Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
2. the only way for us to see those galaxies would be if the speed of light was much faster. if that was true then the sun would have scorched the earth because E=MC^2
E=MC^2. This is an equation which describes the amount of energy contained in a defined amount of mass. In other words, how much mass will you get if you convert a specific amount of mass into pure energy. Energy in joules=Mass in kilograms times C which is the speed of light in meters per second, squared.
The Sun generates heat and light through a process called thermonuclear fusion (you should have known this already), where 2 hydrogen and or helium nuclei are fused together under high pressure and heat.
During this reaction, a small amount of mass (5% of the mass, which is about 5 million tons of hydrogen converted into hydrogen) is converted into pure energy. If the speed of light was once much faster in the supposed 6000 years of the universe's history, then the amount of energy generated from the sun would have been enough scorch the earth and probably melt it. lets do a quick calculation. 13.7 billion divided by 6000. In order for us to see galaxies 13.7 billion light years from earth, then the speed of light would have to be 2.3 million times as much as it is. That means the sun's energy output would be 2.3 million times as much as is, therefore melting the earth
1. how can you not see the issue? you're worshipping a God who WILLFULLY decieves you
Again, two points:
I am not a Creationist, nor I am a Christian. I am a Wiccan who believes in all major scientific theories, from my ancestry to my origins.
I fail to see why a decietful deity cannot exist.
Originally Posted by gamespotter10
2. the only way for us to see those galaxies would be if the speed of light was much faster.
How so? It could be some hitherto unknown aspect of deep space; a fifth force unknown to us because it is overwhelmed by the four in our 'Middle-World' (to use Dawkin's phrase).
Originally Posted by gamespotter10
if that was true then the sun would have scorched the earth because E=MC^2
If c was much larger than it presently is, then the Earth would not even form.
If c is variable, then everything can remain as it is.
As it happens, Einstein's Special Relativity (formulated under the principle that light in a vacuum travels at c wrt all inertial frames) has been shown to be correct to a very, very high degree of accuracy. If c is variable in such a way as to make galaxies appear far away, then they would only be a few millimeters closer than they appear to be.
Nevertheless, hitherto unknown physics is not completely out of the question
Also, I am baffled by what you mean "Because E = mc^2". What does this equation have to do with anything?
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
E=MC^2. This is an equation which describes the amount of energy contained in a defined amount of mass. In other words, how much mass will you get if you convert a specific amount of mass into pure energy. Energy in joules=Mass in kilograms times C which is the speed of light in meters per second, squared.
Not quite. m is the rest mass of a particle, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
The full formula is: E ^2= (p*c)^2 + (m*c^2)^2
Where p is the particle's momentum.
Mostly because a moving particle has more energy than a stationary one.
Originally Posted by gamespotter10
The Sun generates heat and light through a process called thermonuclear fusion (you should have known this already), where 2 hydrogen and or helium nuclei are fused together under high pressure and heat.
During this reaction, a small amount of mass (5% of the mass, which is about 5 million tons of hydrogen converted into hydrogen) is converted into pure energy. If the speed of light was once much faster in the supposed 6000 years of the universe's history, then the amount of energy generated from the sun would have been enough scorch the earth and probably melt it. lets do a quick calculation. 13.7 billion divided by 6000. In order for us to see galaxies 13.7 billion light years from earth, then the speed of light would have to be 2.3 million times as much as it is. That means the sun's energy output would be 2.3 million times as much as is, therefore melting the earth
No. If the speed of light was much higher, then the mass of a proton would be much less. They balance out.
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Last edited by Wiccan_Child; 2nd October 2007 at 02:28 PM.
there is this thing called the hubble constant. we dont know for sure what it is, but we have a ballpark estimate of what it is. So, hubble's law says galaxies which are farther away from us are moving away from us faster. We know this because of the redshift. If a galaxy is extremely redshifted, then it is moving away from us VERY rapidly, and it is VERY far away because of the hubble constant
Originally Posted by mrpiddly
Hubbles law:
the velocity of a galaxy can be found by v = H x d
v=velocity of the galaxy
h= hubbles constant
d=distance to observer
Redshift is best used on galaxies that are more then 1 billion years away.
v can be found through the dopler shift.
Please note this is the first grade version
Thanks guys.
I actually stumbled across Hubble's Law shortly after I posted. Thanks for the replies anyway.
__________________ FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who
speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.
The full formula is: E = p*c^2 + (m*c^2)^2
Where p is the particle's momentum.
Mostly because a moving particle has more energy than a stationary one.
Just a nitpick, but that should be E^2 and (p*c)^2, not E and p*c^2.
__________________
There are only four universal truths: 1. You can't win. 2. You can't break even. 3. You can't leave the game. 4. To every w-consistent class K of formula there correspond recursive class-sign r (on free var. v), such that neither (v Gen r) nor ~(v Gen r) belong to Flg (K).
Not quite. m is the rest mass of a particle, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum.
The full formula is: E = p*c^2 + (m*c^2)^2
Where p is the particle's momentum.
Mostly because a moving particle has more energy than a stationary one.
Of course a moving particle has more energy. I think the point you are trying to make is that it also has more mass. If the speed of light increased then both the mass of the particles, it's kinetic energy, and the energy released when mass is anhilated all increase. This would result in a greatly expanded Sun being that a stars size is determined by the opposing forces of gravity and the pressure produced by fusion reactions.
No. If the speed of light was much higher, then the mass of a proton would be much less. They balance out.
How so?
__________________ "Since YAC [Young-Age Creation] epistemology accepts Biblical claims over physical evidence and human reason, logical or evidential arguments for evolution and/or against YAC are likely to be ineffective in converting most YACists."--Kurt Wise
You know, that is a very good point. If one is to accept that there is a God and it created this universe is any way contrary to our perception, then A Decietful God is the only Logical Conclusion.
But, Why is it that the possiblity of a Decietful God existing is so hard for someone to Accept when looking at the evidence of it.
It's as though humans are preprogrammed not to accept that conclusion. Of course, to me, it's easier to believe that God has no Intelligence with no particular "Meaning" or "Intent" to anything it does.
Anyway, just Musing.
__________________ John Lennon--"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now? Reality leaves a lot to the imagination."
I've been to Wonderland once too often...... one can no longer tell the difference betwix me and the Hatter!
You know, that is a very good point. If one is to accept that there is a God and it created this universe is any way contrary to our perception, then A Decietful God is the only Logical Conclusion.
But, Why is it that the possiblity of a Decietful God existing is so hard for someone to Accept when looking at the evidence of it.
It's as though humans are preprogrammed not to accept that conclusion. Of course, to me, it's easier to believe that God has no Intelligence with no particular "Meaning" or "Intent" to anything it does.
Anyway, just Musing.
GOD does not deceive. Satan deceives. Evolutionists accept a deception as their truth. Satan is the accuser, and he wishes to belittle GOD.
Of course a moving particle has more energy. I think the point you are trying to make is that it also has more mass. If the speed of light increased then both the mass of the particles, it's kinetic energy, and the energy released when mass is anhilated all increase. This would result in a greatly expanded Sun being that a stars size is determined by the opposing forces of gravity and the pressure produced by fusion reactions.
Perhaps, but only if c increased now. In our hypothetical scenario, c is higher in the past.
If it is still decreasing, then it must be doing so with an extraordinarily high exponent: c has not appeard to changed in the however-many decades it's been measured for.
Originally Posted by Loudmouth
How so?
E = m*c^2. By the energy conservation law, an increase in c requires a decrease in m such that E is constant (namely, the ratio of the low m to our m is equal to the square of the ratio of the high c to our c).
Of course, this is all Creationist-level science, and is therefore baloney. c is a constant
__________________
A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, -- a mere heart of stone.
- Charles Darwin
"I am a scientist... when I find evidence that my theories are wrong, it is as exciting as if the evidence proved them right."
- Stargate: SG1
What can be asserted without reason, can be denied without reason.
- Anon
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Linear Mode
