Why are you using all these sciencey terms. Why are you trying to study anything?
I mean, according to you, the laws of nature could completely change tomorrow like they did before so why are we wasting our time with all this evidence stuff?
The different laws are not an issue. What we know is the issue. Sometimes just looking at the bare facts that are actually known can help. Help....find out where you are wrong of course. That is all that remains to do.
Tomorrow "up" will be "left", "down" will be "right", and atoms will be made of jellybeans! Prove me wrong!
Sound ridiculous? Now you know why I laugh when you think this is how the flood happened.
let's all just believe what a bronze age story book says instead.
Now, on the issue of sn1987a --notice that the light curve and all it is supposed to mean is affected by dust they claim.
"After 500 days the visible
light faded even faster than the Cobalt-56
decay rate. That happened because after that time
dust particles began to form in the supernova debris. The grains absorbed part of the optical radiation and converted it into infrared radiation. Moreover, the supernova debris had thinned out enough so that the gamma rays could escape directly without first becoming converted to optical light."
L6S6
Now, aside from them
needing this to be the case, will someone please prove it!!???
I mean you guys seem willing to swallow any wild tale to make a fable true.
"
" But as observations of 1987A hit the three-year mark, little cobalt-56 remained, and the light curve flattened, reports Walker, Nicholas B. Suntzeff and their colleagues in the September ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL. The flatter curve matches the slower decay of another isotope, cobalt-57, which the supernova produced in smaller amounts, the group notes. Another team, at the European Southern Observatory in La Silla, Chile, reports similar results.
So far so good. But
although the shape of the light curve mimics the decay of cobalt-57, the magnitude of the curve -- indicating the amount of light now emitted by 1987A -- exceeds that predicted by theory, both teams say. One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to
assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system. They will report these results in an upcoming ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS."
Supernova's light curve baffles scientists - supernova 1987A | Science News | Find Articles
How anyone could take you seriously I honestly do not know.
Then there is this..
"
"Another key finding is that the team has detected far less dust than expected. A star as massive as the one that blew apart in SN 1987A likely produced more silicate dust in the years before the supernova. The
under-abundance of dust detected by
Spitzer and Gemini South could mean that supernova blast waves destroy more dust than thought possible"
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums
Aside from comedy this stuff is ridiculous!!
It just goes on and on and on and on....like how the rings are a mystery!
" Both the slow speeds and the unusual composition show that the rings were expelled from the progenitor star when it was a red supergiant, more than 20,000 years before that star exploded as a supernova. However, one would have
expected such a star to eject material in a more regular fashion, steadily expelling material in all directions, rather than puffing rings like a pipe smoker."
The SN 1987A Story
Oh...a bit more on the dust stories of science...
"After the scientists yielded the images from space, they were amazed to discover that SN 1987A was aglow with light and, with careful calculations, it was revealed that the radiancy was originating from
enormous clouds of dust - consisting of 10,000 times more material than previously estimated."
Herschel dusts off hidden cosmic origin
Gee they were a little off here!
Need more? Your position is indefensible!
I'm not sure what you are asking. I venture a guess that you may be referring to Knödlseder, et al 2000.
