Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)

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. 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 t_i1. The radius of the ring is the integral from 0 to t_i1 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 t_i2) is the integral from t_i1 to t_i2 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 t_i1 to t_i2 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

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 AMThis message has been edited by JonF, 03-07-2005 12:25 AM

If the speed of light varies significantly after the first pulse arrives, you have to know how it varies and integrate C(t)dt from the arrival of the first pulse to the arrival of the second pulse. That gives you R.

Yes. The ring is tilted at 43°±3° relative to our line of sight. See Supernova 1987A Refutes 6000 Year Old Universe, which includes several links to original papers on-line.

You might be interested in Properties of the SN 1987A circumstellar ring and the distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud, published before we saw the ring illuminated.

You forgot "... and produce a valid theory explaining how this can fit with what we observer".Making up silly fantasies is not going to overturn mainstream science.

You keep forgetting that any viable theory has to square with existing observations. Of which there are millions.For example and on-topic, we have observed the decay of decay of 56Ni to 56Co in Supernova 1987A and it decays at the same rate it does on Earth. SN1987A is 167,885 light years away (measured by basic trigononometry).Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

General relativity. Probably the most-tested and most-confirmed theory in scientific history, and affecting many nearby phenomena. E.g. if GR is wrong, then GPS does not work. Does GPS work?

Yup, we do. We have mountains of supporting evidence. I've mentioned a few.Your ignorance of why we make that claim is not proof or even an indication of its validity.

Nope. As I posted in another thread, it makes predictions of what we would see if time as we know it exists throughout the universe. Those predictions have universally (heh!) been borne out.If you want to propose that there's no time out there, you should not say anything until you have a theory that squares with millions of observations. GR predicts the bending of light, and predicts time exists throughout the universe. If there is no time out there GR is horrendously wrong and there is no theory of what bends that light. What do you propose as a cause?

Having a little reading comprehension trouble? I never said anything about GPS working out there. GPS works here. If General Relativity is wrong, then GPS does not work on Earth.Does GPS work on Earth?Where's your theory of why GPS works? (The satellite clocks run slightly faster than they would on Earth, and without compensating for that GPS fixes would be way off).

Time is not involved in trigonometry. If you are going to invoke some tremendous warping of space you are going to come up with a much more complex theory than the one you need but don't have. No, actually for SN1987A it's out there. You really should not speak with such limited knowledge. I.e please stop [i]assuming/i about what you do not know. That conclusion (not assumption) is the only one we have that fits all the observations. Where's your explanation? Yuppers. And the same rate of decay is seen hundreds of thousands of light-years away. Got an explanation for that?

Don't tell me, let me guess. You are incapable of explaining why it does not stand, you are just sure it must because otherwise your fantasies would be wrong.This is a science forum in which we introduce and critique evidence. I've mentioned some briefly and can go into much more detail were you going to actually discuss. If you want to discuss your religious beliefs (including your religious belief that mainstream science is a religion) please use one of the theology forums.

Why? We have a theory, GR, and it works wonderfully well. We're not going to give it up unless a better theory that makes the same predictions about our observations comes along.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Relativity describes our entire universe from the largest scale to almost the very smallest scale. It makes predictions and those predictions are borne out. If time and space were significantly different out there, those predictions would not be borne out.You are quickly becoming boring. You have no clue of how to discuss science and evidence. Hint: repeated unsupported and downright silly assertions are not it. If you can't address the problems with your claims and present evidence for them you are in the wrong place. You should be on a YEC board like evolutionfairytale.com where you can get lots of agreement and no worries about your claims fitting reality.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.