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

That's not because of the distance he travels, but the speed. It's the same for things on Earth, traveling short distances, but doing so very quickly.

Time dilation - WikipediaConfusing, isn't it? But it is borne out by observation: see the bit on muon lifetimes. They really don't age so fast, because they are moving fast.

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

Well, that was gibberish.Do you really deny that time passes outside our solar system? If so, how come we see things out there changing?

Interesting. Do you know whether time passes in (for example) Peru? Yes, I do.

Yes, really. If you'll admit that knowledge is possible, then I do know that, because I know it the same way I know anything else. Someone challenged, for example, to say "How do you know that there's a tree in the yard?" would reply "Well, it looks like there's a tree in the yard", and it would be hard to object. Now in the same way it looks like time passes outside of our solar system. Anyone claiming that we nonetheless don't know that it does, but without caviling at the existence of the tree, would be indulging in special pleading --- or rather he would be if he got as far as offering up an argument rather than merely expressing his doubts.

That there is time outside the solar system. You asked if I knew that. I said yes. Remember? Well this sort of vague rhetoric could be used to cast doubt on anything. "Is there a tree in the yard?" "Yes, I can see it." "Sure, you can see it here. But you are in the house, looking out of the window. So you can see the tree here. Big whoop. That doesn't mean that you know the tree is in the yard."Well, you can obfuscate anything equally well (or rather, horribly badly) that way, since everything I see is in fact some distance from my eyes. But your bogus argument doesn't particularly apply to stars.

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.

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.

Well, I'd have also said we know how long light takes to get from the other stars. But if you can deny it for them, why not deny it for the sun as well? So far as I can see, the only difference is that you want to deny it when it comes to distant stars, but you don't want to when it comes to our sun.But someone who did want to deny that about the sun could do so using your arguments, and would make just as much sense as you're making.He could say "Unless time is the same where the sun is therefore, there can be no distance known."He could say "You are being circular in logic here another way, because you NEED time to exist all the way out to the sun to know distance!"He could say "you have not shown that you know even that time exists out where the sun is just as it does in spacetime on Earth. You can say 'yes I do' all day."He could say "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." He could say "Whatever we see is here! The light that has the info is only and always seen here."This would make as much sense as your arguments because those are your arguments, only with the word "sun" inserted where you wrote "stars" or "SN" (supernova).

In the first place, those probes didn't go to the sun. The furthest we've sent anything is the Voyager probe, which is going away from the sun.In the second place, your claim that we've sent probes anywhere is subject to your same reasoning. What makes us think that Voyager 1 (for example) is moving, or is 11.7 billion miles away from us? All we have to go on is the data we receive here, back on Earth. ("Whatever we see is here! The light that has the info is only and always seen here.") So, let's apply all the usual paraphernalia of denial to space probes, just as you applied it to the stars:* "Unless time is the same where the probe is therefore, there can be no distance known."* "You are being circular in logic here another way, because you NEED time to exist all the way out to the probe to know distance!"* "You have not shown that you know even that time exists out where the probe is just as it does in spacetime on Earth. You can say 'yes I do' all day."

Curiously enough, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you.You do realize I've actually been criticizing your reasoning rather than advocating it, right? Because your bizarre, almost solipsistic version of Last Thursdayism is indeed nonsense.

No exceptions. Good. It seemed as though earlier you were saying that the sun and space probes were exceptions, and I thought you were being inconsistent. But now you say there are no exceptions.Now, how about things which are more than (say) ten miles away from me? One mile? Five feet away from me? Six inches? Are they exceptions? Oh, right, "no exceptions ever".

Obviously by your reasoning we have no way of knowing that.

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.