• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.

Time in deep space

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by dad, Jul 11, 2019.

  1. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    Since all light from stars is seen only here near earth and IN our time and space, this does not tell us about what time may be like out here. Determining distances depends on knowing that time does exist all across this universe the same as it does here. So unless we can know time does exist we cannot know distances in cosmology.

    Parallax also involves time because if take a slice of this solar system maybe hundreds of millions of miles across, where we know time exists, it cannot be considered ONLY space. It includes time. So this cannot be used as a trigonometric measure in a triangle to the stars .

    Yet everyday I see distances offered as fact.


    Telescope have found an unexpected thin disk of material furiously whirling around a supermassive black hole at the heart of the magnificent spiral galaxy NGC 3147, located 130 million light-years away.

    The conundrum is that the disk shouldn't be there, based on current astronomical theories."

    Hubble uncovers black hole that shouldn't exist

    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Yttrium

    Yttrium Well-Known Member

    United States
    Things in the cosmos change. Stars move and constellations shift. We receive signals from pulsars that have specifically timed sequences of pulses. The light from stars changes over time. Etc. So yes, there is time out there. We would not receive starlight at all without it.

    It's natural to assume that physics operates the same way throughout the universe, until demonstrated otherwise. So far, everything out there seems to follow that assumption. By all measurements, the Milky Way appears to be a nicely formed spiral galaxy, and it really wouldn't look that way if time was skewed throughout the galaxy. Likewise, the spread of galaxies fits what we'd expect if physics is the same everywhere. Things would probably look really weird with significant time shifts across the universe.
  3. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    We see and experience time here in the solar system area. Unless time were the same out where the stars are, we could not expect there to be the same amount of time involved. Whatever we see it is only here on earth or in the area. Man's spacecraft has not even been 17 light hours away yet. No one has any experience with what time is like in deep space! Just because we see blinking every 3 days or hours or whatever here does not mean that that amount of time is involved out where the star is. That is time unfolding and existing here that we see the light from there IN.

    Assuming is not science. I find it more natural to assume the creator is not a liar and that His Scriptural account of creation is correct. If so, then there are no millions of years involved. But distances cannot be claimed by science that are just assumption based.

    That doesn't say much.
    No need to be skewed. From a Christian perspective the earth is the place God will move to forever so it is the central place in this universe! (it doesn't matter if we physically see it that way now since the heavens we know are temporary anyhow) But the idea would be that the universe is not random but earth focused. For example the stars were made for TIMEs and seasons for man! So all we need is for the time around our area ( I use the solar system area as the likely example) to be different than time in space further FROM earth! That would not skew galaxies. That would just mean that any time we observe here in the fishbowl has little connection to UAT! (Universal actual time)

    Some rotations of galaxies were a surprise to science. There are things that they did not expect. But one assumes that gravity and laws exist out there. The sizes and distances are not known if time is not the same. So who knows what we are really looking at how big things orbiting others are and etc? If we were looking at a galaxy, for example that was tiny, then science might have somewhat different expectations of what gravity should be like there.

    Additionally, we do not know what else may be out there we are not familiar with that affects the heavenly bodies. What we see may not all be due solely to the things we are familiar with in the fishbowl.
  4. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    As discussed previously with you, time in science is defined operationally, meaning it is only what we can measure:
    Time is also required by the human brain in order to makes sense of everything we perceive. Try making sense of anything without using the simple verb: 'to be', (or 'is') or any of its tenses, and you will see what you come up with, will simply not make sense. That is a demonstration of how fundamental the consistent (constant) concept of time is, to the way the human mind functions. The semantics embedded in all languages is hard evidence for the human mind's reliance on the fundamentality of that same concept.

    Observations of the remote universe are objectively recorded perceptions.
    In order to make sense of those perceptions, science invokes its above (in quotes) measurable concept of time.

    Time is regarded in physics as a scalar quantity (see above reference). Scalar quantities are defined as only having magnitude and no other characteristics. Your assignment of time as depending on various other sub-regions of the universe, is assigning time with 'other characteristics' .. which violates the definition of 'scalar quantity', where there is no supporting objective evidence for doing this.

    Formally, a scalar is unchanged by coordinate system transformations.
    Your assignment of time to various sub-regions of the universe represents a co-ordinate system transformation and you assert that time may change by doing this. This also violates the definition of 'scalar quantity' where there is no supporting objective evidence for doing this.

    Time in science does not verify or falsify the notion of 'it being real', (or 'exists in reality'), in the sense of Philosophical Realism. Such philosophies are untestably ignorable (ie: treated with neutrality) in science, as objective testing proceeds. It seems this is what your argument ultimately relies solely upon .. and is not what science basis it perspective about time on.

    I strongly recommend that you recognise these clear distinctions as this conversation proceeds, as they are very different viewpoints and your commentaries about what 'science can or cannot observe' are based on your philosophical realism viewpoint (inferred from your above post).
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2019
  5. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    Legal Union (Other)
    Then why don't we ever see surveyors consulting stopwatches as they make their measurements?

    Why did Euclid never refer to time in his geometric proofs?

    Because it's simple geometry and trigonometry, which works for triangles of any size. No time is required.
  6. Yttrium

    Yttrium Well-Known Member

    United States
    True. And I've never been to Australia. Physics might work differently there. It would even make sense for things to work differently there, since everything in the environment there is trying to kill you.

    There's no guarantee that physics will stay the same from day to day. Gravity might be less tomorrow. My next step could lead me to fall into a parallel universe. I've noticed that the universe is a strange place, and I make no assumptions on what happens in the far reaches.

    Science, however, has to make some assumptions to get by. If the same experiment goes the same way 1000 times, that's usually good enough to say that it's going to go the same way the next time, even though it might not. If distance measurements seem to work consistently everywhere we check, that's good enough to say that we can measure the distance to stars, even if that might be rubbish, or it might not work the same way tomorrow.

    People don't have to believe that things will be the same all over. But science has to take a stand and say that physics will be the same everywhere today and tomorrow, until demonstrated otherwise. Otherwise, there's no point in having physics at all.

    Preaching to the choir.
  7. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    Time is real. Human or not. Animals do things in a certain amount of time, including live their lives. It is natural for us to think of and even try to define time in terms of how it unfolds. That is not what time IS. That is a human attempt to shelve it neatly as possible into our understanding and science.

    The issue of what time is does not center around humans trying to organize words to fit what we see. What time is is bigger than man. You may name time as you like. You may come up with names for periods of time, but that does not address what time IS. At best you could say that..for all intents and purposes, such words and conceptualizing of what time is like is a working definition for science.
    Yes. If we see a decay of isotopes on earth happen at a certain rate, then that rate of time is assigned to that isotope half life decay. If we identify that isotope in a spectrum of light streaming in from beyond this fishbowl, we will see that same rate of decay I would suspect. Why? Because we see it in our time! That does not speak to time out there! Therefore this fishbowl clock is set to the fishbowl only as far as we know.

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Look up scalar in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
    Scalar may refer to:

    • Scalar (mathematics), an element of a field, which is used to define a vector space, usually the field of real numbers
    • Scalar (physics), a quantity represented by a mathematical scalar that is independent of specific classes of coordinate systems, or one that is usually said to be described by a single real number
      • Lorentz scalar, a quantity in the theory of relativity which is invariant under a Lorentz transformation

    Using time as a part of a drawing in space is all well and good, but does not really tell us what time is. That is just assigning time a letter in an equation, that is supposed to REPRESENT something. ..What exactly science does not know.

    Well, if you can think of it as some invariant part of a coordinate system for no real reason, I can think of it as possibly very variant! What goes around comes around. So from a Christian or creation standpoint, what is the best fit? One concept leaves earth as the center of the universe clock and stars at an unknown time away from us....(and therefore distance of course). And the other leaves earth a meaningless little speck in an uncreated universe that is far older than the creation in Genesis! Why would I pick one over the other for NO reason?
    Show us how this applies to the distant universe regarding time then!? It is one thing to draw a little map based on the realities on earth and solar system here, and then say it applies to the universe...and another thing to show proof.

    I assign time as being relative to God's creation which has man and earth at top dead center! The bible even associates the creation of stars with time and seasons for man! Since you cannot see time, and do not even know what it IS, looks like claims about time especially in the far universe are NOT based on fat or knowledge. Now in this forum people can no longer refer to beliefs used by science as beliefs or religion, so I won't go there. But here is your chance to show us they are more! Ha.
    Not sure I need science to be able to verify what we all know and experience? The fact that it can't says a lot about claims based on using time in cosmological math!
    Unless they knew what time was who really cares about their attitude towards the unknown?? Time to put the Scio back in science!
    It seems there is no real basis and they do not know what time is. What else matters?
    You have not shown you know what time is, not given any indication science does. Keep that in mind if you proceed anywhere.
  8. Yttrium

    Yttrium Well-Known Member

    United States
    Whaaat? My inept parables are totally applicable!

    Anyway, just how far off do the distance measurements have to be? Do we need to stuff all the other galaxies into a 6,000 light year radius somehow?
  9. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    Legal Union (Other)
    But they don't, because time is unrelated to sight lines.

    Sticking more lines onto them? Absurd. We need three lines to bound our triangle.

    All we have to do is point at a star and see where it is on the 'dome' of the sky. Piece of cake. Then move a bit, and point at the star again. One side is made by the distance we moved, and the other two sides from the direction of our pointing. 3 lines. 1 triangle. Simple geometry. No time required in the calculation. Just angles and distances.

    No, he was a line maker in the abstract space of geometry, which is even better. In Euclidean space, the Pythagorean theorem is true no matter how big the triangle is.

    a^2 + b^2 = c^2

    No time required. Even if a, b, and c are bigger distances than dad likes.
  10. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    All your claims here (about time) are unsupported and, by your own words, are attempts to press your individually held beliefs, by making assertions based on those alone.
    What I posted was how science treats time and were supported with external references.

    'What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' .. (so I am fully justified in dismissing what you've said).

    What do you expect?
    I am a human .. So are you.
    Humans gave you your concept of time.
    Humans gave you the meaning of your words.
    Humans invented science.

    There's no use denying any of that .. (and demonstrating it would be inanely puerile) ..
    Yet you persist in those denials!

    Err .. What? Where did all that come from? References please?

    You cannot decouple what 'we see' from our notion of time.
    That was the whole point of what I wrote.
    You even used the word 'IS' multiple times over above .. yet you have not shown what you mean by this term independently from any other human mind.

    Where's your evidence?
    Because you're up against abundant objective evidence to the contrary.
    Science 'owns' what 'objective' means you know .. like it or not!

    Why did you repeat my quote from Wiki? Incongruous. I don't have a clue why you did that. Explain.

    Humans perceive and then conceptualise by creating models using language in their descriptions of what they perceive. There is abundant objective evidence and tests for demonstrating that .. you are producing the results of that testing process in your very posts.

    You have no evidence or tests for supporting your incessant assertions about 'what time IS' thus far, in this duplicate of many other of your engagements with me (see here, for eg) and others, on this exact same topic. When are you going to present that evidence instead of just repeating your claim?

    Fine then.

    So you recuse yourself from making any statements or claims based on the produce of scientific research because you see 'NO reason' for doing so ..

    I don't care for proofs .. because that ain't what science is about. I can make that claim whereas you can't be because you just recused yourself from making claims based on behalf of science.
    You should show that you're at least actively listening to the responses other folk are making in this thread though .. out of courtesy and because you started this thread .. (For example: responses describing time independent Euclidean parallax measurements, with which I independently concur).

    Sure ..
    'A belief is any notion held as being true for any reason'.
    Science does not hold any of its models as being 'true' for any reason .. science tests them. Time is testable because:
    There are no prerequisted beliefs called for before undertaking the scientific process .. because science ignores those beliefs whilst it goes about its business of objective testing.

    Scientific tests must be objectively defined, repeatable and independently verifiable.

    The 'cosmological math' you refer to, is a description of a conceptualised physical model described using math syntax and is tested using math's axiomatically based logic processes in order to maintain integrity and consistency.
    The model is then subjected to objective tests or observations.
    The model is either then verified or not verified.

    Your claim that science doesn't do any of the above is nonsensical, given that the process I just gave above, is part of the scientific process.

    Oh yes I have ... but you have to actually look objectively at what I've posted in order to see that.
  11. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    No. Man has not even sent probes to 17 hours yet! (light hours)

    By next year I think it will still be well under ONE LIGHT DAY!!!! Wouldn't you know it the power apparently goes off in Voyager in 2020. Ha.

    So no one or no probe of man has been even one little light day away! Certainly man cannot speak about what time or space is like beyond that yet. So let's be overly generous here and allow a whole week! You cannot say what time is like even a day or week away!
  12. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    Right, but they do for airplanes.

    Right, which is why they stick those other two into the fishbowl derived base line!
    Move a bit in fishbowl space and time. By the way the reason they often use the orbit of the earth around the sun 6 months apart for a base line is because a longer line is needed I would think. That is a big slice of space and time!

    In the real world time is required. As for imaginary lines or letters, well, not so much:)
  13. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter


    Science does not know what time is. You have helped show that. So no one cares what anyone believes it may be. The issue here is what is known. My beliefs about time don't matter since how would I know what it is either!? But I did present the 2 views and beliefs and possible ramifications on Genesis. Believe whatever you like and call it christianity for all I care.
    How anyone treats time does not define what it is! That just goes toward showing how they need to try and handle the unknown.
    The bible is not without evidence, on the contrary. It is the most evidenced thing on earth. Not by incapable science who cannot deal with it of course. The important thing is that science does not know what time in the far universe is like so that negates all their anti genesis claims on time and distance etc. Since you have o evidence about what time is like out there all you say is dismissed out of hand, by your own standards! Hoo ha.

    No. God talked of days and setting up stars for time for us and etc so it is not a human concept.
    I just exposed your claim as absurly false actually.

    Why would I?
    You can see it any way you like. That does not define it explain it or matter one way or the other to the issue of what time is like in unknown far space.

    Either show us objective evidence of what time is like in far space right now or science does not own squat.
    What does this word salad have to do with the topic? What some people think they perceive when put against the word of God falls into utter insignificance.
    It is not I that need such things Science does! Since time is assumed to be homogeneous in the universe we need some verification not just the word of some people.

    If you find some reason let's see it. There IS no research into what time is like in the far universe! They don't even know what it is here.
    The do not define time. Nor have you even explained how they are particularly relevant! There is no way to be independent of time of course, just try it! Anyone drawing a formula or equation, or maps omitting time is kidding themselves. Heck you could draw a map of the world omitting Asia if you like..so what?

    Why pretend time is known or tested in deep space? That is false! Not true. Show the test or stand exposed as false.

    Great and there is none for time is far space anything like that, obviously.
    Fishbowl conceptualizing is all well and good in the fishbowl! When you start dreaming about the truly unknown and trying to use concrete concepts you are wasting time.

    There IS no model of time in the far universe subjected to anything.
    Which has zero connection to time in deep space. If so..post it! Ha.
  14. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    Legal Union (Other)
    They no doubt also use clocks in horse races, but that's irrelevant to the question of parallax, where clocks and time are not required.
  15. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    Time is required in the world in the solar system. You disagree? You think you can divest them of time? If not then you cannot unweave time from space!
  16. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    For about the third time now:
    For the fourth time now:
    I don't think so .. for the fifth time now:
    Ok .. if you insist .. for the sixth time now:
    Re: underlined text: a disrespectful opinion.
    The Wiki quote is science's definition of time ..
    The topic of the thread is: 'Time in Deep Space'.
    Time is defined in science as a scalar quantity. It is thus universally applicable .. which makes my response perfectly on-topic.

    Time is not an object that can be moved around. It is a testable scalar quantity (as explained previously) which tests out well everywhere we perceive.
    It is also one of the dimensions of space-time, which is a property of the universe.
    There are no assumptions needed.
    There are definitions, objective tests and their objective results.

    The poster responses on the parallax method of measuring distances, is about measuring distances in space .. not time.
    Your OP also made references to measuring distances in space and then conflated it with time. (I don't know where you got the idea the other posters referred to, were talking about time from?)

    See tests of General Relativity and see tests of Special Relativity. Both have have been well tested. Your claim is erroneous (the links demonstrate that).

    See above links on GR and SR.
    I don't understand your circular and therefore, illogical reasoning here.

    See above links to GR and SR tests.
    See above posted links on GR and SR tests.
  17. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    Thanks for that. As I said they have not the foggiest notion what time is.
    By the way time is not physics. So how 'time IN physics' may be required to be conceived doesn't address what time IS. Please be honest.

    "Physics is the only science that explicitly studies time, but even physicists agree that time is one of the most difficult properties of our universe to understand..."

    Physics of Time – Exactly What Is Time?

    Then there is 'absolute time'

    "Newtonian Time
    According to its most famous proponent, Sir Isaac Newton, for example, absolute time(which is also sometimes known as “Newtonian time”) exists independently of any perceiver, progresses at a consistent pace throughout the universe, is measurable but imperceptible, and can only be truly understood mathematically. For Newton, absolute time and space were independent and separate aspects of objective reality, and not dependent on physical events or on each other.
    Absolute Time – Exactly What Is Time?

    "Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time
    By Sean Carroll | September 1, 2011 10:58 am
    “Time” is the most used noun in the English language, yet it remains a mystery. We’ve just completed an amazingly intense and rewarding multidisciplinary conference on the nature of time, and my brain is swimming with ideas and new questions. Rather than trying a summary (the talks will be online soon), here’s my stab at a top ten list partly inspired by our discussions: the things everyone should know about time. [Update: all of these are things I think are true, after quite a bit of deliberation. Not everyone agrees, although of course they should.]

    1. Time exists. Might as well get this common question out of the way. Of course time exists — otherwise how would we set our alarm clocks? Time organizes the universe into an ordered series of moments, and thank goodness; what a mess it would be if reality were complete different from moment to moment. The real question is whether or not time is fundamental, or perhaps emergent. We used to think that “temperature” was a basic category of nature, but now we know it emerges from the motion of atoms. When it comes to whether time is fundamental, the answer is: nobody knows.
    Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time - Cosmic Variance : Cosmic Variance

    "Physicists define time as the progression of events from the past to the present into the future. Basically, if a system is unchanging, it is timeless. Time can be considered to be the fourth dimension of reality, used to describe events in three-dimensional space. It is not something we can see, touch, or taste, but we can measure its passage."

    What Is Time? Here's a Simple Explanation

    If time is a dimension of reality in the solar system and we take a piece of it hundreds of millions of miles long, tell us why and how the dimension of time vanishes? It doesn't! You just ignore it in your math.

    Defining something as universal does not make it so! You need proof.
    That would be here in the fishbowl only!

    You can test to measure time but not time itself.

    False! The only space man has experienced along with the time there is HERE. You may not issue a decree it is the same in all the universe.

    Be honest. No test exists to see what time is like in the far universe. We can test how time unfolds HERE. We can MEASURE it. ...HERE.
    Yes along with space is time. If you take a part of this solar system such as the area earth orbits the sun in six months IN that area is time! Not just space. Parallax attempts to use just the space devoid of time.
    GR does not tell us what time is like in far space compared to here! They have been tested here. There are aspects of relativity that bear true also in space but no aspect relates to telling us about time there! YOUR claim is erroneous.
  18. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    There is never a need (or demonstration from me) for anything other than honesty. The case I present here is quite complete .. it is not my case .. it is science's case.

    Also: ok then (seventh time): Time is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads. That's what 'time IS'.
    I see nothing in any of these references that changes anything I've demonstrated or how science (Physics) realises time:

    So, for the eighth time: Time in physics is defined by its measurement: time is what a clock reads.

    Time in science is a fundamental dimensional property which is also applied in describing the universe.

    Time is not measured in millions of miles .. a clock does not measure in 'miles' .. a clock counts in consistent units of time (eg: seconds).

    .. of course not .. that's why science tests these things.
    Nope. (It seems that's what you're demanding though).
    Science has no need for 'proofs'. Mathematics uses proofs though. Math is not science. Math is based on logic. Logic is not science. Science is defined by its process. Logic follows a completely different process. Logic posits the existence of 'truths', which is untestable in science. So truths can be ignored as science proceeds with its process of objective testing.

    The measurement of time is its test. The results are observed and documented .. that is the scientific process and time tests out well. Time is thus objectively real. That's all there is to it in science.

    Define what you mean by 'the time there' .. please explain.

    There is never a need (or demonstration from me) for anything other than honesty. The case I present here is quite complete .. it is not my case .. it is science's case.
    Time is defined as a scalar quantity .. it is a defined as being a dimension of spacetime. Spacetime is defined as being a property of the universe. Time is thus universal. Time can be measured anywhere that enters our perceptions. Observations are recorded perceptions which include a timestamp. Remote observations of the universe thus also include a timestamp.

    I don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Please explain.

    Time is not included in an area. Area is based on spatial dimensionality. Time is its own dimensionality. The three spatial dimesions (x,y,z) are separate from the time dimension (t).
    It is not useful to conflate dimensions.

    The concept of spacetime is fundamental to GR and SR. Testing of GR and SR demonstrates the utility of spacetime.
  19. essentialsaltes

    essentialsaltes Stranger in a Strange Land

    Legal Union (Other)
    You're just babbling now. Time is not required in the Pythagorean theorem. Or a parallax calculation.

    Your primary complaint is that we have to assume time is 'the same' out there. But that assumption is not required for a parallax calculation. Because time is not involved. It's a mathematical truth, as much as 2 + 2 is 4.

    If you remember your high school geometry, you'll recall that "angle side angle" is one of the ways of proving 2 triangles congruent (i.e exactly the same shape). In parallax, we measure the baseline (that's a side) and we point at the star at either end of the baseline. That direction is the angle away from the baseline. Then it's simple geometry to compute the other sides of the triangle, providing the distance to the star. All triangles with that ASA combination are exactly the same size, there is no wiggle room.

    Your rejection of knowledge doesn't start from Darwin and Einstein, but Euclid.
  20. dad

    dad Undefeated! Supporter

    Empty words since science no more knows what time is than anyone else.
    That is pure opinion. That suggests time itself does not exist, but is some human construct. That is all well and good, but has no validity as a definition of time itself. Of course we perceive time as a measurement, but that does not tell us anything about the nature of time itself.

    Science doesn't realize anything about what time is only how it works and is measured and conceived. Now when talking about what time is in deep space, forget about it! You seem to think we can simply add it to maps or equations here as some mysterious dimension and call it a fundamental part of things...and then go on to declare all the universe the same for NO reason! Then you have the audacity to claim it is science and known?
    That is pure fisgbowl philosophy, to think that all reality consists only of what happens under our nose. Or in this case, that time is nothing more than how it passes by us in the fishbowl. Measuring radioactivity does not tell us what it is. measuring gravity does not define it. Measuring the strong nuclear force does not tell us what it is. I suspect you have been educated to such a degree that you lost the ability to question it somewhere along the way.
    Applied by faith, not by experience or knowledge. Prove to us that if you were on the far side of the universe an decade would be a decade the very same? How about a simple test then, can you even prove that light moves at the speed we see light moving at here?
    Light moves so many miles per year as measured here. When people assign a distance to a star it IS often measured as how long light 'would' take to travel that distance. But time is measured in chronological units of course. That does not tell us what time is any more than measuring how fast you walk to the store tells us what YOU are!
    We can see that! It does have a compulsion to make lots of claims though without the proof!

    Irrelevant to the far universe. One cannot project math to represent unknown quantities there such as time itself or even space.

    And LIMITED by it's little process.

    You seem to be saying that not only is there no proof possible with science, but that it cannot be conformed to logic!? This is good stuff.
    Beautiful! So, no proofs or logic or...truth!!!!!

    False. That is just the test of whether our attempted measure is right!
    The results of seeing if the measure works or is valid. You have no such test for deep space do you? Ha.

    For lurkers, let me simplify that for you. If they see something they think is so many light years apart in far space moving they merely assign the speed of light as observed here to it.

    --shortened for brevity