Does time exist in the far universe?

[dad]

Does time as we know it exist, or exist exactly the same as on and near earth? This may be unknown, so here is your chance to prove...or rather support with solid evidences that is does!

If time does not exist, that means we do not know the distances to any far star. After all we need time for light to travel..light years etc etc. That would mean cosmology is basically a religion, or belief system only.

[Daecon]

Why on Earth do you think time doesn't exist? Where did you get such a bizarre idea?

[dad]

Why on Earth do you think time doesn't exist? Where did you get such a bizarre idea?

I never made any claim. I asked if we know.

[Daecon]

There's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Why do you think there would be?

[dad]

There's no evidence to suggest otherwise. Why do you think there would be?

That is irrelevant. The issue is whether you have any evidence time exists and exists as we know it here or not. It doesn't matter what you ans I think. For a year to be a year in deep space we need time and need it exactly as we have it here. Otherwise a year could be equal to a minute, a second, or etc etc. Unknown. That would mean light years are useless units. That would mean the universe in not billions of years old either of course.

[Daecon]

Oh... I get it. The Universe is only 6000 years old, right?

[dad]

Oh... I get it. The Universe is only 6000 years old, right?

If you do not know whether time exists in the universe how would you know that?

[Daecon]

There's no evidence to suggest that time isn't the same everywhere, so why do you think it wouldn't be the same throughout the Universe?

 

What train of thought inspired you to ask the question in the OP?

 

Surely you must have a reason for thinking that time might not be the same across the Universe, don't you? What's that reason?

[dad]

There's no evidence to suggest that time isn't the same everywhere, so why do you think it wouldn't be the same throughout the Universe?

 

 

There's no evidence to suggest that time is the same everywhere, so why do you think it would be the same throughout the Universe? Unless you have some real solid reasons, we will see that you do not know.

 

What train of thought inspired you to ask the question in the OP?

 

 

 

I find it better to deal with what is known, rather than religion labeled as science.

 

 

 

Surely you must have a reason for thinking that time might not be the same across the Universe, don't you? What's that reason?

 

 

 

 

Surely you must have a reason for thinking that time might be the same across the Universe, don't you? What's that reason? If you have none it will remain a belief only. Funny thing is that this belief underlies cosmology and all it tells us about the universe.

Edited April 11, 2016 by dad

[Daecon]

The reason, for the third time, is that there's no evidence to suggest anything different. The fact that you keep asking this implies that you obviously believe differently. So why do you believe that time doesn't exist in the "far" Universe?

[Strange]

The (observable) universe appears to behave the same everywhere that we can see. That includes the existence of the same elements, forming stars and galaxies in the same way, creating the same spectral frequencies, evolving in the same way, etc.

 

We have models that describe this, these models are consistent with what we observe.

[dad]

The reason, for the third time, is that there's no evidence to suggest anything different.

 

 

That is not a reason. What evidence could there be that time existed the same in deep space? You really really are preaching pure religion here.

[Daecon]

Are you actually interested in the science, or did you just want an excuse to proclaim that cosmology is a religion?

[Strange]

 

 

That is not a reason. What evidence could there be that time existed the same in deep space? You really really are preaching pure religion here.

 

You seem to have leaped ahead to one of your pre-planned responses that isn't appropriate yet. No one has claimed that time does exist the same in deep space. Only that there is no evidence that it doesn't.

 

What reason is there for thinking that time is not the same in deep space?

[dad]

 

 

The (observable) universe appears to behave the same everywhere that we can see.

You thought you could see time?? How would something behave if time was, say, less in the space time mix than here? If there was less or no time how could anything take the same time we know to do anything!? I think a better way to state what you were trying to say would be something like 'here in fishbowl earth, to us, it looks a certain way out there'.

 

 

 

That includes the existence of the same elements, forming stars and galaxies in the same way, creating the same spectral frequencies, evolving in the same way, etc.

 

 

Well, that is overstated. Yes we have a lot of the same elements, but our ability to see and may not be such as that we see and detect all that really is out there. Regardless of that though that does not address the issue of whether time exists out there.

 

 

 

 

We have models that describe this, these models are consistent with what we observe.

 

 

 

 

You have models that use earth time and space. The consistency is relative to the place we are...where time does exist. Naturally to us it looks or seems like time golly gee just must be the same out there.

Are you actually interested in the science, or did you just want an excuse to proclaim that cosmology is a religion?

You have the opportunity to show cosmology is more than that. A big fail so far. I do understand that it is a sensitive area for many, to have to face the truth science is a belief system only.

What reason is there for thinking that time is not the same in deep space?

 

 

Forget what we think. What do we know?

[Mordred]

We know we see a rate of change when we observe events regardless of how far we look. We can measure those change of events.

 

Those measurements correspond to relativity, precisely.

That isn't based on religion but direct observational evidence.

 

Where as your conjecture has none.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[dad]

We know we see a rate of change when we observe events regardless of how far we look. We can measure those change of events.

 

Great so show us how you measure time in the universe!!!?

Those measutements correspond to relativity, precisely.

That isn't based on religion but direct observational evidence

 

 

Vague balderdash. What measure for time existing do you have?

Edited April 11, 2016 by dad

[Mordred]

Your accusing that to be vaque balderdash? Did you not think your question better qualifies?

 

If time did not exist there would be no change. We can observe events roughly 13 billion light years away and closer.

 

What evidence do you have time doesn't exist elsewhere?

[dad]

Your accusing that to be vaque balderdash? Did you not think your question better qualifies?

 

No, since science assumes time exists we have a right to ask if they know. Your vague assertions are no good unless you tell us what exactly they are.

 

 

If time did not exist there would be no change.

 

 

Says who??? Who made that rule? Time does not have to be woven into space the same way as we know it here in order to have things move!!!! That is ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

We can observe events roughly 13 billion light years away and closer.

 

Only based on assuming time exists! You have yet to evidence that in any way at all. Until you do, you have NO way of determining ages.

 

What evidence do you have time doesn't exist elsewhere?

 

 

 

Only those who claim to know one way or the other need show evidence and boy do you need to show some!!!

Edited April 11, 2016 by dad

[Strange]

You thought you could see time??

Straw man.

 

How would something behave if time was, say, less in the space time mix than here?

 

It is your hypothesis, why don't you tell us. Then we can test it.

 

 

Forget what we think. What do we know?

 

What we "know" is that the same models that work on Earth appear to work elsewhere. That is all we can know.

 

What reason is there to think otherwise?

[Mordred]

I already supplied that, it's called observational evidence. We measure objects and events changing regardless of where we look with our most powerful telescopes.

 

You need to supply evidence that your foolish conjecture has merit.

Edited April 11, 2016 by Mordred

[dad]

I already supplied that, it's called observational evidence. We measure objects and events changing regardless of where we look with our most powerful telescopes.

What deceptive falsehood. You observed nothing that involves proving time exists exactly as it does here at all. You also do not measure objects as far as size or distance unless time exists there.

[Mordred]

We see stars, moving, exploding, we can measure changes in plasma, such as the CMB.

What deceptive falsehood. You observed nothing that involves proving time exists exactly as it does here at all. You also do not measure objects as far as size or distance unless time exists there.

This is pointless, I'm recommending this thread to be locked, your obviously trolling.

[dad]

We see stars, moving, exploding, we can measure changes in plasma, such as the CMB.

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I said movement does not mean time as we know it exactly exists. That is obvious.Stop trolling.

[Mordred]

We measure rate of change by the following relativity rules.

 

Lorentz transformation.

First two postulates.

1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical

2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames.

Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction.

Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1.

A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above

in space time ds between two events is

[latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex]

Invoking speed of light postulate 2.

[latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex]

Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex]

Time dilation

dt=proper time ds=line element

since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant.

an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt.

[latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex]

so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation

[latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex]

So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex]

The above is what I would expect to see when one presents his own equation. The above isn't a full derivitave.

Several missing steps. It was for another post. However it provides a better explanation of the Lorentz transformations than merely posting a formula.

If your not using Lorentz then you need to define the coordinate transformation rules.

Here is relativity of simultaneaty coordinate transformation in Lorentz.

[latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex]

[latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex]

[latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex]

[latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex]