Summations Only

What was so terrible about message 204? Did I step on your toes?Nevermind. I see you've elected to jeer everything in sight.In any event. I normally don't jeer when I'm participating in a thread and this thread is no exception. You'll notice that I'm not one of those five or six. My guess about your message 131 is that use of the term "retarded" by somebody with well publicized self esteem problems probably earned you a jeer or two. Message 161 is just full of science denial. Nothing earth shattering there.Okay, now would be the time to hit that jeer button again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

1. The values quoted are for the earth-sun distance.
2. The are each only a few percent off from the accepted value of 149.6 million kilometers.
3. The methods for detecting exactly the transit start/stop times have well known issues and none of the values is outside of the expected error.
4. None of them represent measurements distances to Venus that are "much larger than the canonical value measured using atomic clocks." In fact many of the transit determined values are smaller.
http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/transits/TRACEvenus.html5. You will say just about anything. People who are rational understand "shorter" to refer to the accumulated lifespans of the sons vs. their sires.

No one said that there was a parallax measurement. Why don't you focus on the measurement that was made?The measurement was made using trigonometry. Using simple trigonometry we find that SN987a is about 170,000 light years away. We also know that during the time since the explosion that the speed of light has not changed:

quote:

---

Let us imagine that the speed of light was considerably greater at the time of the supernova than today. Creationists could use this supposition to suggest that light has traversed the space between the supernova and Earth more quickly than would be the case if the speed of light has been constant at the speed observed today. The argument would then go that although the distance to SN1987A is 167,000 light years, light could have traversed that distance in less than 167,000 years.

​

However, if the speed of light was greater at the time of the occurrence of the supernova then the absolute distance to the circumstellar ring would be proportionately more than we calculate based on the current speed of light. The angular distance from the supernova to the circumstellar ring is not in question. By comparing the absolute and angular distances, we would arrive at an absolute distance to the supernova greater than that based on a constant speed of light. This would yield a time for the light to traverse the space between the supernova and Earth the same as or greater than the time derived from a constant speed of light - ie the same as or greater than 167,000 years (since at some time the speed of light would have had to decrease to what we observe today). So a decaying speed of light offers no comfort to the creationist position.
Supernova 1987a

---

Please show where there is any mistake in any of the calculations. If you can not, then a constant speed of light over the last 170,000 years stands.

That is not an assumption. It is a testable hypothesis, one that has passed test after test after test. If time were different in the past then we would be able to see that by looking at distant starlight. SN1987a, the evidence you keep ignoring, demonstrates this fact.

You are right. The problem here is denial of the evidence or a refusal to deal with the evidence. Time after time we have tried to discuss SN1987a. I have presented the math which demonstrates that the light pulse from the supernova has been travelling to us for 168,000 years, and that the speed of light is constant. Can you show us where that math is incorrect? Or are you going to continue to ignore the evidence?

Let's look at mssg 187: That deserves a jeer because we have made post after post showing that these are not assumptions but conclusions based on evidence (e.g. SN1987a). You have refused to engage that evidence at all. You ignore it. That deserves a jeer. You are using Omphalism to avoid dealing with the evidence. This is where a supernatural deity makes rocks with a fake history in them, one that is indistinguishable from a real history. This deserves a jeer. A creationist who refuses to deal with the evidence telling us that we are deceived? Jeer.Tell you what. Why don't you show us how the evidence is not consistent with an ancient universe. That would really help us understand where you are coming from.

Classic science denialism. You bring forward no argument. The premise of your argument is "God did it".God did it is not an argument, it is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If you really have to ask about that post then you really don't get it.Seriously? You have no idea why this drivel was jeered?

I've concluded that trying to reach riddle is hopeless. He's in his own private Idaho.

Ah yes, I was forgetting the bit where we set fire to you and ran over your dog.Words, as the old proverb goes, will never hurt you, but ever since we found a way to pelt you with stones and beat you with sticks over TCP/IP, your life has just been miserable, hasn't it?

You assert that but you haven't shown that it's true. (Do you even understand what an "atomic clock" is?)The only way you could show that your claim is true is by some kind of measurement, which you seem to be claiming is impossible. How can you tell that those clocks have different frequencies if you can't use time to measure the frequencies?

Sorry that you feel that way, but there are still many questions you have left unanswered.How do you change the mass of objects like the sun and our planets without leaving evidence?How do you change the nature of the energy of radioactive decay without leaving evidence?How do you change the rate of continental drift, raising and eroding of mountains without leaving evidence.How do you accelerate decay (remember Bikini? ) without leaving evidence?How does accelerated decay change the age of a sample?Where is the evidence of any such changes?

The entire structure for scientificating was built on a single assumption. This assumption was a modification to Aristotle's metaphysics which has its roots in Catholic friars such as Thomas and Scotus. In their efforts to adapt the pagan's system to the Bible, they invented new concepts such as being and essence. When Newton made his operational definition of time and space, he did so mathematically using the notion that the ESSENCE of substance is changeless. No one has ever detected any essence or being. In fact the visible properties of all matter are observed to continue to change throughout cosmic history. Even local clocks that transmitted their precision signals yesterday do not match with clock that emit their clocks frequencies today (the Pioneers).The horror of empiricism is that they define almost all of their measuring units in a double circle. They actually believe that mass, energy and time exist even though they are utterly undetectable and can only be measured mathematically with other undetectable things circularly. Almost all of them were contrived using the assumption Peter predicted for the false teachers of the last days.
This is why visible cosmic history is the best test for the laws of physics. No orbit in any galaxy is following the laws of physics, which is why they have invented four times as much invisible matter as the natural visible kind. Every galaxy needs a unique amount and distribution of invisible matter to try to force it to follow the laws of physics, yet even then none of them do. No ancient atom clocked the frequencies of modern atoms, so they invent pure magic - the vacuum of spacetime is stretching itself (pullying more "energy out of the undetectable vacuum" to stretch the vacuum, move galaxies that are standing still relative to local vacuums and stretch all the frequencies of light passing through the void. Scientists have invented the greatest system of mythology every. Why? Because they never question their basic assumption - the one the Bible predicted.Yet what we observe in the only history that is visible as it happened, galactic history, is biblical creation and biblical cosmic history. You don't need to imagine imaginary symbolical ways of measuring undetectable things like physicists do - you can see with sight how galaxies intrinsically grew from tiny naked globs as the stars continued to accelerate out - just like the Scriptures state. How great will be the triumph of the word of God over the scientists. Edited by godsriddle, : No reason given.

Hi godsriddle,I'm doing this from my iPad, so I won't try quotations. But reading your posts, have I got this right - do you discount any scientific theories, observations or conclusions which cannot be observed with the eye ?

"The horror of empiricism" now ranks up there with "the heartbreak of psoriasis" as one of the all-time great advertising slogans! I just can't figure out what exactly you are trying to advertise, Riddler.

SN1987a shows that the speed of light and radioactive decay have not changed for the last 170,000 years. You are wrong. So you agree that we can look at distant objects to determine if the laws of physics were the same in the past?