The death of young earth arguments

[ninewands]

Okay ... I promised this in EB over at RnR. However, since I don't bother much with EB anymore, I guess I'll put it here.

On February 24, 1987 the light from the explosion of the blue supergiant star Sanduleak -69° 202a (spectral class B3) reached the earth and was observed by Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, Albert Jones in New Zealand, and Colin Henshaw in Zimbabwe.

In addition to the visible-light discovery of the supernova some twenty-four neutrinos and anti-neutrinos above background were detected at three instruments (The Kamiokande II in Japan, the IMB Detector in Ohio and the Baksan 5 detector in the Caucasus of the former Soviet Union) over a period of some 13 seconds beginning at 7:35am, February 23, 1987, Coordinated Universal Time. The neutrinos from the explosion arrived at earth before the visible light did because the shock wave from the core collapse had to reach the surface of the star before any unusual visible light could be emitted. The precise timing of the detection of the neutrinos lets us know exactly when SN1987A exploded from an earth-bound point of view.

SN1987A, because it is relatively close to the earth, is the most observed supernova in history. Shortly after its explosion, it was observed using the Russian-built Astron II orbiting ultraviolet telescope, which gathered light-curve data indicating it was a type II-P core-collapse supernova. However, some of the most dramatic images of the supernova had to wait for the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope in April of 1990. When Hubble came online and its Faint Object camera was turned on SN1987A on August 23 and 24 the circumstellar ring around the supernova remnant was revealed in all its glory.

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/Supernova-1987a.jpg

The ring, which is a result of the impact of the light, especially UV, from the explosion on ejecta from the progenitor star's stellar wind was first observed approximately eight months after the explosion. This has been confirmed by later observations that show the brightness of the ring follows, but lags by about eight months, the variations in the brightness of the supernova remnant. This means the radius of the ring is approximately eight light-months, or two-thirds of a light-year.

The exquisite resolution of the images from Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera has allowed observers to measure the angular radius of the ring at 808+-17 milli-arcseconds. Applying basic trigonometry, we get the distance to SN1987A as:

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/SN1987a.jpg

So there it is. The death knell of young-earth creationism without resort to radiometric dating, redshift or anything more advanced than high-school math. The universe is at least 168,000 years old because it took the light from SN1987A 168,000 years to get here.

Now, one of the YECs' favorite arguments to deal with phenomena like this is to try and argue that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past. However, if one uses a faster speed of light "back then" and decays it exponentially, the circumstellar ring winds up being considerably larger than two-thirds of a (current) light-year and SN1987A winds up being significantly farther away from earth. So their "argument" only makes their own problem with the supernova worse.

{Note to mods: If you think this would be more appropriate in S&S don't hesitate to move it there.}

[Mike PSS]

I'm sure your holding back the radioisotopic measurements for round 2.

[socle]

In b4 "appearance of age" :D

[ninewands]

I'm sure your holding back the radioisotopic measurements for round 2.
Nope, I'm doing the radioisotope stuff over in the other thread (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1263).

[Mike PSS]

So, if the speed of light didn't increase in the past (because the ring and the other signals would be larger) and the there was no A.N.D. (because the measurements of decay are consistent with present measurements) then what IS the explanation in a YEC perspective for this object.

"Creation in situ?"
Ummmm.... (running out of options here)

[ninewands]

Don't know, Mike ... I have never been a YEC ... in fact, I was SHOCKED the first time I saw Inherit the Wind to find out that Bishop Ussher had calculated the age of the earth to be six thousand years ... and I was only eleven then. :D

[Ian Nerr]

last tuesday
God is testing our faith
Satan is fucking with us
the scientists are lying
I don't believe in trigonometry

[Constant Mews]

So, if the speed of light didn't increase in the past (because the ring and the other signals would be larger) and the there was no A.N.D. (because the measurements of decay are consistent with present measurements) then what IS the explanation in a YEC perspective for this object.

"Creation in situ?"
Ummmm.... (running out of options here)

Neither ICR nor AIG deal with SN1987A at all. Russel Humphreys mad a stab at it, but his "theory" has since been discarded even by YECs. C-decay has been proposed, but unfortunately that would also involve changes in radioactive decay rates and observations of SN1987A have demonstrated that they have not changed in the last 200,000 years or so.

[Febble]

Ooh, goody, I've been waiting for this.

Thanks!

And to any YECs who may be reading: the reason we sometimes produce single examples (like Suigetsu, and now this) as refutations of YEC is not because the anti-YEC argument rests on single examples, but because each alone virtually falsifies YEC.

However, they are NOT alone. They all interlink. Even this OP is intricately related to the Suigetsu story, because it concerns the constancy of decay rates over time, and therefore underpins the finding that The Curves Agree.

It all hangs together. And it all refutes YEC.

OK - let's get on with this one!

[Asha'man]

C-decay has been proposed, but unfortunately that would also involve changes in radioactive decay rates and observations of SN1987A have demonstrated that they have not changed in the last 200,000 years or so.

C-decay has a another very basic problem: E=mc2. If you change the value of c, then the amount of energy you get from nuclear fusion (converting mass to energy) changes dramatically. Stars exist as a balance between the compression provided by gravity and the expansion provided by the energy of nuclear fusion in the core. Essentially, a slightly higher value for c means the star blows itself apart. Therefore, if you can see stars at all, you know that c is at least reasonably close to it's current value.

Since we can see individual stars very easily in the Andromeda galaxy, that means c is essentially unchanged at least 3 million years ago. We can see galaxies (but not individual stars) out to about 12 billion years, and everywhere in-between, and there is no point at which galaxies appear to be composed of anything other than stars.

[JonF]

Um ... SN1987A is fascinating and fatal to YEC arguments for all sorts of reasons. But the argument you have presented here proves the distance from us to SN1987A and does not prove that the speed of light has not varies. Not only could the speed of light have been varied while the light was traveling to us and the result would be the same, the speed of light could have been a function of time and position in the past and the result would be the same (as long as it didn't vary too fast with position).

http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm hs a brief explanation of why. I can supply a more detailed one if desired.

[JonF]

It all hangs together. And it all refutes YEC.

OK - let's get on with this one!
Dave's discussed this one extensibley already. At AtBC? I forget exactly.

The usual parade of lies, misrepresentations, evasions and PRATTs

[RAFH]

last tuesday
God is testing our faith
Satan is fucking with us
the scientists are lying
I don't believe in trigonometry

I don't believe in trigonometry either, but I know it works, extremely well. Every time, all the time. No matter how many times you add up the interior angles of a polygon, you'll get 180(n-2), every time, all the time. It never varies. So it's not a belief, it's a mathematical fact, a truth. So is the relationship of sines to cosines and tangents, sin/cos = tan, and that is always true. No belief is involved whatsoever, no belief is needed.

[Mike PSS]

Ooh, goody, I've been waiting for this.

Thanks!

And to any YECs who may be reading: the reason we sometimes produce single examples (like Suigetsu, and now this) as refutations of YEC is not because the anti-YEC argument rests on single examples, but because each alone virtually falsifies YEC.

However, they are NOT alone. They all interlink. Even this OP is intricately related to the Suigetsu story, because it concerns the constancy of decay rates over time, and therefore underpins the finding that The Curves Agree.

It all hangs together. And it all refutes YEC.

OK - let's get on with this one!
I think a change in perspective is needed. The findings of SN1987A, just like Lake Suigetsu or any other paper, are in no way shape or form intended as a refutation of the YEC position.

These findings, like almost all other scientific findings, are meant to further the knowledge and understanding of the fields of study they are within.

It is the YECKIES who take umbrage with the conclusions and it is the YECKIES who publically gnash their teeth and stomp their feet. The refutation of the YEC position is not by the scientists conclusions at all but by the YECKIES misunderstanding of their interpretattion of biblical passages. The self-same scientists who read the YECKIES objections must respond in kind because it is the nature of scientists to address any and all critical objections to scientific work. Only, the YECKIES are not playing in the scientific field, therefore scientific answers are never adequate for the YECKIES.

SN1987A doesn't refute the YEC position, it reinforces our understanding of the universe. The YECKIES refute their own position by either not accepting or incorporating this and other findings into their made-up universe.

But they still have X-Rays at the hospital, and use Wi-Fi, and support Hubble, and make money off investments in oil companies. And all these actions support science that, if the YECKIES understood, refute their position.

[Autodidact]

Which do you believe, God or some scientist in a lab coat?

[socle]

It all hangs together. And it all refutes YEC.

OK - let's get on with this one!
Dave's discussed this one extensibley already. At AtBC? I forget exactly.

The usual parade of lies, misrepresentations, evasions and PRATTs
Wow---I would have thought Dave would simply ignore this topic. I started a similar thread on SN1987A at Rapture Ready a few years ago, and IIRC most of the fundies resorted to some sort of "appearance of age" argument, while a few others glommed on to Setterfield's wacko "c-decay" theory.

[David M]

Which do you believe, God or some scientist in a lab coat?

On matters of Faith - God
On matters of science - the scientific method and its results

both after due consideration of course.

[llanitedave]

On matters of Faith - God
.

Via which Earthly representative? Via which wishfully-thinking brain delusion?

[RAFH]

Which do you believe, God or some scientist in a lab coat?

Neither, for knowledge, I go with the facts, and I don't do the belief thing, I just accept whether or not the argument made is made well, made rationally and supported by empirical observation and that the whole is consistent and consilient with what I already know.

Because there are only two possibilities:
1-It is consistent and consilient with what I already know.
2-It isn't consistent and consilient with what I already know.

And if it isn't consistent and consilient with what I already know, then there are two possibilities:
1-It is wrong, and what I already know is right
2-It is right, and what I already know is wrong.

If the former, I need to understand how and why it is wrong.
If the latter, I need to understand how and why what I already know is wrong.

Eventually I will either reject the new information and not include it in my model or I will have to keep the new information and amend my model.

Belief doesn't enter into the process because belief is the acceptance of information purely on faith, with no reason to do so other than faith in the authority figure, faith in a written narrative, faith in whatever, unquestioning faith.

I do occasionally engage a bit of faith, when I am totally ignorant of the situation and have nothing else to go on, that may be faith in an authority figure, but only those I trust because they have, in the past, proven to be worthy of my trust, in other words, they have been right more often than not, or faith in my own intuition and sensibility, which in the past has served me better than not. So even those bits of faith have some rational argument and evidence supporting them.

[hecaterin]

Last Thursdayism is the only possible recourse for the honest YEC.

It makes god into a deceiver, but that can easily be spun as a test. I like to suggest that it's quality control. God doesn't want the dishonest ones :)

[Calilasseia]

Um ... SN1987A is fascinating and fatal to YEC arguments for all sorts of reasons. But the argument you have presented here proves the distance from us to SN1987A and does not prove that the speed of light has not varies. Not only could the speed of light have been varied while the light was traveling to us and the result would be the same, the speed of light could have been a function of time and position in the past and the result would be the same (as long as it didn't vary too fast with position).

http://www.evolutionpages.com/SN1987a.htm hs a brief explanation of why. I can supply a more detailed one if desired.

Interestingly enough, that page you linked has itself a link to the original paper which described the first ever measurement of the trigonometric parallax of SN1987A. So apparently it has been measured. I'm now in the process of converting the awkward single page PDFs into a single document so that it is more manageable. :)

EDIT: Done. I have the document integrated from its separate pages into a single PDF.

[Calilasseia]

Double post.

Posted this post (http://www.talkrational.org/showthread.php?p=32624#post32624) over at the other thread. Since it's another of my infamous chunky posts (though still within the 20K limit) it's probably less bandwidth hungry to link to it than reprise it wholesale here. :)

[disgracian]

Science. It works, bitches (http://xkcd.com/54/).

Cheers,
D.

[RAFH]

Science. It works, bitches (http://xkcd.com/54/).

Cheers,
D.

Yep. And you notice even the believers, those that accept statements for no other reason than they were told to as children or some book has written in it is true, they still use the working science in their efforts to discredit it. That's the part I don't understand. It's like being a communist who invests in the Stock Exchange. Sorry, you ain't no communist.

[Ray Moscow]

Re the OP: arguments like this, although very strong and sometimes incontrovertible, require the reader to have some understanding of science itself -- at least at a high-school level or so.

The usual situation is that YEC's don't.

[ninewands]

Science. It works, bitches (http://xkcd.com/54/).

Cheers,
D.
Or this classic,

AAAS issues warning to Pat Robertson -- You have turned away from science (http://ideas.4brad.com/node/303)

[PBandH]

Okay ... I promised this in EB over at RnR. However, since I don't bother much with EB anymore, I guess I'll put it here.

On February 24, 1987 the light from the explosion of the blue supergiant star Sanduleak -69° 202a (spectral class B3) reached the earth and was observed by Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, Albert Jones in New Zealand, and Colin Henshaw in Zimbabwe.

In addition to the visible-light discovery of the supernova some twenty-four neutrinos and anti-neutrinos above background were detected at three instruments (The Kamiokande II in Japan, the IMB Detector in Ohio and the Baksan 5 detector in the Caucasus of the former Soviet Union) over a period of some 13 seconds beginning at 7:35am, February 23, 1987, Coordinated Universal Time. The neutrinos from the explosion arrived at earth before the visible light did because the shock wave from the core collapse had to reach the surface of the star before any unusual visible light could be emitted. The precise timing of the detection of the neutrinos lets us know exactly when SN1987A exploded from an earth-bound point of view.

SN1987A, because it is relatively close to the earth, is the most observed supernova in history. Shortly after its explosion, it was observed using the Russian-built Astron II orbiting ultraviolet telescope, which gathered light-curve data indicating it was a type II-P core-collapse supernova. However, some of the most dramatic images of the supernova had to wait for the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope in April of 1990. When Hubble came online and its Faint Object camera was turned on SN1987A on August 23 and 24 the circumstellar ring around the supernova remnant was revealed in all its glory.

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/Supernova-1987a.jpg

The ring, which is a result of the impact of the light, especially UV, from the explosion on ejecta from the progenitor star's stellar wind was first observed approximately eight months after the explosion. This has been confirmed by later observations that show the brightness of the ring follows, but lags by about eight months, the variations in the brightness of the supernova remnant. This means the radius of the ring is approximately eight light-months, or two-thirds of a light-year.

The exquisite resolution of the images from Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera has allowed observers to measure the angular radius of the ring at 808+-17 milli-arcseconds. Applying basic trigonometry, we get the distance to SN1987A as:

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/SN1987a.jpg

So there it is. The death knell of young-earth creationism without resort to radiometric dating, redshift or anything more advanced than high-school math. The universe is at least 168,000 years old because it took the light from SN1987A 168,000 years to get here.

Now, one of the YECs' favorite arguments to deal with phenomena like this is to try and argue that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past. However, if one uses a faster speed of light "back then" and decays it exponentially, the circumstellar ring winds up being considerably larger than two-thirds of a (current) light-year and SN1987A winds up being significantly farther away from earth. So their "argument" only makes their own problem with the supernova worse.

{Note to mods: If you think this would be more appropriate in S&S don't hesitate to move it there.}

How do you know at what rate to decay light exponentially?

Do you know at what rate the universe expanded (assuming it did) when it was created?

You have assumed that the effects of gravitational time dilation are insignificant. According to Einstein’s theories, time can flow at different rates under different circumstances. Under the right conditions, light from the most distant galaxies could have arrived at earth in very short amounts of time. Yet, you seem to have totally ignored this important principle of physics.

You have assumed (without justification) a particular synchrony convention. The terrestrial equivalent of this fallacy would be assuming that noon in London, England is the same as noon in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Most importantly, you have assumed that the light arrived entirely by natural means.


Most of these are arguments I have met up with myself, when I have brought up similar notes on supernovas, etc.. Not being an expert, I have no real clue how to address them (except the last one)). Hints?

[ninewands]

Okay ... I promised this in EB over at RnR. However, since I don't bother much with EB anymore, I guess I'll put it here.

On February 24, 1987 the light from the explosion of the blue supergiant star Sanduleak -69° 202a (spectral class B3) reached the earth and was observed by Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, Albert Jones in New Zealand, and Colin Henshaw in Zimbabwe.

In addition to the visible-light discovery of the supernova some twenty-four neutrinos and anti-neutrinos above background were detected at three instruments (The Kamiokande II in Japan, the IMB Detector in Ohio and the Baksan 5 detector in the Caucasus of the former Soviet Union) over a period of some 13 seconds beginning at 7:35am, February 23, 1987, Coordinated Universal Time. The neutrinos from the explosion arrived at earth before the visible light did because the shock wave from the core collapse had to reach the surface of the star before any unusual visible light could be emitted. The precise timing of the detection of the neutrinos lets us know exactly when SN1987A exploded from an earth-bound point of view.

SN1987A, because it is relatively close to the earth, is the most observed supernova in history. Shortly after its explosion, it was observed using the Russian-built Astron II orbiting ultraviolet telescope, which gathered light-curve data indicating it was a type II-P core-collapse supernova. However, some of the most dramatic images of the supernova had to wait for the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope in April of 1990. When Hubble came online and its Faint Object camera was turned on SN1987A on August 23 and 24 the circumstellar ring around the supernova remnant was revealed in all its glory.

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/Supernova-1987a.jpg

The ring, which is a result of the impact of the light, especially UV, from the explosion on ejecta from the progenitor star's stellar wind was first observed approximately eight months after the explosion. This has been confirmed by later observations that show the brightness of the ring follows, but lags by about eight months, the variations in the brightness of the supernova remnant. This means the radius of the ring is approximately eight light-months, or two-thirds of a light-year.

The exquisite resolution of the images from Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera has allowed observers to measure the angular radius of the ring at 808+-17 milli-arcseconds. Applying basic trigonometry, we get the distance to SN1987A as:

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/SN1987a.jpg

So there it is. The death knell of young-earth creationism without resort to radiometric dating, redshift or anything more advanced than high-school math. The universe is at least 168,000 years old because it took the light from SN1987A 168,000 years to get here.

Now, one of the YECs' favorite arguments to deal with phenomena like this is to try and argue that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past. However, if one uses a faster speed of light "back then" and decays it exponentially, the circumstellar ring winds up being considerably larger than two-thirds of a (current) light-year and SN1987A winds up being significantly farther away from earth. So their "argument" only makes their own problem with the supernova worse.

{Note to mods: If you think this would be more appropriate in S&S don't hesitate to move it there.}

How do you know at what rate to decay light exponentially?

Do you know at what rate the universe expanded (assuming it did) when it was created?

You have assumed that the effects of gravitational time dilation are insignificant. According to Einstein’s theories, time can flow at different rates under different circumstances. Under the right conditions, light from the most distant galaxies could have arrived at earth in very short amounts of time. Yet, you seem to have totally ignored this important principle of physics.

You have assumed (without justification) a particular synchrony convention. The terrestrial equivalent of this fallacy would be assuming that noon in London, England is the same as noon in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Most importantly, you have assumed that the light arrived entirely by natural means.


Most of these are arguments I have met up with myself, when I have brought up similar notes on supernovas, etc.. Not being an expert, I have no real clue how to address them (except the last one)). Hints?
Some of them I can respond to, others leave me thinking, "WTF are you talking about?"

The time dilation one is relatively easy to respond to. I ran across it, for the first time, day before yesterday in an article in Astronomy Education Review (http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=143). The article is available for free online, but I don't have a link handy.

If the earth is in a gravity well deep enough to cause time dilation effects sufficient to bring about the effects YECs "hypothesize", then the slowing of time would cause faraway galaxies to appear blue-shifted rather than red-shifted.

It contains a LONG list of PRATTS and their respective rebuttals.

Enjoy!

[RAFH]

Okay ... I promised this in EB over at RnR. However, since I don't bother much with EB anymore, I guess I'll put it here.

On February 24, 1987 the light from the explosion of the blue supergiant star Sanduleak -69° 202a (spectral class B3) reached the earth and was observed by Ian Shelton and Oscar Duhalde at the Las Campanas Observatory in Chile, Albert Jones in New Zealand, and Colin Henshaw in Zimbabwe.

In addition to the visible-light discovery of the supernova some twenty-four neutrinos and anti-neutrinos above background were detected at three instruments (The Kamiokande II in Japan, the IMB Detector in Ohio and the Baksan 5 detector in the Caucasus of the former Soviet Union) over a period of some 13 seconds beginning at 7:35am, February 23, 1987, Coordinated Universal Time. The neutrinos from the explosion arrived at earth before the visible light did because the shock wave from the core collapse had to reach the surface of the star before any unusual visible light could be emitted. The precise timing of the detection of the neutrinos lets us know exactly when SN1987A exploded from an earth-bound point of view.

SN1987A, because it is relatively close to the earth, is the most observed supernova in history. Shortly after its explosion, it was observed using the Russian-built Astron II orbiting ultraviolet telescope, which gathered light-curve data indicating it was a type II-P core-collapse supernova. However, some of the most dramatic images of the supernova had to wait for the launch of the Hubble Space Telescope in April of 1990. When Hubble came online and its Faint Object camera was turned on SN1987A on August 23 and 24 the circumstellar ring around the supernova remnant was revealed in all its glory.

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/Supernova-1987a.jpg

The ring, which is a result of the impact of the light, especially UV, from the explosion on ejecta from the progenitor star's stellar wind was first observed approximately eight months after the explosion. This has been confirmed by later observations that show the brightness of the ring follows, but lags by about eight months, the variations in the brightness of the supernova remnant. This means the radius of the ring is approximately eight light-months, or two-thirds of a light-year.

The exquisite resolution of the images from Hubble's Wide Field Planetary Camera has allowed observers to measure the angular radius of the ring at 808+-17 milli-arcseconds. Applying basic trigonometry, we get the distance to SN1987A as:

http://www2.egr.uh.edu/~cwilkin3/SN1987a.jpg

So there it is. The death knell of young-earth creationism without resort to radiometric dating, redshift or anything more advanced than high-school math. The universe is at least 168,000 years old because it took the light from SN1987A 168,000 years to get here.

Now, one of the YECs' favorite arguments to deal with phenomena like this is to try and argue that the speed of light was significantly faster in the past. However, if one uses a faster speed of light "back then" and decays it exponentially, the circumstellar ring winds up being considerably larger than two-thirds of a (current) light-year and SN1987A winds up being significantly farther away from earth. So their "argument" only makes their own problem with the supernova worse.

{Note to mods: If you think this would be more appropriate in S&S don't hesitate to move it there.}

How do you know at what rate to decay light exponentially?

Do you know at what rate the universe expanded (assuming it did) when it was created?

You have assumed that the effects of gravitational time dilation are insignificant. According to Einstein’s theories, time can flow at different rates under different circumstances. Under the right conditions, light from the most distant galaxies could have arrived at earth in very short amounts of time. Yet, you seem to have totally ignored this important principle of physics.

You have assumed (without justification) a particular synchrony convention. The terrestrial equivalent of this fallacy would be assuming that noon in London, England is the same as noon in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Most importantly, you have assumed that the light arrived entirely by natural means.


Most of these are arguments I have met up with myself, when I have brought up similar notes on supernovas, etc.. Not being an expert, I have no real clue how to address them (except the last one)). Hints?
Some of them I can respond to, others leave me thinking, "WTF are you talking about?"

The time dilation one is relatively easy to respond to. I ran across it, for the first time, day before yesterday in an article in Astronomy Education Review (http://aer.noao.edu/cgi-bin/article.pl?id=143). The article is available for free online, but I don't have a link handy.

If the earth is in a gravity well deep enough to cause time dilation effects sufficient to bring about the effects YECs "hypothesize", then the slowing of time would cause faraway galaxies to appear blue-shifted rather than red-shifted.

It contains a LONG list of PRATTS and their respective rebuttals.

Enjoy!

Thanks, Nine, that is a really great site.

[Febble]

Faith and Science stuff split to new thread here (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1416).

[Worldtraveller]

I know dave's been pointed to this thread a couple of times. Yet, he is, strangely (not), silent on the implications.

Come on dave, this is something even your pathetic level of education should be able to grasp. No assumptions need be made about anything other than very basic geometry. I could have figured this out in 4th grade (assuming of course, SN198A could have been viewed back then...).

Why is it that all we hear are crickets? Oh...and the sound of Wally wetting himself....