24 May 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt's an interesting issue. Einstein's Theory also messes things up because we can not take time for granted. There does seem to be a fixed speed of light, but we have trouble explaining how time dilation. I was wondering about the age of the photons that travel through space. Take a sun that is 10 million light years away. If you were to travel near the speed of light, it would take you less than 10 million years, because time slows down at your destination relative to you origin. If you could travel at the speed of light, the time dilation would be greater.
What is the 10,000 light year problem?
It seems to me that chinking is asking the question, "If the Universe is only 3000-odd years old, how do we have light from stars that are 10,000 light-years away," whereas no1 seems to be asking the question, "How can the Universe be only 10,000 light years in diameter?". Who is correct (in the context of this discussion)?
And all this is very interesting, but what it tells us is you can not assume anything regarding distance and time considering are normal empirical observations do no work at great speeds - and light is traveling at a very great speed. Though in the effects of relativity of objects that are moving aways and towards each other, and things get very complicated.
I don't think scientist know the answer. There are theories, but they fall short of describing reality on the scale of the universe, or the subatomic scale.
24 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiTime dilation only affects the object travelling at high speed not the observer. To the photon travelling at the speed of light coming from a star 10 million light years away, no time has passed at all, but to us observing it since we know its A) Speed and B) How far it has travelled; we know it age i.e. 10 million years. Regardless of whether light is travelling towards or away from us, it always appears to the observer to be travelling at a same speed (this is the famous Michelson-Morley experiment which led Einstein to the Theory of Relativity). So Coletti's points are not scientifically valid.
It's an interesting issue. Einstein's Theory also messes things up because we can not take time for granted. There does seem to be a fixed speed of light, but we have trouble explaining how time dilation. I was wondering about the age of the photons that travel through space. Take a sun that is 10 million light years away. If you were to travel near th ...[text shortened]... but they fall short of describing reality on the scale of the universe, or the subatomic scale.
We've been here before; but scientists NEVER think "they know the answer" and all theories "fall short of describing" all reality. So what? The knowledge we have know is proof beyond any reasonable doubt that light is travelling at a speed which we can, and do, measure as constant. Given that speed and the great number of stars, galaxies and other observed astronomical phenomena the age of the universe most logically be far more than 10,000 years.
24 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd you would calculate that "time" as the distance traveled divided by the speed of light. But that would be applying Newton's laws to particles traveling at high speed.
Time dilation only affects the object travelling at high speed not the observer. To the photon travelling at the speed of light coming from a star 10 million light years away, no time has passed at all, but to us observing it since we know its A) Speed and B) How far it has travelled; we know it age i.e. 10 million years. Regardless of whether ...[text shortened]... ved astronomical phenomena the age of the universe most logically be far more than 10,000 years.
But also according to you the light reaches here instantly as far as the time light experiences - I think that is also incorrect.
It is also relative to moving bodies - and guess what - we are not standing still. The stars are moving away and towards us. So the time dilation is experienced by all involved (depending if you are moving towards or away from objects).
According to some theories, the universe began as a "big bang." Now something tells me that things were moving in different directions as very great speeds when that occurred. So the time experienced by these objects was not the same. In fact, we can no calculate the time we experience without first knowing the point of the big bang, and the path taken by the materials the that comprised earth. (the time would have been the same if all the material thrown out by the big bang went outward in a perfect sphere.
And all this is speculative, based on making projection out to millions and billions of years. There are many assumptions that one must agree to before making the calculations, and assumptions are often challenged - often by new data, pushing us to new conclusions.
24 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderWhoa Dude!
Unless you believe that God changes the speed of light all the time to bedazle us, your apparent age nonsense doesn't work. Light travels one light year in a year thus the light from every object we see cannot be further than 10,000 light years away if the universe is only that old. Yet if the universe has a diameter of only 10,000 light years ...[text shortened]... would fry any life remotely similiar to ours. Sorry the "apparent age" fairy tale don't fly.
I think if you look back a bit you'll see that the 10,000 light years away star was just an example. No matter how far away any star or galaxy is, my point was just that God would naturally have its light arriving on earth at the point of creation! What would be the point of his creating only apple seeds? Or why would He create a star and then have Adam and Eve wait so many years before they could be seen? Adam himself was created with apparent age to be sure!
Nice try guy, but the apparent age viewpoint only makes sense. Of course I'm using it inside the Christian worldview; a view that includes God's perogative to use supernatural (above nature) power.
(Did you really think I was saying the universe is 10,000 light years in diameter?)
By the way, isn't it only scientific to NOT claim to know what the speed of light was at any point in the past? Who's to say that 'c' is not really a constant as we assume, and that, under the effect of entropy, it has been slowing down over time?
24 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58No, it is not "scientific" to say that something we have observed and measured countless times at some point in the past acted differently when we have no reason to believe that is so. That's pretty much the opposite of science.
Whoa Dude!
I think if you look back a bit you'll see that the 10,000 light years away star was just an example. No matter how far away any star or galaxy is, my point was just that God would naturally have its light arriving on earth at the point of creation! What would be the point of his creating only apple seeds? Or why would He create a star an ...[text shortened]... onstant as we assume, and that, under the effect of entropy, it has been slowing down over time?
Where did the light from the star come 10 minutes after creation? 1 year? 10,000 years? You can't get around it; the light had to emanate from a point and we can measure its speed now. Light from a star 10,000 years away left there 10,000 years ago and light from a star a billion miles away left it a billion years ago. Unless God is running a neverending light show with supernovas and galaxy formations placed in this magic light stream, something our science deems impossible but you are free to believe in whatever fairy tale you choose.
24 May 05
Originally posted by ColettiNothing you've said contradicts my original post except for your assertion that my statement that light does not experience time is "incorrect". Please provide some reasoning why you believe that as it is part of Einstein's Theory of Relativity and maybe you could earn a Nobel Prize in Physics. The universe is billions of years old beyond any reasoned doubt and all your attempts to cast doubt on any type of empirical data are just a bizarre type of extreme skepticism for things scientific whereas you act with blindfaith in other areas.
And you would calculate that "time" as the distance traveled divided by the speed of light. But that would be applying Newton's laws to particles traveling at high speed.
But also according to you the light reaches here instantly as far as the time light experiences - I think that is also incorrect.
It is also relative to moving bodies - and guess wh ...[text shortened]... ations, and assumptions are often challenged - often by new data, pushing us to new conclusions.
24 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderThe light was created silly! That's all. It was a miracle of God's creative power. In this belief, I am not claiming any proof. I am offering an explanation of starlight that fits only within the framework of Genesis 1. No apologies.
No, it is not "scientific" to say that something we have observed and measured countless times at some point in the past acted differently when we have no reason to believe that is so. That's pretty much the opposite of science.
Where did the light from the star come 10 minutes after creation? 1 year? 10,000 years? You can't get ...[text shortened]... hing our science deems impossible but you are free to believe in whatever fairy tale you choose.
But you will note that God created light on the first day and the stars on the fourth! He is a miracle working genius!
Furthermore, scientifically speaking, what is observed and quantified now is only valid for now. Anything said about the subject outside of that laboratory time and place is only conjecture. Whether it's interpolated between measurements or extrapolated outward, it is only an assumption and must be understood in that light (no pun intended).
When I was in school, the Geologists had the decency to call Uniformitarianism an assumption. They never had the integrity to treat it like one, but at least they called it right. Can you do the same?
24 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58I think I'll take Bbarr's advice and leave this to the savages; there's no point arguing with someone who rejects scientific knowledge altogether in favor of a fairy tale that is not even required by Genesis (where does it say creation happened only a few thousand years ago)?
The light was created silly! That's all. It was a miracle of God's creative power. In this belief, I am not claiming any proof. I am offering an explanation of starlight that fits only within the framework of Genesis 1. No apologies.
But you will note that God created light on the first day and the stars on the fourth! He is a miracle working g ...[text shortened]... had the integrity to treat it like one, but at least they called it right. Can you do the same?
It is esp. ironic to be having this argument on the internet; I missed God creating that but Man sure did. If you ever want to get out of the Middle Ages, send me a PM; otherwise I'm done with these types of "Science don't prove nuthin" idiocies.
25 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderLOL ignorance is bliss and these dudes seem pretty darn blissful
I think I'll take Bbarr's advice and leave this to the savages; there's no point arguing with someone who rejects scientific knowledge altogether in favor of a fairy tale that is not even required by Genesis (where does it say creation happened only a few thousand years ago)?
It is esp. ironic to be having this argument on the internet; I m ...[text shortened]... send me a PM; otherwise I'm done with these types of "Science don't prove nuthin" idiocies.
25 May 05
Originally posted by chinking58I will note that what you say is preposterously silly.
The light was created silly! That's all. It was a miracle of God's creative power. In this belief, I am not claiming any proof. I am offering an explanation of starlight that fits only within the framework of Genesis 1. No apologies.
But you will note that God created light on the first day and the stars on the fourth! He is a miracle working g ...[text shortened]... had the integrity to treat it like one, but at least they called it right. Can you do the same?
25 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you giving up, as you say? Or asking a further question?
I think I'll take Bbarr's advice and leave this to the savages; there's no point arguing with someone who rejects scientific knowledge altogether in favor of a fairy tale that is not even required by Genesis (where does it say creation happened only a few thousand years ago)?
It is esp. ironic to be having this argument on the internet; I m ...[text shortened]... send me a PM; otherwise I'm done with these types of "Science don't prove nuthin" idiocies.
Let me know.