Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 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: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 438 of 948 (797616)
01-24-2017 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by creation
01-24-2017 12:49 PM


Re: Young earth?
But the OP cited geometric measurements as hard evidence. I pointed out here, unchallenged still, that the measure is actually geochronometic.
Ah, you haven't address all of the argument from the OP. The time component is addressed by the decay rates of the nickle and cobalt from the explosion being the same as they are here on Earth.
With that we can accept that the time there is the same as ours and then go on to do the geometric calculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 12:49 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 440 of 948 (797618)
01-24-2017 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by creation
01-24-2017 1:14 PM


Re: Does time pass in other star systems.
So if you think time operates differently, then what is your explanation for these observations?
I don't need one! It is not I that claimed to have er all mapped out. That would be science. My personal guess is that it involves more than what we know here.
Just saying you don't accept something is not an argument, it is a belief.
Just saying you do is belief actually. To question that belief and ask for real evidence is real science! Honesty. I am questioning people's belief system here.
Let me get this straight, you saying: What the scientists are doing and calling science, well that stuff we can't trust to be correct because they don't really know what they are talking about.
But you and your attempts at questioning basic and fundamental sources of knowledge, well, that's the real science and it is totally correct.
Pardon me, but you're full of it. We all trust science because it works and solves problems. Your juvenile attempts at obfuscating knowledge and stifling progress may be amusing to yourself, but we're all here rolling our eyes at you and not really caring if you choose to wallow in your ignorance rather than discuss real things with the adults.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 1:14 PM creation has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by jar, posted 01-24-2017 1:50 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 453 of 948 (797639)
01-24-2017 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by creation
01-24-2017 8:13 PM


Re: Young earth?
No it sure is not addressed by that in any way whatsoever actually. That time component is a component here. Here we have time so it takes time here. Let's say it took 60 days for some decay to unfold as happening here. To us it takes 60 days. If time is not the same there, then THERE it takes what it takes.
Yes of course, but what are you trying to say?
You must be talking about cobalt decaying into iron. Are you trying to say that it really wasn't cobalt THERE because it took a different amount of time to decay? Or are you saying that whatever time it took the stuff to decay THERE, it just appeared to take the same amount of time as cobalt does here?
Or are you just trying to say that we can't say that we know that the supernova was from cobalt so you can deny that it was a really long time ago?
Secondly and very importantly unless time did exist there we do not know how far away the event is.
We saw the change. That requires time.
Whatever it was that exploded, it decayed like cobalt does here. So it appears to have happened a really long time ago.
That's just facts. Whether or not we can say we know this doesn't really have anything to do with SN 1987A in particular.
You have an arbitrary line where, passed it, we can't know stuff because time might be different. Whatever, that's no better than we might be living in The Matrix.
It's certainly worse than the scientific explanation. Which is exactly that, something that works to explain. Simply saying that it could be different isn't very helpful.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by creation, posted 01-24-2017 8:13 PM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 12:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 473 of 948 (797663)
01-25-2017 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by creation
01-25-2017 12:38 AM


Re: Young earth?
The time is only seen here. The time that it took to decay is seen only here. Naturally it would be in our time.
What is it about our time that you think causes it to naturally make other things be in it?
The light curve took so much time, but that time was here where we do have time. The material may be right, but the time of decay is RELATIVE to the time zone!
That doesn't make sense, and doesn't seen very thought out.
Cobalt has a half-life where it takes some amount of time for it to decay that we know from our observations here.
Then we observed an explosion in the sky that was some distance away from us. From those observations, we calculated that the material appears to have the same half-life that cobalt does for our observations here. So, we concluded that the material over there was also cobalt, that exploded.
If the time of decay is wholly different over there, then we wouldn't conclude that it's cobalt. How could cobalt have a completely different rate of decay over there, but then when the light from the explosion gets to us in our time, then some how "naturally" that decay rate is changed to appear just like it does over here in our time?
That sounds like complete nonsense.
Here where time is, yes. of course. Time exists here. Everything requires time!
If everything requires time then you cannot question if there is time over THERE for the things that we are observing. Them being things would mean they require time, according to "everything requires time".
The reason a long time ago is invoked is because of great distances deduced by assuming time exists there.
Not really, there's a lot more to it. You've over simplified this and are just hand-waving.
Boring religion.
There's nothing wrong with religion, is that supposed to be some kind of insult? And if it is so boring then why are you talking about it so much?
Though it rocks your little world, it is what it is.
Huh? You don't know anything about me. You are not capable of rocking my world, child.
The Matrix came out in 1999. You're almost 20 years behind that whole world-rocking scene.
Fairy tales explain.
Yes, and therefore fairy tales are more interesting and helpful that the posts you've been writing here, which explain nothing. For everything you've written, it can all be boiled down to: "Nuh-uh, you can't know that."
Well whoopty-freakin-do. That's a completely worthless assessment.
The issue is truth and knowledge and a proper act based explanation. Not some wild faith based explanation at all costs.
Well, you're so far off-base that I'm not even sure where to begin. There is no cost, very little faith, the issue of truth is inconsequential.
This sounds like an issue for you, in particular. You seem to be being threatened by a scientific explanation. What's up with that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 12:38 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 475 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:59 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 497 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 4:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 476 of 948 (797667)
01-25-2017 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 474 by creation
01-25-2017 9:55 AM


Re: Moderator Request
The stars are way way beyond our experience and range and no one was ever near one.
I got so close to a star that it burnt my skin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:55 AM creation has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 478 of 948 (797669)
01-25-2017 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 475 by creation
01-25-2017 9:59 AM


Re: Young earth?
You 'calculated' based on the belief that time is equal and exists there also.
Prove it. (hint: nobody thinks that "time is equal"... it's relative)
The parallax measure used a base line from here in our time/spacetime/space.
I'm not talking about parallax measurements.
You say you based the fact that it was cobalt on the time it took to decay?
It being cobalt works as an explanation for the direct observations of the explosion in the sky. The radioactive source of the energy from the visible light emissions came from the detection of predicted gamma-ray line radiation from two of the source's abundant radioactive nuclei.
quote:
Energy for the peak of the light curve of SN1987A was provided by the decay of 56Ni to 56Co (half life 6 days) while energy for the later light curve in particular fit very closely with the 77.3 day half-life of 56Co decaying to 56Fe. Later measurements by space gamma-ray telescopes of the small fraction of the 56Co and 57Co gamma rays that escaped the SN1987A remnant without absorption confirmed earlier predictions that those two radioactive nuclei were the power source.
You can't just say: "Well, that took time and time could be different so you don't know anything."
That's worse than a fairy tale as it explain nothing. And you apparently haven't thought out how the material in question could have totally different behaviors that somehow behave exactly like cobalt does in our time.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 9:59 AM creation has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 510 of 948 (797707)
01-25-2017 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by creation
01-25-2017 4:14 PM


Re: floundering
What is it about our time that you think causes it to naturally make other things be in it?
The fact that it exists where we happen to be. Therefore what we know includes time, and what we see here.
That didn't answer the question. The material that exploded in the sky, how did our time make it appear to decay just like cobalt does here?
It takes some time...think about it. Where does it take time and is seen to take time? Here. In labs, in the earth, solar system... that is where it takes the time we know it to take.
It also takes time over THERE for the change to occur, but it is only seen over here.
Just because we need X amount of time here, does not mean we need X amount for things to happen in some place where there is not that much time.
Duh, time is relative. Have you not even seen Interstellar?
Here things take time and a certain amount of it. In some place where there was no time, praytell, how could things take time to do what they do there?? Would we not time to exist for it to be involved?
I think you accidentally a word. But yes; change requires time to exist where it occurs as well as where it is observed, they just don't have to be the exactly the same.
Yes really. NO distance to stars without time. Period. Really. No way out of that one. Now quit hand waving and admit it.
It's really beside the point, but you can measure the distance between spatial coordinates without needing a time component. If you're talking about something more specific than that, then I don't think it has anything to do with what I'm saying.
If you get a good scientific explanation for the issue at hand get back to us.
Time does exist everywhere that exists, it's just relative. If we see something changing, then time has to exist where it is changing, but it could be different than it is here on the surface of Earth.
At that time we can decide if we feel threatened.
Still with me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by creation, posted 01-25-2017 4:14 PM creation has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 535 of 948 (797739)
01-26-2017 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by creation
01-26-2017 9:26 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
What you cannot say is that 'millions of trillions of miles beyond where we ever have been, the passage of time happens precisely the same as here'!
Nobody is saying that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:26 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 537 of 948 (797741)
01-26-2017 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 533 by creation
01-26-2017 9:41 AM


Re: Creationist Epistemology
To be honest about what is known or not is science in a far more real sense than hiding in darkness pretending one knows it all.
Nobody cares. You're gonna sit there and whine and cry about how much the scientists don't really actually know all the things they say they do, and people are going to continue to accept scientific explanations because they work and solve problems. Nobody cares whether or not you are willing to accept that we know such things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:41 AM creation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:55 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 544 of 948 (797749)
01-26-2017 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 541 by creation
01-26-2017 9:57 AM


Re: Quick word to the wise
Well, if they say time does exist exactly as it does in our solar system spacetime on the edges of the universe, they DO say that.
Prove it. Show me. Nobody here has said that.
Think of our solar system more as a little timepiece in a big universe.
I know more about this subject than you.
If you weren't so conceited you might be able to learn something. But as they say, pride is an abomination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by creation, posted 01-26-2017 9:57 AM creation has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024