|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
Hi Cosmo,
Creationism promotes itself as a theory equal in scientific status to evolution. EvC Forum is a science site intended to explore this claim, and most of the forums here are intended to address the issues from a scientific perspective. Please refrain from posting arguments based upon Biblical prophecy or that have no other foundation than the Bible. Not only are such arguments inappropriate for a science forum, but they weaken your own cause by revealing the underlying religious nature of Creationism.
[forum=-6] and [forum=-11] are appropriate forums for exploring the validity of faith and the Bible in science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
yep
when in doubt pull out the god-did-it-it's-a-miracle card thanks for playing. note that this (1) is not science and (2) it is not strict biblical reading, it is pure personal fantasy to gloss over real problems encountered between science and belief with a nod to anything-goes-so-long-as-it-supports-mybelief supernatural behavior. functionally it is no different than the {universe was created yesterday to loook like this} scenario. with this kind of thinking any problem can be reduced to myth and there is no reality. better become a buddhist, they have a head start there (and fewer headaches). . The fact that you have to contradict your original model is irrelevant eh? {added by edit} and the fact that you had to extensively overhaul the concept to provide variations means that the original concept was destroyed by the evidence ... just to clarify that little issue. This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-23-2005 18:11 AM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
More from the inside source:
my bro e-mail writes: RAZD writes: did you read the article on the SN1987A calculation? uses trig based on the timed difference in observed (1987) light pulses from the star and from the ring to find the {real} diameter of the ring (as the distance light was known to travel in that interval in 1987), and then trig based on that and the apparent angle of the ring ... 168,000 LY ok - i went & read that. fun stuff.
RAZD writes: what I am looking for is a measurement to that star that involves the speed of light got anything on that? if you mean like the way they measure the distance to the moon by bouncing laser light off the little 3-panelled mirrors that the astronauts left on its surface, no. incidentally, one of my friends where i worked was joking about those people that think nobody went to moon - like Capricorn One? - he was trying to imagine how our calibration man was using the mirrors there to update his moon orbit & thus get more precise perturbations to the satelliteorbits.... if you bounce a signal off the moon or even venus like the Millstone Radar did back in the early 60's you get the distance via a bat-sonar analogy. but we cant bounce a signal off a star. nor do we have someone there to send us a signal with a Greenwich Time stamp in it. referring back to the paper's abstract:
We have determined the distance to the SN 1987A by comparing the angular size of its circumstellar ring measured from an HST (Hubble Space Telescope) image ... with its absolute size derived from an analysis of the light curves of narrow UV lines ... measured with IUE (International Ultraviolet Explorer). Our analysis confirms that the observed elliptical structure is indeed a circular ring at an inclination of 42.8 2.6. and provides a determination of its absolute diameter (1.27 0.07) x 1018 cm. Its ratio to the angular diameter of 1.66" 0.03" ... gives an accurate determination of the distance to SN 1987A ... = 51.2 3.1 kpc.... This value agrees very well with the determinations obtained from light-curve analysis of variable stars. the last sentence is referring to my Cepheids. but the key is the absolute size derived from the UV line light curves. *they agree*. i see that the impetus for all this is the creationist's claim that nothing over 100 LY has been measured accurately.LOL Doesn't look like a direct correlation to speed of light is in the works. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:What do you think the S light was, chopped liver? I guess I don't hold the no-one-did-it-its-all-a-fluke- card, so I had to play what I had. Hey, it's what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
but them we always pull out the it's-not-science trump card
(wait, you have a different deck ... )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
quote:Glad you call it a 'trump' card, kinda sounds like the person using it wins. But I prefer to think of it like this. When someone pulls out 'it's just one big giant series of flukes' card, I pull out a 'it's not yet accepted science' trump card. (I know, it never will be.................)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
you play the science game by the science rules and the faith game by the faith rules
you cannot play faith cards on the science game board, just as you can't play science cards on the faith board. Hoyle gets upset.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
And the faith board is beyond scientific logic because God is not material, he is not tangible.
and to dissect the word logical....logical -Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions. What could we know pre-Big Bang/pre-Creation? The only logic that is available for someone to use is what is in the range of time (according to the dictionary) or otherwise known statements. My question is what are the "otherwise known statements" which seem to be evolution's support. Is their proof for the Big Bang? and if so how does this agree with the idea that all explosions are destructive not constructive. This message has been edited by daaaaaBEAR, 01-25-2005 21:14 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Hello, Minnesotan Bear!
Is their proof for the Big Bang? and if so how does this agree with the idea that all explosions are destructive not constructive.
That's not strictly on topic for this thread, but there are other threads near at hand here that deal with these questions. Briefly: yes, there's heaps of evidence (not "proof"). The Big Bang was not an explosion but more of a seriously large "unfolding." Poke around this one forum a while, and you'll find some very detailed discussions.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
other replies on this page seem to off-subject also, I was merely looking for a place where there was activity and I did look at other posts relevant to my question but were either closed or barely active.
I might be able to contribute more relevant arguments if I knew the nature of this issue, paraphrased. I am a beginner. unfolding? sounds like a fancy word for explosion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 756 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
"Big Bang - Big Dud" is open and closer to your topic. The admins and mods around here try hard to keep threads focussed - it really does make for more productive discussions.
The Bang preceded any matter at all - only energy was there. We don't have a word, or even a good non-mathematical concept - of what it was like, because nothing analogous to it is anywhere in our experience. Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) liked "The Humungous Space Kerblooey!!!!" - and why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
"otherwise known" would include self evident statements and statements that are true by definition (2+2=4 is true by definition because 2 is defined as 1+1 and 3 is defined as 2+1 and 4 is defined as 3+1, so 2+2 = 2+(1+1) = (2+1)+1 = 3+1 = 4)
welcome to the fray (or the board) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
daaaaaBEAR Inactive Member |
clever....I'm not sure how to interpret that. haha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think plasma is closer then just energy for the initial expansion period, where energy and mass have not differentiated and thus are in the same kind of probability cloud as subatomic particles are today.
And "inflation" is a (subtle?) change in the visualization of the process, but it leaves me with a {laminar flow} impression compared to {turbulent flow} that "big bang" gives. Certainly the aftermath of the inflation was turbulent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
peaceharris Member (Idle past 5617 days) Posts: 128 Joined: |
The proof of this can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/sn1987a/
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024