Jump to content


Photo

It's A Matter Of Time


  • Please log in to reply
334 replies to this topic

#1 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 29 March 2014 - 04:28 AM

If the universe is only 6,000 years (or so) years old, how is it possible we can observe objects billions of light years from Earth? 

 

This topic is the result of

 

Pi, I've read your article on SN1987a, and conspicuous by its absence is any attention to the question of gravitational time dilation. As I challenged you before, as a result of deriving a new (non Schwarzschild) Einstein metric to explain the Pioneer anomaly, Humphreys has modified his white hole cosmology to give a better explanation of distant (deep time) astronomical phenomena as occurring over millions/billions of years while little (if any) time passed on the earth. I'm curious if you have had a chance to look deeper into this.

Sorry, it's taken so long.  Thanks for your patience.  Let's have a run at it....

 

First, a quick outline of the problem.... using the simple formula time = distance / velocity, it takes millions or billions of years for light from distant objects to reach Earth.  Over time, YEC have attacked the distance measurements; the velocity of light; the rate of the passage of time; and more recently, the measurement of time itself in an effort to resolve the problem.  As far as I know, there are no longer any serious challenges to the distance or the velocity of light.  This has been the reason it became necessary to come up with more exotic solutions such as gravitational time dilation of Dr. Russell Humprheys' "White Hole" cosmology (which had flaws dealing with "nearby" objects so needed to be modified) and the measurement of the speed of light in Dr. Jason Lisle's "Anisotropic Synchrony."

 

For the convenience of readers, my Sn1987a article is at: http://www.evolution...com/SN1987a.htm

Humphreys' modified model is at: http://creation.com/...ation-cosmology

 

The Pioneer anomaly has been explained by NASA without the need for "waters above" or a new metric.  It's the result of heat from the spacecraft itself.  Link:  http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2012-209

 

My calculus was never very good and after many years of disuse, it's pretty much non-existent.  I'm forwarding the link to Humphrey's work to my own physics guru for his input. 

 

There are a few things I did notice....

1)  Most of his justifications for his claims come from scripture, not actual observational evidence.

2)  With or without the water sphere, the gravitational influence is a function of the inverse square of the distance.  For that reason, the difference in gravitational time between relatively nearby objects, such as Sn1987a (167,000 ly), will be insignificant compared to that of very distant ones (billions of ly).

3)  Humphreys claims God created the galaxy masses on Day 4.  I'm not sure how this is a scientific explanation of the formation of galaxies.

4)  Humphreys claims a second time dilation event with no justification other than his interpretation of a couple verses of the Bible and no supporting evidence at all.

 

Frankly, his whole proposal looks highly speculative and aimed more at Biblical apologetics than a scientific explanation.

 

I'll let you know if/when I hear from my guru.

 



#2 Dig4gold

Dig4gold

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,045 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 53
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Raleigh, NC

Posted 29 March 2014 - 05:32 AM

piasan, do you understand the universe to be bounded or unbounded?

#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 29 March 2014 - 11:50 AM

2)  With or without the water sphere, the gravitational influence is a function of the inverse square of the distance.  For that reason, the difference in gravitational time between relatively nearby objects, such as Sn1987a (167,000 ly), will be insignificant compared to that of very distant ones (billions of ly).

This was poorly stated.

 

Humphreys puts Earth at the bottom of a gravitational well.  He has time on Earth essentially stopped while time at the edges of the universe proceeds "normally."  Then, as the universe expands, Earth "escapes" from the well and time here speeds up to match that at of the most distant objects. Since Earth and Sn1987a are comparatively close compared to objects at the edges of the universe, the Earth and Sn1987a would have very similar gravitational time compared to those distant objects.  In other words, if time at Earth is stopped, time at Sn1987a would, for all practical purposes, be stopped also.  Pretty much the same thing would apply to Andromeda.

 

Hopefully, that was a bit more clear....

 

 

piasan, do you understand the universe to be bounded or unbounded?

Uncertain and it makes no real difference since the YEC problems begin before we even reach the center of our own galaxy, let alone the extremely distant objects billions of light years from Earth.

 

I do have some speculation about an alternative explanation for the CMB that would involve a universe far larger than what we observe.  In simple terms, which is about as far as I've taken it, more distant objects are moving from Earth at increasing velocities due to the expansion of the universe itself.  The Hubble volume is determined by the distance at which the objects are receding from Earth at relative velocities equal to the speed of light.  At that velocity, those objects would be unobservable.  This distance is about 14 billion light years.... very near the estimated age of the universe based on WMAP measurements (13.8 billion light years.)  In other words, the universe could be practically unlimited in size and anything beyond 14 billion light years would be undetectable because light from beyond that distance would never reach us.

 

My speculation is that the CMB could be the light from those objects reaching the event horizon limit set by the expansion of the universe.  It would be much like there is a screen at that distance and those more distant objects are shining on the screen making their actual distance impossible to calculate.  Again, it's purely my own speculation and there are a lot of people studying this who know far more than I about it.



#4 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 29 March 2014 - 12:32 PM

Hi Pi, you know how I personally feel about this issue. I'll exercise candor on the logic that leads to your conclusions. I've asked before, somewhat rhetorically, but now I ask hoping for a response:

Should I sell the farm on this one interesting and unusual argument? I'm asking with consideration to the unusual nature of light and time. Using the fact that we can predictably measure an attribute locally that we should pull this to the center of our worldview?

#5 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 March 2014 - 05:52 AM

I enjoy this subject greatly because it allows me to demonstrate what an honest debate is supposed to look like.

There are some great arguments out there, that I really enjoy, coming from prominent YEC astronomers. In the present, all those arguments are mostly conjecture built around some extractable phenomena regarding gravity, time and light.

I have my own conjecture built up now that I've been studying this subject. I can't prove it but I believe that some of the observations that lead us to conclude Dark Matter and Dark Energy are possibly an observational disparity between two severely distanced objects peering at each other's mismatched times.

It's my very own ad-hoc conjecture on the subject.
:)

Now if we could just get our godless Neo-Darwinian friends, who reject God's supernatural hand in our reality, to exercise some candor too...

A couple particular subjects come to mind...

Abiogenesis

Macroevolution

Information in the cell

Epigenetics

Consciousness

Apparent Design


...just for starters.

I would never expect somebody to abandon an idea based on one or two anomalous observations. At work I considered multiple anomalous possibilities before I attempt a change. Just because they're possible it doesn't prohibit me from forming strong conceptual ideas from the balance of coherent data points.

Isn't that a big part of how methodological science works? You set up 50 petri dishes and set a controlled environment and 50 more petri dishes with an alternately controlled environment. If 1 out of the 100 show an anomaly, the protocol is to assume unknown contamination. This is why you make 50 of each and not just 1 of each... to enrich interpretation.

I propose that our interpretation is inadmissible due to the inadequate sample size. We only have one observation point in a vast universe. We need to enrich our data by observing the universe from alternate galaxies before I draw any dogmatic conclusions.

How's that?

#6 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:28 AM

I enjoy this subject greatly because it allows me to demonstrate what an honest debate is supposed to look like.


Just for the record; this wasn't intended to be some mutually exclusive statement. There are many honest debates going on. This particular subject is where I feel I get to demonstrate the fact that even as a committed Christian I can still ponder alternate points of view.

#7 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:05 AM

In addition to my argument above is my conclusion that those people forming conclusions about "millions of years ago" based on data in the present, and no control from millions of years ago, are simply going down a primrose path of speculation masquerading as science.

Darwin would be so proud of how we've taken his day-dreams and ran with them.

#8 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:23 PM

Hi Pi, you know how I personally feel about this issue. I'll exercise candor on the logic that leads to your conclusions. I've asked before, somewhat rhetorically, but now I ask hoping for a response:

Should I sell the farm on this one interesting and unusual argument? I'm asking with consideration to the unusual nature of light and time. Using the fact that we can predictably measure an attribute locally that we should pull this to the center of our worldview?

Well, I have listed a number of reasons I reject Genesis literalism.  This is just the one I consider most damaging to YEC and the easiest for those not well versed in the physics to understand.

 

The nature of light may not be as well understood as we'd like, but its velocity is well understood and documented.  I'm not merely using the local speed of light either.  If you examined my Sn1987a article, you'd know that we have confirmation in the decay of Co56 that the speed of light at the time and place of that event was similar to that observed on Earth today.  Further, there is the research of Paul Davies who studied light from galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth and he found the speed of light was within 0.001% of our local and current measurements.  Creationists made a lot of noise about the Davies experiment at the time.  I guess they didn't realize 0.001% isn't a lot of help when one needs more than 200,000,000%.  Keep in mind, a change of the speed of light has a number of reprocussions other than merely reducing the travel time of the light itself.

 

As for "selling the farm" ... we each need to decide for ourselves where we set our priorities and how we evaluate the evidence.

 

In addition to my argument above is my conclusion that those people forming conclusions about "millions of years ago" based on data in the present, and no control from millions of years ago, are simply going down a primrose path of speculation masquerading as science.

The beauty of astronomy is that it does provide a window to the past.  When we see light from a distant star, we are witnessing what was taking place at the location of the star at the time the light left it.

 

 

Darwin would be so proud of how we've taken his day-dreams and ran with them.

The starlight evidence has nothing at all to do with Darwin or "his day-dreams."  It is a completely independent line of inquiry.  Evolution (and the Big Bang, for that matter) could be completely false and the starlight evidence still must be dealt with.



#9 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 March 2014 - 02:30 PM

I have heard from my physics guru.  Here's what he had do say:

 

Hi Pi,

 

I got a copy of Humphreys' new GR model to which you referred.  I took a quick glance at it and looks pretty lame on the face of it.  But I would have to spend some significant time with it to properly assess & critique it.  I don't have that time at the moment. (Pi snips personal material)  After I get back to KY I'll try to take a look at Humphreys' new stuff in more depth.

 

Pi resumes:

So, he's aware of Humphreys' revised model, has the book, and is planning to look into it.... but apparently we'll have to wait a while to get his analysis.  By way of his qualifications, he's a Physics PhD who is a professor at a Christian university and has a pretty good handle on a wealth of subjects.  I did recommend this forum to him and he would be a great asset to the discussions here.  Hopefully, he'll decide to join and participate.  (I did highly recommend these discussions to him.)



#10 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 March 2014 - 06:39 PM

Pi, give me the highest resolution image of Alpha Centauri A, that's not enhanced, and then I'll explain why I'll use more tangible data to formulate my worldview.

The starlight evidence has nothing at all to do with Darwin or "his day-dreams."  It is a completely independent line of inquiry.

I give you more credit then to attempt this dodge from the whole point for why I posted on this thread. With all due respect, this is what I expect from a TalkOrigin's parrot not you.

I'm not trying to conflate Darwin and starlight.

The greater point is that Darwinists, like yourself, speculate on numerous lines of evidence why the brick walls keep popping up empirically when defending evolution. I made a list above.

I guess I can live with one head-scratcher regarding the images of distant stars and perceived light speed and continue to trust God's Word.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 March 2014 - 07:18 PM

Attached File  image.jpg   35.07KB   3 downloads

Is it just me or is it hubris to make enormous proclamations about the universe when our best image of our nearest neighbor is a grainy spot of light?

I've been watching the Science Channel specials highlighting Kepler's work...

http://www.universet...tended-to-2016/

You get these long stories of the planets it's discovering and when you learn the empirical part, you realize how little is hard science and just how much is speculation.

For example: I do believe Kepler is discovering exoplanets but the empirical bit ends at "yup that star wobbles. It has something orbiting it."

#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 March 2014 - 08:13 PM

Pi, give me the highest resolution image of Alpha Centauri A, that's not enhanced, and then I'll explain why I'll use more tangible data to formulate my worldview.

I was just about to post a comment that it would be much easier for you to present the image you're talking about than it would for me to search one out for you when you posted the image.  Thanks.

 

 

Is it just me or is it hubris to make enormous proclamations about the universe when our best image of our nearest neighbor is a grainy spot of light?

Astronomers have gotten pretty good about teasing a lot of information out of a little bit of light.  We can look at it and tell:

1)  How far from Earth it is.  (By one of more of about 3 dozen methods.)

2)  What it is made of.  (Be examining it's light spectrum.)

3)  It's temperature.  (By its color.)

4) How it is moving relative to Earth.  (By Doppler measurements)

 

And that's just for openers.  Then we look at thousands of different stars and watch them over a period of a few centuries and we learn a lot more.

 

 

For example: I do believe Kepler is discovering exoplanets but the empirical bit ends at "yup that star wobbles. It has something orbiting it."

We can also determine the period of the orbit; the mass of the planet; and the distance of the planet from the star.  In addition, based on the temperature of the star, we can also determiine if the planet is in the "goldilocks" zone.  It's all mathematical and based on well established physics.

 

Actually, though, Kepler was designed to replace the "star wobbles" method of detecting planets.   Instead, it relies on planetary transits of the star.  In that way, Kepler can simultaneously monitor thousands of stars.  Of course, it also limits the planetary systems Kepler can examine to those that are "edge on" to Earth.

 

You might want to learn more about Kepler and how it works here:   http://kepler.nasa.gov/



#13 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 30 March 2014 - 09:21 PM

Pi, that's all great but all that info is still very incomplete.

I'm not trying to knock astronomy. There's a lot of cool stuff going on there. The bottom line is; How much do I invest into the extrapolations?

If a godless secularist can look at life and say "Well at some point something like spontaneous generation MUST have happened." With all the evidence refusing to yield a workable answer how... then me saying "There must be an answer for what we're witnessing in a 6000 year old creation." doesn't seem too perplexing.

Pi, if you're intellectually honest you must run into some contrary things in your own experience that are juxtaposed and present a dilemma. If you don't, you either aren't thinking enough or prefer being oblivious. Life has its mysteries. Just because we run into them doesn't mean necessary worldview catastrophe.

We use rescuing devices all the time. Our pride and ignorance comes into question not from a puzzle or two but when our worldview is dying the death of a thousand qualifications and we ignore it.

Ask evolutionists what that feels like. They've been living it for the last few decades.

#14 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 March 2014 - 09:33 PM

Darwin would be so proud of how we've taken his day-dreams and ran with them.

 

The starlight evidence has nothing at all to do with Darwin or "his day-dreams."  It is a completely independent line of inquiry.  Evolution (and the Big Bang, for that matter) could be completely false and the starlight evidence still must be dealt with.

 

I give you more credit then to attempt this dodge from the whole point for why I posted on this thread. With all due respect, this is what I expect from a TalkOrigin's parrot not you.

Excuse me.  The point of this thread is the starlight travel time problem of YEC.  You did provide a list of a half dozen issues,  none of which have anything at all to do with "deep time" that refutes YEC.

 

In another thread, I gave a list of five reasons I reject Genesis literalism .... and that was just up thru the flood story.  The only one that had anything at all to do with evolution were a couple aspects of the flood... (1) the number of alleles in humans and (2) creationists need evolution thousands of times faster than suggested by the evidence to populate the Earth with the variety of life forms we see today from the contents of a 450 foot barge.

 

Again, this is a completely independent line of inquiry.

 

 

I'm not trying to conflate Darwin and starlight.

You're the one who brought him up.  What does Darwin have to do with the OP?  How many times have I to explain Darwin/evolution have nothing to do with my reasons for rejecting YEC?

 

 

The greater point is that Darwinists, like yourself, speculate on numerous lines of evidence why the brick walls keep popping up empirically when defending evolution. I made a list above.

This one isn't about evolution.  It's about astronomy and physics.  In this topic, I'm a "Newtonist" or maybe an "Einsteinist."  You'll need to be able to argue against them, not Darwin.

 

 

I guess I can live with one head-scratcher regarding the images of distant stars and perceived light speed and continue to trust God's Word.

If there were only one "head-scratcher," you'd have a point.  I've listed several.

 

One (non-scientific) explanation I've seen is the "light in transit" or "appearance of age" argument.  The reason is when we look at distant objects, that light is of events that have taken place.  In "appearance of age," for example, the star Sanduleak 69-202 never exploded as seen from Earth.  This would be true of more than 99.99999999 of the universe.  You may be comfortable with that much of the universe being an illusion.  I'm not.

 

Since God's creation is so clearly in conflict with His word, we need to find a resolution to the problem.  Yours is to go with the choice that is much more subject to human fallibility.  Mine is to reexamine the word and see if there is a greater meaning than what I get from literal reading.



#15 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

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

Posted 31 March 2014 - 06:41 AM

You're the one who brought him up.  What does Darwin have to do with the OP?

Maybe one of the lurkers could be kind enough to rearticulate the premise of why I joined this thread in the first place. I just want to confirm that the larger picture isn't being lost on everyone, besides Piasan, as he attempts to drag me into the weeds as I'm trying to communicate a rather simple message.

#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 31 March 2014 - 11:10 AM

Pi, that's all great but all that info is still very incomplete.

I'm not trying to knock astronomy. There's a lot of cool stuff going on there. The bottom line is; How much do I invest into the extrapolations?

Again, I think that's something each of us must determine for ourselves.  The thing is I can pretty well understand the astronomy, physics, and most of the math.  My understanding of the biological arguments is much less well founded.  For that reason, I tend to put more importance on those things I understand well than on those things I don't.  When looking at what someone says about things I don't understand well, I often look at how they handle thing I do understand.  If they're right on what I understand, it adds to their credibility on what I don't understand.... and it works both ways.   When someone speaks idiocy on things I understand well, don't expect them to have a lot of credibility with me when they're discussing issues where I lack knowledge or understanding.  Honestly, I doubt I'm very much different from anyone else in that regard.

 

 

If a godless secularist can look at life and say "Well at some point something like spontaneous generation MUST have happened." With all the evidence refusing to yield a workable answer how... then me saying "There must be an answer for what we're witnessing in a 6000 year old creation." doesn't seem too perplexing.

This brings up an interesting point from another discussion.  It was pointed out (by Cal?) that creationists don't stop with "Goddidit" but continue with "Goddidit and we're working on HOW."  I asked for references to creationists actually working on HOW life was created.  The silence was deafening.  It seems the only ones working on HOW Goddidit are the mainstream scientists.  Will they be successful?   I doubt it.  Does that mean they should stop trying?  No.  Scientific research often produces unexpected rewards and benefits.

 

As you've pointed out, there are a number of creationist scientists working on "HOW" we can see those distant objects.  Some of their proposals are interesting and some are downright silly.  Mainstream science has the same kind of things going on.... interesting research and silly research.

 

 

Pi, if you're intellectually honest you must run into some contrary things in your own experience that are juxtaposed and present a dilemma. If you don't, you either aren't thinking enough or prefer being oblivious. Life has its mysteries. Just because we run into them doesn't mean necessary worldview catastrophe.

I don't regard abandoning Genesis literalism as a "worldview catastrophe."  All of the main aspects of my worldview remained intact.  It matters little to my worldview if God created the universe 6000 years ago or 13,800,000,000 years ago.

 

 

We use rescuing devices all the time. Our pride and ignorance comes into question not from a puzzle or two but when our worldview is dying the death of a thousand qualifications and we ignore it.

Of course we use rescue devices all the time.  All of us do it.  I have no problem with "let there be light" = big bang.  I have no problem with God creating life by a process we neither know nor understand.  Can those things be proven scientifically?  No.  They are my own (personal) religious beliefs and are not subject to scientific proofs for that reason.

 

 

Maybe one of the lurkers could be kind enough to rearticulate the premise of why I joined this thread in the first place. I just want to confirm that the larger picture isn't being lost on everyone, besides Piasan, as he attempts to drag me into the weeds as I'm trying to communicate a rather simple message.

I think I understand why you joined the thread.  If possible, I'd like to keep this discussion from drifting off to things like: abiogenesis, macroevolution, information in the cell, epigenetics, consciousness, apparent design, etc.  Instead, I believe it would be best if we keep this one narrowly focused on the age issue.

 

You once said I "handcuff" god.  I look at it very differently.  Some years ago, in a Yahoogroup discussion, Michael Suttkus put it like this.....

The YEC vision of God is that of a pool player who walks around the table picking up the balls one at a time and placing them in the pockets.  My vision of God is that of a pool player who makes every ball on the table with a single stroke of the cue and calls every combination and bank when he does so ..... while blindfolded.



#17 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 01 April 2014 - 04:54 AM

Thanks Pi. I have a number of questions I'll get to when I get the chance to post a full response.



#18 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 03 April 2014 - 10:19 PM

Sorry Pi, I've got ants on the brain right now as I put together the material for a post on homoplasy in Pogonomyrmex (the western harvester ant), but I do want to get into this in depth with you. So here are a couple starter questions. (By the way, my calculus is as rusty as yours, and the only thing one of my calculus textbooks is doing right now is holding up my mouse-pad.)
 

...
There are a few things I did notice....
1)  Most of his justifications for his claims come from scripture, not actual observational evidence.

Frankly, his whole proposal looks highly speculative and aimed more at Biblical apologetics than a scientific explanation.
...

 
How is that any different than starting with the "Cosmological (or Copernican if you like) Principle", which assumes that we are nowhere in particular in the universe (contrary to actual observation of, for example, a consistent red-shift by most of the objects in the universe, local anomalies like Andromeda being the exception)?
 

This was poorly stated.
 
Humphreys puts Earth at the bottom of a gravitational well.  He has time on Earth essentially stopped while time at the edges of the universe proceeds "normally."  Then, as the universe expands, Earth "escapes" from the well and time here speeds up to match that at of the most distant objects. Since Earth and Sn1987a are comparatively close compared to objects at the edges of the universe, the Earth and Sn1987a would have very similar gravitational time compared to those distant objects.  In other words, if time at Earth is stopped, time at Sn1987a would, for all practical purposes, be stopped also.  Pretty much the same thing would apply to Andromeda.
 
Hopefully, that was a bit more clear....


As I understand it, the difference in time between the earth and Andromeda or Sn1987a would be dependent on when those objects passed outside of the event horizon (by their own time frame relative to the earth), with the earth still being in achronicity, rather than their nearness to earth. So, would not a controlled expansion with earth at the center (to begin with at least) allow for synchronization of the light (and relative time passage) from those objects to reach the earth at the same time on Day 4 as the earth passed out of the event horizon (I am borrowing your billiard analogy with the earth being the focus of the creation of the universe, or, in terms of the analogy, the sinking of the 8-ball as the final stroke of the earth passing out of the event horizon biggrin.png).



#19 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 April 2014 - 10:54 PM

Sorry Pi, I've got ants on the brain right now as I put together the material for a post on homoplasy in Pogonomyrmex (the western harvester ant), but I do want to get into this in depth with you.

No problem.  You were patient with me on this one for months while I was discussing other stuff.  There's no reason I can't wait a while. 

 

Besides, I'd like to see what my physics guru has to say about Humphreys' revised model.  From his message, I expect it'll be a week or so before he can start a serious analysis.

 

 

So here are a couple starter questions. (By the way, my calculus is as rusty as yours, and the only thing one of my calculus textbooks is doing right now is holding up my mouse-pad.)

Understood.  The only time I really used the calculus was to prove the algebraic equations.

 

 

How is that any different than starting with the "Cosmological (or Copernican if you like) Principle", which assumes that we are nowhere in particular in the universe (contrary to actual observation of, for example, a consistent red-shift by most of the objects in the universe, local anomalies like Andromeda being the exception)?

I realize Humphreys model requires a geocentric or nearly geocentric universe.  As far as I know, there is no way to determine the center of the universe.  The reason is that due to the expansion of space itself, from all perspectives the universe is expanding in all directions.  Essentially, wherever you are,it will look (to you) like you're at the center.  In other words, there's really no way to tell where the center is. Here's a good illustration of why it will look that way.   http://www.explorato...ols/center.html

 

As for situations like Andromeda being a local anomaly .... it appears Andomeda and the Milky Way and the galaxies are going to collide... in about 4 billion years.  While unusual it is hardly unknown for galaxies to collide.  Here are a few images ....

 

 

colliding_galaxies.jpg

 

 

From simulations I've seen, the end result of a collision between spiral galaxies is an elliptical galaxy.

 

 

As I understand it, the difference in time between the earth and Andromeda or Sn1987a would be dependent on when those objects passed outside of the event horizon (by their own time frame relative to the earth), with the earth still being in achronicity, rather than their nearness to earth.

We understand it the same.  The point is that due to their proximity to Earth, their rate of time will likely be similar to Earth's.  I know the slope of the curve by which the rate of time is modified is very steep near the event horizon, but in astronomical terms, these two are right next door. 

 

Then we have the center of the Milky Way itself.... at a mere 27,000 light years, it's still 4 times farther than we should be able to see.  That becomes a problem because Earth isn't any where near the galactic center.  Humphreys needs the Earth to be inside the event horizon while the center of the Milky Way is outside it.

 

 

So, would not a controlled expansion with earth at the center (to begin with at least) allow for synchronization of the light (and relative time passage) from those objects to reach the earth at the same time on Day 4 as the earth passed out of the event horizon (I am borrowing your billiard analogy with the earth being the focus of the creation of the universe, or, in terms of the analogy, the sinking of the 8-ball as the final stroke of the earth passing out of the event horizon biggrin.png).

I understand your point.  Looking at it, I see nothing in the physics that eliminates his earlier problems dealing with "nearby" objects..  That's why I contacted my guru.



#20 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 05 April 2014 - 07:15 AM

I apologize if anyone feels this is off-topic.  I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to astronomy and physics.  But whenever I see someone arguing against YEC via cosmology, I am always reminded that the school of thought they are typically coming from is the convention of Big Bang cosmology.  This is a theory that has to invent fantasy objects to even begin to maintain itself, to the point where even secular physicists and other scientists question whether or not the Big Bang can even qualify as being a scientific theory.

 

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.  But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors....

 

(list of signees at link)  http://cosmologystatement.org/

 

The reason I bring this is up is because I am always so struck by the hubris with which proponents of conventional cosmology launch attacks against the YEC model, usually based on a single problem.  Conventional cosmologists are arguing from a foundation sinking in sand.   If they were to apply the same critical standards to their own cosmological model that they direct towards YEC, they would all but obliterate their entire framework for understanding the universe.   That's all I wanted to say. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users