what is time?

[Strange]

To make a model one needs to have some grasp of what one has to work with. Science apparently doesn't meet that bar.

 

Actually, the only "grasp" one has to have is a model that works. Science is good at that.

 

You have no argument other than simply saying, "no". I suppose you want to be banned so you can use it as badge to show how smart you are; that is a typical dishonest tactic of your type.

[Phi for All]

Another "I know squat about science, it makes no sense to me, so it's wrong" argument from incredulity. Completely unassailable since it was derived emotionally, from religious beliefs, making it impervious to reason.

 

I get tired of bothering with people who are proud of their ignorance, and work hard to keep it sacred and unchanging.

[dad]

Lol our models do an incredible job of making predictions prior to observation.

If you wish to consider that based on faith so be it.

 

I have faith my feet is currently touching the floor.

 

In all seriousness though, I dont waste my time arguing belief.

If you want to discuss science that's fine. However if the counter argument you can come up with is to ignore scientific data of measurements and extremely well tested models with a lame poor argument of faith.

 

That conservation is far too boring of an argument. It lacks any imagination or scientific merit to discuss.

 

I honestly hope you can provide a better argument worth discussing other than "FAITH"

 

 

Me too, science should have more.

[Mordred]

Another "I know squat about science, it makes no sense to me, so it's wrong" argument from incredulity. Completely unassailable since it was derived emotionally, from religious beliefs, making it impervious to reason.

 

I get tired of bothering with people who are proud of their ignorance, and work hard to keep it sacred and unchanging.

I agree it makes for an incredibly boring debate.

[dad]

 

Actually, the only "grasp" one has to have is a model that works. Science is good at that.

 

 

No, we need to see it work in deep space for you to say that. I see nothing you have work there?

 

I agree it makes for an incredibly boring debate.

Only if you talk. Because you need facts and more than faith and claims to make it interesting. I at least have interesting questions.

[Strange]

 

No, we need to see it work in deep space for you to say that.

 

We can. Your repeated denials based on your ignorance don't change that.

 

 

I see nothing you have work there?

 

Your English is failing.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Strange

[dad]

Another "I know squat about science, it makes no sense to me, so it's wrong" argument from incredulity. Completely unassailable since it was derived emotionally, from religious beliefs, making it impervious to reason.

 

I get tired of bothering with people who are proud of their ignorance, and work hard to keep it sacred and unchanging.

I get tired of biased mods. I was insulted by the one who closed the other thread and lied about. You different, or a confederate?

 

We can. Your repeated denials based on your ignorance don't change that.

 

 

Your English is failing.

Do not deny that you failed to show time exists in deep space. In any way at all.

[Mordred]

No you made a claim that time works different than what our models show.

 

Yet supply no alternative to discuss other than were wrong your right.

 

BORING. I at least supplied a link showing measurement data and tried to explain it to you.

 

Don't bother posting your christanity link. I happen to be a devout Catholic. That doesn't prevent me from studying science.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[dad]

No you made a claim that time works different than what our models show.

 

 

I claim you don't know. Your models are based on limited criteria. How could they work in deep space? Let's see that! Seems like you are trying to piggyback on local earth uses of science and models?

 

 

Yet supply no alternative to discuss other than were wrong your right.

 

Once we see you do not know the world abounds in alternative beliefs!

 

Don't bother posting your christanity link. I happen to be a devout Catholic. That doesn't prevent me from studying science.

 

 

 

Stop preaching. Don't worry all the little kids I know are safe from you guys.

[Mordred]

I already explained how we use light to measure time. I'm not going to waste my time on someone not interested in the scientific methods.

[dad]

I already explained how we use light to measure time. I'm not going to waste my time on someone not interested in the scientific methods.

Wrong. Iight moves and takes time to move. Light moving is not time itself. If there were no time as we know it on earth in deep space then whatever moved including light could not TAKE as much time!=

[Mordred]

Wrong it takes time for light to move from a to b.

 

So when you apply c*t this equals length.

 

come on this is elementary school math.

 

Do you understand the term wavelength or frequency.? Do you know that temperature affects the emitter frequency via blackbody temperature radiation?

 

Are you aware that you must have a time component to have a frequency?

 

Are you aware that we measure the temperature at any point astronomy studies?

 

Or is your next argument going to be no your wrong it's your blind faith.

[dad]

Wrong it takes time for light to move from a to b.

 

So when you apply c*t this equals length.

 

come on this is elementary school math.

 

Do you understand the term wavelength or frequency.? Do you know that temperature affects the emitter frequency via blackbody temperature radiation?

 

Are you aware that you must have a time component to have a frequency?

 

Are you aware that we measure the temperature at any point astronomy studies?

 

Or is your next argument going to be no your wrong it's your blind faith.

You think you measure temperature. HOW MUCH time anything takes to move depends on how much time exists in space and time! Gotcha

 

 

 

By the way I notice a trend here of people thinking discussion and debate means sitting at their feet and learning regurgitated nonsense rather than supporting a position.

[Daecon]

What position are you supporting? All you're doing is going "nuh-uh" as if that's an argument.

[Mordred]

I suggest you study what the term frequency means. You obviously haven't a clue.

 

Does the words.

 

Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time.

 

Not mean anything to you.

[dad]

What position are you supporting? All you're doing is going "nuh-uh" as if that's an argument.

 

That depends on if we get an answer and support for the position of science on whether time exists as it does here in deep space. My position is questioning whether we really know what time is, or whether it exists at all or the same in space. In fact I think you don't. So far all posters confirm this.

I suggest you study what the term frequency means. You obviously haven't a clue.Does the words.

Frequency is the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time.

 

Not mean anything to you.

 

 

 

Why flatter yourself? You do realize that takes time?? Ha. Think about it.

Yes. It means time is involved. So if there was no time in deep space and something moved (waves for example) that means that when we see it here where there IS time it takes so much time here! Hoo ha.

[Mordred]

No I did you ignored.

 

Here is the temperature to wavelength formula via Weins displacement law.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

 

objects won't emit a temperature if it experiences zero time.

[Daecon]

So then what's your point? What punchline are all these threads supposed to be leading to?

[dad]

No I did you ignored.

 

Here is the temperature to wavelength formula via Weins displacement law.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law

 

objects won't emit a temperature if it experiences zero time.

First of all we need to know laws are the same in space. Since the distances and sizes of what we see cannot be known (unless we first prove time as we know it here exists there) you don't even know how big or far away whatever you are looking at is.

 

Next we should ask if anything affects the spectra from there to here. Now if we can do all that, we still have the issue of ..so what!? Who really cares if some object maybe the size of a basket ball that you thought was three times bigger than the sun is hot or cold?

So then what's your point? What punchline are all these threads supposed to be leading to?

Some may have thought science knew something about the universe and past. Can't have that now.

[Daecon]

Why would we have any reason to believe time isn't the same everywhere as it is on Earth? Nothing suggests or implies that time is different, so why would we think it is?

[dad]

Why would we have any reason to believe time isn't the same everywhere as it is on Earth? Nothing suggests or implies that time is different, so why would we think it is?

 

Who cares what you 'believe'? The question is what you know. Stop talking about belief.

[Mordred]

Why would you think a star burns any different with nuclear fusion processes than here, Why would you think that the spectrography signature for hydrogen or helium which uses frequency is any different than here.

 

Why don't we see this alternative time behavior you believe in when we look at spectography measurements.

 

Or even see it in radio signals.

 

We do have radio telescopes.

 

Other than the redshift/blueshift which is explained with GR. All our measurements MATCH the physics we see here on Earth.

 

Your claims otherwise are based on your denial without any true understanding.

 

Quite frankly I certainly hope your church doesn't teach you to remain ignorant. That would be harmful to your congegration membership.

[dad]

Why would you think a star burns any different with nuclear fusion processes than here,

 

Why the same?

 

 

Why would you think that the spectrography signature for hydrogen or helium which uses frequency is any different than here.

 

Not sure, doesn't hurt to check. After all when something like a wave enters time here, hey, we might want to see how that would affect things if it came from somewhere beyond time.

 

 

Why don't we see this alternative time behavior you believe in when we look at spectography measurements.

 

?? How would you see time?

 

Or even see it in radio signals.

 

They are all HERE! IN TIME. We see stuff here.

 

 

We do have radio telescopes.

 

Coffee machines too.

 

 

Other than the redshift/blueshift which is explained with GR. All our measurements MATCH the physics we see here on Earth.

 

Without time a redshift loses meaning. At least most meaning as per your grasp of things.

 

Your claims otherwise are based on your denial without any true understanding.

 

 

 

My claims are that we don't know. Your understanding seems to confirm that in spades.

Edited April 11, 2016 by dad

[Mordred]

I've presented my arguments and religion aside you have yet to show a single decent argument.

 

Yet you demand that of us. For shame. Why should we bother when you've obviously refuse to consider our responses with anything other than

 

"you lie, your blinded by faith, we didn't measure anything etc etc etc."

 

If you honestly believe science doesn't use multiple approaches to test it's models your wrong.

 

Every theory in physics is tested rigorously. Especially GR.

 

So far all your posts have shown that you have no understanding of basic physics so showing the higher mathematics is pointless.

 

Redshift for example is an extremely well tested theory that uses time dilation.

 

However your response shows you don't wish to understand how.

 

If anything, every one of your posts suggest your here to preach, not understand the information presented thus far to you.

 

If you interested in learning you would have asked for clarity on how we apply those physics formulas in deep field measurements.

 

Not simply post, " that doesn't mean anything"

[Phi for All]

It's like terrorism, Mordred. They use cheap tactics, irrational emotions, and rigor-free bombing of your mainstream explanations, hoping to get a big, disproportionate response from the intellectuals they despise. Cowards, tiny-minded and juvenile, just trying to justify their belligerence and hatred of what they don't understand.