Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Sn 1987a debate, second affirmative

Expand Messages
  • PIASAN@aol.com
    First, I will concur with Jerry that we will refer to the speed of light as c. I will also use ly for light year. Further, when dealing with very large
    Message 1 of 2 , May 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      First, I will concur with Jerry that we will refer to the speed of light as "c." I will also use "ly" for "light year." Further, when dealing with very large or small numbers, I will use spreadsheet notation. For example, a billion (1,000,000,000) would be expressed as 1e9.

      With regard to my assertion that Sn1987a shows the universe is 168,000 years old, Jerry claims: "There are too many factors that we would have know the answers to before such a claim could be considered valid." That is not true. There are actually only two factors we actually need to know. The time calculation comes from the simple equation: time = distance / velocity. Therefore, what we really need to know is distance and average velocity. Creationists have had to admit both due to the overwhelming evidence so, they have more recently attempted to challenge time itself (Humphreys). The newest attempt is Lisle's claim he can simply declare the speed of light toward the observer is infinite.

      At one time, those who claim a "young" earth challenged the distance measurement as all distances over about 500 ly were by indirect methods such "standard candles" or Doppler shift. Because the distance to Sn1987a was measured by direct trigonometry, the distance argument is pretty much settled. Even such leading proponents of a young universe as Setterfield, Humphreys, and Lisle (all of whom are referenced by Jerry) agree the distance to Sn1987a is around 168,000 ly and the rest of the astronomical distance measurements are reasonably accurate.

      Once it began to become apparent the distance calculations were correct, some began to argue the speed of light had changed. Setterfield was one of the leading promoters of this claim. After it became obvious the "c-decay" argument is untenable, the only thing left was to attack time itself... as in Humphreys' "White Hole" model. Young Earth proponents are nothing if not tenacious.... after Humphreys' model collapsed, they began arguing that we could create a "convention" in which the speed of light toward an observer is infinite while the speed away from the observer is half of c. In other words, Lisle attempts to simply define the problem away.... which is also a failure.

      Jerry is attempting all three of these failed "models" to deal with the simple "time = distance / velocity" equation, so we'll dispense with each of them in turn. First, however, let's deal with the allegations Jerry makes regarding "assumptions" surrounding the Sn1987a observations.



      Jerry claims there are a number of assumptions made with regard to Sn1987a and its ring structure.
      (Link: http://www.challenge2.org/challengev10n1.pdf )

      In fact, Jerry uses the term "assumption" a lot. Just to be sure we're using the same meaning, here's the definition I'm using from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:
      Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assumption
      5b a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for granted

      We will find what Jerry is calling "assumptions" are not merely "taken for granted," but the result of conclusions based on direct observation and/or the relevant physics.


      Claimed assumption #1) The IUE lightcurves and more recent images both correspond to gas that is in the same physical location.

      Response:
      For nearly 15 years, Sn1987a was one of the most studied objects in astronomy. At the time of my initial work on the subject there were over 1700 published papers with "Sn1987a" in the title. Astronomers are pretty good at determining direction and distance. There is no other observed object in that direction at any distance (or any wavelength) that could be the source of the IUE curves. To that, we add the observed secondary illumination of the ring when the shock wave of the supernova explosion arrived as predicted. That's pretty strong direct observational evidence. Not a mere "assumption" that is simply "taken for granted."

      If Jerry has any evidence at all the IUE light curve is from some other object than that observed in the more recent images, he is invited to produce it.



      Claimed assumption #2) The structure visible is a ring, and not some more complicated geometry.

      Response:
      About the only other geometry that could produce the observed shape is an ellipse. Panagia, et. al. commented: "it is PHYSICALLY very hard to produce a high-eccentricity elliptical structure CENTERED on its source." (Emphasis in the original)
      Link: http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1991ApJ...380L..23P&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

      The fact we observe hundreds of rings in space and all of them are circular combined with the physical difficulty of producing an elliptical ring provide observational evidence supported by the relevant physics that the structure is, in fact, a ring.

      If Jerry has any evidence the ring is "some more complicated geometry," he is invited to produce it.



      Claimed assumption #3) The caustics in the IUE light curves do indeed represent the extreme light travel times.

      Response:
      If the observed ultraviolet (and visible) light does not, in fact, represent (what Jerry calls) "extreme light travel times" a change in the speed of light would be necessary. That will be discussed in much more detail below.



      Claimed assumption #4) The ring is circular and smooth.

      Response:
      We know of lots of rings. All of them are circular. The physical difficulty of producing a ring that is not circular has already been pointed out. Oh yeah, the ring isn't completely smooth either, it's somewhat "clumpy." However, that does nothing to change either distance or the travel time calculations. As before, if Terry has any evidence the ring around Sn1987a is not circular, he is invited to produce it.



      Claimed assumption #5) The delay time between when the UV pulse first hit the ring and the appearance of the UV line emission is negligibly small.

      Response:
      The delay from the time the UV pulse hits the ring to the illumination is irrelevant to the calculations. For example, if there was a 3 day delay between the pulse and the emission at the start of ring brightening, there would also be a 3 day delay in the ring reaching maximum brightness. In other words, the calculation is based on the 240 day time required for the ring to be illuminated as seen from Earth. Any delay in illumination would simply cancel out in the calculations. As stated already, alleged "assumption" is simply irrelevant.


      It has been shown that each of Jerry's claimed "assumptions" regarding Sn1987a are sound conclusions based on direct observational evidence and relevant physics or is simply irrelevant (as in #5). Jerry's claimed assumption #3, will be dealt with in detail later.....



      For some reason, Jerry likes to throw around the term "assumption." In regard to my claim that the trigonometry makes the distance to the ring proportionately greater if c was greater at the time and place of Sn1987a than it is now, Jerry claims I made an "assumption" regarding a higher value of c and the distance to the ring. What Jerry calls an "assumption" is the application of simple geometry. For example, if the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a were 10x current values, the light pulse reach the ring 10x faster and the "spread" in the illumination of the ring from earth's perspective would be only 24 days instead of 240. But the radius of the ring would still be the same at 6.23e12 km and the distance to the supernova object would still be 168,000 ly. The trigonometry vs. c point was simply to show the distance would still be 168,000 ly regardless of the value of c.

      The reason for pointing out the trigonometric aspect was simply so show a higher value for c would not change the distance calculation. Since Jerry has provided his own references the distance to the ring is 168,000 ly. and he seems inclined to accept them, I consider the matter of the distance to Sn1987a to be settled.

      That leaves the velocity of light and time open for discussion.




      Let's begin with the velocity of light issue:

      Jerry comments:

      "Also I question Geno's statement about an isotope with a 60 day half-life seeming in spectrographic data, to have a 120 day half life because the light would travel the same distance in 60 days at the time of origin as it would cover in 120 days when it reaches Earth."

      Jerry then goes into a lengthy discussion of half-lifes. It appears he may not have understood my explanation because I used a 2x change in c to explain what we would see and he is applying that to half-life. To avoid repeating that misunderstanding, I'm going to use an example in which the speed of light has changed 10x. Now... let's say some isotope has a half-life of 60 days with the speed of light 10x the current value. During that 60 days that light signature will travel the same distance as it does now in 600. Therefore, when light slows it will take 600 days the for light signature of that isotope to show one half-life has passed. We would see the decay take place over a period of 600 days when it actually took place in only 60 days.


      I had claimed the observed decay rates of Co-56 in the spectra of Sn1987a confirmed the speed of light at the time and place of Sn1987a was consistent with what we now observe on Earth. Jerry cited Setterfield as saying that if c were 10x greater,radioactive decay would take place 10x as fast. There is no justification for Setterfield's argument. If anything, due to Einstein's e = mc^2, the decay rate would be 100x as fast if c were 10x greater. Either this or the increased energy due to decay would have jumped out in the spectral data. It is worth note that Setterfield comments: "Unfortunately,or so it seems, both the light intensity curve and the timing of the appearance of the rings (and their disappearance) are in accord with a value for c equal to c now."

      I will counter the Setterfield claim with the fact that my original work ( http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm ) which formed the basis of my first affirmative, was edited and reviewed by Alec MacAndrew (PhD Physics) and reviewed by David Bowman (PhD Physics). From past experience, neither of them would hesitate to point out such a glaring error in my discussion of the physics.

      Dave Matson writes: "the decay rates observed for cobalt-56 and cobalt-57 were the actual decay rates and we are seeing things as they were 170,000 years ago." Link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html#A6

      A paper from Tufts university states:
      "As expected, gamma ray emission of Co-57 and Co-56 have been detected from SN 1987 A. These gamma rays show precisely the same energy levels as Co-57 and Co-56 do on earth. This means that the speed of light at the time the gamma rays were emitted from SN 1987 A was the same as it is on earth today." Link: http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/SN1987A.html


      There are also other evidences the speed of light is constant. In an August, 2002 paper published in the journal "Nature" Davies, et al. did find the speed of light may have changed since it left galaxies 12 billion ly from Earth.... by less than 0.001%. The way I usually put this in perspective is to note: 0.001% down and only 199,999,999.999% to go. (Note: The article requires a $30 payment, so I will not present the text here.)

      Even without the Davies measurement, pulsars would show a measurable variation if the speed of light were changing significantly.

      From David Matson's article (linked above):
      "an astronomer need only measure the spin of a number of pulsars over a few years to get definitive results. Pulsars keep such accurate time that a 1.3% difference--even after hundreds of years--would stand out like a giant redwood in a Kansas wheat field!"

      From Tufts University (also linked above):
      "in observing these millisecond pulsars, we are not seeing a slow motion replay as that would imply an actual spin rate which would have destroyed those pulsars. We couldn't observe them spinning that fast if light was slowing down."


      So, there are multiple lines of evidence the speed of light has not changed. Now, let's examine Setterfield's "c-decay" (CDK) theory....

      Dr. Gerald A. Aardsma (PhD Nuclear Physics and former Assistant Professor of Geophysics at ICR) writes:
      " ....even a cursory glance at the data reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not valid. .... For a data set consisting of measurements having error bars of varying lengths, it is not appropriate to give every data point equal weight as Norman and Setterfield have done. It is standard practice to weight the data points in inverse proportion to the size of their error bars..... When I analyzed the entire data set of 163 points using the standard, weighted, linear least squares method, the decay of c was determined to be: decay of c = 0.0000140 ± 0.0000596 km/s/year." (Emphasis in the original.)
      Link: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283

      Further, Setterfield has manipulated the data in order to obtain his curve. Dr. Aardsma goes on to point out: " ... there are some peculiarities in Norman and Setterfield's selection of data of which the reader needs to be aware..... Norman and Setterfield have chosen to use a reworked or "corrected" value for Roemer's c determination .... this single, anomalous point is responsible for most of the apparent 38 km/s/year decay which they report. Furthermore, Roemer's uncorrected c determination would graph below the line at -24%, more than offsetting the uncorrected Cassini value."

      In short, no credible statistical analysis would rely so much on a single (manipulated) data point in a set of 163 data points. The proper procedure when one has 1 of 163 data points that graphs "below the line at -24%" is to discard it as an outlier and make a note.... not bend the line to force-fit the point.

      As if the intentional manipulation of data isn't enough, let's examine the consequences of the kind of c-decay Setterfield claims. Setterfield claims the value of c was once 1e10 times greater than it is today. However, under Einstein (e=mc^2) that means the sun would put out 10e20 (a hundred billion billion) times the energy it does now. Without doing the calculation, I'd say it's safe to argue so much solar energy would almost instantly vaporize the Earth. In order to deal with that, Setterfield then claims mass must have been 10e20 times smaller than the present value. This takes care of the energy problem, but it creates other issues. For example, with so little mass, the Earth wouldn't have sufficient gravity to hold itself together because the force of gravity would be 10e40 times less (F(g) = Gm1m2/(r^2)) and anyone could easily jump and escape entirely from the planet. So, Setterfield is now forced to argue the Gravitational constant "G" was enough larger (10e40 times the present value) to offset the difference. Even then, Setterfield's model cannot satisfy the Law of Conservation of Energy (KE= 0.5mv^2) and the Law of Conservation of Momentum (p=mv) simultaneously because velocity (v) must change by different amounts with a change of mass.

      We see that Setterfield is compelled not only to change the speed of light (c) but also the Gravitational constant (G) and an intrinsic property of matter (mass) in an effort to make his model work and even then he cannot satisfy basic laws of science. At some point, an objective observer will be compelled to say "enough" and reject a model that is plagued by so many problems.

      Small wonder even the leading creationist ministries such as AnswersinGenesis and Creation.com list CDK as an argument creationists should avoid.
      (Link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use )
      ( Link: http://creation.com/arguments-we-think-creationists-should-not-use )


      ######



      Now, for the passage of time..... as it happens, Sn1987a also refutes Humphreys on this.


      Humphreys' model relies on gravitational time dilation which results from Einstein's theories. Unfortunately, once the mass of the universe begins to expand, time dilation evaporates quickly. As Jerry points out, Humprheys' "White Hole" cosmology has Earth at or near the center of a universe within the "Schwarzchild radius" of about 450 million light years. If I understand his model correctly, Humphreys says this is 30x smaller than now.

      That would place Sn1987a about 5600 ly from Earth. Consider what happens as Sn1987 moves to 12,444 ly. (This distance is proportional to increasing the radius of the universe to at least one billion light years.)


      Using the Schwarzchild equation: To = Tf (sqrt 1-(2Gm/rc^2))

      where:
      To = time for the slow ticking observer (zero if time is stopped)
      Tf = time for the fast ticking observer. (we will use 1 for the current rate of time on Earth)
      G = the gravitational constant (6.67e-11 m^3/kg sec^2)
      m = the mass of the object (in this case, it's the universe at 3e51kg)
      r = the distance to the center of mass
      c = the speed of light. (3e8 m/sec or 9.47e15 m/yr)

      Using one billion light years (9.47e24 meters) as the radius and solving for To, we get 0.728. To put it another way, once the universe reaches a radius of a billion light years, for 1000 years at the "edge" of the universe, 728 years would pass on Earth. Time at both Sn1987a and Earth would pass at similar rates.

      We know Sanduleak 69-202 was 168,000 ly from Earth before it went supernova because it had been observed and catalogued before the event. In Humphreys' model, when it was only 12,444 ly from Earth, clocks here were already running at 72.8% of the current speed and Sanduleak still had to travel 155,555 ly. If Sanduleak were moving away at the speed of light and with Earth clocks running at 72.8% of current speed, that would take over 113,000 years as measured on Earth.. Only then does the supernova event take place and light from it begin its journey to Earth. By that time, the universe would have reached its present size and Earth time would pass at the present rate. In other words, it would still take 168,000 years from the light pulse from the supernova event to reach Earth.



      Jerry said:
      "I say “at present” (Humphreys used the word “presently”) because his position is that hen the universe was created (and I am not trying to get the debate off into the Bible, I just need to refer to this to show Humphreys' thinking on the matter." I'm glad Jerry agrees we shouldn't "get the debate off into the Bible" because this brings up another aspect of Humphreys' model that is absolutely lethal.

      If the universe were 30x smaller, Earth would be 30x closer to the sun. Under the inverse square law, that means Earth would get 900x the energy from the sun it does now. When the distance doubles (as in the Sanduleak example) the Earth would still be getting 225x the energy. The atmosphere of Earth would heat to above the boiling point of water in a matter of days.



      In conclusion:
      We have seen the relevant equation uses only two variables, distance and velocity, to determine time. The argument about distance is over. The CDK model fails due to observational evidence that should be present but isn't; errors of methodology; and deliberate data manipulation.

      Having failed on the variables, the point of dispute has shifted to time itself. Unfortunately, that model also fails due to evidence present in the Sn1987a event.



      As I have a little space, I'll go ahead and address the latest attempt to deny the obvious...

      Dr. Jason Lisle's "convention." Lisle claims the speed of light is infinitely fast toward an observer. He attempts to simply define the problem away. Unfortunately, GPS relies on the time delay in the signal from the satellite to ground. If Lisle is right, GPS wouldn't work because every receiver locked onto the same satellites would give the same position fix (if any). Simply stated.... GPS works, Lisle's "convention" does not.

      In fact, reading Lisle's "convention" it becomes clear Lisle is much more interested in Biblical apologetics than in producing a working scientific model. So is Humphreys.

















      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Robert
      ... So, it may be proposed and demonstrated, are all young-earth creation-science promoters. ... They ve lost the battle over the age of stuff, and that is
      Message 2 of 2 , May 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, PIASAN@... wrote, in his concluding comments of his "second affirmative" post:

        > In fact...it becomes clear Lisle is much
        > more interested in Biblical apologetics
        > than in producing a working scientific
        > model.
        >
        > So is Humphreys.

        So, it may be proposed and demonstrated, are all young-earth creation-science promoters.

        Their fundamental position and faith statement being briefly summarized as:

        > We, young-earth creation-science promoters,
        > have our interpretation of the text regarding
        > the real world and that trumps any real
        > world evidence to the contrary.

        They've lost the battle over the age of stuff, and that is fundamental to any effort in resolving their other issues.

        While Lisle, Humphreys, McDonald, Ham, Fox, Benton, Willis, et al, may have many and varied "models" alleged to support their speculative ideas, none have succeeded in being what Pi makes reference to: "a working scientific model".

        They, of course, are welcome to keep trying, but they ought to be honest enough to admit they have not yet been able to beat my "Goliath of GRAS" or other legitimate arguments which go to demonstrating their failure to measure up to their scientific pretensions and legal challenges.

        Sincerely,
        Robert Baty
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.