I understand it was having the same speed for both elements that originally persuaded that light was made up of both elements. yet now they say gravity has the same speed.
there is a youtube video called’ light speed has nothing to do with light" by PBS. it has 3 million hits and is part of a series. i suggest it for anyone interested in light and claims that it moves about.
This is a very interesting insight into YEC thinking. In some of my conversations with YEC’s they tell me that I have to believe in things like abiogenesis or a multiverse because I am an atheist. When I tell them that I am quite comfortable not knowing the origin of things when there is little to no evidence that would allow us to draw a conclusion it seems to confuse them. Now I understand why that is a bit better.
2 Likes
That is because you either did not read it or did not understand it. I’m not sure which is sadder.
Could you perhaps suggest one? If it is so easy, after all.
That sort of nonsense cop-out response is tiresome.
No, it is not complicated. This is a galaxy. It has moved. It moved a long way. End of story. It is actually very, very simple.
I am sure that lack of memorization skills are the only reason you do not have a PhD in everything.
It is true that light speed has nothing to do with light. This is something that I understand quite well.
Unless you can explain why, and what that implies about the universe, you have no business trying to use it in an argument. Your claim that light does not “move around” is discourteously specious.
Bingo.
“Wait…you…you don’t know? That doesn’t bother you?”
2 Likes
I’d think that any degree that was only about “memorising things for kids in their late teens and early twenties” would be very bad value for money. Most “kids in their late teens and early twenties” going up to university expect to be taught far more than just rote memorisation. They expect to be taught skills and techniques in critical thinking and clear communication that they can subsequently go on to apply in real-world situations throughout their careers.
For what it’s worth, that’s what most employers expect “kids in their late teens and early twenties” to have been taught in their degree courses as well. If degree courses were only about “memorising things” as you put it, then those courses would be of no benefit whatsoever in the employment market, and events such as the Milk Round would not be a thing.
Or are you perhaps talking about courses in underwater basket weaving here?
3 Likes
As i said I read you brought up about light from distant stars indicating long timelines. Alright you deny it. Good. Sure its a point your side brings up. i thought you were.
yes these things should be seen by humans as complicated. not so quick to think one has figured it out.
By the way I suspect they onlyn opine the galaxy has moved based on calculating timelines from light concepts.
Anyways also remember there are other reasons for these combinations of stars etc to have moved.
the bible ints about this and I suspect the great crator impacts below the k-t line are evidence for it.
Off subject but No i don’t mean rote memorization. i mean its all memorization .
thats what have teachers etc is all about . being taught something and REMEMBERING same.
Employment mostly just uses people who memorized things and very little innovation. in fact they would not know before they hired anyone.
Almost all degrees are irrelevant to anything except paying attention and getting enough marks indicating having learned/memorized what was taught.
off subject.
The thread here is called starlight and time.
Then cases brought up why ot doesn’t work.
So why does DM say i miss the point?
Need more light!
What is complicated? This is a galaxy. You can see that it is moving. It has moved. End of story. What could be simpler?
No, we “opine” that the galaxy has moved BECAUSE IT IS BLOODY MOVING. Look at the picture!
“No, officer, I wasn’t driving drunk. Yes, I’m drunk, and yes, I’m in my car in the middle of the road, and yes, the engine is on, but you can’t prove I was actually driving!”
Do you actually think your words are making sense?
@David_MacMillan, attached is a young universe proposal I have been trying to falsify for above 13 years. I am the developer so I may just have bias blindness. Of course I have received complaints* about it – anyone can complain – but what I am seeking is an overthrow of the idea, a falsification. If there is a lynchpin to pull so that the entire proposal collapses, that is what I want to find. Perhaps you can spot it or perhaps you know of someone who could. I place no obligation on you. Look or don’t look. But if you do, you have my thanks in advance.
*several PhDs have commented but none have falsified it (but then, maybe they did not really try to). Tom Bridgman says it resembles Setterfield’s idea without the change in c. John Hartnett says it ‘won’t work’ but he says that about everything, so no surprise there. I pressed him further, but to date he has never supplied details to support his opinion. A poster on the Biologos forum had a set of complaints as well. I think those are still out there. Creationists have wholesale rejected it because they claim it looks too much like big bang.
1 Like
Just read through it, though I didn’t check the maths as I went. Looks very well-thought-through.
First pass made me compare it to Humphreys’ White Hole cosmology, but closer inspection showed it was not.
Presently looking in vain for an implication or prediction that would actually be falsifiable.
Anything I should look at in particular? That is, as the dev, are you aware of any specific places where this model would generate a different set of observations than the standard model?
Without having delved very deep, I’d be inclined to look at two points:
- You talk about accelerated aging mapped onto 6,000 years. That would suggest the same flaws as White Hole cosmology, which would have distant objects moving/rotating/evolving at a different rate than near ones.
- If I’m understanding it right from my cursory pass, light reaches us faster? through the radial timescale. Is there any way to detect this, or would it produce the same results as the standard model under any observation?
1 Like
Oh, one other observation: you have nucleogenesis via fusion immediately following creation. Subsequent to this, did you have stellar formation directly by God, or is the “accelerated aging timescale” bit a nod to an essentially mainstream cosmogenesis?
1 Like
Could be but not sure. Maybe not. If they exist, I certainly want/need to see them.
Same results I believe.
This is important. Could this be? Every point exists on the thermodynamic hypersphere, yet every point also is touched by great age. What would that look like? I am not sure. But this point you make I believe is important. This needs a definitive answer, not a guess. Not complaints, but a real answer. (I know you are not complaining, I am just making an observation about how serious your question and the answer need to be. Thanks)
The great age of the system is given by large T, the GR requirement. Even though the frame is accelerated, it may not matter. Time is time. Probably mainstream cosmogenesis would work.
1 Like
Well, without trying to self-promote, I do believe that my OP would provide a good test for your model.
This is a galaxy. It is moving. It has very clearly traversed 280,000 lightyears. In the standard model, it took a very very long time to do so.
If your model has “accelerated aging” in one timescale and a 6,000-year-old cosmos in another timescale, then it becomes necessary to reconcile the two. If the Earth is 6,000 years old, then I must ask: at what point in Earth’s history did the above galaxy go from the end of the trail to where it is now?
If you are cool with mainstream cosmogenesis, then presumably you are okay with getting a little creative on “He made the stars also” on the 4th day. Which is fine. But if you are willing to go with that, why not bite the bullet and just go to an old-universe-young-earth creationism? It’s what I did, when I saw that picture above.
Of course my old-universe-young-earth creationism only lasted about 14 seconds, so your mileage may vary.
2 Likes
It’s a beautiful and stunning image. I appreciate you sharing. In the model I presented all cosmic processes everywhere would have been accelerated, even the creation of earth and its environs. A hypothetical observer looking back at us from ESO 137–001 would surely note similar evidences of great age. The intrinsic age of our planet itself would be old. The CMB would be young thermodynamically as would every point in space - thermodynamically, that is. The thermodynamic clock would count-off time in periodic fashion, the radial timepiece would be accelerated.
I know. It’s odd. It may or may not work.
Just a thought about day 4 stars. The text does not really say stars were created on day 4 as creationists insist. But it does say that the moon was created on day 4 to rule the night “along with the stars”. Stars/galaxies were likely created on day 1 with the initiation of the cosmos “in the beginning”.
I appreciate your comments. I don’t live or die by this model. I want it falsified if possible. Should you have interested contacts, please pass along.
(never mind)
I think it works fine. You’ve stumbled on reality.
Sort of a cross between the gap theory and concordism, I think.
To quote Jesus, “I think you are not far from the kingdom of God.”
If I may add one point…the text does not say that God made the two “great lights” on day 4, either. It says that he decreed the creation of the lights – “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night” – on day 4, and it was so, but “God made two great lights” is a separate sentence.
We can believe that God did literally decree the creation of the world over the course of six literal days, but that doesn’t mean the fulfillment of each decree was tied to that specific day. God is outside of time; he can speak into creation any time he wants and creation obeys, but creation obeys when and how God wants it to, not based on any artificial or temporal timeline.
Welcome to the club. 
1 Like
As long as you are graceful in accepting criticism, I would be happy to take a look at your manuscript. I am a professional astrophysicist, and I have refereed papers for multiple top-tier journals (impact factors of ~5 and above).
3 Likes
Here’s another even more dramatic one:
If that isn’t a picture of colliding galaxies, then what is it?
(For what it’s worth, they are about 100,000 light years across, and moving past each other at about 1/1000 of the speed of light. Do the maths: it takes a looooooooooooong time for them to get like that.)
4 Likes
To quote the perenially-unconcerned Jason Lisle:
“How do you know that God didn’t create galaxies already in the process of collision? Adam was created as an adult. How could you possibly know that laws of physics are even the same in distant galaxies as they are on Earth?”
3 Likes
Well I would have thought that Dr Lisle, as a PhD astrophysicist, should be able to rattle off the answer to that one in his sleep.
3 Likes