CMB Electro Magnetic waves only seen on earth

[dad]

There you go, the famous, or more precisely your signature move:

1. make some illogical and bogus claims,
2. followed by some clumsy dodging and evading any responsibility of backing up your claim with evidence.

Focus. History and the bible are records of the past, however accurate or not you think they may be are not bogus. Nor is the true and actual basis for which origin concerned sciences BASE their models on. Deal with reality.

The problem is that you are still stubbornly claiming the notion that time and space were different, then so must be the laws of physics be different today.

Totally bogus claim. Go back and read the two rules again. You will learn you are conflating issues. Either talk about time in the far universe OR talk about what the forces of nature were like on earth long ago. Pick one. I see no connection?

So unless you can evidence that past and present laws of physics were different, then all of your claims are unsubstantiated irrational claims.

I'll assume you are talking about ancient earth here? If so the ONLY thing that matters in a science debate is whether SCIENCE knows and can prove or evidence nature WAS one way or the other in the far past here on earth. THAT is your quest. No matter how hopeless.

It isn’t just your claim that today’s physics don’t the cosmology of the universe, you have also said the same thing about physics on Earth were different with pre-flood and post flood. You couldn’t back up your claim with evidence too, about physics operating differently before the Genesis Flood.

Hey, we covered the earth part. Science doesn't know. Period. As for the distant universe and the exact nature of time there, again no one knows. That would mean that anything we see here IN our time and space, would be operating as it needed to HERE. Your quest in that issue is to demonstrate that science does know what time is like...or...all is lost for your fable weaving endeavors!

But this thread isn’t about the Genesis Flood.

Great, then stop trying to talk about earth in ancient times!

But you are still making tenuous On the contrary, it seems simple to me. If YOU grasped the issues you could post some claims about science you understand,

On the contrary, it seems simple to me. If YOU grasped the issues you could post something other than garbled blather.

You are doing this same lies again, but this time in regarding to the Big Bang, a model of physical cosmology that you have no understanding of.

Try reading the OP and addressing it. Your little placard like slogans have no worth.

If you REALLY don’t people continuously requesting that you bring some evidence to support your claims, THEN STOP MAKING POSITIVE ASSERTIONS OR POSITIVE CLAIMS!

If you claim man has been to or sent probes more than one light day away, then post evidence! If you claim you know what time is like in far space, post the goods! meanwhile, have another cup of admitting 'you don't know'.

You say that the today’s laws of physics don’t apply in the past, then YOU MUST BE THE ONE TO SHOW EVIDENCE that they were indeed “different”.

Science can't prove that they did or did not apply on earth in ancient times. That means they (also you) can show no evidence of either! None. So the question is who cares what science thinks or believes in the meantime?

 

[dad]

What you seem to overlook is my point that theories have to fit observations. Magic custard and spaghetti monsters would not do that.

Yes, and if people believed the spaghetti monster pooped the universe out of a turtles rear end they would make observations fit. 'Oh, the universe cooled down after that and cooled, leaving hotter areas..blah blah'

So it is not the case that any old rubbish will do, as you seem to be suggesting. The rigour of science consists of insisting that any theory has to be corroborated by observation.

Mainly, it has to be put through fishbowl lenses, and interpreted by fishbowl rules. In the case of the OP, the waves and light and time dependent oscillations and etc etc are ALL based on our point of observation in the fishbowl of the solar system and area! 'The waves take so much time to do such and such, so they also must take that much time out in unknown time and space' In other words, they use the belief that the universe must be uniform in space and time, to interpret all data entering the fishbowl.

Clearly the more different sorts of observation are found to fit the theory, the stronger one's confidence in it becomes. For instance, quantum theory was originally able to account for observations ranging from the photo-electric effect, to black body radiation, to atomic spectra. So people were very confident it was on the right track to being a good model.

I agree, it is a good...fishbowl model! Things operate a certain way here. Now apply that to the far universe without involving space or time!?

So the theories of science are not just another "belief system", like religion, at all. They are founded on, and stand or fall by, reproducible observation of nature. This is a basic distinction that must be taken on board in order to debate or critique science in a serious manner.

IN the fishbowl that is true to a large extent. Out of the fishbowl in far space that is not true to any extent. Nor is it true involving ancient earth nature.

What is written in scripture is not reproducible observation of nature,

Of course it is. People prove God in their lives all the time. Billions of test tubes running around through all history confirming, testing, proving, observing, repeating...

obviously. It is literature. As such, it is not considered by science.

Of course little in the box science could never consider anything out of the box! They interpret in the box, by the box, and for the box. They are denizens of the fishbowl, and nothing but the fishbowl. Pitiful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Very close when talking about thousands of years (light years) means nothing. Man has not even sent a half witted probe even to one light day yet!

We don't need to. The articles I linked showed that.

 

[dad]

We don't need to. The articles I linked showed that.

Cite the appropriate passage. Why pretend?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cite the appropriate passage. Why pretend?

dad. we both know that I am not pretending. The person that can never support their claims is the pretender. But if you ask politely I will cite the parts that refute your claims. Rudeness will get you nowhere. In fact rudeness would be you admitting that you are wrong.

 

[dad]

dad. we both know that I am not pretending. The person that can never support their claims is the pretender. But if you ask politely I will cite the parts that refute your claims. Rudeness will get you nowhere. In fact rudeness would be you admitting that you are wrong.

Stop disrupting thread with mindless spam.

 

[dad]

dad. we both know that I am not pretending. The person that can never support their claims is the pretender. But if you ask politely I will cite the parts that refute your claims. Rudeness will get you nowhere. In fact rudeness would be you admitting that you are wrong.

Address the OP.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Stop disrupting thread with mindless spam.

dad, that is your sin. Do you want an answer or not? I know, you are still probably afraid to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Address the OP.

I did, and in typical fashion you ran away.

 

[dad]

I did, and in typical fashion you ran away.

For the last time cite the quotes from your links that you think relate to the OP here. The first link you gave is two paragraphs long. Nothing in there remotely relates.

 

[Native]

Your video seems to be preaching rather than on point here. Show us a quote from the video that even addresses time in the far universe?

Agreed, it doesn´t deal specifically with the topic. It´s not preaching as such. It´s generally about the electricity and magnetism in the space where the light is just one of the frequencies.

 

[Native]

Nice try. So we need to know the distance to said SN. We also need to know what time there is like. You canot do that by sitting here in OUR time and space watching how long things take HERE! Here is a gift for you...man has been no where else ever. Light and waves are only seen here. The time anything takes in light ot in info in the light etc is ONLY observed here. In other words of necessity we see things in our time! That can't tell us how much time was/is involved in some unknown part of the universe.

Oh, and to know distances we also require time to exist uniformly all along the way. We can't and do not know that this is the case for the distant universe.

In the cosmological Standard Model, time and distance is measured by the redshift idea, but this method isn´t correct. The very same goes for the measuring of distance by "the standard stars". Luminosity of stars don´t tell anything of distance.
The late astrophysicist, Halton Arp, dealt with these issues which can be watched in this video -

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and if people believed the spaghetti monster pooped the universe out of a turtles rear end they would make observations fit. 'Oh, the universe cooled down after that and cooled, leaving hotter areas..blah blah'

Mainly, it has to be put through fishbowl lenses, and interpreted by fishbowl rules. In the case of the OP, the waves and light and time dependent oscillations and etc etc are ALL based on our point of observation in the fishbowl of the solar system and area! 'The waves take so much time to do such and such, so they also must take that much time out in unknown time and space' In other words, they use the belief that the universe must be uniform in space and time, to interpret all data entering the fishbowl.

I agree, it is a good...fishbowl model! Things operate a certain way here. Now apply that to the far universe without involving space or time!?

IN the fishbowl that is true to a large extent. Out of the fishbowl in far space that is not true to any extent. Nor is it true involving ancient earth nature.
Of course it is. People prove God in their lives all the time. Billions of test tubes running around through all history confirming, testing, proving, observing, repeating...
Of course little in the box science could never consider anything out of the box! They interpret in the box, by the box, and for the box. They are denizens of the fishbowl, and nothing but the fishbowl. Pitiful.

But science works. I expect even you have flown in a jet aircraft. And you are corresponding with me on a computer. If you tell me aeroplanes and computers are made according to a mere fishbowl "belief system", then you are being absurd.

The reason science works is because it insists on reproducible observation of nature, instead of literature and the thoughts of philosophers. In Mediaeval times, people attributed all sorts of things to "acts of God", from thunder and lightning to the plague. These were not predictive models: they did not enable anyone to understand the mechanisms behind phenomena and take any precautionary actions. To say "God did it" explains nothing, in any practical sense. It may be true, to a religious believer, but it does not help and it does not produce any deeper understanding. It is in fact an expression of helplessness, defeat and resignation.

After the Renaissance, the practice of careful and quantitative observation of nature was adopted by the early men of science (who were mostly clergymen by the way). It was this that led to the explosion of understanding of nature that has taken place in the centuries since.

So that is what science does and it is not going to change. Most scientists who are religious believers, and there are vast numbers of them, follow in the footsteps of these early clergymen/scientists. They have no difficulty seeing God in the splendour of creation, be it the galaxies in the heavens, the beautiful symmetry of a crystal structure or, to my mind the most impressive, the way large scale order forms - quite naturally - out of random motion at the atomic level, in Statistical Thermodynamics. What they do not do, and never will, is to muddle up religious belief with the dispassionate and objective study of nature.

 

[Native]

To say "God did it" explains nothing, in any practical sense. It may be true, to a religious believer, but it does not help and it does not produce any deeper understanding. It is in fact an expression of helplessness, defeat and resignation.

It´s not that different from modern cosmological scientists claiming that everything was created from almost nothing in a Big Bang.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For the last time cite the quotes from your links that you think relate to the OP here. The first link you gave is two paragraphs long. Nothing in there remotely relates.

Correction, you mean that you do not understand how they relate.

Radioisotopes are nature's clocks. They tell us how fast time is passing elsewhere. We can observe the decay of those isotopes and determine that their half life is the same in those supernovae as here. Therefore time is running at the same rate there as here.

 

[sealchan]

It follows that since you cannot claim it right, and God says otherwise, that people should believe whatever they like. If time is different way out there, praytell, how could the forces of nature be the same, because all are time dependent?!
Sitting in the fishbowl with colored glasses will make things far away look a certain way.

Do I detect a literalistic belief in a certain book contradicted by science in its cosmology here? A hidden agenda where someone is attempting to make scientific space for ones preferred cosmology? An effort to steal the obvious glory of God best revealed in the works of human science and smuggle it back to a book whose cosmology pales in comparison?

 

[sealchan]

Focus. History and the bible are records of the past, however accurate or not you think they may be are not bogus. Nor is the true and actual basis for which origin concerned sciences BASE their models on. Deal with reality.

Totally bogus claim. Go back and read the two rules again. You will learn you are conflating issues. Either talk about time in the far universe OR talk about what the forces of nature were like on earth long ago. Pick one. I see no connection?

I'll assume you are talking about ancient earth here? If so the ONLY thing that matters in a science debate is whether SCIENCE knows and can prove or evidence nature WAS one way or the other in the far past here on earth. THAT is your quest. No matter how hopeless.

Hey, we covered the earth part. Science doesn't know. Period. As for the distant universe and the exact nature of time there, again no one knows. That would mean that anything we see here IN our time and space, would be operating as it needed to HERE. Your quest in that issue is to demonstrate that science does know what time is like...or...all is lost for your fable weaving endeavors!

Great, then stop trying to talk about earth in ancient times!


On the contrary, it seems simple to me. If YOU grasped the issues you could post something other than garbled blather.
Try reading the OP and addressing it. Your little placard like slogans have no worth.


If you claim man has been to or sent probes more than one light day away, then post evidence! If you claim you know what time is like in far space, post the goods! meanwhile, have another cup of admitting 'you don't know'.


Science can't prove that they did or did not apply on earth in ancient times. That means they (also you) can show no evidence of either! None. So the question is who cares what science thinks or believes in the meantime?

The Bible was written by humans inspired largely by pre-existing myths and stories but creatively adapted by its authors to attempt to express what they uniquely understood was the nature of God. As such it was speculation upon speculation.

Now if we look at the cosmology of the Bible it appears pretty decent from the point of view of someone confined to a perspective of standing on the ground and having little or no theory of matter or sense of the size of the Universe.

Now that we have risen above the firmament and burst that bubble of perspective by setting foot on the moon and sending two probes out of the planetary solar system, you want to argue that the view of God's creation from science is speculative when compared to God's Word?

 

[dad]

Agreed, it doesn´t deal specifically with the topic. It´s not preaching as such. It´s generally about the electricity and magnetism in the space where the light is just one of the frequencies.

Right. I think the poster needs to narrow it down. I'm ready to rumble.

 

[dad]

In the cosmological Standard Model, time and distance is measured by the redshift idea, but this method isn´t correct. The very same goes for the measuring of distance by "the standard stars". Luminosity of stars don´t tell anything of distance.
The late astrophysicist, Halton Arp, dealt with these issues which can be watched in this video -

Interesting. This seems to come at the same issues from a different angle.

 

[dad]

But science works. I expect even you have flown in a jet aircraft. And you are corresponding with me on a computer. If you tell me aeroplanes and computers are made according to a mere fishbowl "belief system", then you are being absurd.

You seem to misunderstand. By allowing that science works well in the solar system area, and earth specifically, it is not denying science, but honoring it where honor is due. In other words, as long as you are talking about earth and area, science is by and large pretty good, and even amazing in some areas. The issue is trying to apply our time and space realities here to unknown deep space by virtue of belief only. Nothing to do with computers or planes.

The reason science works is because it insists on reproducible observation of nature, instead of literature and the thoughts of philosophers. In Mediaeval times, people attributed all sorts of things to "acts of God", from thunder and lightning to the plague. These were not predictive models: they did not enable anyone to understand the mechanisms behind phenomena and take any precautionary actions. To say "God did it" explains nothing, in any practical sense. It may be true, to a religious believer, but it does not help and it does not produce any deeper understanding. It is in fact an expression of helplessness, defeat and resignation.

Science works on earth. Not in unknown deep space, or even on earth in the far past. Science is recent and born of this nature and space and time.

So that is what science does and it is not going to change. Most scientists who are religious believers, and there are vast numbers of them, follow in the footsteps of these early clergymen/scientists. They have no difficulty seeing God in the splendour of creation, be it the galaxies in the heavens, the beautiful symmetry of a crystal structure or, to my mind the most impressive, the way large scale order forms - quite naturally - out of random motion at the atomic level, in Statistical Thermodynamics. What they do not do, and never will, is to muddle up religious belief with the dispassionate and objective study of nature.

The God of the bible cannot be found in the origin sciences that deal in either deep space or the far past on earth. Any god imagined or inserted into that conglomerate of belief based fables is vague, and weak, and might as well be dead.