The true context of science. It is just a model, get over it.

[dad]

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?

I am telling you here and now. You cannot prove time is the same in far space. Forget who said it and just try!

 

[klutedavid]

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.

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!

 

[ianw16]

Why would I need a mechanism for you to be able to support your own claims of a certain nature in the past?

They are not my claims, and nobody is challenging them. You have got nothing, have you? Other than faith.

 

[ianw16]

I am telling you here and now. You cannot prove time is the same in far space. Forget who said it and just try!

As an unqualified believer in primitive superstition, your claims are an irrelevance, and are not based on any science. Try again.

 

[ianw16]

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?

Stupid statement. There is no reason for time to flow differently elsewhere. And no mechanism, nor scientific explanation. It is an idiotic assertion.

 

[tas8831]

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.

And your 'end to end' evidence for proteins from silicates via deity talk?

It is poor form to demand from others that which you cannot even speculate about.

There is a lot of credible FORENSIC evidence of life in eucharistic miracles: life from inert bread.

You're still on that bloody bread schtick?

No credible evidence at all, only fluff that the 'faithful' (i.e., gullible) accept without question.

Odd how these 'miracles' tend to occur in backwater 3rd -world type places with no actual witnesses....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

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.

 

[dad]

They are not my claims, and nobody is challenging them. You have got nothing, have you? Other than faith.

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.

My beliefs aer above any possibility of some so called science religionist challenging. The beliefs of so called science however must be scrutinized, examined, verified, and put under the hottest fire.

 

[dad]

As an unqualified believer in primitive superstition, your claims are an irrelevance, and are not based on any science. Try again.

Your opinion of the Almighty creator have no currency outside of your own head. Sorry.

 

[dad]

Stupid statement. There is no reason for time to flow differently elsewhere. And no mechanism, nor scientific explanation. It is an idiotic assertion.

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.

 

[dad]

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.

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.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

As I said before, it will sound dubious if you don't have the foggiest idea about it.

 

[dad]

As I said before, it will sound dubious if you don't have the foggiest idea about it.

You would know I guess. I might add it sounds dubious even if one pretends to know.

God set the spots on a leopard, and the way time and space exist in all quadrants of the universe/creation. You are not informed about how He did it and have engaged in fishbowl modeling/projection.

 

[Mountainmike]

Nope, that is pure fiction. Made up woo.

Which proves the point completely

Like most with strong atheist faith - you have no interest in evidence - and therefore you have no interest in science.
You view it all through the lens of your atheist faith. Both in terms of what you are willing to examine, and the apriori therefore inevitably false conclusions you draw.

In this case you even refuse to look at evidence: which you discount without even knowing what it is . How pathetic is that!

You also fail to see the philosophical culdesac of your own making. Now you admit that science is a model, not the underlying reality you have no other explanation, nor can science have explanation for what is, and why: indeed all you can know from an observation model, is patterns in what it is normally is seen to do..

I am a (now retired) professional postgrad scientist, so - unlike you - evidence and science matter to me.

And in this case it is forensic , from laboratories whose day job is criminology, and it is compelling.The key factors the same between several similar occurences in different countries investigated by different labs with the same conclusions.

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.

 

[tas8831]

There is a lot of credible FORENSIC evidence of life in eucharistic miracles: life from inert bread.

LOL!

My, the bar is low and the standards double for the anti-science creationist.

 

[ianw16]

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.

No they aren't. Nobody is making such a claim, let alone one that is backed with any actual science. Your comments on a forum are a total irrelevance. Show us where this challenge is in the scientific literature, otherwise it is only a figment of your imagination.

 

[ianw16]

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.

The bible is primitive, bronze age scribblings. Nothing to do with science.

 

[ianw16]

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.

 

[Mountainmike]

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.

 

[ianw16]

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.

So link to the scientific evidence for this woo.