Not what I've said.
But you do say time is the same. I have to call your bluff.
This is your assertion unsupported by any evidence or reason (how does it change? what causes it to change?).
Does it change? Or cease to exist? Or...when you know, then you can talk. Until then you must repeat the following 'I don't know'.
Your assertion does not disprove time being consistent.
My assertion is that you cannot prove time is the same or even exists persay out there. Just because we see movements does not mean we must have time there as here. My assertion is proven true because you fail to be able to begin to prove or even support your outlandish claim. You need evidence: that is how science is done. Until then no one needs any alternate explanation for your hunches and wild guesses and beliefs.
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.
Big talk NO action! You have not tested each mile to the far stars! If we have about 9.5 trillion km in ONE light year, and a star is say supposedly 10 billion light years away...that is a lot of kms! Your little dice story has many trillions and trillions and trillions and ten thousand times a trillion kms of points in between, of which you have never been to more than the nearest ones to you! There is NO evidence in any branch, field or laboratory that proves an hypothesis correct, that time exists in the far universe and is the same, no less!
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.
Nothing at all then. There are NO exoplanets that are known if the distances are actually unknown, they exist only by faith. They could be molecular sized, or baseball sized etc far as we know unless we know the distance. That REQUIRES knowing time exists the same every km of the way. You are groping in the dark.
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.
In other words 'it seems to us here in time, that time golly gee just must exist everywhere'.
We observe that there is no known cause, no known reason, for time to be inconsistent across the universe.
The universe must be molded to fit the limits of your experience and lack of knowledge about the basics like time? I think not.
Perhaps because the hypothesis is valid and thus we don't observe inconsistencies.
Impossible to have some sort of time inconsistencies here where time exists. Especially ones man can 'observe'. Time is invisible you know.
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.
Atoms have things orbit too, don't they? You do not know the distance therefore the sizes of the so called exoplanets. All you can say is..'something revolves around something somewhere far out in space'! Calling it a planet is religion. Belief. Time must exist there as here to know distance, period. You do NOT actually know ANY cosmic distances outside the solar system, basically. Not to stars.
Now we see the orbits of the objects (however near or far, big or small, we don't know) and HERE those orbits take so much time. That is because time here is a certain way, so whatever we see must take a certain time.
If the red shift of some elements were different from the red shift of other elements, that would be inconsistent.
Time is involved in the shifting of light you know...forget the meaning you formerly assigned to redshift!
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.
Without distances, that loses meaning big time. For all we know what we see decaying is not that far away. But even if it were, we, as was repeated many times now, only see it decay here. The time it takes to decay is our time. If another time or no time existed where the object was, then that decay we see would not be taking the time we experience here!
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.
No you could not run out thousands of trillions of trillions of kms away and test anything. Especially time!
If all you have is an "I I believe time is the same and, hey who can prove me wrong since no one really knows anyhow" chip on your shoulder, then the only one affected by your position is you, and nobody needs to pay attention to you ... or science..because you haven't presented any reason, any cause, any evidence that our current concept of time is valid.
Science operates on evidence,
And you have none. You lose the connection to science!
it develops hypothesis to explain the known evidence,
It does nothing of the sort in reality when dealing with things way way beyond it's abilities, scope, range, and paygrade! Who cares is some nerd sits there smoking a weed pipe and dreaming up ways to explain the universe while being ignorant.
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.
No one predicted squat about time being the same and a way to test it! get down to reality.
Edited by time, : No reason given.
Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.
™ Version 4.2
