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

but you think it's statistically plausible why 3 go off in a matter of a few seconds?By the way you might want to rethink the whole idea of the "speckle" sources being other supernovae?Do you really think adding the effects of 3 supernovae produces the observed light curve in the different bands?i.e.check more recent work than the 1999 Nisenson paper.

I misread your previous post. My mistake. Sorry.

Now is the time for folk to summarize their positions, ask final questions and think about tomorrow. There is still room for a few more comments but we are approaching the 300 post mark.

---

You should explain to newcomers {peaceharris} that this is the normal process for all forum topics, and note that if he wants to open a new topic focused on his model that he can do that in the {proposed new topics} forum
EvC Forum: Proposed New Topicsthe other alternative is to branch this off into {falsifying a young universe - supernova 1987A -- II} thread taking eta's OT post and then jumping to peaceharris's first post.I wouldn't mind continuing.(edited to fix spelling}This message has been edited by RAZD, 03*29*2005 07:53 PM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

There are a 2 points that I want to make:
1) Why we do not detect the expansion of the ring if it consisted of ejecta? Sylas argued that any expansion rapid enough to make the ring in three years would still be proceeding at a rate to see some difference in the next fifteen.The correct answer in my opinion is that the ejecta was moving very slowly after the first few years. Phillips et al (1988 AJ Vol 95 pg 1087) measured the ejecta for the first 130 days. (I have argued in my article at geocities that the absorption lines due to Fe were due to the central star, and not the neighbors). Within the first 30 days the velocity of the ejecta had dropped from 10000km/s to 3000km/s. Then upto the 90th day, the velocity of the ejecta was constant at about 2500km/s. From the 90th day to 130th day it dropped to 1700 km/s.
It is not at all surprising that the velocity of the ejecta could continue to decrease to 10km/s after a few years! (Sylas made the claim that the current expansion rate is 10km/s, and by playing this backward, the ring was formed 20000 years before the explosion)2) Are the bright spots interaction between the ejecta and the ring? My opinion is that the first bright spot was an interaction between the rings of ejecta. (In my article at geocities, I argued that the larger rings were from the neighbors). Irrespective of whether my interpretation is correct, we must realize that these spots had nothing to do with the predictions of Luo et al. Luo et al predicted a bright arc that would gradually grow into a ring 11 months later. Instead the first bright spot appeared in 1997 (at 11 o'clock position). Then in 2000, 3 more bright spots appeared at position 7 - 8 o'clock. Only after 2001, the other parts of the ring brightened up.You cannot use the the series of 15 images at McCray's website to verify my hypothesis that the first bright spot was formed due to interactions between the different rings. Both the larger outer rings are not visible in the series of 15 images. (I don't know why, but I suspect he used some weird image processing to remove them, since he probably just wanted to highlight the bright spots) But both the outer rings are visible in the image at plate L31 of ApJ Vol 492, L139. In this image you can see that the northern outer ring intersects the inner ring in the NE quadrant.Blue shifted H-alpha emission at -250km/s has been detected from this first hot spot (ApJ 492 L139).Sylas wrote, "On the other hand, we have timed the material in the ejecta now colliding with the ring, using Lyman alpha lines. It is moving at 15,000 km/sec." To use the lyman-alpha emission to prove that the ejecta collided with the ring is not correct. None of the other emission lines are consistent with the Lyman alpha emission. Broad Lyman-alpha emission has been observed by the IUE on sn1987a even in 1987. Astronomers had claimed that this was due to geocoronal emission, but in my opinion it was due to the SN ejecta.I don't see any reason why broad Lyman-alpha emission should be due to the ejecta colliding with the ring. If you want to use Lyman alpha emission to prove that the ejecta collided with the ring, I can prove in the same manner that the ejecta collided with the ring in 1987, since broad lyman alpha emission was seen even then. I think it is pure silliness.refer: MAST: IUE PreviewThe Lyman-alpha line is the most ambiguous line, please use some other emission/absorption feature to prove your point that the ejecta was moving at 15000km/s in 1997.

It is not likely that 3 stars at roughly the same position should explode at the roughly the same time. Nevertheless, most of my opinions are based on observation.The evidence for the 3 SNe is based on the fact that there were 3 bright sources, 3 peaks in its light curve, 3 light echoes and 3 rings of ejecta and 3 emission line objects.The 3 peaks are also backed up by the fact that there were 3 elements present abundantly in each of these 3 stars, whose absorption was seen most clearly when the light curve peaked.There's really no other way to explain sn1987a except by the fact that there were 3 stars which exploded.Reply to RAZD (message 289):
I would like to continue this discussion, but on a much slower pace. Maybe something like 1 post per week.

I am really busy the next few days but if you start a new thread on this I'll take the time this weekend.By the way, in response to your earlier question:I never said the neutrinos had anything to do with the distance, however you were being somewhat disingenuous when you said that the duration of the neutrino flux caused a change in traditional physics.

OK. I created a new thread entitled Supernovae. Not merely to discuss sn1987a, but anything else related to supernovae.

bump for Ingvarfrom
EvC Forum: what is the big bang and how do i understand it?

There is a way around the distance thing. All we need to do is have time not exist in deep space as we know time here. That would mean that our base line here, which is based on spacetime points (example: two measures to a star six months apart) does not represent space and time where the star is.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. What do you mean by time "not existing", where exactly does time "not exist" and how would it affect the measurements ?When you can actually explain your idea in a way that makes sense, we can get into the question of whether it is anything more than an outlandish ad hoc speculation.

Well, if time did not exist as we know time on earth, obviously it would affect how much time anything takes! If our year of time for example in deep space somewhere represented say, one second of time, then forget using light years as a measurement from here to there!
e don't know. So, unless you do know, you may not claim the things you have been claiming.Edited by starlite, : No reason given.

So you are just handwaving .The first and obvious objection to your idea is that anything moving at a finite speed requires time to cover distance. Therefore light - which travels at a finite speed - could not pass through a region where no time passed.From this it follows that the fact that we can see the supernova indicates that there is no intervening region where time is not passing.

I normally stay out of this kind of topic because I just don't understand it, but my usual answer to the apparent great age of the universe is that time appears to be something different on the scale of astronomy than it is to us on Earth. I don't understand this, how it could be or what it means in terms of physics etc., but I keep thinking about the claims that a person traveling astronomical distances would not age as he would on Earth. That suggests that there is a big difference in how time works on these different scales, which seems to be related to what you are saying.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's not because of the distance he travels, but the speed. It's the same for things on Earth, traveling short distances, but doing so very quickly.