Gravity

[AV1611VET]

It wouldn't really be faith if I needed to see it in order to believe it, would it?

That's true!

When our faith gives way to sight, as it will, there will be a few things we aren't really going to want to see.

And for the record, curious use of the word "I" in your reply?

Faux pas?

 

[CabVet]

You mean you'll go with what you're told?

SN1987A, for example, happened how long ago, according to scientific philosophy?

Yet SN1987A is judged to have happened that "long ago" because of its distance -- not because of an observed passage of time.

Is something being seen 10 million light years out?

Why, there's only one conclusion! Its light took 10 million years to get here!

Well, it might be your only conclusion, but for us guys that get accused of being "narrow-minded," we aren't tied down like you guys are.

Amazing, just amazing. But this is really simple. Let's examine this case in more detail.

We know how fast light travels. We know how far the star is. Here is what was seen in the sky:

The star is 51.47 kp away from the earth. One kp is 3.08567758 × 10e19 meters. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s. A simple calculation tells us that the light produced on that star took 167,885 years to get to our telescopes. What is your alternative explanation?

 

[CabVet]

That's true!

When our faith gives way to sight, as it will, there will be a few things we aren't really going to want to see.

And for the record, curious use of the word "I" in your reply?

Faux pas?

So, the Jews and I will burn in hell, even after we see the miracle, correct?

 

[CabVet]

Sorry, responding to any answer with a goal post move, if anything, is an example of immaturity. Now, can you find where I have defined maturity or not?

My goalpost has not moved one inch, all I am asking for is a definition of maturity.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

You mean you'll go with what you're told?

And why not? I go with the idea that planets orbit because of gravity but I can't personally test that. The thing about science is that it tends to fit together when it's correct. Of course I could believe that all of the evidence is an invention but that doesn't make any sense.

SN1987A, for example, happened how long ago, according to scientific philosophy?

Well it also happened a long time ago according to a rational testable interpretation of the evidence. An interpretation that provides testable predictions.

Yet SN1987A is judged to have happened that "long ago" because of its distance -- not because of an observed passage of time.

Is there any reason to think that light gets teleported to earth just to fool us?

Is something being seen 10 million light years out?

Why, there's only one conclusion! Its light took 10 million years to get here!

Um...well is there any alternative that would square with all of the observations?

Well, it might be your only conclusion, but for us guys that get accused of being "narrow-minded," we aren't tied down like you guys are.

I'm not the one trying to fit everything into a 6K year box. I'm certainly not personally invested in that supernova being however many light years away it's measured to be. Show me an alternative interpretation that accounts for the same evidence as well and accounts for other evidence that the current one can't account for and I'll prefer that. No narrow-mindedness here, just plain common sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

We know how fast light travels. We know how far the star is.

Yes, I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

 

[CabVet]

Yes, I'm familiar with the rhetoric.

So, what is your alternative explanation?

 

[AV1611VET]

You still have not defined "maturity".

<After being pwned.>

My goalpost has not moved one inch, all I am asking for is a definition of maturity.

So now your declarative suddenly becomes an interrogative?

 

[HitchSlap]

<After being pwned.>

Yes, he did. And quite handedly too, I might add.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not the one trying to fit everything into a 6K year box. I'm certainly not personally invested in that supernova being however many light years away it's measured to be. Show me an alternative interpretation that accounts for the same evidence as well and accounts for other evidence that the current one can't account for and I'll prefer that. No narrow-mindedness here, just plain common sense.

Starting here: 1142 I put my whole heart into explaining SN1987A to unbelievers once.

I don't plan to do it again.

That took it out of me, and I don't ever plan to spend this much time on any given subject with unbelievers again.

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

You mean you'll go with what you're told?

SN1987A, for example, happened how long ago, according to scientific philosophy?

Yet SN1987A is judged to have happened that "long ago" because of its distance -- not because of an observed passage of time.

Is something being seen 10 million light years out?

Why, there's only one conclusion! Its light took 10 million years to get here!

Well, it might be your only conclusion, but for us guys that get accused of being "narrow-minded," we aren't tied down like you guys are.

Starting here: 1142 I put my whole heart into explaining SN1987A to unbelievers.

I don't plan to do it again.

Yeah that would mean that we're seeing things further away in slow motion but pulsar rates don't vary smoothly with distance so the idea that light moved toward us faster then slowed doesn't fit the evidence we currently observe let alone account for things that current interpretations can't explain.

 

[HitchSlap]

Starting here: 1142 I put my whole heart into explaining SN1987A to unbelievers once.

I don't plan to do it again.

That took it out of me, and I don't ever plan to spend this much time on any given subject with unbelievers again.

If by "unbelievers" you meant "gullible," then I accept your explanation.

Yeah, it's why I spend very little time with detailed explanations with believers. So I understand where you're comin' from.

 

[AV1611VET]

If by "unbelievers" you meant "gullible," then I accept your explanation.

By "unbelievers," I mean "unbelievers."

Yeah, it's why I spend very little time with detailed explanations with believers. So I understand where you're comin' from.

Nice piggyback.

How long did you have to wait to use someone else's post to ridicule?

Can't do it on your own?

 

[HitchSlap]

By "unbelievers," I mean "unbelievers."

Nice piggyback.

How long did you have to wait to use someone else's post to ridicule?

Can't do it on your own?

Oh, there's a lot of things I prefer not to do on my own, pearls before swine and all.

 

[CabVet]

<After being pwned.>

pwned, really?

So now your declarative suddenly becomes an interrogative?

It always was.

 

[Michael]

Amazing, just amazing. But this is really simple. Let's examine this case in more detail.

We know how fast light travels. We know how far the star is. Here is what was seen in the sky:

The star is 51.47 kp away from the earth. One kp is 3.08567758 × 10e19 meters. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s. A simple calculation tells us that the light produced on that star took 167,885 years to get to our telescopes. What is your alternative explanation?

Inelastic scattering, not expansion. You could still come up with a redshift/distance formula that way, but it would be *nothing even close* to mainstream numbers.

 

[CabVet]

Starting here: 1142 I put my whole heart into explaining SN1987A to unbelievers once.

I don't plan to do it again.

That took it out of me, and I don't ever plan to spend this much time on any given subject with unbelievers again.

Ok, so your explanation is that light somehow, against all we know, traveled "faster" back then (which would make the universe much larger, but let's not get into that yet). When exactly then do you think this happened:

During creation week? In 1997 when it was observed? How about supernovas observed in other dates? How about the ones we didn't see yet?

Also, from the image above you can see that the observation lasted for years, which is what you would expect from an explosion of this magnitude. How long did it actually last in your embedded age scenario?

P.S.: What is maturity?

 

[CabVet]

Inelastic scattering, not expansion. You could still come up with a redshift/distance formula that way, but it would be *nothing even close* to mainstream numbers.

My only question in this thread is: would it be close to 6,000 years?

 

[Michael]

And why not? I go with the idea that planets orbit because of gravity but I can't personally test that.

You can test the idea that you're affected by gravity. It's not much of a leap of faith to assume that other objects are affected by gravity too.

The thing about science is that it tends to fit together when it's correct.

As the whole epicycle fiasco demonstrates, the math can fit together just fine, but the whole idea can still be incorrect. We also traded in Newton's mathematical expression of gravity for Einstein's.

Of course I could believe that all of the evidence is an invention but that doesn't make any sense.

Well, most of the mass energy of astronomy today was an 'invention'. Dark matter SUSY maths bit the dust left and right at LHC right. Dark energy seems to fulfill but one actual purpose, namely to save one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from certain death.

Gravity shows up in experiments on Earth, but most of the mass/energy of mainstream cosmology theory doesn't.

I'm not for a moment suggesting the universe is only 6K years old, but "scientific" calculations as to the age of the universe are no more empirically justifiable in the lab than YEC.

 

[Michael]

My only question in this thread is: would it be close to 6,000 years?

In terms of a creation date, it's probably much closer to eternity than *either* YEC or Lambda-CDM.

Dad's "different state past" is no more goofy than inflation theory IMO. Neither one of them is justifiable via empirical physics, and neither creation date is justifiable via empirical physics.