|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: The age of the earth and the life on it is not one of those mysteries, however.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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 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: And you need not respond to me, but the ever present lurkers enjoy our posts nonetheless (at least I hope so).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: We can even do better than that. Remember my picture of the halo around the supernova? Through trigonometry we can calculate the distance between the supernova and the debris that made up the halo. After the supernova exploded, the light from that supernova then illuminated that debris. Since we know how long the light took to get from the supernova to the halo, and we also know the distance between the halo and the supernova, we can then calculate the speed of the light that exited the supernova. Guess what? The calculated speed matches the speed of light on earth. We are able to measure the speed of light in distant space as well as on earth, and that speed does not differ. I'll post the picture again. The supernova is the bright dot in the middle and the bright circle around the supernova is the illuminated debris.
Therefore, for the universe to be young there needs to be something in the light path of this supernova that momentarily accelerates light to more than 100,000 times its current speed and then something else has to slow it down to it's regular speed before it reaches earth. Either that or God is showing us light from a star that never existed.
quote: No. Now all we need to say is that every piece of evidence we have is consistant with light always having the same speed when it travels through a vacuum. That is a true statement. All theories in science are tentative, and this example is no different. However, to claim that this light is travelling at a different speed is not supported by any evidence and is contradicted by the evidence we do have. The only reason to claim that light travels at different speeds in a vacuum is to conform to a literal reading of Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, really. Pulsars, IIRC, are neutrino stars. They are made primarily of neutrons. The lack of charge allows the particles to pack in very tightly, which causes the extreme rotational speeds. Think of an ice skater in a spin. As they pull their arms in towards their body their rate of spin increases. The same effect can be seen in pulsars, where all of the mass is pulled in to a very small area. The high density of pulsars also creates the electromagnetic emmissions as a function of the gravitational poles. So what we get is a pulse of eletromagnetic radiation at very short and regular intervals. The speed at which the pulsars spin is almost at a max. We know this because we know the size of these stars, the density of neutrons, the gravitational forces, and the nuclear forces involved in these stars. We could be wrong, like I said before all things in science are tentative. However, everything on that webpage are consistent with all of the evidence we have at hand. None of the evidence falsifies the currently used models for pulsars. As a bit of irony, pulsars were once thought to be radio transimissions from alien civilizations. The precision and strength of pulsar signals, back in the early days of astronomy, could not be exlained except through intelligent technology. However, as our understanding of atoms and astronomy increased, it became apparent that these signals were coming from high density stars with extremely short rotational periods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Happy to see that you are keeping your sense of humor about all of this. Many get mad and run. If there were more creationists like yourselves we wouldn't have anything to complain about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: It is also funny how the little line "the bible is God's Word" has any merit in science.
quote: How is it conjecture if we have objective evidence that supports the claim?
quote: The distances are real, unless you are claiming the Biblical accounts are more accurate than trigonometry. The speed of light is real, unless you are able to point to any evidence to the contrary. And invisible ninjas have just as much objective evidence for their existence as any other deity. I will grant you that there is also the realm of subjective evidence, but this type of evidence is not useful in determining the reality of the natural world.
quote: Outside of the evolution vs. creation debate it isn't a big deal, just more evidence in a very large stockpile of evidence. Supernova 1987A did not reveal anything really new about the universe that we didn't already have evidence of. However, it is a Big Deal for creationists, since it falsifies their contention that the speed of light, decay rates, and the age of the universe are not consistent with their theories. Supernova 1987A, in one fell swoop, falsifies young earth creationism (YEC). Since YEC has been falsified within the sciences for about 200 years now, it is hardly anything worth mentioning within science outside of astronomy and physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Yes, evidence instead of superstition.
quote: And a great many don't. Science isn't based on feelings, it is based on objective evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No we don't. We use evidence to back up the claim. Again, how is it conjecture when it is supported by evidence and not falsified by any of the evidence? Supernova 1987A and millisecond pulsars support the fact that physical constants were the same in the past and in different places in the universe. No conjecture is needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Sure, if we take away the measurement of the speed of light the whole thing collapses. The only problem is that I have no reason to do that since I can support the speed of light with evidence and with observation. Can you present ANY evidence why the speed of light in a vacuum is not constant? If not, then there is no reason not to accept the current measurements.
quote: Pardon the pun, but the evidence contained in supernova 1987A does not exist in a vacuum. Take, for instance, the Oklo natural reactor found in Gabon, Africa. Due to the nature of the uranium ore, a natural fission reaction has been taking place for almost 2 billion years. Throughout this process there is not one detectable change in decay rates which. This is known because any change in the decay rates would have changed the expected fission products and their amounts. There are numerous other pieces of evidence that point to the same thing, the constancy of the speed of light and the constancy of decay rates. To claim that decay rates or the speed of light are not constant is to do so in contradiction of the evidence and without evidence to support the claim. This is otherwise known as conjecture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: You say that the constancy of the speed of light is conjecture. This is denying the fact that we have evidence that supports the claim, which makes it the opposite of conjecture. What I and others have been saying is not, directly, that the speed of light is constant. Rather, we have observed that the speed of light is constant and supernova 1987A is one of those observations. The constancy of the speed of light is not conjecture nor is it assumed, it is a conclusion drawn from many observations. For us to change that conclusion we need evidence to the contrary. Can you supply that evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Every religion has stories of miracles, both present and past. Every religion has stories of gods interacting with people. One example as the runner going to Marathon stopping along the way and talking to the god Pan. So I guess this is concrete evidence that Pan exists, and by extension the Greek Pantheon of Gods?
quote: Who is dressing things up as facts? Oh yeah, the guy who claims, in the absence of objective evidence, that Genesis is literal fact. I guess the Greek Pantheon is also fact, being that it is written down by a writer inspired by Zeus?
quote: So you have scientific evidence that the light was something else? If so, please present it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Cosmos,
Well, that miracle and greek pantheon stuff is dragging us off-topic. If you don't think that other gods falsifies claims in the Bible then we can move on. However, I remember watching David Copperfield make the Statue of Liberty dissapear. Is that a miracle?
quote: Objective evidence, then, is evidence that we can both view in the same, exact way. Does any of that type of evidence support your claim that light is being changed?
quote: Just to help qualify what evidence I am looking for, what objective EVIDENCE supports this?
quote: No, you must follow the evidence, not me. I am only the guide. You must explain how all of the objective data supports the claims made thus far, and how none of the objective data falsifies it.
quote: As far as I know, Adam and Eve did not write Genesis nor did they witness the first 5 days of creation. Secondly, all of the above is conjecture, is it not? For instance, you said "If there were another light in this room, or the universe, and someone turned out the lights, how could I know, if I was born after they were turned out, they were ever on?". Yes, how would you know? If you don't know, isn't it conjecture?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024