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

Well, that was gibberish.Do you really deny that time passes outside our solar system? If so, how come we see things out there changing?

Here at EvC we have faith based forums and science-based forums. Is your conclusion based on science or are you a man of faith? (Personally, I am a man of faith) Are you a student and...if so...what do you want to study and learn the next few years?

Deny?? How would I know? The question is whether you know.

I do not have a conclusion. I have an observation.

Interesting. Do you know whether time passes in (for example) Peru? Yes, I do.

Yes, we do know that time and spacetime exist here on earth and even in the solar system.Now about that 'yes I do' know bit...really? Come on now.

We're not going to have nonsense discussions of snarky back-and-forths with no quoting or content. This is a very old thread begun in 2005 that was never closed - I'll just shut it down if there's not going to be any serious discussion.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Okay, let's try this another way.General Relativity does assume time exists, but doesn't assume it works the same everywhere. Just to clear that up.Secondly, you ask what is the relevance of the CMB? Well it is a prediction of General Relativity, as is the motions of galaxies and stars.Since all of these behave exactly as GR describes, this provides evidential support to General Relativity's assumption of the existence of time.Does this constitute absolute proof that time exists, no. However it is very strong experimental evidence. Just like I can't absolutely say that the chair I'm sitting on exists. However I think such total solipsism isn't really interesting and doesn't provide any insightThirdly, science does "know" what time is, whereby "know" I mean our understanding of time is confirmed by every observation of the universe that we have ever made. Do we absolutely know, no. However again, this kind of absolute knowledge doesn't exist for anything. It's universal applicability makes it universally worthless as an observation.If you can, could you point out a feature of your doubts about General Relativity that are substantially different from just saying "Just because I can see, smell, touch and taste that sandwich, how do you know it exists?"EDIT: A clearer question, why do you think time passes in the solar system, but doubt it for distant stars?Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Yes, really. If you'll admit that knowledge is possible, then I do know that, because I know it the same way I know anything else. Someone challenged, for example, to say "How do you know that there's a tree in the yard?" would reply "Well, it looks like there's a tree in the yard", and it would be hard to object. Now in the same way it looks like time passes outside of our solar system. Anyone claiming that we nonetheless don't know that it does, but without caviling at the existence of the tree, would be indulging in special pleading --- or rather he would be if he got as far as offering up an argument rather than merely expressing his doubts.

Supernova 1987A provides evidence that time passes at the same rate as it does in our solar system. For example, the decay of Co 60 formed during the supernova has been observed to have the same half-life as measured on earth.In addition, the rate of light travel in the vicinity of SN 1987 has also been confirmed to be the same as the rate of travel here using basic trigonometry.So there is some evidence for the proposition that time does pass similarly to the rate at which it passes here. There is also the idea that conservation of energy is a confirmation that time passes the same at various location, although the argument is not one I am going to go through here.The question, since you are claiming to have an "observation" is what evidence suggest the contrary idea that you seem to propose. If your philosophy relies in some way on time not existing in other places, I expect that you might provide us with some evidence or reason to believe so.

quote:

---

Okay, let's try this another way.
General Relativity does assume time exists, but doesn't assume it works the same everywhere. Just to clear that up.

---

That clears nothing up. You made a vague claim. So show us how relativity assumes time, but not 'the same everywhere'?

quote:

---

Secondly, you ask what is the relevance of the CMB? Well it is a prediction of General Relativity, as is the motions of galaxies and stars.

---

No. I asked what was the relevance to time?

quote:

---

Since all of these behave exactly as GR describes, this provides evidential support to General Relativity's assumption of the existence of time.

---

To know masses or sizes of objects we must know distance first. To know distance you must know that time exists everywhere the same.

quote:

---

Thirdly, science does "know" what time is, whereby "know" I mean our understanding of time is confirmed by every observation of the universe that we have ever made. Do we absolutely know, no. However again, this kind of absolute knowledge doesn't exist for anything. It's universal applicability makes it universally worthless as an observation.

---

So you admit you don't know what time is after all. OK.

quote:

---

If you can, could you point out a feature of your doubts about General Relativity that are substantially different from just saying "Just because I can see, smell, touch and taste that sandwich, how do you know it exists?"

---

I never raised the issue of GR. That would be you. We wait to see you answer the questions posed here.

quote:

---

EDIT: A clearer question, why do you think time passes in the solar system, but doubt it for distant stars?

---

I didn't say that at all. I asked if we know.

quote:

---

Yes, really. If you'll admit that knowledge is possible, then I do know that, because I know it the same way I know anything else.

---

? That says nothing at all. What way is that? What is it you think you know?

quote:

---

Now in the same way it looks like time passes outside of our solar system.

---

Naturally. How else could it possibly look in a place where time exists? It would have to look like things take time near or far. Where the light is seen with the information from far away is here. Here. Here.

quote:

---

Anyone claiming that we nonetheless don't know that it does, but without caviling at the existence of the tree, would be indulging in special pleading --- or rather he would be if he got as far as offering up an argument rather than merely expressing his doubts.

---

No. No one is doubting time exists here...here where all things far away are seen! No one is questioning the stars, or even that time in some form may exist there. Or not. I just do not want to see you claiming it does unless you know.

If you're trying to work your way up to supporting a young earth belief, you have a long way to go.The idea of a young earth is strictly religious (and only a subset of our tens of thousands of religions believe in a young earth anyway).More importantly, there is no scientific backing for a young earth belief.

That there is time outside the solar system. You asked if I knew that. I said yes. Remember? Well this sort of vague rhetoric could be used to cast doubt on anything. "Is there a tree in the yard?" "Yes, I can see it." "Sure, you can see it here. But you are in the house, looking out of the window. So you can see the tree here. Big whoop. That doesn't mean that you know the tree is in the yard."Well, you can obfuscate anything equally well (or rather, horribly badly) that way, since everything I see is in fact some distance from my eyes. But your bogus argument doesn't particularly apply to stars.

quote:

---

Supernova 1987A provides evidence that time passes at the same rate as it does in our solar system. For example, the decay of Co 60 formed during the supernova has been observed to have the same half-life as measured on earth.

---

Since the decay is seen here, it makes sense it is the same as expected here. If time exists here, then all things would have to unfold in our time here! Not only that, but you are being circular in logic here another way, because you NEED time to exist all the way out to the SN to know distance! Unless you know that, then the lines in the parallax do not work for distance at all.

quote:

---

In addition, the rate of light travel in the vicinity of SN 1987 has also been confirmed to be the same as the rate of travel here using basic trigonometry.

---

Since we don't know the distance that moots your point. We do not know how far away it actually is.

quote:

---

There is also the idea that conservation of energy is a confirmation that time passes the same at various location, although the argument is not one I am going to go through here.

---

That won't work probably.

quote:

---

The question, since you are claiming to have an "observation" is what evidence suggest the contrary idea that you seem to propose.

---

The observation is that you don't know. Once we see that, there is no requirement for anyone else to know. I observe that time exists here in our spacetime, and that we do not know that it exists, or exists the same far away.

quote:

---

If your philosophy relies in some way on time not existing in other places, I expect that you might provide us with some evidence or reason to believe so.

---

I have no need for it to be any particular way. I do object to claims that people know, though, when they really don't. More an issue of honesty.Edited by time, : No reason given.Edited by time, : No reason given.