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.

[brunumb]

Unless space and time were the same the triangle is worthless. The geometry loses meaning, and it became a statement of faith drawn as a triangle!

You've got to be kidding! The only thing worthless here is your argument.

[Clownboat]

Your question implies that the thousands, or millions, of individuals whose expertise is in cosmology and physics and other related areas of study have somehow been wrong in their conclusions

In general, that's effectively the implication of and assumption behind just about every internet creationist's position. They truly believe they know more about the fossil record than paleontologists, more about genetics than geneticists, more about cosmology than cosmologists, more about physics than physicists, more about biology than biologists, more about taxonomy than taxonomists, more about evolution than evolutionary biologists, more about geology than geologists.....

So either they are among the most widely knowledgeable people in the world, or the most self-delusional.

By rejecting established science, people place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that is a good feeling and one many would like to maintain.

[Clownboat]

Name one link that proved time itself was the same in all the universe, or stop pretending. There is NO science issue whatsoever. Nothing.

If we pretend with you that time is different all over the universe, will you make a point? I ask, because I cannot see what your purpose is in pretending that time is different.

For the sake of argument, time has been shown to be different on earth than in space. Therefore dad1 can inform us that _________?

Perhaps the taste of an orange in different on mars than earth? You cannot show that it isn't! Now what is my point? Like yours, there seems to be no point, just fruitless (hahah) speculation.

Now, if I could explain why the orange tastes different, or if you could explain why time behaves differently within the universe, we might have something to discuss. At this point we might as well discuss how my dress shirt today made my coffee taste different. Science cannot show that it didn't afterall! Now what was my point again?

I do understand the allure of pretending to know more than the experts. That is what seems to be going on here IMO as I see no other point, but await to be corrected once said point is relayed to us all.

[Jose Fly]

Your question implies that the thousands, or millions, of individuals whose expertise is in cosmology and physics and other related areas of study have somehow been wrong in their conclusions

In general, that's effectively the implication of and assumption behind just about every internet creationist's position. They truly believe they know more about the fossil record than paleontologists, more about genetics than geneticists, more about cosmology than cosmologists, more about physics than physicists, more about biology than biologists, more about taxonomy than taxonomists, more about evolution than evolutionary biologists, more about geology than geologists.....

So either they are among the most widely knowledgeable people in the world, or the most self-delusional.

By rejecting established science, people place themselves in a position of power.
Suddenly they feel like they're the experts, and that is a good feeling and one many would like to maintain.

It's weird though....in the "do you understand the other side" thread, I expressed my bewilderment at some of the behaviors I've regularly seen from the creationists I've interacted with over the years. So naturally (and appropriately) a few pointed out that much of those behaviors are examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

While I think that's true, it doesn't really alleviate my bewilderment. I understand what they're doing (Dunning-Kruger Effect), I just don't understand how they can do it while remaining oblivious to it. I find myself constantly wondering "How can they not see what they're doing?"

That's what I don't get....the complete lack of self-awareness.

[dad1]

You've got to be kidding! The only thing worthless here is your argument.

It should be clear that unless time and space were the same, trying to make a line drawn in one place where time is a certain way, and assuming this is the same out where stars are is based on belief. If for example, it took 6 months time for the earth to revolve half way round the sun, then that involves time. If there is no time or no time as we know it out where stars are, then the space and time would not be as we know them here. You also are not taking a pen and drawing an actual line to the star. You are looking at light streaming in here from a star!

[dad1]

If we pretend with you that time is different all over the universe, will you make a point? I ask, because I cannot see what your purpose is in pretending that time is different.

The point is that science believes it is the same and uses that for models and distances and origin stories etc. So I ask for evidence if there is any for that belief. Otherwise they must be seen as having built a house of cards on a false premise, or a premise that they cannot show is true.

For the sake of argument, time has been shown to be different on earth than in space. Therefore dad1 can inform us that _________?

That science stories of origins is a crock.

Now, if I could explain why the orange tastes different

,

If you could produce an orange from the far universe your attempted parable might have some merit.

or if you could explain why time behaves differently within the universe

Hey, and anyone even explain why time behaves the way it does here? Usually when I ask this all sorts of weird answers follow. Such as 'time is not real it is just in out minds' etc etc

I do understand the allure of pretending to know more than the experts.

It is not knowing how creation was done that people with different beliefs than science are all about. It is knowing that science is based on beliefs alone when it comes to their weird little alternate creation stories! People who base it all on belief are not experts in anything but believing real hard making stuff up. So, this is the opportunity for sincere believers in origin science fundamentals to try and show they are not just God haters that grasp at any straw for no reason at all, but actually have something more than belief alone. So, what would I assume time exists the same in all the universe?

[brunumb]

It should be clear that unless time and space were the same, trying to make a line drawn in one place where time is a certain way, and assuming this is the same out where stars are is based on belief. If for example, it took 6 months time for the earth to revolve half way round the sun, then that involves time. If there is no time or no time as we know it out where stars are, then the space and time would not be as we know them here. You also are not taking a pen and drawing an actual line to the star. You are looking at light streaming in here from a star!

We observe the star from one point and continue to observe it for 6 months until we make our angle measurement. The star is still there because we see it continually. We don't have to draw real lines to the star to make our measurements. I can take measurements of distances and angles to a tower and use them to calculate the height of the tower without drawing actual lines to the tower. The calculations we use to determine how far away the star is do not involve time. If time passed differently in the vicinity of the star, what would change in our measurements and calculations? Why don't the experts in the field recognise your objections as valid problems associated with their measurements?

[brunumb]

People who base it all on belief are not experts in anything but believing real hard making stuff up.

How do you then let creationists off the hook?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to brunumb in post #108]

How do you then let creationists off the hook?

Right ... bashing science with an argument that it is all "belief based" should equally disqualify biblical claims for the same reason. But it is clear the reason for this OP was not to debate a science and religion issue, but to complain about an aspect of science that contradicts a young earth without any actual challenges to the science.

Also, the argument that time, space, light, etc. may be different "there" compared to "here", without specifying what those differences are or how they could arise, allows for the distances to stars to equally well be greater than we think they are. Saying simply "science doesn't know" does nothing to support the OP argument.

[dad1]

How do you then let creationists off the hook?

I do not consider them experts in science either. But at least they would admit basing things on belief, one would hope.