Light years is a time measure

[Loudmouth]

Your link didn't work on my computer. But distance has to be known, before the decay observed takes on meaning. No?

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

Here is the .pdf

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/..._paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Distance and size depend on time being the same all the way. Parallax uses time as you know. To get 2 sides of the triangle, time is intricately woven in.

Time was shown to be the same at Supernova 1987a as shown by the decay of cobalt which exactly matched that seen on Earth. This was derived independently of any distance measurement. It demonstrated that the laws governing the four fundamental forces and time were the same at Supernova 1987a.

If SN1987a were for example, only 2 light years away, do you think the calculations would be accurate for decay, and the other claims?

Yes. The measurement of cobalt is independent of distance.

 

[dad]

No, it doesn't. Why would it?

Here is the .pdf

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1990MNRAS.245..570V&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

Not working again. Just say it in your own words.

Time was shown to be the same at Supernova 1987a as shown by the decay of cobalt which exactly matched that seen on Earth. This was derived independently of any distance measurement.

Let's check your claim, not that I doubt it.... Proof? How was it checked?

It demonstrated that the laws governing the four fundamental forces and time were the same at Supernova 1987a.

We shall see.

Yes. The measurement of cobalt is independent of distance.

Well, without the decay being far away, it loses all meaning anyhow! If it was near earth, who cares if it decayed? Distance is needed on your end. Remember, you guys say things like 'the rings expanded for a year, so the ring must be so big'..No? Then you use time on and near earth in the calculations for distance!

Without true distance size is impossible to know. Just measuring something out in space is meaningless without distance. One could put a hand grenade maybe 1/4 light year away from earth, and if we could explode it there, we might get similar readings! The heavy elements would have a decay curve!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_peak

Distance is needed. Of course we have the rings which were not predicted at all, but claimed to have been here already. We have the wrong type of star blowing than was expected. We have the missing neutron star predicted...etc!!!! What a scream.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not working again. Just say it in your own words.

Already did. They measured the disappearance of cobalt isotopes in Supernova 1987a, and it matched the rate of decay on Earth.

Let's check your claim, not that I doubt it.... Proof? How was it checked?

Here is the title of the paper if you want to find it yourself:

"Direct Observation of Radioactive Cobalt Decay in Supernova 1987A"

Title says it all.

Well, without the decay being far away, it loses all meaning anyhow!

It is far away. What is with this continuing dishonesty on your part?

Distance is needed on your end.

Distance is supplied.

The Distance to Supernova 1987a

 

[dad]

Already did. They measured the disappearance of cobalt isotopes in Supernova 1987a, and it matched the rate of decay on Earth.

Based on earth time. Based on how long we saw it take to 'decay' here. Well, seems to me if time were different, and the time was many months or days different, that we better ask what was decaying...if anything!

It is far away. What is with this continuing dishonesty on your part?

It is only far away if we inject a belief that has NO basis in fact and no proof or evidence! That belief is that time exists the same all the way out in the great unknown space. Your distances and sizes all consist only of that belief.


You have no distances. Ha ha.

 

[Loudmouth]

Based on earth time. Based on how long we saw it take to 'decay' here.

The decay was measured at Supernova 1987a, not on Earth.

It is only far away if we inject a belief that has NO basis in fact and no proof or evidence!

I just showed you the proof which are constant decay rates at Supernova 1987a.

You have no distances. Ha ha.

Yes, I do, and you have no counterargument.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's look at the title of the paper again:

""Direct Observation of Radioactive Cobalt Decay in Supernova 1987A"

Not "on Earth". Not "in Earth". It clearly states "in Supernova 1987a".

 

[dad]

The decay was measured at Supernova 1987a, not on Earth.

That would need to be at a known distance and size. The decay means time taken to do something. That time was observed on earth! Here it took so much time.


I just showed you the proof which are constant decay rates at Supernova 1987a.

 

[dad]

Let's look at the title of the paper again:

""Direct Observation of Radioactive Cobalt Decay in Supernova 1987A"

Not "on Earth". Not "in Earth". It clearly states "in Supernova 1987a".

It means as seen from earth. Face the issues and facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would need to be at a known distance and size.

It is known.

Supernova 1987A | AAVSO

The decay means time taken to do something. That time was observed on earth!

It was observed in Supernova 1987a. Those rates were the same 170,000 years ago.

 

[Loudmouth]

It means as seen from earth. Face the issues and facts.

So even when we can observe the same rates at a distant star, it doesn't count. You ask for evidence that decay rates are the same at different distances, and I supply that evidence. You run away from it.

Your dishonesty is on display for everyone to see.

 

[dad]

It is known.

Supernova 1987A | AAVSO



It was observed in Supernova 1987a. Those rates were the same 170,000 years ago.

That is only true if time exists at SN1987a as it does here. You are starting to sound like a malfunctioning robot.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is only true if time exists at SN1987a as it does here.

The decay rates demonstrate that it does.

Added by edit:

Let's think about this for a minute, shall we?

You claim that decay rates were different in the past, and hence they are different at a distance. It would seem to me that we could settle this quite easily. All I need to do is observe the same decay rates right here on Earth and at a distant object. That is exactly what we have with SN1987a. It is no different than watching two clocks at different distances.

 

[RealityCheck]

Based on earth time. Based on how long we saw it take to 'decay' here. Well, seems to me if time were different, and the time was many months or days different, that we better ask what was decaying...if anything!

It is only far away if we inject a belief that has NO basis in fact and no proof or evidence! That belief is that time exists the same all the way out in the great unknown space. Your distances and sizes all consist only of that belief.


You have no distances. Ha ha.

So, you would claim, dad, that these objects that we measure as being very far away.... are actually closer than they seem to be?

 

[RealityCheck]

The decay rates demonstrate that it does.

Added by edit:

Let's think about this for a minute, shall we?

You claim that decay rates were different in the past, and hence they are different at a distance. It would seem to me that we could settle this quite easily. All I need to do is observe the same decay rates right here on Earth and at a distant object. That is exactly what we have with SN1987a. It is no different than watching two clocks at different distances.

No, it appears that what he's claiming is that the decay rates can be different right now in other parts of the universe.

Oddly enough, we have here a (supposed) fundamentalist arguing for a universe in which there is no order.

 

[dad]

The decay rates demonstrate that it does.

Added by edit:

Let's think about this for a minute, shall we?

You claim that decay rates were different in the past,

No. Get over it. Not merely different...not here.

and hence they are different at a distance.

No. Forget different, we need the distance. Unless it was more than 4500 light years away in real distance and unless time were the same all the way, all is skewed beyond recognition for you.

It would seem to me that we could settle this quite easily. All I need to do is observe the same decay rates right here on Earth and at a distant object. That is exactly what we have with SN1987a. It is no different than watching two clocks at different distances.

How distant becomes the issue. I am not saying (yet) that there is no decay at the distance of the star. I am saying let's see the basis exactly for how we know what is decaying. Not in a link, just simply explain how we know it is cobalt. Not that we do not all know already probably. But in posting the basis maybe we can see where you start the error curve.

 

[dad]

No, it appears that what he's claiming is that the decay rates can be different right now in other parts of the universe.

Oddly enough, we have here a (supposed) fundamentalist arguing for a universe in which there is no order.

I am not really claiming anything about decay. I can accept evidence for a decay that is exact, or that we may observe in a way that alters our ability to know the light curve details enough to really nail er.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. Get over it. Not merely different...not here.

We are observing the rate of decay IN supernova 1987a. How is that any different than watching a clock tick across the room, or in the other room?

Forget different, we need the distance.

We have the distance. It is approx. 170,000 light years.

Supernova 1987A | AAVSO

How distant becomes the issue.

How is it any more of an issue than a clock ticking in the next room, or across the street?

 

[dad]

So, you would claim, dad, that these objects that we measure as being very far away.... are actually closer than they seem to be?

Maybe. Maybe further! Maybe bigger..maybe a lot lot lot lot smaller! The issue is how we know. The ruler you used to measure distance had time in it. So time has to be uniform as we leave earth for your claims to have merit.

 

[dad]

We are observing the rate of decay IN supernova 1987a. How is that any different than watching a clock tick across the room, or in the other room?

Well, if the room were actually a thimble, and what was decaying was determine by how long a light curve or anything else took to do something....boy could it be different!!!!

We have the distance. It is approx. 170,000 light years.

No. You have assumptions and beliefs that a light year is distance, which means that time is the same. That is religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Maybe. Maybe further! Maybe bigger..maybe a lot lot lot lot smaller! The issue is how we know. The ruler you used to measure distance had time in it. So time has to be uniform as we leave earth for your claims to have merit.

Why just Earth? Why not leaving a room, or crossing the street? Why not 1 foot away from you?

Why such an arbitrary definition?