Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Trump won 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1239 days)
Posts: 1928
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 31 of 948 (68488)
11-21-2003 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by NosyNed
11-21-2003 10:17 PM


Re: no prankster
Agreed.
------------------
-chris

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NosyNed, posted 11-21-2003 10:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 32 of 948 (77483)
01-09-2004 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Trump won
11-21-2003 10:00 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Trump won, posted 11-21-2003 10:00 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 7:41 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 948 (127538)
07-25-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Mike Holland
01-09-2004 10:42 PM


bump for HangDawg
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Mike Holland, posted 01-09-2004 10:42 PM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:33 PM NosyNed has replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 948 (127548)
07-25-2004 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NosyNed
07-25-2004 7:41 PM


Re: bump for HangDawg
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 7:41 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 8:42 PM SRO2 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 35 of 948 (127551)
07-25-2004 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by SRO2
07-25-2004 8:33 PM


plural
At any rate, it should be plural here.
We are talking about only SN-1987A.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:33 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 948 (127553)
07-25-2004 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by NosyNed
07-25-2004 8:42 PM


Re: plural
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by NosyNed, posted 07-25-2004 8:42 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by wj, posted 07-25-2004 9:51 PM SRO2 has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 948 (127563)
07-25-2004 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by SRO2
07-25-2004 8:51 PM


Re: plural
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:51 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 9:55 PM wj has not replied

  
SRO2 
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 948 (127567)
07-25-2004 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by wj
07-25-2004 9:51 PM


Re: plural
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by wj, posted 07-25-2004 9:51 PM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 12:07 AM SRO2 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 948 (127594)
07-26-2004 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by SRO2
07-25-2004 9:55 PM


Two points
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. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 9:55 PM SRO2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-26-2004 1:01 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 40 of 948 (127601)
07-26-2004 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by NosyNed
07-26-2004 12:07 AM


Re: Two points
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 12:07 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 1:15 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 948 (127603)
07-26-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hangdawg13
07-26-2004 1:01 AM


YEC or OEC
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-26-2004 1:01 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
entwine
Inactive Member


Message 42 of 948 (127632)
07-26-2004 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Trump won
11-20-2003 5:42 PM


My right hand tells my left hand it is wrong. Is that right??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Trump won, posted 11-20-2003 5:42 PM Trump won has not replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 43 of 948 (127978)
07-27-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by NosyNed
07-26-2004 1:15 AM


Re: YEC or OEC
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NosyNed, posted 07-26-2004 1:15 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 7:48 PM Hangdawg13 has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 948 (128196)
07-27-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:16 AM


Re: YEC or OEC
quote:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:16 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-28-2004 12:04 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 45 of 948 (128234)
07-28-2004 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Loudmouth
07-27-2004 7:48 PM


Re: YEC or OEC
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Loudmouth, posted 07-27-2004 7:48 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 12:30 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
 Message 48 by paisano, posted 07-28-2004 1:17 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024