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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 226 of 948 (179707)
01-22-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by simple
01-22-2005 4:18 PM


The Math of the Matter?
Sorry, I read that 3 times and still do not know what you are saying.
I wonder if actually going over the math involved with the original topic might make it more accessible?
Does anybody have access to that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 4:18 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 01-22-2005 4:47 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 232 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 6:09 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 227 of 948 (179714)
01-22-2005 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by RAZD
01-22-2005 4:32 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
RAZD writes:
Sorry, I read that 3 times and still do not know what you are saying.
I believe Cosmo is saying he doesn't want to discuss it anymore, but that he's not conceding because he believes those who know more than him, such as Russell Humprheys (author of Starlight and Time), would be able to provide the necessary evidence and arguments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 228 of 948 (179716)
01-22-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by RAZD
01-22-2005 4:32 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
I found this website:
http://www.geocities.com/...s/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html
The problem with this that I have is the radius calculation:
(The "height" [radius] of the primary gas ring around SN1987A is based on the observed time it took for the energy from the explosion to hit the ring [travelling at the speed of light], which was 0.658 years [i.e., almost two-thirds of a year].
Is dependant on the speed of light, even if the rest of it isn't.
Shouldn't there be a way to calculate the ring diameter by the way it was consructed: how fast is the gas moving away from the original star and then how far has it gotten in the (now 2005-1987=) 18 years since?
I mean F=ma etcetera (so the speed is probably not constant and needs to be integrated over time ... but this should end up with a different way to calculate the ring diameter (and the other aspects) and see if we are talking the same order of magnetude on the distance eh?
That takes light out of the equation.
the followup article is at Page Not Found | Department of Chemistry
(the link in the first article doesn't work)


(added by edit)
I also found this article: S&TR | April/May 2022 which talks about the mixing of elements and the relative speed of the different heavy element signatures arriving at earth versus the model used at the time.
cool stuffs.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 17:14 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 5:33 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 236 by Coragyps, posted 01-22-2005 7:44 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 271 by peaceharris, posted 03-28-2005 5:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 229 of 948 (179729)
01-22-2005 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
01-22-2005 4:55 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
The problem with this that I have is the radius calculation:
quote:
The "height" [radius] of the primary gas ring around SN1987A is based on the observed time it took for the energy from the explosion to hit the ring (travelling at the speed of light), which was 0.658 years (i.e., almost two-thirds of a year).
Is dependant on the speed of light, even if the rest of it isn't.
Ah, but the rest of it is, in a way that exactly cancels when the two are conjoined From the explanation at The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light:
"The distance is based on triangulation. The line from Earth to the supernova is one side of the triangle and the line from Earth to the edge of the ring is another leg. The third leg of this right triangle is the relatively short distance from the supernova to the edge of its ring. Since the ring lit up about a year after the supernova exploded, that means that a beam of light coming directly from the supernova reached us a year before the beam of light which was detoured via the ring. Let us assume that the distance of the ring from the supernova is really 1 unit and that light presently travels 1 unit per year.
If there had been no change in the speed of light since the supernova exploded, then the third leg of the triangle would be 1 unit in length, thus allowing the calculation of the distance by elementary trigonometry (three angles and one side are known). On the other hand, if the two light beams were originally traveling, say three units per year, the second beam would initially lag 1/3 of a year behind the first as that's how long it would take to do the ring detour. However, the distance that the second beam lags behind the first beam is the same as before. As both beams were traveling the same speed, the second beam fell behind the first by the length of the detour. Thus, by measuring the distance that the second beam lags behind the first, a distance which will not change when both light beams slow down together, we get the true distance from the supernova to its ring. The lag distance between the two beams, of course, is just their present velocity multiplied by the difference in their arrival times. With the true distance of the third leg of our triangle in hand, trigonometry gives us the correct distance from Earth to the supernova.
Consequently, supernova SN1987A is about 170,000 light-years from us (i.e. 997,800,000,000,000,000 miles) whether or not the speed of light has slowed down."
{added by edit}
The key piece of information that was not in Todd's calculation is that we know the difference in arrival time between a beam that came directly from SN197a and a beam that came via bouncing offf the ring, since we saw the intial pulse of each beam. That translates into a constant distance as long as each beam was travelong at the same speed as the other at any instant in time.
This message has been edited by JonF, 01-22-2005 17:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by NosyNed, posted 01-22-2005 5:47 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:03 PM JonF has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 230 of 948 (179733)
01-22-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by JonF
01-22-2005 5:33 PM


A restatement of c independance
This is good! But I had to read it twice and make little pictures to convince myself it was right.
I'm going to see if I can make it clearer.
We assume the ring radius is 1 unit (which is 1 light year).
We assume light was travelling at 3 times c at the time of the super nova.
We assume light slows down smoothly over the travel time to earth (I don't think it matters)
In the constant c scenario 1 year after the supernova blew we have the direct beam to earth 1 light-year along the way to earth and the detour beam to be just at the ring and not started to earth at all.
In the variable c scenario 1 year after the supernova blew we have the direct beam to earth as 3 light years to earth and the detour beam as having covered the distance to the ring AND cover 2 lightyears on the way to earth.
Thus in either case the detour beam is 1 unit (1 of our current lightyears) behind the direct beam. It doesn't matter how c has varied.
When the two beams finally reach earth the direct beam is 1 unit ahead of the other. If c has slowed down to it's official value we measure today the detour beam will take another year to arrive (if the unit was one lightyear of current c). We will then measure the ring radius to be 1 light year (at current c) no matter how light speed varied at the time.
I don't know if that helps or not. I did me good anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 5:33 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 231 of 948 (179737)
01-22-2005 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by JonF
01-22-2005 5:33 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
I still don't get it, sorry.
If the speed of light was 3c at the time of the explosion then the distance from the star to the ring would be 3 times further from the star for the light to take the same time to get there
the distance from the star to us would also be much greater with the change in c integrated over the time of travel from 3c then to 1c now
the ring light would still lag behind the other by the same time difference and the distance to it would not be significantly different from the distance to the star (0.65 year is a very small percentage of 168,000 years)
the only difference is where the calculations put the {star\ring} system along the angle subtended by the ring.
there are other elements here where complete information is not provided - the way they tell when the light left the star? are they talking light with specific signature elements that were not visible before (like the cobalt signature mentioned in the second article)?
I think you need to show precisely what the calculated results are for
(1) a constant speed of light, c
(2) a varying speed of light, from 3c then to 1c now (with a decay rate so that it would appear constant now)
determine what {r}ring is
determine what {d}earth to star is
determine what {h}earth to ring is
and then whether there are any anomalies in the calculations, such as {h}2 = {r}2 + {d}2 or not, and if not is it significantly not.
Do you see the problem now?
{{jon - I see you edited your post to give the light signature used -- the supernova light pulse, thanks}}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 18:13 AM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 5:33 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 7:28 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 237 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 8:14 PM RAZD has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 948 (179739)
01-22-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by RAZD
01-22-2005 4:32 PM


one dimension short of a full deck
What I was saying was that I have no quarrel with the speed of light, We can use that as a ruler to a large extent. For example to denote a cosmic distance, i.e. 17,000 light years to 1987a. I can agree. That the decay rates as seen by the rings, etc, fine, that tell me only that it's been the same since that thing blew. Where I contest the ruler here being applied is to time, instead of just distance. I have leaned toward the spiritual universe, and light proposal, from last year here on this forum, by arcathon. In other words another form of light that traveled infinitely fast, being spiritual, was the one first here, to be somehow replaced in a way that couild leave only our slow light. This is how I am looking at it till and unless a better explanation comes along with the timeframe of the bible. In other words, you can't prove it wrong, I can't prove it right, unless we admit the preasence of spirits. Hence, thats why I issued the 'great final test'. It received a thread closing response, I think twice now, so, my last post simply says we'll have to agree to disagree for now on this point.
Then I went on to say, unless someone like those christians who wrote starlight and time can win the day with their approach. I think their approach (setterfield etc) is working only with 'black crows' (not a spiritual factor, like a split), so they try to go up against the goliath of cosmology, challenging redshift, and other things on science's own present terms. If they win, I'll get on board, meanwhile I feel safe over in the place I am on this, as it can't be disproved, and seems to put science on the defense.
So, yes, I can go no further at the moment here on this, so, having tried to make my point, I get out of the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:27 PM simple has not replied
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:43 PM simple has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 233 of 948 (179747)
01-22-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by simple
01-22-2005 6:09 PM


Re: one dimension short of a full deck, the arkathon ship sailed into darkenss
aren't you the one accused of being arkathon and you said you didn't know him? ( ... a prophetic phrase?)
If you read his post then you also should have read mine where I showed that if such "spiritual" light were true there were a number of sever problems with the results, having to do with periods of darkness and the distance observable expanding year by year as more light finally reaches us.
thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 6:09 PM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 234 of 948 (179757)
01-22-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by simple
01-22-2005 6:09 PM


arkathon concept way short of a full deck
I'll do better than that:
this little scenario here completely and utterly destroys the arkathon instant light before the fall (or whenever) theory.
why? because then there would be NO time difference between the star light and the ring light: that would have been in the "instantaneous light" period OR the universe since the time instant light ended is still older than 168,000 years.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by simple, posted 01-22-2005 6:09 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 255 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 235 of 948 (179769)
01-22-2005 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by RAZD
01-22-2005 6:03 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
If the speed of light was 3c at the time of the explosion then the distance from the star to the ring would be 3 times further from the star for the light to take the same time to get there
Right. But, if we assume the speed of light varied, we don't know how long it took the light to get to the ring, and we don't care. If the speed of light was 3c, then the direct beam went three times farther (than it would if light traveled at c) in the time it took the indirect beam to get to the ring. That is, the distance that the direct beam traveled while the indirect beam traveled to the ring is the radius of the ring, no matter how fast light travels. In fact, the speed of light could be disconsinuous. All we need to know is that the speed of light didn't change in between the arrivals of the two pulses, and that the speed was always integrable.
I think you need to show precisely what the calculated results are for:
(1) a constant speed of light, c
(2) a varying speed of light, from 3c then to 1c now (with a decay rate so that it would appear constant now)
That's far too easy. Let's go for the whole nine yards: an arbitrary function of time.
The distance from the ring to us is essentially indistinguishable from the distance from the star to us. Say the speed of light is a function of time, C(t), the radius of the ring is R, and the distance to the star is L. Say the time it took for the indirect beam to reach the ring is ti1. The radius of the ring is the integral from 0 to ti1 of C(t)dt, but this is also the distance traveled by the direct beam while the indirect beam was traveling to the ring.
The distance the indirect beam traveled to us from the ring (to arrive at a time ti2) is the integral from ti1 to ti2 of C(t)dt. The distance {edited - JRF} the direct beam traveled to us from the place it was when the indirect beam hit the ring (that is, R, the radius of the ring, away from the star) and traveled beyond us by the radius of the ring is the same; the integral from ti1 to ti2 of C(t)dt. So, between the time we saw the leading edge of the direct beam and the time we saw the leading edge of the indirect beam, the direct beam traveled R beyond us!! That distance is, of course, the difference in time between our observing the two pulses times the current speed of light. The radius of the ring is the time between pulse arrivals times the current speed of light, provided that the speed of light did not change in that interval etween pulses and the speed of light was always integrable. Given R and the angle subtended by the ring, the distance to the star (L) is simple trig. QED.
I bet that a more careful analysis could drop the integrable requirement.
This all ignores the fact that the plane of the ring is not perpendicular to our line of sight, but that's a second-order effect that's easily compensated for and doesn't change the final result.
This message has been edited by JonF, 01-22-2005 20:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 8:25 PM JonF has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 236 of 948 (179772)
01-22-2005 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by RAZD
01-22-2005 4:55 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
how fast is the gas moving away from the original star and then how far has it gotten in the (now 2005-1987=) 18 years since?
In case you're not clear on this - the gas in the ring was ejected long before the supernova blew, and at velocities of maybe a couple of hundred km/sec - negligible compared to the speed of light. My guess would be that the actual motion of the gas making up the rings would be so slight as to be undetectable at that distance - unless we might be able to see Doppler effects at the near and far edges. The progressive illumination of different parts of the rings is what we saw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 8:34 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 237 of 948 (179777)
01-22-2005 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by RAZD
01-22-2005 6:03 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
Maybe this will help:
The blue segments are the same length and the red segments are the same length. (The lowest "L" should be "L+epsilon, but I don't feel like going back and fixing it). These facts are independent of the speed of light (unless the speed of light varied significantly over small spatial distances).
This image may disappear at any moment.
{Changed image link}
This message has been edited by Admin, 01-23-2005 09:52 AM
This message has been edited by JonF, 03-07-2005 12:25 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 8:36 PM JonF has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 238 of 948 (179784)
01-22-2005 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by JonF
01-22-2005 7:28 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter? and a board game!
Well see now? There you add the final piece of information to simplify the whole problem. And yes it is irrelevant what the speed of the light was during the initial phases down until the instant before the first light from the pulse first hits the earth (or even after?).
(T{light from ring} - T{light from star})x(cnow) = (Dstar to ring to us - Dstar to us)
and for very small angles like this
(less than 1o, and we are talking less than 0.01o)
tan ~= sin and d ~= h (99.999% or better?) so
(Dstar to ring to us) ~= (Dstar to us + Dstar to ring)
and thus
(Dstar to ring to us - Dstar to us) ~= ((Dstar to us + Dstar to ring) - Dstar to us)
= (Dstar to ring) == (T{light from ring} - T{light from star})x(cnow)
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.
That is much clearer (to me) than what is given in any of the posts on this.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 7:28 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 8:36 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 239 of 948 (179786)
01-22-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Coragyps
01-22-2005 7:44 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
got that. it had a preview novaic episode? are there other instances of multiple shell shedding? (or should that be molting ... )
I can't help but think that if I am confused, how many others must be totally bewildered by this claim. This really needs to be simplified for super clarity, and discussing the trig in detail while skipping over some of the other essential componenets of the argument does not do that. see my previous post.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Coragyps, posted 01-22-2005 7:44 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 240 of 948 (179787)
01-22-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by JonF
01-22-2005 8:14 PM


Re: The Math of the Matter?
that's nice, but you needn't (is that really a word?) have gone to that effort: the missing part of the puzzle is in place in the distance gap at the end of the trip.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by JonF, posted 01-22-2005 8:14 PM JonF 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