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

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.

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

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.

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.

Deny?? How would I know? The question is whether you know.

I do not have a conclusion. I have an observation.

Yes, we do know that time and spacetime exist here on earth and even in the solar system.Now about that 'yes I do' know bit...really? Come on now.

quote:

---

Okay, let's try this another way.
General Relativity does assume time exists, but doesn't assume it works the same everywhere. Just to clear that up.

---

That clears nothing up. You made a vague claim. So show us how relativity assumes time, but not 'the same everywhere'?

quote:

---

Secondly, you ask what is the relevance of the CMB? Well it is a prediction of General Relativity, as is the motions of galaxies and stars.

---

No. I asked what was the relevance to time?

quote:

---

Since all of these behave exactly as GR describes, this provides evidential support to General Relativity's assumption of the existence of time.

---

To know masses or sizes of objects we must know distance first. To know distance you must know that time exists everywhere the same.

quote:

---

Thirdly, science does "know" what time is, whereby "know" I mean our understanding of time is confirmed by every observation of the universe that we have ever made. Do we absolutely know, no. However again, this kind of absolute knowledge doesn't exist for anything. It's universal applicability makes it universally worthless as an observation.

---

So you admit you don't know what time is after all. OK.

quote:

---

If you can, could you point out a feature of your doubts about General Relativity that are substantially different from just saying "Just because I can see, smell, touch and taste that sandwich, how do you know it exists?"

---

I never raised the issue of GR. That would be you. We wait to see you answer the questions posed here.

quote:

---

EDIT: A clearer question, why do you think time passes in the solar system, but doubt it for distant stars?

---

I didn't say that at all. I asked if we know.

quote:

---

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.

---

? That says nothing at all. What way is that? What is it you think you know?

quote:

---

Now in the same way it looks like time passes outside of our solar system.

---

Naturally. How else could it possibly look in a place where time exists? It would have to look like things take time near or far. Where the light is seen with the information from far away is here. Here. Here.

quote:

---

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.

---

No. No one is doubting time exists here...here where all things far away are seen! No one is questioning the stars, or even that time in some form may exist there. Or not. I just do not want to see you claiming it does unless you know.

quote:

---

Supernova 1987A provides evidence that time passes at the same rate as it does in our solar system. For example, the decay of Co 60 formed during the supernova has been observed to have the same half-life as measured on earth.

---

Since the decay is seen here, it makes sense it is the same as expected here. If time exists here, then all things would have to unfold in our time here! Not only that, but you are being circular in logic here another way, because you NEED time to exist all the way out to the SN to know distance! Unless you know that, then the lines in the parallax do not work for distance at all.

quote:

---

In addition, the rate of light travel in the vicinity of SN 1987 has also been confirmed to be the same as the rate of travel here using basic trigonometry.

---

Since we don't know the distance that moots your point. We do not know how far away it actually is.

quote:

---

There is also the idea that conservation of energy is a confirmation that time passes the same at various location, although the argument is not one I am going to go through here.

---

That won't work probably.

quote:

---

The question, since you are claiming to have an "observation" is what evidence suggest the contrary idea that you seem to propose.

---

The observation is that you don't know. Once we see that, there is no requirement for anyone else to know. I observe that time exists here in our spacetime, and that we do not know that it exists, or exists the same far away.

quote:

---

If your philosophy relies in some way on time not existing in other places, I expect that you might provide us with some evidence or reason to believe so.

---

I have no need for it to be any particular way. I do object to claims that people know, though, when they really don't. More an issue of honesty.Edited by time, : No reason given.Edited by time, : No reason given.

quote:

---

That there is time outside the solar system

---

I won't get into whether time itself exists, but you have not shown that you know even that time exists out where the stars are just as it does in spacetime in the solar system. You can say 'yes I do' all day.

Try to address the issue at hand rather than vent about things you don't like.

Howl all you like. If you have something topical, let us know.