Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)

quote:

---

We observe that things take time to travel distances, including light, right?

---

Yes, we observe light's speed, and how long it takes to get somewhere quite excellently. Also, we mix in some conjecture, and try to project into the distant past that it was always so. Some even try some future conjecture, once again leaving out any creator factor. Quantum fluctuations are cool, but creator calculations are out of vogue in much of modern science.

I'll have to take another look at that. What I would be interested in would be not how constant it now is thought to be, but was, and will be, and if there was other light, instead/as well.

quote:

---

Can you put into words why you think inconclusive the evidence showing that the speed of light, decay rates, and other physical constants, are the same everywhere and in every era that we look in the universe?

---

Well, my feeling is not that man's efforts so far are that inconcusive, as much as they are exclusive. What are we missing? Why do we have the creation time so far off? What went on we have not yet been able, or willing to understand? How could we be misinterpreting what we do have?

[quote]Could you be specific about what you think is being conjectured?[quote] That the 1987 blow happened only in time measured by how our light travels now. In other words, 163,000 years after the said creation date. Yes, it is that far away, in all liklihood, but not that long away. The conjecture comes in when it is assumed there were no other factors at play here. I understand you can't prove there were these other factors at your present state of knowledge. I also understand you can not prove nothing else made things happen in a different time frame.

quote:

---

Far off of what?

---

I think we all know I can't harp on things that are uncool in your chosen circle of science on this thread or board. Let's just say far off of the actual time frame.

quote:

---

Supernova 1987A and millisecond pulsars support the fact that physical constants were the same in the past and in different places in the universe. No conjecture is needed.

---

How far in the past? Now if we take away for a moment light speed, what do you really have left here? Well timed pulses? Colored lights that seem to tell us of decay rates? And I already allowed to myself that they were at that time the same, anyhow. This would indicate to me, then this explosion after any big change in rates of decay, if there were any. So what?

quote:

---

and so a valid rebuttal of our position can only occur when you have counter-evidence or counter-arguments that undercut our position.

---

My arguement is that we can't say because decay rates are the same in this thing, that it means it was a long time ago. Only by assuming our light is the be all end all unchanging, unchangable constant that overrules all else can such great time lenths be conjured up.?

quote:

---

Since the alternative is to presume that unknown, undetectable factors make it so that we can't know anything at all about the universe,

---

Only unknown because you rule them out of your circle of chosen knowledge. Undtectable, because men don't wish to detect them, and without accepting the bible's record, and a world of primo firsthand evidence of supernatural things, you won't have the ability to detect past man's nose properly. As far as knowing anything at all, man knows plenty. Those men who rule Him out know only so much about important things though.

quote:

---

Sure, if we take away the measurement of the speed of light the whole thing collapses

---

Thank you. Thats great. So, really, Eta's whole case in this thread rests on that.

quote:

---

We are actually seeing the star or galaxy as it existed long ago. We analyze the radio emissions from these objects to determine things like speed of light and decay rates. And we find they were the same long ago and far away as there are here and now.

---

Are we really though? I know you think you are. Based on what?,- again, resting on the speed of light. Yes all theories are tentative, and we don't really know, so let's cast it in that light. Not like this thread, where these selfsame tenative theories are held up as some sort of solid evidence against bible believers. In essence, all science can say is, 'although our ever changing and tentavive theories and our limited ability to understand all forces of the universe, it seems that creation was not in the biblical timeframe as given, nevertheless, because of the absolute preponderance of supernatural evidences, and universal knowledge and belief in them, and in a creator, we must also add, that we can in no way prove that the time involved actually wasn't very different than our current perceptions'!
Finally, as far as being the same long ago, and far away, we can at least agree on far away.

quote:

---

To claim that decay rates or the speed of light are not constant is to ..

---

Can't you see another way for a young universe, even though I don't say this? There seems, to my understanding at present, to have been more involved than our form of light! If there is a busy freeway, near an airport, and a rocket launch facility, we couldn't say all moving things there travelled the same speed. If they all died, and a hundred years later, we come along, and the only thing we see is a bicycle on the side of the highway, all other crafts were swept into the ocean, so we measure about how fast this bike would have travelled. Then we say it took so many months to drive to some far off place in South America or somewhere. Problem is, back when things were really moving here, some may have made it to the moon in a few weeks. In our case, the light we have is the bike, and it's speed assumed into too much, I would propose.

quote:

---

. But this approach is simple denial, and if you're interested in a discussion then you'll explain what it is about these measurements and analyses that leads you to reject them.

---

My look at loudmouth's link, and anything you or others have said here all seems to say the same thing. That is, that light is constant in speed, and is really coming from far away, where it started out. I wonder what it is you think I am in denial about? Do you think I doubt this, and think light as we know it has changed speed? I have simply said there were others factors so far missed that were at play. I haven't got into what in this thread. I realize this thread is focused, and probably not a place to delve into ideas not related to 1987. I have tried, however to crystalize what it is was being said here, and, with the help of many posters seem to have it pretty well nailed down, that it all hinges on light. For me, then it is mission accomplished for now. That is what I was after. Perhaps in some other far away thread we can explore other things.

quote:

---

You say that the constancy of the speed of light is conjecture.

---

quote:

---

You say that the constancy of the speed of light is conjecture.

---

Fair enough, I can see how you would think I might have thought that. To clarify, it was more along the lines of believing more and more that there is or was other light we don't yet know about. So, like the bicycle comparison, I don't need to contest men's models of how fast it can go, no doubt they would have that down pretty good. It is all the other faster vehicles that once existed, whose speed is not accounted for that is the question. Most of the comments here, so to speak, have been in defending the good science of how we know so much about the bicycle, or light we can now measure. People look at the new map of the universe, and the temperature fluctuations, and spacing, and all I hear is how nicely it fits with a big bang type model. What else does it fit with? Called sometimes 'fingerprints' of the early universe, I think we need to ask, what this print also can mean. Is it inconsistant with God stretching out the heavens like a curtain? Is it at odds with a relatively instant creation? Are there detectable clues in the patterns here, that would fit nicely with 'Creator included' science? Maybe this flat universe (now proclaimed with certainty), when it gets rolled away like a sheet of paper, or a 'scroll', as the bible puts it, will reveal there is and therefore was, much much more than the flat, dimension-challenged, conception man has of the cosmos. Map of the universe? Ha. Since it is said now to be flat, I guess map is a good way to describe it!
Now I know beyond doubt, that the creation of the world, and everything else, was done several thousand years ago. The little body I am using for a short while, flipped a cosmic switch, and, as instructed by the bible, asked Jesus into my heart, or being. Before the comnnection happened, the lttle electrical impulses and all that transpired in that mind and body were flatter than they think the universe is, and completely incapable of perceiving these things. No manmade telescope, or microscope could have helped me. This could be why there are things written sort of like 'if any man try God-then he will know for sure that these things are real' (this was more a translation to simple language, than a direct quote). So I now have the actual concrete evidence, and perceptions of things hitherto unperceivable, coursing through an earthly housing.
Millions could say the same. Recorded healings, and fantastic miracles are all a matter of record, and common experience. Not just some theoretical cosmic burp, or ripple here, that seems to indicate something, we think, maybe, we actually don't really know, ever changing, tentative theories all, by admission,- type of thing dressed up as fact.
1987a was an event that was spectacular, and very far away. The case, apparently, at least from posters on this thread, to relate it to actual time rests on light, and it's speed. If this light in it's present form was all that ever existed, I could see a problem. If there were no creator, or dimensions but the 'flatland' science can so far see, a concern may be called for. As it is, we can have utmost confidence things happened exactly the way He had folks write down!
Even though 'knowledge shall be increased' in the end time, man will not, by any means know everything. Some things, if man did know, he would misuse to destoy each other and the world. We won't let that happen.

quote:

---

I replicated your proceedure, to the letter, but was unable to duplicate your results. How do you explain this?

---

Well, hard to know if you are serious, or just trying to sound scientific. If you are serious, I assume you got saved as a youngster, but for whatever reason were repelled from the whole thing? There's a little thing called public education that specializes in blowing out the little flame that might be burning in some children, especially if kids may have little or no fire at home. But, I don't know enough about the experiment in question, to ascertain whether is is a delayed reaction, or damage, due to an attempted 'abortion', or whatever. Since God isn't a liar, and it is a known effective formula, though, I think you will come to your blossoming as time unfolds, perhaps some of us, for many things, will have to wait a while, beyond earth's years, to see clearly.

quote:

---

Every religion has stories of miracles, both present and past

---

Why, then, since it is even more overwhelmingly manifest than even I said in the post, maybe there is something to it?!

quote:

---

. So I guess this is concrete evidence that Pan exists, and by extension the Greek Pantheon of Gods?

---

Pan exists, and is a spirit entity, not a good one though. The Greek gods were based also, to some extent on real spirits.

quote:

---

..in the absence of objective evidence, that Genesis is literal fact

---

Objective? I am an object of sorts, and have evidence seen for many years, 6 ways from saturday. Jesus was an Object that rose from the dead. Must I consider that 1987a is long away, objectively, on the basis of light and how it behaves now? Must I consider objective what happened at the time of the big bang, when it was itsy bitsy, and went beyond the laws of physics, to where said laws break down? Must I follow you there to be objective? (or 'them' if 'you' doesn't fit here)

quote:

---

So you have scientific evidence that the light was something else?

---

One thread a while back talked about 'spiritual' light. Some others I have heard talk about some creation light that was around before the sun, and stars. Where is it now? If there were another light in this room, or the universe, and someone turned out the lights, how could I know, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on? Is there some 'fingerprint' we would look for? Would not I have to deopend largely on spoken or written record? We got that, you know, right back down to day 1.

quote:

---

At what point can you cease to explain away a failure of others to detect these "supernatural" things as "late bloomers"? When do we conclude that a "late bloomer" will never bloom at all?

---

At no point. It isn't debatable that a world of healings, and miracles is a matter of experience. Now, if someone who was an atheist, asks Jesus into their heart, He comes. If she, or he never sees a miracle, never speaks in tongues, never gets a prophesy, never sees an angel, or anything else, fine, many don't, it isn't something like that. The main thing is that He does come, and will start to try to show them things, and take care of them. They now have everlasting life, so, obviously most of that will be in Heaven. I'm not too worried about them seeing something supernatural there. Nevertheless, millions do, perhaps some need some of these things a little more or something. But it says to know Him is to love Him. Now I could say, hey, I don't think I do much of that, but, apparently, like growing up, it is a process, not usually a flash. If our spirit is like our body a little, also, it need to get fed. If we drink in more water of the word, we will grow and blossom. If we don't, why, I think it may take a little longer.
So ".. I was a Christian I experienced absolutely none of the experiences you say that I should have." if you were a believer, He has your number, I never meant everyone would start walking on water before they read their first verse. I meant that all history is full of miracles, and if we get saved, we will begin the process of starting to have our eyes opened as well. For example, in many of Aimee Semple Macpherson's healings, there were doctor's there to confirm they really were miracles. This doesn't necessarily mean if I break my leg in a fight, I'll be outrunning the ambulance to the hospital if I become a believer.