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

quote:

---

That there is time outside the solar system

---

I won't get into whether time itself exists, but you have not shown that you know even that time exists out where the stars are just as it does in spacetime in the solar system. You can say 'yes I do' all day.

Try to address the issue at hand rather than vent about things you don't like.

Nice try. But it is not exactly a secret where you are coming from with your time argument.The young earth belief is dead on arrival, and has been ever since it was proposed (and that wasn't that long ago, either). It is strictly a religious belief without any scientific evidence behind it.You remind me of a poster on another website who assured us that the chances of evolution were 1^720 against.

You have missed the point entirely. The decay that is being seen happens there. If there is no time at the point where the Cobalt 60 exists, then there is no decay. The fact that a process occurs, or that any change occurs at a given distant point means that time occurs at that point.

Howl all you like. If you have something topical, let us know.

Whatever we see is here! The light that has the info is only and always seen here. Here there is time, so whatever is here, like what is in the light...must take time. It must take the time that our spacetime allows, or dictates that it take. Add to that, and try to get this point this time, that the distance is only based on a belief that time exists the same out there also. Seeing things take time here is not proof that it takes the same time there.

Yes I have: it looks like it does. Which is the only basis on which we can claim to know anything. If this argument is insufficient to say that there is time among the stars, then no argument would be sufficient to say that we know anything at all. If, on the other hand, you admit the existence of knowledge, then this is one of the things we know.

No, I don't think you do. The same reasons you give for not accepting time far away apply right here in front of your nose or as you say "our spacetime".So far, all you are doing is saying uhuh. Give us an observation that indicates that time has a different characteristics at stellar or cosmic distances than it has within our solar system or we can dismiss what you say as pure silliness.

What we see is light emitted from a process that occurred there. If the light was emitted, then a process occurred there. And what we see is that the process occurred there exactly as it would here.Again, what is your evidence that there is no time in distant star systems, which include systems in which we have evidence that one body orbits another, something which requires that time exists there?

And you could use the same argument to defend the idea that no time passes more than three feet away from me in any direction. Consequently, by your logic, I have no knowledge of any supposed events that lie outside this region, including those that I directly observe.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That clears nothing up. You made a vague claim. So show us how relativity assumes time, but not 'the same everywhere'?

---

This has no non-technical answer. Relativity describes time using a metric tensor that varies with location see:
Robert Wald, General Relativity, Chapter 1It's a fundamental part of the theory, so much so that it's in the name, e.g. RelativityThe reason I bring up General Relativity is that it is a theory claiming time exists everywhere that has evidential support.

quote:

---

So you admit you don't know what time is after all. OK.

---

No I don't admit that and you know it. I said we know what time is unless one adopts a ridiculous form of philosophical skepticism. We know what time is in the same sense that we know how a tree works.What is the fundamental difference for you between our knowledge of time at distant stars vs our knowledge of time on Earth? Why do you consider our evidence in the former case insufficient?If you could answer this it would help the discussion.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Admin, : "later" => "former"

Ok, suppose time exists 'here' but not 'there'. What is the consequence? Why does it matter to you?

I would like to keep the topic clear, as well as your position on it. This thread is about evidence that falsifies the possibility of a young universe, and you're arguing against that evidence. If you are arguing as you are for some other reason than advocacy for a young universe, that probably means you're in the wrong topic, in which case you might want to propose your own topic over at Proposed New Topics. But if you *are* advocating for a young universe (which implies a young Earth, as Coyote said) then please carry on here.As long as I have your attention I'd like to also touch on the issue of how we know what we think we know, whose appropriateness in this thread already been addressed by several others. This isn't the topic of the thread. If you think there are epistemological issues concerning knowing things beyond some (what seems to be) arbitrary distance, that would be better discussed in another thread. Again, new threads can be proposed over at Proposed New Topics. I'll review and promote and new thread proposals as quickly as I can.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

No I am saying that the evidence includes time in the so called distance claimed, and it does, beyond any question or doubt.Unless time is the same where the SN is therefore, there can be no distance known.
I will repeat we do not know so do not ask how I know.

How would I know if science doesn't? Why does it matter? Well, the same way distance to stars and sizes of stars and all things about say, SN1987a matter I guess.