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)
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 2 of 948 (66757)
11-15-2003 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


When you refer to a geometrical distance determination you say you are not refering to parallax. Could you explain the difference? I thought the measurement was basically one of angles with the earth's orbit as a baseline. Isn't that effectively the same thing?
You seem to have a very clear challenge to the YEC'ers there. I think you can expect it to be ignored. But if we develop this thread a little more then perhaps it can be referred to the next time the age issue pops up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:52 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 4 by JonF, posted 11-16-2003 10:22 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 948 (66953)
11-16-2003 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Eta_Carinae
11-16-2003 9:51 PM


Perhaps Messenjah could pick one or two things he thinks are telling and we can point him to the easiest material on them?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-16-2003 9:51 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 14 of 948 (66955)
11-16-2003 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Trump won
11-16-2003 9:01 PM


You seem to be suggesting that you support Humphries suggestion. I don't think it handles the problem of the measurement of the distance to SN1987A does it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Trump won, posted 11-16-2003 9:01 PM Trump won has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 30 of 948 (68487)
11-21-2003 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Trump won
11-21-2003 10:01 PM


no prankster
Of course not. The universe is as old as it appears to be.
Very few would suggest the "prankster" as a resolution to the problem so there is no other conclusion but that the universe is as shown by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Trump won, posted 11-21-2003 10:01 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Trump won, posted 11-21-2003 10:32 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 33 of 948 (127538)
07-25-2004 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Mike Holland
01-09-2004 10:42 PM


bump for HangDawg
The supernova is one of the ways to show that the universe is at least pretty old.
This thread got a bit off topic but can be steered back to where it belongs.
The supernova also shows that radio active decay has also been constant enough for at least 160,000 years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Mike Holland, posted 01-09-2004 10:42 PM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:33 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 35 of 948 (127551)
07-25-2004 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by SRO2
07-25-2004 8:33 PM


plural
At any rate, it should be plural here.
We are talking about only SN-1987A.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:33 PM SRO2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 8:51 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 39 of 948 (127594)
07-26-2004 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by SRO2
07-25-2004 9:55 PM


Two points
There are multiple ways of arriving at dates over different time frames. An additional thing about SN-1987a is that we can see radioactive decay occuring that long ago and see that it is the same as today. That is part (a small part) of establishing the constancy of the rates.
For HangDawg: There are at least a couple of mainstream science papers that are quoted by creationist sites regarding changes in decay rates. These are so deliberately misleading as to constitute lies. If you are basing anything on those you are being lied to.
(one is bound-state beta decay and the other involves changes in rate with temperature, if you think you know something about that you tell me what you conclude you are being told -- when you have done that I will show you liars in action. )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by SRO2, posted 07-25-2004 9:55 PM SRO2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-26-2004 1:01 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 41 of 948 (127603)
07-26-2004 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hangdawg13
07-26-2004 1:01 AM


YEC or OEC
It sounds like you are leaning to being an old earth creationist then. Human history isn't too far off 6,000 years but our record of humans goes back considerable more. Certainly artifacts and art a few 10,000's. Should we start a topic to cover OEC and humans? It is off topic here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-26-2004 1:01 AM Hangdawg13 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-27-2004 2:16 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 50 of 948 (128281)
07-28-2004 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Parsimonious_Razor
07-28-2004 2:24 AM


Re: Correlations
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?
I think you have that a bit wrong. We see things younger at greater distances. But that doesn't affect the time since the isotopes were formed there. It is how long since they formed up to when the light left them that affects the presence of shorter lived isotopes.
If we could look back on earth in detail from a great distance then at greater and greater distances we would see more and more of shorter lived isotopes collected from the super novae that formed them.
There would be not

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

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 55 of 948 (176089)
01-12-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
01-11-2005 11:58 PM


Another way of phrasing it.
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. Also, by our understanding of decay rates way out there, in known material, such as cobalt, we believe, at the time of the explosion, decay rates were the same." This would be a more modest, and perhaps less Yec offensive way to make such a proposition.
To a fair degree this is exactly what is "said". There are however some things which are so very sure (for many, many reasons) that to keep saying "If dah dah dah" sounds pretty stupid.
As soon as someone comes up with a reason to doubt these "ifs" then they would be inserted back into the discussion.
After all, we haven't been there to really have a look, and we were not alive 168,000 years ago either. This would leave room for people like me, with creation beliefs, to smile at the equation, rather than laugh at it.
We don't have to be there to "observe" thinks. Observing does not always involve being there. It means using a any number of ways of obtaining evidence about something. We do not, as a matter of fact, directly with our eyes "see" much of what we take as evidence anywhere.
This "but were you there" sort of argument is really very, very silly. You may start a thread on the topic if you think you can defend it for a few hours. Lots of folks would love it if you would.
You may want room for your beliefs and you have it. It is in your church. There is no room for your beliefs to be pandered too when they are, in a scientific sense, so astonishingly out of whack with what we actually observe.

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 58 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 2:45 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 113 of 948 (176746)
01-13-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Percy
01-13-2005 8:39 PM


Just as wrong?
but it is scant comfort for you since it is just true of yourself.
No, in this case, with the balance of evidence totally on one side his view is much, much more likely to be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 8:39 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 131 of 948 (177168)
01-14-2005 11:08 PM


OOO Topic Time
Both Admin AND the Queen have spoken. Time to get back to the supernova.

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 137 of 948 (177253)
01-15-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by wj
01-15-2005 2:51 AM


He's been asked
He's been asked and he has no idea at all. He's winging it and is in too deep.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by wj, posted 01-15-2005 2:51 AM wj has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 156 of 948 (177678)
01-16-2005 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by commike37
01-16-2005 7:05 PM


Ha ha fooled you.
Of course, that's only one theory for creationists, but it does disarm this argument rather well.
It is one which serious theologians do not want to use. When it is really examined in ways you have not it paints a very bad picture.
God - a liar?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by commike37, posted 01-16-2005 7:05 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by commike37, posted 01-17-2005 7:39 PM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 158 of 948 (177978)
01-17-2005 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by commike37
01-17-2005 7:39 PM


Huh?
That's why I said it only one theory. There's another really complex cosmological one. It takes into account that if v = d / t. Both v & d constant (speed of light and distance light travels) are constant, but t is not necessarily constant (b/c of general relativity). Of course that's grossly oversimplified.
I don't understand even one bit of what you are saying.
Does the first sentence say you are dropping your first idea or what?
What is this other theory? Is it GR itself you are talking about? Don't tell me you think you understand GR.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by commike37, posted 01-17-2005 7:39 PM commike37 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by commike37, posted 01-18-2005 7:22 PM NosyNed 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