Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 91 of 948 (176599)
01-13-2005 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 12:58 PM


the creator factor
quote:
We observe that things take time to travel distances, including light, right?
Yes, we observe light's speed, and how long it takes to get somewhere quite excellently. Also, we mix in some conjecture, and try to project into the distant past that it was always so. Some even try some future conjecture, once again leaving out any creator factor. Quantum fluctuations are cool, but creator calculations are out of vogue in much of modern science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:58 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 3:35 PM simple has replied
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 3:38 PM simple has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 948 (176601)
01-13-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by simple
01-13-2005 3:20 PM


Re: proofs abound
quote:
This indicates to me that the inspiration behind these 2 theories [on the beginning of the Universe] would be different than that behind Genesis!
Yes, evidence instead of superstition.
quote:
A great many people fell they see His fingerprints, and signature all around the heavens!
And a great many don't. Science isn't based on feelings, it is based on objective evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 3:20 PM simple has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 948 (176602)
01-13-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by simple
01-13-2005 3:30 PM


Re: the creator factor
quote:
Also, we mix in some conjecture, and try to project into the distant past that it was always so.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 3:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:30 PM Loudmouth has replied

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


Message 94 of 948 (176605)
01-13-2005 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by simple
01-13-2005 3:30 PM


Re: the creator factor
cosmo writes:
Also, we mix in some conjecture, and try to project into the distant past that it was always so. Some even try some future conjecture, once again leaving out any creator factor.
I think you must be missing something, because the supporting data is pretty abundant and complete. Could you be specific about what you think is being conjectured?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 3:30 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:12 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 948 (176617)
01-13-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
01-13-2005 8:38 AM


Re: into the mystic
I'll have to take another look at that. What I would be interested in would be not how constant it now is thought to be, but was, and will be, and if there was other light, instead/as well.
quote:
Can you put into words why you think inconclusive the evidence showing that the speed of light, decay rates, and other physical constants, are the same everywhere and in every era that we look in the universe?
Well, my feeling is not that man's efforts so far are that inconcusive, as much as they are exclusive. What are we missing? Why do we have the creation time so far off? What went on we have not yet been able, or willing to understand? How could we be misinterpreting what we do have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 8:38 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 4:08 PM simple has replied
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 4:16 PM simple has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 948 (176618)
01-13-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by simple
01-13-2005 4:05 PM


Why do we have the creation time so far off?
Far off of what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:05 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:15 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 948 (176620)
01-13-2005 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Percy
01-13-2005 3:38 PM


long away, and far ago
[quote]Could you be specific about what you think is being conjectured?[quote] That the 1987 blow happened only in time measured by how our light travels now. In other words, 163,000 years after the said creation date. Yes, it is that far away, in all liklihood, but not that long away. The conjecture comes in when it is assumed there were no other factors at play here. I understand you can't prove there were these other factors at your present state of knowledge. I also understand you can not prove nothing else made things happen in a different time frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 3:38 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 4:14 PM simple has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 948 (176623)
01-13-2005 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by simple
01-13-2005 4:12 PM


The conjecture comes in when it is assumed there were no other factors at play here.
Since the alternative is to presume that unknown, undetectable factors make it so that we can't know anything at all about the universe, why do you believe that assumption is unreasonable?
I mean, it might be that undetectable factors make it so that even though it looks like I live in Missouri, I actually live on the Moon. But why on Earth would I presume such a thing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:12 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:47 PM crashfrog has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 948 (176624)
01-13-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 4:08 PM


not allowed in
quote:
Far off of what?
I think we all know I can't harp on things that are uncool in your chosen circle of science on this thread or board. Let's just say far off of the actual time frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 4:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


(1)
Message 100 of 948 (176626)
01-13-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by simple
01-13-2005 4:05 PM


Re: into the mystic
cosmo writes:
Well, my feeling is not that man's efforts so far are that inconcusive, as much as they are exclusive. What are we missing? Why do we have the creation time so far off? What went on we have not yet been able, or willing to understand? How could we be misinterpreting what we do have?
Instead of addressing each specific question, let me address just the gist of what you're asking, which seems to be, "How do we know we're right?"
The answer is that we don't know we're right. That's why theories are considered tentative and changeable rather than fixed and permanent.
It is not a valid rebuttal to say, "You could be wrong." We readily agree, as you would have to agree that *you* could be wrong. Such arguments weigh just as heavily on both sides of the debate and so cannot move either side's position forward.
But our position is supported by a wealth of evidence, and so a valid rebuttal of our position can only occur when you have counter-evidence or counter-arguments that undercut our position.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:05 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:41 PM Percy has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 948 (176631)
01-13-2005 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Loudmouth
01-13-2005 3:35 PM


Re: the creator factor
quote:
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.
How far in the past? Now if we take away for a moment light speed, what do you really have left here? Well timed pulses? Colored lights that seem to tell us of decay rates? And I already allowed to myself that they were at that time the same, anyhow. This would indicate to me, then this explosion after any big change in rates of decay, if there were any. So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 3:35 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 5:16 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 948 (176635)
01-13-2005 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Percy
01-13-2005 4:16 PM


be all end all
quote:
and so a valid rebuttal of our position can only occur when you have counter-evidence or counter-arguments that undercut our position.
My arguement is that we can't say because decay rates are the same in this thing, that it means it was a long time ago. Only by assuming our light is the be all end all unchanging, unchangable constant that overrules all else can such great time lenths be conjured up.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 4:16 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 5:29 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 948 (176637)
01-13-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 4:14 PM


detection in progress
quote:
Since the alternative is to presume that unknown, undetectable factors make it so that we can't know anything at all about the universe,
Only unknown because you rule them out of your circle of chosen knowledge. Undtectable, because men don't wish to detect them, and without accepting the bible's record, and a world of primo firsthand evidence of supernatural things, you won't have the ability to detect past man's nose properly. As far as knowing anything at all, man knows plenty. Those men who rule Him out know only so much about important things though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 4:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 4:56 PM simple has not replied
 Message 105 by AdminJar, posted 01-13-2005 4:57 PM simple has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 948 (176641)
01-13-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by simple
01-13-2005 4:47 PM


Only unknown because you rule them out of your circle of chosen knowledge.
How can they be ruled out if we don't even know what they are?
Undtectable, because men don't wish to detect them
So you've detected them? Good, that's what we've been asking for the whole time - the evidence you've accumulated that proves these factors exist.
So, lay it on us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:47 PM simple has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 948 (176642)
01-13-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by simple
01-13-2005 4:47 PM


Getting way off topic
can we move back towards discussing the supernova?

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by simple, posted 01-13-2005 4:47 PM simple has 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