|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Trump won  Suspended Member (Idle past 1267 days) Posts: 1928 Joined: |
Agreed.
-------------------chris
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 510 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
Messenjah anmd Nosyned, I am coming into this discussion a bit late, but I hape posted about Humphries a few times before.
There is the old quote 'a day in the eyes of the Lord...' which many have used to justify a belief in a billion-year old universe which God created in six of 'His' days. But Humphries took this a step further. He proposed that time flowed much more slowly on Earth than in the rest of the universe, so that only six days passed on Earth. His theory to explain it is to suspend Earth at the edge of a black hole, where gravitational time dilatation would provide the required slowing down on Earth time. He proposed that the black hole was the original expanding universe, which eventually expanded so much that the event horizon contracted and then disappeared, just when six 'Earth' days had passed.. But his physics is bullshit. If the universe was expanding inside a black hole (impossible - things only go one way in a black hole), then the conditions to create an event horizon would disappear after about 9 million years (I did a ballpark calculation based on a uniform density and the best estimates for the current density of the universe). Space and time dimensions get swapped around at an event horizon. At the horizon, the future extends along the horizon. Inside the horizon, future time points towards the centre of the black hole. The future is a one way journey. If the universe ever was inside a black hole, then all of it, including the Earth, would now be sitting at the centre of it! Mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The supernova is one of the ways to show that the universe is at least pretty old.
This thread got a bit off topic but can be steered back to where it belongs. The supernova also shows that radio active decay has also been constant enough for at least 160,000 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
You mean "supernovae". A stars life depends on factors of mass and fuel consumption before it goes supercritical, stars vary in longevity based on these factors (and maybe others). At any rate, it should be plural here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
At any rate, it should be plural here. We are talking about only SN-1987A.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
My mistake. But it's important to point at that stars go supercritical at varying stages of life depending on a number of factors, so SN-1987A is only one sample.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
The significant point is that the original star of SN1987A wen supernova about 160,000 years ago irrespective of how long it had been in existence beore that event. Therefore the universe must be at least 160,000 years old, a direct contradition of the biblical literalists' dating of the creation of the universe from the bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
SRO2  Inactive Member |
The universe is a hell of lot older that 160,000 years. I don't believe in this one step at a time crap, the universe is about 13.5 billion years old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
There are multiple ways of arriving at dates over different time frames. An additional thing about SN-1987a is that we can see radioactive decay occuring that long ago and see that it is the same as today. That is part (a small part) of establishing the constancy of the rates.
For HangDawg: There are at least a couple of mainstream science papers that are quoted by creationist sites regarding changes in decay rates. These are so deliberately misleading as to constitute lies. If you are basing anything on those you are being lied to.(one is bound-state beta decay and the other involves changes in rate with temperature, if you think you know something about that you tell me what you conclude you are being told -- when you have done that I will show you liars in action. )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 778 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
I don't have time to cook up an alternative explanation, but I'll give it some thought.
I've read about some of the ways that atomic decay rates may be verified, and I haven't read the creo arguments that are misleading. I don't know how old the earth or universe is. I've never decided whether or not I believe that the creation week is seven literal days or not either. I only believe that human history is about 6000 years old and that Noah's flood was real. I'm pretty darn sure Adam and Eve were literal people, and if the universe IS as old as this piece of evidence makes it seem, then I don't know where all that time fits in, but I am not closed minded to different possibilities.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
It sounds like you are leaning to being an old earth creationist then. Human history isn't too far off 6,000 years but our record of humans goes back considerable more. Certainly artifacts and art a few 10,000's. Should we start a topic to cover OEC and humans? It is off topic here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
entwine Inactive Member |
My right hand tells my left hand it is wrong. Is that right??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 778 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
It sounds like you are leaning to being an old earth creationist then. Human history isn't too far off 6,000 years but our record of humans goes back considerable more. Certainly artifacts and art a few 10,000's. Should we start a topic to cover OEC and humans? It is off topic here. I lean towards a YEC, but am not closed minded to an OEC. And scientifically, as I pointed out just now in the evo forum, I am neutral. There are still MANY mysteries out there that neither YEC's nor evos can explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The age of the earth and the life on it is not one of those mysteries, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hangdawg13 Member (Idle past 778 days) Posts: 1189 From: Texas Joined: |
There are still MANY mysteries out there that neither YEC's nor evos can explain. The age of the earth and the life on it is not one of those mysteries, however. Due to the nature of time being a dimension of the physical universe, which underwent many changes, I have come to the conclusion that the seven days in Genesis are not literal 24-hour days; however, I don't agree with those who dogmatically claim that the universe is 14 billion "earth"-years old and the earth is 4.6 billion years old either. I am NOT opposed to such an age for any reason. But the current cosmology is continually running into problems. The nature of space as is being discovered in quantum physics may eventually change things up a lot when a unifying theory is finally found. I think the idea that light, time, decay rates, etc... have always been constant is not a correct assumption in a universe where space-time has presumably expanded from nothing. I don't think the implications of expanding or shrinking space-time or changing zero point energy have been fully understood. I also do not necessarily agree with the theory of gravitational accretion of how the earth, moon, and other planets were formed as their elemental composition varies so greatly. There are still many mysteries in this area, and so I think there is a lot more wiggle room than many people assume. You need not respond to this as I don't want to get this discussion off the topic of the Supernova.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024