one.opinion Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted October 16, 2017 In October 2016, astronomers found a tremendously bright supernova (designated SMCN 2016-10a) in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a small, irregular galaxy about 200,000 light years from earth. The results were published about a week ago (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.03716.pdf). It is fascinating to learn about events like this and think about the size, scale, and energy involved in such events. It also makes me wonder how one would explain this from a young earth viewpoint. If the universe is only ~6,000 years old, then this supernova (and any other astronomical event more distant than 6,000 light years) never really happened and God "fabricated" an explosive interaction between two stars. Or is there a better explanation that I can't think of? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 16, 2017 3 hours ago, one.opinion said: In October 2016, astronomers found a tremendously bright supernova (designated SMCN 2016-10a) in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a small, irregular galaxy about 200,000 light years from earth. The results were published about a week ago (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.03716.pdf). It's Codswallop Horse Pucky. Post the "Photo"...? Then... 1. Define Super Nova...? Scientifically Validate that what was 'Found' was a Supernova...? 2. Define Galaxy...? Scientifically Validate that it was found IN a Galaxy...? 3. 200,000 Light Years?? rotflol That's 1,160,000 TRILLION MILES Away !!! If you believe that, then I have some beach front property for sale. You Interested? You got another BIG Problem... According to 'The Narrative', "Light Years" is not a measure of "Time"...it's one of "Distance". For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the..."One-Way" Speed of Light. Unfortunately, you can never know that because it's a Begging The Question Fallacy... In TOTO, resulting from the inability to Synchronize 2 'clocks' by some distance. Watch... How do we determine the "SPEED" or "RATE" of something?? Distance = Rate x Time, right?? So... R = D/T It's the "T" that's in focus here. You need 2 Clocks, right? Clock A (Terminus a quo) and Clock B (Terminus ad quem). According to Einstein's 'Relativity', the moment you move Clock B... That Clock is DE-SYNCHRONIZED !!!! What do you Need to KNOW to reconcile and SYNCHRONIZE Clock B to Clock A ?? That's Right Folks... The "One-Way" Speed of Light !!! So the ENTIRE Exercise is a TEXTBOOK: Begging The Question Fallacy. Einstein made the very same conclusion... “It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.” A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23. Regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“That light requires THE SAME TIME to traverse the path A-M as for the path B-M is in reality NEITHER A SUPPOSITION NOR A HYPOTHESIS about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of *MY OWN FREEWILL* in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.” A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23. Ergo...the Speed of Light (average "Two-Way" Speed) is merely a *'CONVENTION'* that we've agreed upon. More strikingly, according to Quantum Mechanics... Independent of Knowledge/Existence of 'which-path' Information, " LIGHT " (Photons) -- have no defined properties or location. Photons exist in a state of a Wave Function which is a series of Potentialities rather than actual objects. That is, Matter/Photons don't exist as a Wave of Energy prior to observation but as a Wave of Potentialities. “It begins to look as we ourselves, by our last minute decision, have an influence on what a photon will do when it has already accomplished most of its doing… we have to say that we ourselves have an undeniable part in what we have always called the past. The past is not really the past until is has been REGISTERED. Or to put it another way, the past has no meaning or existence unless it exists as a RECORD in the present.”Prof. John Wheeler "Referenced in"; The Ghost In The Atom; Page 66-68.Unless you can explicitly identify "A Knower" @ the source of this Light (Photons)....who also "observed" it's entire 'path', AND the "observer" who first identified it here on Earth and RECORDED it (Date and Time stamped) THEN, you're gonna have to provide.... *The Speed of a Wave of Potentialities !!* Go ahead...I'll get the Popcorn !!! ps. As you can determine quite easily above, In Reality..."Light Years" is neither a measure of "Time" or "Distance". It's merely a "Convention", that we've agreed upon. Voila In conclusion, their appeal (and your PARROTING) is quite Nonsensical. Quote It is fascinating to learn about events like this and think about the size, scale, and energy involved in such events. Yea, if you like Fairytale "Just-So" Stories. Quote (1.) It also makes me wonder how one would explain this from a young earth viewpoint. If the universe is only ~6,000 years old, then this supernova (and any other astronomical event more distant than 6,000 light years) never really happened and God "fabricated" an explosive interaction between two stars. (2.) Or is there a better explanation that I can't think of? (1.) Don't need to, Your Premise is a PUMMELED Trainwreck -- Begging The Question Fallacy. (SEE: everything after "It's Codswallop Horse Pucky" above) (2.) A Better Explanation for What? regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 9 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: 200,000 Light Years?? rotflol That's 1,160,000 TRILLION MILES Away !!! Yes, your calculations are correct. The universe is a big place. 37 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: For you to be able to ascertain the "Time" component, you *MUST KNOW* the..."One-Way" Speed of Light. Despite your insistence to the contrary, the speed of light in a vacuum has been determined. I know you will find no value in it, but this is for the benefit of other potential readers: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html Measurements done in the late 1800s/early 1900s show the speed of light in air is extremely similar to that in vacuum. A "light year" is indeed a measurement of distance, based on the distance light is able to travel in one year -- thus, it is possible to determine the amount of time it would take for light to travel from a distant event to earth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 4 minutes ago, Sojourner414 said: That said, it is possible for the Universe to be that old and the planet to have been formed much later. First, thank you for a rational response! I would accept this as a possibility, but I think this approach could be regarded by strict young earth creationists as contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis. This sounds much more in line with the philosophy of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Yes, your calculations are correct. Thanks Quote The universe is a big place. How Big? Then Scientifically Validate it...? Quote Despite your insistence to the contrary, the speed of light in a vacuum has been determined. 1. Begging The Question Fallacy: "Speed of Light" (See Comprehensive Discussion --you WHOLESALE DODGED previous post) 2. There is no "Vacuum of Space"... Vacuum of Space: 1. How do you have a GAS PRESSURE (Atmospheric Pressure) WITHOUT a Container...."TO BEGIN WITH" ?? When... "The "PRESSURE OF A GAS" is the force that the gas exerts on the WALLS OF IT'S CONTAINER". http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/180pressure.html Basically, explain how you can have a "Tire Pressure"... WITHOUT THE TIRE !!! 2. How can you have a Vacuum (Outer-Space) attached to a Non-Vacuum (Earth) WITHOUT a Physical Barrier in the same system simultaneously, without Bludgeoning to a Bloody Pulp... the Laws of Entropy (2LOT) ?? a. In other words, How are you still Breathing and adhering to the fairytale 'Narrative'... BOTH, at the same time?? b. Then, Define the Law of Non-Contradiction...? c. Then, please list each fairytale associated with "Outer-Space" that gets taken out back to the Woodshed and Bludgeoned Senseless as a result of the fairytale "Vacuum of Space" VAPORIZING....? 3. Have you ever heard: "Nature Abhors a Vacuum", by chance? Why is that...? Quote I know you will find no value in it, but this is for the benefit of other potential readers: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html This is Factually Incorrect: (See Comprehensive Discussion --you WHOLESALE DODGED previous post) Quote A "light year" is indeed a measurement of distance Factually Incorrect: (See Comprehensive Discussion --you WHOLESALE DODGED previous post) Quote thus, it is possible to determine the amount of time it would take for light to travel from a distant event to earth. Factually Incorrect: (See Comprehensive Discussion --you WHOLESALE DODGED previous post). Moreover, without "Knowledge of the Path Information" Photons (or anything else for that matter) do not exist. Furthermore... “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.” Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist) "So we have to play this game in two ways, it is particles but it's future is determined by a wave--but 'the wave' is PURELY MATHEMATICAL you cannot put an instrument to measure the energy due to that wave. It's a CONSTRUCT we use to determine what will happen in this experiment". Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Quantum Mechanics I: The key experiments and wave-particle duality. (21:03 minute mark.) In conclusion, your claims are PUMMELED Six Ways from Sunday. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 2 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said: “The path taken by the photon is not an element of reality. We are not allowed to talk about the photon passing through this or this slit. Neither are we allowed to say the photon passes through both slits. All this kind of language is not applicable.” Prof. Anton Zeilinger (Particle Physicist) "So we have to play this game in two ways, it is particles but it's future is determined by a wave--but 'the wave' is PURELY MATHEMATICAL you cannot put an instrument to measure the energy due to that wave. It's a CONSTRUCT we use to determine what will happen in this experiment". Ramamurti Shankar; Professor of Physics, Yale. Appeal to authority fallacy. Pummel that for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 16, 2017 7 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I would accept this as a possibility, (1.) but I think this approach could be regarded by strict young earth creationists as contrary to a literal interpretation of Genesis. (2.) This sounds much more in line with the philosophy of Hugh Ross and Reasons to Believe. (1.) Yes, Absolutely Contrary to The Word of God. (2.) Yes, Mr. "Moon Fossils". regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 16, 2017 1 minute ago, one.opinion said: Appeal to authority fallacy. Pummel that for a while. Comin Right Up ... Factually Incorrect... Appeal to Authority (Fallacy) --- This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject.http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html Ergo... you're claiming Professor Anton Zeilinger and Professor Ramamurti Shankar ARE NOT Legitimate Authorities on Quantum Mechanics. Ahhh, That's a Six Million Dollar Man Style Crash & Burn !! regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted October 16, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Author Share Posted October 16, 2017 (edited) They are experts, but taking two quotes out of scientific context and using them as evidence is fallacy. Provide evidence that they are claiming that we cannot know the speed of light with reasonable accuracy and I will make an apology. Edited October 16, 2017 by one.opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted October 17, 2017 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted October 17, 2017 15 hours ago, one.opinion said: They are experts They are Experts in Quantum Mechanics, rendering your appeal--Nonsensical. Quote but taking two quotes out of scientific context Baseless Ipse Dixit 'bare' Assertion Fallacy (x2). ps. What on Earth is Scientific Context? Quote Provide evidence that they are claiming that we cannot know the speed of light with reasonable accuracy and I will make an apology. The 'evidence' was already provided...it was in the post that you "WHOLESALE DODGED". And the claim is not that we cannot know the speed of light with 'accuracy'; the claim is we can't know the Speed of Light, PERIOD! Professor Zeilinger and Shankar were brought in to HAMMER the point home. regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts