Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 948 (176014)
01-11-2005 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Eta_Carinae
11-15-2003 10:31 PM


a simple question
Eta_Carinae says
quote:
No way ...... ...explain this supernova being nearby and yet not changing the observed radioactive decay rates of the nickel and cobalt from the explosion.
Interesting arguement. here is a quote from a site I googled which I think brings the point out. " Some of the light (gamma-rays) from a supernova in the days after the explosion comes from radioactive decay — namely, the decay of radioactive forms of nickel and cobalt (nickel-56, half-life of 6.1 days; cobalt-56, half-life of 77.1 days; and cobalt-57, half-life of 270 days). This energy can be measured and plotted on a curve. What is observed is that 168,000 years ago (which is when SN1987A exploded), the decay rate for these radioactive elements was the same as it is today. " (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/marslist9.html)
In essence then it seems to be that the decay rates were the same at the time of explosion as now? And, by light's speed, mainly, we know how far away said explosion also was. ( I say light speed is used, of course, because even though trig is used, the actual final measurement is based on present light speed i.e. some 168 thousand "light years" away.
In simple terms, then, is not all that really means, then, is that the decay rates were the same more or less when rhe thing blew? Just trying to get a grasp of this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Eta_Carinae, posted 11-15-2003 10:31 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:32 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 948 (176061)
01-11-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Loudmouth
01-11-2005 9:32 PM


Re: a simple question
OK. Thanks for the answer. So, I was correct in my surmisings. Therefore, as we look at this "tape" -out to the 1987 s-nova, we can deduce that, for all intents and purposes, as best we can now scientifically determine, at least, the decay rates were the same.
Now if the explosion happened, say, for example, just before some major change in decay rates, by this 'tape' we would not be able to perceive this. Because at the time it blew, the rates were the same. This much I get. Now the other part of Eta's 'evidence' against a young creation, was that we can use trig, and measure how far the explosion was away. The measurements, in today's light speed, then translated by assumption into time periods of 'years'-or 'light years'. How then can one take this duo of thought, to say it is 'evidence'? One might say something like "If light always travelled at it's present speed, then, the time it would now take light to reach there would be 168 thousand years. Or, if we put it into miles away, say a gazillion and a quarter miles away. Also, by our understanding of decay rates way out there, in known material, such as cobalt, we believe, at the time of the explosion, decay rates were the same." This would be a more modest, and perhaps less Yec offensive way to make such a proposition. After all, we haven't been there to really have a look, and we were not alive 168,000 years ago either. This would leave room for people like me, with creation beliefs, to smile at the equation, rather than laugh at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Loudmouth, posted 01-11-2005 9:32 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:45 AM simple has replied
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 01-12-2005 1:19 PM simple has replied
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 01-12-2005 1:48 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 948 (176282)
01-12-2005 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by NosyNed
01-12-2005 2:45 AM


target practice
quote:
As soon as someone comes up with a reason to doubt these "ifs" then they would be inserted back into the discussion
Like to get the "ifs" straight, before target practice, tks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by NosyNed, posted 01-12-2005 2:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 948 (176284)
01-12-2005 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by JonF
01-12-2005 1:48 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
I don't think that anyone has mentioned the major fact recently ... the measurement of the distance to SN1987A does not involve the speed of light
Well, if we use 'light years' to measure the distance, I guess it is involved. Important, because the very same unit measurement is always tranformed into time measurements, which are then so often held up as overruling actual creation time - as in this very thread, where the whole thing is to try to say exactly that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by JonF, posted 01-12-2005 1:48 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-12-2005 3:14 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 948 (176319)
01-12-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Coragyps
01-12-2005 3:58 PM


Re: a simple question
Thanks for the reply. I never meant that trigonometry didn't come up with the distance. My point is that the distance then is then translated in light years, then time. So light speed does have a lot to do with it. So, fine, use trig to compute distance. After that, though, we say it is 170,000 years away, as light now travels. Herein is my focus, because we now need to say nothing ever has changed, or will ever change, as regards light to time effects. Yes, I can live with someone saying 'it appears by our limited knowledge, that, because of apparent decay rates in the supernova, light speed was the same at the time of the explosion'. But to use language of such finality seems cocky to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2005 3:58 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Loudmouth, posted 01-12-2005 6:10 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 948 (176336)
01-12-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Percy
01-12-2005 3:14 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
You are correct, though, that the equality of light years with the time that has passed since the light left a distant object like a star would no longer hold if light has not always traveled at the speed measured today.
There is no evidence that light has ever traveled at a speed different from that measured today.
On the other hand, actually, do we have evidence that it always was, and will be the same? Now, I can see this thread, talking about the apparent decay rate at a certain distance would be one limited indication. In a fairly recent experiment in a lab, didn't they change the speed of light (slow it down?) If I remember correctly, I also heard something about people speeding it up, to where it kinda exited the area, before it got there, or something like that? Would it not be safe to say we at least have some evidence that light speed can be changed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 01-12-2005 3:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 01-12-2005 7:55 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 948 (176337)
01-12-2005 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Loudmouth
01-12-2005 1:19 PM


Re: a simple question
quote:
...Our first argument is based on a straightforward observation of pulsars. Pulsars put out flashes at such precise intervals and clarity that only the rotation of a small body can account for it (Chaisson and McMillan, 1993, p.498). Indeed, the more precise pulsars keep much better time than even the atomic clocks on Earth! ..
Now we see a statement here, on which a lot is built upon. "That ONLY the rotation of a small body" can account for it. Really? If the Universe were a gigantic, precise creation, with clockwork precision, most of which is beyond our ability to really yet comprehend, would it be surprising that we could even set our little atomic clocks by it!? How can I, with real certainty say ONLY a rotation of planets, like we are familiar with, could possibly account for such things, as a blanket absolute rule, without exception, and upon which we can then proceed to build a whole 'house' of assumptions based on this? Seems to me it is merely projecting a very limited understanding of ours, out into infinity, and, instead of calling it conjecture, calling it a law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Loudmouth, posted 01-12-2005 1:19 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 12:08 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 948 (176368)
01-12-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by JonF
01-12-2005 7:55 PM


flat universe society!
quote:
Light has been slowed to ridiculously slow speeds in physical media, which says nothing about the speed of light in a vacuum
OK so it would be more or less impossible for forces cosmic to have substansially altered the speed in the vacuum of space. So the kind of light we have now just isn't really up to the job. They talk about some leftover 'light' "This ancient light, which pervades the sky in all directions, is now a frigid minus 270.45 Celsius. Even so, it contains tiny - one part in 100,000 - deviations in its temperature profile that theory suggests reflect subtle density differences in the matter of the early Universe" (BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Sky surveys reveal cosmic ripples)
"Suggests" is a funny word. I guess, in other words,near it's creation, there were some things very different back then in our universe. We used to laugh st the "flat earth" people in school, who actually claimed to believe the earth was flat. In today's news, it appears that science is flatly stating now the universe is FLAT!
"The Sloan group says its work has given the clearest demonstration yet that the geometry of the Universe is "flat". " Ha, I guess that's progress!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by JonF, posted 01-12-2005 7:55 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2005 8:55 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 948 (176378)
01-12-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
01-12-2005 8:55 PM


Call it expansion if you like!
"This means the usual rules of Euclidean geometry taught in schools apply all over the cosmos: straight lines can be extended to infinity and the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, etc. " (from previous link I gave)
Yeah, but I still find it humorous they now say the universe is FLAT.
The fact that God stretched it out like a curtain, we already knew long ago!!Ha {Ps 104:2 Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain) Call it "expansion" if you like!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2005 8:55 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2005 9:46 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 948 (176411)
01-12-2005 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by RAZD
01-12-2005 9:46 PM


arguement needs a stretcher
quote:
... last I looked curtains were rarely flat ... much more like 'branes
No I don't think secular science is entirely braneless! Anyhow, really, it would depend on the type of curtain, and how much it was stretched! The scientific source? Right from the Great Scientist Himself!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2005 9:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2005 7:02 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 948 (176417)
01-12-2005 11:57 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Coragyps
01-12-2005 9:40 PM


now wait a parsec here
quote:
A parsec is defined as the distance from the Sun which would result in a parallax of 1 second of arc as seen from Earth,
[formula was here, but wouldn't cut & paste]
where ly is a light-year. The word "parsec" is an abbreviation and contraction of the phrase "parallax second."
(Parsec -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Astronomy)
So, yes parsecs are the 'main squeeze', but notice how inexerably interwoven with time even these units are! (seconds-light years). Also we would need to note that more often than not it is light years that are most often used for us common men.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2005 9:40 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:16 AM simple has replied
 Message 81 by DrJones*, posted 01-13-2005 1:17 AM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 948 (176437)
01-13-2005 12:55 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 12:16 AM


time related, then, it is
OK point taken. -Although time beyond biblical creation may be the object de jours, it is virtually never in mere literal seconds. For example in the explosive object in question here, I believe the estimate was, seven or so parsnips, or parsecs away. In this case, therefore, each said parsec would be about (170,00 devided by 7) 24,000 years long.(?) Therefore even a single parsec would be aprox 4 times older than the created earth itself! I'm getting the knack, thinks I, of this atheistic math.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:16 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:57 AM simple has replied
 Message 87 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 12:10 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 948 (176445)
01-13-2005 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 12:57 AM


years away, as I say
Well, no, the distance itself wouldn't have age. But if a parsec was say 7000 light years long, then, it would be considered that the light takes 7 thousand years to get from or to there, no? Therefore it, in effect is said to be seven thousand years away, or, in the case of the supernova here, 170,000 years away. If then a biblical creation timeline had things being created some roughly say, 7,000 years ago, the the 1987 explosion was some one hundred and sixty three thousand years before creation. Even though we only saw the light of it a few decades ago.It is my opinion you are missing a part of the equation somewhere, though, and in reality, in real time, (despite how fast light travels now), it was indeed actually several thousand years ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:24 AM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 948 (176464)
01-13-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by crashfrog
01-13-2005 1:24 AM


into the mystic
It's funny how this little line, or near identical versions get echoed by the 'any theory but God, dressed up as science' crowd, and they seem to think it's original, or of some merit! Now as far as evidence goes on this supernova thing, so far we have some what appears to be 'decaying' material, and some tooth fairy time related distances sailing clear past creation, and into the ninja mystic. Yes, the distances are great. But science's present ability to put it all into real time is pure conjecture. You see, so far all this thread has offered, I think, as evidence, would be an explosion a great distance away, in which it is thought, that decay rates of certain things were the same as now. Big deal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 1:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 01-13-2005 8:38 AM simple has replied
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 01-13-2005 12:58 PM simple has replied
 Message 89 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 3:11 PM simple has not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 948 (176594)
01-13-2005 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by RAZD
01-13-2005 7:02 AM


proofs abound
quote:
the point is that there are a couple of competing theories on the begining of the universe...
and neither of them match up to genesis btw.
This indicates to me that the inspiration behind these 2 theories would be different than that behind Genesis!
quote:
"great scientist himself" means you have his signature credits on file?
A great many people fell they see His fingerprints, and signature all around the heavens!
I'm serious -- you need to show sources and the experimental evidence that backs up the hypothsis based on the observations. you can't just say "because he said so" regardless of who "he" is.
Well His fingerprints are not admissable, I thought in a circle of knowledge that that excludes Him? If they were I might provide a link something like this one! (post 106 -- Error | Christian Forums)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2005 7:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Loudmouth, posted 01-13-2005 3:31 PM simple 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