A comment I left on Ray's Post: The age of the universe
Someone asked him, "Dear Ray I have a question for you, considering God made the world and the universe in six days and considering He created Adam in about 4004 BC why is it that scientists say that the most distant planets are over 20,000 light years away. This means that the light from these planets has been traveling in space for 20,000 years, far longer than the universe has existed even if you count a day of creation as a 1000 years?"
My reply was, "Everyone needs to keep in mind that 20,000 light years away is a measurement of distance NOT time. I just thought I would point that out before I start reading all these comments. You are taking great assumptions thinking that light can travel at one speed.
In a lab setting they even slowed and stopped the speed of light. (Google: Bring Light to a Stop)
I remember that Carl Sagan explained in Cosmos that if a spaceship traveled at the speed of light when he returned back to earth after 5 years many hundreds of years (Corrected to: Mere minutes turned into many decades) would have passed on earth. Everyone that space traveler knew would be long gone. So if speed of light indeed effects time then one can see, quite simply, that the appearance of millions of years is actually a short time at the speed of light.
BTW you all do understand what God is right?...1 John 1:5
In Cosmos maybe Carl Sagan was talking about 2 Peter 3:8.
UPDATE: Is there a fellow geek/nerd out there that can tell me, in reference to Lorentz transformation (Lorentz factor), how to calculate the difference between (x) earth time and (y) speed of light time?
For example 1 minute of (X) equals, let's say 30 years of (Y)...and does it grow linearly, any takers? I just read "If space is homogeneous, then the Lorentz transformation must be a linear transformation."
Great I found the formula. Now I have to figure how to enter this into my HP 32SII calculatorNow I just read "Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime"
That is if light can be accelerated, which is the case as in black holes right? (People, like Einstein, believe that light cannot be accelerated. They jury may still be out.)If light can be slowed and even accelerated, as in black holes, then it could be seen that light could reach a point at a perceived length of time which relative to reality of (y), the spaceship, took a very short time.
UPDATE 2: I concede that explaining about God in this manner does a real injustice to the Gospel. Not to mention how extremely unbiblical it is.
Also someone recommended a book called "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" by professor John Hartnett. Building on the work of secular cosmologist Moshe Carmeli, Dr. Hartnett's book explains how we can see distant starlight in a young universe while at the same time doing away with the big bang 'fudge' factors of dark energy and dark matter. I might want to get a copy of that one.
Hmm, I'd heard something about this a decade or so ago but wasn't interested at that time. Thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteUPDATE 2: I found out that the distance light travels in "vacuum" in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. So one second (x) is 9.5064 years (y). Is that right?
ReplyDeleteAh, a trickster god, that makes the earth and universe looks old.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. In fact, there's no way of proving that God didn't create the Universe last Wednesday, when it comes down to it.
ReplyDeleteYou are taking great assumptions thinking that light can travel at one speed.
ReplyDeleteNo, we're making one assumption, that light has a maximum speed.
So if speed of light indeed effects time then one can see, quite simply, that the appearance of millions of years is actually a short time at the speed of light.
Nice try.
Well, not really.
Actually, that's pretty awful as attempts go.
The problem here, Dan, is one which has been pointed out to you before, but which you're evidently too dense to get. Slowing down light doesn't help your cause: it hurts it. If light moves slower, then the time between events (as observed from earth) is even greater than the "billions of years" currently accepted in various fields for ages of planets, galaxies, and other stellar objects.
I guess you also don't understand why light-years is used in astronomy, no? If Alpha Centauri is ~4.4 LY away from us, then it takes light, traveling at its fastest speed about 4 years and 5 months to get here. It would take us far longer than that.
So, the "appearance of millions of years" is actually millions of years at the speed of light.
BTW you all do understand what God is right?
Yes, we all understand that god is a discreet set of frequencies of light, about which the authors of the bible knew absolutely nothing other than experiencing directly the narrow band known as "visible light." No, I don't blame them for being ignorant to the E-M spectrum, but I do blame anyone who listens to them for believing their musings on the concept of god, and I especially blame those who try to take verses such as the one you cite and fit them into something that suits their needs, while at the same time insisting that the same tactic fails when used against them...
Sure. The bible says god is light. It also says sheep who look at striped poles while eating have striped young. It's wrong there, too.
Is there a fellow geek/nerd out there...
ReplyDeleteFellow geek/nerd?! Dude, you're a geek/nerd groupie, at best. Just because I read about baseball doesn't make me a player.
...[who] can tell me, in reference to Lorentz transformation, what the correlation (time) between one observer that is in uniform (non-accelerating) motion (x) and compared to someone traveling at speed of light (y)
The clumsy way in which you have asked your question, coupled with poor (and I'm being generous with "poor") use of terms tells anyone with a modicum of knowledge on this subject that you haven't a clue what you're asking, much less what would constitute a valid answer (assuming the question you mean to ask can even be deciphered from the "question" you actually asked).
Essentially, you wouldn't understand, judging by your phrasing of the question.
Not to hide from the question, though, it seems that you're asking how two observers would judge the time between two events from within their respective reference frames, wherein one observer is taken to be at rest, with the other taken to be moving at c (read: at some constant velocity) in some arbitrary direction relative to the first.
First of all, my own understanding of Special Relativity is pathetic, despite my A- in a course which dedicated a significant amount of time to the subject. The various paradoxes are confusing to our tiny brains, which have evolved to handle Galilean transformations quite easily, but which have a much more difficult time understanding why a really long ladder can fit inside a really short garage, if the ladder is hauling ass.
So I start, then, by qualifying myself: I am a current Physics undergrad student, nothing more. I am certainly not qualified to teach this subject, but I am reasonably adept when it comes to identifying some of the more common mistakes... probably because I made them last year.
The second thing I will do is alter your scenario slightly, so that it can be calculated. Instead of moving at c relative to Observer 1 (George), we'll have Observer 2 (Gracie) moving at .99c relative to George, instead. The reason for this is apparent to anyone who actually knows what the gamma factor -- the Lorentz factor -- is, and how it is calculated.
So then, if George has velocity 0, and Gracie has velocity 0.99c relative to George, then time dilation will occur, such that for Gracie, gamma will be about 7.09, and therefore the time difference recorded by each will be off by that factor. George measures the "proper time" between the events, whereas Gracie measures dilated time due to her velocity.
If we set the two systems up such that the first event occurs at the same time and location in each frame (say, t = 0, and x = 0), then the Lorentz transformation [for time] is simply t' = γt, which is a linear relationship.
The linearity makes intuitive sense (which isn't always a good thing, especially when dealing with Relativity or Quantum Mechanics), since we're dealing with constant velocity. As soon as we introduce acceleration, the linear relationship vanishes, and all sorts of mayhem ensue.
There you go.
--
Stan
I found out that the distance light travels in "vacuum" in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.
ReplyDeleteThe speed of light (in a vacuum) is a defined quantity. It forms the basis for the SI unit of length (the meter) and the SI unit of time (the second). What you "found out" is the defined speed of light in a vacuum, but you still couldn't formulate a coherent sentence out of it.
Try this:
"I found out that the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 of a second is one meter."
Doesn't that make more sense?
Then, your brain melted:
So one second (x) is 9.5064 years (y).
[sarcasm]Yes. You're just over four seconds old...[/sarcasm]
Is that right?
No, it's not right. It's downright dumb. One... oh, I see what you did.
Heh.
Taking the speed of light (in meters per second), dividing it by the number of seconds in a year, and mangling the units to magically produce years from meters per second, will yield 9.5064 "years." What Dan is close to determining is the unit of length known as a light-year, in terms of meters.
I think that's enough for now... I'm hungry, and I know my kids are... Do your best to compose a meaningful question, and I'll try to answer it.
--
Stan
Just because I read about baseball doesn't make me a player.
ReplyDeleteBut it does make you a baseball groupie or fan that drives you to play recreationally, if never professionally. So fine I am a recreational geek/nerd, while maintaining my studliness.
Is that more accurate for you?
OK thanks Stan,
ReplyDeleteAs soon as we introduce acceleration, the linear relationship vanishes, and all sorts of mayhem ensue.
"Indeed, a constant 1 g acceleration would permit humans to travel as far as light has been able to travel since the big bang (some 13.7 billion light years) in one human lifetime"
That is if light can be accelerated, which is the case as in black holes right? If light can be slowed and even accelerated, as in black holes, then it could be seen that light could reach a point at a perceived length of time which in relative reality took a very short time.
I fully admit that it's beyond my pay grade and I remain merely a fan.
Correction/Clarification: people, like Einstein, believe that light cannot be accelerated. They jury may still be out.
ReplyDeleteSure. The bible says god is light.
ReplyDeleteUh, does that mean then, that when scientists have found ways to slow or stop light, that they'd found a way to slow or stop god??
I fully admit that it's beyond my pay grade and I remain merely a fan.
ReplyDeleteI think we've established that...
;)
Yes, if acceleration is non-zero (constant or otherwise), many things can happen, including the scenario invented with a constant 1-g acceleration. The problem is maintaining constant acceleration. Think of how fast and powerful the rockets which lift the Space Shuttles are, and then think of what they're doing. They're lifting the Shuttle, of course, and its occupants/cargo, but they're also lifting their own fuel. The bitch of it is that the more thrust you want to generate, the more fuel you have to use... meaning you have to generate more thrust to lift the added fuel, and thus add more fuel to generate the additional thrust...
It's not a lose-lose situation, of course, unless you want constant acceleration. As the velocity increases, the amount of energy to increase the magnitude of the velocity increases in a non-linear fashion (I expect it's a square law, but it may be exponential... I'm too lazy to look it up right now). If the rocket-ship were a bicycle, and you were the propulsion system, think of how easy it is to get a bicycle to accelerate from a dead stop to 10mph, versus how difficult it is -- without the advantage of a gearing system, mind you -- to accelerate from 40mph to 50mph. Assuming you could even pedal at a 40mph clip, you'd be at the very limits of your energy output, and hard-pressed indeed to increase to 50mph.
That is if light can be accelerated, which is the case as in black holes right?
No, that has nothing to do with accelerating light, but accelerating massive particles (or systems of massive particles, as it were). Light consists of photons, which are massless, and the fact that light can be slowed has nothing to do with the "cosmic speed limit" of the speed of light.
It's rather like Roger Bannister and the 4-minute barrier. Sure, it's been broken, but do you really think a human will someday break the 3:30 barrier? The 3:00 barrier? Clearly, there is an upper limit to human foot-speed [with respect to the 1-mile run], yet the only lower limit is the lifetime of the runner. Getting a person to stop in the middle of a race is a trivial thing, yes? The same is true (essentially) for slowing, and even stopping, light.
In a black hole, light is not accelerated, as you mean it (though it is accelerated as a physicist means it). Slowing down is acceleration -- it is negative acceleration, or deceleration. The light from the singularity travels outward toward the event horizon, and is slowed and/or stopped such that it cannot escape. If you're thinking that light approaching a black hole is accelerated [beyond c], then you're mistaken, as relativistic speeds to not simply add.
If light can be slowed and even accelerated, as in black holes, then it could be seen that light could reach a point at a perceived length of time which in relative reality took a very short time.
ReplyDeleteDon't get me wrong here, Dan, I appreciate your fledgling attempts at grasping the physics of light -- really, I do, and I encourage continued study -- but if you're trying to somehow turn this into an argument for creation as depicted in the bible, or for a young universe, or for the existence of god...
...you'd be better off just saying "goddidit" and plugging your ears.
Please don't do that, but please also don't make "if...then" statements that are devoid of scientific understanding. If you want to do that, then I could just as easily describe what would happen if I went back in time, and slapped Eve in the face (...or reasoned with her); then the biblical story would have changed, if nothing else.
All right... I started this post last night before getting distracted and forgetting about it, so I'm sure there are other comments deserving of response...
...then I'll describe Fermat's principle, and melt your brain again.
--
Stan
Nice. Nothing other than Reynold's zinger.
ReplyDelete(Nice one.)
As promised, I thought I'd describe Fermat's principle, even though I suspect I know what conclusion you'll draw from it.
Einstein showed with Relativity that light does not travel in a straight line, but Fermat refined this aspect of light travel to say that light does not take the shortest path length-wise, but the shortest path time-wise, to get from Point A to Point B. We have all heard "the speed of light in a vacuum," and many of us recognize that light has different speeds in different mediums -- it moves slower through clouds, say, than "clear sky." While in most cases on earth the difference is negligible (especially when compared to other sources of error), the principle is nonetheless valid.
Fermat's principle explains Newton's separation of light through a prism. If you've ever performed this simple experiment, you will perceive all the constituent colors arrive at their various positions on the spectrum at the same time, despite the fact that they clearly took different paths (evidenced by their different arrival points, versus their shared departure point).
Through the prism, the red light moves a little slower than the yellow, which moves slower than the blue, etc. The index of refraction -- the angle at which light is bent through a homogeneous material such as the glass of the prism -- is different for each frequency, due to Fermat's principle. The spectrum bands meet the wall behind the prism simultaneously because the red light bends the least, and the violet bends the most, such that they even out as they exit the prism.
What this means, then, is that per Fermat's principle, light will instantly change direction to seek a local maximum speed.
That's fucking crazy.
--
Stan
P.S. - Physicists and mathematicians are virtually identical to most persons outside physics- or math-related fields, but if you ask one or the other what the difference is, you'll get one of the following responses:
Physicist's response: Math and Physics are essentially the same, but mathematicians only work with numbers and theoretical entities, with no direct correlation to reality. Physicists work with reality, and thus with units, making the process more intense and exacting -- one cannot add a length to a time and get any meaning from the result.
Mathematician's response: Math and Physics are essentially the same, but physicists ignore their mistakes if the units work out. Mathematicians don't have the benefit of units, so their calculations have to be more rigorous.
Of course, both are true... The physicist can immediately tell if a given formula is worth attempting, by simple dimensional analysis -- if you're measuring volume, and the formula produces energy, there's a problem. The mathematician doesn't worry about units, but if his calculations are correct, the units usually work out anyway, so to say he doesn't worry about units is a bit misleading -- he doesn't have to, but he ought to, and usually does.
Anyway, physics is the winner, because you use math to do physics, and not the other way 'round. Newton invented calculus [independently of Liebniz] to do physics.
Thanks Stan,
ReplyDeleteI actually absorbed most of that. I think it takes natural talent to explain complex matters simply, like your bike acceleration analogy. I concede that explaining about God in this manner does a real injustice to the Gospel. Not to mention how extremely unbiblical it is. So as for this post, I will consider it one of the mere four failed witnessing posts I have done. :7) Remember though failure is a good thing because it sets you on the path to doing the right thing.
One of the many reasons why I have the entire Cosmos DVD collection on my shelf and explore some of these things, as a mere fan of course. I can't wait to find out the why's. I just hope you will be right there with me when we all find out the entire truth. Thanks again, that was interesting stuff.
I concede that explaining about God in this manner does a real injustice to the Gospel. Not to mention how extremely unbiblical it is.
ReplyDeleteWait... Didn't I say you shouldn't say "goddidit" and plug your ears? That's basically what you're now doing. Congratulations?
Not to mention how extremely unbiblical it is.
...never mind that it is grounded in reality, right?
I'm sorry, Dan, but it seems that every time you get close to actually understanding how science shows that your simplistic 6-day creation story is false, you pull an 'ostrich,' and give up. Every time I see this happen, I call you out on it, so the more often it happens, the less acceptable it becomes -- it borders on dishonesty.
If you're truly intrigued by "the distant starlight problem," then actually pursue it, and let's discuss it. Trotting out some silly "explanation" that light's speed may have changed in the past, or on its way here, doesn't change the fact that distant starlight is often more than 6000 light-years away.
Let's talk about it, and let's find out more about why the YEC model fails in cosmological fields. We already know much about why it fails in geological fields, and biological fields, so let's try astronomy, eh?
Really. Let's get you educated, and force you to accuse all of astronomy of being anti-Christian, or somehow working to cover up the authentic evidence of the YEC model through some huge conspiracy.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe age of the universe is concluded through many different factors. A few but not all are, the age of oldest star clusters, the age of oldest white dwarf stars, the age of chemical elements, the redshift, & the thorium/neodymium Ratio.
Determining the age of the universe isn't done with only one aspect of physics or astronomy. Much like radiometric dating, many methods are used to verify the results are correct. The results of these methods point to the age of our universe being around 13.5 to 14 billion years. I'm sorry to break it to you that your biblical calendar, 6000-10,000 yrs, is far from the correct age.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
AC,
ReplyDeleteYes that is what you believe to be true. A belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism can cause a person to make a vastly inflated estimate of the age of the earth and universe.
This is not over, but as I study and read more, it even appears that an increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting chaotic inflationary theory, as an example.
"Clearly, the horizon problem remains a serious light travel-time problem for the big bang." (AIG)
:7)
Dan, no one is claiming the origin of the universe is solved, but insofar as there is a "horizon problem," it is minuscule compared to the problem of distant starlight with respect to the inane ramblings of Ken Ham and [literal interpretations of the opening passages of] your silly bible.
ReplyDeleteRemember how you started this post? You were pushing some nonsense about "great assumptions" regarding the speed of light, and then you ignorantly implied that slower-traveling light might actually help your case.
You were wrong, at virtually every turn. You are still wrong. "Problems" encountered by modern scientists are insignificant compared to the problems encountered by biblical literalists (or 6-literal-day Creationists, if you prefer). No, the figures aren't hard and fast, but yes, they're well established as being several orders of magnitude greater than a mere 6-10,000 years.
Do you even know what an order of magnitude is?
...it even appears that an increasing number of secular astrophysicists are rejecting chaotic inflationary theory
Nice try. You're quite obviously researching only hypotheses which are debated, without giving equal time to the veritable plethora of hypotheses which are [universally] accepted. Your pathetic attempts here tell everyone watching that you have a singular agenda: to promote what you believe is true according to the bible, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Contrary to what you may believe, that is not the goal of any scientist, so far as I am aware. While it is quite true that a casual mention of Noah's ark will receive groans and snickers from a group of astrophysicists, geologists, biologists, etc., it is not the goal to so discredit the authors of Genesis, but it has been the result of rigorous science.
We follow the evidence, wherever it leads. You lead the evidence, kicking and screaming, toward the conclusions you wish to draw, and you pretty explicitly ignore or dismiss any evidence which cannot be forced to fit your "model."
The first paragraphs of the bible are bullshit. They are nice stories written by (possibly) nice people, designed to give their culture some special significance, but they are nonetheless as fictional as Kim Jong Il's stated family history.
You cannot win the battle over literally interpreting Genesis 1-2, and you cannot win the battle over literally interpreting Genesis 6-7. You may try to win battles over various less provable biblical claims, and you may hand-wave and say "miricle, goddidit" ("miricle" is here spelled as you generally type it), but you must know that your claims on these matters are devoid of evidence -- entirely.
For fuck's sake, Dan, you don't even have any background whatsoever in any of the fields you presume to usurp. You merely read up on the explicitly biased opinions of those who agree with your current position, and regurgitate everything they say -- often including the same typographical errors.
Have you not noticed how so much of your opposition is unafraid to quote scripture, or to cite texts and articles of persons with whom we disagree? Have you not noticed that we do not dogmatically oppose your views, but we come to oppose them through thorough and reasoned discourse, including copious amounts of evidence?
You can pretend all you want, but when it comes down to it, the only evidence in support of your claims (those which are under dispute, anyway) is the document which fathers them. It's exactly analogous to declaring the existence of hobbits in Middle-earth because Tolkien wrote it down. The only difference is that Tolkien admits his work is fictional.
Would it were the case that you could do the same.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete...but it has been the result of rigorous science.
We follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
Just because I read about baseball doesn't make me a player...
Are you claiming to be a scientist now?
Oh and shhhhh I'm reading :7)
Are you claiming to be a scientist now?
ReplyDeleteI'm actually enrolled in a university as a Physics major, and I've done laboratory work as part of my coursework, and my school's physics department requires undergrads to conduct research.
No, I'm not employed as a scientist, but I'm an enrolled student in a scientific field. Draw the line as you wish. If you like, I'm in AAA, with aspirations of one day making the majors. To continue that analogy, I suppose that puts you in a softball beer-league...
Now get back to reading.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteSo you stayed at a holiday in last night then...got it.
Whatever makes you feel better at night, Danny. I've "done science." I'm in school to earn a physics degree, and plan on graduate school for the same.
ReplyDeleteWhat were your credentials, again?
I have readily admitted my lack of understanding, and my current status, whereas you have the audacity to propose nonsensical 'hypotheses' regarding the speed of light. You do this, yet you don't have the mathematical wherewithal to manipulate the simplest of algebraic statements (remember a + b = c?). Insofar as I am humble enough to admit I am no professional... Well, I suppose AAA is technically professional, so if you prefer, I will concede the point and instead list myself as being in college. I am not in a professional farm system, but I am a collegiate 'athlete,' in terms of the baseball analogy. You're still in a beer-league, if you're not in the stands.
The killer is that only one of us understands the infield fly rule or the balk (without looking them up first). You haven't demonstrated any talent in 'baseball,' and you clearly don't even know the rules.
I may not be a bona fide scientist, yet, but I daresay I'm a hell of a lot more qualified to talk about physics than you are.
Tell you what; read your books. Right now, you remind me (true story, here) of the guy who rang my doorbell this morning, selling magazines for his sports team's trip to somewhere-or-another, which was apparently somehow affiliated with my school. When he asked me what my major was, and I told him, "Physics," he said, "Oh, like a gym instructor then, right?"
After I stifled my involuntary laughter, I told him he could go, now.
--
Stan
Stan- nice work, as always.
ReplyDeleteDan: as Stan said, you (or the creationists you are getting your info from) are only looking for discrepancies, not at the big picture. As AC points out, the evidence for the age of the Universe is from myriad sources which independently confirm a date of about 14 billion years old. The same is true of the theory of evolution: the big picture is undeniable.
In looking at any phenomenon of sufficient complexity, be it the fossil record, or the witnesses to the age of the Earth, or the Holocaust or 9/11 for that matter, there will always be discrepancies, simply because our information, our interpretations, and our theories are never perfect. Any sufficiently complex happening throws up lots of chuff, and if you pick and choose, rather than look at the big picture, you can draw just about any conclusion you like.
For instance, I saw a film clip at a troother site that showed a fireman in the middle of the chaos saying something like "get away, a bomb has gone off". This was cited as proof that 9/11 was an inside job, with bombs planted in the WTC. I suspect you can see why this is not a good argument.
Similarly, there are Holocaust denier sites which point out discrepancies in the designation of buildings said to have been gas chambers, and claim that as proof that the Holocaust didn't happen. But again, you can see the problem here: reams of evidence that shows at least approximately what must have happened is ignored; and a new story is made up of picking out those things that are inevitably confused, or confusing, or inexplicable, that are tossed off as eddies from the main flow of a complex stream of information.
Dan, this is what you and your cobelievers are doing to evolutionary theory, and the evidence for an old Earth: blatantly ignoring the big picture, and putting together a story to match your Bible from bits and pieces taken out of context. You are pointing to an eddy in the Huron River (where I am now) and saying the River doesn't flow into Lake Erie, but uphill.
The only way to get the big picture is to open your eyes.
cheers from muggy Ann Arbor, zilch
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI admit, at times I enjoy busting your ... Anyway it appears you feel you have a hierarchy to matters in science then others, like myself. Galilei and Einstein, had people feel the same way to them, professors and fellow scientist colleagues, that I am sure said the same things that you just did and considered them inferior. I may not currently have things committed to memory but I do know how to think, reason, and read. Who knows I might be the future's Lemaître and you will have no choice but to follow my theories. Anything is possible with God. The miricle of me becoming the leading athority of phisics would be a punch to your belly for sure, since, at the moment, you are acting like a lab coatauthoritarian. The difference between us is that I have truth on my side, ya student.
Now go make the class do laps or something.
Zilch,
ReplyDeleteDan, this is what you and your cobelievers are doing to evolutionary theory, and the evidence for an old Earth: blatantly ignoring the big picture, and putting together a story to match your Bible from bits and pieces taken out of context.
eh hem, and you are not? You and your co-believers are doing to Biblical truth, and the evidence for the universe; blatantly ignoring the big picture, and putting together a story to match your god Darwin's theory from bits and pieces taken out of context interpreted to meet the current paradigm.
I admit, at times I enjoy busting your [balls]...
ReplyDeleteYeah, I know, but I still managed to fit it into the analogy, so there.
Anyway it appears you feel you have a hierarchy to matters in science then others, like myself.
I expect you're accusing me of participating in a hierarchical system, wherein some are more qualified to speak to a subject, conjecture, hypothesis, or theory than others might be.
Yeah, I participate in that.
No, I'm not saying someone who, like Will Hunting in Good Will Hunting said, could get all the knowledge imparted through a prestigious university by spending $1.50 in late fees at a local library, is somehow unable to speak intelligently in any particular field. As you note, there have been fan-boy "students" of physics, or other sciences, throughout history, who have contributed greatly -- indeed, some are the veritable face of the science in question -- but it is also true that they actually had some knowledge in the subject to which they provided contribution.
You don't.
Get some, and we'll talk. As I have repeatedly said, I'm nothing more than a physics undergrad. I've got plenty to learn, and, quite unlike you, I recognize that I don't have all the answers.
--
Stan
You and your co-believers are doing to Biblical truth, and the evidence for the universe; blatantly ignoring the big picture, and putting together a story to match your god Darwin's theory from bits and pieces taken out of context interpreted to meet the current paradigm.
ReplyDeleteBull. Shit.
Evolution came out of a Creationist paradigm, for one, so Darwin cannot be guilty of blindly following. You know, like Galileo and Einstein, who you mentioned a moment ago...
Furthermore, you're full of shit. Nothing has been "taken out of context" with respect to the piles of evidence for an old universe. That pile of evidence is essentially a modern "Tower of Babel," if you will (I know you'll like that description) -- it is so high and undeniable that you look foolish in the extreme when you deny it anyway.
You may say it seeks to reach and usurp god, and that doesn't bother me (since I don't believe in the guy), but like the biblical myth of the Tower of Babel, it would take an act of god to demolish it, at this point.
Do you blindly accept heliocentrism? Why don't you argue against it like you do against an old universe? Technically, heliocentrism is more dubious than an old universe -- a change in perspective is all that's required, and while the calculations become far more difficult (prohibitively so), it is nonetheless possible to place the earth -- stationary -- at the center of the universe, and calculate the future positions of celestial bodies with just the same precision and accuracy we enjoy with Keplerian, Newtonian, and Einsteinian laws today.
Have a great day -- I'm going to a water park.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteit is nonetheless possible to place the earth -- stationary -- at the center of the universe,
Where I fully admit that the heliocentric model is a fact, so is the earth being the center of the universe.
Allow me to explain.
If the claims of the Bible is true then that claim is completely accurate. If we are the only planet that inhabits life and God came as a man to help save us from out wickedness then we are absolutely the center of this universe. We are the center of God's attention and the reason why this entire universe exists. So yes, we are the center of the universe. The dodo head Catholics of the past just got it wrong, as they did for so many things, and took it literally.
BTW thanks for helping my daughter covet water parks now. Have fun.
Dan, I need to know, which bible do you base your claims on?
ReplyDeleteAlso, How do you know the "Catholics of the past just got it wrong?" What evidence do you have to support this claim?
~Atomic Chimp
AC,
ReplyDeleteI have said before as far as the different translations, there is a sliding scale so I take all of them into account and not trust any 'one' thing that man has done. I stay close to literal and conservative as possible. The translations start from very conservative and literal translations like Young's Literal, Darby then to KJV then on up to the top (or bottom in my perspective) of the more modern and liberal translations like NLT, NASB, and the most liberal New Jerusalem Bible (NJB). I do not even bother with, imho blasphemous, paraphrased bibles like "The Living Bible"
Also, How do you know the "Catholics of the past just got it wrong?" What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Do you mean do I have evidence of the sun being the center of the Solar System? I have seen pictures and read first hand accounts of it. Would you believe me if I said I have done the math? No, me neither.
Or did you mean the evidence of Galilei's persecution and imprisonment by the RCC? That situation was well documented also.
Dan, in response to my question on evidence, you said, "Do you mean do I have evidence of the sun being the center of the Solar System? I have seen pictures and read first hand accounts of it. Would you believe me if I said I have done the math? No, me neither.
ReplyDeleteOr did you mean the evidence of Galilei's persecution and imprisonment by the RCC? That situation was well documented also.
This still doesn't answer my question. Mentioning how Galileo was persecuted or some joke about doing the math, is not evidence. Please provide a list of what they got wrong, and explain how you know they got it wrong.
Thanks!
~Atomic Chimp
someone recommended a book called "Starlight, Time and the New Physics" by professor John Hartnett. Building on the work of secular cosmologist Moshe Carmeli, Dr. Hartnett's book explains how we can see distant starlight in a young universe while at the same time doing away with the big bang 'fudge' factors of dark energy and dark matter. I might want to get a copy of that one.
ReplyDeleteAC,
ReplyDeleteI will post about Galileo tomorrow.
Dan - 1 John 1:5 does not say that "God is light" in the sense that you mean, or else you will have to regard that God the Father created Himself in Genesis 1, which is not just bad exegesis - it's rank heresy, as Paul in Romans 1 clearly warns that those who confuse the Creator with His creation are so bad in God's eyes that He gives them over to the most base desires possible.
ReplyDeleteWhat is meant here, as evidenced in the sixth verse in contrast with walking in darkness (i.e. walking in sin) is that the Father is morally pure and holy.
Also, the measurement of time distortion from the positional standpoint of light itself (relative to a media) is provably invalid by Einstein's equations. Additionally, light is a creation of God the Father by means of God the Son and Logos, and it is a perfect creation as it is, not a tweakable tool God has to tinker with to patch a creation that is imperfect to His will. Therefore, YEC is false.
The literalness of the creation days has no apostolic authority.
What about OEC? What about that damnable theory of evolution, for that matter? Feast:
"God created the potential for the heavens and earth, and for life, but the details worked themselves out in accordance with the laws laid down by God, on this picture. It wasn't necessary for God to create each individual species (let alone each individual living thing) in the process called Special Creation. Instead, the Creator provided the seeds of the Universe and of life, and let them develop in their own time."
What a Darwinist heretic! Oops, that's Augustine, acting one and a half millennia before old Chuck came around and called us all monkey's uncles. Such notables as Gregory, Aquinas, Occam, etc. supported this view wholeheartedly, since they actually read the text of Genesis, discovered that God created life by means of enabling the planet itself to do it.
Also God, having no substantial physical image before the time of Christ, made man in His image "out of the dust" (i.e. out of a mere animal, called "dust" here to make sure man's belonging to the Earth and not to God is highlighted). Take this literally and God just blows a bunch of shapeless dust around (since He has no physical body to model) by impossible means (since He is, in all three forms, massless and without locale).
Solving this dilemma is immediate, though, by recognizing that the only quality men can possibly share at all with the Godhead is the Logos, since morality wasn't around for Adam and Eve just yet.
Therefore, the breath of life given unto two creatures of the dust (who were much like men but instinctual), was the Logos that immediately presided over the base instincts. Adam and Eve. And hey, you even have an account for Cain's wife later up the road, which you don't have with YEC or OEC.
So quit hammering away at the long-established fact that the Universe that God made through the perfect logic of Christ and called Good, is older than a literal interpretation of Genesis tells. And quit beating up evolution since it is not only compatible with Christianity, but is also compatible with inerrantism as I've demonstrated above. Go after metaphysical naturalism or conceptual scientism instead, since it is there where atheism lies, not within evolution qua evolution.
Your talents and wit lie better wrecking the source of God-denying beliefs, not with degrading and denying sound observation of the Universe that God created in logical order and that God called good. YEC is turning people away from the faith and making atheists
even more fervent in their desires.
With respect for your adherence to the authority of Scripture, this kind of analysis does nothing but serve as a scarecrow, rather than a testimony, for the faith. Please stop and go after the real culprits instead.
Sorry for any typos and unintended over-gripeyness. Am tired.
D.
Dan, you say:
ReplyDeleteYou and your co-believers are doing to Biblical truth, and the evidence for the universe; blatantly ignoring the big picture, and putting together a story to match your god Darwin's theory from bits and pieces taken out of context interpreted to meet the current paradigm.
Dan, you are talking as if the Bible and the Origin of Species are works by rival gods, duking it out for the minds and hearts of the people. That's how religion works: by authority- something is true or not depending upon who says it's true. But science works differently: something is (provisionally) true or not depending upon whether or not it comports with the real world.
And as I said, the big picture supports an old Earth and evolution. I don't have to "pick and choose" to believe that: all I have to do is look around. For instance, a couple of weeks ago I was in Oil City, Pennsylvania, and I found a piece of gravel with a fossil in it of quartz. Now, quartz does not replace organic material in a few thousand years; it takes millions of years. This is the kind of evidence you can find for yourself every day if you want.
cheers from sunny Poughkeepsie, zilch
Darrin,
ReplyDeleteThat was a nice rebuke thanks. I concede to your point about 1 John 1:5, I did take it out of context. I remembered reading in the Bible that God was light and just found the first verse stating that.
I disagree with you about evolution and YEC though, to think that people actually have the power in "turning people away from the faith" is a great overstatement. We do not and never will have that type of power. Every Atheist i know would be Christians if I had that kind of power. So really nothing I say, do, or believe will effect the Salvation of others or presuppositions. Well said though.
I have not read the 37 comments. But my assertion is that God can make the bird to be in mid-air flying when he made the bird, and also with a stomach full of dead worms in his stomach though he had not eaten them, and even 20 foot below him a falling packet of manure that has never touched his colon before. So I don't care how long it takes light to travel and at what speed it left. God can make light beams closer to the earth and is not limited to make the light only originate at the immediate location of its source during the creation moment; After all, He made everything out of NOTHING, no atoms, no space, no quarks, no subatomic particles; Are we going to try to comprehend that? We cannot, but it is the truth;
ReplyDelete@Todd,
ReplyDeleteMy assertion is that you are an idiot. Are you going to try to comprehend that? You cannot, but it is the truth.