Astronomic events that never happened?

[Tristen]

5 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You have brought up alternative hypotheses, but have supplied no data (evidence) to support the hypotheses. Could God have arranged the universe in a miraculous fashion that would make it appear to be 15 billion years old? Absolutely. I cannot say that it is impossible for the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old. But it is erroneous to claim that you have presented data that fits a young earth model just as well as an old earth model.

Foucault first used a technique using a laser, a beam splitter, and mirrors to measure the speed of light in 1862. It has been repeated A LOT since then. Similar experiments are performed routinely in college-level physics labs and probably quite a few well-equipped high school labs. I cannot even begin to guess how many times it has been repeated and in all locations that it has been performed. This is typically done without any consideration to the medium, so mostly just atmospheric air. I'm going to assume that it has also been performed in vacuum, but I haven't done any searching. I'm not trying to annoy you with this, but I'm going to post a link, in case you want to know more about it.

http://www.csuohio.edu/sciences/sites/csuohio.edu.sciences/files/media/physics/documents/Speed of Light_0.pdf

This is a pretty good background and explanation to the experiment performed in order to calculate the speed of light.

You used the PNAS article to support your hypothesis that gravitational lensing could alter the speed of light sufficiently to make energy-emitting events only APPEAR to be as distant as astronomers believe. I read the article you provided and concluded that it does not support your hypothesis. How is this deflection and what else have I deflected?

This is a valid point. As I mentioned earlier in this post, I cannot and should not exclude the possibility of divine action. However, this would open up the question of why God would make the universe LOOK ancient, if it isn't?

“You have brought up alternative hypotheses, but have supplied no data (evidence) to support the hypotheses. Could God have arranged the universe in a miraculous fashion that would make it appear to be 15 billion years old? Absolutely. I cannot say that it is impossible for the earth to be approximately 6,000 years old. But it is erroneous to claim that you have presented data that fits a young earth model just as well as an old earth model.”

Who gets to decide how “well” the facts fit the model? Either they are rationally consistent with the model, or they are not. That is the only objective standard. Every other standard requires putting on faith goggles. I am happy to consider any data you think only (or objectively, preferentially) points to your preferred conclusion. Until you can objectively quantify how to determine how “well” the facts fit the model, such claims are meaningless.

“Evidence” is different to “data” in that evidence incorporates interpretation. Data are recorded facts.

You supplied the "data" for this conversation (i.e. the paper reporting the detection of energy - that is the only provided "data"). You supposed that this paper renders the facts and young-earth creationism irreconcilable. But I showed you the error of that position.

You nave not provided any "data" that exclusively points to your conclusion. You have simply provided "data" that can be interpreted to be consistent with your conclusion; and called it “support”. But when I interpret the same, provided "data" to be consistent with young-earth creationism, you change the rules. It’s no longer good enough to demonstrate consistency between the facts and model – for me, to qualify as “support”, I have to find facts that can only be interpreted in favor of my position – otherwise you’ll continue to cry about my lack of “evidence” – all based on a claim about my position that I haven’t made.

 

“Foucault first used a technique using a laser, a beam splitter, and mirrors to measure the speed of light in 1862. It has been repeated A LOT since then. Similar experiments are performed routinely in college-level physics labs and probably quite a few well-equipped high school labs. I cannot even begin to guess how many times it has been repeated and in all locations that it has been performed. This is typically done without any consideration to the medium, so mostly just atmospheric air. I'm going to assume that it has also been performed in vacuum, but I haven't done any searching. I'm not trying to annoy you with this, but I'm going to post a link, in case you want to know more about it. http://www.csuohio.edu/sciences/sites/csuohio.edu.sciences/files/media/physics/documents/Speed of Light_0.pdf This is a pretty good background and explanation to the experiment performed in order to calculate the speed of light.”

So we can be confident about the speed of laser light traveling very short distances, through atmosphere on a giant ball of gravity. We can therefore, according to you, assume that any light reaching earth has proceeded in a straight line at a constant speed, completely unimpeded over distances trillions of times the magnitude of any experiment performed on earth. Extrapolations of such magnitudes are only ever taken seriously when supporting the secular version of reality.

 

“You used the PNAS article to support your hypothesis that gravitational lensing could alter the speed of light sufficiently to make energy-emitting events only APPEAR to be as distant as astronomers believe.”

No I didn’t. None of the models I provided have any issues with the “energy-emitting events” being as far away as reported. As far as I’m concerned, the bigger the universe is, the more God is glorified.

I have a suspicion you just wanted to write “PNAS”. They really should have put more thought into that particular acronym.

 

“I read the article you provided and concluded that it does not support your hypothesis. How is this deflection”

Because what actually happened was;

- I suggested that I mainly agree with the distances claimed, but added the caveat that the only facts we have access to are the energy detected at the end of its journey on (or around) earth.

- You questioned the importance of that caveat.

- I reinforced the importance of that caveat by explaining that everything we claim beyond those facts is speculation. That is, everything we claim beyond the state of the energy at the point of detection is an unverifiable story. I used gravitational lensing as an example of something we already understand effects the path of light.

- You asked for “evidence” (i.e. In context – you were asking for “evidence” of gravitational lensing. That is, my “hypothesis” in this context was the possibility of factors affecting the journey of light through space – which the paper I provided did explicitly “support”).

- I pointed you to a secular journal article explaining the concept.

- Rather than deal with the point that the path of energy can be influenced by extraneous factors, you instead decided to point out that the secular article made other claims that had nothing to do with the context of our conversation, but demonstrated clear disagreement with young-earth creationism – i.e. you “deflected”.

 

“and what else have I deflected?”

A few times I have provided information to support claims I made, and rather than address the issue at hand, you look through irrelevant parts of the paper to find that, low and behold, the secular paper makes secular claims that are inconsistent with young-earth creationism. What are the odds? Therefore you can feel justified in ignoring my actual point under the guise that the secular paper is generally at odds with young-earth creationism (which you apparently think means I have no right to assess or use any facts contained in the paper).

 

“This is a valid point. As I mentioned earlier in this post, I cannot and should not exclude the possibility of divine action. However, this would open up the question of why God would make the universe LOOK ancient, if it isn't?”

Does it “LOOK ancient”? Or is that impression simply an artifact of old-universe presupposition? Again, I am happy to look at any fact you think can only be interpreted to support an old universe. Until you can demonstrate such, I have to assume that you are filtering the available information through paradigm-blinded lenses.

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, Tristen said:

I have a suspicion you just wanted to write “PNAS”. They really should have put more thought into that particular acronym.

Hahahaha, I have indeed taken great care to enunciate each syllable when talking about this journal. I agree, someone should have objected to the acronym before it was finalized!

[SkyWriting]

On 10/16/2017 at 1:33 PM, one.opinion said:

In October 2016, astronomers found a tremendously bright supernova (designated SMCN 2016-10a) in the Small Magellanic Cloud, a small, irregular galaxy about 200,000 light years from earth. The results were published about a week ago (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.03716.pdf). It is fascinating to learn about events like this and think about the size, scale, and energy involved in such events. It also makes me wonder how one would explain this from a young earth viewpoint. If the universe is only ~6,000 years old, then this supernova (and any other astronomical event more distant than 6,000 light years) never really happened and God "fabricated" an explosive interaction between two stars. Or is there a better explanation that I can't think of? 

God "Fabricates" everything. But He is not subject to "time" so all estimates of 

any past events are Faith based. Faith in something. 

[Uriah]

I am assuming the 200,000 light years measurements are made from "red shift"calculations. Red shift has been found to be unreliable. Some reading on this can be found in "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. Or Simply search for "the picture that won't go away".