Jump to content


Starlight


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

#41 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 23 August 2010 - 04:11 AM

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.

View Post


Hi, This "Hypothesis" is similar to what Humphries proposes, but both could easily proven wrong.
Both set the earth or our Solar system in the center of the universe in a big gravitational well. It is true that according to general relativity time in gravitational wells runs slower than in free space unaffected by gravitation. This is measurable: For 20,000 km above earth surface thats about 40 ms per day. So if this proposal is true you should see it depending on the form of the gravitational well. Things should happen faster in space than calculated here on earth, for example rotation around gravitational centers of galaxies, star clusters, planets etc. We don´t see that at least not in a very big measurable amount. Second, light arriving from things outside of that gravitational well should be very much blue shifted. The characteristical frequencies of electron excitations should be blue shifted. We don´t see that either. And very important at last, mass rotates around gravitational centers, so we should see everything rotationg around us and that in different speeds depending on the distance to us.

It is easy to propose a hypothesis, but you have to think about the consequences and check them against reality. So the hypotheses of these two guys have no basis in reality.

#42 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 23 August 2010 - 04:40 AM

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?

View Post


I hope i was in my last post, but i can amplify further if you want.
You are right that the inflation theory answers the horizon problem. It also answers some other problems like the flatness problem, the giant structures in the universe and the deficiency of magnetic monopoles. In that area it solves some big problems and thats what scientific theories should do. As a cause of the inflation some not yet found quantum field is proposed.
It is not quite true that this theory is not testable (a theory could never be proveable). The implication of the inflation theory is that it predicts fluctuations in the background radiation so called "harmonics" or overtones from which the expansion rates could be calculated.
Another way to find some evidence would be the detection of the proposed quantum field, which could happen in the LHC.

There are other alternatives to inflation and that are the ekpyrotic universe derieved from string theory but we need to measure high frequency gravitational waves for that or the weyl curvature hypothesis which could be evidenced by tidal gravitational effects on big galaxy clusters and some other possibilities derieved from loop quantum gravitation or twistor theory.

#43 rico

rico

    Member

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

Posted 10 September 2010 - 09:51 AM

Hi, This "Hypothesis" is similar to what Humphries proposes, but both could easily proven wrong.
Both set the earth or our Solar system in the center of the universe in a big gravitational well. It is true that according to general relativity time in gravitational wells runs slower than in free space unaffected by gravitation. This is measurable: For 20,000 km above earth surface thats about 40 ms per day. So if this proposal is true you should see it depending on the form of the gravitational well. Things should happen faster in space than calculated here on earth, for example rotation around gravitational centers of galaxies, star clusters, planets etc. We don´t see that at least not in a very big measurable amount. Second, light arriving from things outside of that gravitational well should be very much blue shifted. The characteristical frequencies of electron excitations should be blue shifted. We don´t see that either. And very important at last, mass rotates around gravitational centers, so we should see everything rotationg around us and that in different speeds depending on the distance to us.

It is easy to propose a hypothesis, but you have to think about the consequences and check them against reality. So the hypotheses of these two guys have no basis in reality.

View Post


I don't think its possible to even seen anything without a light source - an example is shutting your eyes. Here is an article about how animals see: http://www.indianchi...animals_see.htm

I think I'll disagree with the light "in transit" hypothesis. Darkness is the absence of light. It appears all creation had no light at first -

Gen 1:2 KJV And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Gen 1:3 KJV And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Gen 1:4 KJV And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
I think each mass has its own gravity. I am also having trouble with why you brought up gravity wells - how does that relate to the distant starlight problem, so I am having trouble understanding what context you are coming from? (Could you restate your premise I'm confused, or something Thanks I think each mass has its own gravity.) On vacuums --For me personally, I do not think absolute vacuums (nothing) is possible the way the laws of creation have been set up (in the physical).

#44 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 11 September 2010 - 07:31 AM

I don't think its possible to even seen anything without a light source - an example is shutting your eyes.  Here is an article about how animals see: [...]


Hi rico,
I don´t know what you want to tell me with that. Surely you need light to see or other electromagnetic radiation for other kinds of "seeing" like IR.


[...] I think each mass has its own gravity.  I am also having trouble with why you brought up gravity wells - how does that relate to the distant starlight problem, so I am having trouble understanding what context you are coming from?  (Could you restate your premise I'm confused, or something Thanks I think each mass has its own gravity.)  On vacuums --For me personally, I do not think absolute vacuums (nothing) is possible the way the laws of creation have been set up (in the physical).

View Post

Mass has gravity, that´s for sure but with a lot of massive objects the center of the gravity is not necessarily associate with one of these massive objects but somewhere maybe between them. The gravity of all objects adds up and is located at the barycenter, balance point, center of gravity or whatever you want to call it. This I mean by a "gravity well". Humphries and Lisle propose the earth sitting in one gravity well generated by all mass in the universe therefore according to general relativity the time is going slower here than "up" in space.
You get me now?

#45 rico

rico

    Member

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

Posted 11 September 2010 - 08:32 AM

Hi rico,
I don´t know what you want to tell me with that. Surely you need light to see or other electromagnetic radiation for other kinds of "seeing" like IR.
Mass has gravity, that´s for sure but with a lot of massive objects the center of the gravity is not necessarily associate with one of these massive objects but somewhere maybe between them. The gravity of all objects adds up and is located at the barycenter, balance point, center of gravity or whatever you want to call it. This I mean by a "gravity well". Humphries and Lisle propose the earth sitting in one gravity well generated by all mass in the universe therefore according to general relativity the time is going slower here than "up" in space.    You get me now?

View Post

Yes, now I understand the gravity well idea, thanks.

#46 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:56 PM

Yes, now I understand the gravity well idea, thanks.

View Post


You are welcome. I hope you also understand that it´s nonsense?

#47 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 11 September 2010 - 04:42 PM

Mass has gravity, that´s for sure but with a lot of massive objects the center of the gravity is not necessarily associate with one of these massive objects but somewhere maybe between them. The gravity of all objects adds up and is located at the barycenter, balance point, center of gravity or whatever you want to call it. This I mean by a "gravity well". Humphries and Lisle propose the earth sitting in one gravity well generated by all mass in the universe therefore according to general relativity the time is going slower here than "up" in space.
You get me now?

View Post

Physics and astronomy are not my strong points. But I believe they are proposing the possibility we are in the center of the universe, and that would be a basis for a gravity well.

I have read that anyway. And I honestly don't understand why that causes a gravity well, but that is what I read from them.

I know there are differing hypotheses for the distant starlight problem for creationists. One has to do with the Theory of Relativity and the reference from a photon versus earth. I like that.

#48 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2010 - 05:39 PM

Hi, This "Hypothesis" is similar to what Humphries proposes, but both could easily proven wrong.
Both set the earth or our Solar system in the center of the universe in a big gravitational well. It is true that according to general relativity time in gravitational wells runs slower than in free space unaffected by gravitation. This is measurable: For 20,000 km above earth surface thats about 40 ms per day. So if this proposal is true you should see it depending on the form of the gravitational well. Things should happen faster in space than calculated here on earth, for example rotation around gravitational centers of galaxies, star clusters, planets etc. We don´t see that at least not in a very big measurable amount. Second, light arriving from things outside of that gravitational well should be very much blue shifted. The characteristical frequencies of electron excitations should be blue shifted. We don´t see that either. And very important at last, mass rotates around gravitational centers, so we should see everything rotationg around us and that in different speeds depending on the distance to us.

It is easy to propose a hypothesis, but you have to think about the consequences and check them against reality. So the hypotheses of these two guys have no basis in reality.

View Post


I understand gravitational time dilation, but how does that matter. We're already in a gravity well. Why would it matter if we're in one at the center of the universe or anywhere else???

Also, why would light be blue shifted?? I would think that if we were at the center of the universe we would observe no blue shift at all.

#49 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 13 September 2010 - 11:47 PM

I understand gravitational time dilation, but how does that matter.  We're already in a gravity well.  Why would it matter if we're in one at the center of the universe or anywhere else???

Also, why would light be blue shifted??  I would think that if we were at the center of the universe we would observe no blue shift at all.

View Post


Well, Humphries and Lisle are using this gravitational well to explain why in their view the time is running slower on earth than in space, so the earth could be about 6000 years old and the universe as old as it needs to be. They have to use a lot of mass and a very deep "well" to get this big time difference. This doesn´t work in many aspects. One is if you have this time difference between space an earth you also get a very massive blue shift of all light sources in space. Actually it would be so much blue shifted, we wouldn´t see anything at all but get roasted in gamma rays.

We are in a gravity well right now, thats right but not in a deep one they need us to be.
Why do you think we would see no blue shift at the center of the universe?

#50 Guest_tharock220_*

Guest_tharock220_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2010 - 07:04 PM

Well, Humphries and Lisle are using this gravitational well to explain why in their view the time is running slower on earth than in space, so the earth could be about 6000 years old and the universe as old as it needs to be. They have to use a lot of mass and a very deep "well" to get this big time difference. This doesn´t work in many aspects. One is if you have this time difference between space an earth you also get a very massive blue shift of all light sources in space. Actually it would be so much blue shifted, we wouldn´t see anything at all but get roasted in gamma rays.

We are in a gravity well right now, thats right but not in a deep one they need us to be.
Why do you think we would see no blue shift at the center of the universe?

View Post


Gravitational blueshifting??? I'm a layman in cosmology. Would Earth being the the center of the universe put it into a deeper gravitational well.

#51 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 15 September 2010 - 12:44 AM

Gravitational blueshifting???  I'm a layman in cosmology.  Would Earth being the the center of the universe put it into a deeper gravitational well.

View Post


The gravitational shift works in both directions. If light works its way out of a gravitational well into free space it gets redshiftet. If it goes down a well it get´s blue shiftet. The earth in the center of the universe wouldn´t necessarily create a deep gravitational well in which the earth sits but Humphries and Lisle need that well to get the differences in time dilatation. Well this comes with the blue shift (besides other observable phenomenons), which is not observed, so their proposed hypotheses are falsified.

#52 magicninja

magicninja

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New mexico

Posted 23 September 2010 - 12:21 AM

How do we know the actual speed of light???  Did someone catch light and record its speed?  How does one go about catching light? Did light just say it was constant, and therefore it was so???

Isn't the speed of light just an estimate for an equation, that makes light constant... not that light is actually constant.  It is only constant using the formula, and the given estimate of what people think how fast light is.

View Post


Scientists have been trying to demolish the Theory of Relativity since it was established. Unfortunately for them (No fame of debunking Einstein) and YEC's all they do is prove he is correct and the speed of light is well measured and constant. I won't say he can't be wrong. Perhaps we don't have the technology to change relativity right now. No one can say he was wrong yet though.

#53 magicninja

magicninja

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 19 posts
  • Age: 28
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New mexico

Posted 23 September 2010 - 12:50 AM

Gravitational blueshifting???  I'm a layman in cosmology.  Would Earth being the the center of the universe put it into a deeper gravitational well.

View Post


The dopplar effect is what he is referring to. Mass determines your gravitational well. No matter where we were in space Earths gravity would be the same. What he is trying to say is that the Gravitational well needed to slow time to the point of losing 13 billion years would effect the way we see light from space entering our gravitational field. The gravity required to slow down time that much would cause all light that we see from space to be blueshifted. That is, the wavelengths would be compressed and the light would appear blue. If you could stand on a blackhole and observe the universe this is probably what you would see and maybe time does slow to a crawl on blackholes but the Earth just doesn't have that kind of pull in the universe and never has and never will.

As a matter of fact, due to the expansion of the universe, almost everything past a few million lightyears is redshifted from our perspective. Therefore, this slowed time on Earth idea cannot be true in any way except maybe in blackholes.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Bing (1)