1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    25 Jan '16 00:19
    Distant Starlight and the Age of the Earth

    16 year old Joshua Alvarez explains the 3 best explanations for why distant starlight does not prove the universe must be billions of years old. I believe this should be simple enough for most, if not all, RHP posters to understand.

    YouTube
  2. Joined
    10 Nov '12
    Moves
    6889
    25 Jan '16 00:30
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Distant Starlight and the Age of the Earth

    16 year old Joshua Alvarez explains the 3 best explanations for why distant starlight does not prove the universe must be billions of years old. I believe this should be simple enough for most, if not all, RHP posters to understand.

    [youtube]sYHm2HrToi8[/youtube]
    What sort of education has this young man had?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    25 Jan '16 00:542 edits
    Originally posted by NoEarthlyReason
    What sort of education has this young man had?
    Unknown. However, it appears he has an adequate education for his age. I would estimate his education is even better than most. 😏
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '16 00:57
    Originally posted by NoEarthlyReason
    What sort of education has this young man had?
    Not good enough evidently.

    He doesn't know what he's talking about, which is a shame because he's teaching bunk to a large audience.
  5. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '16 00:58
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Unknown. However, it appears he has a adequate education for his age. I would estimate his education is even better than most. 😏
    I knew WAY more about astronomy than he does when I was his age.

    Probably because I didn't have to overcome belief in creationism.
  6. Joined
    10 Nov '12
    Moves
    6889
    25 Jan '16 00:59
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Unknown. However, it appears he has a adequate education for his age. I would estimate his education is even better than most. 😏
    On what basis would you do that?
  7. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    25 Jan '16 01:04
    Originally posted by NoEarthlyReason
    What sort of education has this young man had?
    You mean what sort of indoctrination has he had.
  8. Joined
    10 Nov '12
    Moves
    6889
    25 Jan '16 01:08
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    You mean what sort of indoctrination has he had.
    Thanks; actually, both questions interest me.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    25 Jan '16 01:13
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Not good enough evidently.

    He doesn't know what he's talking about, which is a shame because he's teaching bunk to a large audience.
    He deserves a large audience, you don't. 😏
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    25 Jan '16 01:15
    Originally posted by NoEarthlyReason
    On what basis would you do that?
    On the basis that I am . . .

    The Near Genius 😏
  11. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    25 Jan '16 01:182 edits
    One major point he has failed to grasp is that the 'redshift' is not caused by the stars
    [galaxies really] moving away from us.
    It's instead caused by the space between us and them expanding, and stretching the
    light as it passes through it.

    Also the Cosmic Microwave Background CMB is a very uniform temperature because the [visible]
    universe started out very small and so could equalise in temperature before expansion kicked in
    and spread everything out. This means that there is absolutely no problem with the fact that light
    has not had time to cross from one side of the [present day] visible universe to the other to explain
    the even temperature as the temperature evened out before expansion really kicked in.

    Also, he gets what the CMB is wrong.

    The CMB is light emitted from the primordial plasma as it de-ionised to form [mainly] hydrogen gas.
    The plasma was hot [by definition] and thus was emitting light, however plasma is also opaque and
    so this light could only start travelling across space at the point in time where the plasma cooled enough
    for the electrons and protons to combine together to create neutral hydrogen atoms.

    The visible universe was about 300,000 ly across when this happened, and the light has taken about 13.8
    billion years to reach us because the space in between has expanded. this has also stretched out that light
    and shifted it from visible to microwave, and from a temperature in thousands of degrees to a temperature of
    ~2.7K


    Consequently when he says that one of his proposed 'solutions' 'explains' the CMB he is incorrect, because
    he doesn't understand what it actually is.


    EDIT: Oh Dear... He's now claiming that it's impossible to measure the 'one way' speed of light, that
    we can only measure the speed of light by bouncing light off of something and timing it's journey there
    and back... Which is total bunk, I know of several experiments that measure the 'one way' speed of
    light and can design one no problem at all. It's in fact trivial to do so.... And is now misquoting Einstein.
    Well to be fair he's quoting some other creationists misquoting Einstein...

    EDIT 2: Basically the kid is just parroting this guy... http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_Lisle
    Who should know better, but apparently doesn't.
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Starlight_problem

    Jason Lisle's 2010 paper published in the Answers Research Journal (meaning, despite his apparent confidence in its explanatory power and his doctoral education in astrophysics, that he was unwilling to submit to peer review - any ideas as to why?) aims to solve the starlight problem by taking advantage of a quirk of physics--it isn't certain, after 70 years of discussion, whether a "one way" speed of light can be measured or is a convention. Lisle thus proposes that light traveling towards the Earth does so at an infinite speed while light traveling the other way goes at half the measured speed; which is not original to him. Thus it becomes possible for light to arrive from distant stars in line with the 6000-year chronology of young Earth creationism (and equally well, or perhaps even better, with Bertrand Russell's deliberately ridiculous five minutes ago hypothesis) even though we still measure the speed of light as a fairly lumbering 299,792,458 m/s.

    The problem with Lisle's proposal is that it results in a geocentric universe and would create observational differences which have not been seen, in addition to violating the endlessly validated physical principle of isotropy; that is, that the laws of physics behave the same way in all directions.


    Just a note, if the 'one way' speed of light thing were true, there would be no delay on satellite or interplanetary communications.
    There is a delay, thus it isn't true.
  12. Joined
    10 Nov '12
    Moves
    6889
    25 Jan '16 01:191 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    On the basis that I am . . .

    The Near Genius 😏
    Who gave you that title? And what does it mean?
  13. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    25 Jan '16 03:07
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    One major point he has failed to grasp is that the 'redshift' is not caused by the stars
    [galaxies really] moving away from us.
    It's instead caused by the space between us and them expanding, and stretching the
    light as it passes through it.

    Also the Cosmic Microwave Background CMB is a very uniform temperature because the [visible]
    universe st ...[text shortened]... e no delay on satellite or interplanetary communications.
    There is a delay, thus it isn't true.
    DISTANT STARLIGHT FACTS

    Scientists have known for a century that the universe is very large. Some galaxies are so far away that even light ( traveling at 186,000 miles per second [300,000 km/sec] ) would take billions of years to travel that distance.

    So if the light really took billions of years to get here, then those galaxies would therefore be billions of years old. But this interpretation clashes with a straightforward reading of the Holy Bible, which indicates that God created the universe only a few thousand years ago and the light could be immediately seen.

    To deal with this issue, various scientists over the years have proposed models, such as a changing speed of light, stretching the fabric of space, or even time-stretching by high gravity, “gravitational time dilation.” It should also be noted that secular astronomers have their own time-travel problem—called “the horizon problem” ( the big bang cannot explain how light could have traveled across the universe to produce uniform “background” temperatures ). So, light-travel time cannot be used to argue against one view of origins if the alternative view faces the same type of issue.

    Albert Einstein showed that velocity affects the passage of time, and it affects our measurement of length as well. However, these effects are very small whenever speeds are extremely slow compared to light. Physicists have been able to accelerate particles (smaller than an atom) to nearly the speed of light. And these particles behave exactly as Einstein predicted proving lengths and time-durations are not absolute but are relative to velocity.

    A less-well-known aspect of Einstein’s physics is that the speed of light in one direction cannot be objectively measured, and so it must be stipulated (agreed upon by convention). This stands in contrast to the round-trip speed of light, which is always constant.

    So we may choose to regard the speed of light as being instantaneous when travelling toward us, providing the round-trip speed (in empty space) is always 186,000 miles per second. In this case, the light from distant stars takes no time at all to reach the earth since the light is travelling toward us. So distant starlight is not an issue.

    YouTube
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    25 Jan '16 21:091 edit
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    [b]DISTANT STARLIGHT FACTS

    Scientists have known for a century that the universe is very large. Some galaxies are so far away that even light ( traveling at 186,000 miles per second [300,000 km/sec] ) would take billions of years to travel that distance.

    So if the light really took billions of years to get here, then those galaxies would therefore ...[text shortened]... travelling toward us. So distant starlight is not an issue.

    [youtube]1rqSSP9L5lU[/youtube][/b]
    That is total bullshyte. Light can and does get measured in both directions. I know that for an absolute fact. If you remember, I was on the Apollo team where one of my jobs was the ground equipment of Apollo tracking and timing. How that worked was a transponder on board the Apollo rebroadcasted a signal with digital modulation on it, a sequence involving the numbers 2^3-1, 2^4-1, 2^5 -1 and so forth, a number of those. They were transmitted in a sequence. When the signal hit the transponder, the job of which was to immediately with absolute minimum of delay, send out that exact signal as picked up by the receiver in the transponder.

    So what arrived back on Earth was that signal but a delay that was exactly the distance between the Apollo and the ground station. The difference in the digital signals put the Apollo at an exactly known distance, within 50 feet or so and the signal could have been massaged to render the distance reading within 6 inches but it was never needed.

    If there had been a difference between the speed of light coming and going, the signal would never have been able to be used as a ruler in space.

    OF COURSE YOU WILL HAVE A STUPID RATIONAL FOR THAT. I 100% totally expect it from a mind as twisted as yours. Near genius my ass. My ASS has more genius then your entire body.
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    25 Jan '16 23:05
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    That is total bullshyte. Light can and does get measured in both directions. I know that for an absolute fact. If you remember, I was on the Apollo team where one of my jobs was the ground equipment of Apollo tracking and timing. How that worked was a transponder on board the Apollo rebroadcasted a signal with digital modulation on it, a sequence involving ...[text shortened]... m a mind as twisted as yours. Near genius my ass. My ASS has more genius then your entire body.
    Jesus said, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you."
    John 15:18

    "You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved."
    Matthew 10:22

    “Blessed are you when people hate you and when they exclude you and revile you and spurn your name as evil, on account of the Son of Man!"
    Luke 6:22

    "You will be hated by all for my name's sake."
    Luke 21:17

    The Apostle Peter said, "If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you."
    1 Peter 4:14
Back to Top