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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #129]

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.

If I had a boss and had that result from a research effort I'd expect to be fired. But if the study was to find out what water was "made of", and I reported that it was a molecule consisting of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms I expect the boss would be happy if the molecular structure of H2O was not previously known. I don't see the point of your post.

[Joseppi]

When I read the Genesis account of the creation of light I see no reason to doubt it is the truth of the matter.

God said Let there be light.
Therefore, the initial light speed was as instantaneous as possible given its purpose to define the truth of things and irradiate darkness.

The only thing in the deep at that time was waters and the earth.
And the earth sat in darkness.

God created the firmament to separate the waters of the heaven above from the waters of the earth.


This means the cosmos has an orientation.

All matter is earth. Thus all the stars are made of earth and distributed as planned. And at the right moment space was stretched out.
Thus eliminating any notion that it took much time to distribute information from all sources as designed.

There is much information in Genesis which is amazing since it reads so simply.

The light came forth out of all matter and matter began to be heated.

Light and darkness were defined as domains and were separated.

Light and darkness defined the passing of time as evening and morning. This was before the placement of the sun and moon. Thus revealing that time was ordained before creation.
Note how that light is referenced to time.

Light illuminates and reveals nature rightly. It gives us scientific knowledge of all things. Which makes light difficult to define since it’s function is to define.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Joseppi in post #132]

God said Let there be light.
Therefore, the initial light speed was as instantaneous as possible given its purpose to define the truth of things and irradiate darkness.

How do you get from "God said Let there be light", to some inference on the speed of light at "creation"? The term "as instantaneous as possible" is so ambiguous that it basically means some version of "fast." And what does light have to do with the "truth of things"? Irradiating the darkness makes sense as that is what light would do if the wavelength range of the light was in roughly the 350 - 800 nm range where humans could see it. But I don't see how you can discern anything about the speed of light, or how it defines the truth of things, from the Genesis creation myth.

All matter is earth. Thus all the stars are made of earth and distributed as planned.

Really? The stars are made of "earth"? That will be a hard sell because nuclear fusion is what powers stars and we don't see that naturally happening with "earth" ... but it isn't clear what you mean by "made of earth." What, exactly, is "earth" as a material?

Light and darkness defined the passing of time as evening and morning. This was before the placement of the sun and moon.

So evening and morning existed before the placement of the sun and moon ... right. Since the sun is what creates the light that we receive on Earth, just how did evening and morning happen without the sun? Another very hard sell.

Which makes light difficult to define since it’s function is to define.

What? Light's function is to define? Please elaborate.

[Inquirer]

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?

That's untrue, the phrase "waved away results" is itself your personal interpretation of something I may have said in the past. I've explained to you before, if you paraphrase you get confused as you seem to be. I've never said "I'm waving this away" (i.e. you can offer no material evidence to support the claim) this is a made up specious claim, please stick with facts, accurate quotes and other norms of debate if you want to make any headway.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #129]

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.

If I had a boss and had that result from a research effort I'd expect to be fired. But if the study was to find out what water was "made of", and I reported that it was a molecule consisting of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms I expect the boss would be happy if the molecular structure of H2O was not previously known. I don't see the point of your post.

Great so unlike Tcg you'd never emphasizes that water is made of water, glad we agree.

[Inquirer]

[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?

Right that's true but we test them against observation and reject those that deviate the most, I couldn't agree more.

Now for some true science, a solid lesson in epistemology



Perhaps you or some others here, would have argued with Wittgenstein? if so, how would you respond to wat he says?

If you can't yet really grasp the profundity of what Wittgenstein or Burke are explaining here, then no wonder you have so much trouble understanding what I am saying to you.

[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?

That's untrue, the phrase "waved away results" is itself your personal interpretation of something I may have said in the past. I've explained to you before, if you paraphrase you get confused as you seem to be. I've never said "I'm waving this away" (i.e. you can offer no material evidence to support the claim) this is a made up specious claim, please stick with facts, accurate quotes and other norms of debate if you want to make any headway.

Ok, let's try different phrasing.

I've seen you respond to the results of scientific testing by saying something like "that's their interpretation". But if, as you said earlier, the way we tell which interpretation is accurate is via scientific testing, isn't that rather circular (and highly illogical)? IOW, it's something like....

JF: The fossil record shows examples of gradualism.

IN: That's your interpretation. Others interpret it differently.

JF: How do we tell which interpretation is accurate?

IN: By scientific testing.

JF: Here are the results of scientific testing that agree with my interpretation (and conflict with yours).

IN: That's their interpretation.

[Inquirer]

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?

That's untrue, the phrase "waved away results" is itself your personal interpretation of something I may have said in the past. I've explained to you before, if you paraphrase you get confused as you seem to be. I've never said "I'm waving this away" (i.e. you can offer no material evidence to support the claim) this is a made up specious claim, please stick with facts, accurate quotes and other norms of debate if you want to make any headway.

Ok, let's try different phrasing.

I've seen you respond to the results of scientific testing by saying something like "that's their interpretation". But if, as you said earlier, the way we tell which interpretation is accurate is via scientific testing, isn't that rather circular (and highly illogical)? IOW, it's something like....

JF: The fossil record shows examples of gradualism.

IN: That's your interpretation. Others interpret it differently.

JF: How do we tell which interpretation is accurate?

IN: By scientific testing.

JF: Here are the results of scientific testing that agree with my interpretation (and conflict with yours).

IN: That's their interpretation.

Except that's not a real conversation between us, again its paraphrased, something you love to do, I wonder why...

[Jose Fly]

Except that's not a real conversation between us, again its paraphrased, something you love to do, I wonder why...

Well, since there have been at least four previous instances where you complained about me paraphrasing, followed by me linking to and quoting where you did/said what I depicted, after which you simply left the thread.....I have to ask....would you stick around this time if I dug up an example of you responding to scientific results by saying something like "that's their interpretation"?

Or perhaps I should just ask you straight up, are you disputing that you have responded to scientific results by saying something akin to "that's their interpretation"?

[Clownboat]

Except that's not a real conversation between us, again its paraphrased, something you love to do, I wonder why...

Well, since there have been at least four previous instances where you complained about me paraphrasing, followed by me linking to and quoting where you did/said what I depicted, after which you simply left the thread.....I have to ask....would you stick around this time if I dug up an example of you responding to scientific results by saying something like "that's their interpretation"?

Or perhaps I should just ask you straight up, are you disputing that you have responded to scientific results by saying something akin to "that's their interpretation"?

I prophecy that you just killed the thread!