Jump to content


The Speed Of Light


  • Please log in to reply
743 replies to this topic

#181 b00tleg

b00tleg

    BANNED

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Meridian, Idaho

Posted 15 August 2009 - 11:44 PM

Because something cannot come from nothing. Therefore there was something before Creation (I know, you like to call it the big bang).

Now, since you're so into issuing demands for answers to questions, you can finally answer Adam's question:

How does light move in a 'space' that is condensed into a singularity without any dimensional value? How fast does light escape from a black hole?

View Post


Why would light move in such a small space if light doesn't exist yet? And light can't escape the gravitational pull of a blackhole.

#182 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 310 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 16 August 2009 - 01:54 AM

Hi CTD

I'm pretty sure that direct observations show light does not behave in a classical manner: namely, it curves twice as much as would be expected. Part of its observed curvature is due to its classical behaviour, and part of it is due to the curvature of space-time, explained by GR.

Just wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong impression that GR has not been observationally confirmed.

Regards
SeeJay

View Post

You don't appear to be a member of the set of entities to whom my post was addressed. In fact, you seem to be working to distance yourself from membership.

View Post


Hi CTD

Have you got me mixed up with someone else?? I did not mean to cause offense.

Thanks & regards
SeeJay

#183 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 16 August 2009 - 08:11 AM

Hi CTD

Have you got me mixed up with someone else?? I did not mean to cause offense.

Thanks & regards
SeeJay

View Post

There's no mix-up on this end. What makes you think there is?

I'd ask what makes you think I'm offended but I have a pretty good idea already.

#184 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 16 August 2009 - 06:06 PM

Before I start I would like to point out that I am in no way a scientist. I struggled through my Physics and Maths Highers at Secondary School, but when I discovered that there were people who still held Creationst views, I had a thought.

For those more in the know correct me if I'm wrong.  :P

Light travels at best speed in a vacum at 299,792,458 m/s.

A Light-Year is a measure of distance based on how far light would have travelled in a Julian year at that speed.

From that arithmetic, it has been calculated that the centre of the Milky Way is 26k LY from Earth, ie. travelling at 299,792,458 m/s it would take 26,000 years from the light at the centre of the Galaxy to reach Earth.

Surely this must create a paradox for the Creationist point of view. As the speed of light is measuarble and imperical, how then can one hold the view that the Universe is only a tad over 6,000 years old?

View Post



#185 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 17 August 2009 - 07:50 AM

I moved a couple posts to:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2561

#186 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 18 August 2009 - 05:52 PM

Surely this must create a paradox for the Creationist point of view. As the speed of light is measuarble and imperical, how then can one hold the view that the Universe is only a tad over 6,000 years old?

View Post


Ahh yes and this is where it gets touchy, because modern science can not use anything metaphysical or supernatural, considering it irrelevant. But PEOPLE can consider on a personal level other things besides science.

It is interesting that, according to Genesis, the first thing God created WAS light. SO according to scripture light pre-existed everything, besides of course the Creator. It was always hard for me to understand this, and I can not be dogmatic of course, but it would seem obvious that light would not have been traveling from sources until God created the stars on day three or four.

I have always asked "Did he create light already filling the universe?" or "Was He the light?" Was light in a precursor form until the stars were formed?" Limited minds we have.

#187 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 12:54 AM

Does anybody have a link to the paper that "proves" that the speed of light is slowing down? I'd like to read it.

#188 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 603 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Sparks, Nv

Posted 11 November 2009 - 04:33 AM

Before I start I would like to point out that I am in no way a scientist. I struggled through my Physics and Maths Highers at Secondary School, but when I discovered that there were people who still held Creationst views, I had a thought.

For those more in the know correct me if I'm wrong.  ;)

Light travels at best speed in a vacum at 299,792,458 m/s.

A Light-Year is a measure of distance based on how far light would have travelled in a Julian year at that speed.

From that arithmetic, it has been calculated that the centre of the Milky Way is 26k LY from Earth, ie. travelling at 299,792,458 m/s it would take 26,000 years from the light at the centre of the Galaxy to reach Earth.

Surely this must create a paradox for the Creationist point of view. As the speed of light is measuarble and imperical, how then can one hold the view that the Universe is only a tad over 6,000 years old?

View Post

I only read the first couple posts. Hopefully somebody gave this already but I'll toss it in and see what happens. And I will not be very technical, because I can't. :)

Current science seems to be suggesting that the beginning of the universe was a rather rapid event that had many instantaneous things occuring at such magnitudes of force and speed that there is little chance of explaining it within known scientific laws. Sorta, it just happened really fast and we don't know for sure how to explain it.

My take from a creation point of view is similar. When God created it all He said let there be light, and there was. I don't think He just "popped" it all into existance, so that a witness would see a universe just appear. God is an orderly sort. I think a witness would have seen a point where everything began and as God got His "mojo" going, things would get bigger spread out, etc. So the witness might actually see what could be best described as a big bang. All orchestrated by God as He added more and more to his creation until He was satisfied it was "good". As this was all going on during the first day, creation was also under the great stresses of such a rapid deployment of energy and matter. This rapidity gave what we see as age. The farthest stars are exactly as they seem, very far. But they were placed (6000) years ago at a time when time itself had only just been created and its limits not yet established. When God was finished, of course the light between the farthest star and Earth was part of God's creation. Even the light was subject to the stresses that day and we see it today with all the signs of age created by those stressors.

I'll not ask if you believe. But, does this satisfy better than, "God just did it"?

I have often heard it said that God created with the apearance of age. I don't think so. Why would He have any need of faking the age. I believe the appearance is just a natural reaction to the forces at work that day.

#189 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 07:23 AM

I have often heard it said that God created with the apearance of age.  I don't think so.  Why would He have any need of faking the age.  I believe the appearance is just a natural reaction to the forces at work that day.

View Post

"Appearance of age" is just nonsense, no matter who brings up the "argument". Age is not something determined by opinion.

I started a thread once, to point this out.

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2151

#190 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 07:35 AM

Does anybody have a link to the paper that "proves" that the speed of light is slowing down?  I'd like to read it.

View Post


If you read back from the beginning of this thread, you'll find all the papers you'd care to read.

#191 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:02 AM

Bill,

You're right that the issue of mature galaxies, billions of light years away, is a huge problem for assuming that we're looking at something that happened billions of years ago... well it's only a problem if it isn't ignored as all the data against old earth/evolution almost always is... :) 
This issue is covered very well by Jason Lisle:

http://www.evolution...?showtopic=2111

This 3 part set deals directly with the starlight issue:

http://www.answersin...stant-starlight

View Post

Dr. Lisle hasn't published a paper in how long now?

He takes his "findings" to sell books and make money. Good choice.

#192 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:10 AM

Dr. Lisle hasn't published a paper in how long now?

He takes his "findings" to sell books and make money.  Good choice.

View Post


You right, he probably should just starve to death because the staunch evolutheists in charge of official "scinecy" publications refuse to publish his findings :)

Good call Frank :)

#193 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:16 AM

You right, he probably should just starve to death because the staunch evolutheists in charge of official "scinecy" publications refuse to publish his findings  :)

Good call Frank  :)

View Post

Yes Ron, very good call.

For a look into what Lisle passes on for science:

http://www.theologyw...ead.php?t=81796

As to the conspiracy about "being excluded due to his beliefs", you'd only be right if you realized it's his beliefs he's trying to push through as "science fact". Please learn the difference between these words "faith, belief, evidence, proof and fact".

Thanks a bunch Ron.

#194 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:29 AM

If you read back from the beginning of this thread, you'll find all the papers you'd care to read.

View Post

I read through the first three or four pages, but I only saw some video links and popular news outlet summaries. I'm looking for the original paper that proved that the speed of light is slowing down - the paper which has seemingly convinced all of you that it's been proved, which I didn't see posted..

#195 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:42 AM

I read through the first three or four pages, but I only saw some video links and popular news outlet summaries.  I'm looking for the original paper that proved that the speed of light is slowing down - the paper which has seemingly convinced all of you that it's been proved, which I didn't see posted..

View Post

Funny that I found the same thing. The videos are slick, well presented and are absolutely devoid of science.

#196 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:47 AM

Yes Ron, very good call.

For a look into what Lisle passes on for science:

http://www.theologyw...ead.php?t=81796

As to the conspiracy about "being excluded due to his beliefs", you'd only be right if you realized it's his beliefs he's trying to push through as "science fact".  Please learn the difference between these words "faith, belief, evidence, proof and fact".

Thanks a bunch Ron.

View Post


Like there's any difference between his faith commitments, and the amount of faith the evolutheists have in their religion.

#197 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 10:53 AM

Like there's any difference between his faith commitments, and the amount of faith the evolutheists have in their religion.

View Post

Wrong again Ron.

Science has evidence. There is none for your YECism.

Science strives to produce documentation that is presenting the facts without bias as humanly possible by having others check, verify and scrutinize the work of others.

YECism has faith and nothing more. Get your facts straight.

#198 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 11 November 2009 - 11:09 AM

Science has evidence.  There is none for your YECism.

View Post


Would you care to provide some of these unequivocal empirical facts Frank? Or are you just busting out some more a priori opinion?

#199 Guest_FrankH_*

Guest_FrankH_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 12:57 PM

Would you care to provide some of these unequivocal empirical facts Frank? Or are you just busting out some more a priori opinion?

View Post

You mean evidence?

What evidence would you like to see?

As for "mere opinion", again I can't hold a candle to you when it comes to "just so answers" that are nothing but your opinion. You win there.

#200 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2009 - 03:16 PM

So does nobody have a link to the paper? I'd genuinely like to read it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users