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

{{deleted}}my mistake, I read PH's post wrong.This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*29*2005 05:27 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

my mistake: I read to be lighting up on both minor axis first.sorry. maybe I shouldn't post when I have sinus headaches.

I misread your previous post. My mistake. Sorry.

You should explain to newcomers {peaceharris} that this is the normal process for all forum topics, and note that if he wants to open a new topic focused on his model that he can do that in the {proposed new topics} forum
EvC Forum: Proposed New Topicsthe other alternative is to branch this off into {falsifying a young universe - supernova 1987A -- II} thread taking eta's OT post and then jumping to peaceharris's first post.I wouldn't mind continuing.(edited to fix spelling}This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*29*2005 07:53 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

bump for Ingvarfrom
EvC Forum: what is the big bang and how do i understand it?

Hello time, and welcome to the fray, If time does not exist outside the solar system, then there would be no velocity, and without velocity there would be no time between the nova and the light hitting the ring -- it would have been impossible to observe the difference.How do you account for the observed time difference? Perhaps we need to start with a firm understanding of time passing on earth before we can discuss time in the universe. The evidence we have that establishes the age of the earth, for instance, is quite solid. see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1.Also, it is generally considered good form to include quotes from the person you are replying to rather than making seemingly unconnected posts, as that way we know the reference for what points you are arguing against. So far you look more like a shot-gun tossing out tidbits rather than someone engaged in debate.Enjoy

So how do you explain the evidence observed for extrasolar planets?

quote:

---

Extrasolar Planet Encyclopedia

​

Showing 3565 planets / 2675 planetary systems / 602 multiple planet systems

---

How do you explain the evidence observe for binary stars?

quote:

---

Binary star

​

A binary star is a star system consisting of two stars orbiting around their common barycenter. Systems of two or more stars are called multiple star systems. These systems, especially when more distant, often appear to the unaided eye as a single point of light, and are then revealed as multiple by other means. Research over the last two centuries suggests that half or more of visible stars are part of[1] multiple star systems.[2]

​

Binary star systems are very important in astrophysics because calculations of their orbits allow the masses of their component stars to be directly determined, which in turn allows other stellar parameters, such as radius and density, to be indirectly estimated. This also determines an empirical mass-luminosity relationship (MLR) from which the masses of single stars can be estimated.

---

These are just a few of the ways time effects in the universe have been observed.What we observe here, with planets orbiting distant stars, with binary star systems, and with the SN1987A nova and ring differential is best explained by time being the same, operating the same throughout the universe.So if you think time operates differently, then what is your explanation for these observations? Just saying you don't accept something is not an argument, it is a belief. Beliefs have historically been more wrong than right, and curiously none have shown any ability to alter reality.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Thanks, I try to be fair. Let me introduce you to a little game I call "The Star Distance Two-step": So yes we DO know the distance to that star, regardless of what games you want to play with time. And curiously, that is all we need. And I've just shown this assertion to be false, that we DO know the distance to that star, and we know it with a very high degree of confidence because it is simple high school math. Yes it is another topic, and you are free to post on it at will. That is why I posted the link, Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, after all. Really? Then it will be an exciting time for you. From the end of the first post:

quote:

---

People who want to review the history of this thread can do so at:

1. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 number 1 (297 posts)
2. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.: Version 1 number 2 (306 posts)
3. Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III): Version 1 number 3 (over 357 posts ... plus the posts on this thread ....)

---

The first post of Version 1 number 1 was made on 03-14-2004, and to date NO creationist has been able to refute the evidence of an old earth the way that these threads present and discuss. If anything this needs to be updated with new evidence that has come to light. Just trying to help, your welcome.Enjoy

Curiously I said nothing about size or distance, what I asked for was how you explain the evidence. Again, I am not arguing about distance or time, I am asking for your explanation of the observations. 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.It appears that all you have is belief with no foundation, as far as I can see, and that is often called fantasy. 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.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. So far there is no objective empirical evidence that this working assumption (hypothesis) is incorrect.If you want to challenge this, then provide evidence and theory that explains all the known evidence with some different basis for time. Fantasy is no match for science.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.Enjoy

hard to read black on the dark blue if you use [blockcolor=white][color=black] before and [/color][/blockcolor][/color] after your latex you get Enjoy

Curiously, not knowing time does not mean that there is no mass.And I still see no reason to ignore the existence of time -- you have provided nothing but handwaving. Where is your objective empirical evidence and where is your alternative hypothesis?We observe the effects of stars and planets orbiting stars, and the current best explanation of those observations is that time exists there in much the same way it exists here.Until you provide a basis for your argument I will stick with the current explanations of "life, the universe, and, oh, everything" (Douglas Adams).Further I notice that you have not answered my questions, but are posting one line troll type posts.Enjoy

So, still no explanation. Repeating an unsupported assertion does not make it any more valid. Curiously that is not evidence for your assertion, it is just denial. 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. 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.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 ... 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. 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. 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

(re Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1) 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. 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

Sorry for your apparent inability to comprehend why this is true. Perhaps I can help with additional details of how the game is played. No, not here, but the two markers are in the same boat, the same time zones (whatever they are) between here and the star.Both markers start at the star, and thus are in the same time envelope.
Let's say the first throw is a 6.Both markers move 6 places, the first along the path directly to earth, the second along the path to the ring (two places from the star) and then towards the earth.The distance from the earth to the star and the ring is assumed to be "n" (unknown) places away for this game, so after that first throw the 1st marker is {n-6} places from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)} places from earth. The distance between them is 2 places. Still close to each other in astronomical distance terms.The next throw is a 3, and the first marker is then {n-6-3} places away from earth, while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3} places away from earth, and the distance between them is still 2 places.The third throw is a 5, and the first marker is now {n-6-3-5} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places.The fourth throw is a 1, and now the first marker is {n-6-3-5-1} places away while the second marker is {n-(6-2)-3-5-1} places away, and the distance between them is still 2 places.This continues until they reach earth, with the second marker always always always 2 places behind the first marker. This distance is constant, no matter how the "time zones" change between the earth and the star because both markers are affected equally.Once within the solar system "time zone," they are traveling on earth time, and so we record the time of the first marker arriving and then the time of the second marker arriving, convert that to distance by (speed of light/delta time) ... and that distance is necessarily the two places distance between the markers on their entire trip from the star to earth, which is necessarily the distance from the star to the ring. Curiously I have assumed -- for the sake of your argument -- that it is NOT the same, but that it varies with each di throw. The problem for you is that this doesn't affect the fact that marker 2 is always 2 place behind marker 1, and that this distance is the same when they reach the earth where we observe them in solar-system time no matter how many different time zones they have passed through.This is an empirical fact independent of any variation in time.We know -- with very high confidence -- the distance from the star to the ring. We also know -- with very high confidence -- the angle between the star and the ring because we can measure that directly, a measurement that is also independent of time variables.We know -- with the absolute knowledge of simple math -- that the law of sines applies:

quote:

---

In trigonometry, the law of sines, sine law, sine formula, or sine rule is an equation relating the lengths of the sides of any shaped triangle to the sines of its angles. According to the law,

​

​

where a, b, and c are the lengths of the sides of a triangle, and A, B, and C are the opposite angles (see the figure to the right), while d is the diameter of the triangle's circumcircle. ...

​

---

We also know that the angle at the star is ≈90°'s within several decimal points (because the angle "A" at earth is so small and B≈C≈90°±0.00001), and thus any error in the angle at the star is negligible at this point, so sin(angle at star) ≈ 1.00000 (actually more decimal places because of how sines work) - ie it is within the error of measuring the distance between the two markers.So we KNOW distance "a" between the star and the ring, and we KNOW the angle "A" between the star and the ring, and we KNOW that the angle "B" at the star is ≈90.0000° so we can solve for "b", the distance from the star to earth. This is a fact, an objective empirical fact, because math.Independent of time variations.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Not what I've said. This is your assertion unsupported by any evidence or reason (how does it change? what causes it to change?).Your assertion does not disprove time being consistent. You need evidence and you need an alternate explanation: that is how science is done. You wish.This is how science works in every branch, in every field, in every laboratory: we make hypothesis and test them, those that fail are discarded, those that don't fail are used to make predictions, and those predictions are then tested. There is NO evidence in any branch, field or laboratory that proves an hypothesis correct, we only have the lack of invalidating evidence as a sign that the hypothesis is possibly correct and that we can use it until contrary evidence is found.NO hypothesis is thrown out because someone believes it is wrong: it takes evidence, and it takes a new hypothesis that explains the evidence in a new way. The support is provided by all the observations that are consistent with the hypothesis, all the evidence of binary stars and exoplanets around distant stars, by the consilience of information from multiple observations in different fields, observations that provide high confidence that the hypothesis, or something very close to it, is likely correct. We observe "how things 'operate' in space far away" is consistent with time behaving in a manner consistent with what we observe within the range of our verifiable observations.We observe that there is no known cause, no known reason, for time to be inconsistent across the universe. If you know of one, please provide it. Until shown otherwise, we observe that there is no known cause, no known reason, for time to be inconsistent across the universe. If you know of one, please provide it.Because that is how science is done. Perhaps because the hypothesis is valid and thus we don't observe inconsistencies. If the orbits of binary stars or exoplanets varied over observed time, that would be inconsistent with orbits being relatively constant as observed in our solar system.If the red shift of some elements were different from the red shift of other elements, that would be inconsistent.If the decay of radioactive isotopes, identified by their location in the spectrum, were significantly different from what we see on earth, or if they varied, changed over time, that would be inconsistent.These inconsistencies would all be expected if time were variable and random.They are not observed. (this is where your evidence, if you have any, comes in)If anything were observed that was different than we see within our solar system (where we can verify our concept of time explains the behaviors) then that would be inconsistent.This is not observed. (this is where your evidence, if you have any, comes in)If there were an hypothesis that time changes in some way different than what the current theory predicts, then that hypothesis could be tested to see how it explains all the known observations and then predicts something new that has yet to be observed, then there might be cause\reason to consider it, but we would still operate on the current system until evidence showed that it was a better explanation.This has not been provided (this is where your alternate explanation, if you have one, comes in) Irrelevant. If all you have is an "I don't know so nobody can know" chip on your shoulder, then the only one affected by your position is you, and nobody needs to pay attention to you ... because you haven't presented any reason, any cause, any evidence that our current concept of time is invalid.Science operates on evidence, it develops hypothesis to explain the known evidence, and then predicts new evidence, and it builds on what we know to find out what we don't know. It does not go off on arbitrary tangents. Theory approximates reality, and the more tested the more validated it is, the more competing theories are invalidated, the closer that approximation grows.Enjoy