Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 256 of 948 (179968)
01-23-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by simple
01-23-2005 3:21 PM


Re: fireworks!
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:21 PM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 257 of 948 (179981)
01-23-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by simple
01-23-2005 3:21 PM


Re: fireworks!
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 3:21 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 9:22 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 258 of 948 (179982)
01-23-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by Coragyps
01-23-2005 1:10 PM


Re: distance by the 'regular' method?
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 satellite
orbits....
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Coragyps, posted 01-23-2005 1:10 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 948 (180048)
01-23-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
01-23-2005 4:27 PM


Re: fireworks!
quote:
yep when in doubt pull out the god-did-it-it's-a-miracle card
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 4:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 10:06 PM simple has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 948 (180061)
01-23-2005 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by simple
01-23-2005 9:22 PM


Re: fireworks!
but them we always pull out the it's-not-science trump card
(wait, you have a different deck ... )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by simple, posted 01-23-2005 9:22 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by simple, posted 01-24-2005 3:52 AM RAZD has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 948 (180110)
01-24-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
01-23-2005 10:06 PM


Re: fireworks!
quote:
but then we always pull out the it's-not-science trump card
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.................)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 10:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2005 6:47 PM simple has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 262 of 948 (180578)
01-25-2005 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by simple
01-24-2005 3:52 AM


Re: fireworks!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by simple, posted 01-24-2005 3:52 AM simple has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-25-2005 9:11 PM RAZD has replied

  
daaaaaBEAR
Inactive Member


Message 263 of 948 (180613)
01-25-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by RAZD
01-25-2005 6:47 PM


logic
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2005 6:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2005 9:51 PM daaaaaBEAR has replied
 Message 267 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2005 10:23 PM daaaaaBEAR has replied

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


Message 264 of 948 (180619)
01-25-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by daaaaaBEAR
01-25-2005 9:11 PM


Re: logic
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.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-25-2005 9:11 PM daaaaaBEAR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-25-2005 10:10 PM Coragyps has replied

  
daaaaaBEAR
Inactive Member


Message 265 of 948 (180623)
01-25-2005 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Coragyps
01-25-2005 9:51 PM


Re: logic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2005 9:51 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2005 10:21 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

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


Message 266 of 948 (180627)
01-25-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by daaaaaBEAR
01-25-2005 10:10 PM


Re: logic
"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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-25-2005 10:10 PM daaaaaBEAR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by RAZD, posted 01-26-2005 7:04 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 267 of 948 (180629)
01-25-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by daaaaaBEAR
01-25-2005 9:11 PM


Re: logic
"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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-25-2005 9:11 PM daaaaaBEAR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by daaaaaBEAR, posted 01-25-2005 10:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
daaaaaBEAR
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 948 (180643)
01-25-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by RAZD
01-25-2005 10:23 PM


Re: logic
clever....I'm not sure how to interpret that. haha

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2005 10:23 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 269 of 948 (180939)
01-26-2005 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Coragyps
01-25-2005 10:21 PM


Re: logic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Coragyps, posted 01-25-2005 10:21 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5596 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 270 of 948 (194896)
03-28-2005 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


sn1987a is less than 5000 light years away
The proof of this can be found here:
http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/sn1987a/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Eta_Carinae, posted 03-28-2005 8:22 PM peaceharris has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024