The decelerating Speed of Light

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

I'm just jumping in here after a sabbatical. So i didn't know your view. Further, I am a believer that God can reveal things to us personally through the work of the HS. 

However, when I'm arguing for a view I try to argue from premises on which my opponents tend to agree with me.

What I write is for those who have ears to hear, if you know what I mean. 

[Uber Genius]

21 hours ago, dhchristian said:

What I write is for those who have ears to hear, if you know what I mean. 

So you would not see yourself so much as an evangelist or someone always being ready to give an account of the hope that is in you, as a prophet? When Jesus gave his parables what value were they? Certainly the people didn't understand them, neither did the disciples. Is it important to engage an audience or person where they are able to engage your view? Have some agreement?

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, Uber Genius said:

So you would not see yourself so much as an evangelist or someone always being ready to give an account of the hope that is in you, as a prophet? When Jesus gave his parables what value were they? Certainly the people didn't understand them, neither did the disciples. Is it important to engage an audience or person where they are able to engage your view? Have some agreement?

I was sent as a messenger to the church in this Laodicean age, the age that is living in denial of their partial unbelief (lukewarmness). If the opportunity is there to evangelize I will. Read that letter in Rev. 3:14ff You will see everything there. Then Read Hebrews 3-4 and see what happened to Israel who was did not fully believe in the providence of God. 

The first step is to admit we are all Laodiceans now. Denying this is denying the age we live in. For me this is not a matter of interpretation but very real as the changes in my life did not begin until I admitted to this and then followed the advice in that letter prayerfully and earnestly, Mind you I have been a believer since I was a child, This understanding came when I was 40. 

Partial unbelief or belief, depending on how you word it, is simply adding to the Gospel our works and thinking they make us more worthy as opposed to trusting in the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as being all sufficient. The Denial is then thinking that the wealth and prosperity of this age and the size of the church buildings and our status in them is a sign of our Spiritual maturity. This is the prosperity side of this, then there is the reactionary side that adds works of the Law to the Grace of God (Think Hebrew roots and similar groups). Both sides of this are living in partial unbelief. One sees their success and does not see their wretchedness the other sees the wretchedness and tries to work it out by their own will and strength. Both are in partial unbelief.

The evolution stuff is just a symptom of this partial unbelief. It is misplaced faith in human intellect and reason. Scientism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. (Prov. 3;5-6)

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; (Rev. 3:14)

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor. 1;20-25)

There is an unfounded faith in science as the only way arrive at truth objectively. But Jesus is the Truth personified, By Knowing him we arrive at truth. Science progresses on a hegellian dialectic, whereas the Wisdom of God comes to those who seek Him, Especially when we seek him in his creation. What we are seeing with the double mindedness of theories such as TE, and even ID to a lesser extent is an attempt to compromise with the Word of God and science. What I am saying is that the Word of God is clear in that it teaches a young earth and a creation of fully grown creatures and plants, and humans as opposed to evolution. This simply makes more common sense to me than does evolution. 

For example: How did a seed of a plant evolve? Think about that. did the plant precede the seed, or the seed precede the plant? How did the plant know how to produce a seed in the first place? And that plant know to cast it off, and that seed know that it had to die in order to germinate? Science takes these miracles for granted. Genesis says God planted a Garden. (Gen. 2:8) This simplicity does not bode well for those who want to make themselves wiser than all the rest. And therein is the Hubris of scientism. Evolutionists are very creative people.... they are very creative at explaining away the hand of God in creation as Romans 1:18ff speaks of. In so doing they are denying God the glory due him. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.  Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.(romans 1:21-23, 25)

Thus Evolution is nothing more than a form of idolatry... worshipping the creature over the creator. 

 

 

 

 

[The Barbarian]

The major problem with the idea that the speed of light changed greatly over the last few thousand years is that the speed of light is tied to other physical constants such as radioactive decay.    If the speed of light was much greater 6,000 years ago, the rate of isotope decay would have been so great as to have fried all life on earth by ionizing radiation.

So not a realistic hypothesis.

Sure you could always say "God just did a miracle to stop that."    But once you get to call in unscriptural miracles to fix up problems with your belief, any belief is equally valid.

[Dennis1209]

On 3/1/2020 at 7:58 PM, dhchristian said:

Since Einstein proposed his theory of relativism, it has been assumed that lightspeed is a constant. Ironically, however, Einstein before his theory of relativity proposed that Light speed was variable, and there are some that still believe this to be the case. The theory is Known as the Variable Speed of Light (VSL).

What this post is, is a purely hypothetical exploration of this theory. Since man has only been measuring the speed of Light for only a 170 years or so (First measured in 1849) And there is no way to measure into the past, so this is purely hypothetical.

This theory was Proposed by a man named Joao Magueijo And is written about in this article. Here is a brief snippet of that just to give you a feel for the article.

Joao Magueijo has now taken this theory one stage further, in collaboration with Niayesh Afshordi, by a detailed examination of the CMB. They conclude that, at an extremely high initial temperature of one trillion trillion degrees Celsius, the speed of light and the speed of matter are both the same and nearly infinite. After an interview with these physicists, one article in The Guardian put it like this:

“Magueijo and Afshordi’s theory does away with inflation and replaces it with a variable speed of light. According to their calculations, the heat of universe in its first moments was so intense that light and other particles moved at infinite speed. Under these conditions, light reached the most distant pockets of the universe and made it look as uniform as we see it today. ‘In our theory, if you go back to the early universe, there’s a temperature when everything becomes faster. The speed of light goes to infinity and propagates much faster than gravity,’ Afshordi said. ‘It’s a phase transition in the same way that water turns into steam’.”

As the universe cooled by expansion below the critical phase transition temperature, the speed of light dropped to its present value, which was maintained ever since. I have not been able to access their published paper as it is only the Abstract which is generally available. As a result, I do not know if Magueijo and Afshordi have involved other constants in their proposed “phase transition.” However, they have done a calculation of what might be expected from their proposal based on the CMB. The position and sizes of the slightly warmer and cooler areas in the CMB have been known for some time. The analysis of the size and distribution of these areas has given rise to a quantity called the CMB “spectral index”. These temperature differences are areas where there are greater or lesser concentrations of matter in the early universe, and their distribution is usually assumed to be the result of the action of gravity. However, Magueijo and Afshordi have calculated what the spectral index would be if their theory held and gravity was much slower than the proposed speed of light. Here is how the article in The Guardian put it:

“Scientists could soon find out whether light really did outpace gravity in the early universe. The theory predicts a clear pattern in the density variations of the early universe, a feature measured by what is called the ‘spectral index’. Writing in the journal Physical Review, the scientists predict a very precise spectral index of 0.96478, which is close to the latest, though somewhat rough, measurement of 0.968.”

http://www.setterfield.org/Early_c.html

 

 The Point here being that Light speed was near infinite at the creation of the universe and is decelerated since then to where it is now. So What does this mean in layman's terms?

One of the most relied upon factors in aging the universe is light years. The assumption is that at a constant rate, the light from distant galaxies would take billions of years to arrive where we are at right now. But with this theory in place, that age would not be the case as the light travelled all or most of that distance almost instantaneously when the universe was created. This is very significant in that this, if true puts doubt into the use of light years to prove the age of the universe. 

The Bible says, God said "let there be light" and there was light instantaneously. The Bible also speaks of the heavens being stretched out after the creation of time, Space and Matter as the article speaks of. What if this is true? What if there comes undeniable proof from this theory or the one the author of the article has postulated (See last paragraph of the Article) that the universe itself is only several thousand years old? 

It appears we've studied the same people and subject. The methods they used to measure the decline of the speed of light in the 19th century were accurate and valid today. That popular dumb TV physicist whom says that, "the speed of light is not a suggestion, it's the law", reminds me of the following verse.

Romans 1:22 (KJV) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

How can two competing theories coexist? The law of entropy; going from order to disorder, predictability, etc. and the "laws" of physics if they have and are changing? I've heard that if the speed of light was not around 186,000 miles per second. We would not be able to see properly, and not at all with refraction in water. 

I too believe the speed of light when created was most likely infinite or close to it. Or, the rays of light were put into place at creation. There are countless stars and galaxy's out there, maybe in the trillions or more. Throughout the history of man, and our current technology, tracking and telescopes; no one has ever seen a single star being born, ever! It should be common sense a stars hydrogen fuel can not burn for millions and millions of years, much less billions of years. It's lifespan is short in terms of eons. 

With the unreliable red shift claims, science suggests the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. What happened to the law that's not a suggestion? 

If secular science had only taken the creation account as fact, and studied science with our God creating everything there is; imagine how far science might have advanced in their understanding?

[dhchristian]

4 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

It appears we've studied the same people and subject. The methods they used to measure the decline of the speed of light in the 19th century were accurate and valid today. That popular dumb TV physicist whom says that, "the speed of light is not a suggestion, it's the law", reminds me of the following verse.

Romans 1:22 (KJV) Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

How can two competing theories coexist? The law of entropy; going from order to disorder, predictability, etc. and the "laws" of physics if they have and are changing? I've heard that if the speed of light was not around 186,000 miles per second. We would not be able to see properly, and not at all with refraction in water. 

I too believe the speed of light when created was most likely infinite or close to it. Or, the rays of light were put into place at creation. There are countless stars and galaxy's out there, maybe in the trillions or more. Throughout the history of man, and our current technology, tracking and telescopes; no one has ever seen a single star being born, ever! It should be common sense a stars hydrogen fuel can not burn for millions and millions of years, much less billions of years. It's lifespan is short in terms of eons. 

With the unreliable red shift claims, science suggests the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. What happened to the law that's not a suggestion? 

If secular science had only taken the creation account as fact, and studied science with our God creating everything there is; imagine how far science might have advanced in their understanding?

Consider this. Every time we look deeper into space such as several years ago with the Hubble deep field, the scientific community has to revise the age of the universe to account for the light that has reached the earth from those distances. In the 18th century the age of the universe was supposedly millions of years because that was as far as the telescopes could see, now its 14billion years.... all based on light speed as a constant. It is amazing to me how this puts a huge hole in the age of the universe if true, and why science is fighting this theory. 

[Dennis1209]

50 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Consider this. Every time we look deeper into space such as several years ago with the Hubble deep field, the scientific community has to revise the age of the universe to account for the light that has reached the earth from those distances. In the 18th century the age of the universe was supposedly millions of years because that was as far as the telescopes could see, now its 14billion years.... all based on light speed as a constant. It is amazing to me how this puts a huge hole in the age of the universe if true, and why science is fighting this theory. 

I don't know why secular science just won't let go on their false assumptions and theories about evolution and the Big Bang? They revise their theories more than the Oxford revises their dictionary. Most every secular geneticist and scientist now admits DNA could not have been a result of chance and evolution, it was engineered, therefore it had a creator. Now the barf omitting out of their mouths is the theory of 'panspermia'. I'm thinking that explanation should fit in nicely one day; with the UFO activity the world is seeing and being video recorded by everyone, and military aircraft chasing them. 

There's a great deception coming. Matthew 24:24 (KJV) For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Has the above scripture ever been fulfilled? No. I notice this verse is in the plural, and not referring to THE antiChrist or THE False Prophet. They will be so convincing and powerful, that if Christians didn't have the Spirit of God in them, they too would be fooled. What form, shape and presentation will these demonic entities take on to deceive the world? Living in the end-times, one would suspect we should be seeing some signs and conditioning for it to be believable wouldn't you think? Not to even mention all the Mary aberrations witnessed by millions, documented and recorded, and believed by so many.  

And about that flat earth  

[The Barbarian]

On 3/6/2020 at 4:54 PM, Dennis1209 said:

I don't know why secular science just won't let go on their false assumptions and theories about evolution and the Big Bang? They revise their theories more than the Oxford revises their dictionary. Most every secular geneticist and scientist now admits DNA could not have been a result of chance and evolution, it was engineered, therefore it had a creator.

Even most scientists who are Christian do not say that.   There's an entire package of errors in your belief:

1. Evolution is not about the origin of DNA.   It's not about the origin of life, either.   Darwin just figured God created the first living things.   However, science is beginning to verify that the Earth did bring forth life, as God tells us.  

2. Darwin's great discovery was that evolution is not by chance.

3. Engineers are among the most intelligent and capable of humans.   But it is an insult to God to suggest He is a mere engineer.   Engineers see what He has created and do useful things with it.   God is the Creator, who made the things they see.   Don't see God short.

4.  The Big Bang wasn't a product of "secular science"; it was proposed by a physicist who happened to be a Catholic priest.   It was denounced by an atheist, because it suggested a moment when the universe began; he argued for an eternal uncreated universe.   Choose your side carefully.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

On 3/6/2020 at 3:40 PM, dhchristian said:

How can two competing theories coexist? The law of entropy; going from order to disorder, predictability, etc. and the "laws" of physics if they have and are changing?

You've been misled.     Entropy hasn't changed since it was first worked out.   Newton's laws  and Kepler's Laws are still being used by NASA to guide spacecraft and to predict the motion of comets and asteroids.   They are slightly modified in some instances by relativity calculations that refined Newton's results to higher accuracy in some circumstances.   We didn't toss out Newton's laws and Kepler's laws; we refined them, a process Newton himself envisioned and realized that he was himself taking part in, "standing on the shoulders of giants."

 

 

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

On 3/6/2020 at 4:40 PM, dhchristian said:

How can two competing theories coexist? The law of entropy; going from order to disorder, predictability, etc. and the "laws" of physics if they have and are changing?

You've been misled.     Entropy hasn't changed since it was first worked out.   Newton's laws  and Kepler's Laws are still being used by NASA to guide spacecraft and to predict the motion of comets and asteroids.   They are slightly modified in some instances by relativity calculations that refined Newton's results to higher accuracy in some circumstances.   We didn't toss out Newton's laws and Kepler's laws; we refined them, a process Newton himself envisioned and realized that he was himself taking part in, "standing on the shoulders of giants."

That was @Dennis1209 that said that. 

Entropy is a result of the fall. The four pillars the earth stands upon are the four forces that bind things together, the weak, the strong, the electromagnetic and gravity. These forces will be shaken come the end of all things. Science is just coming to grasp with what has been in the Bible for thousands of years, thus showing the hand of the creator in the writing of the Word of God. God said, let there be light, and there was light, instantly when he spoke it. The Bible says the universe is expanding, and science has verified that... they call it the big bang, we call it the creation of God, He Spoke it into existence. 

Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt: And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames. Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. (Isaiah 13:6-13)