Re: The empirical fact of antiquity (repost #2)
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, Michael <dokimadzo@c...> wrote (post #1342):
> Hello Todd,Hi, Michael.
>> I just re-checked the several online references I provided to
>> you and every single one works fine.
> Most of them did, but this one didn't: New Distance Determination
> to the LMC
Got it. That is a secondary reference and not a link that was in the
post I made. You should note that before what was stated in that
reference went offline, I copied the whole thing and added it to my
web page. What that article stated is copied at the bottom of my web
page, so you can still see what the astronomer wrote in that article.
>Please do. I've had to follow some of those links through two
> I can't remember them all. If I find the others I will let you
different website changes, but as far I know every link in my post is
>My point was simply that though light does travel pretty much in a
> I said:
> "1. That light always travels in a straight line from any stellar
> object to earth. This has to do with your base and radius in your
> Your reply:
>> False statement, Michael. This is not an assumption. It is what
>> is observed. Since it is what is observed to be the case it is
>> not something that is assumed. That's a big whoops for you!
>> Indeed, one of the links I gave you is an example of where some
>> of the light from the supernova did NOT travel in a straight
>> line but had its path deflected by intervening sheets of dust in
>> the Large Magellanic Cloud.
> Answer: You say it is a false statement then to prove this you
> said you provided links where some light did not travel in a
> straight line. Care to explain? Does light always, you say is
> observed, travel in straight lines; or, is it also as you said
> that "some of the light from the supernova did NOT travel in a
> straight line? Whoops!
straight line, it can travel in other than a straight line due to
various reasons and when it does this is observed. My point to you
was that astronomers observe BOTH. They observed the light that
traveled from SN1987A to Earth, they observed the light that traveled
from SN1987A to the primary gas ring (and also to the secondary gas
rings) and then was deflected from this ring to the Earth, and they
also happened to observed some of the light that traveled at certain
angles away from the straight line to Earth but was then deflected
toward earth by intervening dust sheets that lie in the Large
Magellanic Cloud galaxy.
>The problem with your discussion is that you seem to possess the
> Fact one: Light does not ALWAYS travel in straight lines. To this
> you even admitted by saying "some of the light" ... "did NOT
> travel in a straight line." Ever shown a light through a prism?
> Ever looked in a mirror? Can light rays "bend?" Or, is it
> observed that light can bend, refract, be reflected?
mistaken notion that this somehow constitutes some kind of critical
problem for the observations of SN1987A. Contrary to your incorrect
notion, the fact that the path of light can change is *critical* to
the observations. If the path of the light didn't change, then we
would never have had the wonderful observations of SN1987A that
allowed for such relatively precise determinations of its distance in
the first place.
>What are you talking about? The light traveled from SN1987A to the
> Fact two: You, and no one else, "observed the entire journey" the
> light from SN1987A from there to earth. Can we now see this? No.
> I will have much more to say on this in the future with regard to
> the assumptions on c and the linear travel of light.
earth, and it happens to have done so from different angles *because
of* the deflections (such as from the primary gas ring, and the dust
You are correct that astronomers cannot observe small-scale types of
things. For example, if there just so happened to be an isolated
planet (not orbiting a star) in the Large Magellanic Cloud in the
path between SN1987A and Earth (all 168,000 light-years of it!),
astronomers couldn't detect such a thing since the resolution isn't
anywhere near that degree of precision. Of course, such a thing
wouldn't alter what we have observed regarding the distance of the
>We do have measurements relevant to the speed of the light from
>>> 2. That you have actually measured the speed of light and have
>>> a factual measurement of how fast light goes. You don't."
> Your reply: "False statement, Michael."
> I agree, especially the way I stated it. Sorry to confuse the
> issue. I truly must slow down.
> The point should have been worded thus: "That you have actually
> measured the speed of light for SN1987A and have its factual
> measurement of how fast its light traveled to earth. You don't
> have such measurements."
> Since I did render such a false statement I will not expound upon
> this until you have had time to review it.
SN1987A. These have to do with the measured rate of decay of the
radioactive elements produced by the supernova explosion (the so-
called "light curve") and with measurements of spectral lines used to
calculate the fine structure. What I will acknowledge is that with
respect to the fine structure constant I don't know that that kind of
measurement has been performed with SN1987A in particular. What I do
know is that one team of astronomers has been conducting a survey of
spectral line analyses for various distances in the universe and
they've found that the speed of light has been the same (or very,
very close to the same, within a tiny fraction of one percent) for
several billion years. At 168,000 years, the event of SN1987A is, I'm
sure you will acknowledge, well within the range of several billion
>Thank you for acknowledging that it is a matter of observation and
> I said: "You do not know the height of SN1987A or the rings.
> These are mathematical hypotheses."
> Your reply: "False statement, Michael. We do know the distance
> from SN1987A to the primary gas ring. It is not assumed, because
> it is a matter of observation."
> No, what has been observed is how long it took light, using your
> formulas and what you call constants, to travel from SN1987A to
> the cloud some 168K years ago. I agree that this is very
> compelling that it did not take that long and we actually
> observed this.
thus not an assumption.
> It gives a*You* claim that it can't be construed as factual, because *you*
> reasonable basis upon which to construct the distance between the
> cloud and the supernova, but the way astronomers go about this
> today cannot be construed as "facts."
claim that certain things are merely being assumed. The problem with
your argument is that what you say is not assumed but is a matter of
>This isn't assumed. It is observed to be the case.
> Here is your assumptions: That c is constant (I know I am in the
> minority for thinking that c is not constant -- more to come on
> That light travelsIt isn't assumed. In fact, as I have pointed out, some of the light
> through all the regions of space without deflection and does so
> as it does within a vacuum.
*was* deflected in the case of SN1987A, which is what made it such a
fortuitous and useful observation.
By the way, V838 Monocerotis is a similar example of this kind of
thing, except in its case the star actually has shells of gas around
it instead of rings. I cited this example for you earlier:
(Of course, the difference between V838 Monocerotis and SN1987A is
that V838 Monocerotis is about 20,000 light-years away here in the
Milky Way galaxy where as SN1987A is about 168,000 light-years away
in the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy.)
> It is theDo you even know what you are talking about?
> assumption that the speed of light travels as in a vacuum through
> interstellar space because it is assumed that the density of
> matter between stars is relatively low. Observation cannot
> establish this as fact. You don't know if there is matter that
> you cannot see that has an effect on the speed of light just like
> glass has an effect on the speed of light.
Take a look at these specific examples of observations of gas and
Hubble Captures a Perfect Storm of Turbulent Gases
Close-up of M27, the Dumbbell Nebula
Hubble Photographs 'Double Bubble' in Neighboring Galaxy
An Old Star Gives Up the Ghost
Space Movie Reveals Shocking Secrets of the Crab Pulsar
Hubble Astronomers Feast on an Interstellar Hamburger
Colorful Fireworks Finale Caps a Star's Life
Beauty in the Eye of Hubble
Gaseous Streamers Flutter in Stellar Breeze
A Bow Shock Near a Young Star
Thackeray's Globules in IC 2944
Hubble Sends Season's Greetings from the Cosmos to Earth (NGC 2080)
Hubble's Panoramic Portrait of a Vast Star-Forming Region
SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud
Light is affected by gas and dust that it has to travel through, and
astronomers OBSERVE these effects. You are pretending that this kind
of thing is merely *assumed* to not be there. In actuality it's just
the opposite: Astronomers observe light that has traveled through gas
and dust and they observe the affect of this in the light itself.
These effects are also observed with light that travels from distant
galaxies, as the light has traveled through intergalactic gas and
Moreover, see my comments below concerning the implication of what
you are referring to. You don't seem to realize that you are arguing
yourself in the wrong direction, in the opposite direction from
supporting young earth creationism.
>It ignores it because it is observed to not have constant (over so
> I commented on your model and math ever so briefly. Your reply
> was that you do not think I know what I am talking about. Maybe I
> In challenging the height or radius of your equation you replied:
>> False statement, Michael. I'm not assuming the values. The
>> values are a matter of observation. When something is observed
>> to be the case it is wrong to say it is assumed. This is why
>> people like you get into such trouble with your rhetoric,
>> because your rhetoric is simply false.
> Fact one: Your formula ignores that c might be slowing down over
close to constant to be below the threshold of measurement; YECs must
have the speek of light over 1,000,000 [1 million] times faster than
it is now, but this idea is falsified by what we observe).
> Fact two: Light travels through glass slower than through air.First of all, as I pointed out some examples above of, astronomers do
> Fact three: Since light travels slower in glass than in air,
> this proves, by observation, that matter can affect the speed of
> Fact four: You use the figure for the speed of light as it
> travels in a vacuum and ignore any and all matter between the
> "Large Magellanic Cloud" and Sn1987A.
> I may have more to say about this later. Not just rhetoric.
observe gas and dust that is there when it is there.
Second, we do happen to know the effect of this matter on the speed
of light (this has to do with "refraction index" studies, if you want
to look it up), and what we know is that the effect on the speed of
light is quite trivial. In fact, it is because we know the effect is
so insignificant that we can ignore it for purposes of the formula.
Third, the effect that it has is to *slow down* the speed of light,
which would merely mean that the light would take LONGER than 168,000
years to reach the earth. In the standard young earth
creationist "model" the light would have to reach earth in less than
ten thousand years. YECs need light to have traveled MUCH faster
(more than a million times faster), not slower, and yet here you are
making a point about the light having been slowed down (and just a
very a little bit), not speeded up. So you're actually arguing in the
wrong direction, Michael!
>Well, I'm still waiting for you to correctly identify some
> So, yes, your radius has many assumptions built into it, and,
> therefore, it makes the radius itself an assumption -- not fact.
assumptions. What you have done so far is to use the standard false
YEC rhetoric of wrongly referring to what has been observed about the
real world to be nothing more than assumption. Again, no matter how
many times you call a tail a leg, it just doesn't make it so.
>Golly, Michael, I know it's ballpark. Right on my page about this
> I will, however, agree that the calculations and the radius is
> ballpark, but not actual.
I provide the range of error (based on the inherent imprecision of
the empirical measurements) for you: about 3.5%. In typical
discussion I merely mention just the ballpark number of 168,000, but
the value range is actually about . Anyone who is familiar with
scientific measurement and recording is familiar with this kind of
>This is not is ignored. It is what is observed.
> I said: "Then you get a result and say it is fact. See? If your
> formula is based upon mathematical hypotheses, and not real
> numbers, then how can the result be deemed absolute?"
> You replied: "The numbers are real, because they are what is
> No, what was observed was not a measurement of distance, but how
> long the SN1987A energy (light) took to get from SN1987A to the
> cloud. Then you plug in numbers ignoring that light could have
> been affected by matter between points "a" and "b" which could
> have altered its speed.
> You also ignoreMichael, I'm sorry, but you simply don't know what you're talking
> the very sound scientific data suggesting that c is not constant
> and may be slowing down. This would make the radius much smaller
> and the distance much closer, and the date much younger. See?
> I am assuming that you know of the data suggesting that c is not
> constant. There are forums, articles, papers, etc. That is why I
> am not providing the links.
about. Since you obviously think you do, you need to explain what you
think you're talking about, and then I will show you that you don't.
>It isn't ridiculous to say that things are not assumed and not
> You said: "You think they were just made up, and you are wrong."
> No, I don't think they were made up. I think you are leaving too
> many variables out that skew your calculations. To say that
> things are not assumed or ignored is ridiculous to say. If
> variables are left out and ignored then your data has the great
> potential for being wrong. Further, if data is ignored and
> assumptions remain in the calculations, then its results pushed
> off as "fact"; then, yes, people like me are not going to blindly
> accept them.
ignored when that happens to be the case. Your claims have been
Of course, this is all a moot point, since you have already agreed
that the 168,000 light-years to SN1987A is at least a correct
>I already discussed your mistaken perception of these above.
> Or, do you deny the facts that I brought out? Does light
> traveling through glass move at a different speed than through
> air? Does this not show that matter can have an effect on the
> speed of light? Does your calculations use the speed of light as
> it is in a vacuum? Does this not ignore the presence of matter
> between stellar objects? There is another fact it ignores which
> we will talk about later.
>You keep showing me that you really don't understand what you're
> Then, to my stating that SN1987A was an explosion and this was an
> assumption, you replied:
>> You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? That's
>> what happens when a star explodes.
> The fact is that you do not know that this is really what
> happened, i.e., that this star exploded. All that is actually
> observed is that the star is now giving off more energy and is
> producing more light. Are you saying that the ONLY way, and the
> ONLY process, by which a star can produce more energy is by an
> explosion? That is the only reason? I would agree that this is
> the most probable with what we know, but we have not touched the
> hem of the garment when it comes to understanding the inner
> workings of our own star, let alone others we view through a
> perceptually limited manner.
> Did the star "explode?" That is the probable reason. This is only
> brought out to show that your mind is closed to discovery. You
> don't know for a fact that this star exploded even though it is
> most probable that it did. If there is a smoking gun of evidence
> that the star actually did explode then I am sure you will bring
> this to bare.
> I will give you some examples. I am on a mountain looking over a
> valley and I see bright flash of light. Do I automatically assume
> that something just blew up? I then see that it illuminated soem
> surrounding objects. Do I assume something exploded now?
> If you have never seen a match before and one strikes one in
> front of you. The match burns very big and bright at first and
> then settles down. Did that match just explode? It was bright,
> produced a lot of energy, but the match did not explode.
talking about. I realize that you're coming new to this, but you
should act like you're coming new to this instead of pretending (just
like any old young earth creationist) that you've got it all figured
out and that since you've got it all figured out you know that these
astronomers are all just a bunch of clueless posturing idiots. You've
got to stop making arguments that are based on this false premise
about astronomical science.
First of all, with regard to our specific discussion of WHEN the star
exploded, we can actually - if you really want to - just for the sake
of discussion pretend that the star did NOT explode. Okay, now given
that, it doesn't change the fact that the SN1987A even (whatever it
was if not a stellar explosion) took place approximately 168,000
Second, apparently you are not even aware of the fact that the blast
wave from the star was observed to impact the primary gas ring
several years laster (as predicted, by the way). Please pay close
attention, Michal. If you had look at the SN1987A reference that I
provided you with you would have known this already. I have repeated
the online references I gave you, at the end of this post, since you
obviously need to take another look.
Here are just a couple here:
Onset of Titanic Collision Lights Up Supernova Ring
Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape
>> If you could actually identify one of these assumptions, rather
>> than incorrectly referring to observations as assumptions, then
>> you might have something more than empty rhetoric.
> Hopefully I have identified them enough for you.
Todd S. Greene
SN1987A and the Antiquity of the Universe
The SN1987A Circumstellar Ring and the Distance to the
Large Magellanic Cloud
by Dr. Richard McCray
by Dr. Richard McCray
Hubble Space Telescope Site, Re: SN1987A
Hubble Finds Mysterious Ring Structure around Supernova 1987a
Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape
Hubble Chemically Analyzes the Ring around Supernova 1987A
Hubble Reveals Invisible High-Speed Collision around Supernova 1987A
Shock Wave Sheds New Light on Fading Supernova
SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud
Onset of Titanic Collision Lights Up Supernova Ring
Here's a link to a time-lapse multiple-image "video" of the SN1987A
blast wave impacting the primary gas ring:
(Note the line-break in the link here, which you'll need to piece
The Tarantula Nebula and supernova 1987a in the LMC
Supernova 1987A and Sanduleak -69°202
(Sanduleak -69°202 was the name of the catalogued star before it blew
Around supernova 1987A, before and just after the event
The light echo of supernova 1987A