Jump to content


Starlight


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

#1 Guest_Darkness45_*

Guest_Darkness45_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 September 2009 - 11:26 AM

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?

#2 falcone

falcone

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 497 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Scotland

Posted 28 September 2009 - 03:51 AM

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?

View Post

[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]

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 28 September 2009 - 04:52 AM

Hi Darkness,

Can I recommend doing a search? This topic and many like it are discussed at length in other threads. I personally believe starlight is an interesting observation and probably the best geochronometer to bolster an old universe argument. However, there are many other evidences that make our current understanding of light speed and time suspicious and sketchy at best, to the point that I think a doctrine built on our perception of such an unusual and misunderstood phenomena as light, is misguided.

While falcone did express one idea that questions the current orthodoxy of light and distant observations, I personally find that there are other reasonable speculations that are more fruitful, such as time dilation.

#4 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 30 September 2009 - 09:47 AM

Hi Darkness,

Can I recommend doing a search? This topic and many like it are discussed at length in other threads. I personally believe starlight is an interesting observation and probably the best geochronometer to bolster an old universe argument. However, there are many other evidences that make our current understanding of light speed and time suspicious and sketchy at best, to the point that I think a doctrine built on our perception of such an unusual and misunderstood phenomena as light, is misguided.

While falcone did express one idea that questions the current orthodoxy of light and distant observations, I personally find that there are other reasonable speculations that are more fruitful, such as time dilation.

View Post



Hi Adam,

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. Then they try and search for evidence that will support it. 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. This isn't 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.

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.

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.

#5 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 30 September 2009 - 11:53 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.

#6 John Zylstra

John Zylstra

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Canada

Posted 30 September 2009 - 01:44 PM

"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."

Dogma does encourage us to ask questions in a certain way, true for almost everyone.

"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."

This is a significant irony: light speed does not change in a material - it is delayed... Reminds me of several other similar statements: "I didn't walk any slower; it just took me longer to get there..." "A car travels just as fast under water, but is delayed by the water."

Not that this delay of light is significant in the case of starlight in space, but I'm just saying...

How is the speed of light measured anyway?

#7 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

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

Posted 30 September 2009 - 04:59 PM

Dogma does encourage us to ask questions in a certain way, true for almost everyone.


Not for me.

This is a significant irony:  light speed does not change in a material - it is delayed...    Reminds me of several other similar statements:  "I didn't walk any slower; it just took me longer to get there..." "A car travels just as fast under water, but is delayed by the water." 


These are bad analogies. When light travels through a medium photons can be absorbed and emitted by that media. This is the delay. The photon does not exist in the same form during this period (it exists as energy in the electron that absorbed it) and is thus not traveling with any speed. The speed between emission and the next absorption however is still c.

Not that this delay of light is significant in the case of starlight in space, but I'm just saying...


What is funny however is that a "slower" speed of light implies an older universe anyway. :lol:

To have a younger universe you need faster light.

How is the speed of light measured anyway?


You can do it at home with a few used lab tools. You need an oscilliscope, a beamsplitter, a laser, a couple of mirrors, and a photoreciver. After the beam splits in the beam splitter you direct one beam back into the oscilliscope and the other accross the room and then back into the oscilliscope. The two beams will be out of phase and you will thus measure a phase difference. From this phase difference you get the speed of light with a tiny bit of algebra.

#8 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 September 2009 - 05:09 PM

To have a younger universe you need faster light.

View Post

...or warped time/space or time flowing at different rates relative to gravity. There are potential candidates but I must admit it is speculative.

If it's a-okay for naturalists to feel assured that abiogenesis and spontaneous generation of life is a certainty with all the evidence currently stacked against it, I feel quite justified in believing that the solution to this young earth creationist quandary is simple and elegant even though some of the current observations seem to work against it.

Hey, the best scientific observations of the past told us the the earth was the center of the Universe. It's interesting how a few misunderstood puzzle pieces can so quickly change our perception.

#9 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 September 2009 - 05:22 PM

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.

Adam

#10 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 30 September 2009 - 06:19 PM

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?

View Post


I would say no.

I would say that proton A travelling at 99.5% light speed to a stationary observer would look like it was travelling from proton B's perspective at 99.74% light speed.

I'll bet three raisin oat cookies that I'm right.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 30 September 2009 - 06:43 PM

I would say no.

I would say that proton A travelling at 99.5% light speed to a stationary observer would look like it was travelling from proton B's perspective at 99.74% light speed.

I'll bet three raisin oat cookies that I'm right.

View Post

How would you verify it? How would this effect our static perception of light space and time?

#12 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 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 - 07:01 AM

How would you verify it? How would this effect our static perception of light space and time?

View Post



Mainstream science does not have a static perception of space and time. In classical physics (yes Relativity is classical physics now) space and time are not rigid unchanging constants. They are dynamical variables that require a field theory to understand. That field theory is General Relativity. In the special case in which there is no acceleration and no gravity (or negligible) General Relativity reduces to Special Relativity.

The fact that the speed of light is constant for all observers in inertial reference frames has been verified and to great precision - or rather its consequences have been verified.

#13 A.Sphere

A.Sphere

    AKA st_dissent

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 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 - 07:07 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.

Adam

View Post



Hi Adam,

The observer on one of the protons would measure the other proton to be approaching him at nearly the speed of light and visa versa. Neither would measure the other moving at twice the speed of light. This is weird to our physical intuition because at those speeds space and time become relative quantities - this is something that we do not experience in our slow motion lives.

#14 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 01 October 2009 - 09:43 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



By using a laser and a computer to determine when light passes 2 sensors. The time to go from sensor A to sensor B is then used with the known distance between the 2 sensors to come up with the answer.

#15 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 October 2009 - 09:57 AM

By using a laser and a computer to determine when light passes 2 sensors.  The time to go from sensor A to sensor B is then used with the known distance between the 2 sensors to come up with the answer.

View Post


Yes, but are you using an estimated number, because if so... any number inside the equation will work. The only thing you have to do, is make the speed reasonable to make it look like you recorded it going really fast.

I have another quetion, is the tool/computer used to record the speed of light set with the estimated number also. Because if it truly is, then all of this really has no significance since any number can be made up, and therefore plugged in to be made true.

I just want to make sure that C, isn't just any number you want it to be, because if it's an estimate... it sure can be.

#16 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 01 October 2009 - 10:15 AM

Yes, but are you using an estimated number, because if so... any number inside the equation will work.  The only thing you have to do, is make the speed reasonable to make it look like you recorded it going really fast. 

I have another quetion, is the tool/computer used to record the speed of light set with the estimated number also.  Because if it truly is, then all of this really has no significance since any number can be made up, and therefore plugged in to be made true.

I just want to make sure that C, isn't just any number you want it to be, because if it's an estimate... it sure can be.

View Post



No no estimated number is used just the known distance between the sensors and the time it takes the laser to reach sensor 2 after it has hit sensor 1.

Imagine you are going to travel 50 miles on a straight level road, no hills in perfect weather. You put your car on cruise control and start a stopwatch as you pass a marker. At the end of the trip is another marker and you stop the stopwatch when you reach that marker. You don't tell me how fast you were going but because I know the exact distance and the stopwatch gibes me the exact time I can calculate the distance.

Example, the distance is 50 miles and the stop watch reads 3 hours so the speed of the car was 16.67 (rounded) Miles Per Hour. Rather slow but you get the point

#17 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 01 October 2009 - 11:31 AM

Ah, thank you I get it now. So we do use distance and time in the formula to get our answer.

#18 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 October 2009 - 03:12 PM

Hi Adam,

The observer on one of the protons would measure the other proton to be approaching him at nearly the speed of light and visa versa.  Neither would measure the other moving at twice the speed of light.  This is weird to our physical intuition because at those speeds space and time become relative quantities - this is something that we do not experience in our slow motion lives.

View Post

Who says our lives are slow motion? And with all these rubber ruler issues can you see why at the end of the day I can feel safe that our understanding of light/space/time is frayed and confused enough that I can feel okay with speculating that; while some key observations work against me I can feel justified not adhering to a doctrine of light/time in favor of a belief that we lack understanding. Again, if evolutionists can do this everyday with the motivation that the things that contradict the theory are really just things that need explored and figured out then I feel safe in my sanity that this one issue is not a show stopper but something instead which we misunderstand. :P

#19 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 01 October 2009 - 03:43 PM

Who says our lives are slow motion? And with all these rubber ruler issues can you see why at the end of the day I can feel safe that our understanding of light/space/time is frayed and confused enough that I can feel okay with speculating that; while some key observations work against me I can feel justified not adhering to a doctrine of light/time in favor of a belief that we lack understanding. Again, if evolutionists can do this everyday with the motivation that the things that contradict the theory are really just things that need explored and figured out then I feel safe in my sanity that this one issue is not a show stopper but something instead which we misunderstand. :P

View Post


Are you serious Adam? Even though General and Special Relativity are just theories every prediction they make has been borne out by observation.

#20 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 October 2009 - 04:49 PM

Are you serious Adam?  Even though General and Special Relativity are just theories every prediction they make has been borne out by observation.

View Post

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.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users