Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[iouae]

This could only be true if there is an infinite amount of matter.

Why?

If there was no matter, gravity would be equal in all directions.

Matter is distributed like a sponge throughout the universe, with big open spaces, and concentrated clumps of matter.

But since gravity permeates the universe there is no place in the universe where one can escape gravity, light would never have a zero gravity environment. And Voyager proves that even local gravity or lack of it as one escapes the solar system change c.

So you have no case. Its pure pseudoscience that absence of gravity = increase in c.

 

[George Affleck]

I had written "
But, that was not the case. Messages from Voyager 1 travelled at c irrespective of the messages being sent from beyond the gravity of the sun and solar system. The time it took the signal to reach earth took exactly the speed of light time to reach us at all points in its travel.
Because you've done the measurements."

https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-for-Voyager-1-to-send-data-back-to-Earth

"At this time in May 2017, Voyager 1 is about 20.612 billion km from Earth and it takes Voyager’s radio signals (traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum) just under 19 hours, 6 minutes to reach the Earth."

If it took shorter or longer than this, someone would be receiving a Nobel prize for discovering that c is not a constant. That someone could be you Stripe, or Affleck or AnswersInGenesis.

There is no way to determine how long it takes for radio signals to come from Voyager except by assumption based on values observed here on earth. Even here, the one way speed of light cannot be measured. It is always assumed from the time that is measured by a round trip of light photons. A-B and back to A again, divided by 2.

As Einstein taught us, time is observer dependent; that is, truly relative. This means that it is impossible to calibrate 2 clocks at a distance from each other. Voyager's clock cannot be calibrated to our clocks to be able to verify the time taken for the signals to reach us.

Voyager 1 is traveling at approx. 0.0000567% the assumed speed of light here on earth. The time dilation that might occur at this speed would be extremely small.

In addition, it will not encounter any significant gravity apart from our solar system for at least 40,000 years. It has just barely got past our last orbiting planet in cosmological terms. It is 300 times farther from the sun than we are - 4 times the distance of Pluto to the sun.

Light will always travel at c relative to its position in the universe. The difference is in the time taken for this to happen depending on your reference point.

 

[George Affleck]

If there was no matter, gravity would be equal in all directions.

No.
If there was no mass, the effects of gravity would be zero.

 

[George Affleck]

Here's an interesting concept.

I don't know if I can agree or disagree.
I'm not at that level.

But it does make sense.

https://principia-scientific.org/a-new-theory-of-gravity/

 

[Derf]

Einstein showed that gravity and light are relational. There's lots of information on this but opinions differ. I don't have what you are looking for at my fingertips but I have found this article of interest and it may lead you to other info.

https://answersingenesis.org/astron...nchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/

:e4e:

I've got to say that is one of the poorest attempts to reconcile the distant starlight problem I've ever heard. I hope they get past that one soon.

 

[Stripe]

If it took shorter or longer than this, someone would be receiving a Nobel prize for discovering that c is not a constant. That someone could be you Stripe, or Affleck or AnswersInGenesis.

What's noble?

The gravity situation has not changed at all on a universal scope.

As I said, I don't know of a way feasible way to test GA's idea.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've got to say that is one of the poorest attempts to reconcile the distant starlight problem I've ever heard. I hope they get past that one soon.

Einstein showed that gravity and light are relational. There's lots of information on this but opinions differ. I don't have what you are looking for at my fingertips but I have found this article of interest and it may lead you to other info.

https://answersingenesis.org/astron...nchrony-convention-distant-starlight-problem/

:e4e:

I'm pretty partial to this idea on how God stretched out the heavens...

https://answersingenesis.org/astron...ew-solution-to-the-light-travel-time-problem/

 

[Stripe]

Why?

Because you said "equally."

Gravity acts according to an inverse square law. That means the only way to have gravity acting equally everywhere is if matter is infinite. If matter is finite, it's possible to travel away from the center of gravity of the universe.

If there was no matter, gravity would be equal in all directions.

:chuckle:

First, we prefer discussions of reality. Ie, there is matter.

Second, if there was no matter, there would be no gravity.

You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?

Matter is distributed like a sponge throughout the universe, with big open spaces, and concentrated clumps of matter.

This is only possible if matter is infinite.

But since gravity permeates the universe there is no place in the universe where one can escape gravity, light would never have a zero gravity environment. And Voyager proves that even local gravity or lack of it as one escapes the solar system change c.

It's true that one cannot escape gravity. However, this does nothing to address the actual issue.

So you have no case. Its pure pseudoscience that absence of gravity = increase in c.

:yawn:

Again, you haven't spent any time trying to understand. Under our idea, you don't need an absence of gravity to increase lightspeed. And "c" is irrelevant because it is the mathematical symbol used under the assumption that lightspeed has a maximum value.

You danced into this thread spouting platitudes about not holding fast to theories as well as discussing evidence, but you've reverted to typical Darwinist form: Dismissal, obfuscation and ignorance.

 

[Stripe]

I'm pretty partial to this idea on how God stretched out the heavens.

I need to read it a few more times.

Are you able to sum it up in a few sentences?

 

[6days]

I've got to say that is one of the poorest attempts to reconcile the distant starlight problem I've ever heard. I hope they get past that one soon.

Would you agree it isn't really a problem? As Christians we know that God created stars on the 4th day and apparently Adam could see them two days Later. We dont have to know how God brought starlight to earth so fast. (Just like we don't need to many details from the creation week). It could be God created the one way speed of light to be almost instantaneous (a 'convention' as Einstein called it)...it could be perhaps answered with the speed at which God spread the heavens. (Or, the 'problem' may have other answers).

 

[JudgeRightly]

I need to read it a few more times.

Are you able to sum it up in a few sentences?

Basically, the way God created and planted the Garden of Eden and had all the plants living and flourishing on the day they were created, He "pulled them up out of the ground" so to speak, is an analogy for how He stretched out the heavens, literally pulling the light out of the stars and stretching it out across the universe.

It's been a few months since I last read all the way through the article, but the way I understood it at the time of reading it, God created the universe at it's current scale, then pulled the light from all the stars in the universe to at least the general area around the solar system (to other places in the universe is unknown, as we don't have any way to see the light from other stars from the frame of reference of other stars). He created light, meaning he has complete control of it.

 

[iouae]

There is no way to determine how long it takes for radio signals to come from Voyager except by assumption based on values observed here on earth. Even here, the one way speed of light cannot be measured. It is always assumed from the time that is measured by a round trip of light photons. A-B and back to A again, divided by 2.

Of course there is. Earth sends a message to Voyager and Voyager responds. Both trips the messages take to travel the exact same distance take the exact same time.

This idea that nobody knows bidirectional speed of light is more pseudoscience from AnswersInGenesis type websites to make it sound as if "The jury is still out" on c.

Communication satellites circling earth regularly communicate with each other, and it takes exactly the same time for signal from A to go to B as for signal from B to go to A.

As Einstein taught us, time is observer dependent; that is, truly relative. This means that it is impossible to calibrate 2 clocks at a distance from each other. Voyager's clock cannot be calibrated to our clocks to be able to verify the time taken for the signals to reach us.

Voyager 1 is traveling at approx. 0.0000567% the assumed speed of light here on earth. The time dilation that might occur at this speed would be extremely small.

In addition, it will not encounter any significant gravity apart from our solar system for at least 40,000 years. It has just barely got past our last orbiting planet in cosmological terms. It is 300 times farther from the sun than we are - 4 times the distance of Pluto to the sun.

Light will always travel at c relative to its position in the universe. The difference is in the time taken for this to happen depending on your reference point.

Relativity is completely different from saying that light travels fasters in the absence of gravity.
Why do you accept what Einstein says regarding relativity, and reject what he says - that the speed of light is constant?

 

[iouae]

Second, if there was no matter, there would be no gravity.

I was performing a thought experiment. If there was no matter, gravity everywhere would be zero, meaning the same, in contradiction of your assertion that only if matter was infinite could there be uniform gravity - duh.

 

[iouae]

Would you agree it isn't really a problem? As Christians we know that God created stars on the 4th day and apparently Adam could see them two days Later. We dont have to know how God brought starlight to earth so fast. (Just like we don't need to many details from the creation week). It could be God created the one way speed of light to be almost instantaneous (a 'convention' as Einstein called it)...it could be perhaps answered with the speed at which God spread the heavens. (Or, the 'problem' may have other answers).

Now isn't that so interesting that you provide the proof that the stars could not have been created on the 4th day, and seen by mankind on the 6th day if normal laws of science exist.

The closest star, apart from the sun, would have taken 4 years for its light from Alpha Centauri to reach earth. By normal rules, we should see the light from more and more stars appearing on a daily basis, as their light finally reaches earth. Most visible stars are less than 6000 light years away.

Thanks for giving another instance of "spookiness" - instances where things just do not add up according to today's rules of science.

But by my beliefs, there is no problem with light even from 13.75 billion years ago reaching earth by normal rules of science. No spookiness. Good - no miracle required.

God does do miracles, but when all our beliefs require special acts of God, that is spooky.

And what's really spooky is that God is faking it, so that light that is new, is made to look old.
I presume fossils which look old, God just planted too - the true origin of "fake news".

 

[George Affleck]

But since gravity permeates the universe there is no place in the universe where one can escape gravity, light would never have a zero gravity environment.

This is not really true.
Interstellar space is incomprehensibly vast.

Although gravity is everywhere, it is not everywhere to the same extent it is here on earth. The evidence of this is that black holes suck everything within a certain radius but not over huge (relatively) distances.

It's like the effect of magnets.
If you placed 6 magnets randomly on a football field, measuring their pull on a steel object would be possible only with the most sophisticated equipment. The effect would be infinitesimal in nearly all positions of the field except close to the magnets.

This is the extent to which it can be said that the cosmos is relatively free of gravitational effect.

 

[George Affleck]

Would you agree it isn't really a problem? As Christians we know that God created stars on the 4th day and apparently Adam could see them two days Later. We dont have to know how God brought starlight to earth so fast. (Just like we don't need to many details from the creation week). It could be God created the one way speed of light to be almost instantaneous (a 'convention' as Einstein called it)...it could be perhaps answered with the speed at which God spread the heavens. (Or, the 'problem' may have other answers).

I have to partially disagree with you here.
We have no Biblical warrant for saying that Adam was able to see the stars.
It is not mentioned except to say that they were in existence at the time of Adam.

If the canopy theory is true, Adam probably couldn't see the stars anyway.

If I am wrong about this 6days, please correct me.

 

[6days]

Now isn't that so interesting that you provide the proof that the stars could not have been created on the 4th day, and seen by mankind on the 6th day if normal laws of science exist.

On the contrary... it is you who attempts to prove God wrong.

The closest star, apart from the sun, would have taken 4 years for its light from Alpha Centauri to reach earth.

It depends on several things? For starters... How long did it take God to spread the stars? Did God create the one way speed of light to be almost instantaneous? Was the speed of light trillions of times faster in the past as some secular astronomers speculate?https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/was-the-speed-of-light-faster-at-the-beginning-of-the-universe (You presume a lot of things in order to come up with your false conclusions)

But by my beliefs, there is no problem with light even from 13.75 billion years ago reaching earth by normal rules of science. No spookiness. Good - no miracle required.

True... But your beliefs are false. Creation was a miracle. (Its in the Bible)

And what's really spooky is that God is faking it, so that light that is new, is made to look old.
I presume fossils which look old...

As others have told you... there is no date sticker on light, nor on fossils. Your interpretation is meant to fit a secular belief system. Science (fossils, distant galaxies etc.)helps confirm the truth of God's Word. In the beginning God created...in six days, He created the heavens and the earth, and everything in them.

 

[6days]

I have to partially disagree with you here.
We have no Biblical warrant for saying that Adam was able to see the stars.
It is not mentioned except to say that they were in existence at the time of Adam.

True... we can't be certain. However the stars were created for signs and seasons for man (Other reasons also), so I'm guessing that Adam could see the stars on his first night.

If the canopy theory is true, Adam probably couldn't see the stars anyway.

I don't think that theory is true??

 

[Stripe]

I was performing a thought experiment.

As I said, we prefer to deal with reality. There is matter. The only way for gravity to be the same everywhere is for matter to be infinite.

Your analysis is flawed.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[iouae]

This is not really true.
Interstellar space is incomprehensibly vast.

Although gravity is everywhere, it is not everywhere to the same extent it is here on earth. The evidence of this is that black holes suck everything within a certain radius but not over huge (relatively) distances.

It's like the effect of magnets.
If you placed 6 magnets randomly on a football field, measuring their pull on a steel object would be possible only with the most sophisticated equipment. The effect would be infinitesimal in nearly all positions of the field except close to the magnets.

This is the extent to which it can be said that the cosmos is relatively free of gravitational effect.

Let's take Voyager 1. Where there is weak gravity and where there is strong gravity, the signal takes the predicted length of time to reach us. So the question is, what strength of gravity do you claim there is a speed up of light? When Voyager is beyond the solar system, to me that is as gravity free as it gets, yet no sign of speeding up of light. Don't you see that one is grasping at straws to hope for less gravity, before the speeding up kicks in? It should be a smooth continuum of speeding up.