Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The Distant Starlight Problem


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
338 replies to this topic

#1
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts
Ok, here is my first thread starter. I don't really see one on this topic and we do have about 6 going on age of earth. I've read Answersingenesis rebuttals, but I'm more interested in seeing what argument being made by YEC advocates on this topic is the one that you hold your hat on. What I like about this article is that he takes the ten arguments made by YEC people and refutes them one at a time.

Here is the article-

http://csharp.com/starlight.html

Let's have it.

Spock out

#2
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,909 posts

you are assuming the speed of light has always been the same.....    science has no idea what happened when God spoke, "let there be light".



#3
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

you are assuming the speed of light has always been the same.....    science has no idea what happened when God spoke, "let there be light".


Did you read his rebuttal to that argument in the article? See Point # 3

Do you disagree with that rebuttal? If so, how so?

#4
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,909 posts

 

you are assuming the speed of light has always been the same.....    science has no idea what happened when God spoke, "let there be light".


Did you read his rebuttal to that argument in the article? See Point # 3

Do you disagree with that rebuttal? If so, how so?

 

Like I said, science doesn't have a clue what happened when God said let their be light......     even with our own science none of our physics works at the point of the so called big bang......   we are assuming all these things have been constant from the start, but there is no way of really knowing that.



#5
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,003 posts

From your source:  http://csharp.com/starlight.html

 

"The claim that God created the universe with an appearance of age with light already in transit to the earth from distant stars cannot technically be proved or disproved, so it is not scientific."

 

  :24:  Neither is anything he postulates!  It's in the past...you can't do EXPERIMENTS on the past.  So Everything, from whatever camp on this issue, is not "scientific".  It's UNFALSIFIABLE; Hence, UNPROVABLE!!  Just stories, speculations, and Unfalsifiable/Unprovable Assumptions.

 

Setterfield @ least has measurements from the past.  Can he Prove the extrapolations......NOPE!!

 

 



#6
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,252 posts

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?

 

The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 

 

God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature. 



#7
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?

 

The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 

 

God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature. 

 

how does that answer the question of how we can see light from stars billions of light years away?  6000 years is not enough time for their light to reach earth at known speed of light.



#8
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

http://www.reasons.o...of-the-universe



#9
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,561 posts

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?

 

The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 

 

God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature. 

 

:thumbsup:

 

Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered

 

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7

 

http://www.worthychr...-humphreys-phd/



#10
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?
 
The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 
 
God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature.


This rebuttal makes no sense to me again Shiloh.

If we here on earth are viewing a supernova that happened 167,000 light years ago, doesn't that tell you something? It certainly tells me this universe is more than 10,000 years old, otherwise, how could the light from that explosion be 167,000 years away?

#11
LookingForAnswers

LookingForAnswers

    Senior Member

  • Seeker
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,169 posts

 

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?

 

The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 

 

God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature. 

 

:thumbsup:

 

Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered

 

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7

 

http://www.worthychr...-humphreys-phd/

 

 

http://www.reasons.o...ight-and-time-2



#12
Spock

Spock

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,210 posts

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?
 
The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 
 
God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature. 

 
:thumbsup:
 
Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered
 
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7
 
http://www.worthychr...-humphreys-phd/
 
http://www.reasons.o...ight-and-time-2

Lol. This is the classic example of the Christian who HAS TO believe in the young earth model grabbing any article from IRC or AIG and running with it before checking out what do the real scientists, the guys and gals who do the research and leg work think about such preposterous theories.

Hard to believe Humphrey thought he knew more than Einstein.

#13
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,252 posts

 

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?
 
The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 
 
God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature.


This rebuttal makes no sense to me again Shiloh.

If we here on earth are viewing a supernova that happened 167,000 light years ago, doesn't that tell you something?

 

167,000 light years ago???   A light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time.   We may be watching a Supernova that happened 167,000 lightyears from earth, but that isn't really a problem.  We  are not watching it with the naked eye, though.  We are watching it with the aid of technlogy.



#14
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,003 posts

 

 

 

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?
 
The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 
 
God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature. 

 
:thumbsup:
 
Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered
 
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7
 
http://www.worthychr...-humphreys-phd/
 
http://www.reasons.o...ight-and-time-2

Lol. This is the classic example of the Christian who HAS TO believe in the young earth model grabbing any article from IRC or AIG and running with it before checking out what do the real scientists, the guys and gals who do the research and leg work think about such preposterous theories.

Hard to believe Humphrey thought he knew more than Einstein.

 

 

"any article from IRC or AIG"

 

Is this the fallback form answer for everything?? ....  It's just an Ad Hominem.  And who's IRC?

 

 

"real scientists"

 

Real Scientists, eh?  You mean the ones that wheel out Evolution (because when we get right down to cases....THAT'S what we're talking about!!) that have an a priori adherence to a fairytale and masquerade the majority of their results under the term "SCIENCE".... who File 13'ed the "Scientific Method" and replaced it with "Peer-Review"? .... You know, the Gate Keepers!  Are THOSE the ONE'S you're referring too??

 

 

"Hard to believe Humphrey thought he knew more than Einstein."

 

Einstein was just a man...Brilliant;  but just a man nonetheless.....

 

(1 Corinthians 3:19) "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness."

 

And he knew it....

 

Albert Einstein 1879-1955 " I am not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a small child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books but he does not know how. He does not understand the languages in which they are written. This child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That it seems to me is the thought of the most intelligent human being towards God "



#15
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,252 posts

 

 

 

 

So why is hard to accept that an all knowing all powerful God created all of the stars at the instantly at the same time, including the ones that are 10-14 billion light years from earth whose light we will never see with the naked eye?
 
The assumption by some creationists  is that the stars had to be visible on the fourth day, but that is not the case.  The simply had to be made on the fourth day. 
 
God did not create the universe with the appearance of age.  He created the universe functionally mature. 

 
:thumbsup:
 
Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered
 
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7
 
http://www.worthychr...-humphreys-phd/
 
http://www.reasons.o...ight-and-time-2

Lol. This is the classic example of the Christian who HAS TO believe in the young earth model grabbing any article from IRC or AIG and running with it before checking out what do the real scientists, the guys and gals who do the research and leg work think about such preposterous theories.

Hard to believe Humphrey thought he knew more than Einstein.

 

 

"any article from IRC or AIG"

 

Is this the fallback form answer for everything?? ....  It's just an Ad Hominem.  And who's IRC?

 

 

 

That's the way they can blow off anything we say that they really don't have an intelligent answer to.    ICR is the "Institute for Creation Research."



#16
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,561 posts

Does The Good Doctor

 

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Colossians 2:8

 

Really See

 

But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. Isaiah 64:8

 

His Glory

 

I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 42:8

 

~
 

:thumbsup:
 
Another Way, Even Peer Reviewed Yet Seldom Considered
 
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. Genesis 1:6-7
 
http://www.worthychr...-humphreys-phd/

http://www.reasons.o...ight-and-time-2

Lol. This is the classic example of the Christian who HAS TO believe in the young earth model grabbing any article from IRC or AIG and running with it before checking out what do the real scientists, the guys and gals who do the research and leg work think about such preposterous theories.

Hard to believe Humphrey thought he knew more than Einstein.

 

 

:thumbsup:

 

lol

 

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28

 

Preposterous Theories

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

Hard To Believe Bohr Thought He Knew More Than Einstein

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

The year was 1927, and physicists were puzzled. At question was the very nature of the extremely small. Were electrons, light, and similar entities waves or particles? In some experiments, the tiny entities behaved like waves, while in others they behaved like particles. That's just not possible in our macroscopic world. Sound waves don't behave like pebbles — and thankfully so, or your ears would be stinging right now.

The 1927 conference on quantum mechanics was held to discuss how the many seemingly contradictory observations could be reconciled. Schrödinger and de Broglie showed up with their ideas. But the eight-hundred pound gorilla was Bohr. In what later came to be called the Copenhagen interpretation, Bohr proposed that wave equations described where entities like electrons could be, but, the entities didn't actually exist as particles until someone went looking for them. The act of observation caused existence. In Bohr's own words, the entities in question had no "independent reality in the ordinary physical sense."

 

Einstein wouldn't have any of it. An electron was an electron, and just because someone wasn't looking at it, it was still there — wherever "there" happened to be. Late in the conference, Einstein rose to challenge Bohr's views. But that was only the beginning. Until Einstein's death some three decades later, Bohr and Einstein entered into spirited debates — in print and face to face. The debates were gentlemanly. Bohr and Einstein were friends and had great respect for one another. But they were also stubborn. "It is wrong to think the task of physics is to find out how nature is," said Bohr. Einstein disagreed. "What we call science," he said, "has the sole purpose of determining what is."

 

Through all its strangeness, Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation remains one of the most widely accepted worldviews of quantum mechanics. Other common interpretations are seemingly even more bizarre. But they all point to one, simple fact. Our universe, as any physicist will tell you, is a mysterious place. It teases us with unimaginable facts then leaves us to make sense of them. Perhaps someday, we will. But until then, we'll just have to savor the great mysteries that surround us. http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2627.htm

 

And Here Is Yet Another Challenge

 

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

 

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 1 Corinthians 15:40-44

 

The Age of the Universe by Professor Gerald Schroeder

http://www.worthychr...rald-schroeder/

 

For The Truly Inquisitive Mind

 

And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

 

The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

 

As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 1 Corinthians 15:45-49

 

~

 

Beloved, Either Way You May Be Lead To Read And To Believe It

 

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

 

I Do Know It Is Not My Place To Change The Minds

 

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. Jeremiah 17:5

 

Of My Dear Brothers And Questing Sisters

 

Blessed is the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. Jeremiah 17:7

 

Who Will (Or Not) Trust Only In

 

That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified. For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

 

He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

 

But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another. 1 Thessalonians 4:6-9

 

The LORD's Word

 

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

 

So I'm Left With Only Sharing

 

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 45:9

 

What Little I've Seen On This Earth And In His Holy Book

 

And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory. Isaiah 6:3

 

Despite The Worst Pontifications Of That Unholy Priesthood Of The White Coats

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6;24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

 

~

 

Set a watch, O LORD, before my mouth; keep the door of my lips. Incline not my heart to any evil thing, to practise wicked works with men that work iniquity: and let me not eat of their dainties. Psalms 141:3-4

 

In The Name Of Jesus

Amen



#17
nebula

nebula

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 56,992 posts
This rebuttal makes no sense to me again Shiloh.

If we here on earth are viewing a supernova that happened 167,000 light years ago, doesn't that tell you something?

167,000 light years ago???   A light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time.   We may be watching a Supernova that happened 167,000 lightyears from earth, but that isn't really a problem.  We  are not watching it with the naked eye, though.  We are watching it with the aid of technlogy.

 

A light year is defined as the distance light travels in a year.

 

Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second or about 186,000 miles a second.

 

So how far does light travel in a year?

 

186,000 miles/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles/year (source)

 

Thus, when you say an object is 1 light year away, you are saying it is 5,865,696,000,000 miles away.

 

(Thus the reason for using a "light year" as a measurement! Can you imagine calculating  distances by miles or by meters?)

 

 

So, by saying that something is 167,000 light years away, what are you saying? Yes, you are giving a distance, but you are also acknowledging that it took that light - rather the photons - 167,000 years to travel from that object to your eye.

 

 

This is a key point that needs to be understood. Light is made up of photons. It is these photons that penetrate our eyes and are processed through our retinas. Whether by particle or by wave or an odd mix of both, you need to understand that when we see light, we see photons that have been expelled from the source and travelled through "space" (whatever that space is) to our eyes.

 

Thus, when we see an object that is 167,000 light years away, we are seeing the photons that travelled for 167,000 years from that object to our eyes.

 

 

As for technology, telescopes merely magnify images. The photons did not skip any time nor distance to be imaged in the telescope or the cameras. The photons still had to hit the lens first.



#18
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,003 posts

Well, this is interesting.

 

I especially enjoyed the difficulty these "Scientists" had with publishing they're research..... :mgdetective:

 

http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=39733



#19
FresnoJoe

FresnoJoe

    Royal Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 43,561 posts

Well, this is interesting.

 

I especially enjoyed the difficulty these "Scientists" had with publishing they're research..... :mgdetective:

 

http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=39733

 

:thumbsup:

 

Blink

 

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

 

Blink

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured light speed in the late 17th century. Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years.

 

The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available.

 

Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower.

What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:

 

In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second

In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)

Setterfield teamed with statistician Dr. Trevor Norman and demonstrated that, even allowing for the clumsiness of early experiments, and correcting for the multiple lenses of early telescopes and other factors related to technology, the speed of light was discernibly higher 100 years ago, and as much as 7 percent higher in the 1700s. Dr. Norman confirmed that the measurements were statistically significant with a confidence of more than 99 percent.

Setterfield and Norman published their results at SRI in July 1987 after extensive peer review.

It would be easy to dismiss two relatively unknown researchers if theirs were the only voices in this wilderness and the historic data was the only anomaly. They are not.

Since the SRI publication in 1987, forefront researchers from Russia, Australia, Great Britain and the United States have published papers in prestigious journals questioning the constancy of the speed of light.

Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the “Big Bang” than it is today. (It’s important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.)

Dr. Magueijo believes that light speed was faster only in the instants following the beginning of time. Dr. Barrow, Barry Setterfield and others believe that light speed has been declining from the beginning of time to the historic near past.

Dr. Magueijo recently stated that the debate should not be why and how could the speed of light could vary, but what combination of irrefutable theories demands that it be constant at all.

Setterfield now believes there are at least four other major observed anomalies consistent with a slowing speed of light:

 

1. quantized red-shift observations from other galaxies,
2. measured changes in atomic masses over time,
3. measured changes in Planck’s Constant over time,
4. and differences between time as measured by the atomic clock, and time as measured by the orbits of the planets in our solar system.

 

Perhaps the most interesting of these is the quantized red-shift data.....

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2...9eGZGJmpI6Ub.99



#20
other one

other one

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,909 posts

 

This rebuttal makes no sense to me again Shiloh.

If we here on earth are viewing a supernova that happened 167,000 light years ago, doesn't that tell you something?

167,000 light years ago???   A light year is a unit of distance, not a unit of time.   We may be watching a Supernova that happened 167,000 lightyears from earth, but that isn't really a problem.  We  are not watching it with the naked eye, though.  We are watching it with the aid of technlogy.

 

A light year is defined as the distance light travels in a year.

 

Light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second or about 186,000 miles a second.

 

So how far does light travel in a year?

 

186,000 miles/second * 60 seconds/minute * 60 minutes/hour * 24 hours/day * 365 days/year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles/year (source)

 

Thus, when you say an object is 1 light year away, you are saying it is 5,865,696,000,000 miles away.

 

(Thus the reason for using a "light year" as a measurement! Can you imagine calculating  distances by miles or by meters?)

 

 

So, by saying that something is 167,000 light years away, what are you saying? Yes, you are giving a distance, but you are also acknowledging that it took that light - rather the photons - 167,000 years to travel from that object to your eye.

 

 

This is a key point that needs to be understood. Light is made up of photons. It is these photons that penetrate our eyes and are processed through our retinas. Whether by particle or by wave or an odd mix of both, you need to understand that when we see light, we see photons that have been expelled from the source and travelled through "space" (whatever that space is) to our eyes.

 

Thus, when we see an object that is 167,000 light years away, we are seeing the photons that travelled for 167,000 years from that object to our eyes.

 

 

As for technology, telescopes merely magnify images. The photons did not skip any time nor distance to be imaged in the telescope or the cameras. The photons still had to hit the lens first.

 

how do I know that it actually took 167,000 years for that light to get here......    what if it's really only two light years away and not nearly as large as we thought....






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network