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

Glad you followed the link and looked at the other letters. Funny how you are now using he Oort Cloud when it is outside your "fishbowl" to make comments that are still as meaningless in terms of the validity of the current space-time model as your previous comments on the size of your "fishbowl" ... As shown by the formulas, time is irrelevant where the star is. Thus any argument based on time is irrelevant. And time in that sector is still irrelevant, as shown by the equations. Which, amusingly, is not what was done, nor is it how the equations work, and it is not what playing the game shows. It appears you are functionally incapable (cognitive dissonance?) of understanding this. Nope. Denial, non-comprehension, and unevidenced assertions are not arguments that cover points supported by evidence.Getting back to the Voyagers ... Voyager 2 is almost outside the sun's protective bubble gives us an update (October 9, 2018):

quote:

---

The Voyager 2 spacecraft, which left Earth more than 40 years ago to survey the outer planets, just detected a 5 percent uptick in these cosmic refugees, NASA announced. The new measurements bring a long-expected sign that the probe is approaching the edge of the sun’s protective influence, which for many researchers defines the line between interplanetary and interstellar space. Crossing that boundary will provide a valuable second data point in the quest to determine its shape, but precisely when the probe will leave the solar system remains unknown.

​

"We're seeing a change in the environment around Voyager 2, there's no doubt about that," said Voyager Project Scientist Ed Stone of Caltech in a press release. "We're going to learn a lot in the coming months, but we still don't know when we'll reach the heliopause. We're not there yetthat's one thing I can say with confidence."

​

The rate of energetic interstellar particles detected by Voyager 2 started to rise at the end of August 2018. Each point represents a 6-hour average. Charlie Wood using NASA data

​

If you feel like you’ve heard this story before, it’s because you have. The craft’s speedier sibling, Voyager 1, returned data showing a similar increase of interstellar cosmic rays in May of 2012. In addition to light, the sun also spits out a plasma of charged particles in all directions. Too hot to contain, this solar wind streams outward past the planets, pushing back on of the interstellar particles and creating a bubble researchers call the heliosphere. Three months later, on August 25th, Voyager’s aging instruments detected a drop in solar particles and a further rise in interstellar particlesstrong evidence that it had left the heliosphere at last.

​

A leaky balloon

​

All these boundaries could be moving with solar activity, and we really don't know where they are, says Merav Opher, an astronomer who studies the shape of the heliosphere at Boston University. At more active points in the sun’s 11-year cycle, such as the one we’re in now, the sun blows the heliosphere up like a balloon, pushing the boundary out by a handful of AU over the course of a couple years. Later in the cycle, a less active sun lets it deflate.

​

The shape of the heliosphere may not be as uniform as its name implies either. In general, nature doesn't have very smooth boundaries. The question is how bumpy and at what scale, Opher says. Her past simulations have suggested it may even be shaped more like the wake of a boat than a sphere.

​

Voyager 1’s close-up look at one point of that boundary brought a number of revelations. For one, the heliosphere is leakier than physicists had thought, equipped with a magnetic connection that allows an exchange of particles in some areas. Voyager 1 also revealed surprising features just past the edge. The probe has surfed a series of outwardly directed pulses triggered by sudden spurts of matter from the sun, and has detected an unexpectedly gentle pileup of interstellar material, suggesting that the solar system careens through the galaxy less wildly than astronomers had thought. Opher is even more excited for Voyager 2, sinceunlike Voyager 1it still has a working plasma instrument, and should be able to record first-of-a-kind data of both the boundary and the interstellar medium.

​

Solving that local mystery could have universal ramifications. Astronomers can see that the astrospheres around other stars also make waves in the space around them, but their plasma remains too sparse to probe directly. Figuring out how the sun shapes our neighborhood and protects us from some cosmic rays will be an essential step toward understanding where, and if, the same process is happening elsewhere.

​

If you want to study how life develops in other stellar systems, you need to understand how other astrospheres behave, Opher says. Let's start in our own backyard.

---

Start with what you know, build a model from that knowledge and then use it to make predictions that can be tested ... how science works.Enjoy

Because Jesus, silly.

Alright, let's go even simpler.Of all the different curves we see stars move along, every single curve is consistent with general relativity. Even ignoring how far the star is, the actual shape of the curves are correct and match those predicted by General Relativity.We never see a curve that General Relativity cannot predict and there are an infinite number of such curves in principal.This is just like when somebody kicks a ball, seeing it move in a helix up into the air, stop and do three circles is impossible under Newtonian gravity, regardless of the distance the ball is from us.Secondly, the colours coming out of the stars are exactly those predicted by stellar models. Out of the continuous range of the electromagnetic spectrum we only see those colours that are predicted by our models for what stars are made of.Being wrong about distance isn't a factor in either of these.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Oort cloud....the possibly imaginary cloud helps show how small the area of what we normally think of as the solar system really is.Bottom line, people that have not even been a light day away, and who do not even so much as know what time is either, are in no position to teach us about the unknown time in far far space.Your formulas to measure stars depend on the space and time being equal. That is not known. We do know what it is like on earth and the area of the solar system. Not there.Voyager 2 getting out there also. Interesting Let's wait and see if the edges of the solar system on that side yield similar results. No use speculating.

OK, so if we do ignore how far a star is, show us one star that examples your claim..?Colors from stars: The problem is if we were only able to detect say, 50% of what is out there (or any other % than 100%) then what we see streaming into the fishbowl would not represent what is out there in any meaningful way.We may only be seeing part of the picture, of things we happen to be able to detect.

Still irrelevant.As long as the current space-time model is validated and there is no evidence of it being invalid, no reason to involve made-up fantasy (there never is when using science as science deals with facts and fact based concepts), then it rational to use the current space-time model as the best known explanation for the universe. It would be irrational to discard it because it doesn't model fantasy scenarios.Irrational fantasy cannot be tested, especially when the proponent of the fantasy keeps making up stuff.However, the current space-time model can be tested and is being tested and to date all data conform to the current space-time model. That is what makes it rational to accept it as the best current explanation of the universe. Please show me where time enters these equations (D is distance): This is why we know the distance to SN1984A is not dependent on time being the same at the star. Time only enters the picture when the light reaches us, here on earth, here in the present time, well within the "fishbowl" and thus well within the known and validated space-time portion of the universe. No use speculating on space and time being different in the far reaches of the universe.However, theory is not mere speculation, it is fact-based logical deduction developed to explain the current known facts and then make predictions that can be tested for validity.Enjoy

I answered that in the post you are responding to: So that is all of them. Every star. This can be applied to anything, even a duck. A duck you see at the park might be only the 8% of the duck's true 14-dimensional Lovecraftian body that protrudes into our reality. The stuff we can see is adequately explained by duck biology. So one goes along with that explanation for now.Sure there might be and probably is stuff we cannot detect, but what we see matches exactly what the stellar models predict. So at least those observations can be explained consistently in terms of current stellar theory. Scientifically there is nothing else one can say, until somebody observes the stars doing something stellar theory can't explain.

Current space time model in many ways may be validated...on earth, and the solar system.How shallow.

Name a star with a curve that supports GR then, let's have a lookie.As for your duck parable...GONG. No. A duck is on earth. We can get hold of it. A star is not. Now if ducks exited only far away from the solar system, and we only ever saw them in light as it entered the fishbowl here, well then you may have a point.
Until then, no quacking way.

I don't see why tactile contact suddenly refutes the points you're making. Sure it is on Earth and you can get hold of it, but you still only have access to the parts of it that interact with either your senses or your observation equipment.Either way what you observe might only be 10% of the totality of the thing. Just because something is spatially closer this general point doesn't go away.Also the light that we do see perfectly matches stellar theory, until the time when somebody observes light or any other emission that doesn't match stellar theory, there is nothing else to say scientifically. S0-38 near the Galactic coreEdited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Indeed, glad you concede that point.That validation of the current space-time model means we can have confidence that it projects beyond the data/evidence we know to predict what we shall find with further investigation. That further investigation then tests the predictions, and when they validate the model we proceed further. And this process continues until we find an anomaly, something that doesn't fit the predictions of the model.It is only when test results don't match the model predictions that we need to consider modification or replacement with a new theory. Note that any new theory would have to incorporate all the information of the current space-time model plus the new information.For instance relativity defaults to the Newton gravity formula in near earth applications and explains the actions previously explained by Newton's gravity formula. It also explains the orbit of Mercury that was an anomaly with Newton's formula. Depth is irrelevant to the application of the model.What this all means is that, yes, we only know a little about the universe. That leaves a lot of potential unknowns to discover, and that is an exciting prospect for science.And it gets really exciting when anomalies appear. Anomalies discovered through application of science, not belief in some other nature.Enjoy

Stellar theory is born of religion. It stems from the beliefs of science. It is based on certain rules..fishbowl rules. So whatever they see is and must be interpreted according to the religion. The light they see coming into the fishbowl will look a certain way to them. That does not mean that what they can see (and they admit most of the universe is dark to them) is all that there is out there. Nor does it mean that time is the same out there. What we see take say, a day, could involve a much different level of time out there. Etc.S0 38 So, rather than get into how far away and big they claim this light to be, can you tell us how it shows time is the same exactly? Redshifted light shows time is the same...how? Ha.

To me, the obvious question is: How can YOU see outside the "fishbowl" to know that science is wrong?

I like that! You always explain things that are difficult in a way that makes simple minded people like me understand them. Thanks.

He likely will claim that though he himself can't see that far with 100% certainty, God certainly can and does. He is basically defending God...though I never knew that God needed backup!