Two important points. The unfolding of all we see here is in OUR time. However long anything takes is ONLY how long it takes in this timespace zone. That doesn't tell us about time in the stars!
Sure it does, haven't you heard of Einsteins Theory of General and Special Relativity?
Secondly, there is no distances that can be known unless time is homogeneous also. Your distances are fantasy. Imaginary. Invented, and belief based entirely. Sizes and mass etc also.
According to you, however reality says "Not So!" Sorry....
You should take the time to learn some science, my friend. Time isn’t homogeneous, however the underpinning principles to how time works in this universe is homogeneous.
Since you know NO sizes or distances you do not know really what is lensing what or how. It has been assumed that because in the solar system, gravity causes lensing of light, that this would be the cause everywhere. That is a leap of faith.
Nope, because we have quite a number of ways to find all of these issues out using Einsteins theories.
That may be a bigger question than we would deal with in the thread.
Well this discrepancy in epistemology is the very reason for this thread.
? Show us the way you get a distance by redshifting?
Sure. From
Measuring the Distance to Nearby Galaxies , the mathematical equation is
where "lambda_0" is the rest wavelength of the radiation, and is "lambda_v" is the observed wavelength which has been shifted due to the radial motion between the object and the observer. It is common to use "delta_lambda" to represent the observed wavelength minus the rest wavelength. Wavelengths of optical light are usually measured in either Angstroms (1 Å = 10-10 m) or nanometers (1 nm = 10 -9 m).
In the data collected by Hubble, the characteristic absorption and emission line features in the spectrum due to hydrogen, calcium and other elements which appear at longer (redder) wavelengths than in a terrestrial laboratory. One can use the measured wavelengths of known spectral lines to determine the velocity of a galaxy. For example:
Absorption lines of hydrogen, normally measured to be at 4861Å and 6563Å, are measured in the spectrum of a particular galaxy to be at 4923Å and 6647Å.
The speed of light, c, has a constant value of 300,000 km/sec.
Therefore this galaxy has a redshift of
z = [(4923 - 4861) / 4861] and z = [(6647 - 6563) / 6563]
z = [62 / 4861] and z = [84 / 6563]
z = 0.01275
and the is moving away from us with a velocity, v = c * z = 300,000 km/sec * 0.01275 = 3826 km/sec
The Hubble Distance - Redshift Relationship
When Hubble plotted the redshift vs. the distance of the galaxies, he found a surprising relation: more distant galaxies are moving faster away from us. Hubble concluded that the fainter and smaller the galaxy, the more distant it is, and the faster it is moving away from us, or that the recessional velocity of a galaxy is proportional to its distance from us:
v = Ho d,
where v is the galaxy's velocity (in km/sec), d is the distance to the galaxy (in megaparsecs; 1 Mpc = 1 million parsecs), and Ho proportionality constant, called "The Hubble constant".
Don't take my word for it though, but go to the link I provided because it shows the diagrams and measurements taken (and plotted) as well as showing the redshifted absorption band in the spectra of the galaxies being measured. Heck, there's even a click-through exercise at the bottom where you'll be walked through calculating your own ages based on these observations! I dare you to do it!
That gives distance you thought?
Yep.
Distance. These tell us Distance, Dad. They tell us Distance in independent ways to all the other ways we can calculate Distance. These calculated distances correlate, despite coming to their results independently.
Using a swath of time and space hundreds of millions of miles long doesn't tell us about time or/and space far away.
Except that it Does because of Einstein's Theories of Relativity.
Name one. All depend on time. Accept it. Deal with it.
Parallax to a target doesn't deal with time (Parallax FROM a target does though, and we'll cover that for you in a moment.
). Intensity in the brightness of a Type Ia Supernova doesn't deal with time. Spectroscopy doesn’t deal with time.
You see the problem? Look at that word HERE!
Nope, no problem. We recreated the circumstances HERE that match the exact same circumstances we see it happening THERE. so they match... if they match, then they are necessarily the same.
You assume what we see in stars equals things here. You assume a star can't be light without the sort of nuclear reactions we know here. You assume things about the distance and mass and size of stars. You assume things about the core and origin of stars. Together you have a pile of baseless godless religion.
Nope, one word Dad, SPECTROSCOPY! We can see what a star is made up of because of the light emitted, and more importantly, absorbed from a particular star/galaxy/supernova. We know exactly how redshifted the light is getting to us because of the very narrow bands of absorbed light we see. An example is on the webpage I linked earlier about calculating the Hubble Distance, go have another look at the Gif on that page cycling through each galaxy and the emitted & absorbed bands of light we observe.
Here’s another link that comprehensively shows the how and why of a spectrograph -
Obtaining Astronomical Spectra- Spectrographs – it shows actual readings from a star and some galaxies – this link here at
Types of Astronomical Spectra also shows further spectra readings from a number of interstellar sources and to boot, it also explains the differences in these emissions and what they mean (i.e. continuum, absorption and emission spectrums).
This page here is Great!
Spectral Classes It shows an array of spectral classes and how to read them! You can examine the contents of the stars, their temperatures, sizes and life spans.
You’ll also find a spectral class summary and a luminosity class table there as well – tells you lots about what we know of stars.
Baloney. Give an example of any star that can only work if the distances you impose are correct!!! Why make such claims unless you know what you are talking about? Let's see the goods.
Any example to be honest, but let’s use SN1987a (yes, I used this because you referred to it, meaning there’s a chance you’ve already read up on it somewhat). See in particular,
SN 1987A - Wikipedia where the article states the method by which we can measure the distance to the circumstellar ring surrounding the remnants of this star. We measure this independently of time btw…
Now, anything emitting light necessarily has time. If there wasn’t time then light wouldn’t emit and therefore we wouldn’t see it. We see it, so this isn’t the case. Next thing, if time wasn’t approximately the same as it is here, then the light we see leaving the star and arriving here would either be so redshifted or blue shifted as to be nearly invisible to us. This isn’t so, and therefore we can forget about that nonsense as well. So, with these points of fact under our belt, let’s see what we can work out… Everytime we see a star go supernova (and we see them all the time), the light spectrum luminosity output falls onto a bell curve over time. We also get an early warning in the form of gamma ray burst, in exactly the same way we do when a nuclear weapon is detonated. Remember, if time wasn’t a thing there, or was markedly different, then this output would be vastly different or non-existent/invisible to us. In particular, the spectrograph of absorbed light (ionised hydrogen and sulphur) would inevitably tell us how far redshifted or blueshifted our light source is, and therefore we can calculate using our predictive models accordingly. W can detect the decay of various highly unstable elements as predicted by Atomic Theory which we expect to be produced under our understood models of Supernovae. With SN1987a, we also have a number of other phenomena we can measure. The ring material from the stellar wind that preceded the supernova were also seen to have lit up with the light from the supernova 0.66 light years after the fact, which we observed from here. Again, if time was different or non-existent, we wouldn’t see the light reach this ring material in the spectrum we do – or we wouldn’t see it at all. If it’s your contention they’re very close and small, then the gravitational intensity wouldn’t be enough to collapse the star into fusing elements in the first place, let alone go supernova after exhausting enough of the elements it could fuse. Any process where light is given off is necessarily involving time.
For info, check out this page at
Information from Astronomical Spectra – there’s a great summary in laypeople speak on what redshift/blueshifted spectrums mean, how we can tell the radial velocity, how we detect spectroscopic binaries, how we find some exoplanets, etc. If time were different there, then the light getting to us would be completely out of range and we wouldn’t be able to glean any information at all, let alone the reams we can now… The visible spectrum is so narrow that if time were different by even just half, then the spectrum would be completely out of range for us and we likely wouldn’t be able to see it.
What silly circular logic. Name any prediction that is as you claim. I see they thought SN1987a was a certain star, but ran models after the fact and changed the story. Some prediction. I see no rings were predicted. I see a black hole was predicted yet there is none! Etc etc. Try to learn the dif between a prediction, and a religious after the fact scrambling to try and patch up the silly godless theories science worships.
Our understanding of these types of stars was deepened, yes – this is what Science does in light of the facts. Would you be happier if Science dogmatically denied the evidence?? That isn’t how progress is made...
, Too bad for your belief system then.
lol! It’s working fine for our understanding of the Universe, it’s YOUR belief system that doesn’t work in any way… when you actually look at the facts, that is...
I don't believe stars operate or originate the way you claim. No one needs to change things to make that pig fly. Your distances are bogus. Your years are imaginary. Your whole idea of stars is wrong!
I Accept that Challenge! Pick one thing about stars you believe shows a 6,000 year old universe and let’s unpack that. Your belief has no effect on reality.
Having anything different than the fishbowl seems like magic to some I guess.
Well, reality works best when you base your knowledge and decisions on what reality tells you.
It applies fishbowl logic to things it doesn't understand.
well, that’d just be logic to the rest of us… verifiable facts are demonstrably better for decision making than any non-’fishbowl’ logic ever has been – this is just a fact.
Don't try to ride the coattails of actual earth science and knowledge with the lying fables and story manufacturing of so called science.
except they’re one and the same, sooooo…...
Relax. It ain't going anywhere.
but the fact is that we’re changing it permanently, and this is an inescapable fact.
Common ancestors and stellar evolution gave us nothing ever. It's purpose is to destroy faith in God. It is a crime against humanity. Child abuse.
Child abuse is withholding life-saving medical treatment in lieu of prayers. Child abuse is telling children they’ll burn in hell if they don’t believe in your particular version of your particular God. Child abuse is unnecessarily lying to them about what reality shows.
What isn’t child abuse is teaching critical thinking, teaching facts about reality is also not Child Abuse. The fact is, if your beliefs were demonstrably true, then you wouldn’t have to spend so much time denying what reality actually shows us. You're painting yourself into a corner by implying your God is lying to us about his creation. Why would he lie to us about his creation, does he deliberately sow these seeds of doubt?
I completely get that you have no comeback.
Don't think so! The stuff we see need not be caused by what you say. Prove it. Or lose it.
Already done above, go to the link I gave you earlier in this post.
I have no expectation you’ll actually assess it honestly, that’s really for the lurkers to see the dishonesty in your position, so they learn the value of reality over unfounded & untenable positions like yours…. As I once did.
Right. You invented a more elaborate but similar sequence of events that require things like distances you invent and mass and sizes, and then you say they are needed to cause the sequence!!! Circular religion.
Except it isn’t, as per the methods and link I gave you earlier.
indeed.
