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

No. We know how long light takes from, say the sun to here. We have some actual knowledge, probes and experience. Be reasonable.

You do realize time is part of spacetime I hope.

The process occurs there, the time that process takes to unfold only and always happenes here, and only here. Of course.

quote:

---

This has no non-technical answer.

---

Even a technical answer is basically belief based.

quote:

---

Relativity describes time using a metric tensor that varies with location see:
Robert Wald, General Relativity, Chapter 1
It's a fundamental part of the theory, so much so that it's in the name, e.g. Relativity

---

In other words you do calculations as if all vectors in the universe had uniform time? The issue is not how we run maths on assumptions, but what goes into the maths and what we know, or not!

quote:

---

No I don't admit that and you know it. I said we know what time is unless one adopts a ridiculous form of philosophical skepticism. We know what time is in the same sense that we know how a tree works.

---

That says nothing!How does a tree work? How does a tree on the edge of the universe work? Time is not a tree so what is the connection here?

quote:

---

What is the fundamental difference for you between our knowledge of time at distant stars vs our knowledge of time on Earth? Why do you consider our evidence in the former case insufficient?

---

We live here, and have been here and in the solar system and almost beyond a little. (probes) We know time exists here, and we can experience it measure how it works and such. Not true of time in the distant universe. Obviously.

If that's your main premise then this isn't the thread's topic. It might be better if you proposed a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

Hello time, and welcome to the fray, If time does not exist outside the solar system, then there would be no velocity, and without velocity there would be no time between the nova and the light hitting the ring -- it would have been impossible to observe the difference.How do you account for the observed time difference? Perhaps we need to start with a firm understanding of time passing on earth before we can discuss time in the universe. The evidence we have that establishes the age of the earth, for instance, is quite solid. see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.Also, it is generally considered good form to include quotes from the person you are replying to rather than making seemingly unconnected posts, as that way we know the reference for what points you are arguing against. So far you look more like a shot-gun tossing out tidbits rather than someone engaged in debate.Enjoy

Yes, I do know that. I also have every reason to expect spacetime to exist and behave in predictable ways in the visible Universe. So far, you have provided no evidence that my expectations are incorrect.

So how do you explain the evidence observed for extrasolar planets?

quote:

---

Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia

​

Showing 3565 planets / 2675 planetary systems / 602 multiple planet systems

---

How do you explain the evidence observe for binary stars?

quote:

---

Binary star

​

A binary star is a star system consisting of two stars orbiting around their common barycenter. Systems of two or more stars are called multiple star systems. These systems, especially when more distant, often appear to the unaided eye as a single point of light, and are then revealed as multiple by other means. Research over the last two centuries suggests that half or more of visible stars are part of[1] multiple star systems.[2]

​

Binary star systems are very important in astrophysics because calculations of their orbits allow the masses of their component stars to be directly determined, which in turn allows other stellar parameters, such as radius and density, to be indirectly estimated. This also determines an empirical mass-luminosity relationship (MLR) from which the masses of single stars can be estimated.

---

These are just a few of the ways time effects in the universe have been observed.What we observe here, with planets orbiting distant stars, with binary star systems, and with the SN1987A nova and ring differential is best explained by time being the same, operating the same throughout the universe.So if you think time operates differently, then what is your explanation for these observations? Just saying you don't accept something is not an argument, it is a belief. Beliefs have historically been more wrong than right, and curiously none have shown any ability to alter reality.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

quote:

---

Even a technical answer is basically belief based.

---

I meant: "Sorry I can't give a nontechnical answer".

quote:

---

In other words you do calculations as if all vectors in the universe had uniform time?

---

No, the opposite. We do calculations where the vectors have non-uniform time (metric tensor varies with location).

quote:

---

That says nothing!
How does a tree work? How does a tree on the edge of the universe work? Time is not a tree so what is the connection here?

---

It's an analogy, i.e. our knowledge of how trees work and how the distant universe works operate on the same abstract principles, i.e. we use instruments to detect and learn about things we cannot directly perceive with our senses. So we need microscopes, e.t.c. (you can tell I'm not a biologist!!) to learn about the cellular workings of a tree, since we cannot experience them directly. Similarly we use telescopes to observe the distant universe since we cannot experience it directly.Unless you also doubt we know how a tree works. (And I'm assuming you don't actually want me to explain to you how a tree works).

quote:

---

We live here, and have been here and in the solar system and almost beyond a little. (probes) We know time exists here, and we can experience it measure how it works and such. Not true of time in the distant universe. Obviously.

---

How are the distant light waves received from probes any different from the distant light waves received from stars, why do you believe one and not the other?

Well, I'd have also said we know how long light takes to get from the other stars. But if you can deny it for them, why not deny it for the sun as well? So far as I can see, the only difference is that you want to deny it when it comes to distant stars, but you don't want to when it comes to our sun.But someone who did want to deny that about the sun could do so using your arguments, and would make just as much sense as you're making.He could say "Unless time is the same where the sun is therefore, there can be no distance known."He could say "You are being circular in logic here another way, because you NEED time to exist all the way out to the sun to know distance!"He could say "you have not shown that you know even that time exists out where the sun is just as it does in spacetime on Earth. You can say 'yes I do' all day."He could say "The distance is only based on a belief that time exists the same out there also. Seeing things take time here is not proof that it takes the same time there." He could say "Whatever we see is here! The light that has the info is only and always seen here."This would make as much sense as your arguments because those are your arguments, only with the word "sun" inserted where you wrote "stars" or "SN" (supernova).

This is problematic. Science says that it DOES know. It's you that's saying it doesn't - without evidence. But you are also saying that you don't know either. So I'm puzzled. Now you're spinning, I'm asking why it matters to you? What's behind your question?

OK. But the OP cited geometric measurements as hard evidence. I pointed out here, unchallenged still, that the measure is actually geochronometic.

Good for you. Let us in on it if you ever get the time.

Fair point. But that does not really affect the argument at all, because ANY time would allow movement! Whatever the time was there, we would only ever see things unfold here in our time.We could not use what we see here in our time as any measure of info streaming in from 'another time zone' as it were.I won't get into the issue of the spiritual here, where angels move with no time involved at all, so spiritual 'objects' would not require time to move. I realize this forum is for the physical only sort of science that cannot so much as detect the spiritual, so it says none exists. Therefore it would not be 'science' to discuss that here. Firstly we cannot know the distance to the event, so whatever happens could be real close and the time involved may not be a big factor. We MUST know time exists there (the same) to GET distance. All we see is something move that we see in OUR time here. That is another topic. I am aware of every argument and have the wherewithal to refute them. But to the point time passes here...yes. Of course it does, and we measure that pretty good, at least in the present time. Thanks for the tips, I was wondering about that.

And I meant even if you could or did it would be belief based anyhow. Explain, with perhaps an example from a far star. A tree we can see. Time we cannot see. ALL of them are seen ONLY and ALWAYS HERE and nowhere else. The light and waves come HERE. Here is where we see them in our time unfold.