Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Time in deep space
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SelfSim" data-source="post: 74114017" data-attributes="member: 354922"><p>All your claims here (about time) are unsupported and, <em>by your own words</em>, are attempts to press your individually held beliefs, by making assertions based on those alone.</p><p>What I posted was how science treats time and were supported with external references.</p><p></p><p><em>'What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' </em>.. (so I am fully justified in dismissing what you've said).</p><p></p><p> What do you expect?</p><p>I am a human .. So are you.</p><p>Humans gave you your concept of time.</p><p>Humans gave you the meaning of your words.</p><p>Humans invented science.</p><p></p><p>There's no use denying any of that .. (and demonstrating it would be inanely puerile) ..</p><p>Yet you persist in those denials!</p><p></p><p>Err .. What? Where did all that come from? References please?</p><p></p><p>You cannot decouple what <em>'we see' </em>from our notion of time.</p><p>That was the whole point of what I wrote.</p><p>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.</p><p></p><p> Where's your evidence?</p><p>Because you're up against abundant objective evidence to the contrary.</p><p>Science 'owns' what 'objective' means you know .. like it or not!</p><p></p><p>Why did you repeat my quote from Wiki? Incongruous. I don't have a clue why you did that. Explain.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 (<a href="https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-true-context-of-science-it-is-just-a-model-get-over-it.8090076/page-15" target="_blank">see here</a>, for eg) and others, on this exact same topic. When are you going to present that evidence instead of just repeating your claim?</p><p></p><p>Fine then.</p><p></p><p>So you recuse yourself from making any statements or claims based on the produce of scientific research because you see '<em>NO reason</em>' for doing so ..</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>You should show that you're at least <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening" target="_blank">actively listening</a></em> to the responses other folk are making in this thread though .. out of courtesy and because you <em>started</em> this thread .. (For example: responses describing time independent Euclidean parallax measurements, with which I independently concur).</p><p></p><p>Sure ..</p><p>'<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief" target="_blank">A <em>belief</em> is any notion held as being true for any reason</a>'.</p><p>Science does not hold any of its models as being <em><u>'true'</u></em> for any reason .. science <em><u>tests</u></em> them. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics" target="_blank">Time is testable because</a>:There are no prerequisted beliefs called for before undertaking the scientific process .. because science <em>ignores </em>those <em>beliefs </em>whilst it goes about its business of objective testing.</p><p></p><p>Scientific tests must be objectively defined, repeatable and independently verifiable.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p>The model is then subjected to objective tests or observations.</p><p>The model is either then verified or not verified.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>scientific</em> process.</p><p></p><p> Oh yes I have ... but you have to actually <em>look objectively</em> at what I've posted in order to see that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SelfSim, post: 74114017, member: 354922"] All your claims here (about time) are unsupported and, [I]by your own words[/I], 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. [I]'What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' [/I].. (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 [I]'we see' [/I]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 ([URL='https://www.christianforums.com/threads/the-true-context-of-science-it-is-just-a-model-get-over-it.8090076/page-15']see here[/URL], 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 '[I]NO reason[/I]' 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 [I][URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening']actively listening[/URL][/I] to the responses other folk are making in this thread though .. out of courtesy and because you [I]started[/I] this thread .. (For example: responses describing time independent Euclidean parallax measurements, with which I independently concur). Sure .. '[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief']A [I]belief[/I] is any notion held as being true for any reason[/URL]'. Science does not hold any of its models as being [I][U]'true'[/U][/I] for any reason .. science [I][U]tests[/U][/I] them. [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_in_physics']Time is testable because[/URL]:There are no prerequisted beliefs called for before undertaking the scientific process .. because science [I]ignores [/I]those [I]beliefs [/I]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 [I]scientific[/I] process. Oh yes I have ... but you have to actually [I]look objectively[/I] at what I've posted in order to see that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Time in deep space
Top
Bottom