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

Why would you? Well, you might want to be intellectually consistent. Because the same arguments by which you attempt to convince us that we can't have knowledge of stars work just as well for probes. You have to bear the consequence of your own arguments, or abandon them.Imagine an argument that goes like this:A: Penguins don't exist.
B: How do you make that out?
A: Well, it's obvious. Penguins are supposedly bipedal. But that would never work, they'd fall over all the time.
B: But humans are also bipedal, so by the same reasoning humans don't exist. If you believe in your own reasoning you should say that too.
A: I have no issue with humans. Why would I?If A can't stand by his reasoning, he shouldn't be using it.

As I said, the question was posed by several people in several different ways, and calling the probe a special case doesn't really answer the general question. People are trying to understand the position and nature of the division you see between time "here" and time further away. If observations of Voyager are valid because it was once part of time on planet Earth then what about observations of objects that were never part of our time, such as the moon, Mars, Pluto, the Kuiper belt, the Oort cloud, Alpha Centauri (the nearest star), Andromeda (the nearest non-satellite galaxy). Understanding how and why you think time-dependent observations of these objects are valid, or not, will go a long ways toward making your viewpoint clear to others.I'm not trying to participate in discussion, just facilitate it, and this seems an important question that isn't getting answered.Edited by Admin, : Better grammar at end of first paragraph.

The formula could be nonsense, but that wasn't my point. My point was the Relativity does not assume time to be the same everywhere. You claimed it did.Once more, I am saying the theory does not make an assumption of uniform time. I was not commenting on whether it was correct. This was in response to: I have shown you this, whether the theory is right is a separate issue.

This is like a Pandora's box in terms of its implications.You will only trust that there is time somewhere else, if something from our planet has traveled out there?Why? Why is the light from those probes so trust worthy just because they were once here?To nail this down, do you think there is time on Titania, the moon of Uranus? (There is a reason I ask this specifically)Edited by Son Goku, : Clarification

Yes, parallax does use a 'base line' [sic] located here. That simply means that you should have no problem with the use of the baseline. So what is your objection to parallax methods given that they do not rely on the passage of time at a distant point?

Sorry for your apparent inability to comprehend why this is true. Perhaps I can help with additional details of how the game is played. No, not here, but the two markers are in the same boat, the same time zones (whatever they are) between here and the star.Both markers start at the star, and thus are in the same time envelope.
Let's say the first throw is a 6.Both markers move 6 places, the first along the path directly to earth, the second along the path to the ring (two places from the star) and then towards the earth.The distance from the earth to the star and the ring is assumed to be "n" (unknown) places away for this game, so after that first throw the 1st marker is {n-6} places from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)} places from earth. The distance between them is 2 places. Still close to each other in astronomical distance terms.The next throw is a 3, and the first marker is then {n-6-3} places away from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3} places away from earth, and the distance between them is still 2 places.The third throw is a 5, and the first marker is now {n-6-3-5} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places.The fourth throw is a 1, and now the first marker is {n-6-3-5-1} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5-1} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places.This continues until they reach earth, with the second marker always always always 2 places behind the first marker. This distance is constant, no matter how the "time zones" change between the earth and the star because both markers are affected equally.Once within the solar system "time zone," they are traveling on earth time, and so we record the time of the first marker arriving and then the time of the second marker arriving, convert that to distance by (speed of light/delta time) ... and that distance is necessarily the two places distance between the markers on their entire trip from the star to earth, which is necessarily the distance from the star to the ring. Curiously I have assumed -- for the sake of your argument -- that it is NOT the same, but that it varies with each di throw. The problem for you is that this doesn't affect the fact that marker 2 is always 2 place behind marker 1, and that this distance is the same when they reach the earth where we observe them in solar-system time no matter how many different time zones they have passed through.This is an empirical fact independent of any variation in time.We know -- with very high confidence -- the distance from the star to the ring. We also know -- with very high confidence -- the angle between the star and the ring because we can measure that directly, a measurement that is also independent of time variables.We know -- with the absolute knowledge of simple math -- that the law of sines applies:

quote:

---

In trigonometry, the law of sines, sine law, sine formula, or sine rule is an equation relating the lengths of the sides of any shaped triangle to the sines of its angles. According to the law,

​

​

where a, b, and c are the lengths of the sides of a triangle, and A, B, and C are the opposite angles (see the figure to the right), while d is the diameter of the triangle's circumcircle. ...

​

---

We also know that the angle at the star is ≈90°'s within several decimal points (because the angle "A" at earth is so small and B≈C≈90°±0.00001), and thus any error in the angle at the star is negligible at this point, so sin(angle at star) ≈ 1.00000 (actually more decimal places because of how sines work) - ie it is within the error of measuring the distance between the two markers.So we KNOW distance "a" between the star and the ring, and we KNOW the angle "A" between the star and the ring, and we KNOW that the angle "B" at the star is ≈90.0000° so we can solve for "b", the distance from the star to earth. This is a fact, an objective empirical fact, because math.Independent of time variations.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

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?

What you offered as support for that was the formula you now claim could be nonsense was it not? Anything else?

Ah there is the Achilles heel in your analogy! You DO not have ANY points along the way to a star we can use or refer to. Some mind game exercise pretending we do or could is foolish. Face it. When you get an actual few points we can talk.As for the absurd sine rule issue, it does not apply to parallax. The reason is because we are not talking about equal lines all being just distance. We are talking time interwoven every centimeter of the way in the base line! It is then hypocritical and totally inappropriate for you to ignore the time aspect and try to use just the space. No can do. Time is not removable! It comes with the territory, the space. In this case the base line.

I have no problem using the time and space measure where it applies, fits and can be used. That would NOT include somewhere there is no time as we know it. If you FIRST prove time exists where the star is the very same THEN you can use it!

I assume time exists the same or with very little difference in the entire solar system, and possibly somewhat beyond. Who knows?

The same does not apply when some things are known and some things are not.

If you miss the point of the importance of time in determining the standard cosmological model, not sure I can help you.

No interference and no moderation of any sort?

"Could be nonsense" in the sense that whether it is or not is irrelevant to refuting your original comment.This is getting very exasperating, the formula is a prediction of Relativity with varying time, hence one can see that Relativity does not assume uniform time.
The formula may be incorrect, but it is a formula of Relativity.Let me try an analogy. If somebody claimed "Herodotus said Persia was nine times the size of Greece" and somebody else said "No, look at page eighty, he says it is five times the size of Greece", that would refute the first statement. However Herodotus's history might still be wrong.It's the same here, you said "Relativity says time is uniform". I've showed you that relativity doesn't say that. I'm not commenting on Relativity's correctness.