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

I notice I was suspended, guess I missed it as I didn't post for a few days. I am suspending my posts here to punish you for awhile. Fraudulent biased mods will no longer receive responses from me either. Ha,

How will we know that there is a genuine period of self-suspension though, if we don't know that time is passing where you are ?

For indicating he wouldn't respect feedback from moderators.

We know the distance to stars as well as we know how thick a support beam for a bridge must be.We may not know how thick a support beam must be to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... 0.00000000001 inches). But such a thing isn't necessary to know it needs to be 5'0".We may not know how far away distant stars are to some-irrelevant-level-of-precision (say... a few miles). But such a thing isn't necessary to know they are billions upon trillions of miles away.When you say "you do not know here" it is not enough information.
There are many, many things we don't know, in many places. What we need to identify is if the level-of-precision you're talking about is required in order to know the stars are far away from us.If you could explain what, specifically, it is you think we "don't know" then we can look to see if it's relevant or not.
Take your time to respond, these messages don't disappear, you don't have to reply as fast as possible. Do some thinking and try to put together a meaningful response with some content.

So you admit that your use of a poor (superseded) model of an atom was totally bogus for what we see in solar system planets, asteroids, comets and other "near space" objects. Indeed, relativity (space-time) explains the observations very well, with repeatability and high confidence. Meanwhile you still have not provided a different explanation than the current space-time relativity explanation for what we observe. What if invisible undetectable unicorns are not pink?And as long as our current understanding of space-time relativity explains the observations we make there will continue to be no rational reason or cause to fantasize about other possibilities.The deeper we've looked the more advanced our understanding has become, and this is a process that will continue. That we don't know all the fine details does not invalidate our current understanding. Would you not agree that their concept of "day" varies with latitude, and that at the north or south pole there would be massive contradictory anomalies between observed "days" there compared to observations at the equator? We can also throw in seasons, and note that the observations on when it is "summer" would also depend on latitude, with southern hemisphere observations being opposite to northern hemisphere observations?If so, would you not agree with me that those "measurements" were rather crude approximations back then. Years, seasons, months and days. Certainly too crude to make scientific observations in the detail we can do today.So our understanding of time is built on older systems with increasing accuracy\precision over time, with systems that explain observed anomalies (like day length), until we get to our current understanding (relativity, space-time). This is an ongoing process, so if you know of any aberrant observations, any anomalies, let us know. If you have a better explanation that covers these anomalies let us know. We await your scientific breakthrough concept. Sounds more like conflict avoidance behavior, as is your refusal to offer any substantiation for your fantasy argument.Meanwhile science will continue to use relativity space-time to explain the current observations. Poke the dragon enough times it will wake up. Note that your suspension is not because you are a creationist, it is because you don't follow the simple guidelines of the forum. Note that during this debate two (2) people were also suspended that were not creationists. That shows a lack of bias. And yet, curiously, you have not demonstrated that to be the case.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

You are the wind beneath my wings.

Does this include messaging?

Messaging works while suspended, plus Time's email address is public.

To know distances in the universe you need to have time exist there as it does here. Can you demonstrate that it does exist there and exist the same as here?

The decay curve for cobalt was observed to match the curve we see here on earth.Enjoy

So? Why wouldn't it? Let's say the distances were vastly different than what we think they are, based on the calculations that depend on time existing as we know it here. So let's just use 9 light years instead of 70,000. That would affect a lot of the math.
Since time is involved in a light curve we might want to check our facts again..If the size and distances are very wrong, assumptions such as expansion velocity, (how the distance approx proportional to center of sn etc). They also adjust the math for many things like thermal velocity, escape probability of protons...time since core collapse..dipole allowed transitions..forbidden transitions...temperature...mass...distance to the SN...etc etc to name a few.
http://adsbit.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?bibc...Edited by starman, : No reason given.

Nope. Assumptions don't affect math at all. We KNOW the distance from the star to the ring (see below). We KNOW the angle that the star and the ring subtend by direct measurement.The law of sines gives us the distance, no assumptions made. Simple high school math.That distance also confirms the speed of light has been consistent from there to here. Already done, many times over. They aren't. See above. ... are irrelevant to the calculation. Also irrelevant.If you are interested we can play a little game that demonstrates why we KNOW the distance from the star to the ring. We don't debate by links, are you prepared to discuss the details here?I note that it doesn't have anything to do with the decay curves for 56 Co .... it talks about the temperature curves, and compares them to a model they developed.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

No, you don't know distances at all. You see, you CANNOT grab a huge swath of TIME and space HERE in the earth solar system (base line) and then try to pretend it is a distance only measure! Ha.Go ahead and play your little game about knowing distance from ring to star though. Ha.Edited by starman, : No reason given.

Sadly, ignorance is not an argument, it is just ignorance. Okay, ... I like to call the game star checkers:It's a board game with two pieces, their movement is determined by the throw of a di, both move the amount shown on the di.One takes a path from the star to the earth, the other takes a detour to the ring and then to the earth Click on the image to enlarge it.The ring is shown highly eccentric to show that we use the major axis as the diameter of the ring, the eccentricity is caused by the ring tilting away from a perfectly perpendicular plane to our line of sight. We KNOW the ring is actually circular because the whole ring lit up at the same time. Each of the three lines is composed of dots with the exact same spacing from dot to dot, they are distance increments.We start with both playing pieces at the star and throw the di, then move both pieces the amount of dots shown on the di, which varies from 1 to 6 in a random pattern.Player piece A moves along the line from the star (lower left) to the earth (at the right)Player piece B moves along the lines from the star to the ring (upper left) and then from the ring to the earth without stopping at the ring.When player piece A reaches the earth we are in the modern (1987) era with consistent speed of light and travel distances ...so we keep repeating the last distance thrown on the di until player piece B reaches the earth.The difference in time between player piece A reaching the earth and player piece B reaching the earth is then multiplied by the modern (1987) era speed of light both are experiencing gives us an accurate measure of the distance from the star to the ring.This time is known. This calculation of the distance between the star and the ring is thus a known fact.Thank you for playing.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : light not lifeEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Sadly, ignorance is not an argument, it is just ignorance.

---

One example of a base line for parallax measurement is the distance earth moves in six months. That is a huge distance. It involves a big piece of spacetime. If you admit time exists here, then time exists with the space. Not sure what you are missing here.
Sadly, ignorance is not an argument, it is just ignorance.Go ahead and play your little game about knowing distance from ring to star though. Ha.

quote:

---

Okay, ... I like to call the game star checkers:
It's a board game with two pieces, their movement is determined by the throw of a di, both move the amount shown on the di.

​

One takes a path from the star to the earth, the other takes a detour to the ring and then to the earth

​

Click on the image to enlarge it.

​

The ring is shown highly eccentric to show that we use the major axis as the diameter of the ring, the eccentricity is caused by the ring tilting away from a perfectly perpendicular plane to our line of sight. We KNOW the ring is actually circular because the whole ring lit up at the same time.

​

Each of the three lines is composed of dots with the exact same spacing from dot to dot, they are distance increments.

​

We start with both playing pieces at the star and throw the di, then move both pieces the amount of dots shown on the di, which varies from 1 to 6 in a random pattern.

​

Player piece A moves along the line from the star (lower left) to the earth (at the right)

​

Player piece B moves along the lines from the star to the ring (upper left) and then from the ring to the earth without stopping at the ring.

​

When player piece A reaches the earth we are in the modern (1987) era with consistent speed of light and travel distances ...

​

so we keep repeating the last distance thrown on the di until player piece B reaches the earth.

​

The difference in time between player piece A reaching the earth and player piece B reaching the earth is then multiplied by the modern (1987) era speed of life both are experiencing gives us an accurate measure of the distance from the star to the ring.

​

This time is known. This calculation of the distance between the star and the ring is thus a known fact.

​

Thank you for playing.

---

The speed of anything around the SN is not known unless the distance to the SN is known. To get that distance you cannot assume that a slice of time and space in the solar system is equal to a slice of time and space where the stars are!
For your checker game, we know that exists IN our space and time so we CAN determine size and distances.