Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)

We have probes that have gone further than the sun. Don't mix what is known with what is not.

We need to know if the so called suns/stars and planets are grain of sand sized, monster sized, or whatever. We need to know distance. Same with binary stars. Time MUST exist THERE to know distance from here. The only question is does it, and do you know?Now this should make us think. Not at all. The distances are not known, and that right away nixes the argument. IF we believe with no reason and assume time exists there, and use the distances such a belief and assumption affords, THEN, it seems to make sense that time exists there too. Circular. I don't need one! It is not I that claimed to have er all mapped out. That would be science. My personal guess is that it involves more than what we know here. Just saying you do is belief actually. To question that belief and ask for real evidence is real science! Honesty. I am questioning people's belief system here.

Ah, you haven't address all of the argument from the OP. The time component is addressed by the decay rates of the nickle and cobalt from the explosion being the same as they are here on Earth.With that we can accept that the time there is the same as ours and then go on to do the geometric calculations.

In the first place, those probes didn't go to the sun. The furthest we've sent anything is the Voyager probe, which is going away from the sun.In the second place, your claim that we've sent probes anywhere is subject to your same reasoning. What makes us think that Voyager 1 (for example) is moving, or is 11.7 billion miles away from us? All we have to go on is the data we receive here, back on Earth. ("Whatever we see is here! The light that has the info is only and always seen here.") So, let's apply all the usual paraphernalia of denial to space probes, just as you applied it to the stars:* "Unless time is the same where the probe is therefore, there can be no distance known."* "You are being circular in logic here another way, because you NEED time to exist all the way out to the probe to know distance!"* "You have not shown that you know even that time exists out where the probe is just as it does in spacetime on Earth. You can say 'yes I do' all day."

Let me get this straight, you saying: What the scientists are doing and calling science, well that stuff we can't trust to be correct because they don't really know what they are talking about.But you and your attempts at questioning basic and fundamental sources of knowledge, well, that's the real science and it is totally correct.Pardon me, but you're full of it. We all trust science because it works and solves problems. Your juvenile attempts at obfuscating knowledge and stifling progress may be amusing to yourself, but we're all here rolling our eyes at you and not really caring if you choose to wallow in your ignorance rather than discuss real things with the adults.

I get the feeling you simply do not understand that there are alternative facts.

Thanks, I try to be fair. Let me introduce you to a little game I call "The Star Distance Two-step": So yes we DO know the distance to that star, regardless of what games you want to play with time. And curiously, that is all we need. And I've just shown this assertion to be false, that we DO know the distance to that star, and we know it with a very high degree of confidence because it is simple high school math. Yes it is another topic, and you are free to post on it at will. That is why I posted the link, Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, after all. Really? Then it will be an exciting time for you. From the end of the first post:

quote:

---

People who want to review the history of this thread can do so at:

1. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 number 1 (297 posts)
2. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.: Version 1 number 2 (306 posts)
3. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III): Version 1 number 3 (over 357 posts ... plus the posts on this thread ....)

---

The first post of Version 1 number 1 was made on 03-14-2004, and to date NO creationist has been able to refute the evidence of an old earth the way that these threads present and discuss. If anything this needs to be updated with new evidence that has come to light. Just trying to help, your welcome.Enjoy

Curiously I said nothing about size or distance, what I asked for was how you explain the evidence. Again, I am not arguing about distance or time, I am asking for your explanation of the observations. But you do. It is your argument, not anyone else's, and as yet there is NO observable empirical evidence that would cause anyone to question time being consistent throughout the universe.It appears that all you have is belief with no foundation, as far as I can see, and that is often called fantasy. No, it is not a belief, this is a common, understandable, mistake that people who operate on belief systems make, possibly because you are unfamiliar with what science uses.It is a working assumption (ie an hypothesis): if time is the same what do we see. And it can be tested: if time is not the same what should we see that is different. So far there is no objective empirical evidence that this working assumption (hypothesis) is incorrect.If you want to challenge this, then provide evidence and theory that explains all the known evidence with some different basis for time. Fantasy is no match for science.Show us the information that shows the hypothesis is wrong, and that you have a better explanation (hypothesis) and if it tests out, we will agree with you, because that is how science works.Enjoy

Your claim would be that the Co 60 that formed and decayed during the supernova did so without time existing at its location? That makes no sense to anyone but you. It is in fact only our observations of processes and not the processes themselves that rely on local time.Let me correct another of your misconceptions. None of the generally used methods for calculating the distance to stars rely on actually timing light traveling to stars and accordingly none of those methods is "geochronically" based.Cosmic distance ladder - WikipediaIn short, the distances to the closest stars are measured using parallax which is purely geometric and also useful to about 1000 light years. Only the existence of the object at a distant point is assumed. These measurements correlate with the distances measured for stars at greater distances thereby calibrating them.So when we observe that distant stars behave exactly as does the sun, for example, and we then use that to obtain a distance that correlates with a purely geometric method, we establish that time is the same for us, the stars at parallax compatible distances, and at larger distance that correlate directly with those measurements.Of course, that chain of events is not absolute proof, but it is better grounded in fact than your need-based claim that there is no time outside of the solar system. Yeah, I get that you don't want stars to exist that are further away than 6000 or so light years, but that the facts do not support what you wish was true.

For every unit of time the star experiences we experience: Where is the time we experience is the mass of the star, is our distance from it, is the speed of light and is Newton's Gravitational constant.This is the prediction of General Relativity, hence as you can see, relativity does not consider time to be the same everywhere. Yes, but why do you trust the light from the probe, but not the light from the distant stars?Edited by Son Goku, : qs quote boxesEdited by Son Goku, : ExpansionEdited by Son Goku, : Nicer formatting and correct formula!

hard to read black on the dark blue if you use [blockcolor=white][color=black] before and [/color][/blockcolor][/color] after your latex you get Enjoy

No it sure is not addressed by that in any way whatsoever actually. That time component is a component here. Here we have time so it takes time here. Let's say it took 60 days for some decay to unfold as happening here. To us it takes 60 days. If time is not the same there, then THERE it takes what it takes. Secondly and very importantly unless time did exist there we do not know how far away the event is.

Nonsense. Save the last thursdayism for someone buying.

Forget mass of the star until we know time exists out there. NO DISTANCES! Yes we experience time here, though, that much we know.

Forget the mass you do not know it unless you know distance do you?