Red Shift may be time shift

[dad]

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.

I can agree that any way we shake it...they are wrong!

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.

Their own theory is godless demonism. One cannot show truth in it or by it.

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.

I think they admit time dilation, but attribute the causes totally to gravity and etc.

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.

Maybe.

And hence they will always dismiss you, because you refuse to take their theory seriously - so why should they take yours seriously?

Once the Rapture happens and the tribulation is here, and things start to be different in many ways, including demons and angels showing up, and prophesy being fulfilled clearly, some might take things 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.

Well, does that mean you admit time may be different far away in the universe in a fundamental way? (not just some fractions of a second due to physical laws)

There is no such thing as time. Time is merely another distance measurement.

So God made the world in six days but this was just a 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.

None of that does anything but mark time.

In no way does it mean there is no 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.

Two atoms in our earth area need not be on the same 'time' to make time something real. That seems a shallow concept of time, to view it totally as something unreal, that is wholly a product of what things do on earth.

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.

So?

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

No. That is speculation. Time was here in creation week as there were days already. The stars were set there to mark time for us, to observe times and seasons also. Can you prove that if you were able to stop something from all motion and movement that it would not still exist in time!! Hey, things take time to exist.

 

[Elendur]

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.

Doesn't matter. I didn't use science to make that claim.

God has freckles and three antlers up his nose.

It's a non-scientific claim. Therefore you must show me wrong. I'm following what you wrote. I'm free to claim whatever I want, as long as it's outside science.

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

Earth is obviously not where the fishbowl is. Air planes do exist you know. Even if you include the atmosphere, there have been excursions quite far.

Or do you deny that the moon landing happened?

 

[Elendur]

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

You're taking the analogy of the bowl too far. It's the horizon part which is of importance, not the assumed properties.

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?

He has never referenced any frames at all. He's being so vague, intentionally or not, that it's impossible to establish what he's exactly claiming.

 

[Michael]

Doesn't matter. I didn't use science to make that claim.

God has freckles and three antlers up his nose.

It's a non-scientific claim. Therefore you must show me wrong.

Ah, so God is a lot like 'dark matter' or "space expansion" where all the various "properties" are simply "assumed" and the "disbeliever" is expected to "disprove" the various and often mutually exclusive ad hoc claims?

The irony of this thread is simply over the top. There's absolutely no more empirical physical evidence of expanding space as there is for God, in fact there is *less* evidence. At least I can trace and document the existence of EM fields throughout the universe, and I can compare it's mass layout to living organisms. The "expanding space" claim is simply a "statement of faith" on the part of the "believer", and no cause/effect relationship to photon redshift can be justified in the lab.

I'm following what you wrote. I'm free to claim whatever I want, as long as it's outside science.

Science? Considering the fact that science currently peddles concepts like multiverses, and string theory, your criticisms ring a tad hollow from my perspective.

I hear your point related to human imagination, but it's just as applicable to what passes for "science" these days. Guth quite literally invented inflation in his head without any scientific precedent.

 

[Elendur]

Ah, so God is a lot like 'dark matter' or "space expansion" where all the various "properties" are simply "assumed" and the "disbeliever" is expected to "disprove" the various and often mutually exclusive ad hoc claims?

The irony of this thread is simply over the top. There's absolutely no more empirical physical evidence of expanding space as there is for God, in fact there is *less* evidence. At least I can trace and document the existence of EM fields throughout the universe, and I can compare it's mass layout to living organisms. The "expanding space" claim is simply a "statement of faith" on the part of the "believer", and no cause/effect relationship to photon redshift can be justified in the lab.

The only relation (between what you wrote here and my criticism of his reasoning) I can see here is that you wrote a perceived example of the reasoning I am criticizing.
(EDIT: And even a weaker form of the reasoning, dropping one of the specific clauses)

Which means that it's irrelevant to the general point, and especially to what I'm arguing.

Science? Considering the fact that science currently peddles concepts like multiverses, and string theory, your criticisms ring a tad hollow from my perspective.

Could you extract my criticism (/-s) and explicitly state it (/them)? I'm not entirely sure they've come across properly.

I hear your point related to human imagination, but it's just as applicable to what passes for "science" these days. Guth quite literally invented inflation in his head without any scientific precedent.

Just like Einstein invented relativity. Or Newton gravity.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're taking the analogy of the bowl too far. It's the horizon part which is of importance, not the assumed properties.


He has never referenced any frames at all. He's being so vague, intentionally or not, that it's impossible to establish what he's exactly claiming.

Agreed, which is why I asked what you were claiming? Dad doesn't really interest me, he's not stupid, he just pretends we can't believe in those very things he claims God made, even if those very things point to Him and leave us with no excuse. I know why Dad ignores science, I'm trying to figure out why you do?

"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?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

ust like Einstein invented relativity. Or Newton gravity.

Except neither invented any such thing, it already existed and could be measured. They just tried to explain what they could already measure scientifically.

 

[Michael]

The only relation (between what you wrote here and my criticism of his reasoning) I can see here is that you wrote a perceived example of the reasoning I am criticizing.
(EDIT: And even a weaker form of the reasoning, dropping one of the specific clauses)

Which means that it's irrelevant to the general point, and especially to what I'm arguing.

Could you extract my criticism (/-s) and explicitly state it (/them)? I'm not entirely sure they've come across properly.

Just like Einstein invented relativity. Or Newton gravity.

I get the distinct feeling that you missed my point.

Newton and Einstein attempted to mathematically quantify a process that *occurs naturally on Earth*. Guth on the other hand *imagined* a process that does *not* and *cannot* occur on Earth, and in fact all mainstream claims as to the cause of redshift fall into that very same category. The notion that something seems "ad hoc" or unfalsifiable certainly doesn't preclude a claimed concept from being considered a "scientific" idea.

You're absolutely right that dads statements are really too vague to be tested or even fully comprehended, but you can't simply assume a claim isn't "scientific" simply because it doesn't "seem" so.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I get the distinct feeling that you missed my point.

Newton and Einstein attempted to mathematically quantify a process that *occurs naturally on Earth*. Guth on the other hand *imagined* a process that does *not* and *cannot* occur on Earth, and in fact all mainstream claims as to the cause of redshift fall into that very same category. The notion that something seems "ad hoc" or unfalsifiable certainly doesn't preclude a claimed concept from being considered a "scientific" idea.

I'll second that. Sort of like claiming the cosmological constant was the biggest blunder of Einsteins career, to the point he was forced to removed it, then blithely taking that same cosmological constant and wanting to re-insert it and apply it to Dark Energy to explain expansion instead. Sort of an ad-hoc double-talk if you ask me.

 

[Elendur]

Agreed, which is why I asked what you were claiming? Dad doesn't really interest me, he's not stupid, he just pretends we can't believe in those very things he claims God made, even if those very things point to Him and leave us with no excuse. I know why Dad ignores science, I'm trying to figure out why you do?

OP dad: Claiming that time behaving differently in "deep space" could explain redshift.
#1 Me: Asking for the math which could substantiate this.
#2 dad: Shifting the burden of proof.
#3 Me: Noting the lack of observational support of his claim.
#4 dad: Asking how his claim could be shown wrong.
#5 Me: Noting that it's the proposer who's supposed to give venues of falsification.
#6 dad: Claiming that we're unable to falsify it due to science being earth based.
#7 Me: Noting that he has admitted to the claim being unfalsifiable (albeit through faulty reasoning).
#8 dad: Claims that unfalsifiable claims do not fall under the burden of proof.
#8b dad: Claims that, since we're observing from the earths locale, we cannot check whether time behaves differently elsewhere.
#9 Me: I provide an example where my claim is unfalsifiable, since burden of proof doesn't apply to that. I also provide with a fish analogy that demonstrates how someone positionally challenged can still reason about the surroundings.
#10 You: Somewhat elaborate on the fish analogy. And then trail off into irrelevance.
#11 Me: Quoting your relevant piece, noting that you'd injected unnecessary musings which would not follow. Also clarifying what my analogy was designed to illuminate.
#12 You: Mention a specific property of a specific kind of bowl. Why, I do not know, but I deemed, and deem, it irrelevant. You also ask 8 additional questions where you've seemed to latch onto the specific term ("event horizon") I've used.
#13 Me: Stating that you've taken my analogy past it's point of usefulness, specifically noting that it was not the properties of the bowl which was of interest. I also clarify that it's not me who has made the claim of the "event horizon" (a term I'm willing to elaborate on and perhaps change to a more suitable one).
#14 (quoted here) You: Clarifying that you're asking what I'm claiming. You claim that I'm ignoring science (in the form of a question). Restating two of the 8 questions of #12.
#14b (quoted here)You: Claim that relativity and gravity somehow was different at conceptual level than inflation.

Possible posts which could have contained claims (of less obvious truth content) of mine:
#3, #5, #9, #11 (which largely is the same as #9)
So you have four posts where I've made three separate claims, I don't know which one you're referring to. I'll list them explicitly for you.

#3: I claimed that he lacks observational support for his hypothesis. This is by his own design, as the claimant is the one who's supposed to provide evidence.
#5: I claimed that it's the claimant who is supposed to provide the method of falsification.
#9+#11: I claimed that an observer would be able to detect the existence of a border (note the change from "event horizon") where physics behavior somehow changes.

I've now listed my claims. You're free to contest any of them.

Now please be explicit. You've, in the form of a question, claimed I ignore science. Elaborate.

"So then you disagree that the physics in accelerating frames would be trivial or non-trivial?

The physics in accelerating frames would be trivial or non-trivial. So no, I don't disagree.

At which radius in space would these differences in acceleration concerning the laws of physics become apparent?"

Where did you get the term "acceleration" from? Where was that introduced into the discussion?

Except neither invented any such thing, it already existed and could be measured.

Please elaborate more. How is that different from inflation?

They just tried to explain what they could already measure scientifically.

Just like inflation. The measurements are/were there.

 

[Elendur]

I get the distinct feeling that you missed my point.

Wouldn't be the first, middle or last time.

Newton and Einstein attempted to mathematically quantify a process that *occurs naturally on Earth*. Guth on the other hand *imagined* a process that does *not* and *cannot* occur on Earth, and in fact all mainstream claims as to the cause of redshift fall into that very same category. The notion that something seems "ad hoc" or unfalsifiable certainly doesn't preclude a claimed concept from being considered a "scientific" idea.

Here you're once again careless with your choice of words.
I will proceed on the assumption that you're referring to space expansion when you mention "a process". I'll also proceed, to simplify the choice of words, on the assumption that it's correct and theorized/hypothesized as I perceive it.

That process can and does occur on earth. You've been chided on your statements before, by me and others, and when I've pressed you for support of your claim, you've repeatedly failed to realize the minimal scale of which it does happen. Which is made evident through it only being observable on the scale of galaxy clusters and above.

Is this the case again? Or have I misunderstood?

Did you claim that space expansion does not occur on earth?
Or, as you more often put it:
Did you claim that space expansion does not occur in the lab?

You're absolutely right that dads statements are really too vague to be tested or even fully comprehended, but you can't simply assume a claim isn't "scientific" simply because it doesn't "seem" so.

I thought you knew me well enough to avoid claiming that I assume things (at least without me explicitly stating so).
You'll notice in that in post #7 I explicitly ask him.
Explicit evidence that I gave him the chance to demonstrate that it was scientific. If I assumed that it wasn't, I wouldn't have given him the chance.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

OP dad: Claiming that time behaving differently in "deep space" could explain redshift.
#1 Me: Asking for the math which could substantiate this.

Let's just take this one, since this one invalidates all the others, even yours.

Is or is not the entire universe undergoing accelerated expansion?

Does or does not relativity demand that in accelerating frames the laws of physics are different, and that rulers shrink and clocks slow?

If you answer yes to either one, then why again are you attempting to dispute his claim about time being different? He may be technicaly incorrect in claiming only "deep space", since we know time changes on flying airplanes under acceleration as well, let alone in "deep space", as well as explaining cosmological redshift. Be sure to add that "cosmological" when you talk about redshift, because redshift (Doppler Shift) has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmological redshift.

We both understand cosmological redshift has nothing to do with time or acceleration, just what every photon does when it interacts with a medium.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

It used to be redshift, until technology advanced and falsified that belief as it would of meant galaxies were traveling at fractions of c. Only then did it become "cosmological" redshift - where an expanding, bending, accelerating nothing stretched light waves. Then galaxies were receding at fractions of c, being carried along by nothing, while themselves traveling below c in local spacetime, so relativity was safe once again.

All the while applying the same laws of physics to those differently situated accelerating frames, when you know those same laws of physics only apply to non-accelerating frames.

So I'm asking for the math to substantiate that the same laws of physics applies in accelerating frames as inertial frames?

 

[dad]

Doesn't matter. I didn't use science to make that claim.

God has ...

If you are not talking from a sound scientific OR bible position, you are just chewing your own cud.

Earth is obviously not where the fishbowl is.

What fishbowl?

Air planes do exist you know. Even if you include the atmosphere, there have been excursions quite far.

Such news from you!

Or do you deny that the moon landing happened?

By who, you?

 

[dad]

he just pretends we can't believe in those very things he claims God made, even if those very things point to Him and leave us with no excuse.

Claiming a big bang rather than creation and etc does not point to God in any way, but the other way actually. Claiming stellar evolution and old ages and etc etc does not point to, but away from God. You are without excuse!

I know why Dad ignores science,

Falsehood. I don't ignore science. I reject their evil claims that have no basis. Your claims remind me of the poor cousin of science, in that you use the same belief basics, but try to add a little God in there somewhere, but we'd need to hire a detective to figure out where!

I would that thou were hot or cold.

 

[dad]

OP dad: Claiming that time behaving differently in "deep space" could explain redshift.
#1 Me: Asking for the math which could substantiate this.

You suggest that math ought to be able to cover a different time in space.That truly is foolish, and since you are a mathematician you claim, would you not know that??

Give us a little simple math for time being the same out there! Let's see your stuff, if you have the guts.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Claiming a big bang rather than creation and etc does not point to God in any way, but the other way actually. Claiming stellar evolution and old ages and etc etc does not point to, but away from God. You are without excuse!

No, you are.

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Those things He made were set as example to prove to you God exists, and then you claim we can't really understand them, and so make God a liar, because he said study of those things would lead eventually right back to him.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

So what is your excuse, since clearly without understanding those things made, the invisible attributes of Him will never be seen or understood. Again, you simply mistake "modern cosmology" for science - as do 99% of the others. The two do not even belong in the same category.

Science says matter and energy are the same, energy merely transforms into matter and matter into energy. That's science. The Bible tells you it's his invisible qualities, that all things are from, and that He is in all. Science knows this. Knows that the energy pervading all of space is no different than the energy flowing in our brains, enabling "some" people to think. That all matter transformed from this energy - and goes back to it when it is no longer material.

Don't confuse modern mainstream "cosmological theories" with actual science.

Science says the laws of physics vary with acceleration. Cosmologists want you to believe all is under an increasing acceleration, but the laws of physics are the same anyways. Again, don't confuse "science" with modern mainstream cosmological theories.

You on the other hand want to throw away the entire basket of fruit, because one apple had a worm in it.

 

[dad]

No, you are.

Ha. Would mature debate be too much to ask for?

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

What has been seen from the beginning of the world may not include all you thought it did!

Those things He made were set as example to prove to you God exists, and then you claim we can't really understand them, and so make God a liar, because he said study of those things would lead eventually right back to him.

Garbage talk. The heavens declare God's glory, but man's idea of the heavens is hellish and ugly. If we look at the stars we see the great work of God. If we look at them imagining all the filth of cosmology we see gross darkness and uncreated stars.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse"

Invisible is right. Not sure what you think that meant. To try to pretend it involves godless science is foul.

So what is your excuse, since clearly without understanding those things made, the invisible attributes of Him will never be seen or understood.

From the beginning we never saw cosmological whoppers! To understand what we do see, we need to exorcise science from us!

Again, you simply mistake "modern cosmology" for science - as do 99% of the others. The two do not even belong in the same category.

It is called science, and when you rattle on about an electric smectric universe or the theory of relativity applying to time in the far universe, you are talking about science falsely so called.

Science says matter and energy are the same,

So?? They do not know about spiritual energy or anything else. They do not know what the universe is like in basic ways, so that claim is only for earth area, and even then, only in this state!

energy merely transforms into matter and matter into energy.

You are guessing. That is based on earth rules. Beyond our solar system, maybe there are other rules. That doesn't apply to the universe or the future or the past.

That's science. The Bible tells you it's his invisible qualities,

Not in any way does the bible tell us that science is anything like that!

that all things are from, and that He is in all. Science knows this.

False. Science has no God in it. They confess none. They know nothing like that.

Knows that the energy pervading all of space is no different than the energy flowing in our brains, enabling "some" people to think.

Speculation. The energy in a brain on earth may not be exactly like energy in a star or near one.

That all matter transformed from this energy - and goes back to it when it is no longer material.

Nonsense! God never says all matter does that. Science doesn't know that either.

Don't confuse modern mainstream "cosmological theories" with actual science.

Sorry, but your posts confuse them.

Science says the laws of physics vary with acceleration.

In theory! They never accelerated very far!

Cosmologists want you to believe all is under an increasing acceleration, but the laws of physics are the same anyways.

That is based on a string of assumptions and beliefs. Redshift for example. This thread suggests that there may be other reasons for the shifting.

You on the other hand want to throw away the entire basket of fruit, because one apple had a worm in it.

Their whole science of cosmology is a fraud, and must be upchucked. If they talk about the sun and moon and planets here, to a certain point...fine. They may not pass any further, and even here it will change soon and did change probably already, and in some areas, like under the earth or in the sun, could be different as we speak.

 

[Elendur]

Let's just take this one, since this one invalidates all the others, even yours.

That's a question. Not a claim. Or were you referring to the OP?

Is or is not the entire universe undergoing accelerated expansion?

Irrelevant.

Does or does not relativity demand that in accelerating frames the laws of physics are different, and that rulers shrink and clocks slow?

Irrelevant.

If you answer yes to either one, then why again are you attempting to dispute his claim about time being different? He may be technicaly incorrect in claiming only "deep space", since we know time changes on flying airplanes under acceleration as well, let alone in "deep space", as well as explaining cosmological redshift. Be sure to add that "cosmological" when you talk about redshift, because redshift (Doppler Shift) has nothing whatsoever to do with cosmological redshift.

1. That "technicality" is the very heart of his claim.
2. He's claiming that time is different depending on your position. Not your speed.
3. I haven't made the opposite claim.
4. If I had, I'd made sure to not confuse the opposite claim with time which is constant everywhere.

We both understand cosmological redshift has nothing to do with time or acceleration, just what every photon does when it interacts with a medium.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

It used to be redshift, until technology advanced and falsified that belief as it would of meant galaxies were traveling at fractions of c. Only then did it become "cosmological" redshift - where an expanding, bending, accelerating nothing stretched light waves. Then galaxies were receding at fractions of c, being carried along by nothing, while themselves traveling below c in local spacetime, so relativity was safe once again.

Irrelevant.

All the while applying the same laws of physics to those differently situated accelerating frames, when you know those same laws of physics only apply to non-accelerating frames.

So I'm asking for the math to substantiate that the same laws of physics applies in accelerating frames as inertial frames?

Define laws of physics.

You're obviously not referring to the actual behaviour of the universe, perhaps you're referring to the descriptive models we as the human species have constructed?

 

[Elendur]

If you are not talking from a sound scientific OR bible position, you are just chewing your own cud.

What's your basis for that?

What fishbowl?

I thought that was your favourite analogy, what happened?

Such news from you!

Apparently.

By who, you?

Fortunately, no.

You suggest that math ought to be able to cover a different time in space.That truly is foolish, and since you are a mathematician you claim, would you not know that??

Give us a little simple math for time being the same out there! Let's see your stuff, if you have the guts.

"math ought to be able to cover"... I haven't seen anything that math or logic could not model, given enough work. I'll even give you "a little simple math". If we assume that the behaviour of time, t, is continuous, then we could describe time which does not depend on the position, p, through:
t'(p,p') = t'(p').
I think that should suffice. This isn't anything near what someone who has actually done studying within the actual field, but the principle should be somewhat correct.
Thus, to show your claim, demonstrate that
t'(p,p') =/= t'(p').
Your move.

 

[Michael]

Wouldn't be the first, middle or last time.

Ya, me either.

Here you're once again careless with your choice of words.
I will proceed on the assumption that you're referring to space expansion when you mention "a process". I'll also proceed, to simplify the choice of words, on the assumption that it's correct and theorized/hypothesized as I perceive it.

That process can and does occur on earth.

Your evidence (from the lab)?

You've been chided on your statements before, by me and others, and when I've pressed you for support of your claim, you've repeatedly failed to realize the minimal scale of which it does happen.

IMO this sounds like a convenient excuse as to why the mainstream is simply unable to support their claims *empirically* in controlled experimentation. There are at *least* two *common* and *easy* ways to explain photon redshift that do not require 'leaps of faith' in the 'unseen' (in the lab). Why would I look to a "supernatural" explanation for something that is easily and simply explained with *natural* and demonstrated processes?

Which is made evident through it only being observable on the scale of galaxy clusters and above.

IMO that is simply another "statement of faith" about various ad hoc properties that you've chosen to assign to the 'supernatural' processed called "space expansion". It's like Dad claiming that time changes only occur on large scales. How would you verify or falsify such a claim?

Is this the case again? Or have I misunderstood?

I think we understand each other on this issue, I just think we see it quite differently. The onus of responsibility falls to the one making the positive claim about 'space expansion'. An *uncontrolled* observation followed by an affirming the consequent fallacy is not "evidence" of space expansion being a cause of photon redshift, it's a "statement of faith".

Did you claim that space expansion does not occur on earth?

Yep. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I have every reason to believe it does not occur here or anywhere else.

Or, as you more often put it:
Did you claim that space expansion does not occur in the lab?

I did say that, just as an atheist might "lack belief" in any tangible effects from "God". The empirical difference however is that the concept of God having a tangible effect on humans *could* be lab tested, whereas "space expansion" is simply a statement of faith that must be taken on pure faith in terms of cause/effect justification. It's ultimately nothing more than an affirming the consequent fallacy run amok.

I thought you knew me well enough to avoid claiming that I assume things (at least without me explicitly stating so).

Apparently I'm a slow learner. Sorry if you feel I misrepresented your position. I wasn't trying to do so.

You'll notice in that in post #7 I explicitly ask him.
Explicit evidence that I gave him the chance to demonstrate that it was scientific. If I assumed that it wasn't, I wouldn't have given him the chance.

In terms of assigning various presumed properties to God, space or anything else, what's the empirical (lab tested) difference?