[quote='Statler Waldorf' pid='116336' dateline='1296865858']
[quote]
Well it’s all based on averages and estimates. On average our galaxy encounters a supernova every 25 years. These supernova remnants could last for about a million years, reaching stage 3 after about 10,000 years. If the universe were 6,000 years old we’d expect to see about 125-150 stage 2 supernova remnants and zero stage 3 remnants because the galaxy has not been around long enough to produce any. We actually see about 200 stage 2 remnants and zero stage 3 remnants. This would put the estimated age of the Milky Way galaxy at around 7,000 years, which is pretty consistent with the Biblical age of 6000-7000 years. Of course this means the galaxy should not be any older than 10,000 years because we cannot see the stage 3 remnants. So there you go.[/quote]
Non answer.
Yes, a supernova occurs every 25 years on average, but you have failed to address the fact that it takes a star millions of years to arrive at the supernova stage.
Fail.
[quote]
Proof? Sounds like personal opinion to me. [/quote]
In the absence of a viable mechanism for how ASC works it is more than personal opinion.
[quote]
First of all, the fact that you had never heard of ASC is irrelevant. Secondly, you obviously have not read Einstein’s work on the subject because he does give it consideration and says he chose what is now called ESC not because ASC was wrong, but because he preferred a velocity-dependant convention rather than a position dependent one. That’s why we call these conventions, the math works with all of them, they just are preferences. [/quote]
Citations please or I'm calling bullshit on this one.
[quote]
Yes I am sure two galaxies colliding is a pretty amazing event to witness. You have done nothing to demonstrate that they do not serve a purpose just like air molecules colliding do. [/quote]
Since you have yet to prove that god even exists, saying that colliding galaxies are evidence of his glory can only be idle speculation on your part. All the available evidence actually indicates a random, uncaring universe so I have no requirement to demonstrate that they don't serve a purpose.
[quote]
I am sorry, I just find it funny that you would call other people ignorant when your post reeks of impropper grammar and several spelling errors. Just made me smile. [/quote]
Just made me LOL.
As to the observer holding the mirror, according to ASC the beam of light departs the emitter at half c, strikes the mirror and returns at infinite velocity. Yet, also according to ASC the observer should see that light beam coming towards them at infinite velocity then departing at half c , so the light beam is simultaneously travelling at two different velocities. And that is without considering the fact that it violates the law regarding conservation of energy and most known physics.
So even if Einstein did initially consider ASC, it is very easy to see why he would have rejected it
[quote]
Well it’s all based on averages and estimates. On average our galaxy encounters a supernova every 25 years. These supernova remnants could last for about a million years, reaching stage 3 after about 10,000 years. If the universe were 6,000 years old we’d expect to see about 125-150 stage 2 supernova remnants and zero stage 3 remnants because the galaxy has not been around long enough to produce any. We actually see about 200 stage 2 remnants and zero stage 3 remnants. This would put the estimated age of the Milky Way galaxy at around 7,000 years, which is pretty consistent with the Biblical age of 6000-7000 years. Of course this means the galaxy should not be any older than 10,000 years because we cannot see the stage 3 remnants. So there you go.[/quote]
Non answer.
Yes, a supernova occurs every 25 years on average, but you have failed to address the fact that it takes a star millions of years to arrive at the supernova stage.
Fail.
[quote]
Proof? Sounds like personal opinion to me. [/quote]
In the absence of a viable mechanism for how ASC works it is more than personal opinion.
[quote]
First of all, the fact that you had never heard of ASC is irrelevant. Secondly, you obviously have not read Einstein’s work on the subject because he does give it consideration and says he chose what is now called ESC not because ASC was wrong, but because he preferred a velocity-dependant convention rather than a position dependent one. That’s why we call these conventions, the math works with all of them, they just are preferences. [/quote]
Citations please or I'm calling bullshit on this one.
[quote]
Yes I am sure two galaxies colliding is a pretty amazing event to witness. You have done nothing to demonstrate that they do not serve a purpose just like air molecules colliding do. [/quote]
Since you have yet to prove that god even exists, saying that colliding galaxies are evidence of his glory can only be idle speculation on your part. All the available evidence actually indicates a random, uncaring universe so I have no requirement to demonstrate that they don't serve a purpose.
[quote]
I am sorry, I just find it funny that you would call other people ignorant when your post reeks of impropper grammar and several spelling errors. Just made me smile. [/quote]
Just made me LOL.
As to the observer holding the mirror, according to ASC the beam of light departs the emitter at half c, strikes the mirror and returns at infinite velocity. Yet, also according to ASC the observer should see that light beam coming towards them at infinite velocity then departing at half c , so the light beam is simultaneously travelling at two different velocities. And that is without considering the fact that it violates the law regarding conservation of energy and most known physics.
So even if Einstein did initially consider ASC, it is very easy to see why he would have rejected it
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
