|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
To know distances in the universe you need to have time exist there as it does here. Can you demonstrate that it does exist there and exist the same as here? The decay curve for cobalt was observed to match the curve we see here on earth. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
So? Why wouldn't it? Let's say the distances were vastly different than what we think they are, based on the calculations that depend on time existing as we know it here. So let's just use 9 light years instead of 70,000. That would affect a lot of the math. Nope. Assumptions don't affect math at all. We KNOW the distance from the star to the ring (see below). We KNOW the angle that the star and the ring subtend by direct measurement. The law of sines gives us the distance, no assumptions made. Simple high school math. That distance also confirms the speed of light has been consistent from there to here.
Since time is involved in a light curve we might want to check our facts again.. Already done, many times over.
If the size and distances are very wrong ... They aren't. See above.
... assumptions such as expansion velocity, (how the distance approx proportional to center of sn etc). ... ... are irrelevant to the calculation.
... They also adjust the math for many things like thermal velocity, escape probability of protons...time since core collapse..dipole allowed transitions..forbidden transitions...temperature...mass...distance to the SN...etc etc to name a few. Also irrelevant. If you are interested we can play a little game that demonstrates why we KNOW the distance from the star to the ring.
We don't debate by links, are you prepared to discuss the details here? I note that it doesn't have anything to do with the decay curves for 56 Co .... it talks about the temperature curves, and compares them to a model they developed. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
No, you don't know distances at all. You see, you CANNOT grab a huge swath of TIME and space HERE in the earth solar system (base line) and then try to pretend it is a distance only measure! Ha. Sadly, ignorance is not an argument, it is just ignorance.
Go ahead and play your little game about knowing distance from ring to star though. Ha. Okay, ... I like to call the game star checkers: It's a board game with two pieces, their movement is determined by the throw of a di, both move the amount shown on the di. One takes a path from the star to the earth, the other takes a detour to the ring and then to the earth
Click on the image to enlarge it. The ring is shown highly eccentric to show that we use the major axis as the diameter of the ring, the eccentricity is caused by the ring tilting away from a perfectly perpendicular plane to our line of sight. We KNOW the ring is actually circular because the whole ring lit up at the same time.
Each of the three lines is composed of dots with the exact same spacing from dot to dot, they are distance increments. We start with both playing pieces at the star and throw the di, then move both pieces the amount of dots shown on the di, which varies from 1 to 6 in a random pattern. Player piece A moves along the line from the star (lower left) to the earth (at the right) Player piece B moves along the lines from the star to the ring (upper left) and then from the ring to the earth without stopping at the ring. When player piece A reaches the earth we are in the modern (1987) era with consistent speed of light and travel distances ... so we keep repeating the last distance thrown on the di until player piece B reaches the earth. The difference in time between player piece A reaching the earth and player piece B reaching the earth is then multiplied by the modern (1987) era speed of light both are experiencing gives us an accurate measure of the distance from the star to the ring. This time is known. This calculation of the distance between the star and the ring is thus a known fact. Thank you for playing. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : light not life Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
One example of a base line for parallax measurement is the distance earth moves in six months. That is a huge distance. It involves a big piece of spacetime. If you admit time exists here, then time exists with the space. Not sure what you are missing here. Curiously paralax is not used, so you bringing this up only demonstrates a lack of understanding.
Go ahead and play your little game about knowing distance from ring to star though. Ha. The speed of anything around the SN is not known unless the distance to the SN is known. To get that distance you cannot assume that a slice of time and space in the solar system is equal to a slice of time and space where the stars are! As the checker game demonstrates "speed of anything around the SN is ..." irrelevant. It appears that you failed to comprehend this simple fact that is self-evident to children. Using the di for distance moved in a turn represents different speeds. FAIL #7 now I do believe. You just keep racking them up. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You can't use anything for distance. Gong! To do so assumes time exists and space equally all the way. Your game fails. And we have another desperate assertion of denial without any supporting evidence. Fail #13. The cognitive dissonance is strong with this one. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Then how in the world are you able to cross the street and avoid traffic? Next he's going to say that the SN1987A star does not exist ... by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You can't use anything for distance. Gong! To do so assumes time exists and space equally all the way. ... Just in case you missed it we can consider the di throws to be arbitrary variations in distance rather than time. The end result is the same -- that we KNOW the distance from the star to the ring and we KNOW the angle between the star and the ring. We can even assume that both time and distance vary and the result is the same.
... Your game fails. Says the person who's only arguments are denial and repeated assertions of falsified claims. FAIL #13 Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The demonstration is that you could not establish that space and time as we know them are homogeneous in the universe. Therefore no distances in the far universe can be determined from here! Denial is nothing but denial, ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away. Fail #24 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey, science never knew the rings already supposed existed before the event!! They predicted a black hole...sorry none showed up. Fail #25 -- still no substantiation for your vapid assertions. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey, science never knew the rings already supposed existed before the event!! They predicted a black hole...sorry none showed up. Irrelevant, you still fail to provide any evidence for your fantasies. Fail #26 Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : losing count of the failures to support the assertionsby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Making assumptions isn't the fault of science, it's the massive horsepower under the hood. Testing and then discarding or verifying those assumptions is the steering wheel and front wheels. It's a little more complicated than that, instead of assumption we use hypothesis, which are concepts that attempt to explain evidence (rather than just assume something, like say that there was a "previous nature") in a way that is testable, then we have the iterative test and tweak process:
An hypothesis that passes a test becomes a theory, and testing of the theory continues so that it can be tweaked and poked and prodded to improve it. Theories are never proven, they just go on being tested, however they can be falsified or invalidated if they fail any tests and the theory cannot be tweaked and poked and prodded to include the results of the test. Advances in science are made when theories are falsified and a new and better explanation is produced as a result.
Together, they assure that progress is made and in the right direction. If you remove the assumption making... you can still steer but you'll never go anywhere. Stuck in the mud.If you remove the testing/discarding/verifying... you can move "forward" but you have no idea if you're going the right way. Always end up lost. Both are required, and they must work together. Stars being far away uses both, and (currently) it is known that stars are far away as well as it is known that your computer runs software. Indeed, and super novae are of interest as they show how elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are made. Close ones like SN1987A that can be seen in a telescope and that have a known distance are useful in testing several theories, including how the remnant star and gasses cool and what elements are involved (such as cobalt and iron). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Message 622: We can make stuff on the space station. Just because there are some elements where stars are does not mean any of your fables are true.
Message 624: Showing science prophesied falsely is quite relevant.
Message 625: Regardless of diversionary blather, it is true that they dd not know the rings were there before the event. You grow shrill.
Message 626: Guess who is in denial here? Have you proved time exists in far space or even addressed the issue? Failures #27, 28, 29 and 30: not one whit of evidence provided to support your fantasy. You are the one making the claim, the onus is on you to support it. With evidence. Without the evidence and the support you comments are worth less than all the ant frass in antarctica. You are like a moth circling a candle flame. Your next post will fail also to provide supporting evidence. Because you don't have any. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Showing science prophesied falsely is quite relevant. Nope, first because science progresses through failed predictions ... but second and more to the point: Can you tell me why the telescopes were watching and videoing to see when the nova wave hit the ring?
It seems that you were lying to claim that scientists did not know the ring was there. Bad starman, now having to fabricate falsehood to play your little game. You are such a tool for education of others: why creationists have bad arguments and worse arguments, they have no evidence and their purported "science" is inconsistent and frequently contradicts itself. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
... Have you proved time exists in far space or even addressed the issue? And here we have another teachable moment on the failures of creationist arguments in general, and starman's argument in particular. Science doesn't prove things, never has, never will ... ... because there is always the chance that some random anomaly will be discovered that causes a rewrite, either a tweak of the current understanding or a new paradigm that explains not only all the evidence to date but includes the anomaly. Such was the case when Einstein's relativity explained the anomaly of Mercury's orbit around the sun that was not explained by Newton's Law of Gravity. But more importantly, science doesn't need to prove anything. Why? Because science and the scientific method build explanations of all the observed evidence, called theories, and the more inclusive a theory is at explaining the evidence the better it reflects what we know. Theories are approximations of reality, the more those theories are tested and challenged by new information and yet still provide accurate results, the stronger the theory becomes. That means we can proceed on the basis that those theories will provide usable results until shown otherwise. ie -- there must be contrary evidence, or evidence of some anomalies not explained by the theory, before we need to consider a new explanation ... because until that point the theory works. Until that point the theory is usable and better than any belief or opinion or fantasy at providing usable results. This is why creationism continually fails in relation to science.
... Have you proved time exists in far space or even addressed the issue? So have you provided any evidence of the current knowledge of astronomy to show (A) that it is false or (B) that there is any anomaly in the results? No? Then we don't need to consider your fantasy, because the current knowledge works in a consistent, congruent, comprehensive manner to provide results as accurate as we currently know is possible. Does your concept provide any usable results? No? Then we don't need to waste time on it. Does your concept provide a better explanation of all the astronomical evidence currently known? No? then it is pointless to consider. This is why starman's comments are such an absolute, complete, and utter failure, post after post after post. This is also why I can predict, based on the observation of his posts to date, that he will never post any evidence to substantiate his assertion, any evidence that the current understanding is wrong, any evidence of any anomaly that is explained better by his concept. The only reason for the concept is to support some fantasy related to his personal interpretation of certain bible and scripture passages -- an interpretation that is not even consistent with other christians.
Guess who is in denial here? ... Coupled with profound ignorance of science and the scientific method. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
How should a believer approach science? ... With profound curiosity and an open mind: remember, if god/s created the universe then the evidence of that creation lies in what we can parse out on how it was structured, assembled and implemented.
... Is it wise or even possible to reject the scientific method as now presented? It is the best method humans have yet devised for parsing out how things work, how it is structured. For instance there are several versions of all the various religious texts ... what among them is consistent? what among them is different and then how can we test one against another? What is your paradigm for sorting truth from fiction?
starman writes: I think Jesus will show us one day, and the nobel nonsense will be extinct. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever? I would be surprised if modern Christians would recognize or accept him. Middle eastern immigrant? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024