Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 948 (128241)
07-28-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


I haven't read the thread........only the OP. Please understand that buzsaw believes in and has always in this town, advocated for an eternal universe.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-27-2004 11:32 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 948 (128242)
07-28-2004 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hangdawg13
07-28-2004 12:04 AM


Re: YEC or OEC
quote:
Due to the nature of time being a dimension of the physical universe, which underwent many changes, I have come to the conclusion that the seven days in Genesis are not literal 24-hour days;
Can you show me the changes in the physical universe that caused the properties of time to change so drastically that we can not trust current theories in physics? Time is space, and the universe is time-space. The alteration of time between frames of reference is detectable, and no such detected alteration affects current theories. In fact, observed alterations of time between frames of reference has actually helped solidify current theories, such as the measured time dilation measured in high altitude flights. If time and space were drastically altered, then theories based on observations of todays universe would not be able to predict and explain occurences millions of light years away.
quote:
But the current cosmology is continually running into problems.
And they continually solve those problems using objective observations from reality. Einstein laid the groundwork for the current expansion of knowledge, and everything is still pointing to a universe 13-14 billion years old. The problems lie with those that deny the weight of the evidence only because it ruffles their feathers. Incredulity is a handy tool, but it is only used in the light of limited evidence. Incredutlity in the face of overwhelming evidence is stubborness, not skepticism.
quote:
I think the idea that light, time, decay rates, etc... have always been constant is not a correct assumption in a universe where space-time has presumably expanded from nothing.
For decay rates used to measure the age of the earth, all we need to do is measure the effects that an earth like environment has on decay rates. Decay rates can be changed, but only in the case of extreme pressures and heat not found on the earth. Decay rates in massive suns, for example, are accelerated. However, nothing approaching these conditions occur on Earth. The isotopes released by the supernova mentioned in previous posts are also not under these extreme conditions sense they are only under the gravitation influence of nearby, smaller masses. Also, accelerated decay rates cause increased heat. In order for the isotopes in rocks to mimic old age they would have had to release massive amounts of heat world wide, enough to turn our planet into a molten slag heap.
Also, our universe is still expanding from nothing, and so, by your theory, light and decay rates should not be constant now, and they are.
quote:
I also do not necessarily agree with the theory of gravitational accretion of how the earth, moon, and other planets were formed as their elemental composition varies so greatly.
Have you ever panned for gold. By swirling the amalgam of rock you cause the gold to settle to the bottom because it is the most dense. The same thing happened with our solar system. Solid material fell towards the center of mass. They were much denser than the gasses near the sun and so the accreted towards the middle. As the gasses were pushed outward they tended to increase their density because it was cooler, and so we have gaseous planets at the outer reaches of the solar system. It really isn't that surprising given that these things are consistent with physical theories that we observe today.
quote:
There are still many mysteries in this area, and so I think there is a lot more wiggle room than many people assume.
There are mysteries, but not as many as you would suppose. Nothing points to non-natural, or supernatural, causes for anything we see in the physical universe. To demand supernatural causes for the things we see is more of a testament to man's imagination and emotions than the physical realities of the world we live in. Speculation is fine, but inserting God into scientific theories has never yielded a working model that predictably gives results in the real world. If you think I am wrong, try and come up with one theory that reliably explains natural phenomena that can only work if God physically manipulates the system. I can't think of one.
quote:
You need not respond to this as I don't want to get this discussion off the topic of the Supernova.
And you need not respond to me, but the ever present lurkers enjoy our posts nonetheless (at least I hope so).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-28-2004 12:04 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 48 of 948 (128262)
07-28-2004 1:17 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Hangdawg13
07-28-2004 12:04 AM


Re: YEC or OEC
think the idea that light, time, decay rates, etc... have always been constant is not a correct assumption in a universe where space-time has presumably expanded from nothing
That's just it. They are not ad-hoc assumptions. They are tested experimentally and observationally, both directly and indirectly. SN 1987A is one of those observational tests.
You don't get away with ad-hoc assumptions in science, especially physics. Your assumptions have to be supported by the evidence and better than alternative assumptions are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-28-2004 12:04 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Parsimonious_Razor
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 948 (128277)
07-28-2004 2:24 AM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by NosyNed, posted 07-28-2004 3:04 AM Parsimonious_Razor has not replied
 Message 51 by Loudmouth, posted 07-28-2004 2:27 PM Parsimonious_Razor 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

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 948 (128403)
07-28-2004 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Parsimonious_Razor
07-28-2004 2:24 AM


Re: Correlations
quote:
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?
As Ned mentioned in passing, heavier elements are produced when a supernova explodes. Some of these new, heavier elements are radioactive and have short half lives. We can identify the what the element is by it's light spectrum, and we can also independently measure the amount of radiation coming from these elements. As it turns out, a supernova explosion 160,000 years ago produced certain elements that have the same radioactive half life that they do now. Therefore, we have observations that support steady decay rates for the last 160,000 years.
And Ned is also right about things looking younger the farther away we look, since the light we see was produced millions, if not billions, of years ago. We are in essence looking into a time capsule due to the long distances that light has to travel.

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

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 948 (176014)
01-11-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


a simple question
Eta_Carinae says
quote:
No way ...... ...explain this supernova being nearby and yet not changing the observed radioactive decay rates of the nickel and cobalt from the explosion.
Interesting arguement. here is a quote from a site I googled which I think brings the point out. " Some of the light (gamma-rays) from a supernova in the days after the explosion comes from radioactive decay — namely, the decay of radioactive forms of nickel and cobalt (nickel-56, half-life of 6.1 days; cobalt-56, half-life of 77.1 days; and cobalt-57, half-life of 270 days). This energy can be measured and plotted on a curve. What is observed is that 168,000 years ago (which is when SN1987A exploded), the decay rate for these radioactive elements was the same as it is today. " (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/marslist9.html)
In essence then it seems to be that the decay rates were the same at the time of explosion as now? And, by light's speed, mainly, we know how far away said explosion also was. ( I say light speed is used, of course, because even though trig is used, the actual final measurement is based on present light speed i.e. some 168 thousand "light years" away.
In simple terms, then, is not all that really means, then, is that the decay rates were the same more or less when rhe thing blew? Just trying to get a grasp of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:32 PM simple has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 948 (176022)
01-11-2005 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by simple
01-11-2005 9:20 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
In simple terms, then, is not all that really means, then, is that the decay rates were the same more or less when rhe thing blew? Just trying to get a grasp of this.
Yep, that is exactly what it means. I always find it best to use analogies. Pretend that a friend taped a clock's second hand moving. He then mailed it to you. Because it takes about 2-3 days for that mail to make it to you, after watching the tape you know that seconds were the same length 2-3 days ago in his part of the country. Don't take this analogy too far, since VCR's can run at different speeds, but you get the idea.
In the same way, we know how long it takes light to cover a certain distance. From observation, we no the distance to supernova 1987A. Therefore, we no how long it should take light to travel from supernova 1987A to earth. So, when we watch the "tape" of supernova 1987A we no how long ago that the "tape" was made, and we also know the charactistics of the universe at a point in time in the past.
This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 01-11-2005 21:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by simple, posted 01-11-2005 9:20 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by simple, posted 01-11-2005 11:58 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 948 (176061)
01-11-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Loudmouth
01-11-2005 9:32 PM


Re: a simple question
OK. Thanks for the answer. So, I was correct in my surmisings. Therefore, as we look at this "tape" -out to the 1987 s-nova, we can deduce that, for all intents and purposes, as best we can now scientifically determine, at least, the decay rates were the same.
Now if the explosion happened, say, for example, just before some major change in decay rates, by this 'tape' we would not be able to perceive this. Because at the time it blew, the rates were the same. This much I get. Now the other part of Eta's 'evidence' against a young creation, was that we can use trig, and measure how far the explosion was away. 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'? 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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:32 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:45 AM simple has replied
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 01-12-2005 1:19 PM simple has replied
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 01-12-2005 1:48 PM simple has 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

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 948 (176265)
01-12-2005 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by simple
01-11-2005 11:58 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
Now if the explosion happened, say, for example, just before some major change in decay rates, by this 'tape' we would not be able to perceive this. Because at the time it blew, the rates were the same. This much I get.
To be fair, with this one example the best we can conclude is that at that point in history decay rates were the same. However, this is not the only piece of evidence. But for simplicity, let's stick with this one and go forward.
quote:
Now the other part of Eta's 'evidence' against a young creation, was that we can use trig, and measure how far the explosion was away. 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'? 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.
Good question, and I don't think the answer has been given yet. When the supernova exploded it sent out a lot of light. That light then illuminated a halo of debris around the supernova. The distance between the supernova and this halo can be computed using trig. It is then a simple matter of measuring the time it took the light to travel from the supernova to the halo, and then using trig to measure the speed of light. See picture below:
You might want to check out the following site as well, it also deals with millisecond pulsars which demonstrate the constancy of the speed of light: Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet Infidels

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 65 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 6:53 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 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

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 948 (176282)
01-12-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
01-12-2005 2:45 AM


target practice
quote:
As soon as someone comes up with a reason to doubt these "ifs" then they would be inserted back into the discussion
Like to get the "ifs" straight, before target practice, tks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 948 (176284)
01-12-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by JonF
01-12-2005 1:48 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
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
Well, if we use 'light years' to measure the distance, I guess it is involved. Important, because the very same unit measurement is always tranformed into time measurements, which are then so often held up as overruling actual creation time - as in this very thread, where the whole thing is to try to say exactly that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 01-12-2005 1:48 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-12-2005 3:14 PM simple has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 948 (176285)
01-12-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by simple
01-12-2005 2:55 PM


Re: a simple question
cosmo writes:
quote:
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
Well, if we use 'light years' to measure the distance, I guess it is involved. Important, because the very same unit measurement is always tranformed into time measurements, which are then so often held up as overruling actual creation time - as in this very thread, where the whole thing is to try to say exactly that!
A light year is a measure of distance. It assumes the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s, and it is the distance light travels at this speed in a year. Even if it turns out that the speed of light was different in the past, the length of the light year would not change because it is based on the speed of light as measured in modern times.
You are correct, though, that the equality of light years with the time that has passed since the light left a distant object like a star would no longer hold if light has not always traveled at the speed measured today.
There is no evidence that light has ever traveled at a speed different from that measured today.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 2:55 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2005 3:58 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 64 by simple, posted 01-12-2005 6:39 PM Percy has seen this message but 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