Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(2)
Message 466 of 948 (797656)
01-25-2017 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by creation
01-24-2017 8:38 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Curiously I said nothing about size or distance, what I asked for was how you explain the evidence.
I explain things we see here in time by the fact time exists here. If you want to forget masses and distances and such, fine.
So, still no explanation. Repeating an unsupported assertion does not make it any more valid.
But you do. It is your argument, not anyone else's, and as yet there is NO observable empirical evidence that would cause anyone to question time being consistent throughout the universe.
There is NO observable empirical evidence that would cause anyone to prove time being consistent throughout the universe. ...
Curiously that is not evidence for your assertion, it is just denial.
... to prove time ...
Science (all science) does not prove hypotheses or theories, it can disprove them when they are wrong, but it can only verify that results are consistent with the hypothesis/theory when they are not proven wrong.
We can validate these behaviors being consistent throughout the solar system and into near space (probes), and we can say that -- so far -- there is no reason to discard or modify our current concept of time existing throughout the universe. This provides confidence that the hypothesis/theory is correct. Everything we observe is consistent with time operating in the same manner in outer space as it does here, throughout the solar system. We observe that planets and stars exhibit the behavior consistent with orbits -- something that can only occur with time.
No, it is not a belief, this is a common, understandable, mistake that people who operate on belief systems make, possibly because you are unfamiliar with what science uses.
No mistake we can read your responses and there is NO evidence time exists the same in deep space at all.
Again, we have observations that are best explained with time operating in a consistent manner throughout the universe. This includes the orbits of planets and stars.
If you have a different explanation for the observations, then please provide it.
Without such alternative explanation, there is no reason to assume time is not consistent.
It is a working assumption (ie an hypothesis): if time is the same what do we see. And it can be tested: if time is not the same what should we see that is different.
FALSE. You cannot see time. We only ever experience or 'see' time unfold HERE. Period. No exceptions ever.
Whoever said we can "see time"?
What I said is that we hypothesis that time is consistent throughout the universe, and this leads to predictions of observations and to predictions about those observations. So far those observations and the explanations hold up, certainly for orbiting bodies in other star systems.
What I said is that if time is not consistent throughout the universe then that would lead to predictions that have not been observed, things like erratic orbits. This is where your evidence would come into play, IF you have any ...
Show us the information that shows the hypothesis is wrong, and that you have a better explanation (hypothesis) and if it tests out, we will agree with you, because that is how science works.
I need to see it shown to be correct first, ...
Aaaand again, that is not how science works. Science works by proving hypothesis and theories are invalid through evidence that falsifies it, but there is no evidence for any theory anywhere that proves it is true, just that the results are consistent with the theory. The more evidence we have of results consistent with the theory the more confidence we have in it being correct.
This is what we have with time -- a vast multitude of observations that are consistent with the hypothesis that time is consistent -- giving us high confidence that using this hypothesis provides reliable, consistent answers.
If there is evidence that our concept of time is wrong, then those answers will need to be reevaluated, but not before then.
... before I have any need to show your belief is wrong. ...
Ah, no evidence showing any inconsistency with time being consistent throughout the universe.
So we can continue to act with high confidence with the hypothesis that time is consistent throughout the universe, because you have not falsified the hypothesis nor provided an alternative explanation for the observations.
Note that our perception of how time operates has changed as evidence has shown anomalies in previous hypothesis, resulting in the formula that Son Goku presented in Message 445 (now more readable). This is how science works -- building on what we know to find out about what we don't know, testing it, and modifying it as need be to fit new information/observations.
You have provided no new information/observations, and thus there is no need to make any changes to the current explanatory hypothesis.
Why would time be different? What mechanism would change time in other locations? These are questions you need to answer.
Enjoy
Watching you waffle and dodge is entertaining. The onus is on you to substantiate your claims.
Meanwhile Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 awaits your attempts to invalidate the evidence for an old earth ...
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 451 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:38 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:35 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 467 of 948 (797657)
01-25-2017 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by creation
01-24-2017 8:43 PM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
(re Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1)
Correction no creationist has been able to refute it here on this forum. You might as well say no one argued for free speech convincingly in Red China. I could dash your arguments to smithereens with one hand tied behind my back, without much effort in an arena where there was fair moderation.
And yet you have not even attempted a single answer before claiming you are being oppressed. Fascinating.
If you want we can arrange a new thread in The Great Debate forum where you and I debate with no interference.
As for your star dce thing, no. You do not know distance at all. Since the light arrives on earth from we know not how far that doesn't help you! Also it arrived here where time is, so the whole analogy is shot to high hell. As for the order of things coming IN to our zone of time, naturally there will be an order. That does not represent the same time there though, unless time exists the same there. Why not just admit you do not know?
Sadly it seems you did not understand that the distance measurement is totally independent of time outside the solar system ("our zone of time"), because the distance between the two markers is preserved no matter what happens to time (as demonstrated by the di have values ranging from 1 to 6 in an arbitrary pattern). This distance is then measured on earth in real time, and the distance to the star is then calculated with simple high school maths (law of sins).
We do know the distance, without question.
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 452 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:43 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 469 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:38 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 494 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 3:43 PM RAZD has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 468 of 948 (797658)
01-25-2017 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 466 by RAZD
01-25-2017 7:56 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
We wait for support for your assertions about time being the same. Remember that you cannot use how time unfolds here for evidence of anything to do with time somewhere else that is unknown.
You say there is no reason to modify the way science sees things...fine. I don't care if they do or not all that much. My concern is with what is actually known or not and the basis for building up big models of the universe. If you do not know, and cannot show real support for such a basic claim, that permeates all aspects of models of the universe, well, we must relegate the claims and models to the junk pile of weak beliefs.
Seeing how things 'operate' in space far away does not mean we see time. We see things here and only here i time do all things reveal themselves and unfold for us.
Now if you want to present your concept of time, maybe someone can say how it may be wrong. Remember that we are looking for time in the far universe, not here though.
As for your hypothesis that time is the same throughout the universe, well, we need a reason.
You mentioned that there is no 'inconsistency seen anywhere in time. That actually is laughable. If time is consistent here where we see all things, i what way would we see some inconsistency?? Makes no sense.
Do not pretend that I have claims that time is a certain way in the unknown far universe either, that is dishonest. I don't know, and my claim is that science doesn't know. While it may be entertaining watching you squirm, and pretend you know when you don't, the onus is on you to admit you really don't know what you are talking about on this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 466 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2017 7:56 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Coyote, posted 01-25-2017 10:08 AM creation has replied
 Message 500 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2017 4:25 PM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 469 of 948 (797659)
01-25-2017 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 467 by RAZD
01-25-2017 8:12 AM


Re: A game ... The Star Distance Two-step
Sadly it seems you did not understand that the distance measurement is totally independent of time outside the solar system ("our zone of time"), because the distance between the two markers is preserved no matter what happens to time (as demonstrated by the di have values ranging from 1 to 6 in an arbitrary pattern). This distance is then measured on earth in real time, and the distance to the star is then calculated with simple high school maths (law of sins).
We do know the distance, without question.
In no way is that true. The markers are where exactly that you claim to know the distance to? If a marker is beyond where man has any experience in going, how exactly would we know time existed there the very same as it does here? Imaginary dice do not help you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2017 8:12 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2017 3:18 PM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 470 of 948 (797660)
01-25-2017 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 459 by thingamabob
01-25-2017 1:23 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
The measure as seen where? Everything is relative to the point of observation, and if our point is in a zone that has time, then all movements we see will be in that time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by thingamabob, posted 01-25-2017 1:23 AM thingamabob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by thingamabob, posted 01-26-2017 2:41 AM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 471 of 948 (797661)
01-25-2017 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by Son Goku
01-25-2017 3:09 AM


Re: Direct evidence
No. Here is what you said..
"Where
is the time we experience
is the mass of the star,
is our distance from it,
is the speed of light and
is Newton's Gravitational constant."
You talked of a mass of a star and the distance. You talked about the speed of light. All those require time. When you use distance we are required to know distance, otherwise the formula is nonsense. Same with speeds, mass, size of star and etc. UNLESS those are known first they could not show time is the same far away. You may NOT use any distance, mass, or supposed speed, or even gravity numbers as if they are known UNLESS we first know time exists in all points the same. How would I tell the exact gravity for a star if it was really, say, 3/4 of a light year away rather than 1.8 billion light years away? What we see at a different distance affects what we think the size is. Pretty basic stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Son Goku, posted 01-25-2017 3:09 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Son Goku, posted 01-25-2017 11:11 AM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 472 of 948 (797662)
01-25-2017 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by dwise1
01-25-2017 1:35 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
Yes time is part of spacetime. Right? The base line in a parallax measurement is in spacetime! That makes time involved. You really missed that!!??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by dwise1, posted 01-25-2017 1:35 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 480 by dwise1, posted 01-25-2017 10:22 AM creation has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 473 of 948 (797663)
01-25-2017 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by creation
01-25-2017 12:38 AM


Re: Young earth?
The time is only seen here. The time that it took to decay is seen only here. Naturally it would be in our time.
What is it about our time that you think causes it to naturally make other things be in it?
The light curve took so much time, but that time was here where we do have time. The material may be right, but the time of decay is RELATIVE to the time zone!
That doesn't make sense, and doesn't seen very thought out.
Cobalt has a half-life where it takes some amount of time for it to decay that we know from our observations here.
Then we observed an explosion in the sky that was some distance away from us. From those observations, we calculated that the material appears to have the same half-life that cobalt does for our observations here. So, we concluded that the material over there was also cobalt, that exploded.
If the time of decay is wholly different over there, then we wouldn't conclude that it's cobalt. How could cobalt have a completely different rate of decay over there, but then when the light from the explosion gets to us in our time, then some how "naturally" that decay rate is changed to appear just like it does over here in our time?
That sounds like complete nonsense.
Here where time is, yes. of course. Time exists here. Everything requires time!
If everything requires time then you cannot question if there is time over THERE for the things that we are observing. Them being things would mean they require time, according to "everything requires time".
The reason a long time ago is invoked is because of great distances deduced by assuming time exists there.
Not really, there's a lot more to it. You've over simplified this and are just hand-waving.
Boring religion.
There's nothing wrong with religion, is that supposed to be some kind of insult? And if it is so boring then why are you talking about it so much?
Though it rocks your little world, it is what it is.
Huh? You don't know anything about me. You are not capable of rocking my world, child.
The Matrix came out in 1999. You're almost 20 years behind that whole world-rocking scene.
Fairy tales explain.
Yes, and therefore fairy tales are more interesting and helpful that the posts you've been writing here, which explain nothing. For everything you've written, it can all be boiled down to: "Nuh-uh, you can't know that."
Well whoopty-freakin-do. That's a completely worthless assessment.
The issue is truth and knowledge and a proper act based explanation. Not some wild faith based explanation at all costs.
Well, you're so far off-base that I'm not even sure where to begin. There is no cost, very little faith, the issue of truth is inconsequential.
This sounds like an issue for you, in particular. You seem to be being threatened by a scientific explanation. What's up with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 12:38 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 497 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 4:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 474 of 948 (797665)
01-25-2017 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 463 by Admin
01-25-2017 6:49 AM


Re: Moderator Request
I have no issue with info from probes. Why would I? Of course I have heard some claim that a time change of some sort might best explain the Voyager anomalies, but in any case, even if they were correct (?) the difference would be tiny. So for all intents and purposes I can accept what is known and measured with a degree of confidence. The probes came from our time. The stars are way way beyond our experience and range and no one was ever near one. Therefore when it comes to measuring time itself out there, no, I do not blindly accept that it 'must' be the exact same for no real apparent reason or rhyme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Admin, posted 01-25-2017 6:49 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 476 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-25-2017 9:59 AM creation has not replied
 Message 481 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-25-2017 10:24 AM creation has replied
 Message 482 by Admin, posted 01-25-2017 10:27 AM creation has replied
 Message 484 by Son Goku, posted 01-25-2017 11:17 AM creation has replied

  
creation
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 654
Joined: 01-22-2017


Message 475 of 948 (797666)
01-25-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 473 by New Cat's Eye
01-25-2017 9:50 AM


Re: Young earth?
You 'calculated' based on the belief that time is equal and exists there also. The parallax measure used a base line from here in our time/spacetime/space. You say you based the fact that it was cobalt on the time it took to decay? (Don't blame me for claiming that I am just making sure you know what you said)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-25-2017 9:50 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 478 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-25-2017 10:14 AM creation has not replied
 Message 485 by NoNukes, posted 01-25-2017 1:19 PM creation has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 476 of 948 (797667)
01-25-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by creation
01-25-2017 9:55 AM


Re: Moderator Request
The stars are way way beyond our experience and range and no one was ever near one.
I got so close to a star that it burnt my skin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:55 AM creation has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 477 of 948 (797668)
01-25-2017 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 468 by creation
01-25-2017 9:35 AM


Time
So, after this big windup, at what age do you place the Earth?
6,000-10,000 years?
There has to be some point to all your postings.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 468 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:35 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 3:42 PM Coyote has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 478 of 948 (797669)
01-25-2017 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by creation
01-25-2017 9:59 AM


Re: Young earth?
You 'calculated' based on the belief that time is equal and exists there also.
Prove it. (hint: nobody thinks that "time is equal"... it's relative)
The parallax measure used a base line from here in our time/spacetime/space.
I'm not talking about parallax measurements.
You say you based the fact that it was cobalt on the time it took to decay?
It being cobalt works as an explanation for the direct observations of the explosion in the sky. The radioactive source of the energy from the visible light emissions came from the detection of predicted gamma-ray line radiation from two of the source's abundant radioactive nuclei.
quote:
Energy for the peak of the light curve of SN1987A was provided by the decay of 56Ni to 56Co (half life 6 days) while energy for the later light curve in particular fit very closely with the 77.3 day half-life of 56Co decaying to 56Fe. Later measurements by space gamma-ray telescopes of the small fraction of the 56Co and 57Co gamma rays that escaped the SN1987A remnant without absorption confirmed earlier predictions that those two radioactive nuclei were the power source.
You can't just say: "Well, that took time and time could be different so you don't know anything."
That's worse than a fairy tale as it explain nothing. And you apparently haven't thought out how the material in question could have totally different behaviors that somehow behave exactly like cobalt does in our time.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:59 AM creation has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 479 of 948 (797670)
01-25-2017 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by creation
01-25-2017 12:19 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
How about this...how far out have we been?
Obviously by your reasoning we have no way of knowing that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 12:19 AM creation has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 480 of 948 (797671)
01-25-2017 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 472 by creation
01-25-2017 9:49 AM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
We have an academic expression here: If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.
We're still waiting to be dazzled.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 472 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:49 AM creation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024