We have looked at how you come to distances. You use a ruler of time that you got in the solar system, and try to extend it to infinity as if it represented time everywhere for NO reason. Even in spectral parallax and etc it is the same deal. You look at an orbit or brightness or luminosity and try to use that for distance. No? The ways you do it are more circular than orbits!
...spectral parallax?? What's that? As for Time here and there, we have no reason not to use the same laws of physics and theory of relativity throughout the universe because it works. YOU have NO reason and NO predictive models to support your assertion that time is different/non existent there.... so given the models we have work just fine, it's incumbent on you to support your assertion that it is in fact otherwise.
Your failed predictions do not help you. All other predictions are circular and often after the fact. It is you claiming time is the same that is used in all models, not me asking if time is the same. You make the claim. I ask for evidence.
So, no evidence as expected. Well, safely discarded then...
So time as we know it is needed to see anything? How does that work?
I'm beginning to think you've never been to school.
Do you accept that sound waves compress and stretch depending on the source of that sound coming and going? You know, the Doppler effect? Do you also accept that we can't hear ultra low frequency as well as ultra high frequencies (think dog whistle for example)? If we could, instead of a doppler effect through motion of a sound source, have a sound source stationary but in a pocket of spacetime that's ticking by half as fast as we experience it outside. Now, do you accept that the sound we hear would be an octave lower in frequency than what we would be hearing if the source was in our time? Another way to think of it - when you could play an old vinyl record and slow the turntable to half its rate of spin, this is the same effect we would hear from the sound source experiencing time half as fast as we do.
So, Light works in exactly the same way as sound does. That's to say, short wavelength light (similar to hight frequency sound) is in the blue spectrum and long wavelength light (similar to low frequency sound) is in the red part of the spectrum. If the source of that light is experiencing time half that of what we experience, then the light waves traversing from half speed time there entering our full speed time here would be stretched by half, resulting in a redshift of visible light into undetectable-to-the-naked-eye infra-red and longer wavelength light. That's it!
A side note to help you understand the spectrum, light is just a visible form of electromagnetic radiation. Invisible forms of electromagnetic radiation are just like the visible forms of electromagnetic radiation however we don't see them. They include ultra-violet, infra red, microwaves, radio waves, gamma radiation, heat radiation, etc. Here's a link to all the information you require but won't acknowledge because you know you're wrong:
Electromagnetic Radiation - Also this click-through page from the previous link that you also won't acknowledge, goes into detail about how electricity, magnetism and light are interrelated and why we see light redshift and blueshift and how we use spectroscopy to find out all kinds of things about stars all over the universe because of atomic theory and our understanding of physics and quantum mechanics:
Electromagnetic Radiation - and Lastly, here is the information that gives you all the connecting information connecting light, it even shows you the visible spectrum compared to the other forms of electromagnetic radiation (very, very small in comparison to the spectrum of sound we can hear...) and even goes into how all electromagnetic radiation necessarily requires time (like everything else) to be anything in the first place:
Electromagnetic Radiation . Lastly, this is an excellent page to read up on black body radiation and how it correlates with our models of physics, atomic theory and quantum mechanics:
How are Spectra Produced?
I hold a remote hope you get it, but I wouldn't be surprised if you fail all over the place yet again...
Of course it would be. The things we see here are here. The way light divides here, or acts here has nothing to do with time there,
It absolutely does, in the same way sound would if it were soundwaves heading between frames of time to us here. If light didn't depend on time like everything else, then we wouldn't see redshifting or blueshifting light anywhere at all.
Soon as you explain why you think we need time as time exists here to see something, we can look at your question. The star still exists, so why or how would we NOT see it? The issue is what time is like where the star is. You see all stars IN time HERE. You do not look at time here to determine time elsewhere. Especially since you do not even know what time is!
As above
Name the instances you speak about. What exactly matches how? I think you mean it seems to match.
Sure. goto the examples on this page I pointed out earlier about black body radiation:
How are Spectra Produced?
That is why I challenge the ignorant models you preach.
LOOOOOL! Challenge?? You fail to grasp the basic concepts discussed here so hard that I'm convinced you don't even have arms or legs to grasp with!
Show how the distances are determined as to what is farther. Show how space and time could not redshift light? You likely have no idea what you are seeing. You simply assign things to what we see based on a belief system with no verifiable evidence at all.
discarded with prejudice, I've explained this so many times in so many ways that your continuing to ask is just admission you're determined to not learn.
So what? How long till we see a full rotation of said galaxy? What independent collaboration do you have that the light shifting means movement the direction you claim? Even if a galaxy does rotate in a way the leaves redshift in part of it, it still comes doen to what caused that redshift to begin with. For example, if some stretching of space affected the light at creation, or/and time, how would we determine that now?
Well, given how far away everything is, if it were stretched out to where they are now around 6,000 to 10,000 years ago, we wouldn't see them and wouldn't know about them so therefore we wouldn't even need to determine that now. Solved!
while we watch.
You really thought that? Ha. Black holes? When we see things 'falling into' a certain area of space, you might assume it has to be a black hole..as per the way you theorize a black hole would be. You might think there has to be a lot of dark stuff to explain what you think are gravity caused movements in space. Ever consider it may not be gravity or gravity alone that causes it? Ever consider that there is something else you are not aware of yet that actually causes what you thought was all due to gravity? Ever consider that you reqally don't know, but have merely tried to fit all things into your puny little belief system?
We've watched stars collapse into black holes. Good luck with that!
Since you never considered anything else, remember, all you do is force a match by hook or by crook, by fitting it all into your belief system.
If we had a reason to suspect something else was going on, we'd look into it. Nothing's out of place, so we're good. Another of your crash-and-burns we can set aside as uncontested...
Your models REQUIRE time for distances and mass and etc. Yet you still model as if distances existed as you think of them etc. You have been too busy running in the wrong direction, to stop and think.
Well, this is another non-contest argument from the rafters of 'I Don't Like It!' - set aside too...
Name one? How about the prediction of a black hoe in sn1987a? Let's see it? Ha.
Well, we're still observing sn1987a, so if something interesting happens, then it'll popup on newsfeeds... here's a recent update from Nasa -
HubbleSite: News - The Dawn of a New Era for Supernova 1987A - we've not seen too many black holes happen so it's still something we're learning about.
Obfuscation. Predicting things about billions of imaginary years can never be proven.
Except of course the things we've predicted - namely things that are billions of light years away from us....
The 100% proven prophesies of the bible predicted the life and death of Christ, every major kingdom, the fall of Greece, and Persia, and Babylon, and others. It predicted the 70 year captivity of Israel and etc etc etc. It is the king of predictions.
I can't say I've heard of any predictions. The bible isn't clear on any predictions either - they're all vague enough to be read into a great many things post-fact and what specific predictions it does talk about, it gets wrong.
Show any distance to any star that does not rest on the belief that time exists the same all the way there?
For the thousand-and-first time, Parallax.
False. You have no clue what would happen if time did not exist. Be honest.
Of course we do!
Here...yes. Everything here involves time because time exists HERE!
...and necessarily exists anywhere
Looking at wiki we see this
"In physics, the wavelength of a sinusoidal wave is the spatial period of the wave—the distance over which the wave's shape repeats.."
Distance and time are involved in a wavelength. We see light here where we measure things using time. Light here in time is in wave form, for example....
...yes, yes, I think you might get it now, carry on...
Since we have never seen light anywhere ELSE but here in time, how can we talk of what it may be like there??
The waves and distances in time here must behave a certain way. All light coming here gets 'translated' (for lack of a better term) into waves or whatever we see here.
BAM!!! DISCARDED!!! That's a Foul of the highest order! Here, you're invoking Magic, or some transcended beyond fairytale land assertion with no foundation of any conceivable type, so now we can confidently say you're plucking pucky out your ...... imagination. This is an LSD Trip you're on here, there are no grounds whatsoever for this "I-wish-I-could-Smart-because-I-have-the-dumb!" reply you just posted here for the entire world to see! Seriously, read what you wrote, do you honestly think that rubbish passes even your muster??
roflol!
Bingo!! You see stars acting a certain way and assume we need a black hole to account for it!
That, and we see x-ray radiation from matter being shredded at the event horizon, or immense gamma ray bursts when they collide. We're actually pretty good at finding black holes these days… Here’s an article for the layman on a new intermediary sized black hole – let me know if you’d like to peruse the peer reviewed paper associated with it:
Astronomers Just Found More Evidence of a New Type of Black Hole
Bingo. We see a light shift and as we know shifting to happen on earth, we imagine that causes shifting there. We know on earth a certain time is involved in that redshifting...etc. When we see redshift out where maybe no time exists....we have no idea what is really going on. It is ALL earth based belief based modelling of the unknown.
As already discussed ad-nauseum, no time = no light. We’ve seen this upheld through Einstein’s Theory of Relativity when black holes are observed chomping down on stars and other matter. Provide evidence otherwise...
The fishbowl of this solar system cannot be used to represent the universe. Because there IS time here. You have tried to project the realities of the fishbowl onto all creation, and have done so in a godless way.
There IS time out there too because observations wouldn’t be possible let alone exactly what we expect to see using Relativity.
Vainity and wishful thinking. You have not progressed to any star!
Discarded for lack of substance.
What you know should have evidence...it doesn't. You have shown that in spades.
Discarded for lack of substance.
Baloney. Name one such prediction that predicts what the far universe is like?. You have been dreaming and making stuff up actually.
You wish I was, so let me slap that down quick-smart… Here’s an interesting information webpage someone did back in 2002, it explains quite a number of predictions and observations already made back then – but something you should look at is the pre WMAP modelled image there, it’s only small but it shows four resulting models of various predictions posited and awaiting return of WMAP data due the year after. There’s a prediction for you…:
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~gmackie/BigBang/universe.htm
That of course is a niche one, but Einstein predicted a stack of things, including black holes (which we’ve verified repeatedly despite your “I-Don’t-Like-It!” mantra), gravity waves, that we can observe galaxies spinning via red/blue shifting spirals, heck, even neutrinos!
http://scienceblogs.com/startswitha...the-big-bangs-last-great-prediction-synopsis/ There’s entirely too much confirming observation in support of the standard model that any other contention is literally uneducated ignorance – although in your case, I fear ignorance is bliss...
What ridiculous rubbish!
God made stars to be seen. No Einstein needed. Name a reason why time has to exist where stars are for us to see them here?
Emission of Light and Radiation. Your made up stuff about translating some non-form non-time magic something, something, something into electromagnetic radiation will be discarded as uncontested.
We see light here in a certain way. Time exists here, so we see stars in time. What reason would there be for star light to look differently after entering our time and space zone?
Without time, electromagnetic radiation doesn’t exist.
Stop referring to your great predictive powers and put the example on the table!
Given already.
Yes, I refuted distances to stars, and showed it involves using our time to get distances.
Nope, As presented a trillion times already. If there’s some other mystical not-time thing going on, then it’s incumbent on YOU to demonstrate it. That’s an uphill battle because all of our predictive models, theories and evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that time is pervasive and not only that, but is literally an inseparable part of the fabric of this universe.
Good start.
The bible. Since science has no clue, we can go with that.
The bible isn’t a science book. It doesn’t tell us anything about the observations we make in this universe. Your quip about science not knowing anything is absurdness of the highest order and therefore discarded. Nowhere in the Bible does it say when creation allegedly occurred.
NOTHING you provided does not rely on needing to know distances. If so, what was it? Ha. You seem to be resorting to an urgent apeal to us to just believe time exists in the far universe with NO reason or support. All you offered FIRST assumed time existed there, and built distances and mass, and all things on that. I can safely say the universe science thought existed is imaginary.
Time exists there because of the emission of electromagnetic waves. That’s reason all on its own – not to speak of seeing things at distance doing things. I can’t fathom the depths of stupidity in your ignorance… it’s impossible to be this deluded unless you’re doing it on purpose…. In fact, I’m beginning to think perhaps you’re actually an Atheists hell-bent on making creationists look as uneducated and ignorant as humanly possible, because the levels of disconnect with reality shown here are off the scale...
Maybe start by googling the failed predictions of cosmology?
...which pale into insignificance when compared to the universe full of predictive models, accurate theories and observations we have now.
Where is Jesus? He is where He can be found by those who seek, and the way to find Him has zero to do with godless lying so called science.
So you admit then that Science and Jesus aren’t interrelated? I could accept Jesus without having to drop reality off at the door, along with critical thinking, education and for that matter, my brain? Your system of binary belief is simply untenable. If you think you could win converts to your faith by spouting all this mind-numbing science-opposing diarrhoea, I hate to break it to you but it’ll be an epic failure of the highest order.
No way for you to show us that redshifting is caused only the way you claim or that things converge in space only due to black holes, or that the actual reasons gravity doesn't explain the stars is because of dark stuff...etc etc. Your belief system that was falsely called science is baseless nonsense rather than objective reality.
Well, I’ve given you so much information , links, layman explanations, peer-reviewed research – and I’m not the only one either, there’s been hundreds, if not thousands of forum members here that have preceded me in this effort, all for nought. I know you’re never going to get it and I hold hope that you’re simply a victim of well-entrenched dogma, but it’s hard to find that line between persistence and futility. I justify it because lurkers (as I once was) will be enlightened greatly by your display of weapons-grade ignorance.
The only thng making it look old is stubborn baseless beliefs and a determined willful effort to religiously look at the universe through the lenses of a godless fishbowl.
...religiously ~ through the lens of godless fishbowl??
Discarded!
So you say.
Looking at the basics used in supposed distances I notice this..
"When distances to nearby stars were found using trigonometric parallaxes in the late 19th and early 20th century, it became possible to study the luminosities of stars. Einar Hertzsprung and Henry Norris Russell both plotted stars on a chart of luminosity and temperature. Most stars fall on a single track, known as the Main Sequence, in this diagram, which is now known as the H-R diagram after Hertzsprung and Russell"
Seems like it depends on distances determined by the trig parallax eh? Round and round we go.
Oh, for pete’s sake… I’m not saying you can’t read, or fail at comprehension, but Luminosity and Spectroscopy are two very different things. Luminosity would require distance and diameter to be known, which is why parallax measurements to close stars with observable diameters are our benchmark for luminosity based distance/diameter calculations. Remember back to that basic algebra refresher, if we can derive these values through other methods (and we can, your protests that we can’t are always unfounded) then a luminosity measurement is useful for any number of calculations irrespective distance.
Now, a Spectroscopy is a different thing entirely, and not dependent on distance. It is however dependent on the underlying fabric of time being a consistent thing – if it weren’t then we wouldn’t be able to get a spectroscopy in the first place, let alone the incredibly information rich ones we do get. Links have been provided so many times before that you should just go back and click on a few and read them… you won’t blow up, or melt, or otherwise disintegrate by just reading & learning btw… have a go.
Who wrote that rule? Gabriel came from the heaven of heavens to Daniel in the bible in no time at all. Also, if there were a different degree or amount of time per space in the far universe, whatever moved would still move, it just would not involve the same time!
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics is what tells us this. I’ve already explained this to you too – and offered you links that explain it better and more in depth than would be warranted here – I’ve already chewed up huge sections of forum mansplaining things that you could easy google and learn yourself, so I’m not doing it all again. Go click on something I’ve already given you & read that.
Yes, light moves in whatever time that the space it is in dictates I would assume.
If light moved in different time till it got to the area of the solar system here, (where it would then start to move in our time and space) we would not know. The only way we determine light 'would take' billions of years to move is by looking at how it moves HERE!!!!!!!!
Of course we would, and do know. Einstein’s Relativity allows us to model it, and it’s done routinely by cosmologists and astronomers the world over all the time. The doppler effect is something I’ve already explained to you, half time there would mean we don’t see the light here because it would be outside our viewable spectrum. Same with time being twice as fast there than here, outside what we could see. If time didn’t exist at all there, then no light would be emitted (because nothing would be happening there to emit light in the first place) so the argument isn’t even a starter. i.e. your hypothesis is so wrong that it’s not even wrong.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
Name one prediction about time in the far universe that has been verified!!?
redshifted spectra.
It doesn't disgust me because of what I do not understand, but because of what I do understand!
Geat! Sound’s like you might have evidence about something you believe? Let’s hear it then...
We are not talking about our sun! Our sun is in our time and space.
As is everything else because our models derived locally and extrapolated out to even verifiably close, but still distant stars match perfectly, and modelling further out to distant stellar objects still return verifiable and accurate to what we would expect to see results!
No way. You use a swath of time and space as a baseline. Admit it.
Parallax doesn’t require time, so tough. Admit it, you have nothing, do you? No need to answer, I know it’ll be as non-sensical as smelling the colour nine.
Nope. You can't measure diameter without distance. Simply seeing a star is a fraction of a mm in diameter can't help you.
except we can and do determine distance to nearby stars we can measure diameters of using parallax, which doesn’t require time.
So?? Who asked how big or hot the sun was?
Scientists and researchers who make actual discoveries about our universe do.
As explained NO you can't. You need distances. No luminosity has meaning without that. We could also get into WHY stars are a certain color, or apparent energy.. Ha. Your whole idea of the inside of a star is bad religion. Temperature...etc etc. What if a star worked some other way? Remember they used to claim it was (if I recall) gravity or something making the energy for stars? Later they discovered nuclear fusion, and changed over to that as the cause. How about some other cause we never thought of yet? Why try to mold all of God's creation into your little limited experience and concepts?
...so essentially, you’re still quoting Pauline Hanson (“I Don’t Like It!”) and besides, if it was different, then it would be different… Not sure what you mean by gravity making energy, then nuclear fusion – unless we just witnessed another face-plant-a-thon in full swing? Gravity is what causes the tremendous pressures and temperatures at the center of stars that causes nuclear fusion to occur in the first place…. So both statements are correct – perhaps you just missed science at school entirely? Stay in School Kids!
As explained OUR time is not required for movement.
Time is required though. Using spectrosopy we can determine other things including the consistency of time there as it relates to us here – but I’ve explained this to you so many times already...
Show us precisely how relativity applies to the far universe?
Redshifted spectra.
As shown, of course it does, they ride on trig parallax.
No, you’re conflating Spectroscopy with Luminosity – they’re very different measurements for very different things. Luminosity isn’t necessarily dependent on distance either… just sayin’
Name anything about one that matters to us for the issue of time in the far universe then?? Ha.
Ahh,
Type Ia Supernova Luminosity output over time! See?? I told you we don’t always need Distance… in fact, Luminosity of a Type Ia Supernova actually gives us our distance in this case.
It is a way they thought they could GET distance!
and DO GET distance… do you think Mathematics doesn’t work because it’s a godless heathen conspiracy to lure souls to an eternity of damnation??
Nor does it give distance! Hoo ha.
Actually, it Does!
lol! As mentioned just before, the luminosity of a Type Ia Supernovae gives us an accurate distance for it.
Not in any way is this true as demonstrated.
Discarded, “I Don’t Like It!” isn’t an argument.
You kidding??
"Measuring the mass of stars in binary systems is easy. Binary systems are sets of two or more stars in orbit about each other. By measuring the size of the orbit, the stars' orbital speeds, and their orbital periods, we can determine exactly what the masses of the stars are. We can take that knowledge and then apply it to similar stars not in multiple systems."
Home - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer
The size of orbit REQUIRES distance! Speeds also...we need to know how big and far away something is to determine speed. As for periods, that is time! Hoo ha.
Soooo….. You’re reading about a special fringe case for binary star systems only. We don’t need time to measure total mass of these types, or for that matter just about everything else’s mass.
Also, I take it you admit time is occurring there then??
At last, Thank you!
We wait for ANY evidence for distance which you need for all the rest of your silly house of card theories.
Parallax. Type Ia Supernova. Hubble’s Law.
I feel like this has been an excellent conversation about the importance of unmolested science education in public schools, Thank you!
