Fully Mature Universe

[Platte]

I have yet to hear where is this static point by which speed of light is compared.

I’m sure exactly what you are asking but the 1 way speed of light has not been able to be tested

 

[Mark Quayle]

I’m sure exactly what you are asking but the 1 way speed of light has not been able to be tested

If there is a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light, heading toward another traveling the same line at nearly the speed of light, but opposite directions, and shines its lights, does the light of the one not hit the other in excess of the spead of light

 

[Platte]

If there is a spacecraft traveling near the speed of light, heading toward another traveling the same line at nearly the speed of light, but opposite directions, and shines its lights, does the light of the one not hit the other in excess of the spead of light

We do not what the one way speed of light is. Has not and can not be tested.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We do not what the one way speed of light is. Has not and can not be tested.

Not to disagree, but to understand... What does the 186,000 mps refer to, then?

 

[Platte]

Not to disagree, but to understand... What does the 186,000 mps refer to, then?

That is the 2 way speed of light. Light bouncing off an object which we can and have measured.

 

[Jonaitis]

That is the 2 way speed of light. Light bouncing off an object which we can and have measured.

The two-way measurement is more reliable than a one way. The total time taken for light to travel to an object, such as a mirror, and back gives us a pretty precise and accurate measurement. I'm not sure why you're using it against the fact.

 

[Platte]

The two-way measurement is more reliable than a one way. The total time taken for light to travel to an object, such as a mirror, and back gives us a pretty precise and accurate measurement. I'm not sure why you're using it against the fact.

It is very precise and reliable. And it we know the speed of it. However the one way speed of light we don’t know and assume it’s the same but we have not been able to test and confirm. It very well may be the same. I’m just saying since we don’t know then you cannot take that assumption and use it as fact in an argument against Creation. Light from stars is one way and we don’t the speed of that light. We do assume its 186k miles per second same as 2 way light speed but it’s an assumption.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is the 2 way speed of light. Light bouncing off an object which we can and have measured.

Huh?

Explain

 

[Platte]

We can shine a light directly on a mirror 2 miles away and we know that the light will return back to us. That round trip mirror and back is how we measure light at 186k. We don’t know the speed just to the mirror. That’s the one way light that can’t be measured.

The light from a star is direct light. One way light. Cant be measured. We assume it’s 186k but it’s an assumption. Can’t use an assumption to rebuff Creation is all I’m saying.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We can shine a light directly on a mirror 2 miles away and we know that the light will return back to us. That round trip mirror and back is how we measure light at 186k. We don’t know the speed just to the mirror. That’s the one way light that can’t be measured.

The light from a star is direct light. One way light. Cant be measured. We assume it’s 186k but it’s an assumption. Can’t use an assumption to rebuff Creation is all I’m saying.

It's all assumption built upon assumption. But we can measure one way.

The time difference measured from equal distance from two mirrors, which the two are at different distances from the light source suddenly turned on. The refractive corruption of travel speed is thus irrelevant.

But yes, obviously, there are always inaccuracies. That's hardly the point.

 

[Platte]

It's all assumption built upon assumption. But we can measure one way.

The time difference measured from equal distance from two mirrors, which the two are at different distances from the light source suddenly turned on. The refractive corruption of travel speed is thus irrelevant.

But yes, obviously, there are always inaccuracies. That's hardly the point.

No we cannot measure the one way speed of light. We do not know what the one way speed of light is. The two way speed of light is NOT an assumption. It is tested and confirmed.
This is an important distinction

 

[PastorKeith]

No we cannot measure the one way speed of light. We do not know what the one way speed of light is. The two way speed of light is NOT an assumption. It is tested and confirmed.
This is an important distinction

You would agree the two way speed of light is simply an average of both measurements correct?
And you would agree all of this talk about the speed of light talk is nonsense, because we have no way of knowing if the speed of light has been constant since God created the universe or moved supernaturally at much greater speeds.
None of us were there, so why don't we just take God's Word for it. Literally.

 

[Platte]

You would agree the two way speed of light is simply an average of both measurements correct?

Science has made that assumption. I accept that assumption. But because it’s an assumption it can’t be used as an argument against Creation is all I’m saying.

And you would agree all of this talk about the speed of light talk is nonsense, because we have no way of knowing if the speed of light has been constant since God created the universe or moved supernaturally at much greater speeds.
None of us were there, so why don't we just take God's Word for it. Literally.

I’m sure it’s been constant, I have no reason to think otherwise, but I would also say that when God created the stars (and the Sun) the light from those objects were also created in an instance.


I take the Bible for what it says. I understand when statements are made allegorically, within a vision and symbolism, when told as a parable, and when written as historical record and telling an accurate record of an event. Changing the context of the Bible to fit your narrative is not cool.

 

[PastorKeith]

I take the Bible for what it says. I understand when statements are made allegorically, within a vision and symbolism, when told as a parable, and when written as historical record and telling an accurate record of an event. Changing the context of the Bible to fit your narrative is not cool.

Ok so we both agree Genesis 1 is a historical account of creation that took place over six 24 hour days. Awesome.

 

[Platte]

Ok so we both agree Genesis 1 is a historical account of creation that took place over six 24 hour days. Awesome.

That’s what the Bible clearly says.

 

[LoriSaysHey2U]

Bro, we have sent space probes to far out planets within our solar system, so that means the universe is pretty big. Might want to check up on your Hebrew again, as Hebrew can sometimes be a poetic language. But hey, I will not judge you if you believe the universe is only a few dozen thousand miles across. Based upon all the evidence, the universe is billions of light-years across.

Voyager 1:

Voyager 1 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, in Genesis 1:1, it says "In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth." My understanding of "heaven" includes the universe and everything in it. Scientists know these days that everything to support life on earth had to be created in a short period of time, because everything in life is dependent on everything else to exist. The more they research these things, the more they confirm this fact. This is why God had to make everything in the order He made it and in the short period of time He made it. For the awesome and powerful God I believe in, this was easy. He didn't even have to do it for Himself. He did it for us beause He loves us more than we could ever imagine. Wow. My God is an awesom God!

 

[AlexB23]

Well, in Genesis 1:1, it says "In the beginning,God created the heavens and the earth. My understanding of "heaven" includes the universe and everything in it. Scientists know these days that everything to support life on earth had to be created in a short period of time, because everything in life is dependent on everything else to exist. The more they research these things, the more they confirm this fact. This is why God had to make everything in the order He made it and in the short period of time He made it. For the awesome and powerful God I believe in, this was easy. He didn't even have to do it for Himself. He did it for us beause He loves us more than we could ever imagine. Wow. My God is an awesom God!

Amen, God did make the universe in a short period of time, as the universe expanded rapidly in a trillionth of a second, and matter for the Earth and billions of stars formed in a matter of minutes many eons ago (as I am an Old-Earth creationist). That is God's work right there. God created the universe as a way for humans to admire His creation. God is awesome, and indescribable.

This reminds me of a Christian song that I have heard when I was a little kid:

Chris Tomlin - Indescribable

A classic by Chris Tomlin, from 20 years ago, and from my childhood. The song reminds me of how vast God's creation is, and how we can not describe God fully, though He came down as man in the form of Jesus Christ to die for our sins. The skies are His tabernacle. Milky Way Concept Art...

www.christianforums.com

 

[LoriSaysHey2U]

Amen, God did make the universe in a short period of time, as the universe expanded rapidly in a trillionth of a second, and matter for the Earth and billions of stars formed in a matter of minutes many eons ago (as I am an Old-Earth creationist). That is God's work right there. God created the universe as a way for humans to admire His creation. God is awesome, and indescribable.

This reminds me of a Christian song that I have heard when I was a little kid:

Chris Tomlin - Indescribable

A classic by Chris Tomlin, from 20 years ago, and from my childhood. The song reminds me of how vast God's creation is, and how we can not describe God fully, though He came down as man in the form of Jesus Christ to die for our sins. The skies are His tabernacle. Milky Way Concept Art...

www.christianforums.com

Yes! I was just singing it for my son. We used to sing this song in rounds at church. With the congregation and with the kids in AWANA. I love it!

 

[AlexB23]

Yes! I was just singing it for my son. We used to sing this song in rounds at church. With the congregation and with the kids in AWANA. I love it!

That is pretty awesome. It is good that you sang this song for your son. I do not have any kids, so I sang this song for God's Son, Jesus. We must lead the little kids to God, as much as possible, and folks of all ages as well. It would be nice if the Catholic church that I go to had some Chris Tomlin or other Christian songs from 20 years ago. Though, one day before Mass, Hillsong - Oceans was played by the pianist and sung by the choir. This was a week ago or two.

 

[LoriSaysHey2U]

That is pretty awesome. It is good that you sang this song for your son. I do not have any kids, so I sang this song for God's Son, Jesus. We must lead the little kids to God, as much as possible, and folks of all ages as well. It would be nice if the Catholic church that I go to had some Chris Tomlin or other Christian songs from 20 years ago. Though, one day before Mass, Hillsong - Oceans was played by the pianist and sung by the choir. This was a week ago or two.

Even at 47, my son still likes to hear me sing! He's paralyzed from a surfing accident 25 years ago, so he's a quadriplegic. I'm retired now, so I take care of him during the day. He's paralyzed, but he loves the Lord and loves to edit surf footage. He was almost pro before he broke his neck. Had a lot of sponsors. He stayed connected to the surfing community, so he has friends who send him footage from all over the world and make short videos of them. If you want to see his videos, go on YT search to "Bobby DuCharme Can't Keep Me Down". I'm one of his part-time videographers.