|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
cosmo writes: 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. If that is what we'd said, then I'd agree with you. But we didn't simply declare that decay rates and the speed of light were the same in the past. We've actually measured them in the past. This has already been described for you in fair detail, so more briefly this time, when we observe a distance star or galaxy, the light arriving here left a long time ago. We are actually seeing the star or galaxy as it existed long ago. We analyze the radio emissions from these objects to determine things like speed of light and decay rates. And we find they were the same long ago and far away as there are here and now. We have never observed any physical constant to be different anywhere or anytime in the universe. The evidence gathered to this point indicates the constancy of physical constants throughout time and space. While it is possible there are exceptions hiding out there, one doesn't rebut evidence in the hand simply by raising the possibility that there might be exceptions in the bush somewhere out there. Science already takes this possibility into account by declaring that all theories are tentative. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juhrahnimo Inactive Member |
....EXCEPT when it comes to GOD. Why is that?
Your argument stands only if God were bound to the laws of physics. You assume that God is stuck inside the same box we are, and therefore miracles are impossible if they break the laws of the box (physics). But you are like a small chip on a PC motherboard, trying to explain the entire computer somehow. The "chip" can't explain the computer (or any peripherals it might be attached to, or networked to) from INSIDE the computer. Or like a PC gamer who is trying to figure out how to beat the "boss" of one of his PC games, but keeps getting clobbered just when he thinks he has the upper hand. In the meantime, the programmer has what is known as a password that puts the game into "GOD mode" that allows any gamer to do you know what! Funny how some programmer coined the term "GOD mode" for debugging purposes. But dude, God is NOT bound and gagged inside the same box we find ourselves in. He is not in "God mode", rather he is GOD. You simply cannot explain the universe from inside the universe, just like the little motherboard chip can't explain the PC from inside the PC. Specifically to your point of "it took 170,000 years for the light to get here" is like the "chip" trying to explain the origin of printer paper by observing how quickly a laser can spit out printed pages. It's totally ludicrous. When God "stopped the movement of the sun" for a day, he wasn't in "God mode", rather he was GOD. He wasn't bound by the laws of physics. He didn't take advantage of some sort of natural phenomenon, rather he was GOD. Any PC game programmer can explain this; he/she writes a program that forces the "gamers" to operate within a given set of rules. But the programmer still has the power to do whatever he wants in the game by punching in his password or cheat code, while the gamers pull their hair out for days or weeks trying to beat the bosses. When God made Adam, he didn't start with a fetus. He made Adam, AS IS. And he didn't present Adam with a bag of seeds and order him to plant them QUICK so he could grow something to eat. No, God made the plants AS IS, ready to go, complete with low hanging fruit for Adam. If God can make a single cell, he can certainly make a full grown sequioa tree (or banana tree or whatever), AS IS. But even though that sequoia may be only two minutes old, our scientific analysis will still show that the tree is 1000+ or so years old, right? And if he can make photons, he can certainly create a whole bunch of them and stretch them out across the heavens. And the heavens declare the glory of God. Is this so hard to understand? Or just hard to swallow?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Thank you. Thats great. So, really, Eta's whole case in this thread rests on that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Are we really though? I know you think you are. Based on what?,- again, resting on the speed of light. Yes all theories are tentative, and we don't really know, so let's cast it in that light. Not like this thread, where these selfsame tenative theories are held up as some sort of solid evidence against bible believers. In essence, all science can say is, 'although our ever changing and tentavive theories and our limited ability to understand all forces of the universe, it seems that creation was not in the biblical timeframe as given, nevertheless, because of the absolute preponderance of supernatural evidences, and universal knowledge and belief in them, and in a creator, we must also add, that we can in no way prove that the time involved actually wasn't very different than our current perceptions'! Finally, as far as being the same long ago, and far away, we can at least agree on far away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Can't you see another way for a young universe, even though I don't say this? There seems, to my understanding at present, to have been more involved than our form of light! If there is a busy freeway, near an airport, and a rocket launch facility, we couldn't say all moving things there travelled the same speed. If they all died, and a hundred years later, we come along, and the only thing we see is a bicycle on the side of the highway, all other crafts were swept into the ocean, so we measure about how fast this bike would have travelled. Then we say it took so many months to drive to some far off place in South America or somewhere. Problem is, back when things were really moving here, some may have made it to the moon in a few weeks. In our case, the light we have is the bike, and it's speed assumed into too much, I would propose.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
cosmo writes: quote: Are we really though? I know you think you are. Based on what? You're giving the appearance of not having read what you not only responded to, but actually quoted. You ask "Based on what?" right after I've explained that "We analyze the radio emissions from these objects to determine things like speed of light and decay rates." We even made direct measurements of the speed of light at remote distances, such as Loudmouth described in Message 56. There's nothing that obligates you to accept the evidence supporting these conclusions. You can continue to say "Big deal" and ask "Based on what" with no ill effects. But this approach is simple denial, and if you're interested in a discussion then you'll explain what it is about these measurements and analyses that leads you to reject them. The other issue you haven't addressed is positive evidence for your point of view. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the speed of light has ever varied. This places you in the somewhat awkward position of rejecting a position with evidence while accepting a position with no evidence. You seem to have no better argument than "You could be wrong," which we freely admit, but it is scant comfort for you since it is just true of yourself. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
but it is scant comfort for you since it is just true of yourself. No, in this case, with the balance of evidence totally on one side his view is much, much more likely to be wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:My look at loudmouth's link, and anything you or others have said here all seems to say the same thing. That is, that light is constant in speed, and is really coming from far away, where it started out. I wonder what it is you think I am in denial about? Do you think I doubt this, and think light as we know it has changed speed? I have simply said there were others factors so far missed that were at play. I haven't got into what in this thread. I realize this thread is focused, and probably not a place to delve into ideas not related to 1987. I have tried, however to crystalize what it is was being said here, and, with the help of many posters seem to have it pretty well nailed down, that it all hinges on light. For me, then it is mission accomplished for now. That is what I was after. Perhaps in some other far away thread we can explore other things.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
cosmo appears to be proud of his stubbornness and ignorance of science. Unless he actually comes good with his "others factors so far missed" then one would be forced to conclude that s/he is a troll.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22504 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
cosmo writes: quote: My look at loudmouth's link, and anything you or others have said here all seems to say the same thing. That is, that light is constant in speed, and is really coming from far away, where it started out. I wonder what it is you think I am in denial about? Do you think I doubt this, and think light as we know it has changed speed? I have simply said there were others factors so far missed that were at play. I haven't got into what in this thread. Then I suggest you get into it. Tell us what factors are being missed.
I realize this thread is focused, and probably not a place to delve into ideas not related to 1987. If we're missing certain factors, aren't we missing them for Supernova 1987A? Aren't these factors therefore relevant to this thread? Please, tell us, what factors are being missed? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote: quote:Fair enough, I can see how you would think I might have thought that. To clarify, it was more along the lines of believing more and more that there is or was other light we don't yet know about. So, like the bicycle comparison, I don't need to contest men's models of how fast it can go, no doubt they would have that down pretty good. It is all the other faster vehicles that once existed, whose speed is not accounted for that is the question. Most of the comments here, so to speak, have been in defending the good science of how we know so much about the bicycle, or light we can now measure. People look at the new map of the universe, and the temperature fluctuations, and spacing, and all I hear is how nicely it fits with a big bang type model. What else does it fit with? Called sometimes 'fingerprints' of the early universe, I think we need to ask, what this print also can mean. Is it inconsistant with God stretching out the heavens like a curtain? Is it at odds with a relatively instant creation? Are there detectable clues in the patterns here, that would fit nicely with 'Creator included' science? Maybe this flat universe (now proclaimed with certainty), when it gets rolled away like a sheet of paper, or a 'scroll', as the bible puts it, will reveal there is and therefore was, much much more than the flat, dimension-challenged, conception man has of the cosmos. Map of the universe? Ha. Since it is said now to be flat, I guess map is a good way to describe it! Now I know beyond doubt, that the creation of the world, and everything else, was done several thousand years ago. The little body I am using for a short while, flipped a cosmic switch, and, as instructed by the bible, asked Jesus into my heart, or being. Before the comnnection happened, the lttle electrical impulses and all that transpired in that mind and body were flatter than they think the universe is, and completely incapable of perceiving these things. No manmade telescope, or microscope could have helped me. This could be why there are things written sort of like 'if any man try God-then he will know for sure that these things are real' (this was more a translation to simple language, than a direct quote). So I now have the actual concrete evidence, and perceptions of things hitherto unperceivable, coursing through an earthly housing. Millions could say the same. Recorded healings, and fantastic miracles are all a matter of record, and common experience. Not just some theoretical cosmic burp, or ripple here, that seems to indicate something, we think, maybe, we actually don't really know, ever changing, tentative theories all, by admission,- type of thing dressed up as fact. 1987a was an event that was spectacular, and very far away. The case, apparently, at least from posters on this thread, to relate it to actual time rests on light, and it's speed. If this light in it's present form was all that ever existed, I could see a problem. If there were no creator, or dimensions but the 'flatland' science can so far see, a concern may be called for. As it is, we can have utmost confidence things happened exactly the way He had folks write down! Even though 'knowledge shall be increased' in the end time, man will not, by any means know everything. Some things, if man did know, he would misuse to destoy each other and the world. We won't let that happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The little body I am using for a short while, flipped a cosmic switch, and, as instructed by the bible, asked Jesus into my heart, or being. Before the comnnection happened, the lttle electrical impulses and all that transpired in that mind and body were flatter than they think the universe is, and completely incapable of perceiving these things. No manmade telescope, or microscope could have helped me. This could be why there are things written sort of like 'if any man try God-then he will know for sure that these things are real' (this was more a translation to simple language, than a direct quote). So I now have the actual concrete evidence, and perceptions of things hitherto unperceivable, coursing through an earthly housing. I replicated your proceedure, to the letter, but was unable to duplicate your results. How do you explain this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024