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

Curiously that is not the issue raised by voyager 1 entering a new, never experienced part of space that conforms to predictions made by the scientific model. How do you know this? How do you know it is not crossing the boundary? Because you say so is not sufficient. The measurement from Voyager 1 was indirect, but it was verified by direct measurements from Voyager 2.Apparently you don't seem to understand what that means. Says the person who once again embarrasses himself by not reading or not comprehending what the post says.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

The limits of where probes have been are clear. It has been almost no where at all..one lousy light day...even less. Forgive me if I do not accept your belief that this is how all of God's universe has to be.If man goes further than the fishbowl (which merely represents where we have gone) gets bigger. Not even a light day yet!!!!!As for the indirect measurements we get from the probes, it would take another thread to discuss whether they could be misread. Not that it matters since the fishbowl is so comically tiny!!!

In other words the "fishbowl" is a meaningless concept with no value to science or rational thought. It's just another god-of-the-gaps argument for people that don't want to accept the reality of science. Bingo, god-of-the-gaps in living technicolor. This is what all your arguments on all these threads are: a desperate attempt to deny and ignore any and all scientific findings that contradict your belief.Sadly, for you, science is not at all concerned or threatened in any way by your beliefs and desires. Don't bother, you apparently cannot fathom the concept of one →1← (ONE) set of data being inferred, that is THEN validated by ANOTHER set of data that is NOT inferred. Try reading for content before you bather more idiocy on this matter.Science works on the principle that IF what we know now from all the current scientific investigations is true, THEN what can we predict about matters that have not yet been covered by scientific investigations.

​

Working on this basis predictions are made and then tested.

​

Guess what? This approach led to the prediction that outside the heliopause it would then experience a type of space different from what we had previously experienced, that the interstellar medium with a significantly higher electron density. This was first noted by Voyager 1 and then confirmed by Voyager 2.

​

Scientific Knowledge → Prediction → Test → Validation

​

Your approach: You cannot know what is outside the "fishbowl" → no prediction → no test → no validation ... oh look Voyager 2 showed a different nature ... I told you it would not be the same as before ... and now you can't know what is outside the new ever changing plastic elastic magical modifying "fishbowl" ... more useless god-of-the-gaps ... except for those who need to be coddled and protected from learning.By the same scientific approach we estimate the distance to stars by a number of methods, the one to SN1987A (the subject of this thread) using direct math rather than the means used on other stars. It validates the scientific predictions made on the basis of current knowledge.You claim we cannot know this, not for any specific reason, just plain denial rather than showing any errors in the scientific approach. Your reason for doing this is because you don't want to know, you want to huddle in ignorance rather than face facts.Kinda sad and pathetic imhoEnjoy

No. In other words the fishbowl is where you live and where you experience time and space here, and is no bigger than where we have been and know about. Divide the 14 billion light years or whatever you claim the universe to be by light days! Then you will see that the limits of where man has been represents almost nowhere in the universe.There is nothing to deny whatsoever here in the fishbowl. What I question is your unsupportable beliefs about what is in the far universe.Science predicts based on realities here in the fishbowl. That premise is no good unless the time and space in the far reaches of the universe are the very same as here. The fact that things less than one light day away seem to be similar means nothing. You only have blind faith.

OK, let's assume that *we* only have blind faith. What do you have that is any better? And how do you test for yours to be real?

Don't try to look to other faiths to excuse having one.I do not plan to get into fulfilled prophesy here, and other proofs of Scripture.

Yeah, you might want to stay away from Tyre, at least.

Irrelevant. This does not invalidate the topic - falsifying a young universe. Except that the calculations of the distance to SN1987A are supported by the evidence used (given previously in this thread) and simple high school math.Except that belief is not involved, rather it is theory (science is based on theory) and testing: IF the universe behaves according to our current understanding, THEN what can we predict, and how do we test the predictions?You can question all you want to, but your questions are irrelevant until you SHOW evidence of the nature of the universe being different in some way. A nobel prize awaits anyone who can. You, however have squat. That is indeed the theoretical basis, and it holds until it is falsified by evidence showing such predictions are invalid. This has occurred several times in the past, and the theoretical model has been adjusted to match new information, resulting in our current model for the universe.This too may be invalidated, but only by new evidence, not by some creationist crying in a corner that it doesn't match his beliefs. No, it means the model is valid to that point. The fact that predicted increases in electron density were first detected by Voyager 1 and then corroborated by Voyager 2 means that the prediction was tested and not invalidated. THAT is not blind faith. It is verified prediction, adding to our knowledge base and allowing for further predictions.It is appalling that creationists seem so incapable of understanding the difference between blind faith (theirs) and science.Blind Faith is belief in spite of evidence to the contrary, this applies generally to religious faith and specifically creationist faith in a young universe. Science, on the other hand, modifies theory to incorporate evidence to the contrary. Big difference.Enjoy

The Tyre whose king is Satan? Something tells me that involves more than just ancient Tyre.

There is no evidence for distance to SN1987a. What is used is faith alone n the form of lines that are supposed to represent equal time and space. All based on the view from earth and area.
When science cooks up a new godless explanation pulled from it's tiny bag of tricks, it is based on faith alone. Like 'gee, if the comets did not fill the oceans, I guess the asteroids must have dunnit'In the case of Voyager, it is less than a light day away so is irrelevant to the topic of the far universe.Not having experienced anything different yet has no meaning to the far universe at all.Even so, I notice they still found they had it wrong in some ways! Ha."
On August 25, 2012, something dramatic happened: Voyager 1 stopped getting hit with particles and started detecting cosmic rays for the first time. But the magnetic field didn't change direction, which is what you'd expect if the spacecraft had left the solar system.So Voyager 1 appears to be in a strange, unexpected region, and scientists aren't sure why such a strange place exists"
At the Edge of the Solar System, Voyager 1 Finds a Mystery

Okay let me make this very simple.When we look at stars in the sky, they move across our telescopes' detection surfaces at the same rate and following the same curves that General Relativity predicts they should if they were X kilometers away.Then if you take that X kilometers and the colour of light coming out of the star and plug it into a hydrodynamic stellar model, the models say "Oh, that star should leave a mark of strength Y on a photographic plate.Then we look at the plate and see an excitation pattern of strength Y.So why shouldn't we at least tentatively conclude that perhaps stars are made of what we think and they move like GR says?

Wrong. There is evidence, the fact that you ignore it does not make it go away. Wrong again. The fact that you ignore the meaning of the game first mentioned in Message 238:

quote:

---

(T_{{light from ring}} - T_{{light from star}})x(c_now) = (D_{star to ring to us} - D_{star to us})

​

and for very small angles like this
(less than 1^o, and we are talking less than 0.01^o)
tan ~= sin and d ~= h (99.999% or better?) so

​

(D_{star to ring to us}) ~= (D_{star to us} + D_{star to ring})

​

and thus

​

(D_{star to ring to us} - D_{star to us}) ~= ((D_{star to us} + D_{star to ring}) - D_{star to us})

​

= (D_{star to ring}) == (T_{{light from ring}} - T_{{light from star}})x(c_now)

​

You could make a board game with say a thousand steps between the start and the end and 10 steps from the start to a point P and then a thousand steps from point P to the end, then throw a pair of dice and move both of two markers by that same amount, and the markers will always be 10 steps apart at the end.

---

As you can see from the equations time is irrelevant until the light enters our space-time (your dishbowl), and distance can be as random as you like until the light enters our space-time as well. This is further described in Message 599:

quote:

---

Okay, ... I like to call the game star checkers:

​

It's a board game with two pieces, their movement is determined by the throw of a di, both move the amount shown on the di.

​

One takes a path from the star to the earth, the other takes a detour to the ring and then to the earth

​

​

Click on the image to enlarge it.

​

The ring is shown highly eccentric to show that we use the major axis as the diameter of the ring, the eccentricity is caused by the ring tilting away from a perfectly perpendicular plane to our line of sight. We KNOW the ring is actually circular because the whole ring lit up at the same time.

​

​

Each of the three lines is composed of dots with the exact same spacing from dot to dot, they are distance increments.

​

We start with both playing pieces at the star and throw the di, then move both pieces the amount of dots shown on the di, which varies from 1 to 6 in a random pattern.

​

Player piece A moves along the line from the star (lower left) to the earth (at the right)

​

Player piece B moves along the lines from the star to the ring (upper left) and then from the ring to the earth without stopping at the ring.

​

When player piece A reaches the earth we are in the modern (1987) era with consistent speed of light and travel distances ...

​

so we keep repeating the last distance thrown on the di until player piece B reaches the earth.

​

The difference in time between player piece A reaching the earth and player piece B reaching the earth is then multiplied by the modern (1987) era speed of light both are experiencing gives us an accurate measure of the distance from the star to the ring.

​

This time is known. This calculation of the distance between the star and the ring is thus a known fact.

​

Thank you for playing.

---

You can choose what ever distance or time interval you like, and the results will be the same. Still not understanding how science works. Science does not use any concept just because someone wants to, it has to have evidence to be used. That is why it describes natural behavior and not supernatural/mythical/made-up behavior. Wrong again. If it validates the current model then we can proceed on that basis -- evidence based theory -- t0 the far universe, make predictions and then test them -- one step at a time. Au contraire, it means we can keep going on the basis of the current evidence based model of the universe. So a Popular Mechanics article that is 5 years old, by a journalist ... is an authority on science?Here's the Science letter it is based on: Voyager may not have entered interstellar space, after all ... this still is not a peer reviewed science paper, but compared to the Popular Mechanic article it is more informative of the science involved.

quote:

---

Nearly a year after NASA trumpeted Voyager 1’s departure from the sun’s protective bubble, two mission scientists argue that the spacecraft never left. Many astronomers are doubtful about the assertion, but the debate illustrates that the transition from solar bubble to interstellar space is not clear-cut.

​

hen in September, after months of speculation, mission scientists finally announced that Voyager 1 had exited the heliosphere on August 25, 2012 (SN Online: 9/12/13). The proof, they said, came via a blast wave from the sun that jostled particles around the probe in April 2013. The vibrations of the particles suggested that the spacecraft was surrounded by a dense soup of galactic particles rather than a comparatively sparse fog of solar ones. Last week, on July 7, the researchers reaffirmed their conclusion after analyzing another solar outburst that reached Voyager in March.

​

However, Voyager has yet to detect what scientists long predicted would be the calling card of interstellar space: a shift in the direction of the magnetic field. Scientists had expected the probe to encounter particles under the influence of the interstellar magnetic field draped over the outer shell of the heliosphere, inducing an abrupt shift. But the direction has remained stubbornly constant, and researchers can’t explain why. This whole region is a lot messier than anyone dreamed of, Christian says.

​

It’s a bit too messy for George Gloeckler and Lennard Fisk, Voyager scientists at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. They wondered whether the magnetic field and particle density conditions measured by Voyager could exist within the heliosphere. In a paper accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, Gloeckler and Fisk argue that the outer heliosphere could allow an influx of galactic particles from beyond the bubble that would explain the density measurements.

​

The researchers’ analysis includes a way to definitively test the idea: If Voyager 1 is within the heliosphere, Gloeckler and Fisk note, then it should still be at the mercy of the sun’s magnetic field. If that were the case, within a year or so, Voyager should detect a 180-degree flip in the field’s direction, a regular occurrence caused by the sun’s rotation. If that happens, Gloeckler says, Len and I will have a big celebration.

​

It’s a very good paper, says Stephen Fuselier, a space scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. They came up with a bold, testable prediction.

​

Voyager should provide more clarity by next year with the help of more blast wave measurements and the possibility of the 180-degree magnetic field shift. In the meantime, Christian says, scientists have to remain patient. Trying to characterize a vast unexplored region of space with one probe is like trying to understand an ocean with a single buoy.

​

Within several years, another buoy should reach the vicinity of the heliosphere boundary: Voyager 2, which unlike its sibling, sports a functioning instrument to take continuous measurements of particle density and temperature. Voyager observations have surprised us over the years, Fuselier says. We’re just waiting for more surprises.

---

Scientists like surprises, because that is when you learn new things. What we need is follow up from 2015 when the solar magnetic field flipped.Personally I would be surprised that the boundary was hard and fast, and think it would be subject to wavering with solar blasts, much in the way that a river entering the ocean has a messy boundary.The quotes from Stone come from another letter in the same issue, At last, Voyager 1 slips into interstellar space:

quote:

---

The first evidence that Voyager had reached that boundary appeared on July 28, 2012, when the number of solar particles measured by Voyager plummeted. But the particle count rebounded a few days later. Three similar dips and recoveries occurred in the following weeks until August 25, when solar particles disappeared for good (SN Online: 6/27/13). The solar particle measurement, combined with a surge in higher-energy particles from other stars, suggested that Voyager had exited the heliosphere and reached the promised land. Several well-publicized studies made that claim.

​

Stone and his colleagues resisted that conclusion. They lacked evidence of what they thought would be the key signature of interstellar space: a shift in the direction of the magnetic field. Solar plasma produces a distinctive magnetic field because it all comes from the same source; scientists expected that the field would shift in interstellar space, where particles flit around in all directions. Despite the particle evidence that Voyager had departed the heliosphere, the magnetic field direction remained constant. We felt we did not have the smoking gun to say that we had left the solar bubble, Stone says.

​

Donald Gurnett, a Voyager scientist at the University of Iowa, found a way to get the measurement anyway. Poring over data from another instrument on the spacecraft, Gurnett discovered that in April 2013 a blast wave from the sun, the same kind that can cause solar storms on Earth, had reached Voyager’s neck of the woods and jostled electrons in the surrounding plasma. It was the first such energetic solar shock in nine years. In that sense we were lucky, Stone says.

​

Gurnett then used the frequency of the electron vibrations to calculate that plasma surrounding Voyager 1 was about 50 times as dense as scientists would expect inside the heliosphere, a sign that the spacecraft had entered interstellar space.

​

Not everyone agrees, including a few holdouts on the Voyager team. George Gloeckler and Lennard Fisk, both from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, have written a paper demonstrating how plasma could become dense enough within the heliosphere to produce Gurnett’s measurement. Gurnett definitely measured the density correctly, Gloeckler says. But I don’t believe you can say that what he measured is the interstellar plasma.

​

Barring a change in the magnetic field, Gloeckler believes the team should wait another two or three years for Voyager 2, which has a working instrument to measure the density and temperature of plasma, to reach a similar position in space. Voyager 2 will experimentally answer this question, he says. Why rush to conclusions now?

​

Zank and many other astrophysicists say the evidence is overwhelming that Voyager 1 has crossed the heliopause, but they acknowledge that they have to determine why the magnetic field direction didn’t shift. At the same time, scientists are combing through more than a year’s worth of data Voyager 1 has collected since entering interstellar space. NASA estimates that Voyager 1 has enough plutonium fuel to keep all its instruments powered for another seven years, giving the probe plenty of time to measure an environment littered with particles that originated in distant stars and violent supernovas. All this will give us considerable insight into what’s happening in the far reaches of the galaxy, Zank says.

---

What these letters show is that there is some disagreement over the results, not that they "had it wrong." This is not uncommon with new findings in science, and why further testing is always needed.And this is still old news, what we need is follow up on Voyager 1 and the information from Voyager 2 to clarify the issue. Except that it did experience something different -- the "plasma surrounding Voyager 1 was about 50 times as dense as scientists would expect inside the heliosphere."Enjoy

Interesting claims. Let's look at the first one. So we see light bent where a star is. You claim that star is distance X. Tell us how you think that the bent light fits your distance.Remember, if the star distance was not known, neither would it;s size, etc etc be know. So yes there is bending of light possibly caused by gravity of some sort out there. That would be true at almost any size and distance I suspect?

If you look at this pic,https://www.sciencenews.org/...les/images/voyager_oort_0.jpgyou see a little yellow dot in the center. Some folks include the Oort cloud and comets whose orbits involve the sun as basically part of the solar system. (either way it goes to showing how far voyager has gone)So far I guess we could say Voyager has went approx to the edges of the yellow dot!! So, in the universe, that is nowhere. Yes, they experienced some surprises even in the yellow dot. Whoopee doo.In the SN lines you drew, one line goes from the edge of the ring to the center..right? Then you use that line with lines drawn to earth...right? If so there is a problem here that is fatal.We do not know what time is like where the star is. So any line from the center of the star area to the rings or whatever would represent unknown time and space. You cannot draw a line to earth, and then measure the whole thing as if it represented time and space here. That is religion. Playing games.I think that covers your points.Edited by creation, : No reason given.Edited by creation, : No reason given.

We've measured time at SN1987A by observing the rate of decay of known radioactive elements.