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

As opposed to a single singular starting point?A Dark Energy start from say 1 million points?Creationists often make an issue out of this singularity point.I not so sure there is much mileage to get when once considers that the CMB can be observed.CMB imaging should have buried this issue once and for all.This was the only half-decent challenge to come from creationists IMO.

I put "multiple creation points halton arp" into the engine.Hit 2 was a creationist site.It appears that Arp's work has more to do with matter being created and not space.

quote:

---

Arp mentions in particular two major clusters, Virgo and Fornax, one in the northern sky and the other in the southern. See the large spiral structure in the Fornax supercluster shown in Figure 3. He says of these:

​

‘I am tempted to say that if there is a creator (and if so I would not presume to attribute anthropomorphic properties to it [shows his bias]) we might expect to hear: Look you dummies, I showed you the Virgo Cluster and you did not believe it so I will show you another one just like it and if you still don’t believe itwell let’s just forget the whole thing’.

​

....

​

The ejection-of-quasars-from-galaxies interpretation is vigorously rejected by the big bang community. Obviously this is because it utterly demolishes their key assumption of the genesis of all matter at the big bang. It also calls into question many redshift-distances determined by quasar redshifts. In the section ‘Alternatives to the big bang’ on page 393 of his book,12 Joseph Silk criticises the (Quasi) Steady State model of Sir Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge and Jayant Narlikar (HBN) with some particular observations but admits,

​

‘Only by disputing the interpretation of quasar redshifts as a cosmological distance indicator can this conclusion be avoided’ [my emphasis added].

​

Silk means that if quasar redshifts do mean that they are reliable as distance indicators then the origin of all matter was in the big bang. Arp disputes this, and, in fact, it is the main thrust of Arp’s observations! They cast enormous doubt on the distribution of galaxies in the universe and the interpretation of big bang expansion models.

​

Stephen Hawking has written a book13 that apparently alleges to be the ‘The theory of everything’. On page 22 he says:

​

‘The only reasonable explanation [is] that the galaxies were moving away from us, and the frequency of the light waves from them was being reduced, or red-shifted, by the Doppler effect’.

​

The use of ‘reasonable’ implies that anyone who has good reason to believe otherwise must be one of those crackpots. Also Hawking knows that it isn’t really Doppler shift in the big bang model, but space expanding causing light waves to stretch. On page 23 of this book, he speaks of Hubble’s discovery writing,

​

‘ the galaxies all appeared red-shifted. Every single one was moving away from us’. [emphasis added]

​

Was it too much for him to tell the truth? He must know that the galaxy M31 in Andromeda and a few others in the Virgo cluster have blueshifts and are interpreted as moving towards us. Cosmologically speaking, these are in our backyard, so Hubble would have seen them in 1929. So how can you trust anything else Hawking says?14 Such is typical of the blind adherent defending his cherished belief.

​

Arp’s position is to call into question all so-called ‘velocity related’ redshifts, except for very small intrinsic motions of galaxies and up to about 0.1c velocities for ejected quasars. He instead assigns a large intrinsic redshift not only to quasars but also to galaxies. HBN are more conservative and though they accept Arp’s interpretation on the redshift of quasars they also accept that the galaxies have a cosmological expansion component. Arp’s interpretation of quasar redshifts, in any case, reduces the distance scale of the most ‘distant’ quasars by a factor of about 100 and their luminosities by a factor of 10,000. A lower luminosity for quasars then resolves the paradox regarding their unbelievable large luminosities.

​

Question?

​

But are we really seeing the creation of new galaxies? In my opinion, yes! But it all happened on Day 4 during creation Week. We are looking back into the past, millions or billions of years of astronomical time, but only thousands of years of earth time, to Creation Week and soon after (see ‘A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem’). We are seeing the creation of the cosmos under the agency of God.

​

‘The heaven declare the glory of God and the firmament [night sky] shows His handiwork’. (Psalm 19:1)

​

Depending on the exact extent of the time dilation factor (a measure of different rates of flow of time in the universe compared to earth time), we may be seeing creation as it is happening.

​

The process of quasars being ejected from the centre of active galactic nuclei is a creation ex nihilo event, well beyond our physics to describe, though HBN and Arp have attempted to do so

​

The heavens declare a different story! – Bible Science Forum

---

Not a space issue, or an issue of Dark Energy having many starting points (as opposed to a Big Bang singularity)

Indeed, proving that the star game shows that we KNOW the distance to the SN. Thanks.Because your clock affects both paths equally -- they are in the same space, just as our solar system is all in the same space.If it is not true, then what is actually happening? What is actually happening appears equivalent to it being true. If there is nothing to distinguish between true and not-true, then the concept is pointless and irrelevant.Let's put it this wayThe existence of A is totally explained by theory B
or
The existence of A is explained by theory B modified by concept C, with this modification being completely undescernable, unevidenced and unmeasurable.Which is the better explanation to useB or B+CWell if we subtract B from B+C and have nothing left over that would alter the explanation, then C is irrelevant ...This, btw, is how Occam's razor works and it is why your fantasy has no legs.Enjoy

Actually, having time different here than where a star is does the opposite. It would need to be the same at all points to know distances.

And the evidence for this is zilch, while the evidence against this is both massive and unambiguous.You seem to have been taken over by some strange form of religious zealotry which blinds you to facts, reason, and logic. You shouldn't be posting in the Science Forums here.

Says the person who denies that the game models this, and still ends up with a scientific distance to SN1987A.Of course, admitting that fact would mean that the fantasy is exposed as the garbage concept it is.Ignoring evidence that contradicts your belief is delusion.Enjoy

If you took the same clock with the same settings to multiple places it would tick at the same rate.

This response indicates a lack of comprehension. When we look at the spectrum of light emitted from the sun, we can tell what gasses are present in the suns atmosphere by the lines of absorption. Different elements absorb light at different wavelengths. When we look at the spectrum of light arriving from distant stars and galaxies we see the same absorption lines, only shifted according to their velocity of line-of-sight recession. This means that these distant stars are composed as the same elements as our sun, though of course in differing amounts and at different temperatures. The relative position of the absorption lines means that time passes there in the same way it passes here. This is based on observations and not on beliefs. We observe from wherever we happen to be at the time, whether with or own eyes or by way of remote probes. And no matter where we happen to observe from, the laws of physics that we observe are always the same. Note: If you want to copy a part of a message that includes dBCodes for images or formatting, click on Peek Mode so you can see the raw text used to create the message.Most certainly it tells us how much time is involved. f = c / λ, where f is cycles/second and c is meters/second. Most certainly time is a critical component. The actual question was why you think we can only know time exists where we are. Crossing the street was just an example. Try to keep up. The probe is just an example of your ever shrinking religious claims. As the probe becomes more distant your religiously based claims dwindle. But the Voyager probes are just one of the sources of data we have for why the laws of nature here are the same out there. Patently obvious, actually. You have neither provided evidence nor engaged any evidence offered. The evidence provided is what we see. c is a fundamental constant of the universe, and because f = c / λ we know from our observations of the behavior of matter in distant stars and galaxies that the speed of light is the same there as here.--Percy

I think the more important argument is that it implies that the same processes (the ones that are responsible for the light emission in the first place) are occurring at the same rate. In short by verifying that sun-like stars have spectra that look like our own sun, we have evidence that physics, including the passage of time, is the same as it is here even at places that are monstrous distances away.The absorptions and emissions that make the spectra look different from a pure blackbody spectrum, are things that we know actually took place at the place where the light was emitted, and are governed by exactly the same physics as we use here.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The evidence for a same time in deep space is zilch. God any actual science?

Please do not ignore that you have provided no evidence for time existing as it does on earth in deep space.

[qs=taq]...[qs]No. You have never taken any clock out of the fishbowl actually. We know you believe the whole of creation has to be just like the fishbowl, but you do not know that at all.

Not in any way is that true. The position of lines tells us nothing about time there. Only here. Yes there are elements and gasses out there. However that is only what we see, so who knows what else is also out there that we cannot detect? Science admits seeing only 5% remember? Not only that, but it does no good at all to see some elements when we do not know how far away or big they are! You MUST have time exist the same as here to know distances. IN ALL cases you are in the fishbowl of earth and solar system area! No exceptions. Thus far and no further. It is almost meaningless that the light we see here behaves a certain way here. That tells us nothing about time there. Without time there being as here, no distances/mass/sizes etc etc are known. E=We could get spectra from the space station of hydrogen also...so? That would be significant because we do know how far away that is. Most certainly not actually. The C is only representing light acting and moving IN time HERE. In fact all the symbols and letters in your formula are fishbowl figures! The actual point was that a street on earth is not appropriate in measuring deep space.
. The Voyager is on the fringes (at best) of the fishbowl. That has zero to do with nature in the past. [qs] The evidence provided is what we see.[/q] Then you see less than I thought. You are mistaken as shown. C is the speed of light in the fishbowl! You only assumed it reflected the whole universe. Not at all. You do not just get to declare the speed of light in the fishbowl some universal constant. The fine constant structure also is a fishbowl concept. So is any force or anything else here. Energy also.

Too bad none of that tells us anything abut time there. Since we NEED time to exist to know distances and sizes, seeing hydrogen or something doesn't help since we do not know how far away it is.Also, when we see it here, at any rate....that is the rate here. We only could see it that way here where time exists!

From your Message 700, Message 701 and Message 702: Much, much more than zilch evidence has been presented to you. You're just avoiding addressing it. Little Freudian typo there?--Percy