Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2017 1:30 PM
388 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,124 Year: 16,730/21,208 Month: 2,619/3,593 Week: 86/646 Day: 26/60 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
40NextFF
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 1 of 593 (66753)
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


The young Universe position is logically on a weaker footing than an old Universe stance.

The YEC arguments base themselves as providing an alternative explanation for old Universe evidence.

They do not provide any 'facts' that categorically prove a young Universe, just supposed new interpretations that allow for a young Universe.

This being said, you only have to provide a single example of an old Universe that cannot be argued with and, ergo, you have falsified the young Universe position.

As I see it, there can be no way around the older Universe interpretation of the distance to supernova 1987A.

And I am talking about the GEOMETRICAL method of calculating the distance. This doesn't involve anything like standard candles, or relativistic redshifts but on good old trigonometry. (I do hope the YEC's accept trig.)

No way of varying the speed of light (one of the lamest concepts in YECdom) will at the same time explain this supernova being nearby and yet not changing the observed radioactive decay rates of the nickel and cobalt from the explosion.

This, and I stress, GEOMETRICAL distance gives a value of approx. 170,000 light years. No if's and's or but's about it.

Therfore, this supernova occurred 170,000 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And again, let me repeat, no tinkering with the light speed can get around this method of getting the distance whilst preserving the radioactive decay observations.

Thus we have a piece of evidence that directly FALSIFIES a less than 10,000 year old Universe. Now I accept that this on it's own doesn't give a 13.7 billion year old Universe, BUT it does the job with respect to falsifying creation being some 6-10 thousand years ago.

(Please note I am not referring to a parallax here, SN1987A is too distant for that.)


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 10:37 PM Eta_Carinae has responded
 Message 5 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 7:49 PM Eta_Carinae has responded
 Message 8 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 8:40 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Buzsaw, posted 07-28-2004 12:30 AM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded
 Message 52 by simple, posted 01-11-2005 9:20 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded
 Message 108 by Juhrahnimo, posted 01-13-2005 7:13 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded
 Message 270 by peaceharris, posted 03-28-2005 4:48 AM Eta_Carinae has responded
 Message 295 by starlite, posted 04-03-2016 11:00 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded
 Message 380 by time, posted 01-23-2017 9:20 AM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8779
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 2 of 593 (66757)
11-15-2003 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


When you refer to a geometrical distance determination you say you are not refering to parallax. Could you explain the difference? I thought the measurement was basically one of angles with the earth's orbit as a baseline. Isn't that effectively the same thing?

You seem to have a very clear challenge to the YEC'ers there. I think you can expect it to be ignored. But if we develop this thread a little more then perhaps it can be referred to the next time the age issue pops up.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:52 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 11-16-2003 10:22 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 3 of 593 (66762)
11-15-2003 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
11-15-2003 10:37 PM


Ring of the SN1987A

Supernovae are interesting opportunities when they explode in our vicinity. One could tentatively say: the closer, the better. The Supernova SN1987A appearing in the LMC has been used to determine the distance to this dwarf galaxy. By measuring the time at which a ionized ring appears and the time at which it reaches its maximum, Panagia et al. (ApJ 380, L23) deduce in a very simple geometrical model the distance to this Supernova (). The problem is thus to know where the Supernova is located in the LMC. The first estimation by Panagia et al. gave while Gould et al. (ApJ452, 189) estimated . The result is sligthly model dependent but the inclination of the ring deduced from the model is in good agreement with the one deduced from the elliptical shape of the ring. This gives us confidence in the model. Anyway, even by using this nice opportunity the distance modulus of the closest galaxy cannot be measured to better than 0.2 magnitude.

The conclusion is that the zero-point of the distance scale is not better than 0.1or 0.2 mag, whatever the method. The consequence about the value of the Hubble constant is not negligible (about 10%), but the main cause of discrepancy between different teams resides more specifically in the extension of the distance scale to larger distances.

This method does not utilise a parallax. It uses the geometry of the expanding ionisation ring from the supernova. Above is the ApJ reference to the Panagia paper.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 10:37 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 4 of 593 (66817)
11-16-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
11-15-2003 10:37 PM


Gee, this is new to you? OK.

EC is referring to simple trigonometry, but the baseline is not the Earth's orbit or anything local to us. It's sort of "inverse parallax". The baseline of the triangle is the distance from the exploded star to a ring of material that was given off in the explosion. The other two sides are the distance from Earth to the exploded star and the distance from Earth to the ring. This is obviously a fairly unusual situation, so SN1987A is pretty unique.

And it's got all sorts of fascinating implications. The distance to SN1987A is about 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles whether or not the speed of light in a vacuum has changed during the time the light traveled to us. Furthermore, we have observed the products of decay of radioactive cobalt isotopes in SN1987A, and they decay at the same rate they do on Earth today. If the speed of light did change during the transit from SN1987A to us, then the decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 had to change in exact lock-step in order to explain the observations. SN1987A contradicts a wide variety of YEC ideas.

There's gobs of material on the Web about this. See SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe (by a former YEC), The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light, and The Age of the Universe and SN1987A. If you enjoy seeing YEC's wriggle see The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism Table Of Contents and check out the SN1987A discussions.

[This message has been edited by JonF, 11-16-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 10:37 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 980 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 5 of 593 (66933)
11-16-2003 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


YEC evidences. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-16-2003 8:06 PM working out eating chips has responded

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 6 of 593 (66937)
11-16-2003 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by working out eating chips
11-16-2003 7:49 PM


Well let me say first that the link you provide is full of old ideas that have been refuted.

Second, you didn't address my post itself. I pointed out that YEC arguments are based upon providing an alternative to the observed facts. But if just one piece of old Universe evidence is shown to be true then it invalidates the young Universe position in one fell swoop.

Thirdly, and most pedantically, I didn't think was such a word as 'evidences'.

PS

Is there anything you can bring to the table with respect to the post I made at the start of this thread, instead of posting a link to old, easily refuted YEC claims.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 7:49 PM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 8:10 PM Eta_Carinae has responded

    
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 980 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 7 of 593 (66938)
11-16-2003 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Eta_Carinae
11-16-2003 8:06 PM


It's funny you say they've been refuted yet you show no proof of this.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-16-2003 8:06 PM Eta_Carinae has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-16-2003 9:51 PM working out eating chips has responded
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 11-17-2003 8:40 AM working out eating chips has responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 980 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 8 of 593 (66940)
11-16-2003 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


quote:
2. Most of the events astronomers observe would never have happened. For example consider a star explosion which astronomers observed in early 1987. This bright explosion, called Supernova 1987a, took place in one of the Magellanic Clouds (see introduction), about 160,000 light-years away from us. It was visible to the naked eye, and astronomers were (and are) very excited about it.

According to the "in-transit" theory, during creation week God would have made, about 6000 light-years away from us along the path between us and the Magellanic clouds, the light-wave images of an exploding star. He would also have had to have made the high-energy particles (gamma rays and neutrinos), as observed, from the exploded supernova. At the same instant of creation, further out along the path, He would have made images of an already-exploded star and its expanding shell of debris.

To be consistent, at the end of the 160,000 light-year path, God would also during creation week have made an actual supernova remnant (a dead neutron star), seemingly 160,000 years old with a large debris shell around it.

But according to the "in-transit" theory, in spite of the images and particles astronomers observed, no actual supernova explosion would have ever happened!

This sort of fictional interpretation of events that we see in the sky would deny astronomy most of its value as a study of the real world. It would make the study of distant stars into a kind of theological literary criticism -- a study of the fiction God would have chosen to write for us in the sky. And if most of what the heavens declare to us were fictional, then according to Psalm 19:1 ("The heavens declare the glory of God"), most of the glory of God would also be fictional. This philosophical-theological problem does not bother some supporters of the "in-transit" theory, but it disturbs many other people, including myself.


From: http://www.epcc.edu/faculty/jesseh/starlight_time_bk.htm

Refer to Humprey's "Starlight and Time"

------------------
-chris

[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-16-2003]

[This message has been edited by messenjaH, 11-16-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2003 8:47 PM working out eating chips has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 593 (66942)
11-16-2003 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by working out eating chips
11-16-2003 8:40 PM


So you think that God is a liar?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 8:40 PM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 9:01 PM crashfrog has responded

  
working out eating chips
Member (Idle past 980 days)
Posts: 1623
Joined: 01-12-2004


Message 10 of 593 (66943)
11-16-2003 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
11-16-2003 8:47 PM


No.

------------------
-chris


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2003 8:47 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 11-16-2003 9:39 PM working out eating chips has not yet responded
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 11-16-2003 10:21 PM working out eating chips has not yet responded
 Message 16 by JonF, posted 11-17-2003 8:45 AM working out eating chips has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 593 (66945)
11-16-2003 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by working out eating chips
11-16-2003 9:01 PM


No.

So... then you agree with Humphreys that the "in-transit" model is objectionable on theological grounds?

[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 11-16-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 9:01 PM working out eating chips has not yet responded

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 12 of 593 (66950)
11-16-2003 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by working out eating chips
11-16-2003 8:10 PM


Unless you are completely new to thinking about these issues you know that much material resides on the internet refuting these issues. I don't have the time nor inclination to type out (or provide links to) information you can get in 1 second with a Google search. I am sure you have heard of www.talkorigins.org

Read both sides of the issue before making blanket statements on the issues. And more importantly, learn some science before accepting the writings of non-scientists about scientific issues.

Do you think it's a coincidence that almost all scientists do not accept the YEC position on these points?

[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 11-16-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 8:10 PM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 11-16-2003 10:13 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded
 Message 18 by working out eating chips, posted 11-20-2003 5:26 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8779
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 13 of 593 (66953)
11-16-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Eta_Carinae
11-16-2003 9:51 PM


Perhaps Messenjah could pick one or two things he thinks are telling and we can point him to the easiest material on them?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-16-2003 9:51 PM Eta_Carinae has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8779
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 14 of 593 (66955)
11-16-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by working out eating chips
11-16-2003 9:01 PM


You seem to be suggesting that you support Humphries suggestion. I don't think it handles the problem of the measurement of the distance to SN1987A does it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 9:01 PM working out eating chips has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3651
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 15 of 593 (67020)
11-17-2003 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by working out eating chips
11-16-2003 8:10 PM


It's funny you say they've been refuted yet you show no proof of this

Probably because the refutations are so easy to find ... the fact that you haven't found them on your own speaks volumes.

Also, it took you a few seconds to put that link up, and it takes a half-hour or so to dig up and write up the links to the refutations of all those claims. This is known as the "Gish Gallop"; throw out a buch of claims as fast as possible and hope that the other side won't have the time it takes to refute them. The Gish Gallop is often a sign of a poster who doesn't really understand the issues and isn't interested in the truth.

Pick an issue from that page, start a new thread, and we'll rip it to shreds in short order. But first I suggest that you use the excellent search engine at talkorigins.org (link already posted) to look those claims up and see how flimsy and false thy really are. NAother good place to look, ath the same site, is the Index to Creationist Claims. Most if not all of the claims on your linked page are addressed there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by working out eating chips, posted 11-16-2003 8:10 PM working out eating chips has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by working out eating chips, posted 11-20-2003 5:35 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
40NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017