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

Forget mass of the star until we know time exists out there. NO DISTANCES! Yes we experience time here, though, that much we know.

Forget the mass you do not know it unless you know distance do you?

I explain things we see here in time by the fact time exists here. If you want to forget masses and distances and such, fine. There is NO observable empirical evidence that would cause anyone to prove time being consistent throughout the universe. So the question remains, how do you know?
It appears that all you have is belief with no foundation, as far as I can see, and that is often called fantasy. No mistake we can read your responses and there is NO evidence time exists the same in deep space at all. FALSE. You cannot see time. We only ever experience or 'see' time unfold HERE. Period. No exceptions ever.Fantasy is no match for evidence and your beliefs as yet are anything but evidenced in even the tiniest way. I need to see it shown to be correct first, that time exists and exists exactly the same as here, before I have any need to show your belief is wrong. Don't bother posting unless you get some.Enjoy

Correction no creationist has been able to refute it here on this forum. You might as well say no one argued for free speech convincingly in Red China. I could dash your arguments to smithereens with one hand tied behind my back, without much effort in an arena where there was fair moderation.As for your star dce thing, no. You do not know distance at all. Since the light arrives on earth from we know not how far that doesn't help you! Also it arrived here where time is, so the whole analogy is shot to high hell. As for the order of things coming IN to our zone of time, naturally there will be an order. That does not represent the same time there though, unless time exists the same there. Why not just admit you do not know?Edited by time, : No reason given.

How about this...how far out have we been? How far in the universe can we say we know time exists and exists the same as here?

No. I don't follow your posts too close they seem like proud ignorant nonsense actually. You lost me when you ventured into would be sarcasm and last thursdayism. But keep trying. Who knows, one day they might be interesting, and informative.Edited by time, : No reason given.

The time is only seen here. The time that it took to decay is seen only here. Naturally it would be in our time. The light curve took so much time, but that time was here where we do have time. The material may be right, but the time of decay is RELATIVE to the time zone! Here where time is, yes. of course. Time exists here. Everything requires time! The reason a long time ago is invoked is because of great distances deduced by assuming time exists there. Boring religion. Though it rocks your little world, it is what it is. Fairy tales explain. The issue is truth and knowledge and a proper act based explanation. Not some wild faith based explanation at all costs.

We wait for support for your assertions about time being the same. Remember that you cannot use how time unfolds here for evidence of anything to do with time somewhere else that is unknown.
You say there is no reason to modify the way science sees things...fine. I don't care if they do or not all that much. My concern is with what is actually known or not and the basis for building up big models of the universe. If you do not know, and cannot show real support for such a basic claim, that permeates all aspects of models of the universe, well, we must relegate the claims and models to the junk pile of weak beliefs.Seeing how things 'operate' in space far away does not mean we see time. We see things here and only here i time do all things reveal themselves and unfold for us.Now if you want to present your concept of time, maybe someone can say how it may be wrong. Remember that we are looking for time in the far universe, not here though.As for your hypothesis that time is the same throughout the universe, well, we need a reason.You mentioned that there is no 'inconsistency seen anywhere in time. That actually is laughable. If time is consistent here where we see all things, i what way would we see some inconsistency?? Makes no sense.Do not pretend that I have claims that time is a certain way in the unknown far universe either, that is dishonest. I don't know, and my claim is that science doesn't know. While it may be entertaining watching you squirm, and pretend you know when you don't, the onus is on you to admit you really don't know what you are talking about on this issue.

In no way is that true. The markers are where exactly that you claim to know the distance to? If a marker is beyond where man has any experience in going, how exactly would we know time existed there the very same as it does here? Imaginary dice do not help you.

The measure as seen where? Everything is relative to the point of observation, and if our point is in a zone that has time, then all movements we see will be in that time.

No. Here is what you said.."Whereis the time we experienceis the mass of the star,is our distance from it,is the speed of light andis Newton's Gravitational constant."You talked of a mass of a star and the distance. You talked about the speed of light. All those require time. When you use distance we are required to know distance, otherwise the formula is nonsense. Same with speeds, mass, size of star and etc. UNLESS those are known first they could not show time is the same far away. You may NOT use any distance, mass, or supposed speed, or even gravity numbers as if they are known UNLESS we first know time exists in all points the same. How would I tell the exact gravity for a star if it was really, say, 3/4 of a light year away rather than 1.8 billion light years away? What we see at a different distance affects what we think the size is. Pretty basic stuff.

Yes time is part of spacetime. Right? The base line in a parallax measurement is in spacetime! That makes time involved. You really missed that!!??

I have no issue with info from probes. Why would I? Of course I have heard some claim that a time change of some sort might best explain the Voyager anomalies, but in any case, even if they were correct (?) the difference would be tiny. So for all intents and purposes I can accept what is known and measured with a degree of confidence. The probes came from our time. The stars are way way beyond our experience and range and no one was ever near one. Therefore when it comes to measuring time itself out there, no, I do not blindly accept that it 'must' be the exact same for no real apparent reason or rhyme.

You 'calculated' based on the belief that time is equal and exists there also. The parallax measure used a base line from here in our time/spacetime/space. You say you based the fact that it was cobalt on the time it took to decay? (Don't blame me for claiming that I am just making sure you know what you said)

I would think our solar system is part of our time. We know about Mars and the Moon for example. We have been there. I have also allowed that a small difference in time could start to exist as a probe gets away from here. How in the world would that mean we know time at the stars?