- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
I am telling you here and now. You cannot prove time is the same in far space. Forget who said it and just try!
Upvote
0
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.
I am telling you here and now. You cannot prove time is the same in far space. Forget who said it and just try!No, we haven't been told. Where is the link to this claim? As far as I can see, it is just the untutored ramblings of an unqualified amateur on a forum. Got anything else?
It's not so much what we observe that matters in the end. Rather it is what we can never observe, the realm of true faith that ultimately delivers the true knowledge!People often speak on this thread as though the physics model WAS reality, rather than just an observation model of it.
They see the elegance of some of the maths and marvel at how "elegant" nature is, and its true. Some of the maths - like maxwells equations - is elegant. The problem is, it is the model that is elegant, not nature!
I marvelled once at the exactness of the proof of the permeability of free space.
As a simpleelegant formula but you need some maths and physics knowledge to calculate it!. When I got more advanced I realised. That "pretty" formula was simply built into the axioms of the model.! It was there because when we defined "field " and "permeability" it was just a consequence of our definitions. no more or less. Nothing to do with the universe. Which is why you dont need to measure ANYTHING at all, to calculate the permeability of free space.
For sure it is a valuable model - it has enabled progress (of a sort)
(for people really think atom bombs , fertilizers that kill all wild life and ozone destroying gas guzzling cars are progress - but I digress!)
I think they need to get grounded in what science really is.
And the easiest way to illustrate it, it is one of the simplest equations of all that everyone knows. Or they think they do. But they dont....
V=IR
Many people will call it ohms law, and many text books wrongly call it such.
And that is the first problem!
Actually it is not a law.
It is a definition of resistance.
So it is an "equivalence" not even an equation.
R= V/I is that defintion.
Ohms law is actually that
"for a range of materials and operating points, resistance is (reasonably constant)"
So for those materials if I double voltage, (within reason) I will see double current.
But many materials DO NOT obey ohms law, and most do not, at extremes of operating point.
So it is hardly universal.
Take our old favourite semiconductors. Or semiconductor junctions.
They dont obey ohms law.
But the resistance is still V/I ! it just isnt constant as you change V!
So everyones favourite equation is still true, even if Ohms law does not apply!
So here we have the reality of the physical model.
WE DEFINE an axiomatic quantity called resistance R=V/I
It doesnt exist in the universe , just in our heads or on paper.
WE OBSERVE for some materials over a range of operating points
Voltage is proportional to current - so resistance is constant.
Ohm was the first to document it, so it bears his name.
WE PUT ohms law into the model. It wasnt there before we put it there.
It is only true for some materials some of the time, over some operating points.
So it is JUST a model.
We can take it all a level deeper. But the principle is just the same.
We can model charge carriers too. I can make the same observations of charge carriers, and arrive at electro kinetic axioms and laws. But they too are a model.
So then we come up to our old friend an electron.
What is it? Well it depends.... Charge is a model. Who knows what it is, it describes a behaviour. Electron is a model of charge carrier. We also have models called particles and waves. And sometimes electrons behave as one, sometimes the other. Sometimes they cant seem to make up their minds. Not that they have amind.
We expect them to repel. Except when they dont. Two electrons in a box are observed more likely at one end than opposite! So where are you repulsion?
Then it gets really bizarre. Electrons whose history is written only when they are observed Easily shown with single quantum double slit experiments.
But things have a unique history dont they? Er well...no not in quantum world.
And at that point people need to get grounded again.
Why all these stupid paradoxes on observablity, causality, history , uniqueness?
Answer because it is ONLY a model.
When we say "explained " by physics we dont mean the universe explains behaviour.
We mean it is or is not in the model yet! The model either does work or not for whatever we say it "explains" or not explains as the case may be.
So we cannot take God out of the model , not because He is not the universe ,but because nobody put Him in the Model.
There is no shrinking "god of the gaps" because outside the model Nothing is explained. We only observe what it normally does. And explain just means it is modelled!
And the model models it well sometimes. But then...the cosmology model seems to not have over 90 percent of the mass. So the model is not very good in places...
So I urge all to go back to the idea, that if you are looking for "explanation" science is not the place to start. Its a model, not the real universe. It predicts what it is normally observed to do Not what it is , or why it is.
Why would I need a mechanism for you to be able to support your own claims of a certain nature in the past?
I am telling you here and now. You cannot prove time is the same in far space. Forget who said it and just try!
Not sure why you think I need evidence for what you don't know. Space, and what is it out there? Time...same question? What else is out there you can't see? Will you admit if time were not the same no distances can be known for deep space?
And your 'end to end' evidence for proteins from silicates via deity talk?Wrong
On the basis of EVIDENCE you claim to support, there is NONE for either the fact of or any end to end process of abiogenesis (spare me the protein chemistry - evidence of bricks, is not evidence of self building houses ). So belief in abiogenesis is just that. Pure belief "confidence in absence of evidence". I might even share it , but as a scientist I accept it for what it is. belief.
There is a lot of credible FORENSIC evidence of life in eucharistic miracles: life from inert bread.
Time isn't 'the same' everywhere, there's no absolute time - special & general relativity taught us that, and how it varies in different contexts.Not sure why you think I need evidence for what you don't know. Space, and what is it out there? Time...same question? What else is out there you can't see? Will you admit if time were not the same no distances can be known for deep space?
The claims of science about both nature on earth being the same in the past, and time and space in the far universe being the same are under severe challenge here.They are not my claims, and nobody is challenging them. You have got nothing, have you? Other than faith.
Your opinion of the Almighty creator have no currency outside of your own head. Sorry.As an unqualified believer in primitive superstition, your claims are an irrelevance, and are not based on any science. Try again.
The issue is not how you feel time might 'flow'/behave/exist in unknown deep space, nor it's interactions with space there. The issue is you making models of the universe based on your silly unsupportable beliefs in a diametrically anti bible way.Stupid statement. There is no reason for time to flow differently elsewhere. And no mechanism, nor scientific explanation. It is an idiotic assertion.
What we observe here is what we comprehend and know. If there is some shifting of light in the stars, or bending, or gravitation, that does not tell us it equals space and time and gravity here! That tells us that man ascribes what we know as explanations for the bit we do see here from far far far space.Time isn't 'the same' everywhere, there's no absolute time - special & general relativity taught us that, and how it varies in different contexts.
What we observe at the closest and remotest distances is entirely consistent with how relativity says time should vary, so we're pretty confident that, in that respect, it gives us the right answers.
As I said before, it will sound dubious if you don't have the foggiest idea about it.What we observe here is what we comprehend and know. If there is some shifting of light in the stars, or bending, or gravitation, that does not tell us it equals space and time and gravity here! That tells us that man ascribes what we know as explanations for the bit we do see here from far far far space.
You would know I guess. I might add it sounds dubious even if one pretends to know.As I said before, it will sound dubious if you don't have the foggiest idea about it.
Which proves the point completelyNope, that is pure fiction. Made up woo.
There is a lot of credible FORENSIC evidence of life in eucharistic miracles: life from inert bread.
The claims of science about both nature on earth being the same in the past, and time and space in the far universe being the same are under severe challenge here.
The issue is not how you feel time might 'flow'/behave/exist in unknown deep space, nor it's interactions with space there. The issue is you making models of the universe based on your silly unsupportable beliefs in a diametrically anti bible way.
Which proves the point completely
<snipped irrelevant word salad>
More to the point there is FAR MORE evidence for life originating from eucharistic miracles (and thereby disproves darwins (so called) theorem, using the test that Darwin himself set!)
in contrast to the total absence of evidence or conjectured end to end process for abiogenesis. Life as a chemical accident.
Yet I have little doubt you believe in abiogenesis because it is a dogma of your faith.
You are welcome to believe what you will.
But On the evidence (and therefore science) -war you lose.
You have no evidence. Zero. Eucharistic miracles! Lol.
Which demonstrates only that you have not researched it.
Which proves my point about atheist faith
And consequent refusal to study evidence or science.
You are blinded by your own dogma.
I prefer evidence, particularly that from credible forensic labs whose day job is "Beyond reasonable doubt" for criminal investigation. I doubt you can even name the phenomena relevant to my post, let alone the nature of evidence. So you are dismissing it only because it violates your apriori beliefs.
You are welcome to your faith. But that is all it is.
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?