Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 948 (128196)
07-27-2004 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Hangdawg13
07-27-2004 2:16 AM


Re: YEC or OEC
quote:
There are still MANY mysteries out there that neither YEC's nor evos can explain.
The age of the earth and the life on it is not one of those mysteries, however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:16 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-28-2004 12:04 AM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 948 (128242)
07-28-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hangdawg13
07-28-2004 12:04 AM


Re: YEC or OEC
quote:
Due to the nature of time being a dimension of the physical universe, which underwent many changes, I have come to the conclusion that the seven days in Genesis are not literal 24-hour days;
Can you show me the changes in the physical universe that caused the properties of time to change so drastically that we can not trust current theories in physics? Time is space, and the universe is time-space. The alteration of time between frames of reference is detectable, and no such detected alteration affects current theories. In fact, observed alterations of time between frames of reference has actually helped solidify current theories, such as the measured time dilation measured in high altitude flights. If time and space were drastically altered, then theories based on observations of todays universe would not be able to predict and explain occurences millions of light years away.
quote:
But the current cosmology is continually running into problems.
And they continually solve those problems using objective observations from reality. Einstein laid the groundwork for the current expansion of knowledge, and everything is still pointing to a universe 13-14 billion years old. The problems lie with those that deny the weight of the evidence only because it ruffles their feathers. Incredulity is a handy tool, but it is only used in the light of limited evidence. Incredutlity in the face of overwhelming evidence is stubborness, not skepticism.
quote:
I think the idea that light, time, decay rates, etc... have always been constant is not a correct assumption in a universe where space-time has presumably expanded from nothing.
For decay rates used to measure the age of the earth, all we need to do is measure the effects that an earth like environment has on decay rates. Decay rates can be changed, but only in the case of extreme pressures and heat not found on the earth. Decay rates in massive suns, for example, are accelerated. However, nothing approaching these conditions occur on Earth. The isotopes released by the supernova mentioned in previous posts are also not under these extreme conditions sense they are only under the gravitation influence of nearby, smaller masses. Also, accelerated decay rates cause increased heat. In order for the isotopes in rocks to mimic old age they would have had to release massive amounts of heat world wide, enough to turn our planet into a molten slag heap.
Also, our universe is still expanding from nothing, and so, by your theory, light and decay rates should not be constant now, and they are.
quote:
I also do not necessarily agree with the theory of gravitational accretion of how the earth, moon, and other planets were formed as their elemental composition varies so greatly.
Have you ever panned for gold. By swirling the amalgam of rock you cause the gold to settle to the bottom because it is the most dense. The same thing happened with our solar system. Solid material fell towards the center of mass. They were much denser than the gasses near the sun and so the accreted towards the middle. As the gasses were pushed outward they tended to increase their density because it was cooler, and so we have gaseous planets at the outer reaches of the solar system. It really isn't that surprising given that these things are consistent with physical theories that we observe today.
quote:
There are still many mysteries in this area, and so I think there is a lot more wiggle room than many people assume.
There are mysteries, but not as many as you would suppose. Nothing points to non-natural, or supernatural, causes for anything we see in the physical universe. To demand supernatural causes for the things we see is more of a testament to man's imagination and emotions than the physical realities of the world we live in. Speculation is fine, but inserting God into scientific theories has never yielded a working model that predictably gives results in the real world. If you think I am wrong, try and come up with one theory that reliably explains natural phenomena that can only work if God physically manipulates the system. I can't think of one.
quote:
You need not respond to this as I don't want to get this discussion off the topic of the Supernova.
And you need not respond to me, but the ever present lurkers enjoy our posts nonetheless (at least I hope so).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-28-2004 12:04 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 948 (128403)
07-28-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Parsimonious_Razor
07-28-2004 2:24 AM


Re: Correlations
quote:
Can you get correlations of isotopes present in astronomical formations and there distances? That further out you go (and hence older) you no longer find elements that have shorter decay rates? And as you move closer you begin to find elements appearing again?
As Ned mentioned in passing, heavier elements are produced when a supernova explodes. Some of these new, heavier elements are radioactive and have short half lives. We can identify the what the element is by it's light spectrum, and we can also independently measure the amount of radiation coming from these elements. As it turns out, a supernova explosion 160,000 years ago produced certain elements that have the same radioactive half life that they do now. Therefore, we have observations that support steady decay rates for the last 160,000 years.
And Ned is also right about things looking younger the farther away we look, since the light we see was produced millions, if not billions, of years ago. We are in essence looking into a time capsule due to the long distances that light has to travel.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Parsimonious_Razor, posted 07-28-2004 2:24 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 948 (176022)
01-11-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by simple
01-11-2005 9:20 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
In simple terms, then, is not all that really means, then, is that the decay rates were the same more or less when rhe thing blew? Just trying to get a grasp of this.
Yep, that is exactly what it means. I always find it best to use analogies. Pretend that a friend taped a clock's second hand moving. He then mailed it to you. Because it takes about 2-3 days for that mail to make it to you, after watching the tape you know that seconds were the same length 2-3 days ago in his part of the country. Don't take this analogy too far, since VCR's can run at different speeds, but you get the idea.
In the same way, we know how long it takes light to cover a certain distance. From observation, we no the distance to supernova 1987A. Therefore, we no how long it should take light to travel from supernova 1987A to earth. So, when we watch the "tape" of supernova 1987A we no how long ago that the "tape" was made, and we also know the charactistics of the universe at a point in time in the past.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-11-2005 21:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by simple, posted 01-11-2005 9:20 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 01-11-2005 11:58 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 948 (176265)
01-12-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
01-11-2005 11:58 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
Now if the explosion happened, say, for example, just before some major change in decay rates, by this 'tape' we would not be able to perceive this. Because at the time it blew, the rates were the same. This much I get.
To be fair, with this one example the best we can conclude is that at that point in history decay rates were the same. However, this is not the only piece of evidence. But for simplicity, let's stick with this one and go forward.
quote:
Now the other part of Eta's 'evidence' against a young creation, was that we can use trig, and measure how far the explosion was away. The measurements, in today's light speed, then translated by assumption into time periods of 'years'-or 'light years'. How then can one take this duo of thought, to say it is 'evidence'? One might say something like "If light always travelled at it's present speed, then, the time it would now take light to reach there would be 168 thousand years. Or, if we put it into miles away, say a gazillion and a quarter miles away.
Good question, and I don't think the answer has been given yet. When the supernova exploded it sent out a lot of light. That light then illuminated a halo of debris around the supernova. The distance between the supernova and this halo can be computed using trig. It is then a simple matter of measuring the time it took the light to travel from the supernova to the halo, and then using trig to measure the speed of light. See picture below:
You might want to check out the following site as well, it also deals with millisecond pulsars which demonstrate the constancy of the speed of light: Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet Infidels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 01-11-2005 11:58 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 6:53 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 948 (176325)
01-12-2005 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by simple
01-12-2005 5:38 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
Thanks for the reply. I never meant that trigonometry didn't come up with the distance. My point is that the distance then is then translated in light years, then time. So light speed does have a lot to do with it. So, fine, use trig to compute distance. After that, though, we say it is 170,000 years away, as light now travels.
We can even do better than that. Remember my picture of the halo around the supernova? Through trigonometry we can calculate the distance between the supernova and the debris that made up the halo. After the supernova exploded, the light from that supernova then illuminated that debris. Since we know how long the light took to get from the supernova to the halo, and we also know the distance between the halo and the supernova, we can then calculate the speed of the light that exited the supernova. Guess what? The calculated speed matches the speed of light on earth. We are able to measure the speed of light in distant space as well as on earth, and that speed does not differ. I'll post the picture again. The supernova is the bright dot in the middle and the bright circle around the supernova is the illuminated debris.
Therefore, for the universe to be young there needs to be something in the light path of this supernova that momentarily accelerates light to more than 100,000 times its current speed and then something else has to slow it down to it's regular speed before it reaches earth. Either that or God is showing us light from a star that never existed.
quote:
Herein is my focus, because we now need to say nothing ever has changed, or will ever change, as regards light to time effects.
No. Now all we need to say is that every piece of evidence we have is consistant with light always having the same speed when it travels through a vacuum. That is a true statement. All theories in science are tentative, and this example is no different. However, to claim that this light is travelling at a different speed is not supported by any evidence and is contradicted by the evidence we do have. The only reason to claim that light travels at different speeds in a vacuum is to conform to a literal reading of Genesis.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 5:38 PM simple has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 948 (176537)
01-13-2005 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by simple
01-12-2005 6:53 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
Now we see a statement here, on which a lot is built upon. "That ONLY the rotation of a small body" can account for it. Really?
Yes, really. Pulsars, IIRC, are neutrino stars. They are made primarily of neutrons. The lack of charge allows the particles to pack in very tightly, which causes the extreme rotational speeds. Think of an ice skater in a spin. As they pull their arms in towards their body their rate of spin increases. The same effect can be seen in pulsars, where all of the mass is pulled in to a very small area. The high density of pulsars also creates the electromagnetic emmissions as a function of the gravitational poles. So what we get is a pulse of eletromagnetic radiation at very short and regular intervals.
The speed at which the pulsars spin is almost at a max. We know this because we know the size of these stars, the density of neutrons, the gravitational forces, and the nuclear forces involved in these stars. We could be wrong, like I said before all things in science are tentative. However, everything on that webpage are consistent with all of the evidence we have at hand. None of the evidence falsifies the currently used models for pulsars.
As a bit of irony, pulsars were once thought to be radio transimissions from alien civilizations. The precision and strength of pulsar signals, back in the early days of astronomy, could not be exlained except through intelligent technology. However, as our understanding of atoms and astronomy increased, it became apparent that these signals were coming from high density stars with extremely short rotational periods.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 6:53 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by simple, posted 01-15-2005 12:31 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 948 (176539)
01-13-2005 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by simple
01-13-2005 12:55 AM


Re: time related, then, it is
quote:
I'm getting the knack, thinks I, of this atheistic math.
Happy to see that you are keeping your sense of humor about all of this. Many get mad and run. If there were more creationists like yourselves we wouldn't have anything to complain about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 12:55 AM simple has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 948 (176589)
01-13-2005 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by simple
01-13-2005 2:25 AM


Re: into the mystic
quote:
It's funny how this little line, or near identical versions get echoed by the 'any theory but God, dressed up as science' crowd, and they seem to think it's original, or of some merit!
It is also funny how the little line "the bible is God's Word" has any merit in science.
quote:
Yes, the distances are great. But science's present ability to put it all into real time is pure conjecture.
How is it conjecture if we have objective evidence that supports the claim?
quote:
Now as far as evidence goes on this supernova thing, so far we have some what appears to be 'decaying' material, and some tooth fairy time related distances sailing clear past creation, and into the ninja mystic.
The distances are real, unless you are claiming the Biblical accounts are more accurate than trigonometry. The speed of light is real, unless you are able to point to any evidence to the contrary. And invisible ninjas have just as much objective evidence for their existence as any other deity. I will grant you that there is also the realm of subjective evidence, but this type of evidence is not useful in determining the reality of the natural world.
quote:
You see, so far all this thread has offered, I think, as evidence, would be an explosion a great distance away, in which it is thought, that decay rates of certain things were the same as now. Big deal.
Outside of the evolution vs. creation debate it isn't a big deal, just more evidence in a very large stockpile of evidence. Supernova 1987A did not reveal anything really new about the universe that we didn't already have evidence of. However, it is a Big Deal for creationists, since it falsifies their contention that the speed of light, decay rates, and the age of the universe are not consistent with their theories. Supernova 1987A, in one fell swoop, falsifies young earth creationism (YEC). Since YEC has been falsified within the sciences for about 200 years now, it is hardly anything worth mentioning within science outside of astronomy and physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 2:25 AM simple has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 948 (176601)
01-13-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by simple
01-13-2005 3:20 PM


Re: proofs abound
quote:
This indicates to me that the inspiration behind these 2 theories [on the beginning of the Universe] would be different than that behind Genesis!
Yes, evidence instead of superstition.
quote:
A great many people fell they see His fingerprints, and signature all around the heavens!
And a great many don't. Science isn't based on feelings, it is based on objective evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 3:20 PM simple has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 948 (176602)
01-13-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by simple
01-13-2005 3:30 PM


Re: the creator factor
quote:
Also, we mix in some conjecture, and try to project into the distant past that it was always so.
No we don't. We use evidence to back up the claim. Again, how is it conjecture when it is supported by evidence and not falsified by any of the evidence? Supernova 1987A and millisecond pulsars support the fact that physical constants were the same in the past and in different places in the universe. No conjecture is needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 3:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:30 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 948 (176648)
01-13-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by simple
01-13-2005 4:30 PM


Re: the creator factor
quote:
How far in the past? Now if we take away for a moment light speed, what do you really have left here? Well timed pulses?
Sure, if we take away the measurement of the speed of light the whole thing collapses. The only problem is that I have no reason to do that since I can support the speed of light with evidence and with observation. Can you present ANY evidence why the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant? If not, then there is no reason not to accept the current measurements.
quote:
And I already allowed to myself that they were at that time the same, anyhow. This would indicate to me, then this explosion after any big change in rates of decay, if there were any. So what?
Pardon the pun, but the evidence contained in supernova 1987A does not exist in a vacuum. Take, for instance, the Oklo natural reactor found in Gabon, Africa. Due to the nature of the uranium ore, a natural fission reaction has been taking place for almost 2 billion years. Throughout this process there is not one detectable change in decay rates which. This is known because any change in the decay rates would have changed the expected fission products and their amounts. There are numerous other pieces of evidence that point to the same thing, the constancy of the speed of light and the constancy of decay rates.
To claim that decay rates or the speed of light are not constant is to do so in contradiction of the evidence and without evidence to support the claim. This is otherwise known as conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 7:13 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 111 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 7:47 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 948 (176991)
01-14-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by simple
01-13-2005 11:19 PM


Re: far away not so long ago
quote:
My look at loudmouth's link, and anything you or others have said here all seems to say the same thing. That is, that light is constant in speed, and is really coming from far away, where it started out. I wonder what it is you think I am in denial about?
You say that the constancy of the speed of light is conjecture. This is denying the fact that we have evidence that supports the claim, which makes it the opposite of conjecture. What I and others have been saying is not, directly, that the speed of light is constant. Rather, we have observed that the speed of light is constant and supernova 1987A is one of those observations. The constancy of the speed of light is not conjecture nor is it assumed, it is a conclusion drawn from many observations. For us to change that conclusion we need evidence to the contrary. Can you supply that evidence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 11:19 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 3:34 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 948 (177041)
01-14-2005 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by simple
01-14-2005 3:34 PM


Re: flatlanders many of us are not
quote:
Millions could say the same. Recorded healings, and fantastic miracles are all a matter of record, and common experience.
Every religion has stories of miracles, both present and past. Every religion has stories of gods interacting with people. One example as the runner going to Marathon stopping along the way and talking to the god Pan. So I guess this is concrete evidence that Pan exists, and by extension the Greek Pantheon of Gods?
quote:
Not just some theoretical cosmic burp, or ripple here, that seems to indicate something, we think, maybe, we actually don't really know, ever changing, tentative theories all, by admission,- type of thing dressed up as fact.
Who is dressing things up as facts? Oh yeah, the guy who claims, in the absence of objective evidence, that Genesis is literal fact. I guess the Greek Pantheon is also fact, being that it is written down by a writer inspired by Zeus?
quote:
The case, apparently, at least from posters on this thread, to relate it to actual time rests on light, and it's speed. If this light in it's present form was all that ever existed, I could see a problem.
So you have scientific evidence that the light was something else? If so, please present it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 3:34 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 4:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 948 (177103)
01-14-2005 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by simple
01-14-2005 4:38 PM


Re: who turned out the lights?
Cosmos,
Well, that miracle and greek pantheon stuff is dragging us off-topic. If you don't think that other gods falsifies claims in the Bible then we can move on.
However, I remember watching David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty dissapear. Is that a miracle?
quote:
Objective? I am an object of sorts, and have evidence seen for many years, 6 ways from saturday.
Objective evidence, then, is evidence that we can both view in the same, exact way. Does any of that type of evidence support your claim that light is being changed?
quote:
Jesus was an Object that rose from the dead.
Just to help qualify what evidence I am looking for, what objective EVIDENCE supports this?
quote:
Must I consider that 1987a is long away, objectively, on the basis of light and how it behaves now? Must I consider objective what happened at the time of the big bang, when it was itsy bitsy, and went beyond the laws of physics, to where said laws break down? Must I follow you there to be objective? (or 'them' if 'you' doesn't fit here)
No, you must follow the evidence, not me. I am only the guide. You must explain how all of the objective data supports the claims made thus far, and how none of the objective data falsifies it.
quote:
One thread a while back talked about 'spiritual' light. Some others I have heard talk about some creation light that was around before the sun, and stars. Where is it now? If there were another light in this room, or the universe, and someone turned out the lights, how could I know, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on? Is there some 'fingerprint' we would look for? Would not I have to deopend largely on spoken or written record? We got that, you know, right back down to day 1.
As far as I know, Adam and Eve did not write Genesis nor did they witness the first 5 days of creation.
Secondly, all of the above is conjecture, is it not? For instance, you said "If there were another light in this room, or the universe, and someone turned out the lights, how could I know, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on?". Yes, how would you know? If you don't know, isn't it conjecture?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 4:38 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by simple, posted 01-14-2005 7:38 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024