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

If you start with the answer you want - humans are the most important thing in the universe - you get geocentrism, which is wrong because it doesn't fit all the facts. Geocentric model - WikipediaIf you try to force the observed facts to your preconceived answer, you get geoheliocentrism - which is wrong because it doesn't fit all the facts. Tychonic system - WikipediaIf you start with the facts and try to figure out the answer - the scientific method - you get heliocentrism - the most likely to be right because it fits the known facts. Heliocentrism - Wikipedia If you are using the scientific method, you test your answer. For example a space probe like the Cassini probe interesting multiple planets as they move through space based on your calculations using the heliocentric model. Gravity assist - WikipediaWhich specific facts related to the age of the universe do not fit the generally accepted science? Edited by 14174dm, : ClarificationEdited by 14174dm, : Clarity

I agree, and await evidence time exists in the far universe.

The SN1987a event is fine. It was claimed we use trigonometry and I pointed out that means assuming and believing time exists there as her...for NO reason. Is that all you have is beliefs to peddle??

Great so where is the evidence that the time you requite to know things like distances exists where the stars are? Cough it up man.

?? What in tarnation you talking about? The baseline is the well...base line. Example, a measure from earth to a star in June, and another one in Dec, then they draw a line in our space to get the distance. We know the distances of the orbit of earth, so they then come up with a certain number of miles...I have to tell you this??

quote:

---

If you start with the answer you want - humans are the most important thing in the universe - you get geocentrism, which is wrong because it doesn't fit all the facts. Geocentric model - Wikipedia

---

I start with what is known. I also look at what posters here claim. Concern yourself with supporting your position, not inventing phantom reasons why another poster has a position.

quote:

---

If you try to force the observed facts to your preconceived answer, you get geoheliocentrism - which is wrong because it doesn't fit all the facts. Tychonic system - Wikipedia

---

Great so no forcing facts. Maybe at least start posting a few??

quote:

---

If you start with the facts and try to figure out the answer - the scientific method - you get heliocentrism - the most likely to be right because it fits the known facts. Heliocentrism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Likely only counts in horseshoes. Let's see what you know, and forget the tap dancing.

---

​

If you are using the scientific method, you test your answer.

---

Impossible in origins issues. Let's see you test time in the far universe with that!? If not all is lost for your position.

quote:

---

For example a space probe like the Cassini probe interesting multiple planets as they move through space based on your calculations using the heliocentric model. Gravity assist - Wikipedia

---

The planets are near earth, so are irrelevant to the issue here. As to being interesting, of course creation is interesting..no credit to cassini.

quote:

---

Which specific facts related to the age of the universe do not fit the generally accepted science?

---

Too vague...

Are you suggesting that there is no time at all in the far universe?By the way, I also am a moderator and wish to remind you that while it may be an adrenaline rush to do a driveby, it is better to get to know people and challenge yourself. You can be a leader or you can be a Chuunibyou the choice is up to you. The mods will suspend you if you seek only the thrill of a driveby, but if you want to open up and tell me about your life, goals, passions and plans, i'll respectfully listen. I won't be nice to a Chuunibyou, however.

quote:

---

Are you suggesting that there is no time at all in the far universe?

---

Who knows? Until we do one doesn't know now does one?

quote:

---

By the way, I also am a moderator and wish to remind you that while it may be an adrenaline rush to do a driveby, it is better to get to know people and challenge yourself. You can be a leader or you can be a Chuunibyou the choice is up to you. The mods will suspend you if you seek only the thrill of a driveby, but if you want to open up and tell me about your life, goals, passions and plans, i'll respectfully listen. I won't be nice to a Chuunibyou, however.

---

The thread about the big bang and age of the universe doesn't really involve personal details. I can handle any poster on any detail of any issue though. It isn't me that will be running.

Provided, and you ignored it. SN 1987A and the decay of 56Ni. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

No, you asserted that means assuming and believing time exists there as here. I'm waiting on you to prove that. As scientists do (insofar as anyting is proven in sceince).

I have to tell you again and again that the distance to SN1987A was not measured using a triangle with the Earth's orbit as a baseline? Your ignorance is showing again, and your predilection (common for YECs) to make up stories based on your ignorance rather than investigating reality..The Earth was at the tip of the triangle. The baseline was a line from SN1987A to a ring of debris about a light-year from SN1987A. Further explained with a nice diagram at the reference I gave previously, The Age of the Universe and SN1987A.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It's pretty obvious you start with a vague idea of a few scientific findings and your unshakable conviction on YEC, and the bulk of what you post is made up based on your ignorance. Claiming otherwise just undermines your credibility further.You are posting to (obviously not discussing to) people who know far more about the relevant subjects than you do. Your arrogance is unwarranted.

Please explain how that has anything at all to do with whether time exists there? If not why continue ignoring facts?

Let's be honest and clear, I am saying you do not know and your posts confirm that. I am asking you to stop with the bare assertions that there is time there as we know it. As I pointed out that is the sole basis for the distances and the sizes and etc etc etc.

You confirm you do not understand how the measure is taken and what it is comprised of. If any other poster wants to know we can discuss that. You have shown yourself to be boringly closed minded.