CMB claims are religion

[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?

Since we have no idea what time is like out there, the length of time decay takes here cannot be extended to all the universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"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.

We can observe it in radioactive decay of elements from novas:

Observation of line emission of the isotope 22Na from a classical nova

And that is just one example out of many. Now if you want to claim any different the burden of proof is upon you. If you can't support your claims then as the saying goes, a claim that is hand waved in can be hand waved out. We would not see that decay if time were different.

You have two choices now, either drop your "fishbowl" nonsense or find something somewhere that supports it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since we have no idea what time is like out there, the length of time decay takes here cannot be extended to all the universe.

Wrong, you have no idea what time is like out there. Scientists do know this and they can demonstrate why.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since we have no idea what time is like out there, the length of time decay takes here cannot be extended to all the universe.

Your post "is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and circular reasoning and religion."

'Time here has no relation to the distant universe because time here cannot be extended to all the universe.'

You have simply restated your claim, not presented an argument in favor of it.

 

[dad]

We can observe it in radioactive decay of elements from novas:

Observation of line emission of the isotope 22Na from a classical nova

And that is just one example out of many. Now if you want to claim any different the burden of proof is upon you. If you can't support your claims then as the saying goes, a claim that is hand waved in can be hand waved out. We would not see that decay if time were different.

You have two choices now, either drop your "fishbowl" nonsense or find something somewhere that supports it.

We can observe it in radioactive decay of elements from novas:

Observation of line emission of the isotope 22Na from a classical nova

And that is just one example out of many. Now if you want to claim any different the burden of proof is upon you. If you can't support your claims then as the saying goes, a claim that is hand waved in can be hand waved out. We would not see that decay if time were different.

You have two choices now, either drop your "fishbowl" nonsense or find something somewhere that supports it.

You observe decay here, try to focus, and come back with a reply that is on topic. The question for you is how do you know that the time involved in the fishbowl here represents the same time out in the unknown? Ha. So far your answer is basically, 'well, it takes that long to decay here so it must take the same time out there'. Get a grip.

 

[dad]

Your post "is nothing more than smoke and mirrors and circular reasoning and religion."

'Time here has no relation to the distant universe because time here cannot be extended to all the universe.'

You have simply restated your claim, not presented an argument in favor of it.

Your job is to prove time is the same or stop pretending it is for your silly godless models falsely thought of by folks in your religion as science. Period.
It is, by the way, impossible to do, so you must get used to being defeated permanently, or until you change religions.

 

[dad]

Wrong, you have no idea what time is like out there. Scientists do know this and they can demonstrate why.

As shown, no they cannot begin to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You observe decay here, try to focus, and come back with a reply that is on topic. The question for you is how do you know that the time involved in the fishbowl here represents the same time out in the unknown? Ha. So far your answer is basically, 'well, it takes that long to decay here so it must take the same time out there'. Get a grip.

Wrong, we observe decay in super novae. That you do not understand how does not mean that we don't observe it.

Perhaps we need to go back to the beginning.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Your job is to ...

You are so eager to assign work, when you've done none of your own. Perhaps you could provide an argument for your claim that is not just a restatement of that claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As shown, no they cannot begin to.

dad, you have not shown anything but a total lack of education in the sciences.

Let me put this in a way that you might understand. You run into a person that can't read. He tells you that there is no way that you can know who Jesus's Earthly parents were. You tell him you can and show him your Bible and explain that the records in it go back almost 2,000 years. He laughs at you and tells you that those are only squiggles on a piece of paper and they do not tell you anything.

That sadly is how you sound when you deny science. But there is a cure. Just as the person that denied the Bible could learn to read, you can try to learn how science is done. Until then, by your standards the Bible consists of squiggles on pieces of paper.

 

[dad]

Wrong, we observe decay in super novae. That you do not understand how does not mean that we don't observe it.

Perhaps we need to go back to the beginning.

Wrong, we observe decay in our time only and right here only. That tells us squat about time there.

 

[dad]

dad, you have not shown anything but a total lack of education in the sciences.

Let me put this in a way that you might understand. You run into a person that can't read. He tells you that there is no way that you can know who Jesus's Earthly parents were. You tell him you can and show him your Bible and explain that the records in it go back almost 2,000 years. He laughs at you and tells you that those are only squiggles on a piece of paper and they do not tell you anything.

That sadly is how you sound when you deny science. But there is a cure. Just as the person that denied the Bible could learn to read, you can try to learn how science is done. Until then, by your standards the Bible consists of squiggles on pieces of paper.

Let me put it this way, the item you offered as proof time is the same does not even relate to the issue. Gong!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, we observe decay in our time only and right here only. That tells us squat about time there.

No dad, it tells you squat. Let's start at the beginning. You need to learn the scientific method first.

 

[dad]

You are so eager to assign work, when you've done none of your own. Perhaps you could provide an argument for your claim that is not just a restatement of that claim?

If you have no wish to defend your religion, fine. If you DO want to defend your belief time is the same in deep space then, yes, sorry, you have work to do. Truth be told it is impossible to prove, so you are left with ignominious defeat.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let me put it this way, the item you offered as proof time is the same does not even relate to the issue. Gong!

dad, you just admitted that you are wrong again. Every time you ring your gong it is an admission by you of your ignorance.

As I said by your standards the Bible consists of squiggles on a piece of paper. You are just like the person denying the Bible because he could not read. You cannot do science at all. You can "learn to read" if you try.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you have no wish to defend your religion, fine. If you DO want to defend your belief time is the same in deep space then, yes, sorry, you have work to do. Truth be told it is impossible to prove, so you are left with ignominious defeat.

And once again you insult your own beliefs by insulting religion. dad, this is not a religion. But you need to learn how to "read" first.

 

[dad]

No dad, it tells you squat. Let's start at the beginning. You need to learn the scientific method first.

Tell us what you think observing time here tells us about deep space then, since you either don't realize you are defeated, or haven't clued in to the ramifications of your puerile claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Tell us what you think observing time here tells us about deep space then, since you either don't realize you are defeated, or haven't clued in to the ramifications of your puerile claims.

dad, you lost a long time ago when you ran away.

 

[dad]

dad, you lost a long time ago when you ran away.

You had no choice but to run from supporting your claims time is known to be the same in the universe. If I was in your position I would hope to have the moral character to stand up to the fact, rather than pretend and spam.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You had no choice but to run from supporting your claims time is known to be the same in the universe. If I was in your position I would hope to have the moral character to stand up to the fact, rather than pretend and spam.

dad, you are running. You are the one that will not even learn the basics. I already supported my claims but you did not understand how. That is why I am willing to help you to learn the basics of science. We won't even touch the science that you hate for a while. Just like the Bible denier in the example that I gave you you need to learn how to "read" before you can understand.

So are you going to continue to run away?