How big are the stars?

quote:

---

it is natural to try to project our concepts of time out into areas where it does not apply. Now exactly what are the boundries to the time bubble we are in, and does it end gradually, or abruptly, remains to be found out.
Well, that's it for now, still a diamond in the rough. Anyone have a reason it cannot be?

---

Do you have a reason why time should be just local phenomenon? Like I said earlier you can always come up with another theory.You are saying that time is different elsewhere. Why is this? On what grounds do you think this? Why do you make further assumptions on how the universe works?The assumption that time works the same all over the universe is the simpler assumption. What evidence does this simple assumption contradict since you would wish to change it?Like I said previously, making new assumptions, and inventing new mechanisms without proof, just to reach a preconceived conclusion, might be a good start to a scientific program, but until it is supported it is just a lot of hot air.An example is string theory. A lot of phycisists are involved in examining this theory, but is not supported by observations. Until it is, it remains hot air - or philosophy if you will. Why do they examine it then? Because if it turns out to be true, then the theory applies new explanatory powers.Lets look at your theory again. What will it explain that cannot be explained by fewer assumptions? If the more complex theory you suggest does not promise any gain in explanatory powers, then it is useless.If it cannot be distuingushed between the simpler theory in use today, then it would be stupid, and damaging to use it!/Sren

Encouraging so far, in the degree of ferrocity that hasn't been unleashed. I'll run it by some Yecs, and see if they can help. Now, as far as Albert goes, there is no reason his theories won't work, and have been shown to work (in our bubble). Now, if we compliment them with the relativity of time in our sphere, we have a bigger complete model. His limitations were in assuming the universe was all the same, so to speak. Therefore as well as Einstein's formula not being applicable universally, the universe is neither HOMOGENOUS, nor ISOTROPIC!
"The cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand. . . It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such
strength. " Einstein (Now we can combine this with belief in a personal God)

What you mean "we", Kemo Sabe?You go right ahead and do that, if that's what floats your boat. But don't include all of us, thanks.

I think it's appropriate to point out that you are asking people to begin with very basic science and explain to you step by step how we know the things we know about stars. This is a very large favor to ask, and it's great that some forumites are being kind enough to do that favor for you.Your sarcasm seems a bit out of place for someone in your position.Now you've proposed an alternative hypothesis and asked others with more knowledge to explain to you why it might not work, because, for all you know, there are good reasons your hypothesis is impossible. It looks like you will be obliged in this request as well.All of that's great. I am only writing this to point out to you that sarcastic comments about lack of knowledge are really inappropriate from someone who is asking to be walked through high school science (I looked at spectrums of elements in 9th grade--it was pretty cool).wj was right in his assessment that you were sounding increasingly "trollish" after around post 30. You might either educate yourself before engaging in argument, or, if others are going to be nice enough to do so, content yourself with asking questions for them to answer--perhaps others are being educated while you are.

How would someone living under time comprehend what it may be like if time was no more, as it is here? It would be a little bit like trying to envision another dimension. I can sympathise with your side on this issue of being simple! The shoe was on the other foot as you may imagine.
"might be a good start to a scientific program"
It might How time cannot be used as a weapon against Creation. Very happy to hear that! I enjoy damaging false ideas that try to imprison mankind from enjoying the truth of Creation.
"Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" Einstein

As we explained, that's not an assumption - it's the simplest explanation for what we observe. That's an assumption. What evidence do you have to support it?

And now we come to the heart of it. You don't really care about constructing an accurate model of the universe based on observation - you've already committed to the idea of an inerrant Bible regardless of the evidence, and now you're just making up whatever you have to in order to reconcile that view with observation.That's not how science is done. Given the choice between an inerrant Bible and observation that contradicts the Bible, the Bible must give way.

The irony in this juxtaposition of Einstein's words with a statement about belief in a personal God demands some response, but since it is off topic here I have started a new thread.See Message 1Cheers -- Sylas[This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-25-2004]

Yeah, just one of many, the "fine structure constant" (which depends on the speed of light) would be non-constant and would different at different distances ... and it isn't.The speed of light is related to many other things. You can't just presume a changed speed of light without many other things changing ... and they don't. So, the only way anyone has found to have a significant change in the speed of light and be consistent with the observations we have is for these many other things to change by exactly the right amounts to cancel out the various efects we would see .. and nobody's come up with any theory about how all tehse things could change in just the right way. Unfortunately for creationists, the only models people have come up with predict things which are contradicted by observations. Barry Setterfield has been trying to come up with a workable model for years, and he continues to fail.Coming up with a workable model for a changing speed of light requires knowledge of some pretty advanced mathematics and physics and astronomic observations. Unless you are familiar with these things any hypothesis you come up with is going to be wrong. Sorry, that'a the way the world is.BTW, time is interrelated with many other things too ... if time is different as you move around in the universe, then there is no conservation of energy. You need a lot more knowledge before you can disucss time meaningfully.

Apparently Al didn't, while still on earth, believe in a personal God. But, if we limit time to our area, bubble, or dimension, then we can, if we'd like, be free to include God in our cosmos veiw. Because time's effects on things only go so far. The universe then becomes a happening place, where we don't have to think of as long DEAD, and merely an ancient record.

Not in our bubble, no. Every force in here is affected by time. Now when we step outside the box, or bubble, we have a different arrangement.

But, we don't, though. That's the thing. We observe that we have the same arrangement everywhere we look.

You observe within your limitations, and seem to do a pretty good job. You haven't realized I guess there are limitations. Take away our time limitations in deep space, and we can probably still try to explain things. But you can't use our time to do it.

What are they? How do you know about them? How do you distinguish them from the things that you're just making up? Sometimes there aren't limitations. What I'm taking away are the things that you're just making up. Why should I believe you when you say that time doesn't work the same way out in space, especially when the exact opposite is what we observe? I can until you give me a reason why I can't.

This thread has descended into metaphysical garbage.It was obvious from the get go that arkathon didn't know any science. So instead of learning some and asking cogent questions he has fallen into bizarre hypotheses that are nigh on impossible to parse.arkathon,just stringing some strange mataphysical references to 'time' in a sentence doesn't philosophy make. It sure as heck doesn't make a scientific discussion.