Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[dad1]

First, there is no need to use cosmology in any way to prove that a six day creation only thousands of years ago (around 6000 per biblical chronology) it not how things happened (or a global flood some 4300 years ago, etc.). This can be debunked using geology, archeology, biology and genetics, and other areas of science without any consideration of cosmology.

I realize that there are multiple areas in science where different beliefs are applied. I could deal with those easily also. However the focus of the thread is the universe and distances. After all as you almost certainly know, when debating the creation issues, one of the first things that is used to support the earth sciences is stellar time! To avoid that circular reasoning, this thread is about the distant universe.

But if you want to challenge the current understanding of how time behaves "out there", what alternative can you offer that makes more sense than how science presently treats the problem?

I do not need to know. All that is needed for the creation by God as per the bible argument to win would be showing that science does not really know after all. Then it is all a matter of belief. Science can't win in that arena.

What other descriptions or assumptions would help humans to better understand nature and the cosmos that isn't just entirely made up without any basis (or postulated simply because our present framework contradicts the biblical narrative, for example)?

It doesn't matter at all. People that believe in creation feel that they have a great understanding of origins already. The game is not who can pretend to be mr know it all here.

All you've suggested is that time may behave differently and so the distances to stars derived from our present framework may be wrong. This doesn't help solve any problems,

? For who? For those who, after facing the fact science doesn't know, all problems are solved already when they believe God created it all. They realize there never really was any problems all along, but that the so called problems were invented. For others who refuse to accept God as Maker of it all, there can never be any solving of problems.

They offer that up with no supporting evidence other than that it is one possibility someone thought of that might explain meteorite dating and similar things that show that the Earth is, in fact, about 4.6 billion years old.

If they thought that it was belief based. They would simply be trying to explain ratios of materials in material from distant space using beliefs that the ratios got there a certain way. The creationist may explain ratios by believing some or most of those ratios were due to being created that way. One can apply various beliefs to anything to try to explain it.

If you offered up some viable alternative to how time might behave "out there", then offered up some supporting evidence or rationale for it, it might be worthy of debate and discussion.

Define 'viable alternative'?

[dad1]

But what ties the clocks and observers together is the constancy of the vacuum speed of light.

Einstein's Relativity describes what different observers will see in different reference frames that are moving relative to each other (constant velocity (Special), or accelerating (General)) and better describe what we actually see.

False. Nothing ties any observer with earth (and solar system area) at all. There ARE NO observers, even remote probes, that have reached a distance of even one light DAY away yet! ALL observers are here. WE have, in realty only one point of observation and one possible point of observation.

What justification would there be for assuming that the vacuum speed of light is NOT constant?

Why would we do that? Light may be constant while IN whatever space and time zone it moves! That would mean we have only ever observed it one way. That is the way it exists while in our zone of time and space.

What justiication would there be for assuming that the universe is NOT expanding as red shifts indicate?

If time itself and maybe space themselves were different, there is no way to assume red shifting could not be affected, of course. That renders all belief based assumptions on the meaning of such light shifts useless.

The goal of science is to try and explain nature and constantly update its assumptions and analysis based on observations. When we can directly measure photons on Earth that came from a distant star and see the spectrum of hydrogen with its line pattern exactly the same as we see it on Earth, but shifted to longer wavelengths.

Do we not observe all light from anywhere after it gets here?

We could assume different things about the speed of light, or what causes redshifts, but why do that? There would have to be some justification for it (besides support of a religious belief, for example).

Science already does that. They use beliefs to assume all things.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #5]

This is a logical fallacy probably an example of the "false dilemma" fallacy.

No it isn't.

You are limiting the options by saying "unless you have an alternative to the cosmological principle then you have no place questioning it".

No again. I'm saying that wild guesses without any observational support or justification are useless at helping to explain things. You can question the cosmological principle all day, but without a better explanation, or some evidence to support a claim that it is incorrect, you're just rambling.

This position incidentally is known as "dogma":

So now you're claiming that science is dogma. Got it. Good luck selling that one!

Now you're misrepresenting what's been said. It is a fact a, a fact of science that cosmology rests upon the cosmological principle, are you disputing that? There is no evidence for the cosmological principle! It is pure assumption. You can't assume X then use that to infer claim Y then offer claim Y as evidence for X.

[dad1]

Well what do you want to assume? that clocks far away tick more slowly? or something else? I'm not sure what you're asking here.

The issue is what we know. Personally I assume that the world is 6000 years old and created by Jesus. So, I would use that basis if I were crunching any numbers about time in the distant universe. The furthest stars out there, according to science, are what, something like 15 billion ly? I would assume that no light from anywhere took more than around 6000 years to reach us. So, time would not be the same.

[Tcg]

Personally I assume that the world is 6000 years old and created by Jesus.

Well, that's an interesting approach. The world was created by someone who wouldn't be born until what 4,000 years later. Ok then. Got any evidence to support what you assume?


Tcg

[Inquirer]

Well what do you want to assume? that clocks far away tick more slowly? or something else? I'm not sure what you're asking here.

The issue is what we know. Personally I assume that the world is 6000 years old and created by Jesus. So, I would use that basis if I were crunching any numbers about time in the distant universe. The furthest stars out there, according to science, are what, something like 15 billion ly? I would assume that no light from anywhere took more than around 6000 years to reach us. So, time would not be the same.

Well unless said assumption leads to some kind of contradiction then go for it. The thing I see repeated over and over in these kinds of forums is a naivety about science. Claims like it doesn't assume stuff and everything is supported by evidence and other utter nonsense that would cause guffaws in a beginners philosophy class.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #11]

After all as you almost certainly know, when debating the creation issues, one of the first things that is used to support the earth sciences is stellar time!

What is "stellar time"? I've never even heard that term before (or used it in relation to arguing against creationism).

I do not need to know. All that is needed for the creation by God as per the bible argument to win would be showing that science does not really know after all. Then it is all a matter of belief. Science can't win in that arena.

Science may not yet know the exact mechanism for how the universe came into existence, but it can certainly show by nearly every "ology" that it was far longer than ~6000 years ago. Your argument seems to be that if science doesn't yet understand something, that is proof of creation by a god being of some sort. Fortunately, that isn't how science works ... it is the god of the gaps argument.

Define 'viable alternative'?

An alternative that has observational support ... ie. a hypothesis that is supported by empirical evidence and is consistent with known science. The crux of your argument seems be "the bible said it happened this way, so that's how it happened", along with "if science doesn't know the answer, god did it." Hardly convincing arguments against all that science has accomplished to date.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #12]

Do we not observe all light from anywhere after it gets here?

Yes ... and from its characteristics we can see that is an electromagnetic wave. That means that it travels at the speed of light per Maxwell's relationships, which we have measured to a high degree of accuracy (2.99792458e10 cm/s in vacuum). If it had different characteristics or speed elsewhere in the universe, and given that we can observe photons arriving at Earth from all directions and distances, from many different sources, you'd expect to see some kind of indication of it behaving differently as a function of direction and distance/time. But there is zero indication of this, so why make it up?

If/when there is some anamoly observed to indicate that the speed of light is different elsewhere in the universe, the rational thing to do is assume it isn't and that Earth or our solar system isn't some special place where physical constants and the behavior of matter is different than anywhere else. Why make groundless assumptions?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #13]

It is a fact a, a fact of science that cosmology rests upon the cosmological principle, are you disputing that?

No ... what made you think that? I said the bases for the assumption are valid

There is no evidence for the cosmological principle! It is pure assumption.

It isn't "pure assumption" ... it is based on the fact that there has not yet been any evidence to show that it is not a valid assumption, and the assumption has a sound basis from multiple observations. We have never discovered elements (atoms) outside of our solar system that are not a member of the set that appear in the periodic table. All spectroscopic observations of stars and galaxies, molecular clouds, etc. show known atoms or molecules with the same spectral features (in absorption or emission) that we see here on Earth. So we can assume that chemistry must work the same way "there" as it does here, short of some observation that suggest otherwise. And on and on. The cosmological principle wasn't arrived at by random guesswork.

You can't assume X then use that to infer claim Y then offer claim Y as evidence for X.

Obviously.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #16]

The thing I see repeated over and over in these kinds of forums is a naivety about science. Claims like it doesn't assume stuff and everything is supported by evidence and other utter nonsense that would cause guffaws in a beginners philosophy class.

Or your special interpretation of what science is. What would cause guffaws in a beginners science class would be some comment like "it would be impossible to distinguish a 4.6 billion year old earth from a 6000 year old earth that was made to look old." There's a reason math, physics and chemistry isn't left to philosophers ... we'd be doomed.