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

Ok Brad, we wait for your future suggestion. Watch out, though, I hear mixing it in a home lab can be dangerous.

quote:

---

The earth, in particular, fully supports a 4.5 billion year old solar system

---

Do you talk to the earth? Or are we just talking about how it appears to poor present science it is so terribly old? Man, with all the crap it's had to put up with since Adam and Eve, can you blame it? Even Bush is looking older these days!

quote:

---

So then I could argue that the pre-split absence of infinitely faster stuff also causes mismeasurements of the Empire State Building.

---

Could you really argue that? I dare you, even in jest.

quote:

---

Isn't it speculation and extrapolation that God even exists?

​

And I never said that quantum fluctuations could produce a universe, only that the could be tested to see IF they could

---

Well, Billions don't think so, any more than 911 was speculation. We read about it, and feel it's effects.

quote:

---

More accurately, the supernatural has never been successfully used to accurately predict new findings in nature

---

Not true. Elijah prayed for no rain, and got it. Joseph predicted a drought, or famine via a dream, and it came bang on cue. Hey, Noah predicted a flood!!!!

quote:

---

Yes. One gal in proverbs says she was there with Him.
Also Jesus who lived 2000 years ago was there. He actually was the One who created it. Yet He says His Father is greater than that! Can you imagine?

​

"And why should I accept their claims without evidence?"

---

No need to accept them, all you asked was did anyone ever see it, so I gave you God's own record, and named a few. After all, I don't accept science's universe in a speck sized quark gluon soup either. In this case also, you certainly have no witnesses, even 'just' in God's word!

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?

quote:

---

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.

---

This doesn't surprise me, but thanks for stating your position about who you think are fools. Fairly strong sentiments, and crass presentation, but, hey, b- for effort anyhow.

quote:

---

You claim that science is not considering the different speed of light before the split of the spiritual world. This is your argument

---

I could go with our light has always been the same. Never do I need, or expect it to change. Since it was made. If it was made as a replacement for something faster, and different, that can not exist in our plane, (spirit light), then I would need to know how fast the original could go. Before we traded the bmw in for a pinto. So, If I built the building using inches, and you come along with a new metric ruler, we need to convert! Doesn't mean your ruler is wrong, or the one used to measure the thing in the first place! Only thing that would confuse one, was if you didn't realize there were two correct ways to measure!

quote:

---

So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?

---

What evidence do we have stars are made of neutrinos, or whatever? It must be to fit the evidence, as best we can come up with. And, as we know, there is no way to prove otherwise. All we can do, in absence of that proof, is chose our theory. One that excitingly allows for a God of creation, and the bible's timetable, or one that pitifully does not, and yet tries to demand all believe, and that there is no other way.

quote:

---

A spectrum is just a fancy term for the different colors of light that are coming from a star (first sentence from your link)
..We do measure what stars are made of using spectrophotometry.

---

Yes we interpret colors coming from billions of light 'years' away. One day, we actually may even reach the point where we can check out, to see if our interpretation was anywhere near right. That day will not come while you or anyone reading this is alive, in a body, on earth. Meanwhile, I find the effort cute and interesting. Just as long as some poor soul does not dare try to use such creative color conclusions, to contradict bible certainties!

quote:

---

Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill.

---

Yes I realize about the inferences and theories. Since I consider an accidental universe impossible, and evidentally some design ay work, again it is unshackling ourselves of present light's limitations, that is required, to 'fit the bill'.

quote:

---

So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence

---

Less time involved. Why? - tell me how it doesn't.

quote:

---

. We choose the theory THAT FITS ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND IS SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE

---

Yes, the evidence of your choosing you might add!

quote:

---

Millisecond pulsars and the measurement of the speed of light between the supernova and the halo around the supernova.

---

Once again, reference to our 'new light ruler'.

quote:

---

Again, where is the evidence that the speed of light has been different in the past. I would really like this evidence

---

"Neutrino stars are inferred from the size and mass of the star. From our current theories, neutrinos are the only particle that fit the bill." and also inferred in writings that have been evidenced to be true, is that a short time ago, creation came about. Our present light does not fit the bill here. So I contend that the spirit light is the one that fits the bill here. Others contend it was our selfsame light, but that it changed speeds, which is fine, if they can hold off you guys with the red light blue light stuff.
Now Percy talks of black crows

quote:

---

Someone could say to you, "Sure, you've seen lots of black crows, but there could still be white crows out there." And you would have to concede that he is correct. But the possibility that you could be wrong is not the same thing as being wrong. Until a white crow turns up, the theory of black crows is still a solid theory.

---

Now in this case, of course spirit is the white crows! Now we can't say no one ever seen one. Effects are felt from the (normally)unseen world. We could look in a lab, and see a random quark fluctuation, of particles normally unseen, but for a time, observable as well. Now then what we see, depends on what we want to see to some extent, What we observe, depends on what we want to observe. What we are willing to consider evidence, depends on what we want to consider evidence. Science picks the jurors, here, and decides what evidence will be admissable, and selects the judge, should it be a surprise they admit no 'white crows' or creation light? No.

(link for speed of light not slowing)

quote:

---

"In fact, Stecker said it's possible that Lorentz invariance violations do occur in the universe, but at levels so tiny - less than one part in a thousand trillion - that they can't be detected by today's technology."

---

Well, admitting violations occur, but that we just can't yet detect them, maybe. Why not admit the same about a spirit dimension?

quote:

---

"It rules out some of the suggested models that explained gravity by involving added dimensions," Stecker said. The findings, however, don't preclude the existence of those added dimensions, just lowers their energy levels down a bit, he added.

---

So in same article, new dimensions can not be ruled out. (hey, it's your link!)

quote:

---

If the particles were moving slower than the accepted speed of light - 186,000 miles (300,000 kilometers) per second - they wouldn't have enough energy to annihilate each other.

---

Lastly, I have no reason to tinker with our light speed, but if someone did, could not there be another theoretical reason particles would annihilate each other?

quote:

---

(except possibly for that study that showed that the fine structure constant might have been different in the very early universe and if it was that might mean that the speed of light was different, but AFAIK later studies have not replicated that and the proposed change in the fine structure constant does not necessarily mean that the speed of light changed)

---

So, say in a 'split' scenario, the structure content would change, for the 'early' part, then, after split, light would stay the same, no surprise here.
Now as for evidence for our 'white crows' we havn't interpreted it right yet, if we have any, and if we don't, well, apparently we can't detect everything yet. All I say, is be careful of the 'ruler' you use to rule out a design(er) in the universe, cause we don't have one big, or good enough to do so, I don't care how we infer, interpret, insidt it 'must fit the bill'!

quote:

---

We can say that no one can has seen spirits with supporting objective evidence. We can say that no one has seen spirits change the speed of light. If spirits are evidence, can you please tell me the experimental methods for detecting them so I can do it in the lab?

---

Well. I can't really cut loose here and present much of an arguement, because I can detect Percy is already 'on the scent', and getting miffed at extra dimensional discourse that he determines detrimental to a desired discussion, and that doesn't dismiss definitely, a designer who decided to dissapear from our detection!
Anyhow, christians have supporting evidence, and eyewitnesses of spirits. It is amazing how science has gotten away with pretending there wasn't for so long. Now, about spirit light, and dimensions- can we not boil down this whole thing to the following simple challenge.
If evidence for spirits, or supernatural, or God, or miracles can in any way be proved, then the arguement is lost for your side? If any spirits can exist, we'd have to admit the Great Spirit as well, no? And then, except for little things we see or detect that do not contradict anything spiritual, we could then factor it in as evidence.
OK then it all hinges on no one in human history, or present, or future actually experiencing anything supernatural, and having some evidence. Hmm, getting a little nervous?

Do you think science has acknowledged, rather than ignored such potential evidences, then? I don't think so, it's usually shunned as bs, to use your word. If we try to 'fit the bill' with it, it's bs. So, if it can be proved there is some super natural, then it will have to become the 'Best Solution', and contrary scientific opinion be relegated to 'Belittling Spiritual'.

quote:

---

I don't follow the reason for the leap from a specific spirit existing to the Great Spirit existing ?

---

Well if spirits exist then they exist. So we can't turn around and badmouth a dimension for them, and some light! And such light, or such spitits could not be expected to go only as fast as ours do. Therefore we would need another ruler of measurement. Also if there, then are spirits, one would expect they could make a universe as much as someone claimed here on this thread that it theoretically could be done by a man in a lab! Now, I suppose, for now, we don't have to leap to the Great creating Spirit, just to One being scientifically possible, with our new spirit accepting, improved science.

quote:

---

Our debates are very specific

---

No. I wasn't proposing we do the great test on this thread. Simply, since some discussion of rulers, or methods of time measurement were touched on here, that the tossing out of spirits, would not be possible if some instance of one were to be shown to exist. Then, when we project our theories out into the wild blue yonder, we would have to include the new evidence as part of our knowledge .

It would seem they cannot be reconciled if we look at our light as the only ruler. That was why I proposed another solution, and a test to see if it could be admitted. It was ruled out, I think. So, we have, for our veiwing pleasure then, only the 'black crows', as far as science, decides to allow. I won't try to argue our light has changed. For that approach, I guess you need one of these guys like who wrote 'starlight and time', and won't get extra dimensional on you. That's fine, I think my point was made.