The Speed of Light

[Macs Son]

Thank you WW.  Yes the earth is the Lord's and all it's fullness, even those who dwell therein, for it is full of His goodness and in wisdom He has formed it.  And we are only men, who like other generation, remain awestruck by His handiwork and the extreme beauty of His created universe.  The earth and stars give testimony every day to God's glory and I only hope with the life he has given me to do the same,

May God Bless you and your family, Patrick

[JohnD]

One of the toughest arguments a creationist usually has to debate is the vast distances of stars and the time it takes for light to approach earth.

 

But what we have done is made assumptions about time by thinking the rate at which time moves is the same everywhere, but that is not true.  Time is different based upon gravity.

 

This is considered Gravitational Time Dilation. 

 

It is very possible that the universe has aged millions/billions of years while only 6,000 has elapsed on earth.  Time could tick much more rapidly in different parts of the universe than it does here on earth.  We have only one concept of time and have tested the speed of light here on earth.

 

The physics behind it is general relativity.  The rate at which time passes is related to the gravitational potential.  Clocks tick more slowly when they are in a gravitational well.

 

For example, time will tick slower the closer to the center of the earth you are (like in an area near the ocean) versus a city like Denver which is a mile above sea level.

 

And if you consider that God could've created the universe 6-10,000 years ago, the universe would've been much smaller than it is now, needing less time for starlight to get here.

 

Thoughts?

 

The Bible also mentions the Lord spreading the universe (sky / heavens) like a tent curtain. The properties of light are so elusive (is it wave or particle)...

 

if one were on earth, and the sun was to be flung faster than c. to a distance of 30 light years... would the sunlight stop until 30 years later? Would there be a break in the light from the sun? At what point would it cease? How would it cease (dimmer dimmer or suddenly gone)?

 

We impose upon  an omnipotent God the limitations of physics, when the Bible is filled with supernatural, transcendental acts of God.

 

I think that greater than how the light got so far so fast is how God created everything from nothing.

[JohnD]

Modern scientists had a meeting with God.

 

"God," they said, "human kind has progressed in the sciences to the point we no longer need you."

 

"Oh?" said God, "do tell."

 

"Well, the make up of human beings, for example, we have reached the fullest depths of DNA / RNA sequencing and can create life." The scientist spoke confidently.

 

"That's impressive," God said. "Show me how you've accomplished it."

 

Feeling very proud and anxious to the point of breaking across the backs of his eyeballs the scientist said, "First you take dirt---"

 

"Hold on a minute!" God interrupted. "You said you didn't need me to create life."

 

"We... we don't... you start be taking dirt--"

 

"If you are going to produce life on your own and you don't need me... get your own dirt!" God said.

[JohnD]

A rudimentary point, because the one arguing that he does not need God to (fill in the blank) had to himself first be created by God in order to accomplish anything at all.

[gray wolf]

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."  Albert Einstein

[Guest]

"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish."  Albert Einstein

 

 

"Wise Men"

 

Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. Matthew 2:1-2

 

"Worship Him" - God

 

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 1 Corinthians 1:18-19

[Macs Son]

Just to give you an idea of how small time dilation is until delta speed approaches near the speed of light.  If body A was our fastest rocket and was traveling away from body B at a speed of 10,000 meters per second (about 22,320 mph) the time dilation would be 0.0000001% almost imperceptible. 

If body A was speeding away from body B at 1,000,000 meters per second over the course of 1 year then 365 days would be shortened to 364.998 days, a time dilation of 0.0005563% - still very small.

If the delta speed between the two bodies was 100,000,000 meters per second then, over the course of a year the clocks of A's time with respect to B's clock of 365 days would be 344.096 days; a 5.7272% difference.  But still an expanding universe would need points moving away from each other at a much higher speed to account for a significant decrease in our perception of its age, even though we're now traveling at 1/3rd the speed of light.

At a delta speed of 200,000,000 we finally see time dilation kicking in a bit more.  Body A's clock vs body B's 365 day clock would be shortened to 271.9 days - a time dilation of about 25.5%.

Traveling away from B at 211,985,260 meters per second A's time dilation is still only 29.2% so 365 B days is shorted to 258.1 days.

We're now approaching a delta speed close to the limit - the actual speed of light (~299,792,458 meters per second)

At 299,700,000 meters per second we're finally riding upon the exponential rise of time dilation. A's clock now only ticks 9.06 days while B ticks away 365 days for a time dilation of 97.5166%. 

If we speed up yet further 299,792,457.999 or .0001 m/s from light speed itself A clock ticks off a about 6 minutes and 35 seconds to B 365 days.

In Christ, Patrick

[gray wolf]

And you must realize the main problem as you approach the speed of light: your hat keeps blowing off! (Woody Allen)

[Tristen]

 

 

There is no raw (uninterpreted) scientific observation undermining the possibility of the existence of God.

Not looking to undermine God, but to prove Him.  If you can have a mathematical equation that points to a ~6,000-10,000 year-old earth, that would go a long way...otherwise, you are attacking the scientific method.  If you can't come up with that, no problem really because God is all about faith.  We just look foolish when when we use natural science to explain a supernatural God.

 

 

 

Hey Jerry, you said “Not looking to undermine God, but to prove Him”

 

Actually, the scientific method is based on the fundamental premise that ideas can be falsified, not proved or proven. Science doesn't deal in absolutes such as proof. We can never be sure that we've considered all the axioms, and for all we know, we could be just one discovery away from undermining what we think we know. Put simply, we don't know what we don't know. Science deals in probability and confidence - not proof.

 

Legitimate proofs only exist in math and logic – and in neither of these do they refer to absolute verification of truth.

 

 

“If you can have a mathematical equation that points to a ~6,000-10,000 year-old earth, that would go a long way...otherwise, you are attacking the scientific method”

 

I pointed you to resources explaining the math behind a 6000 year old model (based on time dilation). I also pointed you to a resource explaining the math underpinning an infinite universe model. Which fully demonstrates my (and Stephen Hawking’s and George Ellis’) point – that preferences for one model over another are 'ideological' and "philosophical", rather than scientific.

 

So not only have your repeated requests for the math been demonstrated to be disingenuous, but you continue to miss the point; that the math is not in dispute – it is the logical justifications for the math that are questioned (i.e. the unverifiable faith aspects of each model). The math is meaningless without the underpinning logic. Go to the anti-creationist website talkorigins and you will find refutations of the creationist models – but the refutations are not based on incorrect equations; rather on the assumptions underlying the specific use of those equations.

 

Even if I hadn’t pointed you to the math, the scientific method explicitly permits me to question any idea. So your repeated, unsupported accusations of my “attacking the scientific method” for daring to question the Standard Model, lack any logical merit.

 

- But by all means repeat the accusation. After all - you never know when someone dopey enough to fall for such an obviously, logically-flawed strategy might be reading.

 

 

“If you can't come up with that, no problem really because God is all about faith”

 

And yet opponents of Christianity continue to criticise our beliefs; claiming that the science contradicts our faith. So it’s ok for anti-creationists to use science to claim inconsistencies with our model, but it’s not ok for creationists to point out the weaknesses of naturalistic faith models, or defend our model with science. This logical fallacy is called Special Pleading (i.e. the application of a double-standard).

 

The Christian faith is about a God who has interacted with the physical creation in accordance with a particular model of reality. The Biblical model (which incorporates the existence of God) makes temporal, historical (and therefore testable) claims. It is a logically valid, albeit unfalsifiable, model of reality – just like all of the secular models (including Standard Cosmology).

 

Oh yeah (and not to labour the point) but I did actually point you to a resource containing the math you requested – which you have roundly ignored. So I did “come up with that”

 

 

“We just look foolish when when we use natural science to explain a supernatural God”

 

Well first of all, Appeals to Ridicule are considered logically fallacious because they bear no logical relevance to arguments. Until our opponents can present rational arguments to justify such accusations, then it is they who are ironically indulging in foolishness.

 

Secondly, we are not using “natural science to explain a supernatural God”. We are using science to support the Biblical model of reality (which incorporates the existence of a supernatural God). Whether your faith is in a theistic reality, or in a naturalistic reality – the identical logical method is used to investigate both. Only permitting the consideration of naturalistic models demonstrates a strong naturalistic faith bias. It is certainly not a scientific strategy (as science is supposed to be objective; i.e. not preferring one faith perspective over another).

Edited June 11, 2014 by Tristen

[Guest]

And you must realize the main problem as you approach the speed of light: your hat keeps blowing off! (Woody Allen)

 

:24: