New Supernova discovered by amateur

http://www.wral.com/amateur-spots-new-supernova-and-this-weekend-you-can-too/16703252/

From the article:

By Tony Rice

"A "new" supernova has been discovered by an amateur astronomer. The discovery came as Patrick Wiggins compared images of the galaxy taken from his telescope near Salt Lake City, Utah on May 12 with those taken early May 14. The discovery has been confirmed by additional observations worldwide.

Supernovae mark the end of a star's life with a tremendous explosion, the result of runaway internal nuclear reactions. Based on analysis of the light emitted, Wiggins' discovery was determined to be a Type-IIP supernova which occurs in stars ten or more times larger than our own. Light from this supernova took 22 million years to reach Earth.

While supernovae are rare in our own galaxy ”“ occurring about once per century ”“ this is the tenth one discovered in the last 100 years in NGC 6946, also known as the Fireworks Galaxy."
-----------

The comment that it took the light from this explosion 22 million years to get here caught my interest. That means the explosion took place 22 million years ago.

"The comment that it took the light from this explosion 22 million years to get here caught my interest. That means the explosion took place 22 million years ago."

Not necessarily. The speed of light is not a constant. Under certain conditions, light speed can actually change.

It's amazing how astrophysicists don't know that.

Wrong thread.

One thing that is rarely mentioned by astrophysicists is the expansion of the universe from the moment of creation (or what they would refer to as the "bang").

The speed of light is supposed to be a universal constant. However, that "speed" is distance divided by time (i.e., per second 299,792,458 meters/second or 186,000 miles/second).

Even if that speed is a constant, it is interesting to note that the size of the universe has NOT been constant. Physicists believe that all of the matter in the universe was once in one confined minuscule space -- but that the sudden and explosive "bang" created a sudden and explosive expansion to the universe that continues to this day.

In other words, the size of the universe went from nearly nothing to BANG a size that has increased ever since.

Why would this matter?

The initial "size" of the universe was small...and light was able to spread across the known universe in such a reduced state at a rate that would be constant yet (given the smaller size) was consistent with spreading across the entire known universe very quickly. Moreover, the "speed" of light had to be greater than the "escape velocity" of light despite all known matter.

A "black hole" is a collapsed star that was so dense with gravity so strong that even light cannot escape once it has passed across the event horizon. Yet, light HAD to have escaped when that "bang" of creation happened. In other words, the speed of light had to be greater than the accumulated mass of the entire known universe in those initial moments of creation. In other words, light traveled faster AND it happened across a universe that wasn't nearly as expansive as it is today.

I believe that these two things greatly effect the "time" and "distance" measurements of the universe.

Of course they know it, but they have a preconceived notion that the universe is billions of years old. This idea, along with the idea that men evolved from lower animals such as fish and amphibians, has been in pagan philosphies for thousands of years; philosophers such as Anaximander believed that men evolved from fish.

They also have serious problems with the Big Bang theory, such as the horizon problem

Chris-

Are you saying the supernova truly is 22 light years away, but that the light only really took

Let God be true and every man a liar.

From everything I have read on the creation account, God created the universe "in-motion" as it were. Think about it. If God created the heavens and the earth, made the earth first, and then the sun, he also had to set the orbit of the earth and all the planets. He CREATED the orbits. He didn't wait for the planets to fall into their current pattern. He put them there and set them in motion. He created this star to go one way, and another star to go another. One galaxy to move this direction. One galaxy to move another. God also had to create the oceans pre-oxygenated for the fish. He had to create our atmosphere with it's temperature gradients and layers, with the right amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide to support plants and animals.

He created the earth with a lithosphere and a mantle and a core.

He didn't throw a bunch of raw ingredients together and then let everything settle. He created everything in a working state.

Knowing and understand this, it makes it entirely possible that God created a supernova, and the stream of light which had an order to it--the end of the light stream already at earth showed a star. The middle of the stream showed the supernova. The end of the stream is what is currently going on, which we won't ever see.

That's the old "God created the universe with an appearance of age but not actual age" argument, whic I cannot buy on moral grounds.

Why not? God created everything for His own pleasure, not yours. He could do whatever He wanted.

No matter how far you take it back, no matter what scientific origin account you subscribe to, you have to grapple with the fact that God created "something" in motion. You can't reduce it down far enough to escape it.

This article expresses it better than I ever coud:

https://www.str.org/publications/star-light-the-age-of-the-universe

There's actually frontier research on theories which propose a varying speed of light: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

When it comes to cosmology, scientific conclusions are predicated on assumptions about the early universe. Usually it is assumed that the early universe had the same set of Physics laws and universal constants as we do today - which is a fair assumption if you're a secular scientist. However, I believe the biblical account suggests otherwise (Creation, the Fall, the Flood).

The mainstream scientific account of creation also has its share of problems. Here's a list of some of the issues: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Problems_and_related_issues_in_physics

Fundamentally, creation is more of a historical issue than a scientific one. Unless you have a time machine and travel back in time, you would never be able to figure it out precisely... at best you can only make some scientific guesses, based on assumptions which might seem reasonable but ultimately wrong.

TMK,

That was a very interesting article. Thanks for sharing it!

I don't agree with it at all, and he uses circular reasoning, but it was an interesting read. God doesn't have to justify anything He does to us. If God exists outside of time, which I believe He does, then He can orchestrate an entire series of events simultaneously that for us, appear to stretch out across time. Biblical prophecy is a prime example.

Quote: "God doesn't have to justify anything He does to us."

I agree, to a point. The question is whether He has intentionally tricked us. I would say no, that this would be contrary to His character.

Actual true science, whatever that may be, and the Bible are in agreement. To the extent they seem not to be it is because we are misinterpreting one or the other or both.

When Jesus walked on water, was it supernatural or explicable via science?

I wasn't really talking about miraculous events. These obviously are supernatural.

EDIT: I would add that "true" science would accept the existence of God and the supremacy of Christ as Lord.

So, creating the heavens and the earth, and all that is within them out of nothing is not supernatural?

Fair enough TMK. That's a good point on which we can agree. Thanks for the article!

Hi Todd,

I am saying that time is relative based upon several factors (including the perspective of the viewer). The speed of light is considered a universal constant; yet, speed itself is distance divided by time (e.g., meters/second, miles/hour, etc.).

The universe is expanding. This is one reason for the theory of the "big bang." If it is expanding in a roughly uniform direction at a high rate of speed, then it had to have come from a singular point in space.

Consider the various perspectives of those who would have witnessed such an event. You have the perspective from the singular point in space of the "beginning." You have the perspective inside of the expansion of the space (what physicists call the "known universe"). Yet, there is also the perspective of the outside looking in.

Since time is relative, then time will have passed differently based upon the point of perspective. What seems to be a moment from one perspective might be great amount of time from the opposite perspective. Time from the vantage point of the Earth is very different from the perspective outside of the known universe looking in.

This is even more complicated by what we know of the things like escape velocity or how space (and the light in it) "bends" according to gravity influenced by density.

Now, we know what "escape velocity" is. On the Earth, escape velocity is measured at approximately 11.2 km/s (kilometers per second) or roughly 7 miles per second. This is the velocity necessary for something to escape Earth's gravity.

The escape velocity of a black hole -- a star that has collapsed under its own dense mass -- is higher than the very speed of light itself. In other words, light itself cannot escape such a mass.

Now, if light itself cannot escape the velocity of a single star that has collapsed under its own mass, what do you think the "escape velocity" of the mass of the entire known universe must have been? After all, the "big bang" postulates that all mass of the known universe was once together in one massively dense singularity.

If the composition of light cannot escape a black hole -- a single collapsed star -- then how fast must it travel to escape the collective mass of the entire known universe?

If you've watched or read science fiction, then you've undoubtedly seen elements of the variation of time passage as it approaches things like a black hole or other massively dense singularities. Time passes by at different rates relative to the person depending upon their proximity to such a singularity.

In terms of Biblical truth, eternity is a completely different realm where time is viewed differently. After all, a "day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day." God knew us before we were born. We are seated with him in heavenly realms. The Lord caught John up and showed him things that would take place long after he breathed his last breath and when his body turned back into dust.

In other words, I am presenting two different things to consider when considering the age of the Earth and, more importantly, the age (and radius) of the universe. One is the relativity of time as understood through perspective. The other is the consideration of the speed of light (and hence time and distance) in regard to the mass of the known universe at the point of creation.

There is, of course, other thoughts to consider. When the Lord created the universe, he could have easily created it in a moment of which the universe and its distance was already predetermined. In other words, light from the most distant stars would have already reached the Earth in that moment of creation.

I hope that this clarifies what I meant.

Chris wrote:
"When the Lord created the universe, he could have easily created it in a moment of which the universe and its distance was already predetermined. In other words, light from the most distant stars would have already reached the Earth in that moment of creation. "

I don't have a problem with anything you wrote (I've read A Brief History of Time- but admittedly I didn't quite understand everything in it)-- except for the above point.

I believe that YE creationists should abandon the "God created the universe with the appearance of age" idea. It suggests that God did not realize that someday man would be smart enough to make scientific discoveries, take measurements, etc. We are able to see first hand many things, such as the weathering of Mars. We know that worn down mountains like the Appalachians are older that craggy mountains like the Rockies. To suggest that God created "brand new" mountain ranges with the appearance of mountains that have gone through very long processes of erosion is to suggest He was being deceptive- something I personally cannot buy into.