Jump to content


Photo

What Is This A Picture Of?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
62 replies to this topic

#41 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:45 AM

Yes depending on what is nothing.  Particles and anti-particles pop into existence all of the time.  If they do so in external fields they separate and do not annihilate.  So we had nothing and now we have two renegad particles.


What is nothing? :D I hate to laugh but that is a oxymoron statement if you think about it. You are basically trying to invoke a god like situation to make what you want to happen, happen. That's not science. Twisting the definition of nothing does not make a new reality.

However, the claim that Scott is making is that c could have changed.  So lets not move the goal posts.

View Post


I believe this also. But not in a sense that most would ponder this and here's why:

I believe the first 6 days of creation were in eternity. This is because sin did not happen until towards the end of the 6th day.

Now for eternity to be eternity, would the laws of that time-line be the same as we now understand our own time-line? Of course not. Different laws allow for things to work differently.

Eternity basically deals with time and age. It separates the two processes where one does not control the other. So time passes, but age is not a part of the passage of time. That is how eternity would work being that time was a part of it.

Which raises the questions:

1) How do you measure the speed something travels, if time is separated from age so that it can be eternal?
2) How does something age in an age-less time line unless age is added upon it's creation?

So it's not that speed of light not being a constant, it's that the timeline was different. And therefore the laws were different as well. Light from stars billions of light years away reached the earth because eternal time laws allowed them to until man sinned and changed them. So the reason it seem impossible in our time-line is because it would be. But not in a sin-less time-line where the laws are not the same.

#42 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 December 2008 - 12:50 AM

You are going to have to explain a lot of these concepts in detail.  I've never even heard of this theory.


Not sure exactly what you want explained in detail.

Are these mainstream creationist ideas?

View Post


The bases of the ideas are. I just took them a lot further than most creationist would.

#43 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 10 December 2008 - 01:04 AM

What is nothing?  <_<  I hate to laugh but that is a oxymoron statement if you think about it. You are basically trying to invoke a god like situation to make what you want to happen, happen. That's not science. Twisting the definition of nothing does not make a new reality.

View Post



What? I am saying that I don't know what nothing is. That is a very appropriate scientific position. How would you scientifically describe nothing? I know somewhat what a vacuum is but that isn't nothing. Defining nothing is for philosophers and theists really.

#44 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:13 AM

Here's a picture:

Hubble Ultra Deep Field
My question to creationists is:  What is this a picture of?

View Post


Looks like creation, but is that the answer you wanted Jason?

#45 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 December 2008 - 07:31 AM

The reason I posted this, is because with a creationist time scales these are not real objects. 

View Post


What?!? Not real objects.... Where do you get the rationale for such a silly statement? Show the time scale that says these aren’t real objects.

#46 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 22 December 2008 - 12:37 PM

What?!? Not real objects.... Where do you get the rationale for such a silly statement? Show the time scale that says these aren’t real objects.

View Post



If these objects are 10-12 billion light years away, and if light is not known to vary in speed, and we can see these objects, that means that the universe is at least 10-12 billion years old. If this isn't the case the question is why can we see these objects? The two answers commonly given by creationists are:

1. Light was faster in the past. Light would have had to be way faster in the past. So fast in fact that it would cause other problems in physics theory. Besides that, it is unscientific to assume things to make the conclusion. We have no evidence that light has ever had a varying speed in a vacuum to the extent that Creationists need to make their universe young. Until we have that evidence (look for it by all means) we can't really make a model that includes it.

2. God made the light already on its way. To some this seems to make God a deceiver because what would be the point of creating apparent age? However, I don't invoke characteristics of God to argue against God. If this is your answer then I accept it as an appeal to the supernatural and can't say anything scientific against this anyway because science doesn't have the ability to study the metaphysical. I am happy in a debate if I can push a Creationist to this answer because my goal is not to convert the opponent to my side but to get them to admit that Creationism is not science but an attempt to supernaturally account for reality. In court, say like in Kansas, if I could push the Creationist to admit that what they want to teach in school is supernatural then I have won because under the same definition astrology is astronomy and parapsychology is psychology.

#47 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 22 December 2008 - 03:16 PM

Looks like creation, but is that the answer you wanted Jason?

View Post


Technically the correct answer is old stars and galaxies. I wasn't looking for a right answer, I was just asking. That's all. Trying to spark a healthy debate. For what it's worth it looks like it was successful :lol:

#48 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:50 PM

1.  Light was faster in the past.  Light would have had to be way faster in the past.  So fast in fact that it would cause other problems in physics theory.  Besides that, it is unscientific to assume things to make the conclusion.  We have no evidence that light has ever had a varying speed in a vacuum to the extent that Creationists need to make their universe young.  Until we have that evidence (look for it by all means) we can't really make a model that includes it.

View Post

Why not? Dark Energy and Dark Matter are supernatural entities included in models. As are imaginary spatial dimensions. And the Öort Cloud.

And light is known to travel at different speeds, for what that's worth. But the same person who will say there's no such thing as information is likely to repeat the goofball assumption (I started to say conclusion, but a conclusion requires a basis) that when light travels too fast it can't carry information.

#49 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 December 2008 - 05:23 AM

Why not? Dark Energy and Dark Matter are supernatural entities included in models. As are imaginary spatial dimensions. And the Öort Cloud.


These are all hypothesis waiting confirmation or rejection. They provide means to experimentally test them which is what is being done now. How does one go about testing whether or not light was faster in the past? A hypothesis must provide a means for testing.

And light is known to travel at different speeds, for what that's worth.


Light effectively slows down when it travels through a medium due to interaction delays. However, a photon never slows down. A simple example, picture a gas made up of hydrogen atoms. When a photon travels through this gas it can be absorbed by an electron and the emitted again. There is a delay between the absorption and the emission which causes the effective speed to slow. However, the speed of the photon between emission and the next absorption is still c. This gets more complicated when our medium is structure of molecules but it amounts to the same thing. Delays cause light to appear to slow down.


But the same person who will say there's no such thing as information is likely to repeat the goofball assumption (I started to say conclusion, but a conclusion requires a basis) that when light travels too fast it can't carry information.


Who said there is no such thing as information? Me? When? What do you mean if light travels too fast it can't carry information?

#50 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 December 2008 - 07:07 AM

These are all hypothesis waiting confirmation or rejection.  They provide means to experimentally test them which is what is being done now.  How does one go about testing whether or not light was faster in the past?  A hypothesis must provide a means for testing.

Ah. The old double standard. The past isn't subject to experiment, yet evostories get a pass and are deemed "scientific". Nothing new here - keep moving, folks. This standard won't be applied to big bangs, abiogenesis, etc. by those who keep trotting it out like it means something.

Who said there is no such thing as information?  Me?  When?  What do you mean if light travels too fast it can't carry information?

View Post

Not keeping up with the official "party line"? Tsk tsk!

http://scienceworld....perluminal.html

http://www.wbabin.ne...ence/faraj8.htm

http://www.iitk.ac.i...ence_light.html

http://www.nature.co...ature02586.html

http://www.aip.org/p...it/pnu495-2.htm

That's a few links that sort of talk about it. Light has been accelerated to 100's, even 1000's of times faster than Einsteinian c. The "out" they've chosen is to claim that when light travels faster than the cherished limit, the information it carries still pokes along at c. The "causality" argument is classic circular reasoning. I think they have some other junk, but I haven't bothered to wade into it all. Should be good for a laugh or three, but I prefer humour that's a little easier to share.

Of course common sense'll tell a person if light is detectable, it can carry information just fine. "One if by land and two if by sea", you know. No need to wait around until the priesthood says enough time has passed and you have permission to know you've seen the signal.

#51 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 December 2008 - 08:04 AM

Ah. The old double standard. The past isn't subject to experiment,  yet evostories get a pass and are deemed "scientific". Nothing new here - keep moving, folks. This standard won't be applied to big bangs, abiogenesis, etc. by those who keep trotting it out like it means something.


Of course this is false. Events from the past typically have effects on the present. A model of an event that took place in the past must make a scientific prediction about the present while maintaining consistency. If there is no effect on the present then there should be no motivation for the model in the first place.


Not keeping up with the official "party line"? Tsk tsk!

http://scienceworld....perluminal.html

http://www.wbabin.ne...ence/faraj8.htm

http://www.iitk.ac.i...ence_light.html

http://www.nature.co...ature02586.html

http://www.aip.org/p...it/pnu495-2.htm

That's a few links that sort of talk about it. Light has been accelerated to 100's, even 1000's of times faster than Einsteinian c. The "out" they've chosen is to claim that when light travels faster than the cherished limit, the information it carries still pokes along at c.


Oh that is what you were talking about :D . Your wording was strange. I typically do not quote from wiki but this excerpt was good and blunt:

Things that can travel faster than the speed of light

It has long been known theoretically that it is possible for the "group velocity" of light to exceed c.[19][20] One experiment in 2000 made the group velocity of laser beams travel for extremely short distances through caesium atoms at 300 times c.[21]

However, it is not possible to use this technique to transfer information faster than c: the velocity of information transfer depends on the front velocity (the speed at which the first rise of a pulse above zero moves forward) and the product of the group velocity and the front velocity is equal to the square of the normal speed of light in the material.[22]

Exceeding the group velocity of light in this manner is comparable to exceeding the speed of sound by arranging people distantly spaced in a line, and asking them all to shout "I'm here!", one after another with short intervals, each one timing it by looking at their own wristwatch so they don't have to wait until they hear the previous person shouting. Another example can be seen when watching ocean waves washing up on shore. With a narrow enough angle between the wave and the shoreline, the breakers travel along the waves' length much faster than the waves' movement inland.

If a laser is swept across a distant object, the spot of light can easily be made to move at a speed greater than c.[23] Similarly, a shadow projected onto a distant object can be made to move faster than c.[24] In neither case does any matter or information travel faster than light.

In quantum mechanics, certain quantum effects may be transmitted at speeds greater than c. For example, the quantum states of two particles can be entangled. Until the particles are observed, they exist in a superposition of two quantum states, (+½, −½) and (−½, +½). If the particles are separated and one of them is observed to determine its quantum state then the quantum state of the second particle is determined automatically. If, as in some interpretations of quantum mechanics, one presumes that the information about the quantum state is local to one particle, then one must conclude that second particle takes up its quantum state instantaneously as soon as the first observation is carried out. However, it is impossible to control which quantum state the first particle will take on when it is observed, so no information can be transmitted in this manner.



Of course common sense'll tell a person if light is detectable, it can carry information just fine. "One if by land and two if by sea", you know. No need to wait around until the priesthood says enough time has passed and you have permission to know


Common sense tells a person that they shouldn't invoke common sense in physics (don't believe me take quantum mechanics).

#52 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 24 December 2008 - 09:41 AM

Just like I said...

But don't bother to remind them about the burden of proof when they claim information can't travel right along at the same clip as the light. Everyone just bow down like the ignorant chuckleheads you are.

And don't assume this means information exists either, for that matter. When jabbering their way out of inconvenient circumstances, the prophets of high science are permitted to employ abstract, hypothetical, unobservable things in this manner. If you don't believe me, just look at all the precedents.

#53 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 24 December 2008 - 12:22 PM

One of my favorite examples of circular reasoning "We know God does'nt exist,therefore he did'nt do anything you claim he did".

#54 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 24 December 2008 - 04:55 PM

These are all hypothesis waiting confirmation or rejection.  They provide means to experimentally test them which is what is being done now.  How does one go about testing whether or not light was faster in the past?  A hypothesis must provide a means for testing.

View Post


I don't like to correct you here, but dark matter halos are being used currently as gravitational lenses.

#55 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 December 2008 - 07:03 PM

I don't like to correct you here, but dark matter halos are being used currently as gravitational lenses.

View Post


My money is on Dark Matter being exotic matter - specifically WIMPS. The effects of "Dark Matter" are not hypothesized but what dark matter is, is hypothesized. Lensing definitely allows us to say there is something there which behaves like matter except that it doesn't interact electromagnetically but it doesn't rule out modification theories either. Until we detect WIMPS (or whatever) I still say it is hypothesis but I agree that we are sitting on the threshold of were hypothesis and theory blurs together.

#56 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 24 December 2008 - 07:07 PM

Just like I said...

But don't bother to remind them about the burden of proof when they claim information can't travel right along at the same clip as the light. Everyone just bow down like the ignorant chuckleheads you are.

And don't assume this means information exists either, for that matter. When jabbering their way out of inconvenient circumstances, the prophets of high science are permitted to employ abstract, hypothetical, unobservable things in this manner. If you don't believe me, just look at all the precedents.

View Post



I don't know what you are blathering about here but super luminous velocities in the context of group velocities and the cesium experiment (which is less amazing in the context of signal processing language which is the language that the experiment was constructed in) is pretty well understood and consistent mathematically. If you choose to say things like:

I think they have some other junk, but I haven't bothered to wade into it all. Should be good for a laugh or three, but I prefer humour that's a little easier to share.


Then I am afraid you will never understand the quirks of our universe. You are attempting to understand a non-local wave packet with a macro picture. It doesn't work.

#57 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 25 December 2008 - 08:37 AM

I don't know what you are blathering about here but super luminous velocities in the context of group velocities and the cesium experiment (which is less amazing in the context of signal processing language which is the language that the experiment was constructed in) is pretty well understood and consistent mathematically.  If you choose to say things like:
Then I am afraid you will never understand the quirks of our universe.  You are attempting to understand a non-local wave packet with a macro picture.  It doesn't work.

View Post

You don't know what I'm talking about, but you can read my mind. Right...

I'll continue thinking for myself. You might have already known that since it passed through my thoughts, but paradoxically, since I put it into words, you may not know what it's about.

Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say we shouldn't trust common sense?

#58 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 683 posts
  • Interests:physics, mathematics, history, bicycling, hiking, traveling, cooking, the Korean language (Han Gul)
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Mississippi

Posted 25 December 2008 - 12:41 PM

You don't know what I'm talking about, but you can read my mind. Right...

I'll continue thinking for myself. You might have already known that since it passed through my thoughts, but paradoxically, since I put it into words, you may not know what it's about.

Is this the kind of thing you mean when you say we shouldn't trust common sense?

View Post



Try and use common sense to explain the double slit experiment.

#59 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 November 2011 - 11:21 AM

What happens when a black hole swallows up another black hole?

View Post


Basically, you get a more massive black hole with a larger event horizon (the event horizon is region from which nothing - not even light - can escape).


The above is nothing more than an assumption, as there is absolutely no empirical evidence (proof) for a black hole, let alone two black holes. And yet evolutionists like jamesf will make the above statement as if it had merit based in fact instead of imagination.


Nothing in science is really a "proof".


This is simply another misleading statement promulgated by evolutionists to help support the hypothesis of macroevolution, falsifiability etc... There are plenty of “proofs” in science. In fact, science is all about proving, or disproving hypotheses, models and theories via the empirical scientific method. When you stop to think about it, scientific laws are those phenomena within science that have been proven. Further, the Laws of Logic (which the empirical scientific method is dependent upon) are proven, the Laws of Mathematics (which the empirical scientific method is dependent upon) are proven. I could go on and on, but these arguments alone destroy jamesf’s statement.

#60 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,171 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 05 November 2011 - 11:36 AM

Technically the correct answer is old stars and galaxies. I wasn't looking for a right answer, I was just asking. That's all. Trying to spark a healthy debate. For what it's worth it looks like it was successful :lol:

How is that "the correct answer"? What gives you the idea that this is "old" stars and galaxies. Or ask differently, how would you know what the age is anyway?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users