Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 98

Thread: Space (Not Outer Space)

  1. #46
    Senior Member Baron Scarpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,356
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fritz Kobus View Post
    No, not 6000 years. It is mostly, if not all, flood deposits, so would date to about 4500 years ago. You need to read outside your world view. Read this: How Noah's Flood Shaped our Earth. About the authors:

    Michael Oard has a Masters Science degree in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington and is now retired after working as a meteorologist with the US National Weather Service for 30 years. He has researched and speaks on the compelling evidence for Noah s Flood and the Ice Age that followed, and has published many papers in his field in widely recognized journals.

    John Reed earned a Ph.D. in geology and worked for over 20 years in industry and academia.
    Maybe you should also consider the advice about considering other worldview.

    The age of the universe and of the earth is not based on a single scientific result. It is based on a combination of results from many disciplines (particle physics, statistical physics, quantum physics, general relativity, astronomy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, etc) that all come together in a huge, self-consistent network of observations which are strongly justified individually, and which are consistent with each other.

    How can the universe be 6,000 years old when distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is such that light would take 2 million years to reach us? We see it as it was 2 million years ago.

  2. #47
    Senior Member haydnguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,566
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Scarpia View Post
    Maybe you should also consider the advice about considering other worldview.

    The age of the universe and of the earth is not based on a single scientific result. It is based on a combination of results from many disciplines (particle physics, statistical physics, quantum physics, general relativity, astronomy, biology, chemistry, cosmology, geology, etc) that all come together in a huge, self-consistent network of observations which are strongly justified individually, and which are consistent with each other.

    How can the universe be 6,000 years old when distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is such that light would take 2 million years to reach us? We see it as it was 2 million years ago.
    What difference does it make?

  3. #48
    Senior Member Baron Scarpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,356
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by haydnguy View Post
    The article I read (I remember only vaguely) was not really about space/time so much as just space itself. It was saying that space was not really "empty" as we think of it. That it was more like the waves of water. I am going to find that article. It was very interesting even if it was not correct.

    What you are describing sounds vaguely like a poetic description of "dark energy." Another possibly relevant factoid is that quantum uncertainty dictates that the electric field at any given point in space isn't literally zero, there is a base level of fluctuation (vacuum fluctuations). That means that there is a non-zero energy density of empty space (which, awkwardly, is infinite). You might also read up on gravitational waves, but that is space-time, not a pure space phenomenon.

  4. #49
    Senior Member Bwv 1080's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Scarpia View Post

    How can the universe be 6,000 years old when distance to the Andromeda Galaxy is such that light would take 2 million years to reach us? We see it as it was 2 million years ago.
    Well, just ask Dr. Lisle - it took no time at all to reach us:

    So we may choose to regard the speed of light as being instantaneous when travelling toward us, providing the round-trip speed (in empty space) is always 186,000 miles per second. In this case, the light from distant stars takes no time at all to reach the earth since the light is travelling toward us. So distant starlight is not an issue.

    This convention could be called the “anisotropic synchrony convention,” or ASC, because it claims that light travels at different speeds in different directions (anisotropic). Of course, it’s perfectly fair to use other conventions as well.

    Einstein tells us that we may freely choose which convention to use. For the sake of simplicity, most physicists choose to regard light as moving at the same speed in all directions (isotropic). However, there is no fundamental reason that we cannot use ASC instead.

    It appears that the biblical writers used the ASC convention. Genesis 1:15 tells us that the lights in the heavens were designed to give light upon the earth, and it also tells us “and it was so.” This strongly suggests that the stars immediately began fulfilling their God-ordained purpose to give light upon the earth.

    https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...rlight-thesis/

  5. #50
    Senior Member Baron Scarpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,356
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bwv 1080 View Post
    Well, just ask Dr. Lisle - it took no time at all to reach us:

    So we may choose to regard the speed of light as being instantaneous when travelling toward us, providing the round-trip speed (in empty space) is always 186,000 miles per second. In this case, the light from distant stars takes no time at all to reach the earth since the light is travelling toward us. So distant starlight is not an issue.

    This convention could be called the “anisotropic synchrony convention,” or ASC, because it claims that light travels at different speeds in different directions (anisotropic). Of course, it’s perfectly fair to use other conventions as well.

    Einstein tells us that we may freely choose which convention to use. For the sake of simplicity, most physicists choose to regard light as moving at the same speed in all directions (isotropic). However, there is no fundamental reason that we cannot use ASC instead.

    It appears that the biblical writers used the ASC convention. Genesis 1:15 tells us that the lights in the heavens were designed to give light upon the earth, and it also tells us “and it was so.” This strongly suggests that the stars immediately began fulfilling their God-ordained purpose to give light upon the earth.

    https://answersingenesis.org/astrono...rlight-thesis/
    Oh dear, someone tell those engineers that developed the GPS system! It is based on the time it takes radiation from GPS satellites to reach us, evaluated using the arbitrary and ungodly "ASC" convention. It is all wrong, GPS doesn't work! But wait, why does my GPS device actually know where I am? The answer is inescapable; Satan!

  6. Likes Bwv 1080 liked this post
  7. #51
    Senior Member Strange Magic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Nova Caesarea
    Posts
    4,437
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    "Debating" the age of the earth with Young Earth Creationists is like debating a block of granite. No argument, no fact or facts can be produced that have not been thoroughly examined and countered--usually by rewriting wholesale the findings of generations of scientists that have been accumulated and tested for decades if not centuries. "Experts" can be found--living and dead--to explain patiently to the vast outer world that everything you thought you knew about such things as the speed of light, radiometric dating, sedimentation rates, DNA and evolution, etc., are just wrong. Science for centuries has struggled to roll the boulder of empirically-based, experimentally-verified, or otherwise overwhelmingly corroborated knowledge up the hill of human ignorance and folly, only to see it roll back down in an instantaneous flash of religious ideology. Depressing.

    https://www.talkclassical.com/groups...evolution.html
    Last edited by Strange Magic; Aug-23-2019 at 19:18.

  8. Likes Bwv 1080 liked this post
  9. #52
    Senior Member Bwv 1080's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    423
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Its sad, Genesis is this beautiful myth regarding the transition from hunter-gathering to agriculture. To trash Genesis then trash Evolution and General Relativity, two crowning achievements of humanity takes a real Philistine (not in the Biblical sense)

    Eden, in this reading, is the long-gone life of the hunter-gatherers, where there was no agriculture and people lived well merely by picking the fruit from trees whenever they so desired. While this certainly was an idealization of hunting and gathering, the onset of agriculture did require far greater discipline and harder and more consistent work than had hunting and gathering.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/archi...-0b85b8c04a84/

    .

  10. Likes EddieRUKiddingVarese liked this post
  11. #53
    Senior Member philoctetes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    1,045
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    ASC sounds like another variation on ether proven wrong by Michelson-Morley.

    "round-trip time"?

  12. #54
    Senior Member KenOC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    SoCal, USA
    Posts
    19,549
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange Magic View Post
    "Debating" the age of the earth with Young Earth Creationists is like debating a block of granite.
    Quite true! There's not much point to it because, in the final analysis, YECers simply say, "God did it." But the amount of illogic, misrepresentation, and outright falsehood before getting to that point can be truly impressive!

    There is an entire branch of quasi-academics called "creation science." But it has no predictive power, explains nothing, and leads nowhere. That is because it has no interest in explaining anything, only in explaining away obvious facts and well-supported theories wherever they conflict with a specific religious belief system.


  13. #55
    Senior Member Fritz Kobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Next to Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    12,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Who said Genesis is a myth? Who is trashing Genesis but those who refuse to take it at face value.

    Who is trashing general relativity? As I recall, Lisle has high regard for Einstein and his theories.

    Nobody is trashing evolution. We just reject it.

    Distant starlight in a young universe is not necessarily because of ASC. There are other explanations. But we probably will never know because nobody can go back and observe the actual events of the past, so all explanations are to some degree speculations.
    "All of Italian opera can be heard in [Bellini's] "Ah! non creda [mirarti]."
    --Renata Scotto in "Scotto, More Than a DIva."

  14. #56
    Senior Member Fritz Kobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Next to Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    12,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bwv 1080 View Post
    Well, just ask Dr. Lisle - it took no time at all to reach us:

    Certainly true from the perspective of a photon in that stream of light. As the photon is traveling at the speed of light, no time passes from the photon's perspecitve, no matter how far the photon travels.

    Lisle offers that ASC could explain the distant starlight question, but he is not dogmatic about it. He allows that there may be other explanations.
    Last edited by Fritz Kobus; Aug-23-2019 at 22:25.
    "All of Italian opera can be heard in [Bellini's] "Ah! non creda [mirarti]."
    --Renata Scotto in "Scotto, More Than a DIva."

  15. #57
    Senior Member Fritz Kobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Next to Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    12,391
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange Magic View Post
    "Debating" the age of the earth with Young Earth Creationists is like debating a block of granite.
    Likewise, debating the age of the earth with an evolutionist is like debating a block of granite. They are unyielding in their commitment to deep time.
    "All of Italian opera can be heard in [Bellini's] "Ah! non creda [mirarti]."
    --Renata Scotto in "Scotto, More Than a DIva."

  16. #58
    Senior Member EddieRUKiddingVarese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Father of Electronic muse
    Posts
    5,412
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Its all just a case of Quantum Entanglement and the big note vibrating too hard, happens quite often
    "Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"

  17. #59
    Senior Member Baron Scarpia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,356
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fritz Kobus View Post
    Likewise, debating the age of the earth with an evolutionist is like debating a block of granite. They are unyielding in their commitment to deep time.
    The purpose of science is to understand the way the world works and predict what will happen, not to invalidate a particular belief. It seeks principals which explain what is observed in the simplest way. Evolutionary biology has made extremely detailed predictions, that were later verified, and is used to discover drugs and therapies that work. Geology is used to successfully predict where oil or minerals will be found. Special and general relativity is used to create technologies such as GPS, that work. YEC seeks to formulate a science to justify an ideology, and falsifies the science that has led to these successes.

    Certainly true from the perspective of a photon in that stream of light. As the photon is traveling at the speed of light, no time passes from the photon's perspecitve, no matter how far the photon travels.

    Lisle offers that ASC could explain the distant starlight question, but he is not dogmatic about it. He allows that there may be other explanations.
    The first sentence is a factoid that is true, but not really relevant. The second sentence is telling. Lisle has decided what the conclusion is, and will entertain any notion that will justify that conclusion. How does GPS actually work, then, since it is based on receivers at different locations getting signals from different satellites at different time delays. According to ASC there is no delay if the light is coming towards you?

  18. #60
    Senior Member EddieRUKiddingVarese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Father of Electronic muse
    Posts
    5,412
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Scarpia View Post
    The purpose of science is to understand the way the world works and predict what will happen, not to invalidate a particular belief. It seeks principals which explain what is observed in the simplest way. Evolutionary biology has made extremely detailed predictions, that were later verified, and is used to discover drugs and therapies that work. Geology is used to successfully predict where oil or minerals will be found. Special and general relativity is used to create technologies such as GPS, that work. YEC seeks to formulate a science to justify an ideology, and falsifies the science that has led to these successes.



    The first sentence is a factoid that is true, but not really relevant. The second sentence is telling. Lisle has decided what the conclusion is, and will entertain any notion that will justify that conclusion. How does GPS actually work, then, since it is based on receivers at different locations getting signals from different satellites at different time delays. According to ASC there is no delay if the light is coming towards you?
    Maybe this is just an entanglement between fact and fiction
    "Everyone is born with genius, but most people only keep it a few minutes"

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •