Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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)
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 4 of 948 (66817)
11-16-2003 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by NosyNed
11-15-2003 10:37 PM


Gee, this is new to you? OK.
EC is referring to simple trigonometry, but the baseline is not the Earth's orbit or anything local to us. It's sort of "inverse parallax". The baseline of the triangle is the distance from the exploded star to a ring of material that was given off in the explosion. The other two sides are the distance from Earth to the exploded star and the distance from Earth to the ring. This is obviously a fairly unusual situation, so SN1987A is pretty unique.
And it's got all sorts of fascinating implications. The distance to SN1987A is about 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles whether or not the speed of light in a vacuum has changed during the time the light traveled to us. Furthermore, we have observed the products of decay of radioactive cobalt isotopes in SN1987A, and they decay at the same rate they do on Earth today. If the speed of light did change during the transit from SN1987A to us, then the decay rates of cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 had to change in exact lock-step in order to explain the observations. SN1987A contradicts a wide variety of YEC ideas.
There's gobs of material on the Web about this. See SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe (by a former YEC), The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light, and The Age of the Universe and SN1987A. If you enjoy seeing YEC's wriggle see The Mars-List Discussion on Creationism Table Of Contents and check out the SN1987A discussions.
[This message has been edited by JonF, 11-16-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by NosyNed, posted 11-15-2003 10:37 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 15 of 948 (67020)
11-17-2003 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Trump won
11-16-2003 8:10 PM


It's funny you say they've been refuted yet you show no proof of this
Probably because the refutations are so easy to find ... the fact that you haven't found them on your own speaks volumes.
Also, it took you a few seconds to put that link up, and it takes a half-hour or so to dig up and write up the links to the refutations of all those claims. This is known as the "Gish Gallop"; throw out a buch of claims as fast as possible and hope that the other side won't have the time it takes to refute them. The Gish Gallop is often a sign of a poster who doesn't really understand the issues and isn't interested in the truth.
Pick an issue from that page, start a new thread, and we'll rip it to shreds in short order. But first I suggest that you use the excellent search engine at talkorigins.org (link already posted) to look those claims up and see how flimsy and false thy really are. NAother good place to look, ath the same site, is the Index to Creationist Claims. Most if not all of the claims on your linked page are addressed there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Trump won, posted 11-16-2003 8:10 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Trump won, posted 11-20-2003 5:35 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 16 of 948 (67021)
11-17-2003 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Trump won
11-16-2003 9:01 PM


So you don't think God is a liar, yet you posted a quote from a paper in which the author proposes that God set up a universe that looks old by every test we can apply but is really young ... that sounds to me as if God is lying to us. How do you resolve this issue?
FYI, the vast majority of people who have considered issue have rejected the in-transit argument because they do not believe that God would intentionally deceive us in that manner. This appears to include, from what I can see, the vast majority of YECs and all the OECs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Trump won, posted 11-16-2003 9:01 PM Trump won has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Trump won, posted 11-20-2003 5:32 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 24 of 948 (68088)
11-20-2003 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by PaulK
11-20-2003 6:32 PM


Talkorigins has a much lower quality of article. The kindest I could say is that it attempts to refute soem parts of talkorigins.
I get your point, but ISTM that your first word isn'w what you intended.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 11-20-2003 6:32 PM PaulK has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 25 of 948 (68091)
11-20-2003 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Trump won
11-20-2003 5:32 PM


thought Humphrey's said that (according to his book/tape) God made all of the objects that are billions of years away/millions etc appear to Adam so he could see all of his wonderful creation. Tell me I'm wrong if this isn't the explanation of God's actions that he gives in his book.
I don't know if that is or is not what Humphreys says in his book. It sounds like a pretty poor attempt at a rationalization to me. Remember I pointed out that every test that we apply says that the Universe and Earth is old. And we've come up with a lot of tests ...
Did God create the cosmic microwave background so we could see all his wonderful creation? Did God create all the rocks with just the right amounts of different radioactive isotopes and producta, just the right amount of radiatino damage, and just the right amount of varnish and weathering so as to appear old ... so we could see al lhis wonderful rocks? I could go on and on for pages and pages listing all the phenomena that indicate an old Earth and universe ... if God did it circa 10,000 years ago She certainly put a lot of effort into fooling us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Trump won, posted 11-20-2003 5:32 PM Trump won has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Rei, posted 11-20-2003 7:22 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 57 of 948 (176270)
01-12-2005 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
01-11-2005 11:58 PM


Re: a simple question
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'?
I don't think that anyone has mentioned the major fact recently ... the measurement of the distance to SN1987A does not involve the speed of light. As far as this one measurement is concerned, the speed of light could have changed in any fashion whatsoever at any time and SN1987A would still be 170,000 (-ish) light years away. There's a pretty good explanation of how this works at SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe.
Now, if the speed of light has changed, the time it took for the light to reach us would not be 170,000 (-ish) years. But we have lots of other evidence that the speed of light has not changed noticably in the last few billion years.

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 59 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 2:55 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 66 of 948 (176355)
01-12-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by simple
01-12-2005 6:39 PM


Re: a simple question
In a fairly recent experiment in a lab, didn't they change the speed of light (slow it down?) If I remember correctly, I also heard something about people speeding it up, to where it kinda exited the area, before it got there, or something like that?
Sort of. When we say "the speed of light is constant" we almost always leave out the "in a vacuum" because we think it goes without saying. The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. Light has been slowed to ridiculously slow speeds in physical media, which says nothing about the speed of light in a vacuum. Light pulses have traveled faster then the speed of light in a vacuum, but that's not quite the same as light traveling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. I'm not sure I understand that latter fact well enough to explain it. See Fast and slow light made easy or Superluminal and Slow Light Propagation in a Room-Temperature Solid (requires free rgistration).
Would it not be safe to say we at least have some evidence that light speed can be changed?
No. It would not be safe. We have no such evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 6:39 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 01-12-2005 8:33 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 68 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 8:39 PM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 195 of 948 (179097)
01-20-2005 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by simple
01-20-2005 8:16 PM


Re: chose your ruler
The question was "So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?". Your reply doesn't even try to answer the question.
What evidence do we have stars are made of neutrinos, or whatever?
We have no evidence that stars are made of neutrinos. We do measure what stars are made of using spectrophotometry. See What is a star's "spectrum"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 8:16 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 9:23 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 198 of 948 (179264)
01-21-2005 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 196 by simple
01-20-2005 9:23 PM


Re: alien music too?
The question was "So what evidence is there for this faster light that existed before our present light?". Your replies still haven't even tried to answer the question.
Just as long as some poor soul does not dare try to use such creative color conclusions, to contradict bible certainties!
As usual, the best theory that fits the available evidence is that spectrophotometry and the many associated measurements and calculations are reliable indicators of the material in stars, and any contradiction in the Bible is due to the lack of knowledge on the part if its human authors.
If and when you come up with some evidence that spectrophotometry gives wrong answers, we'll listen.
{added material before the qs}
This message has been edited by JonF, 01-21-2005 08:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by simple, posted 01-20-2005 9:23 PM simple has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 201 of 948 (179357)
01-21-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Loudmouth
01-21-2005 12:10 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Why not pick a theory that allows for invisible ninjas and pink unicorns?
'Cause I prefer flying hippopotami wearing kilts with the McGregor tarten, that's why!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Loudmouth, posted 01-21-2005 12:10 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 205 of 948 (179398)
01-21-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by simple
01-21-2005 3:57 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Since I consider an accidental universe impossible, and evidentally some design ay work, again it is unshackling ourselves of present light's limitations, that is required, to 'fit the bill'
IOW, you just made it up.
quote:
So tell me how faster speeds of light fit the evidence
Less time involved. Why? - tell me how it doesn't.
Still no mention of actual evidence.
"Tell me how it doesn't" isn't the way it works, and that appears to be a particularly snotty way of trying to get out of supporting your assertion. You made a claim. Forum rule 4 says "Make your points by providing supporting evidence and/or argument. Avoid bare assertions.". Let's see your supporting evidence.
Of course, a very little bit of the mountain of evidence for a constant speed of light has already been presented in this thread. A very few more items of evidence are the facts that we don't see binary stars or pulsar "ticks" in slow motion,as we would if the speed of light had changed (CONSTANT SPEED OF LIGHT), gamma ray measurments of galaxies about 500,000,000 light years away that are inconsistent with a changing speed of light (Speed of Light Not Slowing, NASA Study Says), and study of spectral lines in quasars from resonant, fine structure, and hyperfine transitions that are inconsistent with a changing speed of light (except possibly for that study that showed that the fine structure constant might have been different in the very early universe and if it was that might mean that the speed of light was different, but AFAIK later studies have not replicated that and the proposed change in the fine structure constant does not necessarily mean that the speed of light changed) (Have physical constants changed with time? and Einstein's relativity theory hits a speed bump and Black holes may not constrain varying constants).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 3:57 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:29 PM JonF has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 210 of 948 (179414)
01-21-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by simple
01-21-2005 5:29 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Still no attempt to post your evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:29 PM simple has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 211 of 948 (179416)
01-21-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by simple
01-21-2005 5:29 PM


Re: chose your ruler
Well, admitting violations occur, but that we just can't yet detect them, maybe. Why not admit the same about a spirit dimension?
'Cause there's no evidence for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by simple, posted 01-21-2005 5:29 PM simple has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 225 of 948 (179706)
01-22-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by simple
01-22-2005 4:18 PM


Re: test to crow about
Oh, you made a point, alright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 4:18 PM simple has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 158 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 229 of 948 (179729)
01-22-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
01-22-2005 4:55 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
The problem with this that I have is the radius calculation:
quote:
The "height" [radius] of the primary gas ring around SN1987A is based on the observed time it took for the energy from the explosion to hit the ring (travelling at the speed of light), which was 0.658 years (i.e., almost two-thirds of a year).
Is dependant on the speed of light, even if the rest of it isn't.
Ah, but the rest of it is, in a way that exactly cancels when the two are conjoined From the explanation at The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light:
"The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.
If there had been no change in the speed of light since the supernova exploded, then the third leg of the triangle would be 1 unit in length, thus allowing the calculation of the distance by elementary trigonometry (three angles and one side are known). On the other hand, if the two light beams were originally traveling, say three units per year, the second beam would initially lag 1/3 of a year behind the first as that's how long it would take to do the ring detour. However, the distance that the second beam lags behind the first beam is the same as before. As both beams were traveling the same speed, the second beam fell behind the first by the length of the detour. Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring. The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova.
Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down."
{added by edit}
The key piece of information that was not in Todd's calculation is that we know the difference in arrival time between a beam that came directly from SN197a and a beam that came via bouncing offf the ring, since we saw the intial pulse of each beam. That translates into a constant distance as long as each beam was travelong at the same speed as the other at any instant in time.
This message has been edited by JonF, 01-22-2005 17:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 5:47 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:03 PM JonF 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