Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 948 (179133)
01-20-2005 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by JonF
01-20-2005 8:23 PM


alien music too?
quote:
A spectrum is just a fancy term for the different colors of light that are coming from a star (first sentence from your link)
..We do measure what stars are made of using spectrophotometry.
Yes we interpret colors coming from billions of light 'years' away. One day, we actually may even reach the point where we can check out, to see if our interpretation was anywhere near right. That day will not come while you or anyone reading this is alive, in a body, on earth. Meanwhile, I find the effort cute and interesting. Just as long as some poor soul does not dare try to use such creative color conclusions, to contradict bible certainties!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by JonF, posted 01-20-2005 8:23 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Admin, posted 01-21-2005 8:23 AM simple has not replied
 Message 198 by JonF, posted 01-21-2005 8:39 AM simple has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 197 of 948 (179259)
01-21-2005 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by simple
01-20-2005 9:23 PM


Topic Drift Alert
cosmo writes:
Just as long as some poor soul does not dare try to use such creative color conclusions, to contradict bible certainties!
[forum=-2] is a science forum. Discussions about the validity of scientific approaches to understanding the universe versus Biblical evidence should be taken to [forum=-11]. Would someone please either propose a thread for that forum, or choose an existing thread in that forum, for resuming that part of this discussion. Further discussion in this thread should be solely about the scientific evidence for and against a young universe.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 9:23 PM simple has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 198 of 948 (179264)
01-21-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by simple
01-20-2005 9:23 PM


Re: alien music too?
The question was "So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?". Your replies still haven't even tried to answer the question.
Just as long as some poor soul does not dare try to use such creative color conclusions, to contradict bible certainties!
As usual, the best theory that fits the available evidence is that spectrophotometry and the many associated measurements and calculations are reliable indicators of the material in stars, and any contradiction in the Bible is due to the lack of knowledge on the part if its human authors.
If and when you come up with some evidence that spectrophotometry gives wrong answers, we'll listen.
{added material before the qs}
This message has been edited by JonF, 01-21-2005 08:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 9:23 PM simple has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 948 (179331)
01-21-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by simple
01-20-2005 8:16 PM


Re: chose your ruler
quote:
What evidence do we have stars are made of neutrinos, or whatever?
Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill. As to other elements, JonF covers that very well. Needless to say, there is evidence that the speed of light has never changed. You claim that the speed of light has not always been the same. Again, what is the evidence that supports light moving at a faster speed than at present?
quote:
It must be to fit the evidence, as best we can come up with. And, as we know, there is no way to prove otherwise.
So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence.
quote:
All we can do, in absence of that proof, is chose our theory.
No, we have evidence. We choose the theory THAT FITS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. For us to consider faster speeds for light you need to supply evidence for it.
quote:
One that excitingly allows for a God of creation, and the bible's timetable, or one that pitifully does not, and yet tries to demand all believe, and that there is no other way.
Why not pick a theory that allows for invisible ninjas and pink unicorns?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 8:16 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 01-21-2005 12:53 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 201 by JonF, posted 01-21-2005 2:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 202 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 3:57 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 200 of 948 (179340)
01-21-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Loudmouth
01-21-2005 12:10 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Loudmouth writes:
quote:
What evidence do we have stars are made of neutrinos, or whatever?
Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star.
I sure hope you guys mean neutron stars. Neutrinos are elusive particles that do not interact much with matter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 12:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by cmanteuf, posted 01-21-2005 4:33 PM Percy has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 201 of 948 (179357)
01-21-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Loudmouth
01-21-2005 12:10 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Why not pick a theory that allows for invisible ninjas and pink unicorns?
'Cause I prefer flying hippopotami wearing kilts with the McGregor tarten, that's why!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 12:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 948 (179389)
01-21-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Loudmouth
01-21-2005 12:10 PM


Re: chose your ruler
quote:
Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill.
Yes I realize about the inferences and theories. Since I consider an accidental universe impossible, and evidentally some design ay work, again it is unshackling ourselves of present light's limitations, that is required, to 'fit the bill'.
quote:
So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence
Less time involved. Why? - tell me how it doesn't.
quote:
. We choose the theory THAT FITS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
Yes, the evidence of your choosing you might add!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 12:10 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 4:06 PM simple has replied
 Message 204 by Percy, posted 01-21-2005 4:25 PM simple has not replied
 Message 205 by JonF, posted 01-21-2005 4:31 PM simple has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 203 of 948 (179390)
01-21-2005 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by simple
01-21-2005 3:57 PM


Re: chose your ruler
quote:
Me: So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence
cosmo: Less time involved. Why? - tell me how it doesn't.
Millisecond pulsars and the measurement of the speed of light between the supernova and the halo around the supernova.
Again, where is the evidence that the speed of light has been different in the past. I would really like this evidence that you are holding so close to your chest.
quote:
Me: We choose the theory THAT FITS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE
cosmo: Yes, the evidence of your choosing you might add!
SO WHERE IS THIS EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS A DIFFERENT SPEED FOR LIGHT???????!!!!!!!!!!! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE I AM IGNORING!!!!!!
To Percy:
Yes, neutrons. Thanks for the correction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 3:57 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:01 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 204 of 948 (179395)
01-21-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by simple
01-21-2005 3:57 PM


Re: chose your ruler
cosmo writes:
quote:
So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence
Less time involved. Why? - tell me how it doesn't.
The question was about how faster speeds of light are consistent with the evidence we have. You relied, "Less time involved." You are correct that traveling the same distance over a lesser time yields a higher speed. No one disputes this. What you lack is evidence.
Please understand that it isn't that you are wrong. Take as an example a theory that says all crows are black. Let's say you find every crow you can, and every single one is black. After you've examined many, many crows you can have great confidence in the theory of black crows. Someone could say to you, "Sure, you've seen lots of black crows, but there could still be white crows out there." And you would have to concede that he is correct. But the possibility that you could be wrong is not the same thing as being wrong. Until a white crow turns up, the theory of black crows is still a solid theory.
In the same way, observational and theoretical evidence for the speed of light being a constant is unequivocal and unambiguous at this time. That doesn't mean that evidence or theory might not turn up that the speed of light is not a constant, but it hasn't as of yet. And so this is a very solid theory, because the possibility of contrary evidence, which is true of all theories, is not the same as actual contrary evidence. You can remind us all you like that someday we may find light traveling at different speeds than c, but until you actually find evidence it is a possibility not seriously considered, especially for the dramatic differences in c required for a young universe.
--Percy
Small grammatical improvement. --Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 01-21-2005 16:36 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 3:57 PM simple has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 205 of 948 (179398)
01-21-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by simple
01-21-2005 3:57 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Since I consider an accidental universe impossible, and evidentally some design ay work, again it is unshackling ourselves of present light's limitations, that is required, to 'fit the bill'
IOW, you just made it up.
quote:
So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence
Less time involved. Why? - tell me how it doesn't.
Still no mention of actual evidence.
"Tell me how it doesn't" isn't the way it works, and that appears to be a particularly snotty way of trying to get out of supporting your assertion. You made a claim. Forum rule 4 says "Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions.". Let's see your supporting evidence.
Of course, a very little bit of the mountain of evidence for a constant speed of light has already been presented in this thread. A very few more items of evidence are the facts that we don't see binary stars or pulsar "ticks" in slow motion,as we would if the speed of light had changed (CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT), gamma ray measurments of galaxies about 500,000,000 light years away that are inconsistent with a changing speed of light (Speed of Light Not Slowing, NASA Study Says), and study of spectral lines in quasars from resonant, fine structure, and hyperfine transitions that are inconsistent with a changing speed of light (except possibly for that study that showed that the fine structure constant might have been different in the very early universe and if it was that might mean that the speed of light was different, but AFAIK later studies have not replicated that and the proposed change in the fine structure constant does not necessarily mean that the speed of light changed) (Have physical constants changed with time? and Einstein's relativity theory hits a speed bump and Black holes may not constrain varying constants).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 3:57 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:29 PM JonF has replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 206 of 948 (179400)
01-21-2005 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
01-21-2005 12:53 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Percy writes:
I sure hope you guys mean neutron stars. Neutrinos are elusive particles that do not interact much with matter.
I recall reading, approximately a decade ago, about some people who theorized that "neutrino stars" could be the source of the supermassive gravitional fields at the center of galaxies[1]. I assume since I haven't heard much since then about this that there was a flaw in this theory, some observations that could not be properly explained. In other words, the normal progress of science, removing ideas that don't fit the observed evidence. But Google confirms that some people were serious about such things for a time.
[1]: Other than the phrase "neutrino star" I don't remember much about this theory. It might have meant matter under conditions so intense that the only thing preventing further collapse would be neutrino degeneracy (how would such a thing be possible?), or it might have been something different (I didn't understand it then either, I remember that much).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 01-21-2005 12:53 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Percy, posted 01-21-2005 7:11 PM cmanteuf has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 948 (179408)
01-21-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Loudmouth
01-21-2005 4:06 PM


Re: chose your ruler
quote:
Millisecond pulsars and the measurement of the speed of light between the supernova and the halo around the supernova.
Once again, reference to our 'new light ruler'.
quote:
Again, where is the evidence that the speed of light has been different in the past. I would really like this evidence
"Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill." and also inferred in writings that have been evidenced to be true, is that a short time ago, creation came about. Our present light does not fit the bill here. So I contend that the spirit light is the one that fits the bill here. Others contend it was our selfsame light, but that it changed speeds, which is fine, if they can hold off you guys with the red light blue light stuff.
Now Percy talks of black crows
quote:
Someone could say to you, "Sure, you've seen lots of black crows, but there could still be white crows out there." And you would have to concede that he is correct. But the possibility that you could be wrong is not the same thing as being wrong. Until a white crow turns up, the theory of black crows is still a solid theory.
Now in this case, of course spirit is the white crows! Now we can't say no one ever seen one. Effects are felt from the (normally)unseen world. We could look in a lab, and see a random quark fluctuation, of particles normally unseen, but for a time, observable as well. Now then what we see, depends on what we want to see to some extent, What we observe, depends on what we want to observe. What we are willing to consider evidence, depends on what we want to consider evidence. Science picks the jurors, here, and decides what evidence will be admissable, and selects the judge, should it be a surprise they admit no 'white crows' or creation light? No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 4:06 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 5:16 PM simple has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 948 (179411)
01-21-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by simple
01-21-2005 5:01 PM


Re: chose your ruler
quote:
"Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill." and also inferred in writings that have been evidenced to be true, is that a short time ago, creation came about.
Well, if all you need is writing . . .
The speed of light has never changed.
There, I guess you can infer from the writing above that light has never changed.
quote:
Now in this case, of course spirit is the white crows! Now we can't say no one ever seen one.
We can say that no one can has seen spirits with supporting objective evidence. We can say that no one has seen spirits change the speed of light. If spirits are evidence, can you please tell me the experimental methods for detecting them so I can do it in the lab?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:01 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:50 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 209 of 948 (179413)
01-21-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by JonF
01-21-2005 4:31 PM


Re: chose your ruler
(link for speed of light not slowing)
quote:
"In fact, Stecker said it's possible that Lorentz invariance violations do occur in the universe, but at levels so tiny - less than one part in a thousand trillion - that they can't be detected by today's technology."
Well, admitting violations occur, but that we just can't yet detect them, maybe. Why not admit the same about a spirit dimension?
quote:
"It rules out some of the suggested models that explained gravity by involving added dimensions," Stecker said. The findings, however, don't preclude the existence of those added dimensions, just lowers their energy levels down a bit, he added.
So in same article, new dimensions can not be ruled out. (hey, it's your link!)
quote:
If the particles were moving slower than the accepted speed of light - 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second - they wouldn't have enough energy to annihilate each other.
Lastly, I have no reason to tinker with our light speed, but if someone did, could not there be another theoretical reason particles would annihilate each other?
quote:
(except possibly for that study that showed that the fine structure constant might have been different in the very early universe and if it was that might mean that the speed of light was different, but AFAIK later studies have not replicated that and the proposed change in the fine structure constant does not necessarily mean that the speed of light changed)
So, say in a 'split' scenario, the structure content would change, for the 'early' part, then, after split, light would stay the same, no surprise here.
Now as for evidence for our 'white crows' we havn't interpreted it right yet, if we have any, and if we don't, well, apparently we can't detect everything yet. All I say, is be careful of the 'ruler' you use to rule out a design(er) in the universe, cause we don't have one big, or good enough to do so, I don't care how we infer, interpret, insidt it 'must fit the bill'!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by JonF, posted 01-21-2005 4:31 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by JonF, posted 01-21-2005 5:44 PM simple has not replied
 Message 211 by JonF, posted 01-21-2005 5:47 PM simple has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 210 of 948 (179414)
01-21-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by simple
01-21-2005 5:29 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Still no attempt to post your evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:29 PM simple 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