'Astronomy' Domine

Nucular · 29th May 2003, 07:16 AM

I followed a link from a 'young universe' debate I've been following on a different forum (haven't joined in yet), and I got, irritatingly, what sounds like very poor science, that I don't know enough about to comment on.

Quote:

Not only that, but the predictions for the Milky Way’s satellite galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud are also consistent with a young universe. Theory predicts 340 observable SNRs if the LMC were billions of years old, and 24 if it were 7000 years old. The number of actually observed SNRs in the LMC is 29

(SNR=supernova remnant)

Basically talks about a slightly unexpected finding from Hubble. I understand the preposterousness of this claim in the light of all other evidence, but I've never read anything about this claim specifically.

Fraud? Fiction? Fact? Ffff... nope, run out of 'f' possibilities

Anybody able to answer this claim?

Cheers,
Nucular

Martin · 29th May 2003, 07:50 AM

Your first port of call in these matters should usually be TalkOrigins.

Incidentally, I'm involved in quite a few of these debates on various forums - would you mind giving the URL for this one?

Dancing David · 29th May 2003, 07:56 AM

Uh, I'm a supernova remenant, does that count.

So wouldn't the shells dissapate over time and be canabalized by various other galactic features.
Sound like using science to fight my pet peeve to me.

Nucular · 29th May 2003, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Martinm
Your first port of call in these matters should usually be TalkOrigins.

Incidentally, I'm involved in quite a few of these debates on various forums - would you mind giving the URL for this one?

Thanks for the link - yeah, that should've been my first port of call - slip of the brain

This debate is at FaithForum - no-one's posted for a while, mind.

c0rbin · 29th May 2003, 12:21 PM

Great Floyd tune, that.

EdipisReks · 29th May 2003, 01:28 PM

ummagumma is a great album, all around.

Nucular · 29th May 2003, 03:19 PM

Is it on Ummagumma too? I know it from The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Really more of a Barrett-era early Floyd person myself. Only through lack of trying though

EdipisReks · 29th May 2003, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nucular
Is it on Ummagumma too? I know it from The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Really more of a Barrett-era early Floyd person myself. Only through lack of trying though

it's the first track of ummagumma.

rwguinn · 29th May 2003, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nucular
I followed a link from a 'young universe' debate I've been following on a different forum (haven't joined in yet), and I got, irritatingly, what sounds like very poor science, that I don't know enough about to comment on. (SNR=supernova remnant)

You're right- poor science. Circular logic, circular references

Quote:

[/i]

Basically talks about a slightly unexpected finding from Hubble. I understand the preposterousness of this claim in the light of all other evidence, but I've never read anything about this claim specifically.

Fraud? Fiction? Fact? Ffff... nope, run out of 'f' possibilities

Anybody able to answer this claim?

Cheers,
Nucular

If you follow the references, it is mostly based on a 1976 paper, which really predates Hubble, even without the contact lens -and the references from the later dates tend to reference each other and the 1976 reference. Just because you refernece a 1994 paper doesn't mean there is 1990's data there-especially when the 1994 reference references the 1976 paper....
My head hurts.

RW

Brian the Snail · 30th May 2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nucular
I followed a link from a 'young universe' debate I've been following on a different forum (haven't joined in yet), and I got, irritatingly, what sounds like very poor science, that I don't know enough about to comment on.

Oh my...

I find it pretty amusing that creationists use supernova remants as proof of a young universe. After all, if the universe is just 7000 years old, why was the distance to one particular supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud, SN1987A, measured to be 168,000 light years (within very good accuracy).
So, the age of the universe is at least 168,000 years old. And most probably much, much older since the LMC is actually very close to us in relative terms, and most galaxies are much, much further away.

And no, speculating that the speed of light has changed in past doesn't work here (follow the links in the website I linked to).

So could this be yet another case of selective reporting, distortions, and downright lies from our Creationist friends?

You decide...

BillyJoe · 30th May 2003, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin
Great Floyd tune, that.

But lousy lyrics.....

Astronomy Domine

Lime and limpid green, a second scene
A fight between the blue you once knew.
Floating down, the sound resounds
Around the icy waters underground.
Jupiter and Saturn, Oberon, Miranda
And Titania, Neptune, Titan.
Stars can frighten.

Blinding signs flap,
Flicker, flicker, flicker blam. Pow, pow.
Stairway scare Dan Dare who's there?
Lime and limpid green
The sounds surrounds the icy waters underground
Lime and limpid green
The sounds surrounds the icy waters underground.

rwguinn · 30th May 2003, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian the Snail

Oh my...

I find it pretty amusing that creationists use supernova remants as proof of a young universe. After all, if the universe is just 7000 years old, why was the distance to one particular supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud, SN1987A, measured to be 168,000 light years (within very good accuracy).
So, the age of the universe is at least 168,000 years old. And most probably much, much older since the LMC is actually very close to us in relative terms, and most galaxies are much, much further away.

And no, speculating that the speed of light has changed in past doesn't work here (follow the links in the website I linked to).

So could this be yet another case of selective reporting, distortions, and downright lies from our Creationist friends?

You decide...

Slapping myself silly here!

Talk about whizzing right past the obvious!
I guess this really means that 1) Einstein Lied, 2) scientists are all liars, or 3) God is a liar.
Can't see how that fits with the beneficent, omnipotent deity touted by the Creationalists...

RW

29th May 2003, 07:16 AM	#1
Nucular Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream Posts: 3,050	'Astronomy' Domine I followed a link from a 'young universe' debate I've been following on a different forum (haven't joined in yet), and I got, irritatingly, what sounds like very poor science, that I don't know enough about to comment on. Quote: Not only that, but the predictions for the Milky Way’s satellite galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud are also consistent with a young universe. Theory predicts 340 observable SNRs if the LMC were billions of years old, and 24 if it were 7000 years old. The number of actually observed SNRs in the LMC is 29 (SNR=supernova remnant) Basically talks about a slightly unexpected finding from Hubble. I understand the preposterousness of this claim in the light of all other evidence, but I've never read anything about this claim specifically. Fraud? Fiction? Fact? Ffff... nope, run out of 'f' possibilities Anybody able to answer this claim? Cheers, Nucular
	__________________ From the UK? Sceptical? Like forums? Well my psychic powers tell me that the UK Skeptics' Forum is for you - 8 out of 10 sceptics demand to know where these figures came from. Non sunt in coeli, quia fvccant vvivys of heli (Flen Flyys, c.15th Century) Get out of my head, Nucular (kmortis)

29th May 2003, 07:50 AM	#2
Martin Sceptic Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 898	Your first port of call in these matters should usually be TalkOrigins. Incidentally, I'm involved in quite a few of these debates on various forums - would you mind giving the URL for this one?
Martin Sceptic Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 898	__________________ So the Universe is not quite as you thought it was. You had better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the Universe. Isaac Asimov and Robert Silverberg, Nightfall

29th May 2003, 07:56 AM	#3
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,720	Uh, I'm a supernova remenant, does that count. So wouldn't the shells dissapate over time and be canabalized by various other galactic features. Sound like using science to fight my pet peeve to me.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

29th May 2003, 08:43 AM	#4
Nucular Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream Posts: 3,050	Quote: Originally posted by Martinm Your first port of call in these matters should usually be TalkOrigins. Incidentally, I'm involved in quite a few of these debates on various forums - would you mind giving the URL for this one? Thanks for the link - yeah, that should've been my first port of call - slip of the brain This debate is at FaithForum - no-one's posted for a while, mind.
	__________________ From the UK? Sceptical? Like forums? Well my psychic powers tell me that the UK Skeptics' Forum is for you - 8 out of 10 sceptics demand to know where these figures came from. Non sunt in coeli, quia fvccant vvivys of heli (Flen Flyys, c.15th Century) Get out of my head, Nucular (kmortis)

29th May 2003, 12:21 PM	#5
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Great Floyd tune, that.
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

29th May 2003, 01:28 PM	#6
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	ummagumma is a great album, all around.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

29th May 2003, 03:19 PM	#7
Nucular Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Brane 6, Brahman's Dream Posts: 3,050	Is it on Ummagumma too? I know it from The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Really more of a Barrett-era early Floyd person myself. Only through lack of trying though
	__________________ From the UK? Sceptical? Like forums? Well my psychic powers tell me that the UK Skeptics' Forum is for you - 8 out of 10 sceptics demand to know where these figures came from. Non sunt in coeli, quia fvccant vvivys of heli (Flen Flyys, c.15th Century) Get out of my head, Nucular (kmortis)

29th May 2003, 03:30 PM	#8
EdipisReks Custom Title Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The 'Nati Posts: 1,952	Quote: Originally posted by Nucular Is it on Ummagumma too? I know it from The Piper at the Gates of Dawn. Really more of a Barrett-era early Floyd person myself. Only through lack of trying though it's the first track of ummagumma.
	__________________ "Candy to rot your teeth. Bible to rot your brain." --EvilDave (7-24-2003) "I read the Book Of Mormon once. Wasn't it about Uma Thurman, um, thrumming a Theremin?" --epepke (9-22-2004)

29th May 2003, 07:42 PM	#9
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,447	Re: 'Astronomy' Domine Quote: Originally posted by Nucular I followed a link from a 'young universe' debate I've been following on a different forum (haven't joined in yet), and I got, irritatingly, what sounds like very poor science, that I don't know enough about to comment on. (SNR=supernova remnant) You're right- poor science. Circular logic, circular references Quote: [/i] Basically talks about a slightly unexpected finding from Hubble. I understand the preposterousness of this claim in the light of all other evidence, but I've never read anything about this claim specifically. Fraud? Fiction? Fact? Ffff... nope, run out of 'f' possibilities Anybody able to answer this claim? Cheers, Nucular If you follow the references, it is mostly based on a 1976 paper, which really predates Hubble, even without the contact lens -and the references from the later dates tend to reference each other and the 1976 reference. Just because you refernece a 1994 paper doesn't mean there is 1990's data there-especially when the 1994 reference references the 1976 paper.... My head hurts. RW
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

30th May 2003, 02:40 AM	#10
Brian the Snail Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 963	Re: 'Astronomy' Domine Quote: Originally posted by Nucular I followed a link from a 'young universe' debate I've been following on a different forum (haven't joined in yet), and I got, irritatingly, what sounds like very poor science, that I don't know enough about to comment on. Oh my... I find it pretty amusing that creationists use supernova remants as proof of a young universe. After all, if the universe is just 7000 years old, why was the distance to one particular supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud, SN1987A, measured to be 168,000 light years (within very good accuracy). So, the age of the universe is at least 168,000 years old. And most probably much, much older since the LMC is actually very close to us in relative terms, and most galaxies are much, much further away. And no, speculating that the speed of light has changed in past doesn't work here (follow the links in the website I linked to). So could this be yet another case of selective reporting, distortions, and downright lies from our Creationist friends? You decide...
Brian the Snail Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 963

30th May 2003, 05:01 AM	#11
BillyJoe Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: MOOROOLBARK Posts: 12,539	Quote: Originally posted by c0rbin Great Floyd tune, that. But lousy lyrics..... Astronomy Domine Lime and limpid green, a second scene A fight between the blue you once knew. Floating down, the sound resounds Around the icy waters underground. Jupiter and Saturn, Oberon, Miranda And Titania, Neptune, Titan. Stars can frighten. Blinding signs flap, Flicker, flicker, flicker blam. Pow, pow. Stairway scare Dan Dare who's there? Lime and limpid green The sounds surrounds the icy waters underground Lime and limpid green The sounds surrounds the icy waters underground.
	__________________ A secular society is one in which no one loses any liberty as a consequence of someone else's religious beliefs. NB Allowing yourself to get led around the nose by a person like Craig is a losing strategy. SH Morality is a social coating around a Darwinian core. JC My joke about freewill: There is no basis for it.

30th May 2003, 03:46 PM	#12
rwguinn Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes Posts: 8,447	Re: Re: 'Astronomy' Domine Quote: Originally posted by Brian the Snail Oh my... I find it pretty amusing that creationists use supernova remants as proof of a young universe. After all, if the universe is just 7000 years old, why was the distance to one particular supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud, SN1987A, measured to be 168,000 light years (within very good accuracy). So, the age of the universe is at least 168,000 years old. And most probably much, much older since the LMC is actually very close to us in relative terms, and most galaxies are much, much further away. And no, speculating that the speed of light has changed in past doesn't work here (follow the links in the website I linked to). So could this be yet another case of selective reporting, distortions, and downright lies from our Creationist friends? You decide... Slapping myself silly here! Talk about whizzing right past the obvious! I guess this really means that 1) Einstein Lied, 2) scientists are all liars, or 3) God is a liar. Can't see how that fits with the beneficent, omnipotent deity touted by the Creationalists... RW
	__________________ "Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." "I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275