Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-09-2018 10:46 PM
185 online now:
Dr Adequate, DrJones* (2 members, 183 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,729 Year: 18,552/29,783 Month: 497/2,043 Week: 49/386 Day: 49/28 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
4748
...
63NextFF
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 676 of 944 (827052)
01-16-2018 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Percy
01-15-2018 5:57 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 5:57 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 678 by Percy, posted 01-16-2018 6:54 PM creation has responded

    
Astrophile
Member
Posts: 80
From: United Kingdom
Joined: 02-10-2014


(1)
Message 677 of 944 (827057)
01-16-2018 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Percy
01-15-2018 5:57 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
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.

Another method is by observation of the revolution of binary stars around their common centre of gravity. By measuring the distance between the components (the ratio of their angular separation and their parallax) and their orbital period, one can obtain the total mass of the binary from Newton's theory of gravitation. It turns out that not only are the measured masses of binary systems of the same order of magnitude as the mass of the Sun, but the masses increase with the luminosities of the stars, as one would expect.

None of this would be true if space and time in the stellar realm were different from space and time as we experience them on Earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Percy, posted 01-15-2018 5:57 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 681 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 9:53 AM Astrophile has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 678 of 944 (827074)
01-16-2018 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 676 by creation
01-16-2018 10:03 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

How fast time is proceeding? We only see things here.

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.

Only here can we measure anything moving in time.

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.

If we see something far far far out of our time and space area here, we still see it in our time.

Yes, according to relativity each observer has a unique perspective looking out into the universe from his own coordinate system.

We could call it a fishbowl.

We could have, but the term we actually adopted was relativity.

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. That you do not know.

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.

So careful tossing the word ignorant around.

Why? There's no shame in ignorance. We're all ignorant of most of human knowledge. In your case you seem to be ignorant of cosmology and relativity.

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.

Moderators are discouraged from moderating in discussions where they're participating. It's in the Moderator Guidelines:

  1. With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility

    Be very careful when moderating in any thread where you are also a participant. Never use moderator powers to provide an advantage in discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 676 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 10:03 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 682 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 10:04 AM Percy has responded

    
AlexCaledin
Member (Idle past 176 days)
Posts: 41
From: Samara, Russia
Joined: 10-22-2016


Message 679 of 944 (827081)
01-17-2018 4:10 AM


As usual, all the fuss is entirely beside the point. Good Nature got into physical existence picking up the appropriate physics with all the "evidence" of many billion years passed. Scary dinosaur bones in the earth never made the Nature any worse until some people started getting them as the "evidence", others just as well getting "evidence" from the sky, both sorts being classic examples of stupidity.
    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19719
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 680 of 944 (827089)
01-17-2018 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 675 by creation
01-16-2018 9:57 AM


Re: 'creation' making the same bad arguments as 'starman'
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 keep making starman's bad arguments, fascinating. Repeating bad arguments doesn't make them any better.

If time was different, then that is modeled by the random di throw. It varies all over the place, yet you still end up with the distance being measured in current time/space.

Failure to understand this does not invalidate the argument, and nothing you have said in any way contradicts what the game shows.

You do not know. Will you admit it now?

We do know, just like we know your argument fails, that it fails because it has no substance, no evidence, no rational. It fails because opinion is not science nor evidence. Will you admit that it fails? Not that it matters, everyone else knows it.

If time ... 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.

If time was different then we would expect to see evidence of that. Without evidence there is no reason to think there is a difference.

You have no evidence, you have no theory, you have no argument.

What you have is a delusion that imaginary undetectable differences exist, and taken to a logical conclusion this means everything is illusion, including the chair you sit on.

If you accept your chair as real, then you accept objective empirical evidence for reality, and if you accept that, then you accept science, the study of objective empirical evidence as a measure of reality.

And once you accept that, then you accept that *you* need evidence and evidence based theory to argue against evidence and evidence based theory.

And then you will see that if you have no evidence, you have no theory, and that if you have no theory, then you have no argument that can counter one based on evidence and evidence based theory.

So sit back in your evidence based chair, and see if you can come up with some meager whit of evidence and some tentative attempt at an evidence based theory to support your argument.

Until then we know the distance to SN1987A, just like we know that your chair is real.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 675 by creation, posted 01-16-2018 9:57 AM creation has not yet responded

  
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 681 of 944 (827172)
01-19-2018 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 677 by Astrophile
01-16-2018 11:14 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 677 by Astrophile, posted 01-16-2018 11:14 AM Astrophile has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 683 by Taq, posted 01-19-2018 12:31 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 682 of 944 (827173)
01-19-2018 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 678 by Percy
01-16-2018 6:54 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 678 by Percy, posted 01-16-2018 6:54 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 685 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 2:09 PM creation has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.9


(3)
Message 683 of 944 (827181)
01-19-2018 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 681 by creation
01-19-2018 9:53 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
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.

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?

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?

All you are doing is rejecting direct observations because they don't fit with your religious beliefs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 681 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 9:53 AM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 686 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:15 PM Taq has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3279
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 684 of 944 (827182)
01-19-2018 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 664 by creation
01-14-2018 11:13 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

Kids have no issues acting like Santa will come down the chimney.

And if you want to remain a kid, you can continue having no issues acting like God exists.

Science moves onto ideas that have no issues whatsoever.
Not "no issues if you're a kid."
Not "no issues if you take the Bible literally."
Not "no issues if you don't talk to people who study such things."

Just "no issues."

Because if you're not a kid - then Santa has reality issues.
Because if you don't take the Bible literally - then Christianity has reality issues.
Because if you talk to people who study such things - then God existing has reality issues.

Science only claims to know things if there are no issues. From anyone able to back up their complaints ("reality").

Stars being far away is something science knows and there are no issues with it from anyone who can back up their claims.

Sure, there are complaints (like yours) but nothing in reality backs up your complaint. Therefore, it's proper to ignore your complaint until such time as when you can produce something that actually makes sense in reality.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 664 by creation, posted 01-14-2018 11:13 PM creation has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 685 of 944 (827184)
01-19-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 682 by creation
01-19-2018 10:04 AM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

Circular reasoning.

There's no circular reasoning.

You see redshifted light involves time.

Actually, it involves space-time.

How fast something is going away from us (or toward us) involves time.

How fast anything happens involves space-time, and the rate at which processes at remote distances occur relative to here on Earth tells us the degree of effect on space-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.

You're repeating yourself, and the answer hasn't changed. Voyager 1 is about .7 of a light day away. Is a light day your threshold? If a probe reaches a distance of a light day from the sun and still perceives things out there as being the same as here, will that settle it for you? Because in about 15 years Voyager 1 will be about a light day away.

Your "fishbowl" is a made up term. You have no definition for it, have no idea how big it is, how far it extends, you just made it up.

Relativity is fine, but basically cannot be shown to be applicable in deep space, correct?

That would be incorrect, for the reasons given above, that we can tell how fast an object is approaching/receding by blue/red shift and by the rate at which natural processes are proceeding, for instance the frequency of emission/absorption of gases, which also tells us how much of the red shift is due to expansion of space.

Remember that if there were no time as we know it,...

But we know a great deal about space-time, because we can see it and measure 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.

But we know the nature of space-time wherever we look in the universe, because the electromagnetic radiation arriving from far away tells us all about it. And we know that gravity out there behaves like gravity here because of the way stars and galaxies and galactic clusters move, and because of effects like gravitational lensing that produce things like Einstein rings.

For example it could also be partially some sort of time lensing effect.

You mean where the further out we look into the universe the further back in time we're seeing objects? That couldn't produce red/blue shift or changes in the rate at which natural processes proceed.

Even if it were just gravity, we need to ask how much gravity, and how much mass and size objects being affected really represent!

The motion of objects relative to one another tells us how much gravity and mass, and often the density.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 682 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 10:04 AM creation has not yet responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 686 of 944 (827199)
01-19-2018 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 683 by Taq
01-19-2018 12:31 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
taq writes:

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.

So? You only see it HERE! How much time is involved here is all you see and know!


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 683 by Taq, posted 01-19-2018 12:31 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 687 by Taq, posted 01-19-2018 5:02 PM creation has responded
 Message 688 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 5:28 PM creation has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7610
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 687 of 944 (827203)
01-19-2018 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by creation
01-19-2018 4:15 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

So? You only see it HERE! How much time is involved here is all you see and know!

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.

The streets we cross are here. Face it.

The cars driving down the streets are there, not here. Do you just ignore the cars because time only exists where you are and not where the cars are?

False. I do not reject what we see. It does take light so much time to move so far here...etc etc.

If light is moving then there has to be time along the space it is moving across.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:15 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 690 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:46 PM Taq has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 688 of 944 (827206)
01-19-2018 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 686 by creation
01-19-2018 4:15 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
creation writes:

So? You only see it HERE! How much time is involved here is all you see and know!

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, and we can observe how fast those processes proceed for distant objects. For example, you can find the spectra of absorption for some common elements at Stellar Spectra, and here's the spectra for hydrogen:

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.

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.

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.

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.

What is true both observationally and theoretically is that the speed of light is the same throughout the universe.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 686 by creation, posted 01-19-2018 4:15 PM creation has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 689 by creation, posted 01-21-2018 2:40 PM Percy has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 689 of 944 (827259)
01-21-2018 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 688 by Percy
01-19-2018 5:28 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
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:

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.

So what!!??

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 688 by Percy, posted 01-19-2018 5:28 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 698 by Percy, posted 01-22-2018 6:25 PM creation has responded

    
creation
Member
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 690 of 944 (827261)
01-21-2018 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 687 by Taq
01-19-2018 5:02 PM


Re: The Win-Win situation for Science
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 687 by Taq, posted 01-19-2018 5:02 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 693 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2018 9:26 AM creation has responded
 Message 697 by Taq, posted 01-22-2018 1:36 PM creation has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
4445
46
4748
...
63NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018