05 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayDo you agree with this statement.
To what? 🙂
Time is not a constant For example, experiments have been done with atomic clocks. One atomic clock is stationary and timed exactly with another atomic clock sent on a plane ride around the world. When the plane travels around the world going hundreds of miles an hour, the two atomic clocks no longer have the same exact time. The one traveling hundreds of miles per hour is seconds faster.
05 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayThe same thing as what?
Unless you can show it means something different I'd say the time required to have one
was the same. Since God was the one sharing about how it happen, His perspective would
not be hindered by how we look and measure things, it would mean the same thing.
05 Jan 16
Originally posted by KellyJayI didn't use the word "theory" with regard to the Genesis story. I tend to agree with you about theories, where we seem to differ is on the word "know". I'm not certain you can't use the word "know". Knowledge is justified belief which is true, however we run into a problem with the word "true". There's a straightforward epistemological problem with describing any statement which is contingent, in other words not a logical tautology, or the fact of one's own existence as true. So although I'm sitting here with a coffee, I cannot be epistemologically certain the coffee exists. I can give you some justifications which most of the human race will accept, but I cannot absolutely logically rule out that it doesn't exist. I have direct experience of my own existence, but everything else is mediated by my senses. So to claim that something is true I need some sort of truth test. Which in practical terms means that whether something counts as knowledge depends on the justification. If you take the Bible as the inviolate Word of God then you basically have epistemological justification for claiming to know these things. The statement rests on God existing and the Bible being literally true, the only doubt lies in your interpretation of the words and the correctness of the translation. The problem you have is that not everyone is going to agree that God exists and fewer still will agree on the literal truth of the histories in the Bible. But that is to do with the type of justification you are using, not that you have none.
I do not call Genesis a theory, it is a written text that was passed down through the ages,
that either is correct or not, a theory is different.
My point has been we do not know how the universe started, this is foundational to
everyone's thoughts on what we should be looking at with respect to what we can look at
to glean how old the universe is. If ...[text shortened]... ive through time.
Faith is the word your looking for with respect to scripture not "knowing".
By the same token, although resting on a different type of justification, I'd claim to know that the Higgs Boson exists because the probability of the result coming about by chance is so low as to be safely dismissed (1 chance in half a billion), probably better now they've turned LHC back on.
05 Jan 16
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt does not matter how far away the Andromeda galaxy is from earth. The Holy Bible says God spread out the heavens, so what matters is that we see the light. In spreading out the heavens, God must have also spread out the light.
How far away do you think the Andromeda galaxy is and how long do you think the light from it takes to get here? Entirely for my entertainment I'd like to read your explanation as to why we can see something which is so far away that had the universe been created 6,000 years ago the light from it wouldn't arrive here for another 250 million years.
Speed of light not so constant after all
Science News Magazine issue: Vol. 187, No. 4, February 21, 2015, p. 7
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all
It is a false assumption that we can determine the age of the earth and all the stars by calculating distances or assuming the speed of light is always a constant speed and has never changed.
The Near Genius 😏
05 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyI never said time is always a constant. That does not prove the earth is 4.5 Billion years old does it?
Time is not a constant RJ. For example, experiments have been done with atomic clocks. One atomic clock is stationary and timed exactly with another atomic clock sent on a plane ride around the world. When the plane travels around the world going hundreds of miles an hour, the two atomic clocks no longer have the same exact time. The one traveling hundreds of miles per hour is seconds faster.
Do you take issue with this RJ or do you believe it?
05 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsYou've misunderstood the report. The limiting speed in relativity, called the speed of light, is not expected to change because of this. The speed at which these structured photons travel is. We would not expect star light to have this property. The bigger problem for you is that the effect is in the wrong direction. You need light to be going faster rather than slower to reconcile the astronomical evidence with a 6,000 year old time-scale in the way you are trying to.
It does not matter how far away the Andromeda galaxy is from earth. The Holy Bible says God spread out the heavens, so what matters is that we see the light. In spreading out the heavens, God must have also spread out the light.
[b]Speed of light not so constant after all
Science News Magazine issue: Vol. 187, No. 4, February 21, 2015, p. 7
ht ...[text shortened]... ming the speed of light is always a constant speed and has never changed.
The Near Genius 😏[/b]
The link to the actual paper is here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1411.3987v1.pdf
05 Jan 16
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseNo, I did not take the time to verify it, but it makes sense to me.
Which you, of course, being the diligent reporter you are, already did the calculus and thus verified his data before you put it up here, right?
After all, they didn't measure much dust on the moon, did they. Someone calculated that was about enough dust for about 6,000 years. I did not verify that either, but it makes sense to me, 😏
05 Jan 16
Originally posted by sonhouseDr Jason Lisle - Astronomy Reveals 6,000 Year Old Earth
Have you ever heard of the inverse square law? We know on Earth and anywhere in the solar system because we have been there, now have probes out 5 billion miles away from Earth.
Here is the thing. The inverse square law says, because light and radio waves, if the emission is a spherical wavefront, it's a geometrical thing. If you look at the power of a s ...[text shortened]... genda other than finding what we consider the best truth about the subject, just like evolution.
05 Jan 16
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWell hold on then.
I never said time is always a constant. That does not prove the earth is 4.5 Billion years old does it?
What if earth accelerated to the speed of light away from the universe and then came back, how old would it be? Conversely, what if the universe speeded up to the speed of light and then came back to earth. How old would it be?
06 Jan 16
Originally posted by whodeyI don't know. This doesn't make sense to me. What is your point?
Well hold on then.
What if earth accelerated to the speed of light away from the universe and then came back, how old would it be? Conversely, what if the universe speeded up to the speed of light and then came back to earth. How old would it be?