1987a Mysteries

There are mysteries involving the supernova 1987a. Like, where is the neutron star that "should" be there according to their theories??? Answer: no one knows, it seems to be MIA.

"Astronomers also are still looking for evidence of a black hole or a neutron star left behind by the blast. The fiery death of massive stars usually creates these energetic objects. Most astronomers think a neutron star formed 20 years ago. Kirshner said the object could be obscured by dust or it could have become a black hole.He plans to use the infrared capabilities of the Wide Field Camera 3 — an instrument scheduled to be installed during the upcoming Hubble servicing mission — to hunt for a stellar remnant."
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc.../2007/10/full/

20 years later and still missing. Hmm.

Then there is this one
"Soon after the supernova appeared, emissions of ultra-violet, infrared and visible light grew steadily fainter, following a predicted decay curve. But changes in the supernova's "light curve" over the past year now leave astronomers puzzled..."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_11515679

"So far so good. But although the shape of the light curve mimics the decay of cobalt-57, the magnitude of the curve -- indicating the amount of light now emitted by 1987A -- exceeds that predicted by theory, both teams say. One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system..."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...40/ai_11515679

A few of the reasons that the standard assumptions are not, obviously, gospel.
My opinion that a different state existed in the past, in our universe explains it for me.

dud1, Your links are invalid as is your reasoning!

"This requested article does not exist." "FILE NOT FOUND"

dud1 quote, "My opinion that a different state existed in the past, in our universe explains it for me."

Don't start your unsupported drivel on yet another thread! Unknowns or yet to be discovered astronomical features do not lead rational thinkers to discard all of established science as you have. There is or was NO "split" between states of the past or present as your delusional rants state endlessly with no evidence whatsoever. Give it up!

The manners rule applies here, in other words, if anyone actually expects an answer from me, they can drop the insulting tone, and namecalling.

For the benefit of lurkers, who may want to look up the links, I will provide this link.
http://www.christianforums.com/t5234338-1987a-mysteries.html

So? You posted the same drivel on a Christian site? Are we supposed to be surprised? You never answered the points I brought up. "Unknowns or yet to be discovered astronomical features do not lead rational thinkers to discard all of established science as you have. There is or was NO "split" between states of the past or present as your delusional rants state endlessly with no evidence whatsoever. Give it up!

Never even looked at them, since I don't respond to those type of posts as I clearly said. (be nice, and don't call names) As for the link I gave, it has the same info, and links, but I think the links (same links) work, for some reason there. At least they do when I click on them.

The feature is that a star is supposed to be there, and doing stuff, but it is missing now for 20 years. The features are discovered, like the three rings, they just can't explain them! They try, using only present natural theory, but fail. Don't try and handwave it away.

That is a funny claim. You can't back it up. Your only option is to say you have no idea, you really do not know. Anything else is silly dark religion.

This post has been edited by dad1 on Apr 24 2007, 05:31 AM

Your concept is silly dark religion! GIVE IT UP! Steady-state physics may be too difficult for you to comprehend, but even most religious people understand and accept it. This concept does not require constructs of God, gods, idols, religions, sects, cults or even demons, hell or the like. Study the history of science, read a book or two and learn of the REAL source lies, thoughts, concepts, theories and yes, even the sources and dissemination of religions! I have studied and read about comparative religions and studied them from an anthropological perspective. I would suggest you get some background in order to base your posts on something resembling reality!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_religion

These would be an excellent starting point, then follow links as your curiosity is piqued and time allows!

"Religions as Social Construction." wikipedia.

"This group of models holds that religion is a social construction, rather than referring to actual supernatural phenomena, that is, phenomena beyond the natural world that we measure using the scientific method. Some of these models view religion as nonetheless having or having had a mostly positive effect on society, the individual, and civilization itself, and others view it as having or having had a mostly injurious or destructive effect. Many of these views have their origins in the field of the sociology of religion.

Often these models are adopted by non-religious or anti-religious people to explain religion in terms of purely natural phenomena, so that no supernatural explanations are necessary. In contrast, religious people believe that religion has both natural and supernatural explanations."

"Religion as a Byproduct of Evolutionary Psychology" wikipedia.

"This model holds that religion is the byproduct of the cognitive modules in the human brain that arose in our evolutionary past to deal with problems of survival and reproduction."

"In a large enough group, some individuals will seem better skilled at these rituals than others and will become specialists. As the societies grow and encounter others, competition will ensue and a "survival of the fittest" effect may cause the practitioners to modify their concepts to provide a more abstract, more widely acceptable version. Eventually the specialist practitioners form a cohesive group or guild with its attendant political goals (religion)." wikipedia quote.

Darwinism applied to the debunking of religions!

"Opiate of the Masses Model." wikipedia.

"In this model, held by individuals such as Karl Marx and Bertrand Russell, religion is seen as a tool concocted by the powerful to pacify and oppress the powerless. As Bertrand Russell wrote, "Religion in any shape or form is regarded as pernicious and deliberate falsehood, spread and encouraged by rulers and clerics in their own interests, since it is easier to control over the ignorant." In this model, the development of religion is seen as analogous to the growth of a cancer: and the most "developed" religion would be no religion at all."

"As to the development of the cults, the authors present four models: the Psychopathological Model, the Entrepreneurial Model, the Social Model and the Normal Revelations model.

Psychopathological model: religions are founded during a period of severe stress in the life of the founder. The founder suffers from psychological problems, which they resolve through the founding of the religion. (The development of the religion is for them a form of self-therapy, or self-medication.)

Entrepreneurial model: founders of religions act like entrepreneurs, developing new products (religions) to sell to consumers (to convert people to). According to this model, most founders of new religions already have experience in several religious groups before they begin their own. They take ideas from the pre-existing religions, and try to improve on them to make them more popular.

Social model: religions are founded by means of social implosions. Members of the religious group spend less and less time with people outside the group, and more and more time with each other within it. The level of affection and emotional bonding between members of a group increases, and their emotional bonds to members outside the group diminish. According to the social model, when a social implosion occurs, the group will naturally develop a new theology and rituals to accompany it.

Normal revelations: religions are founded when the founder interprets ordinary natural phenomena as supernatural; for instance, ascribing his or her own creativity in inventing the religion to that of the deity. " wikipedia.

After reading material such as this, doesn't it naturally lead one to see the mass delusions, cult-like indoctrinations and basic falsification of ALL religions?

The state was steady only since it came to be. Creationists have assumed it was at creation, and science somewhere like the big bang. But neither has any evidence for that, as your inability to provide any here and now shows.

What, in those links might we find of interest? Here, perhaps is a place to get to the nitty gritty, and basis of concepts, not to give favorite links.

Natural only models apply only in the limited framework, or fishbowl of the present physical only natural universe state.

Silly head trips, and judgment calls of the factually handicapped.

Pinko pontifications!

You think you are in a position to say that spiritual influences and inspiration do not exist? Show us, then, the proof.

Not really, it makes me wonder at the silly lengths some will go to to avoid a thread topic.

This post has been edited by dad1 on Apr 24 2007, 07:05 AM

dud1. Such a massive star would have probably produced a black hole rather than a neutron star. Black holes are incredibly tiny and black so cannot be seen directly, especially since this one is 163,000 light years away and in the midst of the debris of a explosion that was equal to a hundred million suns when it went off.

Fact. The explosion happened. We saw it's light reach Earth in 1987 after travelling for 163,000 years so proving a same past and proving you a lying dudbeat yet again. We can see three large rings of debris and among other things 20,000 Earth masses of iron isotope created in the explosion.

What a cretin! He's proved himself wrong.

[removed by admin]

dad1....I will be as polite as possible since you requested that people do so....

You seem to lack the ability to grasp a certain fundamental logical error with your thinking....an error that leads to post after post....

No matter if the past was different or the same....you admit that the past has been the same for the last several thousand years. The logical flaw comes in the following:
If we observe something that following current laws must be older than your "split", then that being observed MUST be older than your suggested "split"
You have failed to admit this many, many, many times....

I simply want you to admit that you realize the truth of my above statement....so that people do not write you off as insane....

The rest of the conversation can follow after this rather simple understanding is achieved.

[removed by admin]

LOL, nice one Kaneda

The originator of this thread is "factually handicapped." We have asked you to prove OR SHOW ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of your "split" delusion, and now you ask me to prove that spiritual influences and inspiration do not exist? Did you read and comprehend the human frailty that leads to religions? They are man-made in their entirety. Only the gullible, fairy-tale believing, "factually handicapped" believe in spiritual influences and inspiration, religions and cults (lumped together on purpose), deities, gods, idols or God and Heaven or Hell. All of these concepts have been traced back to their roots in ignorance and superstition. You are right where you belong! I'll choose science and enlightenment.

The evidence for or against a same or different state is beyond the realm of science. If that were not so. you would be able to prove your myth of a same past state!

Only if you claim they did not exist!

Only in YOUR statements of faith in a state of the past that is but a myth.

Pagan diarrhea. Prove there is no spiritual, ot lose your silly claims. I mean that.

This post has been edited by dad1 on Apr 25 2007, 07:44 AM

Prove there is. Or at least prove that your version of the spiritual is true. After all, if we are unable to prove there isn't (and we can't), that doesn't mean Christian is right. Islam could be, Paganism could be, Voodoo could be, or some other religious views which humans haven't considered.

There's certainly a lot more to the universe than we currently understand. It's flawed logic to say "We can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore the Christian God exists".

No, I admit it. Now, show us what you observed 4400 years ago, and how the dates are arrived at?