Jump to content


Photo

Spacecraft Mystery Solved


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

#1 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 600 posts
  • Age: 60
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Central California

Posted 24 October 2007 - 09:19 AM

There's an interesting article in the October 2007 issue of Acts & Facts from the Institutue for Creation Research about the "Pioneer Anomaly." It can be found at:

http://www.icr.org/article/3472/

Talk of cosmology makes my brain hurt, but the layman's explanation in the article piqued my interest, especially as it discusses issues that have been raised here lately about speed of light, the Big Bang, and such.

The "Pioneer anomaly" is the situation where the speed of our long-range spacecraft has diminished in the farthest reaches of their explorations beyond the planet Pluto. That slowing down has been calculated at .85 billionths of a meter per second per second, which turns out to be very close to the Hubble constant (H) times the speed of light ©.

Since this discovery, scientists have spent years trying to find an explanation, but as late as 2005 the JPL team has found them all unsatisfactory.

Basically, Dr. Humphreys builds a model of the universe from the Bible, applies the "stretching" that God mentions in several places in the Bible, and then explains how that might affect the speed of light and radio waves and such. He says the numbers correspond to the Pioneer anomaly.

Be aware that the Act and Facts article is a very-much watered down layman's version. The author asks that those who want to argue his assertions should do so from the technical paper linked at the end of the article and not from the Acts and Facts article.

Dave

#2 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 24 October 2007 - 10:49 AM

Wow Dave,

Great article...

The Technical Paper is very nice, very well formatted 10 page PDF.
Gonna save that to read on a rainy day.

#3 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 20 March 2009 - 10:51 AM

This is a good link, and good reading!

#4 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 02 April 2009 - 04:23 AM

This is a good link, and good reading!

View Post

Hi de skudd.

Isn't it true that Humphrey's theory acknowledges the universe is billions of years old? Is this "okay" for young universe supporters?

Thanks -- SeeJay

#5 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 02 April 2009 - 04:57 AM

Hi de skudd.

Isn't it true that Humphrey's theory acknowledges the universe is billions of years old? Is this "okay" for young universe supporters?

Thanks -- SeeJay

View Post

Humphreys' proposal is compliant with Einsteinian relativity (if it's possible to comply with self-contradiction), and involves time dilation. Thus different parts of the universe would've experienced time at a different rate as I understand it. I haven't looked into this too deeply; I have not yet distinguished Humphreys' model from Gentry's.

Aether theory also accounts for the Poineer Anomaly. Light is expected to travel at different speeds through different densities (maybe not the best term) of aether.

#6 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:22 AM

Hi de skudd.
Isn't it true that Humphrey's theory acknowledges the universe is billions of years old? Is this "okay" for young universe supporters?
Thanks -- SeeJay

View Post


Humphrey's opinion concerns God stretching out of the heavens. So, no it does not acknowledge the ancient universe model. But, if you want to have a religious like faith that the universe is million, billions or quadrillions of yeast old, then be my guest.

#7 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 02 April 2009 - 06:40 AM

Humphrey's opinion concerns God stretching out of the heavens. So, no it does not acknowledge the ancient universe model. But, if you want to have a religious like faith that the universe is million, billions or quadrillions of yeast old, then be my guest.

View Post


Thanks for your response.

Humphrey's book Starlight and Time (1994) very clearly states that the universe has experienced millions and billions of years of age, whilst the earth has only experienced thousands, due to time dilation effects caused by the earth being in the centre of a gigantic gravitational field.

So my point is, even if he is right (which he isn't), his theory contradicts the idea the universe is young. So I was curious why his theory is being promoted by proponents of a young creation, because it is kind of self-refuting.

Regards--SeeJay

#8 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 April 2009 - 07:07 AM

Thanks for your response.

Humphrey's book Starlight and Time (1994) very clearly states that the universe has experienced millions and billions of years of age, whilst the earth has only experienced thousands, due to time dilation effects caused by the earth being in the centre of a gigantic gravitational field.

So my point is, even if he is right (which he isn't), his theory contradicts the idea the universe is young. So I was curious why his theory is being promoted by proponents of a young creation, because it is kind of self-refuting.

Regards--SeeJay

View Post



I never thought I'd be telling someone that they're welcome for being wrong... But, you're welcome for being wrong :lol:

#9 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 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 April 2009 - 07:41 AM

Thanks for your response.

Humphrey's book Starlight and Time (1994) very clearly states that the universe has experienced millions and billions of years of age, whilst the earth has only experienced thousands, due to time dilation effects caused by the earth being in the centre of a gigantic gravitational field.

So my point is, even if he is right (which he isn't), his theory contradicts the idea the universe is young. So I was curious why his theory is being promoted by proponents of a young creation, because it is kind of self-refuting.

Regards--SeeJay

View Post


Hi SeeJay,

It's obvious to me that you don't understand what you are talking about here. Humphrey's model is based on GR theory. Time is relative with respect to gravity. His theory basically says that the earth's relative time clock ran much slower in the past during the creation week. The earth was at the center of the gravitaional well from which the universe was being stretched outward. (please note: the BBT starts with a gravity well and the universe expands exponentially in much less than a second). The clocks futher away from earth would run faster. (this would also happen in the BBT except that there is no center today according to BBT. But there had to be at one time!)

This is not a matter of old versus young, because old and young are relative. Therefore, you could have billions of years of today's clock time happen in a few days if earth was created in a gravity well. That doesn't make the earth young, and it doesn't make it old. I means the clock speed changed.

Therefore, at any given moment the earth would be "young" relative to the summation of time expiring on these given clocks throughout earth's history, but earth would be "old" relative to today's clock. I hope this helps your understanding of Humphrey's theory.

I'm curious, upon what basis do you say that his theory is right?

#10 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 03 April 2009 - 03:53 AM

Hi SeeJay,

It's obvious to me that you don't understand what you are talking about here.  Humphrey's model is based on GR theory.  Time is relative with respect to gravity.  His theory basically says that the earth's relative time clock ran much slower in the past during the creation week.  The earth was at the center of the gravitaional well from which the universe was being stretched outward.  (please note: the BBT starts with a gravity well and the universe expands exponentially in much less than a second).  The clocks futher away from earth would run faster. (this would also happen in the BBT except that there is no center today according to BBT.  But there had to be at one time!)


Hi performedge.

Thanks for taking the time to explain. But, isn't this (very roughly) what I said? Humphrey's theory acknowledges that stars very distant from the earth are millions and billions of years old -- their clocks have "run faster", so they have experienced the passage of millions of years.

Your point is well taken that we are talking about the relative speed of clocks, rather than the true or actual age of things. Nevertheless, my understanding of relativity is that (under Humphrey's theory) the antiquity of the distant stars is just as "true" as the youth of the earth at the centre of the universe.

I'm curious, upon what basis do you say that his theory is right?

Actually, I don't think the theory is right. I think it is wrong, mainly because it posits a "bounded" universe centred on the earth, which is contradicted by astronomical observation. It has also been strongly criticised by fellow creationists, such as the ICR: see here.

Regards -- Seejay

#11 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 03 April 2009 - 05:51 AM

Humphrey's opinion concerns God stretching out of the heavens. So, no it does not acknowledge the ancient universe model. But, if you want to have a religious like faith that the universe is million, billions or quadrillions of yeast old, then be my guest.

View Post


Hi de_skudd.

Let me clarify. I did not mean to imply that Humphreys accepted the "ancient universe model", such as the big bang and the unbounded universe concept.

Instead, I merely pointed out that Humphreys' theory explicitly acknowledges that distant stars are millions and billions of years old, albeit in a different "time line" than the earth. I still believe this is a fair characterisation of the theory, particularly in light of criticisms of Humphreys' theory by creationist astronomers (that I have only just learned about). My question is: Does Humphreys' theory contradict a young creation because it accepts ancient stars?

I am not interested in having a religious-like faith regarding the age of the universe, because I do not see it as an issue relating to salvation.

Rather, I am interested in seeking the truth about the creation.

Regards--SeeJay

#12 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 April 2009 - 08:40 AM

Actually, I don't think the theory is right. I think it is wrong, mainly because it posits a "bounded" universe centred on the earth, which is contradicted by astronomical observation. It has also been strongly criticised by fellow creationists, such as the ICR: see here.

Regards -- Seejay

View Post

The "Copernican Principle" has no basis in observation, and was not advanced by Copernicus. It is an arrogant, superfluous assumption at odds with observations.

Now just so everyone understands, the ICR article you reference expresses dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in creationist cosmology and astronomy. The author isn't attacking Humphreys in particular, and even says

"Prior to the Voyager measurements of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune Humphreys [28] used a recent creation model to correctly predict the strength of those fields. This is some of the more original research done by a creationist, and is an excellent counter example to critics who complain that the creation model offers no predictions."

The author is not speaking on behalf of the organization, as evidenced by his discussion of views held by members, his own view, and the statement of belief of the CRS. It even says "Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism".

The sharpest criticism I find is this:

Byl, along with Connor and Page [13], concludes that the approach that Humphreys is attempting would more properly describe the time difference between an observer in the universe to one outside of the universe. If this is true, then the Humphreys model certainly does not succeed in addressing the question as framed. This criticism has led the editorial staff of the ICC to conclude that there was a failure in the peer review process of Humphreys' 1994 paper [29] in which he first publicly presented his model. Humphreys is convinced that his model is still viable and is continuing to correct and refine his model. Whether this model survives or not, we should applaud this very serious effort that Humphreys has made.


I see evidence that individual ICR members have offered criticism, but I don't see evidence of any statement made on behalf of the organization.

As the model is dependent upon all the trappings of Einsteinian relativity, it is doomed. But graded against other doomed proposals it may score fairly high.

#13 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 04 April 2009 - 04:26 AM

The "Copernican Principle" has no basis in observation, and was not advanced by Copernicus. It is an arrogant, superfluous assumption at odds with observations.

Now just so everyone understands, the ICR article you reference expresses dissatisfaction with the lack of progress in creationist cosmology and astronomy. The author isn't attacking Humphreys in particular ...


Hi CTD. Nice to meet you.

I agree the article I referenced discusses other things besides Humphreys' theory. However, it does specifically criticise his theory. And this is just one example of creationist criticism of Humphreys. Other examples are the papers by Byl and Connor & Page.

The author is not speaking on behalf of the organization, as evidenced by his discussion of views held by members, his own view, and the statement of belief of the CRS. It even says "Presented at the Fourth International Conference on Creationism".


Nevertheless, the article is by a creationist author who is critical of Humphreys' theory, and who is associated with the ICR. This is why I mentioned it as support for the idea that Humphreys' theory is incorrect.

As the model is dependent upon all the trappings of Einsteinian relativity, it is doomed. But graded against other doomed proposals it may score fairly high.

View Post


It seems you agree with me that Humphreys' model is flawed, although we may disagree as to the precise reasons why. Do you also agree with me that therefore it should not be promoted as a valid theory, for example, as a solution to the Pioneer spacecraft problem?

Thanks and regards--SeeJay

#14 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 April 2009 - 08:17 AM

Hi CTD. Nice to meet you.

I agree the article I referenced discusses other things besides Humphreys' theory. However, it does specifically criticise his theory. And this is just one example of creationist criticism of Humphreys. Other examples are the papers by Byl and Connor & Page.

Nevertheless, the article is by a creationist author who is critical of Humphreys' theory, and who is associated with the ICR. This is why I mentioned it as support for the idea that Humphreys' theory is incorrect.

View Post

A reader of your post might've easily concluded ICR had denounced/renounced Humphreys' proposal. I attempted to prevent anyone from getting the wrong impression.

I don't think review and criticism always stops when a proposal is published, nor should it.

No proposal is likely to fully comply with all parts of Einsteinian relativity; you comply with this - you violate that. It's like a dog chasing its tail. That's a problem with paradigms which are self-contradictory. Criticism can go on forever.

It seems you agree with me that Humphreys' model is flawed, although we may disagree as to the precise reasons why. Do you also agree with me that therefore it should not be promoted as a valid theory, for example, as a solution to the Pioneer spacecraft problem?

Thanks and regards--SeeJay

View Post

I don't see why those who believe it is valid should be prevented from promoting it. I would prefer that nonsense be abandoned voluntarily by adults.

I am acutely aware that creationists are often a bit slow to grasp the relationships of quantum philosophy and Einsteinian relativity to the issues of truth and origins. But once the strategy is understood, it's just a matter of time. I have seen several individuals grow in understanding of these things, and it's like flipping a switch: they realize all nonsense really is nonsense, and opposes truth.

A little of Darwin's fatherly advice:

P.S. Oct 22d. Hen. has taken your M.S. to London, & will write.— I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire & he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful force & vigour of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect: real good seems only to follow from slow & silent side attacks.— I have been talking on this head with Litchfield, & he strongly concurs, & insists how easily a man may for ever destroy his own influence.


http://www.darwinpro...entry-9105.html

#15 SeeJay

SeeJay

    Member

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

Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:05 PM

Hello again CTD

A reader of your post might've easily concluded ICR had denounced/renounced Humphreys' proposal. I attempted to prevent anyone from getting the wrong impression.


Okay, fair enough. Foy my part I did not want readers to have the mistaken impression that Humphreys' theory was a good and reliable explanation for the Pioneer spacecraft mystery.

I don't think review and criticism always stops when a proposal is published, nor should it.

No proposal is likely to fully comply with all parts of Einsteinian relativity; you comply with this - you violate that. It's like a dog chasing its tail. That's a problem with paradigms which are self-contradictory. Criticism can go on forever.
I don't see why those who believe it is valid should be prevented from promoting it. I would prefer that nonsense be abandoned voluntarily by adults.


I totally agree with you that people should voluntarily abandon "nonsense" ideas (though I am not stating Humphreys' theory is "nonsense", rather it has significant flaws). Part of this process is pointing out honestly the errors in ideas and arguments, so people can come closer to truth.

I don't dispute people's general right to promote an idea they believe is valid. But in the case of Humphreys' theory, significant problems were pointed out over a decade ago (by fellow creationists), and they have not been corrected (as far as I am aware). Therefore, there are no reasonable grounds for someone cognisant of the facts and history to believe any more that the theory is valid. This is all I was pointing out.

I am acutely aware that creationists are often a bit slow to grasp the relationships of quantum philosophy and Einsteinian relativity to the issues of truth and origins. But once the strategy is understood, it's just a matter of time. I have seen several individuals grow in understanding of these things, and it's like flipping a switch: they realize all nonsense really is nonsense, and opposes truth.

A little of Darwin's fatherly advice:
http://www.darwinpro...entry-9105.html

View Post


Well, I agree with you that "truth cannot contradict truth", and that anyone interested in truth and origins should acquaint themselves with the latest science. However, I see science pointing to the reality of an ancient universe, and I do hope creationist thinking moves in that direction.

Cheers--SeeJay

#16 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 April 2009 - 04:46 PM

Hello again CTD
Okay, fair enough. Foy my part I did not want readers to have the mistaken impression that Humphreys' theory was a good and reliable explanation for the Pioneer spacecraft mystery.

View Post

Perhaps your posts would've been better understood if you had directly demonstrated a flaw?

And thanks for the civil exchange, btw.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users