Red Shift may be time shift

[dad]

...only if time is different in deep space.

is it?

Probably. Of course no one has been there so science doesn't know. I mentioned some clues from the bible already, and it comes down heavily on the side of a different space, because it has spirits living there, and the stars were put there for us to mark time.

 

[jacknife]

Probably.

so you have evidence then? can we see it?

 

[dad]

Duh, what do you think I just said?

Well, I already told you. I did not see any different time in deep space in your post.

Your so intent on thinking you are the only one correct, you don't have a clue as to what I just really said. You "read" what you wanted to read, and failed to actually comprehend anything you just read.

Petty.

The only difference is I just have to "pretend" relativity is correct to disprove their own claims about the universe.

Not a straight shooter eh?

Simply use their own claimed logic against them. But again, you failed to comprehend a single thing I said.

Rather than throw a hissy fit, try to be clear.

Claiming to be the only correct one, while at the same time claiming nothing is known, with no basis to claim anything.

Plenty is known, but not by science.

If you or they understood what relativity really meant, all of you would know the futility of trying to apply one "increasing" accelerating frame to another differently situated "increasing" accelerating frame.

Just as I said, that is all relative to earth and earth time space. Guess who isn't comprehending?

But none of you truly understands what they postulate - and how the very thought of cosmological redshift violates everything they claim their theory says is correct.

Again, you seek to use their theories, which are based on our time and space, and then talk about how they got their own stuff wrong. That seems silly to me. I think they got it all wrong and you too.

If they truly believed in cosmological redshift, they would actually know their theory of distances and time has no basis in anything but relative to "us". That nothing is absolute and no claims can be made about anything outside the chosen frame of reference in that sufficiently small area of space-time.

I think they assume a homogeneous universe, and that they can stick an observer anywhere, and all that matters is what is relative to that observer, or another one in another part of space. The thing is, that they assume it is all the same time. This has nothing to do with relativity, because that is supposed to include the whole universe.

 

[dad]

so you have evidence then? can we see it?

Re 10:6 -And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:
Joh 8:58 -Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

 

[dad]

You mean aside from not observing any inconsistency?

How in heaven's name could we observe an inconsistency in TIME far away!!!??

 

[dad]

No choice if you accept the incorrect belief in cosmological redshift and continued accelerated expansion.

(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference).

Under acceleration rulers shrink, clocks slow - so time can never be the same in any frame undergoing acceleration. Since they claim the entire universe is undergoing this acceleration....

Why would we accept that physics are invariant?? How would physics affect time anyhow?

 

[Elendur]

How in heaven's name could we observe an inconsistency in TIME far away!!!??

That's for you to figure out, it's you who's supposed to provide the method of falsification.

 

[dad]

That's for you to figure out, it's you who's supposed to provide the method of falsification.

You are way way way ahead of yourself. Science is not remotely able to 'falsify' anything to do with time in the far universe.


What we see here on earth has to be in OUR time and space!

 

[Elendur]

You are way way way ahead of yourself. Science is not remotely able to 'falsify' anything to do with time in the far universe.


What we see here on earth has to be in OUR time and space!

By your own admission you've made an unfalsifiable claim. Get in line with the others. Come back when you have a falsifiable one.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Why would we accept that physics are invariant?? How would physics affect time anyhow?

We shouldn't accept they are invariant, if the universe is accelerating as they claim. The laws of physics as we currently understand them are only invariant in inertial frames - non-accelerating frames. So if the entire universe is undergoing acceleration, then they can not claim the laws of physics are invariant anywhere at all. Except in a sufficiently small area of spacetime - say the solar system for example.

Or if you go to the galactic frame - within the local group of galaxies. No larger frame is possible, since no other central axis frame presents itself.

Their own theory of redshift invalidates every claim they have ever made about the universe, they just failed to realize it and accept relativity - merely giving lip service to the name while ignoring it's main postulate, that only in non-accelerating frames are the laws of physics invariant. But, since all is under acceleration.....

So you see their problem?

Time is nothing but the oscillation of a cesium atom, the swing of a pendulum, the rotation of the earth around the sun, etc. The atomic oscillation rates increase or decrease with energy added or subtracted. Acceleration adds energy. So if all is under acceleration - a continuing acceleration - then time is constantly changing, even as we speak. Proportionally to all atoms sharing that frame - but changing nonetheless.

This is non-negotiable if one accepts relativity and accepts the pseudo-science of cosmological redshift. They simply expect most to not notice their biggest blunder of all time.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

think they assume a homogeneous universe, and that they can stick an observer anywhere, and all that matters is what is relative to that observer, or another one in another part of space. The thing is, that they assume it is all the same time. This has nothing to do with relativity, because that is supposed to include the whole universe.

No it doesn't, by their own theory.

"A locally Lorentz invariant frame that abides by special relativity can be defined at sufficiently small scales, even in curved spacetime."

Only locally will the laws of physics appear invariant. They can't assume it applies everywhere, because they claim all is undergoing acceleration. Accelerating frames are not invariant, it's the very first postulate of the theory.

"1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference)"

So if all frames are undergoing acceleration - how do they claim to apply the laws equally to all frames - when only at sufficiently small scales is it even possible?

Don't be fooled by their double-talk. Relativity forbids exactly what they go ahead and claim anyways. I already told you, they merely give lip service to the name of relativity to give their pseudo-science a semblance of authority.

 

[dad]

By your own admission you've made an unfalsifiable claim. Get in line with the others. Come back when you have a falsifiable one.

The little principle of being able to prove something wrong requires that one is able to do that. Therefore the principle does not apply where science cannot go.

 

[dad]

That's for you to figure out, it's you who's supposed to provide the method of falsification.

The method would be outside of science, because science is grounded on earth and area, and obligated to use only earth time and rules. It's own method binds it and makes it inept.

 

[dad]

We shouldn't accept they are invariant, if the universe is accelerating as they claim.

That is all within their concepts, and you need to take that up with them, see if they don't know what they are talking about. The reason that time may not exist has NOTHING to do with their little ideas or models. You seem to simply be accepting what they say, and trying to make it different that way.

The laws of physics as we currently understand them are only invariant in inertial frames - non-accelerating frames.

That doesn't matter. I suspect that time is different regardless of acceleration or etc, it just is likely not there as we know it. Therefore the space out there would not be the time/space we know!

Or if you go to the galactic frame - within the local group of galaxies. No larger frame is possible, since no other central axis frame presents itself.

I would be careful making rules for galaxies. They may be part of something far wilder than you ever dreamed.

Their own theory of redshift invalidates every claim they have ever made about the universe, they just failed to realize it and accept relativity - merely giving lip service to the name while ignoring it's main postulate, that only in non-accelerating frames are the laws of physics invariant. But, since all is under acceleration.....

And they don't know all this? You do? You seem to be trying to beat a giant in it's own cave, while it is awake.

So you see their problem?

Not really. I so not give their ideas enough credence to take them seriously, and agonize over how I could re-tweek the universe into something God made.

Time is nothing but the oscillation of a cesium atom, the swing of a pendulum, the rotation of the earth around the sun, etc.

Now there is your problem!! There is their problem also. This is what is fantasy. I say time is REAL. Any movements in our solar system that mark time, are NOT time itself. That is just how time plays out here. That is how God set it up temporarily.

The atomic oscillation rates increase or decrease with energy added or subtracted. Acceleration adds energy. So if all is under acceleration - a continuing acceleration - then time is constantly changing, even as we speak. Proportionally to all atoms sharing that frame - but changing nonetheless.

No no no. Anything to do with atoms is dependent on the forces and laws and time and space they are in! You cannot look at an atom wiggling here, and claim that this is time.

This is non-negotiable if one accepts relativity and accepts the pseudo-science of cosmological redshift. They simply expect most to not notice their biggest blunder of all time.

You could have something on some level. But you do not know what time is either, and are making a different mistake using their rules than they make. None of this would matter if time didn't exist persay out there.

 

[Elendur]

The little principle of being able to prove something wrong requires that one is able to do that. Therefore the principle does not apply where science cannot go.

God has freckles and three antlers up his nose.

You know it's true because you can't show otherwise.

The method would be outside of science, because science is grounded on earth and area, and obligated to use only earth time and rules. It's own method binds it and makes it inept.

A fish within a bowl can still detect said bowl.

Same principle.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That is all within their concepts, and you need to take that up with them, see if they don't know what they are talking about. The reason that time may not exist has NOTHING to do with their little ideas or models. You seem to simply be accepting what they say, and trying to make it different that way.

No, I am simply saying even if we accept their claim of relativity being correct, then by that very same theory they can not make the claims they claim. If your theory says only non-accelerating frames share the same laws of physics, and you then claim everything is accelerating, then by the very theory you accept you can not claim those accelerating frames share the same laws of physics.

You can claim anything, they will not listen - unless you show them by their own theory. Still they won't listen, but at least they no longer have an excuse to believe in Fairie Dust.

That doesn't matter. I suspect that time is different regardless of acceleration or etc, it just is likely not there as we know it. Therefore the space out there would not be the time/space we know!

It is, dependent solely on energy content. Which is why clocks on the equator keep time differently than clocks at the poles. Which is why clocks in orbit keep different time than clocks on earth. Which is why a clock on the moon keeps different time than clocks on earth. They KNOW it's different - they just don't want to admit it, because then all their "claims" go out the window, and they know this. That's why even two clocks sitting side-by-side in a sealed, room do not even tick at the same rate. Why the atomic national time standard requires 24 clocks, all having to be synched daily, because none of them tick at the same rate.

Now we even have "optical" clocks - based upon light - and still no two tick exactly the same. Which should give them a hint about the consistency of the speed of c, when trying to pretend a moving frame is actually stationary.

I would be careful making rules for galaxies. They may be part of something far wilder than you ever dreamed.

You might just be surprised at what I think they are. And it sure isn't what they believe they are.

And they don't know all this? You do? You seem to be trying to beat a giant in it's own cave, while it is awake.
Not really. I so not give their ideas enough credence to take them seriously, and agonize over how I could re-tweek the universe into something God made.

And hence they will always dismiss you, because you refuse to take their theory seriously - so why should they take yours seriously? It takes 5 seconds to show by their own theory they are wrong, therefore in reality they must consider new options. They won't of course, because they are not practicing science.

Now there is your problem!! There is their problem also. This is what is fantasy. I say time is REAL. Any movements in our solar system that mark time, are NOT time itself. That is just how time plays out here. That is how God set it up temporarily.

There is no such thing as time. Time is merely another distance measurement. Whether that is the distance a point on the surface of the earth travels to revolve around the axis once, we then divided into 24 segments. Or the distance the earth travels around the sun's axis once. Or the distance a second hand must move, or a pendulum must swing. Or even the distance of an electrons orbit around the atomic axis, the oscillation of a cesium atom.

No no no. Anything to do with atoms is dependent on the forces and laws and time and space they are in! You cannot look at an atom wiggling here, and claim that this is time.

Sure you can. You just can't claim two atoms "wiggling" at different oscillation rates are the same time. Hours are arbitrary divisions of a day. and yet I know you won't claim you don't accept them. you know, 60 minutes in an hour, 60 seconds in a minute. No different than subdividing those seconds into the appropriate number of atomic oscillations.

But then again, even the clock on your wrist and the one on your night stand will never tick the same rate. The earth actually slows and speeds up in its orbit, since it is elliptical. Your "day" changes all the time in length, whether you realize it or not.

You could have something on some level. But you do not know what time is either, and are making a different mistake using their rules than they make. None of this would matter if time didn't exist persay out there.

See above - no such thing as time apart from distance. Even made clear in their own math. t/d

In order to divide two things, they must be related. Basic mathematics 101.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A fish within a bowl can still detect said bowl.

Same principle.

Yet doubtful if it can perceive much of anything accurately beyond a few feet outside it with any certainty. The "bowl" is not the universe, nor is even the ocean. The fish might think it's his entire universe, and try to reason within the limits of his observations. And of course, "we" would know the fish was wrong, unless it came to the conclusion it was in a bowl, inside a house, on earth, rotating around it's axis, orbiting the sun, orbiting the galaxy... accelerating through space, and realized nothing beyond his bowl could be counted on with any certainty, as time and distance change with acceleration.

Or the fish could do away with that Fairie Dust expansion, and then at least have some basis in science to claim the laws of physics are the same from fishbowl to fishbowl. Exactly why E made his theory fit a "static" universe. But of course others had to have their names in the books too, so his theory was corrupted.

 

[Elendur]

Yet doubtful if it can perceive much of anything accurately beyond a few feet outside it with any certainty. The "bowl" is not the universe, nor is even the ocean. The fish might think it's his entire universe, and try to reason within the limits of his observations. And of course, "we" would know the fish was wrong, unless it came to the conclusion it was in a bowl, inside a house, on earth, rotating around it's axis, orbiting the sun, orbiting the galaxy... accelerating through space, and realized nothing beyond his bowl could be counted on with any certainty, as time and distance change with acceleration.
...

If the fish thought that was the entire universe it would do so for no good reason. The bowl is there, easily detected if it knows what to look for.

I was referring to his pet hypothesis of an event horizon which somehow changes how everything behaves. If that's the case, in any non-trivial amount, we'll notice.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

If the fish thought that was the entire universe it would do so for no good reason. The bowl is there, easily detected if it knows what to look for.

But what is a bowl, but a surface of last scattering? With now and then strange glimpses of things beyond?

I was referring to his pet hypothesis of an event horizon which somehow changes how everything behaves. If that's the case, in any non-trivial amount, we'll notice.

So then you disagree that the physics in accelerating frames would be trivial or non-trivial? At which radius in space would these differences in acceleration concerning the laws of physics become apparent?

6 parsecs? 50? The distance between the equator and the poles or orbit? What is an event horizon, but a calculation of a radius, in which effects would become noticeable? Or is it the radius when affects no longer are noticeable, such as singularities? It can never be detected, supposedly only it's event horizon, the point where the singularity ceases to exist, I mean becomes so intense it can't be detected?

 

[dad]

God has freckles and three antlers up his nose.

You know it's true because you can't show otherwise.

Science doesn't deal in God, so that is out of it's realm. Science does claim to deal in time space in the universe. Now we know they are talking nonsense and belief.

A fish within a bowl can still detect said bowl.

Great. So? Man detects the earth and area...whoopee do.