PDA

View Full Version : Question about supernovas



calluke
2007-Jan-18, 10:53 PM
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

How can this be explained?

p.s. if there IS no answer, please spare me hours of reading by just saying "I don't know". thanks in advance! :o)

Amber Robot
2007-Jan-18, 10:57 PM
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years.

Can you give a reference for this?

StupendousMan
2007-Jan-18, 11:01 PM
According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

How can this be explained?

p.s. if there IS no answer, please spare me hours of reading by just saying "we don't know". thanks in advance! :o)

First, please show the quantitative calculations which justify your claim that "the nearby parts of our galaxy ... contain only about 200 supernova remnants." Be sure to clarify what you mean by "nearby."

Second, please justify quantitatively your claim that supernova remnants should be visible for one million years after the explosion.

Once you've done those things, we can discuss this issue. Until then, we can't.

Oh, and this probably isn't the right place to bring up the idea that the universe is only as old as described in the Bible ... just in case that's where you were going with this.

calluke
2007-Jan-18, 11:07 PM
Can you give a reference for this?

Forgive me. Here are my sources...

Davies, Keith, 1997. Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy

Sarfati, J.D., 1997 (Jun-Aug). Exploding stars point to a young universe: Where are all the supernova remnants?, Creation Ex Nihilo 19(3):46-48;

Also, if you google it, you will find many more.

01101001
2007-Jan-18, 11:28 PM
Psychic prediction: here's where we're going.

TalkOrigins Archive: There are too few supernova remnants for an old universe (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE401.html)

Van Rijn
2007-Jan-18, 11:35 PM
Forgive me. Here are my sources...

Davies, Keith, 1997. Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy


Issues with his claims are discussed in detail here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM10

This is a YEC claim, in case anyone was wondering. Quoting:

10. Are Supernova Remnants evidence of a young Universe?
All of the YEC literature on the WWW concerning supernovae and supernova remnants originates from one article written in 1994 by a Canadian, Keith Davies, entitled "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the Galaxy". This article is part of the Creation Discovery Project. Various versions and summaries of this article appear on various other YEC web sites including Answers in Genesis (by Jonathan Sarfati), Creation in the Crossfire (by Jon Colley), Creation Online and He Comes....24. According to the Creation Science Association For Mid-America, Davies' article is based on a presentation25 he gave at the Third International Conference on Creationism in 1994

JohnW
2007-Jan-18, 11:45 PM
Since it's pretty obvious where we're going with this: how far away are the SNRs we can see? And if they are more than 6000 light-years away and the universe is 6000 years old, how can we see them?

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 02:08 AM
Since it's pretty obvious where we're going with this: how far away are the SNRs we can see? And if they are more than 6000 light-years away and the universe is 6000 years old, how can we see them?

Could it be possible that our "time" is measured differently than the rest of the universe? Meaning, 6 or 7,000 years of our time, could be millions of years outside of our universe? (please note, this is not a claim but a question about possibility)

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 02:16 AM
First, please show the quantitative calculations which justify your claim that "the nearby parts of our galaxy ... contain only about 200 supernova remnants." Be sure to clarify what you mean by "nearby."

Second, please justify quantitatively your claim that supernova remnants should be visible for one million years after the explosion.

Once you've done those things, we can discuss this issue. Until then, we can't.

"Real science never has to resort to credentialism. If someone with no credentials raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducatued or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don't have an answer, so you want the questioner to go away". Author Orson Scott Card, 2005


Oh, and this probably isn't the right place to bring up the idea that the universe is only as old as described in the Bible ... just in case that's where you were going with this.

Is that where you think i was going?

Van Rijn
2007-Jan-19, 02:24 AM
Is that where you think i was going?

It does seem rather obvious, given that it was a YEC claim. Anyway, be sure to read the link I posted previously. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=907562&postcount=6) It answers your OP question nicely. (Basically, there are many errors in the claim.)

Van Rijn
2007-Jan-19, 02:28 AM
Could it be possible that our "time" is measured differently than the rest of the universe? Meaning, 6 or 7,000 years of our time, could be millions of years outside of our universe? (please note, this is not a claim but a question about possibility)

By "outside the universe" do you mean "all the rest of the universe"? We have no evidence of anything outside the universe, and it isn't relevant to this issue.

Anyway, no, there is no evidence for a local "time bubble." There is no discontinuity in the light we see and there is no demonstrated physical reason for such a bubble. There is, however, vast evidence from multiple fields that the earth and the universe are billions of years old.

Swift
2007-Jan-19, 02:32 AM
calluke,
I would agree that if someone with no credentials raises a legitimate question, it should be answered.

But if you check the links that 01101001 and Van Rijn supplied, there is a ton of research that shows that the assumptions and calculations in Davies' report are incorrect, including the 1 supernova per 25 years and that the remnants are visible for 1 million years.

Amber Robot
2007-Jan-19, 02:33 AM
"Real science never has to resort to credentialism. If someone with no credentials raises a legitimate question, it is not an answer to point out how uneducatued or unqualified the questioner is. In fact, it is pretty much an admission that you don't have an answer, so you want the questioner to go away".

I don't think he was referring to credentials at all. You started your opening post with three premises and then a question about the implications of those premises. However, if we can't agree that the premises are true, then questions about the implications are moot.

You state as a matter of fact the following three things:

1 - Supernova rate in the Milky Way
2 - Lifetime of visible supernova remnants
3 - Current number of visible supernova remnants

I'm not an expert in supernovae, or supernova remnants, so I was curious as to the evidence that these three things are true, as your opening claim states.

To be "credentialism" would be to ask about your level of education and then dismiss you because you don't have the same level of education as those whom you are asking the question. To ask for references for statements of facts has nothing to do with that.

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 02:35 AM
It does seem rather obvious, given that it was a YEC claim. Anyway, be sure to read the link I posted previously. (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=907562&postcount=6) It answers your OP question nicely.

So do you not credit the source because the source disagrees with your philosophy of life?

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 02:37 AM
To be "credentialism" would be to ask about your level of education and then dismiss you because you don't have the same level of education as those whom you are asking the question. To ask for references for statements of facts has nothing to do with that.

Sorry Amber, the quote was not towards you. References should always be included, that was my mistake, thank you for bringing that to my attention.

Swift
2007-Jan-19, 02:48 AM
So do you not credit the source because the source disagrees with your philosophy of life?
calluke,
If one source says x, and ten sources say not-x, no matter one's philosophy, which one is probably correct? If you examine all the references, particularly well documented in Van Rijn's link, the basic assumptions of Davies' study appear to be wrong.

In addition to that, just about everything else we know about the universe is inconsistent with it having an age of 7000 years.

Swift
2007-Jan-19, 02:53 AM
calluke,
I will suggest one other thing. The Q&A forum is to answer particular scientific questions, not to debate things. IMHO, your supernova question has been answered. You are free to disagree with that answer and to debate it. But Q&A is not the place - you might want to take this discussion to the ATM forum (you can start a new thread or ask a moderator to move this one). You should be aware, that if you have an alternative theory, that you will be asked to show evidence for it and to defend it (see the ATM forum for particular details).

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 03:04 AM
calluke,
If one source says x, and ten sources say not-x, no matter one's philosophy, which one is probably correct? If you examine all the references, particularly well documented in Van Rijn's link, the basic assumptions of Davies' study appear to be wrong.

If we went by majority science, mr. swift, than we would still believe that the sun still traveled around the earth. And the words that most jump out of your last quote is "appear to be wrong". Well, the earth appeared to be flat. Science has been wrong, and will contine to show flaws in present and future assumptions. (that is not to say i don't believe science eventually gets things right). But to say that we should just trust the majority is bound for history to repeat itself - the majority looking idiotic (in the case of the earth was flat theory)


In addition to that, just about everything else we know about the universe is inconsistent with it having an age of 7000 years.

I would say, that right now, there is a ton more 'assumptions' that the age of the universe is millions of years old, but i do believe there are many flaws and contradictions and evidence in the world that shows we have a younger earth than we think. But why would science as a majority want to ever attempt to go that route, when the majority of scientists would have to throw away their personal beliefs in darwinism and evolution? So they throw away any evidence found by "creationists" (as done with my evidence presented).

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 03:09 AM
calluke,
I will suggest one other thing. The Q&A forum is to answer particular scientific questions, not to debate things. IMHO, your supernova question has been answered. You are free to disagree with that answer and to debate it. But Q&A is not the place - you might want to take this discussion to the ATM forum (you can start a new thread or ask a moderator to move this one). You should be aware, that if you have an alternative theory, that you will be asked to show evidence for it and to defend it (see the ATM forum for particular details).

Did i miss something? I can't find any answers.

Van Rijn
2007-Jan-19, 03:26 AM
Did i miss something? I can't find any answers.

You certainly have. I again note this link, where your claim is dealt with in detail:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM10

The answer to your OP question:


How can this be explained?

is that the claims are incorrect.

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 03:46 AM
You certainly have. I again note this link, where your claim is dealt with in detail:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM10

The answer to your OP question:


is that the claims are incorrect.

Thank you Van Rijn. I must have missed that link. To be honest, I skimmed through most of it due to length, but it definitely seems like a lot of evidence against it. Thanks again!

JohnW
2007-Jan-19, 04:14 PM
I would say, that right now, there is a ton more 'assumptions' that the age of the universe is millions of years old, but i do believe there are many flaws and contradictions and evidence in the world that shows we have a younger earth than we think. But why would science as a majority want to ever attempt to go that route, when the majority of scientists would have to throw away their personal beliefs in darwinism and evolution? So they throw away any evidence found by "creationists" (as done with my evidence presented).
Most scientists (in fact virtually all scientists) have "personal beliefs" in evolution because that's what the evidence indicates. As can be seen in this thread, the "evidence" presented by creationists was not thrown away. It was examined and found to be in error.

If you think you do have (non-religious) evidence for a young Earth, feel free to present it. The ATM section would be a more appropriate place than Q&A.

calluke
2007-Jan-19, 06:45 PM
If you think you do have (non-religious) evidence for a young Earth, feel free to present it. The ATM section would be a more appropriate place than Q&A.

thanks john - i'll check that out!
luke

Kaptain K
2007-Jan-21, 05:47 AM
Is that where you think i was going?
No! That is where we know you are going! Every post you make just reinforces it!

publius
2007-Jan-21, 06:07 AM
If we went by majority science, mr. swift, than we would still believe that the sun still traveled around the earth

Actually, that's sort of an ironic comment, considering that there is a strain of creationism that believes in Geocentrism, that the earth is the non-rotating center of very small and young universe. They further believe the Bible supports, and even requires this. Some have argued for Geocentrism here -- see the "Galileo Was Wrong" thread in ATM.

It was science that realized the objective evidence supports a heliocentric system, not a geocentric one.


-Richard