|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple ![]() Inactive Member |
quote:Yes, we observe light's speed, and how long it takes to get somewhere quite excellently. Also, we mix in some conjecture, and try to project into the distant past that it was always so. Some even try some future conjecture, once again leaving out any creator factor. Quantum fluctuations are cool, but creator calculations are out of vogue in much of modern science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, evidence instead of superstition.
quote: And a great many don't. Science isn't based on feelings, it is based on objective evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No we don't. We use evidence to back up the claim. Again, how is it conjecture when it is supported by evidence and not falsified by any of the evidence? Supernova 1987A and millisecond pulsars support the fact that physical constants were the same in the past and in different places in the universe. No conjecture is needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23127 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8 |
cosmo writes: Also, we mix in some conjecture, and try to project into the distant past that it was always so. Some even try some future conjecture, once again leaving out any creator factor. I think you must be missing something, because the supporting data is pretty abundant and complete. Could you be specific about what you think is being conjectured? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple ![]() Inactive Member |
I'll have to take another look at that. What I would be interested in would be not how constant it now is thought to be, but was, and will be, and if there was other light, instead/as well.
quote:Well, my feeling is not that man's efforts so far are that inconcusive, as much as they are exclusive. What are we missing? Why do we have the creation time so far off? What went on we have not yet been able, or willing to understand? How could we be misinterpreting what we do have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why do we have the creation time so far off? Far off of what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple ![]() Inactive Member |
[quote]Could you be specific about what you think is being conjectured?[quote]
That the 1987 blow happened only in time measured by how our light travels now. In other words, 163,000 years after the said creation date. Yes, it is that far away, in all liklihood, but not that long away. The conjecture comes in when it is assumed there were no other factors at play here. I understand you can't prove there were these other factors at your present state of knowledge. I also understand you can not prove nothing else made things happen in a different time frame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The conjecture comes in when it is assumed there were no other factors at play here. Since the alternative is to presume that unknown, undetectable factors make it so that we can't know anything at all about the universe, why do you believe that assumption is unreasonable? I mean, it might be that undetectable factors make it so that even though it looks like I live in Missouri, I actually live on the Moon. But why on Earth would I presume such a thing?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple ![]() Inactive Member |
quote:I think we all know I can't harp on things that are uncool in your chosen circle of science on this thread or board. Let's just say far off of the actual time frame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 23127 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.8
|
cosmo writes: Well, my feeling is not that man's efforts so far are that inconcusive, as much as they are exclusive. What are we missing? Why do we have the creation time so far off? What went on we have not yet been able, or willing to understand? How could we be misinterpreting what we do have? Instead of addressing each specific question, let me address just the gist of what you're asking, which seems to be, "How do we know we're right?" The answer is that we don't know we're right. That's why theories are considered tentative and changeable rather than fixed and permanent. It is not a valid rebuttal to say, "You could be wrong." We readily agree, as you would have to agree that *you* could be wrong. Such arguments weigh just as heavily on both sides of the debate and so cannot move either side's position forward. But our position is supported by a wealth of evidence, and so a valid rebuttal of our position can only occur when you have counter-evidence or counter-arguments that undercut our position. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple ![]() Inactive Member |
quote:How far in the past? Now if we take away for a moment light speed, what do you really have left here? Well timed pulses? Colored lights that seem to tell us of decay rates? And I already allowed to myself that they were at that time the same, anyhow. This would indicate to me, then this explosion after any big change in rates of decay, if there were any. So what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple ![]() Inactive Member |
quote:My arguement is that we can't say because decay rates are the same in this thing, that it means it was a long time ago. Only by assuming our light is the be all end all unchanging, unchangable constant that overrules all else can such great time lenths be conjured up.?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple ![]() Inactive Member |
quote:Only unknown because you rule them out of your circle of chosen knowledge. Undtectable, because men don't wish to detect them, and without accepting the bible's record, and a world of primo firsthand evidence of supernatural things, you won't have the ability to detect past man's nose properly. As far as knowing anything at all, man knows plenty. Those men who rule Him out know only so much about important things though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Only unknown because you rule them out of your circle of chosen knowledge. How can they be ruled out if we don't even know what they are?
Undtectable, because men don't wish to detect them So you've detected them? Good, that's what we've been asking for the whole time - the evidence you've accumulated that proves these factors exist. So, lay it on us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
can we move back towards discussing the supernova?
New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025