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

[sjastro]

I do not believe the ancients thought earth was stationary, regardless of what the terrorist you quoted may have said. The bible does not say that, nor that the earth is flat either. Sorry. No.

Well that proves the terrorist had no real grasp of a lot of Scripture I guess. It does not say the earth does not move. What the bible talks about is a miracle that happened in one little area. It does not say world wide does it? The loaves and fishes miracle was at one place at a certain time also. (since this happened a few times, then obviously a few places and times). People in China in that day did not find loaves and fish! Nor did people in China record, of course that the sun stopped the day Joshua fought the battle in Israel! You cannot use that verse to claim the earth doesn't move.

The bible tells us a lot about the stars, and origins, and when things came to exist etc etc etc. Science (origins) is just a religion that departed from God and left Him out purposely of any and all possible scenarios and models etc.
Many aspects of origin sciences are dealt with in the bible. That God created life for example, so we know all evolving happened after this and not as science claims, the other way round! We know earth was here and the stars and sun created after, science preaches the opposite. So God does cover a lot of these things science pretends to cover, but since science claims on the issues are lies and dark religion, naturally the bible is not strictly some science book. It is far above just that.
If you disagree with the folks you cited and the way the verses you offered were supposed to be interpreted, then how are we to think you have some other position?


The bible does not teach the earth is flat nor that it does not move physically period. You simply need to agree or disagree and be clear.


So who says all this exactly??

Let's look at their claims and the basis for them. Ha.

No matter who you may be let's see you show verses that say that the sun in the future will not orbit earth! (or that the earth will orbit the sun) We do know that the heavens we know will be no more!

The bible doesn't say there are 365 days in a year either. A bible year from Genesis to Revelation is 360 days! Why does God not switch over to our current fishbowl time? Ha. Apparently this world as it is simply is too transient in nature!! Perhaps the same thing is true of the orbits and movements earth may have in the future.

The irony of your response is that despite it being an example of your cognitive impairment, a very clear message has been conveyed; the admission your fishbowl is not supported by the Bible.
Yet over the years the Biblical support of your fishbowl has been your linchpin argument.
Now that you have made the admission your defeat has been rubber stamped.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What we mean by reality depends entirely on models conceived by the mind! The meaning of Science's reality, is a subset of this, with it itself being distinguished by verified objective test results. Speculation leading into testable hypotheses represents the transition point from the unrigorous concepts our mind naturally develop from perceptions, into the scientific realm.

Yes; this is a view called 'model-dependent realism', popularised by Hawking and Mlodinow.

 

[dad]

The irony of your response is that despite it being an example of your cognitive impairment, a very clear message has been conveyed; the admission your fishbowl is not supported by the Bible.
Yet over the years the Biblical support of your fishbowl has been your linchpin argument.
Now that you have made the admission your defeat has been rubber stamped.

Three strikes and you are out. You had the chance to show where you addressed the question asked, and gave no post link.

Not sure what you think the 'fishbowl' is? I use the term to refer to the area man has lived or explored even by spacecraft. That has to do mostly with science, as we have spacecraft now, and shuttles, and rockets, and probes, and satellites...etc.

I have no idea why you would think that the bible does not support the earth and sun and even beyond all this ..the stars!? I think you have a lack of clarity on the core issues you are (or were before being defeated) trying to debate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You might ask them about the Planck Length changing during their claimed expansion and how their time magically stays the same despite an increase in the scale of spacetime...

You really should be aware that the Planck Length is defined in terms of fundamental physical constants (the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant) that are unaffected by the expansion of spacetime.

Time 'magically' stays the same because a coordinate system is usually chosen such that time dimension doesn't scale. The scale factor involving the three dimensions of space is a function of time. This is why we say the universe expands with time.

Also how light magically ignores this increase in the amount of space it has to cross and does so in the same amount of time as if their was no extra space being created it had to pass through?????

The speed of light remains constant; if it travels further, it takes longer. If space expands as it travels, it is red-shifted.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes; this is a view called 'model-dependent realism', popularised by Hawking and Mlodinow.

I don't think Hawking/Mlodinow got to the bottom of the matter (at least what they say still isn't clear enough IMO).
For instance (my emboldenment from 'Model Selection'):

While not rejecting the idea of "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", model-dependent realism suggests that we cannot know "reality-as-it-is-in-itself", but only an approximation of it ... [6]

'Approximation of it' in this quote implies there is still something 'out there' (or outside the mind), whereas reinterpreting from the perspective I've outlined, "It" becomes whatever meaning our minds associate with that particular word, and this is how our minds 'create' reality. The latter perspective can be objectively tested (and you'll find, produces abundant evidence), whereas the Hawking idea doesn't produce any (aka .. its not testable independently from the mind).

Everything our minds create from our perceptions is one of Hawking etal's 'models', so why not reduce 'model dependent reality' to 'mind dependent reality' .. to more precisely reflect were the evidence takes us?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think Hawking/Mlodinow got to the bottom of the matter (at least what they say still isn't clear enough IMO).
For instance (my emboldenment from 'Model Selection'):'Approximation of it' in this quote implies there is still something 'out there' (or outside the mind), whereas reinterpreting from the perspective I've outlined, "It" becomes whatever meaning our minds associate with that particular word, and this is how our minds 'create' reality. The latter perspective can be objectively tested (and you'll find, produces abundant evidence), whereas the Hawking idea doesn't produce any (aka .. its not testable independently from the mind).

My understanding is that it's necessary to make some assumptions about what exists in order to avoid solipsism. For example, if we agree that other people exist, and they broadly agree with us about what the world is like, it suggests we're sharing a common perception of whatever's out there. In a Kantian sense we can't know things 'as they are in themselves', whatever that may be, we only receive information about them through our senses; so we model them and compare our predictions with our perceptions to refine the model.

Everything our minds create from our perceptions is one of Hawking etal's 'models', so why not reduce 'model dependent reality' to 'mind dependent reality' .. to more precisely reflect were the evidence takes us?

To avoid solipsism?

 

[SelfSim]

My understanding is that it's necessary to make some assumptions about what exists in order to avoid solipsism. For example, if we agree that other people exist, and they broadly agree with us about what the world is like, it suggests we're sharing a common perception of whatever's out there. In a Kantian sense we can't know things 'as they are in themselves', whatever that may be, we only receive information about them through our senses; so we model them and compare our predictions with our perceptions to refine the model.
...
To avoid solipsism?

Ahh but the key difference between Solipism (a philosophy) and the scientific hypothesis of Mind Dependent Reality, (MDR), is that the used components of 'a Solipist-like' approach, are not leveraged to rule out anything untestable, (as in 'there may still be something out there'), whereas pure Solipism would.

The use of what you correctly identify as being parts of Solipist thinking is what happens in science all the time .. grab an idea from somewhere, make it testable, in order to produce usefulness. Again, the usefulness part here is akin to 'Utilitarianism' but again different, because it is not used as a basis to rule out untestable things (eg: things which may not, on their own, be seen as necessarily maximising the utility value).

Absolutism would also lead to the view that there is no incompleteness (or error bar uncertaintities) inherent in the MDR hypothesis .. so its just like any other scientific hypothesis .. incompletement and open to change when/if further (objective) data/evidence becomes available.

Its a fine line woven between the silly parts of these traditional philosophies, (I know), but people such as yourself are more than welcome to keep me/others honest in making use of it.

 

[SelfSim]

When philosophical Realism turns out as being the only basis for asserting that something independent of minds exists 'out there', (usually denoted by the telltale absence of any objective test whatsoever), we clearly have a 'Miracle Philosophy'.
This is hilarious siutation because proponents of Realism (like Popper) actually went out of their way to avoid exactly what they ended up producing! Its hilarious!

 

[dad]

My understanding is that it's necessary to make some assumptions about what exists in order to avoid solipsism.

Better to know what you are talking about! Especially when you pawn off the models based on your beliefs/assumptions as knowledge! Not only that but claim it overrules God's creation and word.

 

[dad]

Time 'magically' stays the same because a coordinate system is usually chosen such that time dimension doesn't scale.

Isn't that nice for your religion! Too bad you do not even know what time is.

Time in your head may be some coordinate system.

 

[SelfSim]

Better to know what you are talking about! Especially when you pawn off the models based on your beliefs/assumptions as knowledge! Not only that but claim it overrules God's creation and word.

Scientific models/theories are known as being contextual, provisional, testable and are constantly under investigation.

'God' is an untestable belief.

 

[SelfSim]

... Too bad you do not even know what time is.

Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".

... So much for your grandiose statements based on your personal misconceptions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ahh but the key difference between Solipism (a philosophy) and the scientific hypothesis of Mind Dependent Reality, (MDR), is that the used components of 'a Solipist-like' approach, are not leveraged to rule out anything untestable, (as in 'there may still be something out there'), whereas pure Solipism would.

The use of what you correctly identify as being parts of Solipist thinking is what happens in science all the time .. grab an idea from somewhere, make it testable, in order to produce usefulness. Again, the usefulness part here is akin to 'Utilitarianism' but again different, because it is not used as a basis to rule out untestable things (eg: things which may not, on their own, be seen as necessarily maximising the utility value).

Absolutism would also lead to the view that there is no incompleteness (or error bar uncertaintities) inherent in the MDR hypothesis .. so its just like any other scientific hypothesis .. incompletement and open to change when/if further (objective) data/evidence becomes available.

Its a fine line woven between the silly parts of these traditional philosophies, (I know), but people such as yourself are more than welcome to keep me/others honest in making use of it.

OK.

 

[dad]

Scientific models/theories are known as being contextual, provisional, testable and are constantly under investigation.

'God' is an untestable belief.

Yet they cannot test time in the far universe and they based distances on it being the same. The models of what the past on earth were like are not testable, and are totally provisional on a same nature having existed here, yet that can't be tested. Science cannot investigate anything spiritual, so they can't deal in creation issues, or investigate them! All the little pikers do is cook up fables and make a pretense that they are knowledge.

 

[dad]

Time in physics is unambiguously operationally defined as "what a clock reads".

... So much for your grandiose statements based on your personal misconceptions.

See what I mean? They do not know what time is. Saying time IS a clock is absurd. A clock marks time. If a man falls from a high building, that is gravity at work...not a definition of gravity. If you post another time in the thread, that is you posting, not a definition of what computers, and radio signals, and the internet IS.

Also, if you post it takes time...it is not the essence and definition of what time IS.

 

[sjastro]

Three strikes and you are out. You had the chance to show where you addressed the question asked, and gave no post link.

Not sure what you think the 'fishbowl' is? I use the term to refer to the area man has lived or explored even by spacecraft. That has to do mostly with science, as we have spacecraft now, and shuttles, and rockets, and probes, and satellites...etc.

I have no idea why you would think that the bible does not support the earth and sun and even beyond all this ..the stars!? I think you have a lack of clarity on the core issues you are (or were before being defeated) trying to debate.

Since you admit to being in a state of confusion I will give another opportunity and ask the question again; quote chapters and verses where it explicitly states in the Bible that the Earth orbits the Sun?

You believe the Bible is an irrefutable source of Science and your heliocentric fishbowl is based on the Bible, then logically the Bible must describe a heliocentric system hence the nature of my question.
Does that make things clearer now?

When you have answered that question, the next question is show chapter and verses where the Bible claims time can be different outside the fishbowl.

 

[SelfSim]

Yet they cannot test time in the far universe and they based distances on it being the same. The models of what the past on earth were like are not testable, and are totally provisional on a same nature having existed here, yet that can't be tested.

Time is conceived by our minds in order for us to make sense of our perceptions.
Without it we would be unable to do that. That can be tested by you trying to describe anything perceived. Evidence will be produced of your mind and its conception of time at play.
I have explained this to you multiple times over now across multiple threads. You deny that in your disgraceful denials about it.
I will not do it again.

Science cannot investigate anything spiritual, so they can't deal in creation issues, or investigate them! All the little pikers do is cook up fables and make a pretense that they are knowledge.

Fallacy of a circular argument.
Troll tactics!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You really should be aware that the Planck Length is defined in terms of fundamental physical constants (the speed of light, the Planck constant, and the gravitational constant) that are unaffected by the expansion of spacetime.

And yet.....

Is Planck’s Constant - A Cosmological Variable?

"With these applications it is possible to say that – during the cosmic evolution, magnitude of Planck’s constant increases with increasing cosmic time. This may be the root cause of observed cosmic red shifts."

Time 'magically' stays the same because a coordinate system is usually chosen such that time dimension doesn't scale. The scale factor involving the three dimensions of space is a function of time. This is why we say the universe expands with time.

Ahhh, so even if you understand the twin has a clock ticking at a different rate than yours, you still believe his clock ticks the same rate as yours?????

The speed of light remains constant; if it travels further, it takes longer. If space expands as it travels, it is red-shifted.

The speed of light remains constant because time and distance are variables combined with the velocity variable. You first need to understand why the speed of light remains constant regardless of velocity and the fact that every observer not similarly situated has clocks of a different rate and rulers of a different length and yet read the same speed. I am not sure you do understand why people with different rates of clocks obtain the same answer......

 

[dad]

..quote chapters and verses where it explicitly states in the Bible that the Earth orbits the Sun?

My point exactly, who says it will orbit the sun in the new heavens? How can we know it even used to be that way? What we know is that is does so now and has for thousands of years.

You believe the Bible is an irrefutable source of Science and your heliocentric fishbowl is based on the Bible, then logically the Bible must describe a heliocentric system hence the nature of my question.
Does that make things clearer now?

What heliocentric fishbowl? Explain. The way I use the term is for the actual real present day known area around the earth and solar system. It simply denotes that fact that man has only been so far in this universe.

When you have answered that question, the next question is show chapter and verses where the Bible claims time can be different outside the fishbowl.

Well the flood waters were brought from beyond where the stars are, and it happened one day. That means no great time was involved in transport. The stars also were seen by Adam and made the same week he was. No great time was involved in light being seen on earth. Gabriel was there from the heaven of heavens, again out beyond where the stars are, before Daniel opened his eyes to answer his prayer! That means no time was involved to get here. In the New testament a boat was suddenly on the other side of a big body of water in no time! In another instance, Philip was transported to another place. So time is often and easily bypassed in the bible, both in this ol world and across the universe.

It therefore seems foolish to try to impose the exact nature and order of the time we know here onto the whole universe.

 

[dad]

Time is conceived by our minds in order for us to make sense of our perceptions.

Who wrote that rule?!

Man perceives...water, air, rocks, cold, light, noise, electricity, and everything else...a certain way. That does not mean that man is a rock, or light, or cold, or air etc etc. The simple feat of perceiving something does not make it a product of the mind of man.

Without it we would be unable to do that.

Great, without gravity we would not be able to stand on earth! Without the air we would not live! Without...etc etc. The mere fact we need the things God created does not mean man created it all in his head!

That can be tested by you trying to describe anything perceived. Evidence will be produced of your mind and its conception of time at play.

The limits of how man perceives something does not make that something a product of the mind!

I have explained this to you multiple times over now across multiple threads. You deny that in your disgraceful denials about it.

You are wrong, so I am happy you will put a cork on it. Ridiculously wrong. Was this the big thing you were reluctant to link to for so long now!!!!!? Ha.