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

Dealt with in last post to razd.

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 do not know. Will you admit it now?

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.

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?

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?

So? You only see it HERE! How much time is involved here is all you see and know! The streets we cross are here. Face it. False. I do not reject what we see. It does take light so much time to move so far here...etc etc.

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?? NO. You only observe HERE IN time! 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. 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! 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.

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. 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.

Actually, having time different here than where a star is does the opposite. It would need to be the same at all points to know distances.

The evidence for a same time in deep space is zilch. God any actual science?

Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.

[qs=taq]...[qs]No. You have never taken any clock out of the fishbowl actually. We know you believe the whole of creation has to be just like the fishbowl, but you do not know that at all.

Not in any way is that true. The position of lines tells us nothing about time there. Only here. Yes there are elements and gasses out there. However that is only what we see, so who knows what else is also out there that we cannot detect? Science admits seeing only 5% remember? Not only that, but it does no good at all to see some elements when we do not know how far away or big they are! You MUST have time exist the same as here to know distances. IN ALL cases you are in the fishbowl of earth and solar system area! No exceptions. Thus far and no further. It is almost meaningless that the light we see here behaves a certain way here. That tells us nothing about time there. Without time there being as here, no distances/mass/sizes etc etc are known. E=We could get spectra from the space station of hydrogen also...so? That would be significant because we do know how far away that is. Most certainly not actually. The C is only representing light acting and moving IN time HERE. In fact all the symbols and letters in your formula are fishbowl figures! The actual point was that a street on earth is not appropriate in measuring deep space.
. The Voyager is on the fringes (at best) of the fishbowl. That has zero to do with nature in the past. [qs] The evidence provided is what we see.[/q] Then you see less than I thought. You are mistaken as shown. C is the speed of light in the fishbowl! You only assumed it reflected the whole universe. Not at all. You do not just get to declare the speed of light in the fishbowl some universal constant. The fine constant structure also is a fishbowl concept. So is any force or anything else here. Energy also.

Too bad none of that tells us anything abut time there. Since we NEED time to exist to know distances and sizes, seeing hydrogen or something doesn't help since we do not know how far away it is.Also, when we see it here, at any rate....that is the rate here. We only could see it that way here where time exists!

The only place you see anything progress is here. Face it. Light we see here is here. No matter where it is from it is seen here, and unfolds in time here. No denying it.