Time in deep space

[dad]

Certainly I can, because I understand what shapes are. I know how to get from point A to point B -- by connecting them with a line. That's how we measure distances.

How you measure does not mean no time exists because you prefer to ignore it!

 

[klutedavid]

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.

example:

"
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

discuss

We know so little about the universe and we obviously do not understand the universe.

Otherwise we would not be creating entities such as dark energy to explain contradictions in our observations.

How anyone could extrapolate into deep time and describe the start of the universe is beyond comprehension.

I will always be aggressively skeptical of these extravagant claims of science.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

You said.

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.

Science holds a number of primary assumptions. Mathematics holds to axioms.

Testing evidence designed to support a theory is never an objective exercise. Mankind is never objective and that is why in every academic area a legion of theories and ideas abound.

Science serves research grants, funding determines what science will investigate.

Science observes a physical and detectable universe but when it matters, science creates energy to solve contradictions in observations.

Look into Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

The universe was never an observable entity, the universe is, in fact, not an observable entity after all.

 

[A_Thinker]

There is the creation of stars which were made for time/seasons for man. There is the fact we know approx when Adam lived and he was made the same week as the universe. There is the fact that God lives beyond the universe in the heaven of heavens and is not under time. The light from stars, then could not have taken great time to get here.

God lives outside of the physical universe.

All that we see is contained in this bubble we call the universe ...

As for the "week" of creation, even the scriptures say that "a day to the Lord ... is as a thousand years ... "

 

[essentialsaltes]

How you measure does not mean no time exists

I'm not measuring, I'm calculating, using the rigid laws of mathematics.

If the square is of side 4, its area is 16. Time can get fat on tacos or die of a heroin overdose and it would make no difference to the square

 

[SelfSim]

Science holds a number of primary assumptions.

If that's what you think, please clarify what 'assumptions' you are referring to here.
Science is defined only by its method ... no pre-assumptions are necessary before undertaking that method. There are no 'ifs ..' or syllogisms required .. that's the stuff of logic .. not science.

This doesn't mean that science doesn't make its own 'assumptions' .. however those kinds of assumptions always end up being made objectively testable, in principle, (as hypotheses).

Philosophy however, makes use of assumptions posited as being true .. but the existence of truth invariably ends up being an objectively untestable propostion .. ie: thus those kinds of assumptions end up being beliefs.

Testing evidence designed to support a theory is never an objective exercise. Mankind is never objective and that is why in every academic area a legion of theories and ideas abound.

Minds are capable of thinking in many different ways and different minds also come up with different meanings.
Thinking scientifically however, involves thinking in objective ways, (in order to produce ideas that are collectively testable).

Science serves research grants, funding determines what science will investigate.

Science aims at being useful and practical. Funding helps to determine what that means (and quantifies the usefulness and degree of practicality).

Science observes a physical and detectable universe

.. which seems to contradict your final statement below(?)
Science has a model of 'the universe' .. which is what it tests via observations (for eg).

.. but when it matters, science creates energy to solve contradictions in observations. Look into Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

Do you mean curiosity motivates follow-up objective investigations?

The universe was never an observable entity, the universe is, in fact, not an observable entity after all.

Not sure exactly what you mean here .. it depends on what you mean by 'observable entity'. If you mean an entity which is posited to exist independently from the human mind, (ie: a belief), then I think I'd agree(?)
Scientific thinkers test their models of 'the universe' via the process of observation.

 

[dad]

God lives outside of the physical universe.

All that we see is contained in this bubble we call the universe ...

As for the "week" of creation, even the scriptures say that "a day to the Lord ... is as a thousand years ... "

It also says, know ye not there are twelve hours in a day. What you think Jesus died and rose...millions of years later?

 

[dad]

I'm not measuring, I'm calculating, using the rigid laws of mathematics.

If the square is of side 4, its area is 16. Time can get fat on tacos or die of a heroin overdose and it would make no difference to the square

Fishbowl rigidity does not apply outside the fishbowl. If time is not the same nor even possibly space, then any line representing time and space out of the fishbowl has no connection to reality.

No matter what the distance is, unless time exists, it cannot take time for light to get here from stars! At least not the same time things (light) take to move distances HERE. This means that even if space were the same in the unknown universe...and you do not know that either, it doesn't matter! No matter what distance even if it was greater than science thought, unless time existed there also identically, there would not be time needed (as we know it here) to get anywhere!

On an unrelated note has anyone heard of time dilation experiments in the solar system away from earth?

 

[sjastro]

Fishbowl rigidity does not apply outside the fishbowl. If time is not the same nor even possibly space, then any line representing time and space out of the fishbowl has no connection to reality.

No matter what the distance is, unless time exists, it cannot take time for light to get here from stars! At least not the same time things (light) take to move distances HERE. This means that even if space were the same in the unknown universe...and you do not know that either, it doesn't matter! No matter what distance even if it was greater than science thought, unless time existed there also identically, there would not be time needed (as we know it here) to get anywhere!

We have heard it all before and it is just as incoherent now as it has been on every previous occasion.
When are you going to understand it is illogical to assume that if there is no evidence for the nonexistence of something (in this case time being different "out there") means it does exist.
Do you realise if something doesn't exist there is no evidence and the logical way is to find evidence for something that is proposed to exist such as you providing evidence that time is different out there.

On an unrelated note has anyone heard of time dilation experiments in the solar system away from earth?

Go google time corrections for GPS satellites.

 

[A_Thinker]

Fishbowl rigidity does not apply outside the fishbowl. If time is not the same nor even possibly space, then any line representing time and space out of the fishbowl has no connection to reality.

The questions is ... what comprises the fishbowl ? Most of us call that ... the universe.

Your position is that God exists outside of the universe ... correct ???

No matter what the distance is, unless time exists, it cannot take time for light to get here from stars! At least not the same time things (light) take to move distances HERE. This means that even if space were the same in the unknown universe...and you do not know that either, it doesn't matter! No matter what distance even if it was greater than science thought, unless time existed there also identically, there would not be time needed (as we know it here) to get anywhere!

Noone really speculates that time doesn't exist at any point in our visible universe. Observations on all that we can see/detect on a cosmological level is consistent with our experience of time/space.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Fishbowl rigidity does not apply outside the fishbowl.

Sorry, mathematics is true everywhere and everywhen. It is true by logical necessity, unconstrained by the physical world.

 

[dad]

[QUOTE="sjastro, post: 74120381, member: 352921"
When are you going to understand it is illogical to assume that if there is no evidence for the nonexistence of something (in this case time being different "out there") means it does exist.[/quote] The world abounds with evidence from all ages about the supernatural.
As for time in the universe fringes, you have zero clue what it is like. None at all.

Do you realise if something doesn't exist there is no evidence and the logical way is to find evidence for something that is proposed to exist such as you providing evidence that time is different out there.

You claim it is the same as science...evidence? You have none. No claims therefore, are valid as science.

Go google time corrections for GPS satellites.

The solar system and area is not under debate. We know time in the fishbowl, at least how to measure it unfolding.

 

[dad]

The questions is ... what comprises the fishbowl ? Most of us call that ... the universe.

The fishbowl represents where man has been, or at least sent a probe. That sure is not the universe!

Your position is that God exists outside of the universe ... correct ???

His current HQ at least.

Noone really speculates that time doesn't exist at any point in our visible universe.

No? What do they speculate, that is does and also exists the same? Prove it.

Observations on all that we can see/detect on a cosmological level is consistent with our experience of time/space.

You see it all here IN time.

 

[dad]

Sorry, mathematics is true everywhere and everywhen. It is true by logical necessity, unconstrained by the physical world.

Math is only as good as the concepts and letters used to represent things. You cannot do math with unknowns.

Looking a E =MC2 the e stands for something specific..energy. C is light...etc. No math used with these concepts is good if the letters have no known value or meaning.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Math is only as good as the concepts and letters used to represent things. You cannot do math with unknowns.

Looking a E =MC2 the e stands for something specific..energy. C is light...etc. No math used with these concepts is good if the letters have no known value or meaning.

That's physics not math. Parallax is geometry, i.e. math.

 

[sjastro]

The world abounds with evidence from all ages about the supernatural.
As for time in the universe fringes, you have zero clue what it is like. None at all.

You claim it is the same as science...evidence? You have none. No claims therefore, are valid as science.

We don't have evidence for the nonexistence of tooth fairies either yet by your line of reasoning they exist like your fishbowl.
The sheer hypocrisy is you have zero evidence of a fishbowl either which is why you have shifted the burden of proof which is as logical fallacy in itself leading to your irrational and illogical arguments.

The solar system and area is not under debate. We know time in the fishbowl, at least how to measure it unfolding.

You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
Since you didn’t like the answer you changed the nature of the question!!!!
Your actions are both deceitful and dishonest and violate the addition to the Statement of Purpose by turning this thread into a science bashing exercise.

 

[SelfSim]

... You asked a question, I gave you an answer.
Since you didn’t like the answer you changed the nature of the question!!!!
Your actions are both deceitful and dishonest and violate the addition to the Statement of Purpose by turning this thread into a science bashing exercise.

I find the term 'fishbowl' itself, as being quite condescending also, (perhaps even offensive).
For example, I'm not a fish, nor do I consider that I inhabit some 'fishbowl'.

My mind is free to roam anywhere I choose to .. especially to the remote regions of the universe .. (and I'll carry my sense of consistent time along with me in order to make sense of my situation).

 

[SelfSim]

The fishbowl represents where man has been, or at least sent a probe. That sure is not the universe!

Whatever do you mean by 'universe'. What are its properties?

No? What do they speculate, that is does and also exists the same? Prove it.

Why? What's your true purpose?
You see it all here IN time.[/QUOTE]What do you mean by 'see' and 'IN time'? Clarify because no-one knows what you're on about ..

 

[SelfSim]

The human mind is all powerful.

It rules our reality, whilst exploring itself via its perceptions.

Its awesome and amazing stuff .. isn't it, eh?

 

[dad]

That's physics not math. Parallax is geometry, i.e. math.

Same idea. If you measure space, and we use a little S to represent that, then you stick it in math, it is still missing the time, and the math is a joke.