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

Why? The vast majority of bodies in the solar system have only been seen by probes, not directly visited, such as Titania.Why do you think time works the same way there?Same goes for parts of the ocean we've only imaged from a distance, but not visited, why do you assume time flows normally there?

The fact that it exists where we happen to be. Therefore what we know includes time, and what we see here. It takes some time...think about it. Where does it take time and is seen to take time? Here. In labs, in the earth, solar system... that is where it takes the time we know it to take. Yes I can. Just because we need X amount of time here, does not mean we need X amount for things to happen in some place where there is not that much time. Here things take time and a certain amount of it. In some place where there was no time, praytell, how could things take time to do what they do there?? Would we not time to exist for it to be involved? Yes really. NO distance to stars without time. Period. Really. No way out of that one. Now quit hand waving and admit it. If you get a good scientific explanation for the issue at hand get back to us. At that time we can decide if we feel threatened. I truly doubt it.

The signals take so much time to get back to earth. Very predictable. Not really so spooky or unknown.

OK so if you find something that certainly is relevant, let us know I guess. When time is built into the formula six ways from Sunday, then don't try to tell us no time is involved. Of course if we add time in as a little T in the mix it will seem to be uniform. That is not testing anything, that is using math for belief based concepts. Relativity doesn't even deal with time, it assumes time and uses time in the equations. Time as we know it and think of it.

Not what I've said. This is your assertion unsupported by any evidence or reason (how does it change? what causes it to change?).Your assertion does not disprove time being consistent. You need evidence and you need an alternate explanation: that is how science is done. You wish.This is how science works in every branch, in every field, in every laboratory: we make hypothesis and test them, those that fail are discarded, those that don't fail are used to make predictions, and those predictions are then tested. There is NO evidence in any branch, field or laboratory that proves an hypothesis correct, we only have the lack of invalidating evidence as a sign that the hypothesis is possibly correct and that we can use it until contrary evidence is found.NO hypothesis is thrown out because someone believes it is wrong: it takes evidence, and it takes a new hypothesis that explains the evidence in a new way. The support is provided by all the observations that are consistent with the hypothesis, all the evidence of binary stars and exoplanets around distant stars, by the consilience of information from multiple observations in different fields, observations that provide high confidence that the hypothesis, or something very close to it, is likely correct. We observe "how things 'operate' in space far away" is consistent with time behaving in a manner consistent with what we observe within the range of our verifiable observations.We observe that there is no known cause, no known reason, for time to be inconsistent across the universe. If you know of one, please provide it. Until shown otherwise, we observe that there is no known cause, no known reason, for time to be inconsistent across the universe. If you know of one, please provide it.Because that is how science is done. Perhaps because the hypothesis is valid and thus we don't observe inconsistencies. If the orbits of binary stars or exoplanets varied over observed time, that would be inconsistent with orbits being relatively constant as observed in our solar system.If the red shift of some elements were different from the red shift of other elements, that would be inconsistent.If the decay of radioactive isotopes, identified by their location in the spectrum, were significantly different from what we see on earth, or if they varied, changed over time, that would be inconsistent.These inconsistencies would all be expected if time were variable and random.They are not observed. (this is where your evidence, if you have any, comes in)If anything were observed that was different than we see within our solar system (where we can verify our concept of time explains the behaviors) then that would be inconsistent.This is not observed. (this is where your evidence, if you have any, comes in)If there were an hypothesis that time changes in some way different than what the current theory predicts, then that hypothesis could be tested to see how it explains all the known observations and then predicts something new that has yet to be observed, then there might be cause\reason to consider it, but we would still operate on the current system until evidence showed that it was a better explanation.This has not been provided (this is where your alternate explanation, if you have one, comes in) Irrelevant. If all you have is an "I don't know so nobody can know" chip on your shoulder, then the only one affected by your position is you, and nobody needs to pay attention to you ... because you haven't presented any reason, any cause, any evidence that our current concept of time is invalid.Science operates on evidence, it develops hypothesis to explain the known evidence, and then predicts new evidence, and it builds on what we know to find out what we don't know. It does not go off on arbitrary tangents. Theory approximates reality, and the more tested the more validated it is, the more competing theories are invalidated, the closer that approximation grows.Enjoy

re Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1That's how The Great Debate threads operate: just two people, 1 on 1.Ask PercyEnjoy

I find it much more likely that you came to a young earth belief from religion and are doing your best to support it.Unfortunately, for you, all the evidence shows otherwise.

When performing triangulation, the passage of time at the distant point is not relevant.

Actually there are an infinite number of points between the star and earth, because the light passed along that path, and we obtain that number by integrating the path over total length with ever increasingly small distances, but the fact remains that the second marker trails the first marker by the distance between the star and the ring.Now I understand that you could be having difficulty accepting that your claim re the distance to the star is false, cognitive dissonance is like that, but you haven't done anything to refute the argument (denial is not a refutation).Enjoy

I didn't try to tell you no time was involved, I said it is involved but it's not uniform.
The formula describes non-uniform time, not no time. I don't know why you think I was claiming there was no time. What textbooks of General Relativity have you read that describe it as using time as we normally know of it, no textbook of GR that I have read says this. The describe General Relativity as using a highly unusual non-uniform notion of time, not the human concept.Could you supply a reference showing that General Relativity uses time in the way you say?

Yes, but the probe itself only viewed Titania remotely using a telescope. Exactly how we view stars.What is the difference between the Voyager probe viewing Titania with a telescope and another man-made craft (Hubble) viewing stars through a telescope? Why do you believe one and doubt the other?

​

In both cases nothing from Earth has been there. What is the actual basis of your doubt? What do you require to no longer doubt the existence of time at a location?Edited by Son Goku, : Expansion

What things do you claim to be known that make the difference, and how do you claim that we know them?

Well, we see things that look like they're taking time in those places. But as you have explained to us, that's not a reason to say that we know that things are actually taking time.

The base line is within our solar system and we visit both ends of it. It is true that if you really followed your principles, you would reject this too as something that we can never know, but since you don't, you should admit that we know the length of the baseline ...... wait, I'm appealing to you to be intellectually consistent in your intellectual inconsistency.

That didn't answer the question. The material that exploded in the sky, how did our time make it appear to decay just like cobalt does here? It also takes time over THERE for the change to occur, but it is only seen over here. Duh, time is relative. Have you not even seen Interstellar? I think you accidentally a word. But yes; change requires time to exist where it occurs as well as where it is observed, they just don't have to be the exactly the same. It's really beside the point, but you can measure the distance between spatial coordinates without needing a time component. If you're talking about something more specific than that, then I don't think it has anything to do with what I'm saying. Time does exist everywhere that exists, it's just relative. If we see something changing, then time has to exist where it is changing, but it could be different than it is here on the surface of Earth. Still with me?