Super nova that guys like Bill have to deal with

[RonO]

There is a write up in Nature on a super nova. This should be of
interest to TO because of the age of the universe discussions.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7674/full/nature23908.html?foxtrotcallback=true

I'm sorry but you have to pay to read it.

The bottom line is that these super nova are common. This was the 4th
one that they detected in April (by mid month) in the region of sky that
they were scanning. A super nova occurs in a galaxy around every 100
years and there are billions of galaxies. So these stars are dying all
the time.

This particular one, Super nova MUSSES1604D, is 546 mega parsecs from
earth. Light can travel one parsec in around 3.26 years, so this star
died over 1.5 billion years ago. They use this type of super nova to
estimate distance because of the uniformity of the light given off by
the type of super nova that it is.

The thing is that these stars are dying in galaxies near and far and it
takes light different amounts of time to get to us. What does this mean
for YEC? Eddies group is no longer YEC. They don't have to worry about
facts like these because they changed their interpretation of the Bible.
A day can be billions of years long and the sun and moon are no longer
created on the fourth day.

Really, it takes light around 100,000 years to cross our galaxy and
other galaxies are obviously not inside of our own. These super nova
are obviously popping off on a regular basis in galaxies different
distances away from ours. How could we be seeing the death of stars
over a billion light years away from us if the universe is less than
20,000 years old? They observed 4 super novas in half a month, and the
the different times that they could have died encompasses billions of
years, so how did the light from the 4 super nova in different galaxies
reach earth witnin 17 days of each other? The closest galaxy to earth
is 2 million light years away and these 4 galaxies are spread across
quite an arc of sky. Really these galaxies span distances where it
would take from millions of years to billions of years for light to
reach us and yet we can observe 4 super nova within 17 days.

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Oct 14, RonO wrote
(in article <orum1j$v32$1...@dont-email.me>):

obviously their lying god started the light on its way back when he waved his
hands and created the universe. he did this to test their faith and to show
his power and because he could. given that their deity is, according to
-them_, a massive con artist, then it must be okay for them to lie their
little asses off in the service of the Father of Lies. Which is exactly what
they do. See, for example, Eddie and Ray.

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 11:55:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> There is a write up in Nature on a super nova. This should be of
> interest to TO because of the age of the universe discussions.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7674/full/nature23908.html?foxtrotcallback=true
>
> I'm sorry but you have to pay to read it.

Google Scholar can often help. Here it is for free....

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.01824.pdf

<snip>
>
> Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

This option was the first thing that the scientific creationists came up
with but they don't like it because their god would have to be deceiving
them. This is light from a range of ages. The designer would have had
to create light from some stars like Sandulek 1987 on the edge of our
galaxy as if they had never existed and blew several hundred thousand
years ago, and light from this star (another star that never would have
existed) as if it had blown up over 1.5 billion years ago. So it isn't
just one deception, but far too many to claim that it was an accident.
Why would the designer create light from a star that had never existed
as if that star had blown up billions of years before he created the
universe?

They have also claimed that the speed of light was faster in the past,
but what would happen to things like energy equals mass times the speed
of light squared? How would the stars stay together? How did the
earth's atmosphere survive with that much more energy coming from our
sun? Really, they were talking about increasing the speed of light by
over 5 orders of magnitude. We aren't talking about doubling or
tripling, but over 100,000 fold increase. The earth would get quite a
sun tan if the sun could keep from exploding.

They have some newer idea that their designer wrapped the earth in some
type of sigularity where time ran slower on earth than outside of it and
then this sigularity went away. The designer would have to shield the
earth from outside energy because that singularity would be absorbing
billions of years worth of energy from the stars and our sun in what on
earth would be just a few thousand years. There is also the problem
that the Bible doesn't mention any singularity or mention the rest of
the universe when it describes what things were like before the earth
was created.

Ron Okimoto

[Öö Tiib]

On Sunday, 15 October 2017 14:55:02 UTC+3, Ron O wrote:
> There is also the problem
> that the Bible doesn't mention any singularity or mention the rest of
> the universe when it describes what things were like before the earth
> was created.

Bible tells us that sun, moon and stars were created at 4th day.
So either Bible literally claims that all the universe besides earth
was created at Wednesday or it is just allegory of some sort, not meant
to be taken literally and even not part of the message of Bible.

May be the unbelievable creation story is in there as test for us to see
whom to trust. People who claim that Bible (allegedly written by humans)
has recorded facts more correctly than objective reality (allegedly made
by God) should perhaps not be trusted.

Bible seems like book of stories how weakness and fallibility of
humans is very universal and massive. It did cause problems to those
humans starting from very first humans. Biblical literalism is likely
one of such mistakes. It seems described there as major mistake of
Pharisees, scribes and priests. Those who can't accept the reality
(like those Pharisees, scribes, priests and Ray) should not be
trusted. Disclaimer: that is my atheistic interpretation of the
book.

[Rolf]

"Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
news:90105779-e7f7-4fa9...@googlegroups.com...

Creationists don't know what they are talking about, all they care about is
to try and prove that the Bible is our best source of knowlede about
origins - both of the universe, the solar system, and our planet and all its
life.
That the excercise entails gross denial of our knowledge about the world is
only an inconvenient fact they prefer to ignore.

They don't want to know what I learned already 13 years old, in 1943 when I
bought my first science book.
I learned 'everything', from the construction of the Mt. Palomar telescope
to Peking man and Australopithecua, and was fascinated by the pictures of
their sculls.
That made me dream of becoming a palaeontologist but I went other ways.
Maybe that's why I am here instead.

Rolf



---
E-posten er sjekket for virus av AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[RonO]

On 10/16/2017 1:36 PM, Rolf wrote:
> "Bill Rogers" <broger...@gmail.com> skrev i melding
> news:90105779-e7f7-4fa9...@googlegroups.com...
>> On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 11:55:02 PM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
>>> There is a write up in Nature on a super nova. This should be of
>>> interest to TO because of the age of the universe discussions.
>>>
>>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v550/n7674/full/nature23908.html?foxtrotcallback=true
>>>
>>> I'm sorry but you have to pay to read it.
>>
>> Google Scholar can often help. Here it is for free....
>>
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.01824.pdf
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>
> Creationists don't know what they are talking about, all they care about is
> to try and prove that the Bible is our best source of knowlede about
> origins - both of the universe, the solar system, and our planet and all its
> life.
> That the excercise entails gross denial of our knowledge about the world is
> only an inconvenient fact they prefer to ignore.

My guess is that they need the Bible to be inerrant. That is their
claim. There are groups like the Catholics that understand that the
Bible can contain errors or at least our interpretation of the Bible has
been found to be in error. The Catholics pretty much gave up on bucking
science after Newton. They had been burned too many times along with
their victims.

Eddie's group don't say why they changed their minds, but there are
obviously parts of the Bible that they had been incorrectly interpreting.

You hear fundies say that if you can't trust one part of the Bible how
can you trust any of it, so that is their mentality.

>
> They don't want to know what I learned already 13 years old, in 1943 when I
> bought my first science book.
> I learned 'everything', from the construction of the Mt. Palomar telescope
> to Peking man and Australopithecua, and was fascinated by the pictures of
> their sculls.
> That made me dream of becoming a palaeontologist but I went other ways.
> Maybe that's why I am here instead.
>
> Rolf

Gee Rolf, you are older than my dad. I started reading science fiction
after going to Mt Palomar on a high school science club outing. In the
lobby they had Analog science fiction magazines on the coffee table and
I picked one up and started reading it. I had to go to the library and
find the magazine so I could finish the story.

Ron Okimoto

[Rolf]

"RonO" <roki...@cox.net> skrev i melding news:os3e0b$dm4$1...@dont-email.me...

I am in doubt about whether I should consider myself blessed, lucky or what
to reach such an age;)

Every night at bedtime as I enjoy a glass of Amontillado I am reminded of
the Edgar Allan Poe novel
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cask_of_Amontillado) (the guy might have
suffered a worse fate than that.).

Rolf