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

No, I don't think you do. The same reasons you give for not accepting time far away apply right here in front of your nose or as you say "our spacetime".So far, all you are doing is saying uhuh. Give us an observation that indicates that time has a different characteristics at stellar or cosmic distances than it has within our solar system or we can dismiss what you say as pure silliness.

Yes, I do know that. I also have every reason to expect spacetime to exist and behave in predictable ways in the visible Universe. So far, you have provided no evidence that my expectations are incorrect.

You saying something doesn't make it true.You have not presented anything but ignorant bluster, meanwhile we can extract all sorts of useful knowledge from the light we see. The emission and absorption lines in the spectrum of light from distant stars shows us the same elements that we see in light emitted right here.Now, you can rant about that but we will just laugh at you and go on learning new things about the near and far Universe with all our wonderful instruments.You are powerless to change that because no one is going to pay any attention. Oh, well that was clear. Even if you were correct, what difference does it make to you if scientists are making observations here and sharing them with whoever is interested? I step outside at night and look up and see the stars or I receive images from the Hubble Telescope on my computer and your ranting doesn't make a bit of difference to my enjoyment of the beauty and new knowledge.

You are correct, you would not be able to learn anything.

Wow, that's deep, Man.

Well, on this debate forum, losing would be the one who makes up imaginary limitations on history or the visible Universe with no independent supporting evidence. Losing in your case is not being able to convince a single person that you know anything.What I find interesting is that you seem to think that you will convince anyone that what we observe from our vantage point on Earth is not what we observe.Our telescopes collect and record light from the distant Universe and we see differences between distant objects and we can compare them with nearby objects and no one has noticed limitations of the sort you are asserting.In science, the goal is to try and collect as much evidence about the Universe and how it works as possible and to describe it in a way that all fits together. In the process we always observe features that cannot be explained initially based on existing evidence. Those are the things that scientists love, that's what they live for. That is what they will spend a lifetime researching, trying to understand. In the process they make all sorts of other discoveries even if they have not found out what is going on with the initial mystery.They make their observations, experiments, and interpretations here on earth and if the reality is different in the distant past or in the distant Universe it does not change the fact that telescopes still collect light and that we can dig up ancient human artifacts and fossils of long dead organisms and see traces left behind by geological processes and ancient life.There is no evidence of your different natures or fishbowl and until scientists notice their affects on observations they will not be taken into account. There are factors that limit what scientists can observe and they are well known, but the limitations you are arguing for here were thrown on heap of failed ideas long ago. Trying to link them to your religious beliefs ensures that no one will take you seriously.

Ok, we agree that we see things from here.And some of us keep records of what we see.And some of us notice that some of the things we see look similar or the same and some other things look different. And some of us keep records of what we see.And some of us start comparing the things we see and start figuring out ways to measure the comparisons. And some of us keep records of what we see.And some of us start making lists of the things we see, and lists of the comparisons, and lists of the measurements. And some of us keep records of what we are doing.And some of us start trying to explain what is going on with the things we see, and how they are related, and what they are made of, and thousands of other parameters. And some of us keep records of what we are doing.And some of us start writing about what we have figured out AND what we are speculating about it. And some of us start sending letters and communicating with other people who are interested and we start having meetings and form societies based specialized interests and start publishing journals.And some of us decide that it might help all of us have a clearer understanding of the observations that we are reporting if we define some standardized measurement practices and reporting methods.It turns out that all that organizing and standardizing and clarifying language was started 300 years ago by the first systematic scientists and a lot of the kinks have been worked out of the system since then. It is a modern human achievement so it still has flaws, but the goal is as accurate a description as possible of our observations from the earth and recently a few points off the Earth.You wrote: What you see here in the fishbowl is what you see. It is real...here.That doesn't change the methodology of the way we make our observations or report them. Millions of observations have been compared to experimental results here and when we observe a similarity we study it further. So, for a long time people have been poring over the data and now using high speed computers also, and a couple of the things in the observations do not seem like they fit together, and they have been highly publicized. Those puzzles are fascinating, but I don't think they are the fishbowl affect you are talking about. Wow, bloody havoc, huh?Do you know what a model is? Models are not reality, they tell us about reality. That's all, that's it.If reality changes or turns out to be different then it seems bloody obvious that we change or replace the model so it accurately tells us about reality.You act like something is going to explode if our model needs to be tweaked. Are you daft?

The bible doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't have any connection with "old age models and stellar evolution stuff." You're going to have to up your game.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

We know there is not a shred of evidence for "other natures" or any "fishbowl" but there is a mountain of evidence that Santa Claus is a real historical figure. Photos, movies, books, magazines, Santa is so infused in modern culture that millennia from now he may be the most recognized person in history.

Timelapse shows twenty-five years in the life of one the most studied objects in astronomy: Supernova 1987a

quote:

---

Yvette Cendes, a graduate student with the University of Toronto and the Leiden Observatory, has created a time-lapse showing the aftermath of the supernova over a 25-year period, from 1992 to 2017. The images show the shockwave expanding outward and slamming into debris that ringed the original star before its demise.

​

In an accompanying paper, published in the Astrophysical Journal on October 31st, Cendes and her colleagues add to the evidence that the expanding remnant is shapednot like a ring like those of Saturn'sbut like a donut, a form known as a torus.

​

They also confirm that the shockwave has now picked up some one thousand kilometres per second in speed. The acceleration has occurred because the expanding torus has punched through the ring of debris.

---

and Astronomers observe the magnetic field of the remains of supernova 1987A

quote:

---

For the first time, astronomers have directly observed the magnetism in one of astronomy's most studied objects: the remains of Supernova 1987A (SN 1987A), a dying star that appeared in our skies over thirty years ago.

​

In addition to being an impressive observational achievement, the detection provides insight into the early stages of the evolution of supernova remnants and the cosmic magnetism within them.

​

"The magnetism we've detected is around 50,000 times weaker than a fridge magnet," says Prof. Bryan Gaensler. "And we've been able to measure this from a distance of around 1.6 million trillion kilometres."

​

"This is the earliest possible detection of the magnetic field formed after the explosion of a massive star," says Dr. Giovanna Zanardo.

---

The thrill of discovery continues for astronomers and astronomy students just as if there is no boundary around our solar system distorting what they and their instruments see.What is really cool about this is they keep inventing new methods of observation and they are recording and reporting everything to all of us.It is interesting that hypotheses continue to be proposed and tested as if we are aware of any factors that distort our perceptions and account for them whenever we discover them.If creation is correct about his imaginary woowoo, it really doesn't matter because scientists are obviously continuing on, having a blast, discovering things, without even noticing his fantasies.

Meanwhile science continues on just as if you and your fantasies are fictional. Ha indeed.

Fiction.

Ah, more fiction. You cannot possibly know, since you only read fiction, barely.

So, basically fiction. Do you know what "so called" means?

Whew, I thought you were talking about so-called cranks. So are the cranks random or the so-called science?