# Starlight

52 replies to this topic

### #21 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 01 October 2009 - 08:37 PM

Please show me the observation that demonstrates what A.Sphere said here:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=40417

Demonstrate how two proton traveling towards each other at near the speed of light will only perceive (and somehow rightly so...) a relative speed of the other object at the the near speed of light rather than near twice the speed of light? Show me how this Einstienian fudge factor is real and not contradictory.

Well I can't ride a proton - neither can you. We are simply extending the consequences of a well tested theory. We can, however, demonstrate that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all inertial observers. If that is true, then we know our proton thought experiment is sound because in principle it doesn't really differ from the experiments we can do.

Build a michelson interferometer. Don't move it for a bit and measure the phase difference in the recombined beam. Now, rotate it 90 degrees and measure the phase difference again. You will find that they do not differ. If the speed of light was not c for all inertial observers we would see a difference in the combined beam's phase difference from the rotated interferometers because the light should pick up (or drop) a velocity term from the Earth's motion - and it doesn't. Now, this experiment has been done over and over and with more high tech methods with the same result always. The galilean velocity addition rule does not work for near light speeds.

If you apply Einstein's postulate to Electromagnetic theory you will derive a theoretical result that also shows that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. So we have a theory and observation that come together smoothly. Its good science.

### #22 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
• Guests

Posted 02 October 2009 - 01:01 AM

I have a question. If two protons are traveling towards each other at nearly the speed of light, would an observer on one proton be able to measure the relative speed of the other proton at near double the speed of light?

A.Sphere, that question is specifically for you.

BTW, welcome back and I've been doing well. I'm always glad to see you come back. When you need a break you need a break, though.

This is an interesting question. In colllege I attempted to get a physics minor, my B.S. is in P.E., and I had to take modern physics. The professor brought this up then went about some explanation using special relativity. I don't expect you to accept this explanation, but you should get a book on relativity.

I wound up qdropping the class and forgetting about the physics minor.

Honorable Member

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

Posted 02 October 2009 - 04:55 AM

If you apply Einstein's postulate to Electromagnetic theory you will derive a theoretical result that also shows that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.Ã‚Â  So we have a theory and observation that come together smoothly.Ã‚Â  Its good science.

If it is good science then you are actual demonstrating that light traveling through space and objects moving through time and space have a mysterious relationship that is subject to physics that from our perception produce contradictory results. Conclusion: what we observe has factors that are very unusual. To say that light from a distant nova was necessarily produced with the flat calculation associated with dividing light speed into distance is presumptuous based solely on these extremely unusual observational phenomena.

I still feel a-okay staking myself in the belief that light is far too mysterious to build doctrine on in light of the observations and current beliefs.

### #24 performedge

performedge

Don - a Child of the King

• Veteran Member
• 400 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:South Carolina
• Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Rock Hill, SC

Posted 02 October 2009 - 05:05 AM

I am back for a bit after a long hiatus - how have ya been?

When scientists discovered that there were other galaxies outside of our own and that some of these galaxies were much further than 10,000 light years away from us, it wasn't because they were searching for evidence to back up their old earth notions.  In fact, these distant objects came as a surprise to many scientists, not just because they are so far away, but because there are so many of them.

Now, creationists on the other hand attempt to explain away these timescales by proposing hypotheses out of the blue in an attempt to redeem their young earth beliefs.

Sort of like non-creationist scientists do with the origin of life?

Then they try and search for evidence that will support it.

Sort of like non-creationist scientists do with the origin of life?

For example, the changing light speed idea - the evidence for this is null.  We have never made this observation and therefore there isn't any  scientific reason to come up with hypotheses to explain observations that have never been made - the only reasons to do such a thing is to satisfy preconceived notions about the universe.

Let me understand. The evidence that life spontaneously arose from chemicals is null. We have never made any observation that comes close to this. - the only reasons to do such a thing is to satisfy preconceived notions about the universe.

This isn't how science is done.

It seems to me this is exactly how science is done.

There must be an observation made first in order to propose a hypothesis to explain that observation - they it can go on to be tested.

Nope. First there must be an axiom. For the creation scientist there is the belief in the Bible as their axiom. For the non- creation scientist there is the belief in naturalism and materialism as their axiom. Therefore the trivial observation that "life exists" leads to innumerable hypotheses about how this could have happened naturally. No other observation warrants these hypotheses.

Now, if there is separate, seemingly uncorrelated evidence that implies that the speed of light is changing we would begin to question our ideas about the age of the universe - but thus far there has been no statistically significant measurements that show the speed of light is changing - the only reason to cling on to this idea is dogma.

I would disagree. The "speed of light" has been observed at 300 times faster than the speed of light in a vaccuum. This requires a vacuum with a sort of plasma field.

http://www.nature.co...s/406277a0.html

So dogma is not the oly reason. Observations are the reason.

Note:  before anyone chimes in with "but the speed of light does change in a material" please study a bit more so that you understand that it does not change in a material - it is delayed by absorption and emission.

Yes, but the question is has light always traveled through a vacuum in space (a scientific assumption). It seems to me in the magical 1st second of the BBT model that the environment wasn't as it is today. Especially with the theory of inflation. So it is a strawman to argue that the past has always been uniform in physics and geology.

Creationists all beleive in some form of "inflation" - the stretching out of the heavens mentioned 17 times in scripture. Which is consistent with obsevations, and might I add quantized red shift measurements.

So the question is do creationists have valid hypotheses that are scientific. Yes indeed. Russ Humphreys has proposed a creation model from a gavitational well which would cause time dilation. I personally also think that in the rapid stretching out of the heavens that a plasma type environment may have been present which also would have caused the group speed of light to be higher than c. Both explanations are reasonable, and both have observations for their genesis.

### #25 Arch

Arch

Member

• Banned
• 961 posts
• Age: 21
• no affiliation
• Atheist
• Australia

Posted 02 October 2009 - 06:04 AM

Yes, but the question is has light always traveled through a vacuum in space (a scientific assumption). It seems to me in the magical 1st second of the BBT model that the environment wasn't as it is today.

I do love it when Creationists use the Big Bang to say that the universe hasn't always been this way.

You see, if Genesis is true then the Big Bang never occurred and the universe has always been the way we perceive it. Which means using the Big Bangs strange physics to try and explain light travelling oddly can't be done...the big bang never happened.

Or the big bang did happen and odd physics might exist...but then that doesn't gel well with Genesis.

Regards,

Arch.

### #26 performedge

performedge

Don - a Child of the King

• Veteran Member
• 400 posts
• Gender:Male
• Location:South Carolina
• Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
• Age: 48
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• Rock Hill, SC

Posted 02 October 2009 - 09:22 AM

Yes, but the question is has light always traveled through a vacuum in space (a scientific assumption). It seems to me in the magical 1st second of the BBT model that the environment wasn't as it is today.

I do love it when Creationists use the Big Bang to say that the universe hasn't always been this way.

You see, if Genesis is true then the Big Bang never occurred and the universe has always been the way we perceive it. Which means using the Big Bangs strange physics to try and explain light travelling oddly can't be done...the big bang never happened.

Or the big bang did happen and odd physics might exist...but then that doesn't gel well with Genesis.

Regards,

Arch.

And I love it when atheists misrepresent and create strawmen arguments about what creationists actually say and write.

If you want to correct something I've said, then deal with my words. Not some arbitrary misrepresentation of what I and other creationists are arguing.

### #27 rico

rico

Member

• Veteran Member
• 669 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
• Age: 34
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• USA

Posted 17 October 2009 - 05:44 PM

Parts of this are funny:
Astronomy and the Bible 56min, October ,2003
http://www.nwcreatio..._and_bible.html
AiG http://www.answersingenesis.org/ website Media-->Video on Demand--> keyword: starlight

Probably YEC don't want to waste time and there is probably a written explanation.

### #28 SeeJay

SeeJay

Member

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

Posted 20 October 2009 - 02:46 PM

Please show me the observation that demonstrates what A.Sphere said here:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=40417

Demonstrate how two proton traveling towards each other at near the speed of light will only perceive (and somehow rightly so...) a relative speed of the other object at the the near speed of light rather than near twice the speed of light? Show me how this Einstienian fudge factor is real and not contradictory.

We have experimentally confirmed that objects undergo time dilation when travelling close to the speed of light. From Wikipedia (muons):

When a cosmic ray proton impacts atomic nuclei of air atoms in the upper atmosphere, pions are created. These decay within a relatively short distance (meters) into muons (the pion's preferred decay product), and neutrinos. The muons from these high energy cosmic rays, generally continuing essentially in the same direction as the original proton, do so at very high velocities. Although their lifetime without relativistic effects would allow a half-survival distance of only about 0.66 km at most, the time dilation effect of special relativity allows cosmic ray secondary muons to survive the flight to the earth's surface. Indeed, since muons are unusually penetrative of ordinary matter, like neutrinos, they are also detectable deep underground and underwater, where they form a major part of the natural background ionizing radiation. Like cosmic rays, as noted, this secondary muon radiation is also directional.

Time-dilation is simply the mathematically necessary consequence of the relativistic concept that the speed of light is constant, whether measured an a relative or absolute sense i.e. two objects travelling towards each other at 99%c still "see" each others' speed as less than c.

In fact, if the equations of relativity did not work, including the concept of an absolute constant speed of light, GPS would not work, because GPS relies upon the time dilation effect of relativity!

Cheers
SeeJay

### #29 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

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

Posted 20 October 2009 - 10:28 PM

[creationist mode]
The speed of light hasn't alwsys been the same as it is today, it used to be be a lot faster. [/creationist mode]

[Evolutionist mode] Cannot accept anything that might in the slightest prove God or creation. So all idea about light speed not being a constant must be rejected. Even if it happens to make sense.[/Evolutionist mode]

Honorable Member

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

Posted 21 October 2009 - 04:07 AM

[Evolutionist mode] Cannot accept anything that might in the slightest prove God or creation. So all idea about light speed not being a constant must be rejected. Even if it happens to make sense.[/Evolutionist mode]

I get a kick out of this forum specific banter.

### #31 SeeJay

SeeJay

Member

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

Posted 21 October 2009 - 05:41 AM

I get a kick out of this forum specific banter.

me too

### #32 ikester7579

ikester7579

Member

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

Posted 21 October 2009 - 10:18 PM

Well both sides were making "unharmful" jokes. And both sides would be right about one another if both sides were really truthful about themselves. I just don't like jokes from "either side" that can stir up trouble that one may take personally.

When someone can joke about themselves and be truthful, is when one becomes non-bias towards truth and actually find it. I try to do it, but it's not always easy. Because the truth one may find is not always the truth they may be looking for.

### #33 rico

rico

Member

• Veteran Member
• 669 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
• Age: 34
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• USA

Posted 21 August 2010 - 04:30 PM

Many young Earth creationists believe the world/universe to be less than 10,000 years old, so how is it we see stars, galaxies, nebula and so on that are further away than light can travel in 10,000 years?

If you have an empty swimming pool (the universe) and you drop an iceburg (light) in it, the shape of the pool, how long did it take the water-ice (light) to get from one end of the pool to the other? Does this explain it ok? Everything at once.
Measuring distance they use triangulation: http://science.howst...question224.htm
They look through a "gravitational lens" and there is the hubble effect.

### #34 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
• Guests

Posted 21 August 2010 - 05:14 PM

If you have an empty swimming pool (the universe) and you drop an iceburg (light) in it, the shape of the pool, how long did it take the water-ice (light) to get from one end of the pool to the other? Does this explain it ok?  Everything at once.

I don't understand this analogy.

Distance to other galaxies and globular clusters is established by a range of measures. Cepheids and supernovae are the simplest and most familiar standard candles. All measure of astronomical distance from trigonometric parallax through the standard candles to redshift agree with each other where they overlap and none are based on presupposition.

With a simple 6" telescope I have been able to find several dozen galaxies and globulars. None of the galaxies are within 10 kly.

### #35 rico

rico

Member

• Veteran Member
• 669 posts
• Gender:Male
• Interests:Jesus, computers, physics, video games, philosophy, epistomology
• Age: 34
• Christian
• Young Earth Creationist
• USA

Posted 21 August 2010 - 06:57 PM

I don't understand this analogy.

Distance to other galaxies and globular clusters is established by a range of measures.  Cepheids and supernovae are the simplest and most familiar standard candles.  All measure of astronomical distance from trigonometric parallax through the standard candles to redshift agree with each other where they overlap and none are based on presupposition.

With a simple 6" telescope I have been able to find several dozen galaxies and globulars.  None of the galaxies are within 10 kly.

I just mean the "in-transit" hypothesis, I think: http://en.wikipedia....arlight_problem
Checking out for the night. Just a hypothesis for YECs: maybe stars didn't decay until after the fall?

### #36 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
• Guests

Posted 21 August 2010 - 07:13 PM

I just mean the "in-transit" hypothesis, I think

A creator could have made everything look older than it actually is but then it couldn't really blame us for accepting the evidence. A creator might have tweaked c so that eveything outside the Milky Way seems to be further than 10kly away but the measured distances always match those of standard candles (not dependent upon the value of c) where they overlap.

### #37 jason78

jason78

Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 August 2010 - 02:26 AM

Yes, but the question is has light always traveled through a vacuum in space (a scientific assumption).  It seems to me in the magical 1st second of the BBT model that the environment wasn't as it is today.  Especially with the theory of inflation.

You'd be right there. The universe didn't become transparent to light until about 377,000 years after the Big Bang.

### #38 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 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 22 August 2010 - 05:09 PM

Many young Earth creationists believe the world/universe to be less than 10,000 years old, so how is it we see stars, galaxies, nebula and so on that are further away than light can travel in 10,000 years?

Here is some of Jason Lisle. I'm not sure if this is what Humphries proposes, but it does use accepted science as an explanation. Before you criticize too much, just remember the big bang has a horizon problem that had to be answed with hypotheses which are not able to be proven. Lisle uses the theory of relativity to explain how light may not be rigidly fixed in "our" time.

Many secular astronomers assume that the universe is infinitely big and has an infinite number of galaxies. This has never been proven, nor is there evidence that would lead us naturally to that conclusion. So, it is a leap of Ã¢â‚¬Å“blindÃ¢â‚¬Â faith on their part. However, if we make a different assumption instead, it leads to a very different conclusion. Suppose that our solar system is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies. Although this cannot be proven for certain at present, it is fully consistent with the evidence; so it is a reasonable possibility.

In that case, the earth would be in a gravitational well. This term means that it would require energy to pull something away from our position into deeper space. In this gravitational well, we would not Ã¢â‚¬Å“feelÃ¢â‚¬Â any extra gravity, nonetheless time would flow more slowly on earth (or anywhere in our solar system) than in other places of the universe. This effect is thought to be very small today; however, it may have been much stronger in the past. (If the universe is expanding as most astronomers believe, then physics demands that such effects would have been stronger when the universe was smaller). This being the case, clocks on earth would have ticked much more slowly than clocks in deep space. Thus, light from the most distant galaxies would arrive on earth in only a few thousand years as measured by clocks on earth. This idea is certainly intriguing. And although there are still a number of mathematical details that need to be worked out, the premise certainly is reasonable. Some creation scientists are actively researching this idea.

### #39 jason78

jason78

Veteran Member

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

Posted 22 August 2010 - 05:28 PM

Here is some of Jason Lisle.  I'm not sure if this is what Humphries proposes, but it does use accepted science as an explanation.  Before you criticize too much, just remember the big bang has a horizon problem that had to be answed with hypotheses which are not able to be proven.  The horizon problem is deep time believers' starlight and electromagnetic wave problem.  In the same way, Lisle uses the theory of relativity to explain how light may not be rigidly fixed in "our" time.

Where have you been? The horizon problem was solved a long time ago.

### #40 AFJ

AFJ

AFJ

• Veteran Member
• 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 22 August 2010 - 05:54 PM

Where have you been?  The horizon problem was solved a long time ago.

I'm not a physics man--never claimed it. Why would Lisle's hypotheses be wrong? The horizon problem is answered by the inflation theory, but it proposes things which can not be proved, nor more than creative fiat.

Can you be specific?

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users