Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You not admitting science is based on religious twaddle does not mean it isn't. Since you dare not debate on specific issues all you can do is wave. Good luck with that.But that hasn't happened.
Claiming that it is based on religious twaddle does not mean it is. Since The HI Theory dare not debate on specific issues all you can do is make things up, wave, and deny.You not admitting science is based on religious twaddle does not mean it isn't. Since you dare not debate on specific issues all you can do is wave. Good luck with that.
Some of us have actually put issues on the table, and debated, rather than waving and nonsense. So we know that science actually uses certain things as a basis for it's methodology and models. Either you get up to speed and then try to defend that, or have your posts remain relegated to utter insignificance.Claiming that it is based on religious twaddle does not mean it is.
You are not one of themSome of us have actually put issues on the table, and debated, rather than waving and nonsense. So we know that science actually uses certain things as a basis for it's methodology and models. Either you get up to speed and then try to defend that, or have your posts remain relegated to utter insignificance.
A quantity is measurable. I think that makes the measure of it, at least, 'physical' (using your venacular?)Tomato, tomatoe. Time is a not a physical anything.
I can live with that.dad said:To refer to something in a way that pictures a truth is OK.
The 'time' included in the math descriptions in Physics, only refers to its measure as per the Wiki definition I provided. That's as far as it goes. Science uses this measurable, physical quantity definition because its a useful way of achieving the objectivity goals of 'doing science'.dad said:Because man does not know if there even is time as we thik of it in the far universe. When they include time in their formulas and math, and size and distance calculations...they are dreaming in technicolor. Doing so is blind faith only.
Fair enough.dad said:That must be shown, not just spoken into being.
Do ya reckon a virus ponders 'goldy creation schemes'?dad said:It probably doesn't concern itself with such high minded nonsense. Probably just does what it was made to do, in the place it finds itself, and has no interest in ungodly alternate creation schemes.
No .. its just that religion plays no active role when following the scientific process. There are lots of religious folk doing great science, to y'know. Different modes of thinking.dad said:Baseless religious twaddle then. OK.
Well if one leaves 'proofs' to mathematicians and philosophers, one can measure the orbits of distant planets and find that the results match up with the predictions of Newton's law. By inference, one can gain some confidence that the next time one performs the same measurements elsewhere, the results might also line up with Newton's law predictions. (This process of course, also brings in other Laws commonly referred to as Celestial Mechanics .. eg: Kepler's laws of planetary motion, etc).dad said:"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using aforce that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.."
wiki
That is impossible to prove for the distant universe.
It also doesn't mean that gravity is absent, either?dad said:Just because parts of an atom orbit, for example, does not mean gravity is involved.
Depends on the specifics of each case. There's lots of other physical laws that make predictions about such aspects. They also tell us which physical quantities can be measured and make predictions of their value(s), so that we can test out those theories/laws, (which then gives us confidence that those theories/laws give accurate predictions). That's what science is/does.dad said:Merely having gravity at work on physical bodies does not tell us how big or far away those bodies are! Nor does it tell us if there is anything else at work, that is unseen, and unknown. Etc.
Actually I am able to discuss the nitty gritty of creation issues. You should be so lucky.You are not one of them.
Man measures here on and near earth. Time exists here. We use it in measures of the far universe as if time also existed there. Total belief.A quantity is measurable. I think that makes the measure of it, at least, 'physical' (using your venacular?)
Like a little boy emptying the ocean with his teaspoon. He tries...but has limited abilities.I can live with that.
And the scientific process isn't really concerned with posited 'truths'. It tests posits (as hypotheses) and seeks results .. that's all.
That measure only applies here in the ;and of time. We measure things IN time because time exists HERE.The 'time' included in the math descriptions in Physics, only refers to its measure as per the Wiki definition I provided. That's as far as it goes. Science uses this measurable, physical quantity definition because its a useful way of achieving the objectivity goals of 'doing science'.
What time is must matter to science or it is in the dark.What time 'is' or 'isn't', is a philosophical matter, which makes it of no concern in science. One can adopt a philosophical position on it, or not .. and this doesn't affect what the scientific process demands of a scientist whilst doing science.
Or adjectives and ways to describe things.I think I understand the issue you've raised in your OP, and I think its a fair one, (any particular added mind-dependent reality bits-and-pieces we have (like your 'truth pictures', etc), are really just personal 'add-ons' at the end of the day).
Fair enough.
Of course physical measurements of something defined as being a physical quantity can be executed remotely from Earth's surface (by using telescopes for accurately measuring orbits of remote bodies, etc).
Give an example.Well if one leaves 'proofs' to mathematicians and philosophers, one can measure the orbits of distant planets and find that the results match up with the predictions of Newton's law. By inference, one can gain some confidence that the next time one performs the same measurements elsewhere, the results might also line up with Newton's law predictions. (This process of course, also brings in other Laws commonly referred to as Celestial Mechanics .. eg: Kepler's laws of planetary motion, etc).
It also doesn't mean that gravity is absent, either?
Only as long as the laws we know will exist and did exist...how long the did or will is the question!Depends on the specifics of each case. There's lots of other physical laws that make predictions about such aspects. They also tell us which physical quantities can be measured and make predictions of their value(s), so that we can test out those theories/laws, (which then gives us confidence that those theories/laws give accurate predictions). That's what science is/does.
There is a real thing called science, dad. It is not "demented". It does not contain "creation tales". There are scientific theories about what came before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. They are speculative because they only make few testable predictions.The creation tales from demented so called science is made up.
Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in Physics, gives further description, "At about one-hundredth of a second, the earliest time about which we can speak with any confidence,
Right, and it really assumes the same laws in the past. They really model accordingly.There is a real thing called science, dad.
Every origins fable that oozes out of their ungodly mouths that they have ungodly spoken are demented demon tales of the damned.It is not "demented". It does not contain "creation tales".
There is no proof for the BB or any insane precursor. The redshift and etc they use to reverse expand the universe all are faith based idiocies.There are scientific theories about what came before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.
ONLY IN the fishbowl of the present state near earth are any actual predictions viable or existent. The foolish usurping circular reasoning so called predictions of things like the CMB could just as easily be read as a creation microwave background.They are speculative because they only make few testable predictions.
I been there done that, and flushed the tripe.
Filthy dreamers of so called science can fantasize till the cows come home for all sane men care.We can however extrapolate to a very small time before t = 0 (10^−43 seconds).
No not 'belief' .. 'Beliefs' can be distinguished along the lines of: "notions held as being true for any reason".Man measures here on and near earth. Time exists here. We use it in measures of the far universe as if time also existed there. Total belief.
An opinion .. (nothing more).dad said:Like a little boy emptying the ocean with his teaspoon. He tries...but has limited abilities.
Time is a quantity able to be measured. This has been demonstrated as being incredibly useful by science. (I doubt we'd be having this conversation in this electronic medium if it wasn't).dad said:What time is must matter to science or it is in the dark.
'Descriptions' are models ... and that's what minds create. 'Reality' is one such description (or model). Science only demonstrably deals in a version of reality that is mind dependent, and it only needs that concept of reality to function, (a 'mind-dependent concept of reality' here, means a recognition that the goal of science is to use our minds, to make sense of our perceptions, with no requirement whatsoever, for any part of that process to be independent of our minds, or any need to imagine that the process "refers to" anything mind independent).dad said:Or adjectives and ways to describe things.
Your post quoted two parts of my response. I'm not sure which part you would like an example for. Please clarify.dad said:Give an example.
The laws come 'into existence' (ie: objective reality) whenever their predictions are validated by testing. They do not 'exist' (scientifically) as something independent from our minds. They are descriptions which are useful for consistently explaining our perceptions (or observations). Their predictions give us some measure of confidence prior to actually conducting the tests.dad said:Only as long as the laws we know will exist and did exist...how long the did or will is the question!
A reasonable assumption that is tested as much as possible in science.Right, and it really assumes the same laws in the past.
Great so post some science based arguments featuring the premises of the issues. At least try to sound a little scienmatiifc.But can't figure out which forum sanctimonious preaching belongs in. And making stuff up is not nitty gritty. It's just making stuff up.
How about you state the "premises of the issues" clearly first, dad.Great so post some science based arguments featuring the premises of the issues.
As an example: how stars work is a mixture of nuclear physics, gravitation and gas laws. When we look at stars we see light from the past. So a galaxy a billion light years away is a billon years old. But there is no evidence that the stars in far galaxies are different from local stars. So we have laws of physics that have not changed measurably over changes of billons of years.
Then post the reason. At least tell us what you are talking about, and maybe others can help tell you the reasons science says such and such about it.No not 'belief' .. 'Beliefs' can be distinguished along the lines of: "notions held as being true for any reason".
Utterly false. Only when in the fishbowl of earth and near earth does the definition even partly apply.Science's definition of 'time' however, is chosen for a very specific reason ... ie: empirical objective testing. It therefore differs from a 'belief'.
False. That is just the way the ungodly try to make sense of creation. Science may measure time but can't even really get a handle on what it actually is...even here.To accomodate science's specific mind-dependent reality, I would word your statement differently:
"Man measures time here on, and near earth. Man exists here. We use time in measurements of the far universe, as if time also existed there. This is a scientific thinker's mind dependent reality and it is used as a convenient means for making sense of consistencies between what we observe both locally, and from the far universe".
Circular reasoning and inbred thinking then.Science's goal is to be an internally consistent method for making sense of our perceptions.
As seen and felt and experienced on earth...and no matter how remote things are that we see...we only see them HERE.It is very sensitive to detecting consistencies, especially consistencies between both local and remotely sourced observations.
Only here in the fishbowl earth.Time is a quantity able to be measured.
A watch is useful, as is a laptop...however, they have zero to do with whether time exists in the far universe.This has been demonstrated as being incredibly useful by science. (I doubt we'd be having this conversation in this electronic medium if it wasn't).
God and the spirtual are part of the reality of man, and any methodology that ignores that, is mickey mouse.'Descriptions' are models ... and that's what minds create. 'Reality' is one such description (or model).
Science only demonstrably deals in a version of reality that is mind dependent, and it only needs that concept of reality to function, (a 'mind-dependent concept of reality' here, means a recognition that the goal of science is to use our minds, to make sense of our perceptions, with no requirement whatsoever, for any part of that process to be independent of our minds, or any need to imagine that the process "refers to" anything mind independent).
You mentioned "one can measure the orbits of distant planets and find that the results match up with the predictions of Newton's law.."Your post quoted two parts of my response. I'm not sure which part you would like an example for. Please clarify.
The laws come 'into existence' (ie: objective reality) whenever their predictions are validated by testing. They do not 'exist' (scientifically) as something independent from our minds. They are descriptions which are useful for consistently explaining our perceptions (or observations). Their predictions give us some measure of confidence prior to actually conducting the tests.
Because you feel some compunction to post on evo time versus real time, and have something of substance to contribute.And why would I want to do that?
The mother of all premises science uses is assuming the same laws existed in the past. THAT is the premise of all models of origins from science. 100%. What a scam.How about you state the "premises of the issues" clearly first, dad.
Be specific and tell us what 'science contains'??!! Otherwise ye be chewin cud.Looking back I can only see some denial of what science contains and opinions with no evidence.
That is correct. The faith based foolish times of origin sciences are trash. Worthless. Garbage. Wrong. Unsupportable.The OP starts badly with "Imaginary time used by science..." with an actually imaginary "evo time".
False dichotomy. Yes snow behaves a certain way in our climate and nature and state of forces and laws. Only by assuming that nature and laws were the same did you cook up the silly 420,000 year thing. A good example of imaginary evo time.A science based argument that time is real for you dad.
Snow falls on the Antarctic continent. During summer dust is mixed with the snow making it darker than winter snow. The snow is compacted into ice. A core from the ice will have dark layers corresponding to the annual addition of dust in summer. This is a natural calendar. So we count the layers to get a calendar - the Vostok ice cores go back 420,000 years.
Ditto indeed.Ditto for maybe hundreds of other ice cores taken all over the world which cover from thousands to hundreds of thousands of years.
Think bigger! Not changes IN the laws of physics. Different laws!What changes in the laws of physics do you propose to explain measurements of ice being up to 420,000 years old, dad?
That question is a bit ignorant, dad, because it is impossible to observe planets around stars outside of the Milky Way. When we look at other orbits, e.g. stars in the Milky Way, then we see that there is not enough visible matter to explain the velocity of the stars as they get further from the center of the galaxy. Thus dark matter which is supported by about 9 lines of evidence. Therefore no one expects to confirm Newtonian gravitation in the far universe. A minority of scientists support modifying Newtonian mechanics to explain the evidence for dark matter.Now give an example of doing this in the far universe.
Pointing out the farce of evo time versus real time is something of substance. Especially compared to the premise of the thread in the first place.Because you feel some compunction to post on evo time versus real time, and have something of substance to contribute.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?