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

Obviously that's just an artifact of the fact that there's time here. Were you there?;-)Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

I kinda like Einsteins take on it.

I don't think Einstein ever said this. It seems unlikely given that Einstein introduced the concept of spacetime, itself raising questions about simultaneity. I can't find it in Bartlett's or The Expanded Quotable Einstein. Did Albert Einstein say the only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once? mentions a possible source.--Percy

I actually heard Carl Sagan said it too. Edited by 1.61803, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The young Universe position is logically on a weaker footing than an old Universe stance.
The YEC arguments base themselves as providing an alternative explanation for old Universe evidence.

​

They do not provide any 'facts' that categorically prove a young Universe, just supposed new interpretations that allow for a young Universe.

---

I think proving the age of the universe is an unreasonable request.

quote:

---

This being said, you only have to provide a single example of an old Universe that cannot be argued with and, ergo, you have falsified the young Universe position.

​

As I see it, there can be no way around the older Universe interpretation of the distance to supernova 1987A.

​

And I am talking about the GEOMETRICAL method of calculating the distance.

---

Time is a part of spacetime, right? When we use a base line for those geometric measurements, we are actually, then using time and not just space..or distance.To be able to draw the line to the star, therefore, time itself would have to exist all the way to that star. You can't just get out a pencil and draw a line to a star representing time, and claim it applies where the star is exactly as it does here without some evidence.I do not know that time does exist in deep space, or, that, it if does, that it exists exactly woven in with space like it is in the solar system and area.If you make a claim either way, then the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.Time exists and 'unfolds' a certain way here. ALL light that we see from anywhere else in the universe is seen only here, where time does exist as we know it. Therefore we could never use the amount of time any reaction, or event takes to happen here as evidence time is the same anywhere else!So...have you any evidence time exists the same everywhere or will you admit the so called geometric distance is useless?Edited by time, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There's very simple evidence that time exists in the distant universe. If you look at distant stars, wait a while, then look at them again, they will have changed. Hence they change state, so time must pass for them in order for these changes to occur.

---

That is evidence time exists here. It takes time for the movement as experienced here. That does not go toward evidence that time exists the same! Even if time exists there, we have no reason to assume it is the same.--To the poster that claimed decay as seen here is proof that time exists there. No. Not at all. If time existed there, just as an example, 1000 times less per unit of space than it does here, then the decay we see here would not involve the same amount of time. Edited by time, : No reason given.

Welcome to EvC, time. Stick around...even if few people agree with you. They never agree with me either. This forum is a great place to test and hone your discussion/debate skills. Out of curiosity, what would we expect to be a tentative conclusion if in fact time actually was different "there"?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Stronger evidence is the fact that distant stars move along orbits and paths exactly as General Relativity states they would orbit.We already know that distant locations do not have time that exists "the same" and that distant locations have different units of time. This relativity of time is built into General Relativity, the modern theory of gravity, so it is not something ignored or not taken into account.Since the stars behave exactly as General Relativity predicts and since the background light of the universe, the CMB, is exactly the correct brightness and mix of wavelengths as predicted by General Relativity and since galaxies are moving away from each other at exactly the rate you would expect for the CMB we see (i.e. both predictions of General Relativity are behaving consistently) and since both those predictions predict a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, I think the most likely conclusion is that the universe is billions of years old.

I think man is too small, and that science is too small to really know that.

You are welcome to believe what you will for whatever reasons make sense to you.If you are going to convince anyone else or discuss your beliefs, you are going to have to address current physics.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Stronger evidence is the fact that distant stars move along orbits and paths exactly as General Relativity states they would orbit.

---

Example?

quote:

---

We already know that distant locations do not have time that exists "the same" and that distant locations have different units of time. This relativity of time is built into General Relativity, the modern theory of gravity, so it is not something ignored or not taken into account.

---

By 'the same' I do not mean set to our clock. I mean a different clock altogether or no clock. Time itself. Do you know what time is even?

quote:

---

Since the stars behave exactly as General Relativity predicts

---

? Example?

quote:

---

and since the background light of the universe, the CMB, is exactly the correct brightness and mix of wavelengths as predicted by General Relativity

---

That has what to do with time? I could discus the cmb and what assumptions were used to predict what we would expect if there was a bang .. but that seems like another topic.

quote:

---

and since galaxies are moving away from each other at exactly the rate

---

No. There again time is involved. The assumptions for redshift ALL involve time and the existence of time. That can't help you as it is circular logic.

quote:

---

you would expect for the CMB we see (i.e. both predictions of General Relativity are behaving consistently) and since both those predictions predict a universe that is 13.7 billion years old, I think the most likely conclusion is that the universe is billions of years old.

---

Unless you specify how the background radiation evidences time existing in the distant universe, it is actually irrelevant. We wait for your GR example of how the stars are going as predicted also.

Hi time.You should be aware that regular contributors to this site number amongst them some highly qualified biologists, physicists, geologists and scientists of many other stripes. Son Goku is one of them.When you ask questions like "Do you know what time is even?", the chances are that they know far more than you thought possible.They are also very kind and patient with their help and explanations to people like me, who want to try to learn. If you engage with that in mind, there's a great deal to learn here.

Further Experimental Tests of Relativistic Gravity Using the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16 - NASA/ADS The existence of time is not an assumption. No.

Thanks for the advice. I happen to know that science doesn't actually know what time is, though. So I don't expect a god reply on that one regardless of credentials.

On the link, sorry, but masses cannot be determined unless time existed there as here. You need distance for the size of a star also. Nice try.As fr the existence of time, that is not an assumption, but what it is that exists and where is.And so yes, it is circular logic to first assume time is the same.