Starlight and Time

[dad1]

Does science know what time, specifically time in the distant universe is? If you claim it does, then be prepared to support that claim.

If science does not know that time exists out there in a way we know it here, then one implication is that no distances are knowable to distant stars.

Why? Because distances depend on the uniform existence of time. If time (in this example 4 billion light years from earth) did not exist the same as time near earth, then what might take a billion years (of time as we know it here) for light to travel a certain distance in space might, for all we know, take minutes weeks or seconds of time as it exists out THERE!

So what methods does science have to measure time there? I am not aware of any. Movements observed at a great distance and observed from OUR time and space would not qualify. Such observations would only tell us how much time as seen here it would take if time were the same there.

How this relates to religion is that a six day creation thousands of years ago cannot be questioned using cosmology if it really did not take light that reaches us on earth and area a lot of time to get here.

[Jose Fly]

If "refusal to acknowledge the value of expertise" is how you really choose to interpret being disagreed with

LOL....I never said anything like that.

then that really is your problem not anyone else's.

Oh there's a problem here all right....it's with your reading comprehension.

[dad1]

No need to ... it is obvious from your responses and nonanswers that you're not the least bit interested in how science works or what it has and has not worked out as far as cosmology and physics.

The issue is whether science knows time exists the same in the universe. You cannot merely believe it does and then 'work out' how the universe works. You need to be prepared for people to check your work and the basis for it.

Really? Do you know what spectroscopy is and how atoms and molecules absorb and emit light? Since you made no responses to any of that I assume the answer is no, but you certainly have not "addressed each item carefully" (unless that means not at all).

Again, you cannot blame your lack of understanding answers on anyone else. The light is seen here. Everything therefore about that light must represent it existing here. Any information in that light has now started to exist here. If all you do is interpret what you see in that light here using the time and space and laws here, then what does that tell you about somewhere else where time is not known to exist as it does here? Your ideas about what you see are completely limited and formed by the realities here.

Shown? You haven't "shown" anything yet

No one has addressed the topic in any real or direct way. There has been NO science offered that shows what time is like in deep space at all. Period. So of course, so far it has been shown here that science does not seem to know about it.

Give us some scientific reasons for claiming that time and space might not be "the same" outside of our solar system.

You do realize science is based on the natural world here? When we observe light travel here, it is at a speed that is only able to be clocked here in the fishbowl of the solar system and area. You cannot offer beliefs as science. All evidence can be viewed differently when we use different beliefs. For example, if we believed that earth was the center of the universe as far as time goes, and that time changed the further we got from here we would look at redshift differently. I notice that the further we go out in space the more red shifting there is! But I do not offer such an idea as science, even though it fits the evidence. Why? Because it is belief based. Why is it you had the mistaken idea that people could get to offer belief based ideas (such as a uniform time and space in the universe) as science!??

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #82]

The light is seen here. Everything therefore about that light must represent it existing here. Any information in that light has now started to exist here. If all you do is interpret what you see in that light here using the time and space and laws here, then what does that tell you about somewhere else where time is not known to exist as it does here? Your ideas about what you see are completely limited and formed by the realities here.

You have yet to grasp anything about the spectroscopy examples and how light absorbed and emitted by atoms and molecules near distant stars (or as part of the stars) provides a wealth of information on the properties of both the atoms and molecules "there" (the same as on Earth), and the light itself and its properties "there." I'll just assume you don't have enough of a science background to understand it at any level so can't see the implications, and no amount of explaining will help because you don't know the ABCs. The blanket statement that "we measure it here", with an implication that this somehow means things are different "out there" doesn't get you anywhere because you can't provide any reasons why that would be the case. It has no basis.

Redshift plays into this as well (after all, it is normally measured from the shift in spectral lines), and it is the collective picture this all paints that has led to the current scientific understanding and assumptions used to build the framework for what stars are, how far away they are, how they form and work, etc. But if you don't have any level of science education it would be impossible for you to understand any of it (the same for any subject), yet you're happy to discredit science that you don't understand in favor of stories from ancient holy books that can be shown very easily to be wrong (eg. a 6000 year old universe). Fortunately, science will march along independent of these old tales from religious books until someone can show they have any validity.

[dad1]

You have yet to grasp anything about the spectroscopy examples and how light absorbed and emitted by atoms and molecules near distant stars (or as part of the stars) provides a wealth of information on the properties of both the atoms and molecules "there"

No way. It is here, so forget that. It is seen here and exists in our time here. All properties exist here! Gottcha. Any traces of anything all exist in the light HERE, so of course they have the same properties! That argument is a canard, and totally inapplicable to the issue of time in the far universe.

I'll just assume you don't have enough of a science background to understand it at any level so can't see the implications, and no amount of explaining will help because you don't know the ABCs.

Pretentious nonsense. You see light here and that light and all it contains is existing here. Asking this to represent a different place and time where it may have existed is rubbish. Childish strawman. Of course you like to pretend you have some great secret understanding you somehow just can't post to the poor dolts who post here. Ridiculous.

The blanket statement that "we measure it here", with an implication that this somehow means things are different "out there" doesn't get you anywhere because you can't provide any reasons why that would be the case. It has no basis.

That is nothing in the world but an ignorant statement of faith that it 'golly gee must have the same time out there and space, just because that is what I see in my closet'. Utter foolishness and hypocrisy. The point here is that science does not KNOW what time out there is like and has just used a belief it must be the same. Sorry you do not get to use belief as science. Anyone can play that game.

Redshift plays into this as well (after all, it is normally measured from the shift in spectral lines), and it is the collective picture this all paints that has led to the current scientific understanding and assumptions used to build the framework for what stars are, how far away they are, how they form and work, etc.

The time waves take to propagate and move and the reason light gets shifted is all related to time. You do realize that? Cut the pretentiousness and false bravado and post on topic and honestly.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #84]

Canard, pretentious nonsense, rubbish, childish strawman, poor dolts, ridiculous, ignorant, utter foolishess, hyprocrisy, pretentiousness, false bravado.

These are all from just one post (#84). Do you think that using these terms somehow makes your case? It really shows that you don't have any counters to the science issues that have been posted and the external links (posted because most people here are not "poor dolts"), so have resorted to name calling and insults (usually a good sign you've lost a debate).

Pretentious nonsense. You see light here and that light and all it contains is existing here. Asking this to represent a different place and time where it may have existed is rubbish. Childish strawman. Of course you like to pretend you have some great secret understanding you somehow just can't post to the poor dolts who post here. Ridiculous.

Let's try this. Do you really think that a hydrogen atom at a distant star emitting a series of photons with a wavelength pattern that corresponds exactly to the pattern we see here (the only difference being a shift to longer wavelengths) is really some different, random, unknown pattern where it originated, but magically converts to the "earth pattern" when the light gets here? If that were the case, how could we put hydrogen in a tube on Earth and excite it with an electric current to produce excited H atoms, and see the exact same line pattern here that is not red shifted? What are the odds of that? Hint ... not good. What does this tell us about the physics of the H atom at the distant star, and the properties of the photons (light) that it emitted there?

[dad1]

These are all from just one post (#84). Do you think that using these terms somehow makes your case? It really shows that you don't have any counters to the science issues that have been posted and the external links

Name one link that proved time itself was the same in all the universe, or stop pretending. There is NO science issue whatsoever. Nothing.

Let's try this. Do you really think that a hydrogen atom at a distant star emitting a series of photons with a wavelength pattern that corresponds exactly to the pattern we see here (the only difference being a shift to longer wavelengths) is really some different, random, unknown pattern where it originated, but magically converts to the "earth pattern" when the light gets here? If that were the case, how could we put hydrogen in a tube on Earth and excite it with an electric current to produce excited H atoms, and see the exact same line pattern here that is not red shifted?

That pattern has nothing to do with telling us what time is like. Not only that the light is here regardless of where it came from. In any case it tells us nothing nothing nothing at all about time. Why not get on topic?

What are the odds of that? Hint ... not good. What does this tell us about the physics of the H atom at the distant star, and the properties of the photons (light) that it emitted there?

The light is here. Nowhere else. Whatever we see it is IN the light here and it exists here. Name one property it tells us about in a star that relates to time?

[brunumb]

What does this tell us about the physics of the H atom at the distant star, and the properties of the photons (light) that it emitted there?

But they are not stars DrNoGods. They are just lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night and for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to brunumb in post #87]

But they are not stars DrNoGods. They are just lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night and for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.

Of course! How silly of me. This thread reminds me a lot of some of my battles with flat earthers ... or talking to my golf ball to try and convince it to go where it is supposed to. Both futile efforts.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dad1 in post #86]

Name one link that proved time itself was the same in all the universe ...

Name one reason why time itself should NOT be the same in all the universe. Just saying it might be different is not an argument.

That pattern has nothing to do with telling us what time is like.

But it does ... you just don't understand why or how because you don't know how spectroscopy works or the physics of how light interacts with matter.

The light is here. Nowhere else. Whatever we see it is IN the light here and it exists here. Name one property it tells us about in a star that relates to time?

See above, and do some Googling on atomic and molecular spectroscopy, and chemistry. There is nothing "IN the light here." The only thing "in" light are the electric and magnetic fields that oscillate perpendicular to each other as the wave travels through space. Look at this diagram:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroma ... etique.svg

and read the corresponding article:

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

as well as this one on Maxwell's equations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroma ... e_equation

Then tell us how light near some distant star can be "different" from light in our solar system. They only connection to time for an EM wave is the speed it travels, and the brilliant people like Maxwell who figured this all out over a century ago have had their results confirmed by countless experiments and observations. It doesn't matter whether we've physically placed a probe somewhere to know something about a distance location ... thinking that this is a requirement is a fatal flaw in your "argument." The idea that somehow things magically change in the vicinity of our solar system has observational support at all.

[dad1]

Name one reason why time itself should NOT be the same in all the universe.

I don't have to. Who cares? Not my problem. The issue here is that science that has modeled using the premise that time and space are the same. There needs to be a reason to believe it is the same. You don't just get to believe real hard and cram it in there. Others have their own beliefs, thank you very much.

But it does ... you just don't understand why or how because you don't know how spectroscopy works or the physics of how light interacts with matter.

Again what does that have to do with time in the slightest?

The only thing "in" light are the electric and magnetic fields that oscillate perpendicular to each other as the wave travels through space.

Firstly you mean travel in our space we know here. Secondly, who cares about fishbowl fields? The light is HERE so it will behave accordingly. The fields are something that exist here. You cannot sit there in your armchair and mentally imagine that what goes on in the fishbowl goes on everywhere. It is a bit like Vegas, what happens in the fishbowl stays in the fishbowl. Unless you have been out of this time and space area, you cannot claim that what we see here must be the same as out there. You need a reason, observation. Observing things IN the fishbowl is not observation that involves deep space time.

Then tell us how light near some distant star can be "different" from light in our solar system.

YOu are not at some near star. Not at all. You are right here. Never anywhere else. You are talking about light here, not at some close or far star! So the light from that star that is a certain way has light that comes here. Once it is here and only once it is here do we see it. We see it in our time and space (and therefore in our corresponding laws here) You then try to interpret the colors ans spectra HERE. We only see the traces in the light here. The traces of hydrogen in that light HERE will behave as hydrogen here must exist and behave. That tells us nothing at all about time. Let alone time out there!

They only connection to time for an EM wave is the speed it travels,

That is a big connection. Speed is only clocked here in the fishbowl. That is not known to represent the time involved far away.

and the brilliant people like Maxwell who figured this all out over a century ago have had their results confirmed by countless experiments and observations.

Irrelevant to the far universe. Irrelevant to the nature of time in the far universe!

It doesn't matter whether we've physically placed a probe somewhere to know something about a distance location

That depends what we are talking about. To know any stellar distance at all you must know time and space exist uniformly all the way from here to there. Then, once light gets here, what it tells us is mostly about here. Not there. It does not tell us how long the light took to get here. It does not tell us what else might also be out there that we are not able to find traces of in the light here! It does not even tell us what the hydrogen or whatever is like out there! But this thread is about time out there, so focus on that.

... thinking that this is a requirement is a fatal flaw in your "argument." The idea that somehow things magically change in the vicinity of our solar system has observational support at all.

The idea that somehow things do and could not change in the vicinity of our solar system, specifically time itself, has no observational support at all. It is belief. Nothing else. Not a tiny shred of evidence.