The not so distant star light problem

The light from the explosion of the star that became super nova SN1987 did not reach earth instantly during Creation Week. Instead that light reached earth in February of 1987 and we observed the explosion at that point. SN1987a is about 168,000 light years away from earth.

This type of speculation can be very interesting to many people, but speculation and guesswork is really all it is, it isn't science. Science is supposed to be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable. Speculation about hundreds of thousands of light years doesn't even come close to measuring up.

Now perhaps things were different during Creation Week, but somehow, people on earth were receiving light from a blue giant that did not exist at that time. Shouldn't they instead have been getting light from a supernova? Why did God speed up fake light?

You seem to understand the AIG link as claiming that God created ALL stars during creation week, that the re-arrangement processes (stars dying, stars being born, etc.) couldn't happen later. I don't think it says that at all. Creationists obviously believe ~some~ evolution processes have taken/ are taking place after creation week. It's just as easy to believe that astrological (is that a word?) processes can take place following creation in the same way.

If you're saying that the sn1987 explosion HAD to have happened long before creation week, then you're doing two questionable things, 1) You're still trying to fit the supernatural act of creation into the very limited time frame that humans are capable of understanding, and 2) you're taking on faith, (accepting as fact) all the guesses and speculation about hundreds of thousands of light years, things that are not science, not falsifiable.

I take NOTHING the scientific community says on faith. I guess you could say I do a milder form of skepticism towards science as atheists do to Christianity. Rather than just saying WRONG WRONG WRONG, as atheists do to religion, I have to see real evidence, either personally, or from other individuals or groups that I trust, before I accept as fact what the scientific community says. I don't automatically disregard what they say, but I don't automatically accept it as fact either. What they say about sn1987 and 168,000 light years might be perfectly true, but since it comes from the same people who, a few years ago said "hey, there just might be water on the moon!!!!, but we don't know yet", I choose not unquestionably trust what they say about hundreds of thousands of light years.

(AIG link) A flashlight, for example, operates by converting electricity into light, but the flashlight was not created by this process. Is this really an accurate characterization of what anyone thinks? Surely not.

It must be, since someone wrote it. It makes perfect sense to me.

What people actually think is that the laws of physics are unchanged,

All atheists maybe, but not necessarily all people.

(AIG link) Today, we do not see God speaking into existence new stars Nope? Then apparently all of the new stars we see being created happen via natural processes.

Not being created, just undergoing re-arrangement processes. A big difference from what happened during creation week.

marc9000 writes: though I'm not necessarily bound to a "young earth" belief. Whaaat?? Ah then, go to hell.

You've never heard of an "old earth creationist"? Good, I'm not one of those either. I'm somewhere in between. Since the creation event happened outside of time as we know it, then attempting to assign ages to planets and stars may be a somewhat acceptable thing for us to do, to further our understanding of science in practical, nuts-and-bolts applications(not atheism), but may not really be useful in coming to conclusions about how and when creation occurred.

If they are explainable by scientific mechanisms, naturalism, how then are they acts of God?

You'd have to know more about Christianity (the nature of God) to accept the fact that he can be in control, and still allow humans free will.

Hey marc9000, sorry you got hooked in with my post #10. As you probably now realize it was a bit sarcastic.

I realized it was sarcastic when I first saw it. Likewise, I'm sorry if I rained on your atheist love fest.

I hope you enjoy your romp here and begin to see further than your initial knee jerk reaction to posters.

No knee jerk, I've been participating on forums like this for the past 10 years. I've learned a lot about the emotion, the arrogance, the desire for power and money that the scientific community and it's followers desire.

You may be surprised to find that many who self-identify here as atheists began their journey with beliefs not dissimilar to your own.

Not surprised at all, Nobel Prize winner Stephen Weinberg said that "weakening the hold of religion" could end up being one of science's greatest accomplishments, and the scientific community is obviously masterful at it, from middle school science textbooks all the way up to top-level star gazers.

You may also be surprised to discover that some here are theists and they are treated with respect despite this area of disagreement.

Sure, they're treated with respect, as long as they bend and shape their Christianity to fit whatever atheists are telling them about science.

Have fun and learn to shoot with a rifle rather than a shotgun, it will reveal more about your target.

We do have irony! Have you ever witnessed 5, 10, or 15 angry atheists here insulting one creationist poster?

But I take your point and understand why you disliked this thread now. Random walks take no time at all with infinite c. E=mc^2, so now with a very large value of c, the fusion in the sun generates a very large value of E . Earth is toast. Is this good enough? Or does the hypothetical YEC get to speculate that the mass was less in the early history of the earth as well?

Surely you see some alternatives other than this. Even if more energy was released by fusion, then we might speculate that the fusion rate was lower. But it might be easier to just have the photons escape without that long tortuous walk. Not top tough if God is intervening.

But how about marc9000s approach? Just declare anything contrary to your understanding of the Bible non science.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

marc9000 writes: This type of speculation can be very interesting to many people, but speculation and guesswork is really all it is, it isn't science. Science is supposed to be testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable. Speculation about hundreds of thousands of light years doesn't even come close to measuring up.

You can measure how far away stars are yourself with a telescope, some trigonometry and a little patience (you have to wait about 6 months between observations.) - this works for up to maybe 1000 light years if you can get access to a prety good instrument. Satellites take it back further.

After that there are various methods used, can you explain what's not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable about them?

After that there are various methods used, can you explain what's not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable about them?

Yes, the nearest stars can be measured using parallax, and there are other methods used to estimate distances for objects even further away. Interestingly enough, not one of the methods involves assuming any particular speed for the speed of light. In fact, measurements of SN1987a are used to confirm that the speed of light had its current value 168,000 years ago.

Here are some links to articles describing the science used to determine the distances to distant objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/.../astro/distance.html

After that there are various methods used, can you explain what's not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable about them?

Nothing at all. One of the EvC's least scientifically qualified posters simply has decided that astronomy is not science, and I don't see any real point in trying to convince him otherwise. I think he's actually illustrated a possible answer to the OPs question. Straight up denial.

You can measure how far away stars are yourself with a telescope, some trigonometry and a little patience (you have to wait about 6 months between observations.) - this works for up to maybe 1000 light years if you can get access to a prety good instrument. Satellites take it back further.

Let's have a non-scientists look at parallax - I posted a non-scientists look at light years a few months ago in another thread, it bears repeating here, and is perfectly on topic. It involves putting into a somewhat recognizable perspective just how far a light year is.

quote:

---

8000 miles (the diameter of the earth) multiplied by 23 gets close to the 186,000 figure. So it would take light one second to get from one end to the other of a string of 23 earths lined up side by side, touching each other. If we scale down the size of the earth, it will proportionately slow the speed of light into something more comprehensible. If we make the earth the size of a grain of sand, then we have light moving at about one inch per second. (23 grains of sand lined up is about one inch long) So how far will something moving at one inch per second travel in one year? Just going by memory, not doing all the calculations again, I remember it being about the distance from New York City to Atlanta, Georgia. So if the earth was a grain of sand in New York City, (with it's microscopic Hubble telescope orbiting it about......1/64th of an inch away) one light year away would be Atlanta. We're told that the nearest star, Alpha Centauri, is about 4 light years away. That would put it about 500 miles beyond the coast of California in the Pacific ocean, from that grain-of-sand earth, in New York City.

---

Again, going only by memory and not doing the calculations again, the grain of sand sized earth would be about 22 feet away from the apple sized sun. So the total parallax distance would be 44 feet. So a south to north walk of 44 feet in New York City is going to make an obvious difference to the appearance of something 500 miles east of California? With enough trigonometry and precision instruments I'm sure it would for 4 light years, but for 1000? I don't blindly accept it.

After that there are various methods used, can you explain what's not testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable about them?

Testable and falsifiable are the main words I'm referring to. Testing something involves doing more than just doing the same thing again, which is all we can do when observing something far away. Here's an example of a test, suppose we subtract 983 from 4852, and get 3869. We don't test it by simply subtracting it again, we ADD 3869 to 983 to see if we get 4852. This kind of testing is done all the time in actual science, when more than one human sense is used, when objects are observed from different angles etc. The discovery of DNA, a major breakthrough in science, was, in addition to other 'tests' "also made possible by recent advances in model building, or the assembly of possible three-dimensional structures based upon known molecular distances and bond angles..."

http://www.nature.com/...a-structure-and-function-watson-397

Other than more powerful telescopes, showing some more detail and distances, nothing really contradictory or surprising has been discovered since Galileo's discoveries hundreds of years ago. Also, here's a paragraph from No Nukes' first link in message 35;

quote:

---

Two problems exist for any class of standard candle. The principal one is calibration, determining exactly what the absolute magnitude of the candle is. This includes defining the class well enough that members can be recognized, and finding enough members with well-known distances that their true absolute magnitude can be determined with enough accuracy. The second lies in recognizing members of the class, and not mistakenly using the standard candle calibration upon an object which does not belong to the class. At extreme distances, which is where one most wishes to use a distance indicator, this recognition problem can be quite serious.

---

Too serious to be falsifiable, when using only visual observation from only one point.

Slight problem with your parallax math:

Try it again using opposite sides of the earth's orbit (i.e., six months apart).

Here is a site that might explain it to you.

http://lcogt.net/spacebook/parallax-and-distance-measurement

Again, going only by memory and not doing the calculations again, the grain of sand sized earth would be about 22 feet away from the apple sized sun. So the total parallax distance would be 44 feet. So a south to north walk of 44 feet in New York City is going to make an obvious difference to the appearance of something 500 miles east of California?

The baseline is not opposite sides of the earth, but opposite sides of earth's orbit. Also, parallax has absolutely nothing at all to do with the speed of light. Instead the limitations are simply the limits with which small changes in angles can be measured. One second of arc difference in angle measured at opposite sides of earth's orbit corresponds to about 3.3 light years (1 parsec) distance from earth. Angular separations of as smaller than 0.01 seconds of arc are routinely made, and that would allow distances approaching 1000 light years although without great accuracy.

In short yours is surely one of the more ridiculous attempts at understanding parallax measurement the rest of us are likely to read. Your explanation is sufficient for letting us know why you don't accept parallax measurements, because it reveals that you don't have a clue about how such measurements are made. But it is not nearly evidence of any rational reason for rejecting them.

Other than more powerful telescopes, showing some more detail and distances, nothing really contradictory or surprising has been discovered since Galileo's discoveries hundreds of years ago.

I think your comment speaks for itself.

Too serious to be falsifiable, when using only visual observation from only one point.

So, why wouldn't for example, determining the distance to multiple objects in the same distant cluster of stars, and finding them to be at similar distances from earth, constitute exactly the kind of repeated determinations you refer to. Because that's how calibration of standard candles are achieved.

And why wouldn't determining similar distance to the same object using different techniques be confirming of both the measurements and the techniques.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Why do people like marc, and the people he uses as experts, insist on arguing about things and concepts they have no clue about. This last one is so blindingly idiotic that it is stunning that they actually think they have an argument.

That they think the parallax is from the diameter of the earth is stunning in its idiocy. Also, they do not even seem to understand the basics of trigonometry at all.

WTF do these measurements have to do with speed of light anyway? I would bring up measurement of arcs, but all I will get back is 300 by 50 by 30.

Why do people like marc, and the people he uses as experts, insist on arguing about things and concepts they have no clue about. This last one is so blindingly idiotic that it is stunning that they actually think they have an argument.

The root of the problem is that they know science is wrong and the bible is correct.

They don't know the scientific details--why bother to study something you know is wrong?

So they guess at the details, and invent "what-ifs" to reassure themselves that everything is fine within their belief structure.

And they ignore, deny, or misrepresent any evidence that might suggest that they are wrong.

marc9000 writes: Let's have a non-scientists look at parallax

Yeh, that'll work. It's always best to get a second opinion from a landscape artist before launching your next Mars mission.

That they think the parallax is from the diameter of the earth is stunning in its idiocy.

I redded you all because it's clear that not one of you actually read marc's post properly (or, possibly, at all). It seems you all stopped at the first sentence. The diameter of the earth is only mentioned to establish the relative scale he's using. The diameter of the earth is treated as equivalent to the diameter of a grain of sand. Marc writes, however:

quote:

---

So the total parallax distance would be 44 feet.

---

Diameter of the earth = diameter of a grain of sand
Distance between either end of the earth's orbit = 44 feet

If we're going to criticise creationists for sloppy scholarship, we could at least do them the courtesy of attempting to read and understand what they write.

You've never heard of an "old earth creationist"? Good, I'm not one of those either. I'm somewhere in between.(In response to "ah then, go to hell") and this I realized it was sarcastic when I first saw it. Likewise, I'm sorry if I rained on your atheist love fest.

Let me try and better explain my point.

The comment about loving you and then telling you to go to hell was not really about whether you were an old earth or young earth creationist or somewhere in between. Notice that you have labeled me an atheist with your other comment.

When someone's level of acceptance of science gets too far away from your particular world view you label them and write them off as atheist. Conveniently now their arguments can be ignored and don't have to be thought about too deeply anymore.

Someone from Answers in Genesis or ICR might consider you someone to be written off despite your claim to theistic creationism because your view isn't quite young earth enough for their particular world view or perhaps your explanation simply varies too far from theirs.

The Flat Earth Society might write us all off for daring to disagree with them about their particular world view.

Sure, they're treated with respect, as long as they bend and shape their Christianity to fit whatever atheists are telling them about science

Is it unreasonable to expect people to accept the findings of science? Whether or not Christians would need to bend their Christianity to fit with it really isn't the issue. I was auditing an on-line astronomy class once and the professor started off by stating that he wasn't interested in hearing any objections from students based upon whether the science disagreed with their beliefs. A few chuckles resulted and the class got underway. Science isn't out to attack religion. It is perhaps a side effect - a result of what's been learned and still being learned.

I will go out on a limb here and assume that you are in general disagreement with the beliefs of the Flat Earth Society. I will go further out on that limb and assume that you have no problem with making use of what you know as the result of the findings of science to find their particular world view unacceptable. Is it unreasonable to expect the flat earthers to accept the findings of science?

"Sure, the falt earthers are treated with respect, as long as they bend and shape their Flat Earthism to fit whatever atheists are telling them about science."

You'd have to know more about Christianity (the nature of God) to accept the fact that he can be in control, and still allow humans free will. and this We do have irony! Have you ever witnessed 5, 10, or 15 angry atheists here insulting one creationist poster?

Just a reminder that you are on the science forum. You won't get by here without backing up your assertions and beliefs with physical objective evidence.
I responded once to one of Straggler's threads without paying attention to this fact and had my ass handed to me. If you want to discuss philosophy or have a more casual conversation you may get along better in one of the other sections of the board.

MESSAGE 42

I redded you all because it's clear that not one of you actually read marc's post properly (or, possibly, at all).

Thank you caffeine, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at some of these responses. The scale that I'm using is no different in principle than so many other scales used in other scientific, and non-scientific disciplines. What it is, is a method of model building, it's often done in biology, and seldom if ever done in astronomy, simply because of the preferences of those who control science. In biology, it's done to bring microscopic things up to a size that humans can analyze and work with. A scaling up. Scaling down does the same thing, as one example - building plans are scaled down, many/most commercial building plans are drawn to a scale of 1/8" = 1'. Working drawings (building plans) are another way of 'model building'.

I remember seeing something in a news paper long ago, about a science teacher who built a scale model of the solar system. I think he used a beach ball as the sun, and a pea as the earth, if I remember right. I think the planet Neptune was a baseball, several miles away. A school bus was his class's spaceship! This teacher probably got fired, I'd say many of his students never forgot this lesson. They're the types that , like me, would probably question "facts" that they hear about events happening thousands of light years from earth.

If we're going to criticise creationists for sloppy scholarship, we could at least do them the courtesy of attempting to read and understand what they write.

We can only guess what their problem is, maybe they genuinely don't understand the significance of model building. Is science education really this lacking? Or maybe they're just angry about what model building does to astronomy, that is, calling into question it's actual testability and falsifiability. I think it's a serious problem, and you might not agree with me on that, and that's fine, I still appreciate your stepping up for me concerning their blind rage.

_____________________

MESSAGE 43

Let me try and better explain my point. The comment about loving you and then telling you to go to hell was not really about whether you were an old earth or young earth creationist or somewhere in between.

I realize that, I was really responding only to your question "Whaaat?" (I should have edited your "go to hell" part out of my quote of you.)

Notice that you have labeled me an atheist with your other comment.

That's the ol "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck" syndrome. It's worked really well for me over the last 10 years. Atheists need theistic evolutionists for political purposes, so many of them volunteer to masquerade as religious people. Conflicts seldom involve more than two opposing forces, and theistic evolutionists usually have very cozy relationship with atheists, and very hostile relationships with other religious people.

When someone's level of acceptance of science gets too far away from your particular world view you label them and write them off as atheist.

Just like when someone's level of Christianity gets too far away from what the National Academy of Sciences (93% atheist) defines as science, you and many others here label them as flat-earthers.

Is it unreasonable to expect people to accept the findings of science?

"Science" doesn't find things, only humans that represent science find things. There's nothing wrong with questioning what their motives are.

Just a reminder that you are on the science forum. You won't get by here without backing up your assertions and beliefs with physical objective evidence.

All I'm doing is responding to you, your comments about loving me then telling me to go to hell, your references to "flat-earthers" etc, all of which have nothing to do with your opening post.

What's your opinion of the brilliant analysis of my scientific model building idea found in messages 37, 38, 39, and 40 in these sophisticated science forums?

If we're going to criticise creationists for sloppy scholarship, we could at least do them the courtesy of attempting to read and understand what they write.

You are correct.

My bad.