- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
How you measure does not mean no time exists because you prefer to ignore it!
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.
How you measure does not mean no time exists because you prefer to ignore it!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.
We know so little about the universe and we obviously do not understand the universe.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
You said.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.
Science holds a number of primary assumptions. Mathematics holds to axioms.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.
God lives outside of the physical universe.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.
How you measure does not mean no time exists
If that's what you think, please clarify what 'assumptions' you are referring to here.Science holds a number of primary assumptions.
Minds are capable of thinking in many different ways and different minds also come up with different meanings.klutedavid said: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 aims at being useful and practical. Funding helps to determine what that means (and quantifies the usefulness and degree of practicality).klutedavid said:Science serves research grants, funding determines what science will investigate.
.. which seems to contradict your final statement below(?)klutedavid said:Science observes a physical and detectable universe
Do you mean curiosity motivates follow-up objective investigations?klutedavid said:.. but when it matters, science creates energy to solve contradictions in observations. Look into Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
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(?)klutedavid said:The universe was never an observable entity, the universe is, in fact, not an observable entity after all.
It also says, know ye not there are twelve hours in a day. What you think Jesus died and rose...millions of years later?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 ... "
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.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
We have heard it all before and it is just as incoherent now as it has been on every previous occasion.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!
Go google time corrections for GPS satellites.On an unrelated note has anyone heard of time dilation experiments in the solar system away from earth?
The questions is ... what comprises the fishbowl ? Most of us call that ... the universe.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.
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.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!
Fishbowl rigidity does not apply outside the fishbowl.
You claim it is the same as science...evidence? You have none. No claims therefore, are valid as science.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.
The solar system and area is not under debate. We know time in the fishbowl, at least how to measure it unfolding.Go google time corrections for GPS satellites.
The fishbowl represents where man has been, or at least sent a probe. That sure is not the universe!The questions is ... what comprises the fishbowl ? Most of us call that ... the universe.
His current HQ at least.Your position is that God exists outside of the universe ... correct ???
No? What do they speculate, that is does and also exists the same? Prove it.Noone really speculates that time doesn't exist at any point in our visible universe.
You see it all here IN time.Observations on all that we can see/detect on a cosmological level is consistent with our experience of time/space.
Math is only as good as the concepts and letters used to represent things. You cannot do math with unknowns.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.
We don't have evidence for the nonexistence of tooth fairies either yet by your line of reasoning they exist like your fishbowl.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.
You asked a question, I gave you an answer.The solar system and area is not under debate. We know time in the fishbowl, at least how to measure it unfolding.
I find the term 'fishbowl' itself, as being quite condescending also, (perhaps even offensive).... 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.
Whatever do you mean by 'universe'. What are its properties?The fishbowl represents where man has been, or at least sent a probe. That sure is not the universe!
Why? What's your true purpose?dad said:No? What do they speculate, that is does and also exists the same? Prove it.
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.That's physics not math. Parallax is geometry, i.e. math.
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?