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.

[Miles]

Do you believe in any sort of actual reality, or is everything just "interpretation" and "opinion" in your world?

I like that. Do you BELIEVE---Beliefs affect reality I guess.

Only if they're acted upon.

.

[otseng]

Oh there's a problem here all right....it's with your reading comprehension.

Moderator Comment

If anyone attacks you, please just report it without commenting back.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Inquirer]

Science isn't based on science, I've tried to explain this to you many times now.

That makes as much sense as saying water isn't made of water. Oh well, I guess this is what we've come down to. Non-water water.

Tcg

If that's how you interpret what was said then that's for you to ponder. I know of no scientist that would ever suggest "matter is made of matter" or "smoke is made of smoke" or "electricity is made of electricity" if these are your idea of profound, of epistemologically meaningful claims then no wonder we disagree.

Knowledge is hierarchical that's why we say scientific explanations are based on reductionism, it strives to reduce phenomena to sub-phenomena.

Water is indeed not made of water, it is made of H2O molecules, that is the scientific - reductionist - explanation.

If you explain X in terms of X then you do not have an explanation.

Water is a material though not an activity so your analogy is a very poor one.

[Inquirer]

But that aside, we don't need to look out into space or question the rate of time out there to find evidence that Earth is very much older than 6000 years.

That's a matter of opinion, different people see things in different ways, different people assume different things, different people interpret observations in different ways, this applies to all people, be they laymen or scientific researchers.

Your way of interpreting the world is not the only way, despite the constant insinuation otherwise.

Do you believe in any sort of actual reality, or is everything just "interpretation" and "opinion" in your world?

Yes, all evidence is interpreted personally, in order to interpret one needs a framework of assumptions, beliefs, a starting point from which to begin the interpretation.

As for an "actual reality" yes I do believe it exists but we cannot completely perceive it, all we can do is create models of it and these models often change over time, our perception of reality is always incomplete.

My perception of some thing might differ from yours but that does not mean we disagree over reality, only over our personal interpretations of it.

[Jose Fly]

But that aside, we don't need to look out into space or question the rate of time out there to find evidence that Earth is very much older than 6000 years.

That's a matter of opinion, different people see things in different ways, different people assume different things, different people interpret observations in different ways, this applies to all people, be they laymen or scientific researchers.

Your way of interpreting the world is not the only way, despite the constant insinuation otherwise.

Do you believe in any sort of actual reality, or is everything just "interpretation" and "opinion" in your world?

Yes, all evidence is interpreted personally, in order to interpret one needs a framework of assumptions, beliefs, a starting point from which to begin the interpretation.

As for an "actual reality" yes I do believe it exists but we cannot completely perceive it, all we can do is create models of it and these models often change over time, our perception of reality is always incomplete.

My perception of some thing might differ from yours but that does not mean we disagree over reality, only over our personal interpretations of it.

Do you believe that some interpretations are closer to the actual reality than others? If so, how do you tell?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #123]

Water is indeed not made of water, it is made of H2O molecules, that is the scientific - reductionist - explanation.

Water is H2O. They are two ways to describe the identical thing (one the chemical formula, one an English word for it). So you've just said that water is made of water. Water exists in liquid, solid and gaseous phases ... all H2O molecules. No different than using CO2 vs using carbon dioxide to describe exactly the same thing.

The correct way to describe the scientific - reductionist explanation would be to say that H2O (a.k.a. water) is made of one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms. No slacking here in the S&R section.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #125]

Do you believe that some interpretations are closer to the actual reality than others? If so, how do you tell?

For a specific test case ... how about the flat earther interpretation of the shape of our planet (or their "interpretations" of gravity (it doesn't exist), the sun (which is small and close, with apparently a lampshade on it) and moon (which makes its own light), seasons, what and where Antarctica is, etc.), vs. the oblate spheroid interpretation and heliocentricity and all that implies? Should these be treated equally as far as validity since they are both just different interpretations of observations?

[Inquirer]

But that aside, we don't need to look out into space or question the rate of time out there to find evidence that Earth is very much older than 6000 years.

That's a matter of opinion, different people see things in different ways, different people assume different things, different people interpret observations in different ways, this applies to all people, be they laymen or scientific researchers.

Your way of interpreting the world is not the only way, despite the constant insinuation otherwise.

Do you believe in any sort of actual reality, or is everything just "interpretation" and "opinion" in your world?

Yes, all evidence is interpreted personally, in order to interpret one needs a framework of assumptions, beliefs, a starting point from which to begin the interpretation.

As for an "actual reality" yes I do believe it exists but we cannot completely perceive it, all we can do is create models of it and these models often change over time, our perception of reality is always incomplete.

My perception of some thing might differ from yours but that does not mean we disagree over reality, only over our personal interpretations of it.

Do you believe that some interpretations are closer to the actual reality than others? If so, how do you tell?

You really don't know? by scientifically testing theoretical expectations against observations.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #123]

Water is indeed not made of water, it is made of H2O molecules, that is the scientific - reductionist - explanation.

Water is H2O. They are two ways to describe the identical thing (one the chemical formula, one an English word for it). So you've just said that water is made of water. Water exists in liquid, solid and gaseous phases ... all H2O molecules. No different than using CO2 vs using carbon dioxide to describe exactly the same thing.

The correct way to describe the scientific - reductionist explanation would be to say that H2O (a.k.a. water) is made of one hydrogen atom and two oxygen atoms. No slacking here in the S&R section.

Try telling your boss that after months of investigation and study and research of the mystery material XXX you have made an astonishing breakthrough and found that it - incredibly - is made of XXX.

[Jose Fly]

Do you believe that some interpretations are closer to the actual reality than others? If so, how do you tell?

You really don't know? by scientifically testing theoretical expectations against observations.

Well that's weird, because I could swear you've oftentimes waved away the results of scientific testing as merely "interpretation". Surely you're not trying to have it both ways, are you?