Jump to content


The Speed Of Light


  • Please log in to reply
743 replies to this topic

#241 CTD

CTD

    Banned

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

Posted 14 November 2009 - 03:17 PM

So, yes, you have a problem within your religious world view is you cannot recognize that there is NO disrespect in “refuting”, and there is NO “disrespect” pointing out the flaws and discrepancies of said worldview and philosophy.

SO, yes, you have a problem is you are going to flail away with false accusations of “Intolerance” and “Disrespect”. And then attempt to back up such false statements by accusing me of using moderation powers to quiet you. Again; That is not only condescending, but it is blatantly deceitful as well.

View Post

I guess we're supposed to assume this recent post was missed

If you have a problem with a mod, you can take it up with either me or Fred. Ron cannot use his mod powers to win a debate. Only moderate when someone goes out of bounds of the rules.

So if he did use his powers to get the advantage, you can report it and we will look into it. So why don't you at least give it a try instead of giving up?

View Post

(Orange dot in lower corner is a link, btw.)

#242 stick

stick

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London

Posted 14 November 2009 - 04:14 PM

It would be nice to see this thread return to the topic.

View Post


You're right, it would be nice. It would be even nicer if someone produced the paper that convinced some creationists that the speed of light is slowing down too!
:lol:

#243 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 November 2009 - 05:02 PM

You're right, it would be nice. It would be even nicer if someone produced the paper that convinced some creationists that the speed of light is slowing down too!
:lol:

View Post

Nice, yes, but even more so, wishful thinking...apparently.

#244 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 15 November 2009 - 07:51 PM

Sure... so why are some here so vitriolic towards evolution?  The criticism of evolution gets quite scathing.  Granted so to do some criticisms of YEC, FrankH an example.  Is that the type of behaviour this forum wants to draw out of people?

Even some of my criticisms of Christianity have been quite blunt when I reflect on it.  And that actually bothers me, because outside this forum I'm very indifferent towards Christianity.  It's not my cup of tea, but I not offended that others believe it.  So I can't help but think, this forum sometimes brings out the worst in people, through the adverserial set up.

View Post

I can't answer for all but I know that some, maybe much of the vitriolic response (on both sides) is from hasty responses. I deduce this because the most unpleasant responses are rife with spelling and grammar errors. Civility requires thought.

#245 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 15 November 2009 - 08:04 PM

Well there's nothing in modern cosmology that says a god couldn't have made the universe.  Though from what we know about the universe, it's quite clear that Genesis is incorrect.

View Post

There was nothing in the video to back up that statement.

Only if the assumptions of cosmologoists are correct. Even they admit there is no way to know what happened in the first instants of (whatever). If their assumptions are correct. Genesis is not. However there is no way to falsify their assumptions.

Can you reliably claim that Genisis is not the correct answer, with no evidence, pro or con possible of either theory?

#246 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2009 - 08:46 PM

There was nothing in the video to back up that statement.

Only if the assumptions of cosmologoists are correct.  Even they admit there is no way to know what happened in the first instants of (whatever).  If their assumptions are correct.  Genesis is not.  However there is no way to falsify their assumptions.

Can you reliably claim that Genisis is not the correct answer, with no evidence, pro or con possible of either theory?

View Post

Starlight problem.

#247 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 15 November 2009 - 09:01 PM

Starlight problem.

View Post

Starlight is not a problem.

According to current cosmology and the video, there is a period of time that is an unkown at the "big bang". This unkown time is because the forces were so great and unkown that they cannot be explained. What happened in those unknowable moments? Did the universe expand to what it looked like 6000 years ago becuase time was not an equal to today, so it appeared then to be X-llions of years old do to the forces of that moment. No way to know.

This allows for exactly what I believe the creation moment and day includes.

#248 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 November 2009 - 09:04 PM

Starlight is not a problem.

According to current cosmology and the video, there is a period of time that is an unkown at the "big bang".  This unkown time is because the forces were so great and unkown that they cannot be explained.  What happened in those unknowable moments?  Did the universe expand to what it looked like 6000 years ago becuase time was not an equal to today, so it appeared then to be X-llions of years old do to the forces of that moment.  No way to know.

This allows for exactly what I believe the creation moment and day includes.

View Post

Firstly, the moment before the big bang is not fundamentally unknowable: we just don't know about it right now.

Secondly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

#249 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 15 November 2009 - 10:11 PM

Firstly, the moment before the big bang is not fundamentally unknowable: we just don't know about it right now.

Secondly, I have no idea what you're talking about.

View Post

Yes, we don't, therefore, it can include anything. It could be that the entire universe was created by (whatever) and appeared mill-bill-tril-gagiliions of years old, while actually only 6000 years. There is no scientific way to refute that because there is no observasion since then that counters it. Only observation that concurs with current, whcih may be correct now, but no way to know what time was doing then, in the first moments of (whatever).

Therefore, God could have done it or the big bang could have and it would still look just like it does today

#250 stick

stick

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London

Posted 18 November 2009 - 03:48 PM



an interesting 'on topic' video for y'all :rolleyes:

#251 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2009 - 04:02 PM

Yes, we don't, therefore, it can include anything.  It could be that the entire universe was created by (whatever) and appeared mill-bill-tril-gagiliions of years old, while actually only 6000 years. There is no scientific way to refute that because there is no observasion since then that counters it.  Only observation that concurs with current, whcih may be correct now, but no way to know what time was doing then, in the first moments of (whatever).

Therefore, God could have done it or the big bang could have and it would still look just like it does today

View Post

Okay, I'll play along with your "it can include anything" idea, but ... what effect would what the universe looked like then have on our current observations? It's not as though when we look out into the sky, we're staring into the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe.

#252 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 18 November 2009 - 05:09 PM

Okay, I'll play along with your "it can include anything" idea, but ... what effect would what the universe looked like then have on our current observations?  It's not as though when we look out into the sky, we're staring into the first 10^-43 seconds of the universe.

View Post


Actually, you don't know what you're looking at anyway. Given the fact that ANYTHING beyond what we've tested empirically is nothing but mere speculation.

#253 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:32 PM

Okay, I'll play along with your "it can include anything" idea, but ... what effect would what the universe looked like then have on our current observations?

View Post

The same effect as walking into a room which is 45f degrees and calculating how long the glass of water on the table has been sitting there to reach a level of 1/3 full. Inspecting closely you observe the level was 7/8 full when the glass was set down. There are no indications of consumption; lip marks, finger prints, etc. So if you calculate the evaporative rate for the temperature and humidity, you should be very close.

Oops, the room was 140f when the glass was deposited. Would that throw off your calculations? Yes, if you don't know.

We don't know what 10^-43 seconds relates to. It is a neat number, but how much of what we see was finished and set before the end of that time? Obviously, because the universe had just "banged" (just an easy to use word) the natural forces were not working the way they do now. Nobody can say how they were operating.

When the universe was begun, nobody was around to start a stopwatch and let us, in this time frame, know when the universe began to operate at this current pace. We have no reference of time other than human record which can be verified. None of those records are old enough to counter Biblical time.

#254 larrywj2

larrywj2

    Member

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

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:37 PM

an interesting 'on topic' video for y'all :unsure:

View Post

Current speed of light is no problem for anybody with a glimmer of understanding of the first moments of the universe. When all was being created/begun, by whatever action, the physical forces upon the universe were very different than now. It is impossible to say how mcuh happened and how fast. Light that takes 1billion years to get to Earth now, would have travelled much faster during the first moments of our universe.

#255 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

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

Posted 18 November 2009 - 06:39 PM



an interesting 'on topic' video for y'all :unsure:

View Post



You'll probably like this one too :)

MeSuJ6P-nCA

#256 stick

stick

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 28 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London

Posted 18 November 2009 - 07:18 PM

You'll probably like this one too  :unsure:

MeSuJ6P-nCA

View Post



very good Ron, I did enjoy that :)

#257 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 20 November 2009 - 01:05 AM

Yes, we don't, therefore, it can include anything.  It could be that the entire universe was created by (whatever) and appeared mill-bill-tril-gagiliions of years old, while actually only 6000 years. There is no scientific way to refute that because there is no observasion since then that counters it.  Only observation that concurs with current, whcih may be correct now, but no way to know what time was doing then, in the first moments of (whatever).

Therefore, God could have done it or the big bang could have and it would still look just like it does today

View Post

Hi larrywj2. Hope you are well.

There are some clear observations that counter the idea that the universe has only been in existence 6,000 years -- for example, supernova explosions. We have directly observed these, and in one case in particular in 1987, essentially no assumptions about distance or the speed of light were required to determine that supernova 1987A exploded about 168,000 years ago.

Astronomy is the biggest reason why I cannot accept a young-universe concept, because astronomical observations are direct observations of the past.

Kind regards
SeeJay

#258 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 20 November 2009 - 01:10 AM

Okay, not to get repetitive, but once again, I've got to ask you guys for the paper which has convinced you all that the speed of light's slowing down.  I mean, if I didn't know better, I'd say you all just believed it because answersingenesis.com told you it was true...

And really, if you actually had read a paper with hard evidence that lead to the conclusion, I can't imagine that this would be a very hard question to answer.

View Post


Hi martermius

I have never read the paper. I have tried to find it, and I have read a lot about it. Many young-earth organisations have stated there are significant problems with it, and it cannot be relied upon to either establish a young universe or refute an ancient one.

Probably the most important problem it has is, if the speed of light has slowed down, we should observe a "slow motion" effect for events and processes at large distances -- the further away, the slower they should appear. This is not observed, so the idea of c-decay does not accord with observation.

Cheers
SeeJay

#259 Guest_martemius_*

Guest_martemius_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2009 - 01:58 AM

Probably the most important problem it has is, if the speed of light has slowed down, we should observe a "slow motion" effect for events and processes at large distances -- the further away, the slower they should appear. This is not observed, so the idea of c-decay does not accord with observation.

Cheers
SeeJay

View Post

Well, yes, I realize this. I'm just trying to figure out what's made some of the posters here so convinced that it's slowing down (to a significant margin, that is; it's to my understanding that real scientists have found the possibility that it varied very slightly in the early stages of the universe, but not nearly to the degree that the yec's claim).

#260 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 20 November 2009 - 03:15 AM

Well, yes, I realize this.  I'm just trying to figure out what's made some of the posters here so convinced that it's slowing down (to a significant margin, that is; it's to my understanding that real scientists have found the possibility that it varied very slightly in the early stages of the universe, but not nearly to the degree that the yec's claim).

View Post

Found the paper!

The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time

I think a great deal of misunderstanding surrounds this issue. Uniform light speed is observed, not assumed, at all ranges up to millions of light years.

I don't believe conjectures about the early universe billions of years ago have any relevance to the observations that counter the idea that the universe is less than 100,000 years old.

Cheers
SeeJay




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users