I think it most likely to be infinite.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You offered only tossing out the words doppler shift, and failed to relate it to time in deep space.

You keep running away from an offer of a discussion. And then repeat your "fishbowl Earth" nonsense that you have not been able to support. You do not seem to realize that when either of us make a claim that we have a burden of proof if we make a positive assertion. I can provide scientific evidence for my claims. I seriously doubt if you can provide any for yours.

Do you want to have a discussion? I will answer questions if asked politely.

 

[dad]

The entire concept of an "expanding universe" seems asinine to me. An infinite universe seems to be much more plausible.

If the heavens will depart and roll up as a scroll and be no more, how is that infinite?

 

[dad]

You keep running away from an offer of a discussion. And then repeat your "fishbowl Earth" nonsense that you have not been able to support. You do not seem to realize that when either of us make a claim that we have a burden of proof if we make a positive assertion. I can provide scientific evidence for my claims. I seriously doubt if you can provide any for yours.

Do you want to have a discussion? I will answer questions if asked politely.

"Doppler effect

The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source.."
Doppler effect - Wikipedia


Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit of time
Frequency - Wikipedia


All you need to do is tell us how you can demonstrate time exists the same. Then we can look at things based on units of time. Let me know if I need to break it down even more for you.