Direct triangulation shows the universe just older than 6000 years

[grmorton]

No, it shows a certain distance, measured by present light, and it's speed. Nothing to do with time, unless one for some reason assumed the present light was always all there was. This usually comes as a result of the mother of all assumptions, that the universe was physical only in the unknown far past. No evidence exists for this belief any more than assuming this decaying physical only universe will exist in the future. There is a new heavens coming, as you would know, being a christian. One in which there is no death, and decay. One in which we live forever, not in physical only bodies. Heaven could not exist in a PO future! There lies the line in the sand for you. You need to make up your mind which side you are on here. If you admit heaven, and the new eternal heavens, you cannot assume the PO into the future.

No, it has nothing to do with speed, my friend. No matter how many covers you pull over your head to avoid seeing that big bad boogey man in your bedroom, and no matter how many times you repeat to yourself, "This can't be happening", it doesn't change reality. This is based solely upon Euclidean geometry (that stuff you were supposed to learn in Jr. Hi but somehow escaped you).

But Dad, live in your dream world. I am sure everything looks very young in your universe, which probably isn't the one the rest of us live in.

 

[grmorton]

Hey, had to throw down the white glove there,

ACtually it was grey and I thought it was a brain being tossed aside.

 

[Jet Black]

do dad's contributions amount to "in the pre split world, triangles could have as many sides with any angles you like"

 

[madbear]

Well, before we all start popping the champagne corks, it might be worth bearing in mind that the most that be claimed from this data is that the universe is 6000+ years old. If it turned out to be, say, 7000 years old, it would still be a lot closer to the young-earthers' assumption than to anybody else's.

It's never really been a problem for the young-earthers to construct hypotheses about the physical universe that show it as 6004-odd years old, or whatever it is supposed to be. In this limit, it can be hypothesized that the universe was created 6004 years ago with everything in place to look like it was billions of years old.

The problem isn't that these theories are wrong, or unfalsifiable, or whatever; the real problem is that they are epistemologically unsatisfactory.

Best wishes
MadBear

 

[TeddyKGB]

It's never really been a problem for the young-earthers to construct hypotheses about the physical universe that show it as 6004-odd years old, or whatever it is supposed to be. In this limit, it can be hypothesized that the universe was created 6004 years ago with everything in place to look like it was billions of years old.

The problem isn't that these theories are wrong, or unfalsifiable, or whatever; the real problem is that they are epistemologically unsatisfactory.

To us. The problem for YECs is (or should be, at least) that such activity makes God look like a deceiver.

 

[grmorton]

Well, before we all start popping the champagne corks, it might be worth bearing in mind that the most that be claimed from this data is that the universe is 6000+ years old. If it turned out to be, say, 7000 years old, it would still be a lot closer to the young-earthers' assumption than to anybody else's.

It's never really been a problem for the young-earthers to construct hypotheses about the physical universe that show it as 6004-odd years old, or whatever it is supposed to be. In this limit, it can be hypothesized that the universe was created 6004 years ago with everything in place to look like it was billions of years old.

Oh, I agree, but, this is the first measurement by direct triangulation of such a distance. Secondly, the method, as I understand it could be used for something 32,000 lightyears away with an accuracy of 10%. That means that it won't be long before we are dealing with direct triangulations out that far. While I agree that YEC can handle 7000, it can't handle 32,000. And, there are triangulations out even further, but the baseline is at the other end (earth is at the pointy end of the triangle.). My notes from an article:

Distance to M81 via triangulation of expanding shell of SN1993J

at 8 months old, the shell moving at 16,000 km/s ring had a diameter of 478+/- 8 microarc sec. Sept. 26, 1993.

on Nov. 22, 1993, ring had diameter of 581+/- 35 microarc seconds

J. M. Marcaide et al, "Discovery of shell-like radio-structure in SN1993J", Nature, 373, Jan. 5, 1995, p.44-45. This calculates a distance of 3.8+/- .8 Mega parsecs to the supernova.

This is 12.4 million lightyears

From another article:
Radioshell triangulated by radiointerferometry shows a diameter of 20 light days. This, by triangulation shows that M81 is 12 million Light years away. "Supernova 1993J's Young Radio Shell," Sky and Telescope, June 1995, p. 13.

The problem isn't that these theories are wrong, or unfalsifiable, or whatever; the real problem is that they are epistemologically unsatisfactory.

Well, if satisfaction is the determinant of truth, then I am a billionaire. Since that would satisfy me greatly, it must be true.

 

[dad]

No, it has nothing to do with speed, my friend. No matter how many covers you pull over your head to avoid seeing that big bad boogey man in your bedroom, and no matter how many times you repeat to yourself, "This can't be happening", it doesn't change reality. This is based solely upon Euclidean geometry (that stuff you were supposed to learn in Jr. Hi but somehow escaped you).

But Dad, live in your dream world. I am sure everything looks very young in your universe, which probably isn't the one the rest of us live in.

We both know it is a certain distance, but that is not time it is distance. You never addressed the post.

 

[dad]

do dad's contributions amount to "in the pre split world, triangles could have as many sides with any angles you like"

No my position is that the distance is correct, it is that far away. But that means nothing in relation to real time! Only if you assume a past physical only universe, with present light, and if you do assume that, you do so on your own, under no cover of science!

 

[dad]

Well, before we all start popping the champagne corks, it might be worth bearing in mind that the most that be claimed from this data is that the universe is 6000+ years old. If it turned out to be, say, 7000 years old, it would still be a lot closer to the young-earthers' assumption than to anybody else's.

The distance is 169,000 light years, the point is that light at the present is not the same light, so distance does not matter in relation to time.

It's never really been a problem for the young-earthers to construct hypotheses about the physical universe that show it as 6004-odd years old, or whatever it is supposed to be. In this limit, it can be hypothesized that the universe was created 6004 years ago with everything in place to look like it was billions of years old.

No, the looking old I would say is because of the seperation of the physical from the spiritual, leaving us only in the physical part.

 

[Loudmouth]

No my position is that the distance is correct, it is that far away. But that means nothing in relation to real time! Only if you assume a past physical only universe, with present light, and if you do assume that, you do so on your own, under no cover of science!

The radioactive elements created by the supernova act exactly like they do on earth.

The speed of light exiting the supernova is the same as it is here on earth, as measured by the time it took the light to leave the supernova and light up the ring of debris around the supernova.

Everything else about the supernova is in keeping with a physical only universe. Perhaps you should point out the apsects of the supernova that illustrate a spiritual universe.

 

[Natro]

No my position is that the distance is correct, it is that far away. But that means nothing in relation to real time! Only if you assume a past physical only universe, with present light, and if you do assume that, you do so on your own, under no cover of science!

So dad have you proved past light existed and is different from present light yet?

 

[dad]

To us. The problem for YECs is (or should be, at least) that such activity makes God look like a deceiver.

No, only if we assume things were always as they are. There the culprit is the assumption, not God.

 

[Loudmouth]

The distance is 169,000 light years, the point is that light at the present is not the same light, so distance does not matter in relation to time.

Let me get this straight. You don't need to know what distance something has travelled in order to calculate it's speed? This is a new one on me.

No, the looking old I would say is because of the seperation of the physical from the spiritual, leaving us only in the physical part.

What spritual world are you talking of? Please show me the characteristics of this supernova that evidence a spiritual world.

 

[dad]

Oh, I agree, but, this is the first measurement by direct triangulation of such a distance. Secondly, the method, as I understand it could be used for something 32,000 lightyears away with an accuracy of 10%. That means that it won't be long before we are dealing with direct triangulations out that far. While I agree that YEC can handle 7000, it can't handle 32,000.

I can handle any distance, the more the merrier, I plan to visit the furthest. Distance can not translate into time by science, only by assumption of an unknown past being a certain way.

 

[dad]

The radioactive elements created by the supernova act exactly like they do on earth.

Why wouldn't they? They are in the PO universe!

The speed of light exiting the supernova is the same as it is here on earth, as measured by the time it took the light to leave the supernova and light up the ring of debris around the supernova.

Correct. Here's how that puppy works, as best I can tell.
Certain areas were first to be impacted in the process that seperated the physical from the spiritual. Supernovas, for example. They exploded, and were first to be physical only in the split process itself! The universe around these zones took a little while to be left as physical only, so were still merged. That is why the PO explosion was carried quickly along the light highway as it were, towards earth, but not all the way. The process was complete before it reached us. This means it was still on the way, and had some way to go as the process ended! The PO 1987a therefore would be expected to be a PO explosion, yet, the still merged portion of the universe between here and there relayed the event faster than it could in the present!
!!!

 

[Natro]

Why wouldn't they? They are in the PO universe!


Correct. Here's how that puppy works, as best I can tell.
Certain areas were first to be impacted in the process that seperated the physical from the spiritual. Supernovas, for example. They exploded, and were first to be physical only in the split process itself! The universe around these zones took a little while to be left as physical only, so were still merged. That is why the PO explosion was carried quickly along the light highway as it were, towards earth, but not all the way. The process was complete before it reached us. This means it was still on the way, and had some way to go as the process ended! The PO 1987a therefore would be expected to be a PO explosion, yet, the still merged portion of the universe between here and there relayed the event faster than it could in the present!
!!!

This is all of you assume the existance of the spiritual.

 

[dad]

Let me get this straight. You don't need to know what distance something has travelled in order to calculate it's speed? This is a new one on me.

Thats right! For example, in the new heavens coming that are eternal, in the bible, after these physical only ones pass away, light will not be limited to PO speeds. Spirits, and spiritual things are not bound by the physical, and the new heavens will be both, cause God lives there, and angels, and us one day.

What spritual world are you talking of? Please show me the characteristics of this supernova that evidence a spiritual world.

The supernova was likely not spiritual, any more than a firecracker.As the last post or so illuminated.

 

[dad]

This is all of you assume the existance of the spiritual.

We are talking the far past, or the future here, and no one can do any more than assume! Certainly not natural science.

 

[Natro]

Thats right! For example, in the new heavens coming that are eternal, in the bible, after these physical only ones pass away, light will not be limited to PO speeds. Spirits, and spiritual things are not bound by the physical, and the new heavens will be both, cause God lives there, and angels, and us one day.



The supernova was likely not spiritual, any more than a firecracker.As the last post or so illuminated.

I am calling BS. Dad can you prove or even submit evidence or calculations of any of what your claiming?

 

[dad]

So dad have you proved past light existed and is different from present light yet?

Have you that it didn't? Have you even any reason to suggest that a new eternal heavens with the spiritual and physical are not coming one day? No, you don't.