|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: Dealt with in last post to razd.
..explains in summary form how we know how far away stars are, and it includes a link to Wikipedia that contains a great deal more detail
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: it makes any variation in time and the speed of light irrelevant and immaterial to the measurement You missed the point entirely rendering what you said immaterial. Light will move according to how time exists. If time exists here, as it does, we will see light move a certain speed in our space. No one says that changes. However if there was not time as we know it here, we would not expect light to move as we now see it move in time. The issue is whether time also exists the same as here in far space. You do not know. Will you admit it now?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: The way I would briefly explain it myself would be to say that we know how fast time is proceeding at great distances from Earth by observing the rate of the passage of time through observing the natural processes taking place there, such as the frequencies at which various gases emit or absorb light. How fast time is proceeding? We only see things here. Only here can we measure anything moving i time. If we see something far far far out of our time and space area here, we still see it in our time. We could call it a fishbowl. All you seek to do is equate the way things move and behave in time here, to how it does far away from here. How? You merely use the time here that we see things from far away as the measure for how much time is involved. That could only work if time also existed the same out there as it does here. Tat you do not know. So careful tossing the word ignorant around. I understand almost every poster here almost, it seems is also a mod, so there is the natural problem of having a lost argument silenced by misusing the mod power. Resist the temptation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
No. Unless we know time exists all the way to those stars we cannot know how big or far away they are. So all you can say is that there are 2 stars of unknown size, origin, and distance.
We also can say that the light from those stars is seen only and always here on or near earth. So whatever action happens must be seen IN time here where time exists. To assume that the time it takes for anything to happen here equals the time it takes THERE is just a belief. Correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: We see many more things than are here - we see the planets and stars and they are very far away. Maybe you meant, "We only see things from here," but that isn't true either, as I'll explain.------- We not only see things from here, we also see things from our space probes. Obviously space-time is the same all the way out to the Voyager spacecraft that are now way way out beyond Pluto, since they continue to work normally as designed. ---------- Yes, according to relativity each observer has a unique perspective looking out into the universe from his own coordinate system. --------- We could have, but the term we actually adopted was relativity. ----------- Actually we do know. We use red-shift (or sometimes blue-shift) to tell us how fast something is moving relative to us, then we use relativity to tell us how to predict its future motions, both locally in its own coordinate system and relative to us. We know how to calculate how space/time will behave in coordinate systems in relative motion. Circular reasoning. You see redshifted light involves time. How fast something is going away from us (or toward us) involves time. Yes, we have probes, but (anomalies aside) no probe is even ONE light day away, so all probes are basically in the fishbowl! Even if they were near the fringes, we do not yet really know. That has no relevance to deep space. Relativity is fine, but basically cannot be shown to be applicable in deep space, correct? Reember that if there were no time as we know it, we also need to question gravity and other things as being necessarily the way they are here. So gravitational lensing for all we know, out in deep space might be either something else entirely, or partially. For example it could also be partially some sort of time lensing effect. Even if it were just gravity, we need to ask how much gravity, and how much mass and size objects being affected really represent! Relativity in deep space therefore is not confirmed by such things. Anything else?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
taq writes: So? You only see it HERE! How much time is involved here is all you see and know!
We can watch stars move, explode, change colors, and a whole host of other time dependent activities. If time didn't exist out there then nothing would be moving or changing.
How in the world do you cross the street? If you see a car moving down the street, do you just ignore it since time down the street doesn't exist, time only exists where you are? The streets we cross are here. Face it.
All you are doing is rejecting direct observations because they don't fit with your religious beliefs. False. I do not reject what we see. It does take light so much time to move so far here...etc etc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: You're repeating yourself instead of responding to what was said. The answer hasn't changed. We know how much time passes for objects at great distances because we know how certain processes occur here on Earth, Hilarious!! You just admitted you think you know how time is there because you are here and time works a certain way here. Now for the 64 dollar question, WHY does it have to be the same??
and we can observe how fast those processes proceed for distant objects. NO. You only observe HERE IN time!
For example, you can find the spectra of absorption for some common elements at Stellar Spectra, and here's the spectra for hydrogen: So what!!?? We see this same absorption spectra when we look at distant stars, confirming that what happens here also happens there, but shifted toward lower longer wavelengths because of speed of recession and the expansion of space. We see light here, and apparently it tells us certain elements exist in the star. That does not tell us how much time is involved.
Depends how you define here. Your house? Your neighborhood? Your city? Your country? Your planet? Your solar system? Your galaxy? Your universe? Here in our universe, everywhere we look the laws of nature are the same out there as they are here. How about what we know? What star have you crossed a street at? I have been generous and called the fishbowl the solar system and area. That is further than you will ever go, or any probe. Remember, your probe is less than a light day away. Get back t us when it is a whole week away!
All you are doing is rejecting direct observations because they don't fit with your religious beliefs. Absurdly false. I do not reject what we see here, or the time it takes here to move or etc etc! I reject beliefs that involve what is not seen.
[quote]
What is true both observationally and theoretically is that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe.[/qs] Based on what? How do you measure speed of light say, 10 billion light years away?? Ha. You made the claim, so let's see what you got.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
taq writes: In order for the light to come from different points in the sky it would require the object emitting the light to move. If it is moving, then there is time where the star is found. Movement does not mean moving in time as it is on earth. Yes things move. The question is what space and time where they are moving through is like.
If light is moving then there has to be time along the space it is moving across. Let's accept for the time being that is true. So what!!? I could set a clock, perhaps to move real slow. Or fast. It would still move.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: Actually, having time different here than where a star is does the opposite. It would need to be the same at all points to know distances.
...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
The evidence for a same time in deep space is zilch. God any actual science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
razd writes: Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.
Says the person who denies that the game models this, and still ends up with a scientific distance to SN1987A. Of course, admitting that fact would mean that the fantasy is exposed as the garbage concept it is. Ignoring evidence that contradicts your belief is delusion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
[qs=taq]...[qs]No. You have never taken any clock out of the fishbowl actually. We know you believe the whole of creation has to be just like the fishbowl, but you do not know that at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
percy writes: When we look at the spectrum of light emitted from the sun, we can tell what gasses are present in the suns atmosphere by the lines of absorption. Different elements absorb light at different wavelengths. When we look at the spectrum of light arriving from distant stars and galaxies we see the same absorption lines, only shifted according to their velocity of line-of-sight recession. This means that these distant stars are composed as the same elements as our sun, though of course in differing amounts and at different temperatures. The relative position of the absorption lines means that time passes there in the same way it passes here. This is based on observations and not on beliefs. Not in any way is that true. The position of lines tells us nothing about time there. Only here. Yes there are elements and gasses out there. However that is only what we see, so who knows what else is also out there that we cannot detect? Science admits seeing only 5% remember? Not only that, but it does no good at all to see some elements when we do not know how far away or big they are! You MUST have time exist the same as here to know distances.
We observe from wherever we happen to be at the time, whether with or own eyes or by way of remote probes. And no matter where we happen to observe from, the laws of physics that we observe are always the same. IN ALL cases you are in the fishbowl of earth and solar system area! No exceptions. Thus far and no further.
We see this same absorption spectra when we look at distant stars, confirming that what happens here also happens there, but shifted toward lower longer wavelengths because of speed of recession and the expansion of space. It is almost meaningless that the light we see here behaves a certain way here. That tells us nothing about time there. Without time there being as here, no distances/mass/sizes etc etc are known. E=We could get spectra from the space station of hydrogen also...so? That would be significant because we do know how far away that is.
Most certainly it tells us how much time is involved. f = c / λ, where f is cycles/second and c is meters/second. Most certainly time is a critical component. Most certainly not actually. The C is only representing light acting and moving IN time HERE. In fact all the symbols and letters in your formula are fishbowl figures!
The actual question was why you think we can only know time exists where we are. Crossing the street was just an example. Try to keep up. The actual point was that a street on earth is not appropriate in measuring deep space..
The probe is just an example of your ever shrinking religious claims. As the probe becomes more distant your religiously based claims dwindle. But the Voyager probes are just one of the sources of data we have for why the laws of nature here are the same out there.
The Voyager is on the fringes (at best) of the fishbowl. That has zero to do with nature in the past.
[qs]
The evidence provided is what we see.[/q] Then you see less than I thought.
c is a fundamental constant of the universe, You are mistaken as shown. C is the speed of light in the fishbowl! You only assumed it reflected the whole universe.
and because f = c / λ we know from our observations of the behavior of matter in distant stars and galaxies that the speed of light is the same there as here. Not at all. You do not just get to declare the speed of light in the fishbowl some universal constant. The fine constant structure also is a fishbowl concept. So is any force or anything else here. Energy also.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
nonukes writes: Too bad none of that tells us anything abut time there. Since we NEED time to exist to know distances and sizes, seeing hydrogen or something doesn't help since we do not know how far away it is. .. Also, when we see it here, at any rate....that is the rate here. We only could see it that way here where time exists!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1963 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
nonukes writes: The only place you see anything progress is here. Face it. Light we see here is here. No matter where it is from it is seen here, and unfolds in time here. No denying it.
...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024