The not so distant star light problem

Did any of these famous astronomers find something that a previous famous astronomer got completely wrong? I did a little search on it myself, and find no evidence that it's happened

I would not call Einstein an astronomer, but Einstein's corrections to Newton's formulation of gravity have to be one of the most well known advances in physics. You did not find at least this in your search?

You are completely unaware of the limitations in Copernicus' work? Despite the fact that Copernicus was correct about the planets orbiting the sun, it turns out to be impossible to accurately predict the positions of the planet with only that information.

If your search could not turn those things up, then perhaps you are simply not qualified to opine on how science has been advanced and what has or has not been falsified.

If new instrumentation can detect facts of deep space further and clearer, and yet can't find anything wrong with discoveries made with the very primitive instruments of Galileo, Newton, etc. then that's a strong indicator that nothing's being tested, and nothing's being falsified.

Your idea is complete nonsense. Ideas that are correct won't be falsified no matter how much we investigate.

When looking from only one point, what are the chances of counts and distances and stars being directly in line with each other from our line of sight getting messed up?

Well, marc9000. Tell us what are the chances? What are the chances of that happening every single time we measure the distance to multiple different objects in the same distant galaxy? What are the chances that each measurement is blocked by a direct line but at the exact same distance from each of those objects? Is that probability high or low? Are you even qualified to guess at the probability? Would you recognize the right answer if you saw it.

And would not the result of such interference be that we would underestimate the distance to the object rather than overestimate it? Exactly what are you arguing here?

Your nonsense is simply not credible. The chance that such an object blocked the view to SN1987a and that as a result SN1987a is closer than we think is exactly zero.

"QUITE SERIOUS" - too serious to pass the "testable" and "falsifiable" test that the scientific community supposedly requires of itself. That is my main point in this thread, no one has yet been able to come close to refuting it

How would you know whether an argument refutes your point. Refutations have been offered. But you aren't qualified to weigh them.

ABE:

To me, it's common sense that if any human endeavor is undertaken involving distances of two or more differing lengths, with all things being the same other than a distance, the one with the longer distance is going to be more error prone.

It turns out that you are correct. Our estimates of the distances to distant objects are surely billions of miles off.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Lensing doesn't magnify or shrink images.

Couldn't lensing increase the brightness of an object thus throwing off a particular distance measured using standard candle techniques? Of course, lensing produces detectable patterns of distortion. So I would not expect this to be a feasible explanation.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, because it's not about astronomy. We're not discussing physics here.

Why are you telling me that? You are the one who included Einstein in a list of astronomers.

But if nothing's been falsified since the very primitive days of Copernicus and Galileo, 500+years, then it's safe to say that astronomy is too vague to be falsifiable.

I gave two example because you claimed not be able to find any examples at all starting with Copernicus and Galileo. You claimed to have searched and yet you couldn't even find those two. And even further, you specifically asked about discoveries that Galileo could not find. Do you understand now why I say that your posts are not to be relied on?

An example of some more recent discoveries include the falsifying of steady state models of the universe, the discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than slowing down.

Those, in addition to the Galileo and Copernicus examples I gave show that you are utterly unable to tell if anything has or has not been falsified.

I'm qualified to see the double standard that's applied to astronomy versus the concept of Intelligent Design by the scientific community. A 6th grader could do it.

You demonstrate the truth of a contrary proposition every time you post. You are opining on a topic about which you know jack diddly squat and you couldn't hide that fact from a sixth grader.

The rest of your post is just more of the typical marc9000 rant about we've all come to know and love. I don't see any need to comment on it.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

removed

Edited by NoNukes, : pointless

The suggestion that the reaction rate simultaneously slowed for example is a contradiction as an increase in energy output would result in an increase in the reaction rate.

Well, no. The goofy decrease in fusion rate was in combination with your proposed increase in C and would leave the energy input the same.

But no increase in C is really required. All that's needed is a supernatural, straight path out of the sun that does not require tens of thousands of years to traverse at normal light speed.

Only the tiniest bits of magic are needed for the nearby sun. More substantial faux science/magic explanations are required for objects tens of thousands of light years away.

If you use your iimagination you could come up with simpler narratives.

Suppose God created the sun by forming a fusing core first and then adding hydrogen fuel around the core until gravitation pressure alone sustained fusion. That would be invoke aspects of marc9000's idea that different forces were at work during creation than during steady state.

So that silly inter God conversation you describe need not have happened. You limited your options by assuming God built the sun the way a scientist would do it. Creationist are not so limited.

You are saying that by allowing God to do it some other way we could get the light from the core to the surface quickly without a variation in c and so the core might be considered non-superfluous.

No, that's not quite what I am saying.

What I am saying instead is that you are insisting that Creationist must believe that God created the sun by gravitational collapse of a ball of gas because science claims that the sun was created from such a collapse.

Well, no that is not the only option for a creationist. God might well have used a creation process that as either a side effect or a desired effect produced light instantly.

Your scenario is really no different in substance from my proposal of poofing the photons between the core and the surface into existence and carries only the illusion of a distinction. The expression of the idea that the core was the source of the photons escaping the surface of the sun is to rely upon an explanatory framework based upon our understanding of physics.

Yes, they are similar in the fact that a miracle is required, but yes there is a difference. One process implies deception on God's part, and the other does not.

Quite obviously, forming a solar system in a single day cannot be completely explained using natural processes. So yes, the Creationist is going to rely on some miracles.

The distinction between the miracles for the sun, and the miracle for distant stars is that the latter requires postulating deceptions that at least some Young Earth Creationists are loathe to invoke regardless of what miracles they rely on.

If in fact, you don't care about that difference, then I wonder what the point of this thread really is. Perhaps I have missed your point.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

NoNukes writes: Well, no that is not the only option for a creationist. God might well have used a creation process that as either a side effect or a desired effect produced light instantly.

Then it is not from the core but from some side effect.

No, no. I proposed that the light came from the core.

By side effect I mean something produced but not necessarily intended. In this case, according to the narrative, human beings and other life were going to show up on earth in a few days. So God would want the light to arrive ASAP and it would be understandable that he chose a method that would make light appear quickly.

If instead there were no reason for light to appear instantly, then it is possible that the quick appearance of light was a mere side effect of whatever method God used.

marc9000 doesn't seem to posses such a loathing

I'd like to hear how you reached that conclusion. Marc9000 completely denied the possibility that scientists could know that a star could be hundreds of thousands light years away despite the fact he is not even a proponent of YEC. He's also not the type of Creationist that would even bother with a scientific explanation; he does not seem familiar with much physics anyway.

On the other hand, with regard to the sun, he sees no problem, but that's exactly what I am arguing should be the case. Creationists have absolutely no difficulty with the sun providing light instantly and will invoke whatever magic is necessary. They can use bits and pieces of science as necessary (using fusion, gravitational balancing, etc.) to explain how the sun operates.

Perhaps the chosen title of the thread has created some mis-understanding there

The title and the entire discussion regarding the ten thousand plus year delay for sunlight to appear?

It is identical to the manner in which I tossed out the scientific explanation of the operation of the sun by pointing to a nit, the neutrino accounting issue.

Was that in the original post?

Here is the question you asked at the end of your post.

This thread is an opportunity for young earth creationists to explain how scientists have it all wrong and to explain how light takes no time at all to get from the core of a star to its surface. This is your chance to be a star and shine

Before answering this let me state that now the goal posts are shifting in the sense that God is no longer operating supernaturally. Supernaturalism would be God operating by the sheer power of his will where he is not bound by any law but is rather the source of all law.

I'd have to call that a rather unconventional requirement. If God used an earthquake to cause the Red Sea to back up at exactly the proper time, then according to your definition, God's use of an earthquake would render the saving of the Hebrews from Pharoah's army non-supernatural.

I don't accept your requirement, and I suspect that few on either side of the debate would.

I think the rest of your post is based on your definition. I won't comment further.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I don't understand what you want here. I'm not advocating using supernatural explanations of anything.

Come on NoNukes, you know this wouldn't change a thing. How did he cause the earthquake?

Using supernatural means of course.

I don't see any point to changing the definition of the term supernatural to forbid the use of anything natural.

Why don't you simply ignore all conversations about the supernatural?

Why did God sprinkle the sun with useless heavy elements if it was designed and built rather than a natural formation?

How do you get a solar system without some heavy elements? Seriously, isn't this question only meaningful when posed to the few YECs who believe in the scientific hypotheses about planet formation? By my count that's about 8 people on earth.

Why did he put so much Helium in it rather than simply use Hydrogen? It's from the amount of Helium in the sun that we infer its age.

I think this is a much better conundrum that the one in the OP for this thread.

I suspect that the YEC answer would be some version of last Thursdayism. Adam was created allegedly created as a fully grown adult, and the sun was created similarly mature because a middle age sun works better than those newly created, barely stable ones.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Creation of a middle aged sun is one thing, but creation of a sun that appears to be the product of the debris of former stars is something else.

I've given a YECish reason for the presence of heavy elements. Why doesn't that reason address this issue?

Why the existence of these different kinds of stars? Population I, like the sun, with the most metallicity, earlier generation population II with less metallicity, and finally population III stars with no metallicity?

A YEC has no need to deal with that stuff. It turns out that no one has every found a population III star. Every star ever found has 'metals'. Yes it is true that the BBT requires that there were such stars, and that there are explanations for why we don't see them today. But given that you cannot actual show anyone a population III star, a YEC does not need to deal with the fact that everyone else thinks such things did exist in the early universe.

Yes, and I am corresponding with one of them now, Kent Hovind.

That's fascinating, but Kent Hovind is not my idea of a scientifically minded YEC. Does Kent Hovind actually believe that God created the solar system out of remnants from past super nova?