Light years is a time measure

[dad]

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

Why such an arbitrary definition?

Forget the reasons, which may or may not be completely accurate, but we know time is different as we leave earth. More so on a hill than a bale top, more yet in a plane, more yet in space!

 

[Loudmouth]

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!!!!

How would you determine if a clock next to you and a clock in the next room were ticking at the same rate?

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

No assumptions are being made. The speed of light is part of many different parameters in physics. You should know that, having Einstein in your avatar and all. Remember E=mc^2? If you change time you change the speed of light, and you change the amount of energy. If you change energy you change emission lines and decay rates. We observe the same emission lines and decay rates in SN1987a. That is what tells us that time, distance, and the speed of light are all the same at SN1987a. No assumptions are being made.

 

[TheBear]

Why such an arbitrary definition?

It isn't arbitrary. Remember, the earth is the center of it all!

 

[dad]

How would you determine if a clock next to you and a clock in the next room were ticking at the same rate?

Call my friend and ask. You have no friend on a star. (we hope)

No assumptions are being made. The speed of light is part of many different parameters in physics.

The stars are not here, or part of physics I suggest. Your fishbowl schemes and observations are all here.

You should know that, having Einstein in your avatar and all. Remember E=mc^2? If you change time you change the speed of light, and you change the amount of energy.

Forget the speed IN our space and time! Now think of light moving where time doesn't exist, or exists in a different way! The time involved to get somewhere is now the speed, and has no relation to earth time. Time therefore is relative. The renders spacetime as Einstein conceived it to be earth area (fishbowl) time and space only! Not applicable to the universe.

If you change energy you change emission lines and decay rates.

Bingo. But what you mean is if we change energy in spacetime. Not an issue. Spacetime is just earth space and time and how man experiences and perceives it here.

We observe the same emission lines and decay rates in SN1987a.

I am waiting for you to give us the cobalt details in your own words. We shall see.

That is what tells us that time,

Maybe it tells us in the fishbowl time. But it does not stuff time into the fishbowl, and make it uniform in all the universe!

distance, and the speed of light are all the same at SN1987a.

Distance depends on time being the same, or a light year cannot be a light year! It is likely only a light year on earth. No distance is known, or therefore many other things like size!

 

[dad]

It isn't arbitrary. Remember, the earth is the center of it all!

I agree that time may start here for this universe.

 

[RealityCheck]

Forget the reasons, which may or may not be completely accurate, but we know time is different as we leave earth. More so on a hill than a bale top, more yet in a plane, more yet in space!

So like I thought, you're arguing for time being different at different places here on earth.

 

[RealityCheck]

Still waiting on dad to answer the problem of arguing in favor of a non uniform, unordered universe.

 

[Loudmouth]

Call my friend and ask. You have no friend on a star. (we hope)

How would you know if time were the same? What measurements would you compare?

The stars are not here, or part of physics I suggest. Your fishbowl schemes and observations are all here.

What fishbowl? Evidence please.

The clock across the room is not here, either. The clock in another building is not here. How would you determine that they are all ticking at the same rate?

Forget the speed IN our space and time! Now think of light moving where time doesn't exist, or exists in a different way!

I have. General relativity can give us all that info. If time were different then we would see massive blue or redshifts which aren't seen in SN1987a. If the speed of light were different then the amount of energy per mass would be different which would produce different emission and absorption lines.

We have considered all of this. Perhaps it is time you did.

I am waiting for you to give us the cobalt details in your own words. We shall see.

Cobalt was detected in SN1987a by using the emission lines for cobalt, the same way that we measure atoms here on Earth.

Maybe it tells us in the fishbowl time.

What fishbowl? Evidence please.

 

[dad]

So like I thought, you're arguing for time being different at different places here on earth.

Which part of 'as we leave earth' did you think meant on earth???

 

[dad]

How would you know if time were the same? What measurements would you compare?

Exactly!!! You do not and can not know...away from earth.

The clock across the room is not here, either. The clock in another building is not here. How would you determine that they are all ticking at the same rate?

If the clock is out of the fishbowl of Eartha, science can't. That is exactly your dilemma.

I have. General relativity can give us all that info. If time were different then we would see massive blue or redshifts which aren't seen in SN1987a.

Absurd. Doesn't even make sense.

If the speed of light were different then the amount of energy per mass would be different which would produce different emission and absorption lines.

You do not even know what speed is apparently! The velocity which something moves through time. Regardless of velocity, if time itself is different, the 'speed' will not be the same. How much energy does it take too move through a different time!!!??? How would mass react to moving through different time???! What would be absorbed how in different time??!
*staff edit*

Cobalt was detected in SN1987a by using the emission lines for cobalt, the same way that we measure atoms here on Earth.

Great. So how can we know that set of colors is unique to each element when a time difference exists? Could time affect the colors we see on earth??


" When this light is decomposed using a prism it is found to be made up of a series of ``lines'', that is, the output from the prism is not a smooth spectrum of colors, but only a few of them show up"

Emission and absorption lines

If you get by that one, how can we know that the light curve or decay curve represents time as we know it?


*staff edit*

 

[RealityCheck]

Exactly!!! You do not and can not know...away from earth.

His point was that you can't even know on earth to absolute certainty. If you disagree, demonstrate how you can know that a clock elsewhere on earth that you cannot see or hear or otherwise sense is marking time the same way yours does.

You do not even know what speed is apparently! The velocity which something moves through time.

No, you clearly are demonstrating that you don't understand VERY BASIC PHYSICS TERMS.

Speed = distance traveled over time as a scalar value (no direction)
Velocity = distance traveled over time as a vector value (direction)

Speed is not "velocity through time."

*staff edit*

Regardless of velocity, if time itself is different, the 'speed' will not be the same.

And neither will distance.

How much energy does it take too move through a different time!!!??? How would mass react to moving through different time???! What would be absorbed how in different time??!

Hmmm... a bunch of absurd questions based on fantastical guessing. You may as well be asking "How many elves does it take to eat through a Jello dragon?"

It doesn't matter. You're once again proposing something for which you have no evidence. No reason to believe it at all. The observable universe, on the other hand, provides plenty of evidence that things do work elsewhere the same way they do here.

If you're going to try to have a science discussion, dad, two things:

1. Understand science.
2. Provide evidence that your idea has grounding in reality.

 

[dad]

His point was that you can't even know on earth to absolute certainty. If you disagree, demonstrate how you can know that a clock elsewhere on earth that you cannot see or hear or otherwise sense is marking time the same way yours does.

Well, who cares? What if there are some time wells, where distortions occur here on earth? Who says it all has to be uniform exactly in all the universe either?

No, you clearly are demonstrating that you don't understand VERY BASIC PHYSICS TERMS.

False. I am showing that they are limited in scope, and cannot deal with time in the universe.

Speed = distance traveled over time as a scalar value (no direction)
Velocity = distance traveled over time as a vector value (direction)

Speed is not "velocity through time."

*staff edit*

Light comes from a star. That is a direction. It comes at a certain speed as observed on earth.

Try not to obfuscate. If I was in a sector of space where time did not exist, how much time would like take to get through that area, and at what speed would it travel!!!!???

It doesn't matter. You're once again proposing something for which you have no evidence.

The evidence abounds that science does not know what time in deep space is or if it is. God proposed that He created earth first, then the stars. Your fantastical unevidenced proposals of the universe are in direct opposition to God's. Too bad you have NO evidence! *staff edit*

No reason to believe it at all. The observable universe, on the other hand, provides plenty of evidence that things do work elsewhere the same way they do here.

That means the fishbowl. That is where you observe. On and near earth. Nowhere else. Ever. When you observe something in a sector of the universe (here) where time exists in a certain degree and way, you cannot assume this represents all eternity and the universe.

 

[RealityCheck]

Well, who cares? What if there are some time wells, where distortions occur here on earth? Who says it all has to be uniform exactly in all the universe either?

Who cares? Isn't the supposed purpose of this thread precisely about whether time exists uniformly or not? *staff edit*

False. I am showing that they are limited in scope, and cannot deal with time in the universe.

Nope. You don't get to redefine the meanings of words to suit your wild ideas. *staff edit*

(As you no doubt missed the point, the last sentence is what happens when you try to redefine words to suit yourself... you end up with NONSENSE. and that's all you've spouted in this thread.)

Light comes from a star. That is a direction. It comes at a certain speed as observed on earth.

Try not to obfuscate. If I was in a sector of space where time did not exist, how much time would like take to get through that area, and at what speed would it travel!!!!???

*staff edit*...I will answer your silly question with a serious answer.

IF you were in some part of space where time didn't exist.... a nonsense concept to begin with but anyway.... then light wouldn't travel at all. Nothing would. Speed would not happen because speed is dependent on time. Speed... as I said before and which you barely grasped.... is distance over time. If there is no time, there is also no speed.

Your hypothetical is just as nonsensical as "what if I was in some part of time when space doesn't exist????"

The evidence abounds that science does not know what time in deep space is or if it is. God proposed that He created earth first, then the stars. Your fantastical unevidenced proposals of the universe are in direct opposition to God's. Too bad you have NO evidence! *staff edit*

There we go. You finally admit that this is all just about trying to dissuade believers from questioning the bible, not about getting anyone to seriously question science. This was known all along.... you just couldn't admit it earlier.


You lose.

 

[dad]

His point was that you can't even know on earth to absolute certainty. If you disagree, demonstrate how you can know that a clock elsewhere on earth that you cannot see or hear or otherwise sense is marking time the same way yours does.

We can know that time is different as we get higher from earth. Don't descend into your Last Thursdayism here.

Speed = distance traveled over time as a scalar value (no direction)

False!!!! That could not be true if time was not there, or was different! In that case speed is relative!!!! Indeed. You are on a losing roll here...*staff edit*.

Velocity = distance traveled over time as a vector value (direction)

Same as above. One cannot travel over time unless it is there!

Speed is not "velocity through time."

Speed of light has to do with light moving in a direction through time and space actually. Rethink your position.


So, the issue is time existing in the far universe, and doing so exactly as on and near earth. The glaringly obvious fact is that you do not know it does or does not. Post accordingly.

All distances and sized to stars are out the window.

 

[dad]

*staff edit* Well, as for time and space, let's hear from the guy that invented black holes.


"
theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking says black holes don’t actually exist..." (ha has he been lurking here? I have said that for years.)

" But now, Hawking says event horizons don’t exist. "

Now here's the juicy part..

"But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”

Yahoo News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

Ha.

Also from that link we see this..

 

[dad]

Who cares? Isn't the supposed purpose of this thread precisely about whether time exists uniformly or not? *staff edit*

Who cares if there were some minor time differences on earth? We know there is a time difference when we go up and out from earth! That was the point. Pray for comprehension.

Nope. You don't get to redefine the meanings of words to suit your wild ideas. *staff edit*

Yes, when talking about time not existing, your fishbowl concepts of velocity or speed are neutered.

Since you lack a basic understanding of the fundamentals of math and science I will answer your silly question with a serious answer.

IF you were in some part of space where time didn't exist.... a nonsense concept to begin with but anyway.... then light wouldn't travel at all.

Says who? Prove it? You can't just claim stuff. If time was less in an area than it is here, then light would move fine, it just would not involve the time it does here!

Nothing would. Speed would not happen because speed is dependent on time. Speed... as I said before and which you barely grasped.... is distance over time. If there is no time, there is also no speed.

Yeah yeah, but the issue is whether time exists as we know it exactly. Try to deal with that. If there were no time, or inverted time, well, I think that is several steps above the pay grade of so called science.

There we go. You finally admit that this is all just about trying to dissuade believers from questioning the bible, not about getting anyone to seriously question science. This was known all along.... you just couldn't admit it earlier.

Only the bible gives clues about the places far far beyond the reach and range of science.


How sweet it is.

 

[RealityCheck]

Well, as for time and space, let's hear from the guy that invented black holes.


"
theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking says black holes don’t actually exist..." (ha has he been lurking here? I have said that for years.)

" But now, Hawking says event horizons don’t exist. "

Now here's the juicy part..

"But these are highly quantum conditions, and there’s ambiguity about what space-time even is, let alone whether there is a definite region that can be marked as an event horizon.”

Yahoo News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

Ha.

Also from that link we see this..

*staff edit*

Let's quote Stephen Hawking in full then from the article...

But now, Hawking says event horizons don’t exist. However, he does say that “apparent horizons” could exist, meaning that light technically could escape from the deep gravitational pull of a black hole. Put simply, an apparent horizon would only temporarily hold light and information, eventually releasing them back into space.

And then let's *properly* attribute the quote about the ambiguity of space time to Don Page, not Hawking. Page was merely commenting on whether Hawking's revised view of black holes is reasonable. And while there may be ambiguity about *what* space-time is, Page did not say there was ambiguity about whether it exists or not, or whether space and time are, as theory repeatedly confirms, inseparably linked dimensions. "Ambiguity" does not translate to "we don't even know if it's really real or not!!!"

 

[RealityCheck]

Says who? Prove it? You can't just claim stuff. If time was less in an area than it is here, then light would move fine, it just would not involve the time it does here!

That's not the parameter you gave. You explicitly asked what would happen if you were in a part of space where time didn't exist. I gave you the corresponding answer.

You lose again.

 

[dad]

That's not the parameter you gave. You explicitly asked what would happen if you were in a part of space where time didn't exist. I gave you the corresponding answer.

No, you gave an answer as best you could about things too high for you. If either time was increased or decreased incrementally in relation to earth or time ceased to exist as we know it, then you cannot say light would not move.

 

[dad]

*staff edit*

Let's quote Stephen Hawking in full then from the article...

It says no event horizon. Earlier in the article is said no black holes. So are you saying the article was bogus?

And then let's *properly* attribute the quote about the ambiguity of space time to Don Page, not Hawking.

Right, anyone reading the article would see the context. However, it doesn't matter who states it, so much as whether that is representative of science. The guy had it right. Of course science is limited.

Page was merely commenting on whether Hawking's revised view of black holes is reasonable. And while there may be ambiguity about *what* space-time is, Page did not say there was ambiguity about whether it exists or not, or whether space and time are, as theory repeatedly confirms, inseparably linked dimensions. "Ambiguity" does not translate to "we don't even know if it's really real or not!!!"

Well, if Hawking still believes in black holes, I guess that article in science daily was somewhat less than clear.


The reason black holes were invented was to use earth laws to explain what we see far away. Right?