Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 169 of 948 (178300)
01-18-2005 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by commike37
01-18-2005 7:22 PM


Google Humphrey
If you google humphrey at this site you will find past discussion of that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by commike37, posted 01-18-2005 7:22 PM commike37 has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 170 of 948 (178303)
01-18-2005 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by simple
01-18-2005 7:01 PM


Re: ruler dimensionally challenged
Well, for determining the speed of our light, and some other things. Not for claiming the universe has nothing else Unseen.
That wasn't the question asked. Are you haveing some trouble sticking to the issue at hand?
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-18-2005 19:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by simple, posted 01-18-2005 7:01 PM simple has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 177 of 948 (178512)
01-19-2005 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by simple
01-19-2005 4:36 AM


169,000 years equals no God?
Who was the fool who taught you that if the world is old then there is no God?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by simple, posted 01-19-2005 4:36 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:44 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 185 of 948 (178803)
01-20-2005 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by simple
01-20-2005 12:44 AM


Re: 169,000 years equals no God?
I take it your point is about the christians who embrace long ages, and simply reinterpret the bible to appease science? Yes I am aware of those nice people. I think the pope is even now one! Proof, I guess he really isn't infallible, unless this evolution acceptance is I forget what they call it-basically doesn't count as being really a message from God.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. I doesn't seem to answer the question:
"Who was the fool who taught you that if the world is old then there is no God? "
A follow on would be that you explain the logic of this.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 00:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 12:44 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:02 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 188 of 948 (178809)
01-20-2005 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by simple
01-20-2005 1:02 AM


God's record
Why, who was the fool who taught you something else? I just go by God's record, so I guess He's the guilty one. And yours?
No one has taught me that a young earth or an old earth means no God. There are many who have come here who want to say that an old earth means not God. I don't see the logic and agree with the majority of believers that those who try to show that God doesn't exist if the world is old are fools.
God wrote only one record. It is the world around us. It's message is clear. It seems He disagrees with you.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-20-2005 01:11 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:02 AM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:20 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 190 of 948 (178821)
01-20-2005 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by simple
01-20-2005 1:20 AM


Re: grades are in
Hey don't give me the credit, I'm just going with the majority of Christians on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 1:20 AM simple has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 230 of 948 (179733)
01-22-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by JonF
01-22-2005 5:33 PM


A restatement of c independance
This is good! But I had to read it twice and make little pictures to convince myself it was right.
I'm going to see if I can make it clearer.
We assume the ring radius is 1 unit (which is 1 light year).
We assume light was travelling at 3 times c at the time of the super nova.
We assume light slows down smoothly over the travel time to earth (I don't think it matters)
In the constant c scenario 1 year after the supernova blew we have the direct beam to earth 1 light-year along the way to earth and the detour beam to be just at the ring and not started to earth at all.
In the variable c scenario 1 year after the supernova blew we have the direct beam to earth as 3 light years to earth and the detour beam as having covered the distance to the ring AND cover 2 lightyears on the way to earth.
Thus in either case the detour beam is 1 unit (1 of our current lightyears) behind the direct beam. It doesn't matter how c has varied.
When the two beams finally reach earth the direct beam is 1 unit ahead of the other. If c has slowed down to it's official value we measure today the detour beam will take another year to arrive (if the unit was one lightyear of current c). We will then measure the ring radius to be 1 light year (at current c) no matter how light speed varied at the time.
I don't know if that helps or not. I did me good anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 5:33 PM JonF has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9003
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 250 of 948 (179908)
01-23-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 243 by RAZD
01-23-2005 1:38 AM


Re: distance by the 'regular' method?
Does anyone have a reference\information for what the distance to the supernova is\was by the standard red-shift model?
just for comparison?
Off the top of my head, I'd say it is way too close to apply this. The local group is gravitationally bound and won't be separating due to expansion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 1:38 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 12:01 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024