Big Bang cant explain this? Please take time to read?

Question

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star. This explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines most of the galaxy. These Supernova Remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years according to physical equations. Yet there are ZERO very old Stage 3 SNRs in the known universe and very few moderately old Stage 2 SNRs. If the universe is over 16 billion years (the planets, stars, etc. are 4.57 billion years old) old there would be literally hundreds of thousands or millions of these. There are more stars in the known universe then there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the world. The fact is the universe is not old enough to have any Stage 3 SNRs. These galaxies have not been around long enough for wide expansion.

Answer 1

Wherever you cut this from, the person who wrote it has no idea what he was talking about. The universe is 14.5 billion years old, not 16. And the Big bang was proven decades ago in Stephen Hawking's work. If you are going to plagiarize a creationist propaganda website, at least give them credit by telling us where you got this garbage. We all know that YOU did not write this.

Furthermore, just because we do not see any stage 2 or 3 SNRs, that does NOT therefore mean we are wrong about the age of the universe, there could just as easily (and much more likely be) another logical explanation for the absence of these phenomenon.

Answer 2

From NASA: They dissipate, and become undetectable.


In the first phase, free expansion, the front of the expansion is formed from the shock wave interacting with the ambient ISM. This phase is characterized by constant temperature within the SNR and constant expansion velocity of the shell. It lasts a couple hundred years.

* During the second phase, known as the Sedov or Adiabatic Phase, the SNR material slowly begins to decelerate by 1/r(3/2) and cool by 1/r3 (r being the radius of the SNR). In this phase, the main shell of the SNR is Rayleigh-Taylor unstable, and the SNR's ejecta becomes mixed up with the gas that was just shocked by the initial shock wave. This mixing also enhances the magnetic field inside the SNR shell. This phase lasts 10,000 - 20,000 years.

* The third phase, the Snow-plow or Radiative phase, begins after the shell has cooled down to about 106 K. At this stage, electrons begin recombining with the heavier atoms (like Oxygen) so the shell can more efficiently radiate energy. This, in turn, cools the shell faster, making it shrink and become more dense. The more the shell cools, the more atoms can recombine, creating a snowball effect. Because of this snowball effect, the SNR quickly develops a thin shell and radiates most of its energy away as optical light. The velocity now decreases as 1/r3. Outward expansion stops and the SNR starts to collapse under its own gravity. This lasts a few hundreds of thousands of years. After millions of years, the SNR will be absorbed into the interstellar medium due to Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities breaking material away from the SNR's outer shell.

Answer 3

Some have been found. They are hard to see and don't last long which is why they hadn't been detected at the time the argument you are using was written. Even if they had not been detected the stage 2 remnants would require an older universe than the biblical 4000 years. Then there is all of the other evidence about the age of the universe which you are ignoring completely.

Answer 4

That is absolutely incorrect.

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/sarfati's_RE_reviewed_henke.htm

"Like most young-Earth creationist books that I've read, Jonathan Sarfati's "Refuting Evolution" is full of elementary errors in astronomy, chemistry, geology and the nature of science. For example, when arguing for a "young" Universe, Sarfati (p. 113) claims that no stage 3 supernova remnants exist in our or neighboring galaxies. However, 166.2+2.5, 180.0-1.7, 189.1+3.0, 279.0+1.1, and 290.1-0.8 are just five undisputed examples of these "nonexistent" remnants. "


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

And More Specifically and more Importantly:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/#BM105

Young Earth Creationist are LIARS.

Answer 5

This really should be in the astronomy section, not the religious section.

By 'stage three' I'm assuming you mean the state of the remnant, not the explosion of a population III star (also observed as hypernova and gamma ray bursts). SN remnants are very difficult to observe, since they are just clouds of gas. In fact, you can't see them unless they are nearby, and our galaxy simply isn't old enough to contain any - and we don't have the technology to observe them outside the galaxy.

There's your answer - they are too far away to see.

Answer 6

Look, please stop trying to hinder science in the area that it is given. If you are a strict creationist, I just have to ask you how the first "day" in Genesis can refer to 24 hours when the sun didn't exist yet (according to the version of Genesis). rather, one needs to understand that "yom", the Hebrew word translated as "day", can also be used in reference to "eon" or "period of time". So, this wouldn't rule out the process of creation or big bang.

Answer 7

How can you know this did you somehow count the stars and the grains of sand? That is the most ******** story I have ever heard and you pretending to know so much. It just amazes me.

Answer 8

What is in a name? What is the difference between the "big bang" and God saying "Be" and it was? This is simply a difference in terminology. Neither explanation offers much of a definitive answer to what was before.

Answer 9

If the big bang is true, then Bible Creation would go well with the scientific Big Bang; however, according to my many studies on the subject, the Big Bang could not have happened.

Answer 10

This kind of science can get you a job as an alleyway abortionist.