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

has different meaning. relates to ability of expansion inertia vs gravitational forcesWMAP Cosmology 101: Shape of the Universe

---

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

I think the term "flat" is very misleading in this regard - it is a purely mathematical construct and does not bear on reality. Even if it wasn't "flat" the euclidean geopmetry would still hold until you got to cosmic levels, and we already have problems with that level (dark energy now in addition to dark matter ....) really? from what scientific source was this published?or are you just presuming much on an appearance of similarity ... last I looked curtains were rarely flat ... much more like 'branes.The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? | Space

---

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

that brainless argument does need a stretcher.did you even read the 'brane article?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."great scientist himself" means you have his signature credits on file?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.

---

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

This is the main difference between science and belief. What it is consists of a series of observations that are consistent across the board for all known pulsars, organized by a theory of how a natural phenomena could account for it, backed up by predictions of further observations made from the theory that have tested out. And I am not aware of any anomolous pulsars that don't behave according to this explanation.Repeated, tested, validated theory.In other words a rational consistent pattern of natural behavior such that the need to include any intelligence in the operation is not necessary to produce the result, and by Occam's razor is cut from the explanation needed.

---

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

No, it is assumed that if purely natural phenomena can account for it, then there is no need to look for {other\fantastic} explanations.When your car won't start and you see that the fuel is empty do you open the hood and proceed to dismantle the engine looking for another cause? ummm ... precisely how we have 'dark' energy and matter clogging up the theoretical universe, by extrapolation of known physical processes and current theories on the behavior of matter and energy.rather than saying we must have these elements in the system one could say that there is a mysterious hand in the mix ...... or that we really just don't know enough to say at this point.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-15-2005 19:04 AM

---

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

see http://EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe} -->EvC Forum: GRAVITY PROBLEMS -- off topic from {Falsifying a young Universe}to continue this discussion.

parapsychology.started in the 1950'sbacked by the US military among other "interested parties"lots of testingno results.Now, lets get back to the issue of the supernovae and the concept of a young universe and whether (a) they can be reconciled or (b) one has to give way to the other, and if (b) then (c) which one gets the nod and which the dustbin?So far the evidence is on an old, 13.5 billion year plus, age universe.This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-22-2005 15:39 AM

---

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

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?

I found this website:
http://www.geocities.com/...s/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.htmlThe problem with this that I have is the radius calculation: 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}}}

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 therethe 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 nowthe 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} isand 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}}}

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.

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}}}

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(c_now) = (D_{star to ring to us} - D_{star to us})

​

and for very small angles like this
(less than 1^o, and we are talking less than 0.01^o)
tan ~= sin and d ~= h (99.999% or better?) so

​

(D_{star to ring to us}) ~= (D_{star to us} + D_{star to ring})

​

and thus

​

(D_{star to ring to us} - D_{star to us}) ~= ((D_{star to us} + D_{star to ring}) - D_{star to us})

​

= (D_{star to ring}) == (T_{{light from ring}} - T_{{light from star}})x(c_now) 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}}}

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}}}

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.