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

Fail #25 -- still no substantiation for your vapid assertions.Enjoy

Irrelevant, you still fail to provide any evidence for your fantasies.Fail #26EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : losing count of the failures to support the assertions

Could be, sure.
And if this does happen, then Science will acknowledge that it happens and adjust accordingly.
However, if it doesn't happen, then Science will make progress where progress will happen and not stutter in the wrong direction.A win-win situation for Science. This is what was said about those trying to build computers when they used to take up entire warehouses just to be as powerful as a mostly-useless calculator.
But progress continued despite the foolish notions, and look where we are now! Where will be tomorrow? Best to keep making progress and see. I don't think you understand.Making assumptions is exactly how progress is made.1 - Make an assumption.
2 - Carry on as if that assumption is true.
3 - Don't run into any issues? Continue with assumption and make more assumptions and make progress.
4 - Run into an issue? Stop and understand problem, discard faulty assumption, make a different assumption and continue to make progress.Making assumptions isn't the fault of science, it's the massive horsepower under the hood.
Testing and then discarding or verifying those assumptions is the steering wheel and front wheels.Together, they assure that progress is made and in the right direction.If you remove the assumption making... you can still steer but you'll never go anywhere. Stuck in the mud.
If you remove the testing/discarding/verifying... you can move "forward" but you have no idea if you're going the right way. Always end up lost.Both are required, and they must work together.Stars being far away uses both, and (currently) it is known that stars are far away as well as it is known that your computer runs software.

It's a little more complicated than that, instead of assumption we use hypothesis, which are concepts that attempt to explain evidence (rather than just assume something, like say that there was a "previous nature") in a way that is testable, then we have the iterative test and tweak process: An hypothesis that passes a test becomes a theory, and testing of the theory continues so that it can be tweaked and poked and prodded to improve it.Theories are never proven, they just go on being tested, however they can be falsified or invalidated if they fail any tests and the theory cannot be tweaked and poked and prodded to include the results of the test.Advances in science are made when theories are falsified and a new and better explanation is produced as a result. Indeed, and super novae are of interest as they show how elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are made. Close ones like SN1987A that can be seen in a telescope and that have a known distance are useful in testing several theories, including how the remnant star and gasses cool and what elements are involved (such as cobalt and iron).Enjoy

We know the distances in space fro the same reasons, because we can see them.

You can't see time or that it exists the same as here. You only assumed a bunch of things and believed.

We can make stuff on the space station. Just because there are some elements where stars are does not mean any of your fables are true.

You cannot compare computers to the far past nature on earth, or to unknown deep space. Irrelevant.

Showing science prophesied falsely is quite relevant.

Regardless of diversionary blather, it is true that they dd not know the rings were there before the event. You grow shrill.

Guess who is in denial here? Have you proved time exists in far space or even addressed the issue?

Failures #27, 28, 29 and 30: not one whit of evidence provided to support your fantasy.You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to support it. With evidence.Without the evidence and the support you comments are worth less than all the ant frass in antarctica.You are like a moth circling a candle flame.Your next post will fail also to provide supporting evidence.Because you don't have any.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

starman's assertion that "Have you proved time exists in far space or even addressed the issue?" has got to be the stupidest comment I've heard from anyone over five years old in my life; and he may well simply get insulted by what I say and not understand that it is based on pity of him and hope that starman might actually grow up a little.When we look at "far space" we can see change. It is not always the same. If things change in far space then time exists in far space and everything is not happening all at once.That is not an assumption but rather a conclusion based on evidence; we observer things in far space changing rather than them never changing therefore time must exist in far space.

Nope, first because science progresses through failed predictions ... but second and more to the point:Can you tell me why the telescopes were watching and videoing to see when the nova wave hit the ring? It seems that you were lying to claim that scientists did not know the ring was there. Bad starman, now having to fabricate falsehood to play your little game.You are such a tool for education of others: why creationists have bad arguments and worse arguments, they have no evidence and their purported "science" is inconsistent and frequently contradicts itself.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

And here we have another teachable moment on the failures of creationist arguments in general, and starman's argument in particular.Science doesn't prove things, never has, never will ...... because there is always the chance that some random anomaly will be discovered that causes a rewrite, either a tweak of the current understanding or a new paradigm that explains not only all the evidence to date but includes the anomaly. Such was the case when Einstein's relativity explained the anomaly of Mercury's orbit around the sun that was not explained by Newton's Law of Gravity.But more importantly, science doesn't need to prove anything.Why? Because science and the scientific method build explanations of all the observed evidence, called theories, and the more inclusive a theory is at explaining the evidence the better it reflects what we know.Theories are approximations of reality, the more those theories are tested and challenged by new information and yet still provide accurate results, the stronger the theory becomes.That means we can proceed on the basis that those theories will provide usable results until shown otherwise.ie -- there must be contrary evidence, or evidence of some anomalies not explained by the theory, before we need to consider a new explanation ... because until that point the theory works. Until that point the theory is usable and better than any belief or opinion or fantasy at providing usable results.This is why creationism continually fails in relation to science. So have you provided any evidence of the current knowledge of astronomy to show (A) that it is false or (B) that there is any anomaly in the results?No? Then we don't need to consider your fantasy, because the current knowledge works in a consistent, congruent, comprehensive manner to provide results as accurate as we currently know is possible.Does your concept provide any usable results? No? Then we don't need to waste time on it.Does your concept provide a better explanation of all the astronomical evidence currently known? No? then it is pointless to consider.This is why starman's comments are such an absolute, complete, and utter failure, post after post after post.This is also why I can predict, based on the observation of his posts to date, that he will never post any evidence to substantiate his assertion, any evidence that the current understanding is wrong, any evidence of any anomaly that is explained better by his concept.The only reason for the concept is to support some fantasy related to his personal interpretation of certain bible and scripture passages -- an interpretation that is not even consistent with other christians. Coupled with profound ignorance of science and the scientific method.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.