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

The young Universe position is logically on a weaker footing than an old Universe stance.The YEC arguments base themselves as providing an alternative explanation for old Universe evidence.They do not provide any 'facts' that categorically prove a young Universe, just supposed new interpretations that allow for a young Universe.This being said, you only have to provide a single example of an old Universe that cannot be argued with and, ergo, you have falsified the young Universe position.As I see it, there can be no way around the older Universe interpretation of the distance to supernova 1987A.And I am talking about the GEOMETRICAL method of calculating the distance. This doesn't involve anything like standard candles, or relativistic redshifts but on good old trigonometry. (I do hope the YEC's accept trig.)No way of varying the speed of light (one of the lamest concepts in YECdom) will at the same time explain this supernova being nearby and yet not changing the observed radioactive decay rates of the nickel and cobalt from the explosion.This, and I stress, GEOMETRICAL distance gives a value of approx. 170,000 light years. No if's and's or but's about it.Therfore, this supernova occurred 170,000 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And again, let me repeat, no tinkering with the light speed can get around this method of getting the distance whilst preserving the radioactive decay observations.Thus we have a piece of evidence that directly FALSIFIES a less than 10,000 year old Universe. Now I accept that this on it's own doesn't give a 13.7 billion year old Universe, BUT it does the job with respect to falsifying creation being some 6-10 thousand years ago.(Please note I am not referring to a parallax here, SN1987A is too distant for that.)

Ring of the SN1987ASupernovae are interesting opportunities when they explode in our vicinity. One could tentatively say: the closer, the better. The Supernova SN1987A appearing in the LMC has been used to determine the distance to this dwarf galaxy. By measuring the time at which a ionized ring appears and the time at which it reaches its maximum, Panagia et al. (ApJ 380, L23) deduce in a very simple geometrical model the distance to this Supernova (). The problem is thus to know where the Supernova is located in the LMC. The first estimation by Panagia et al. gave while Gould et al. (ApJ452, 189) estimated . The result is sligthly model dependent but the inclination of the ring deduced from the model is in good agreement with the one deduced from the elliptical shape of the ring. This gives us confidence in the model. Anyway, even by using this nice opportunity the distance modulus of the closest galaxy cannot be measured to better than 0.2 magnitude.The conclusion is that the zero-point of the distance scale is not better than 0.1or 0.2 mag, whatever the method. The consequence about the value of the Hubble constant is not negligible (about 10%), but the main cause of discrepancy between different teams resides more specifically in the extension of the distance scale to larger distances.This method does not utilise a parallax. It uses the geometry of the expanding ionisation ring from the supernova. Above is the ApJ reference to the Panagia paper.

Well let me say first that the link you provide is full of old ideas that have been refuted.Second, you didn't address my post itself. I pointed out that YEC arguments are based upon providing an alternative to the observed facts. But if just one piece of old Universe evidence is shown to be true then it invalidates the young Universe position in one fell swoop.Thirdly, and most pedantically, I didn't think was such a word as 'evidences'.PSIs there anything you can bring to the table with respect to the post I made at the start of this thread, instead of posting a link to old, easily refuted YEC claims.

Unless you are completely new to thinking about these issues you know that much material resides on the internet refuting these issues. I don't have the time nor inclination to type out (or provide links to) information you can get in 1 second with a Google search. I am sure you have heard of TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution ControversyRead both sides of the issue before making blanket statements on the issues. And more importantly, learn some science before accepting the writings of non-scientists about scientific issues.Do you think it's a coincidence that almost all scientists do not accept the YEC position on these points?[This message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 11-16-2003]

where are the neutrinos from the other 2 supernovae you hypothesise?

but you think it's statistically plausible why 3 go off in a matter of a few seconds?By the way you might want to rethink the whole idea of the "speckle" sources being other supernovae?Do you really think adding the effects of 3 supernovae produces the observed light curve in the different bands?i.e.check more recent work than the 1999 Nisenson paper.

I am really busy the next few days but if you start a new thread on this I'll take the time this weekend.By the way, in response to your earlier question:I never said the neutrinos had anything to do with the distance, however you were being somewhat disingenuous when you said that the duration of the neutrino flux caused a change in traditional physics.