Andromeda

[2PhiloVoid]

What is "NOMA"?

Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)

Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[AV1611VET]

Omnipresence is an immutable characterisitc of God.

Again, where did He come down from?

 

[AV1611VET]

Apart from AV being incapable of the seeing the contradiction of science taking a hike while he invokes wormholes, he probably confuses Hollywood with science.

The only thing that I'm confused about is why it took so long to answer this challenge?

Even well after I gave a strong hint?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Looking up "wormholes" I found my next bumper sticker:

A white hole connects to a black hole via a wormhole.

Edit: This isn't a joke, that is really the theory.

Thought occurs to me (since I can speculate right along with the experts), if one was to go through a wormhole, would one even know it? Maybe we live in a wormhole! Why do we consider our condition to be normative, and phenomena odd to us to be divergent?

 

[Yttrium]

The only thing that I'm confused about is why it took so long to answer this challenge?

Even well after I gave a strong hint?

Maybe because your solution would effectively put all the stars within about 6,000 light years, and the sky would be filled with light.

 

[David Lamb]

Sorry but this line of argument doesn’t work. A variation of Olbers’ paradox refutes it.

If the light had been created to already reach the Earth, this is an equivalent situation of an infinitely old static universe where there has been ‘enough time’ for the light of every star to reach the Earth.
A thin spherical shell of radius r and thickness dr around the Earth contains 4πr²ndr stars.
The flux from a star in this shell is L/4πr².
Contribution of the shell to the sky brightness is.

View attachment 368594

For all concentric shells extending out to infinity integrate over all distances.

View attachment 368595

This is Olbers’ paradox the night sky becomes infinitely bright.

In your case however the universe isn’t infinitely large let’s say around 6000 light years diameter.

The equation becomes

View attachment 368596

Where R is the radius of the universe which in this case is 3000 light years, <L> is the mean stellar luminosity and n is the stellar number density.

Here we can use some real data, the most common and dimmest stars are type M stars which have a number density n ≈ 0.004 stars/(light year) and a mean stellar luminosity <L> ≈ 0.5Lₒ where Lₒ is the luminosity of the Sun and equals 3.828 x 10²⁶ W.

I = (0.004 x 0.5 x 3.828 x 10²⁶ x 3000)/(9.461 x 10¹⁵)² ≈ 2.6 x 10⁻⁵ W m⁻².

This is the brightness of the night sky according to your account.

By comparison the night sky free of moon light and light pollution is around I = 2 x 10⁻⁷ W m⁻² which is around 100X fainter.
The physical evidence therefore destroys the idea the Earth was created along with star light having already reached it.

Why does it not work? God is almighty. If He created the stars to be signs on the earth, what was to prevent Him from creating them with their light already reaching the earth? After all, light itself was created by God, according to Genesis.

 

[DamianWarS]

Again, where did He come down from?

He was, He is, He will be, is all I can say. You'll have to ask God for the specifics, but it's not something you or I can answer. You seem to enjoy fragmenting your own topics into infinite minutia possibly as an avoidence tactic. Let's get back to be op... Why is it important to reconcile the light year distance of the andromeda galaxy with the biblical creation account?

wormholes also don't work that way. in thetorical physics they are highly unstable and rapidly collapse. A collapsed wormhole that was transmitting distant galaxy light would mean the lights would turn off and at best would look like a mere twinkle. suggesting each seen/unseen night light in the sky has a private wormhole that's been opened for 4000+ years is indeed akin to saying "science can take a hike"

 

[sjastro]

Why does it not work? God is almighty. If He created the stars to be signs on the earth, what was to prevent Him from creating them with their light already reaching the earth? After all, light itself was created by God, according to Genesis.

You are using the God is omnipotent argument.
Can God make 2+2 = 5 or create a weight he cannot lift?
These are not atheist arguments but were raised by theologians over the centuries.

Given this absurd thread was put in a science forum it is refuted by science which states the night sky will be around 100x brighter than a naturally dark sky free of light pollution as described in post #16.

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe because your solution would effectively put all the stars within about 6,000 light years, and the sky would be filled with light.

Not if God wanted to configure the stars in such a way as to give the earth a message.

Are you familiar with this book:

 

[AV1611VET]

He was, He is, He will be, is all I can say.

That's not an answer.

You'll have to ask God for the specifics,

Until then, I'm asking you.

... but it's not something you or I can answer.

Funny ... I thought I at least speculated.

You seem to enjoy fragmenting your own topics into infinite minutia ...

I take it you don't watch Christian shows, where even the weather is depicted?

... possibly as an avoidance tactic.

That's an assumption based on emotion, in my opinion.

Let's get back to the op...

The one you're avoiding like the plague?

Why is it important to reconcile the light year distance of the andromeda galaxy with the biblical creation account?

Are you serious with this question?

wormholes also don't work that way.

Okay.

... in thetorical physics they are highly unstable and rapidly collapse.

Okay.

A collapsed wormhole that was transmitting distant galaxy light would mean the lights would turn off and at best would look like a mere twinkle.

A wormhole left to its own would (I'm taking your word on this).

But I'm not a Deist.

... suggesting each seen/unseen night light in the sky has a private wormhole that's been opened for 4000+ years is indeed akin to saying "science can take a hike"

Let's stick with Andromeda.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are using the God is omnipotent argument.

Sounds like a plan.

Can God make 2+2 = 5 or create a weight he cannot lift?

Yes.

These are not atheist arguments but were raised by theologians over the centuries.

Neat -- some clown had to do it, I guess; why not a theologian?

Probably a Deist.

Given this absurd thread was put in a science forum ...

Whoa! Did you just refer to the subject of theoretical physics as "absurd"?

Do you recognize the answer (wormholes)?

... it is refuted by science which states the night sky will be around 100x brighter than a naturally dark sky free of light pollution as described in post #16.

Fair enough.

But it is still considered theoretical science, is it not?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like a plan.



Yes.



Neat -- some clown had to do it, I guess; why not a theologian?

Probably a Deist.



Whoa! Did you just refer to the subject of theoretical physics as "absurd"?

Do you recognize the answer (wormholes)?



Fair enough.

But it is still considered theoretical science, is it not?

Since you like to pull from AI as a shortcut, here's a little quick something by which to help you envision a rough taxonomy regarding the comparative categories of 'Theoretical Physics.' Notice the portion I highlighted in red-----this sort of thing is why in ANY field or set of fields we can't just slap one descriptor on it and think it explains itself without equivocation on some semantic level. These things are differentiated.

From the AI

Theoretical physics can be categorized into several types, including classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, relativity, and statistical mechanics. Additionally, it encompasses specialized fields like particle physics, cosmology, and string theory, each focusing on different aspects of physical phenomena. Wikipedia superprof.com

Overview of Theoretical Physics​

Theoretical physics is a branch of physics that uses mathematical models and abstractions to explain and predict natural phenomena. It plays a crucial role in understanding the universe, from fundamental particles to cosmic structures.

Types of Theoretical Physics​

Theoretical physics can be categorized into several types based on their focus and methodologies:

Mainstream Theories​

• Quantum Mechanics: Studies the behavior of particles at atomic and subatomic levels.
• Relativity: Includes both special and general relativity, explaining the relationship between space, time, and gravity.
• Thermodynamics: Examines the laws governing heat, energy, and work.

Proposed Theories​

• String Theory: Suggests that fundamental particles are one-dimensional strings rather than point-like objects.
• Loop Quantum Gravity: Aims to merge quantum mechanics and general relativity by quantizing spacetime itself.

Fringe Theories​

• Multiverse Theory: Proposes the existence of multiple, perhaps infinite, universes beyond our observable one.
• Wormhole Theories: Suggests the possibility of shortcuts through spacetime, though not yet observed.

Approaches in Theoretical Physics​

Theoretical physics employs various approaches to develop its models:

• Phenomenology: Uses empirical data to create models that explain observed phenomena.
• Model Building: Focuses on creating speculative theories based on desired features rather than experimental data.
• Computational Physics: Involves numerical simulations to solve complex theoretical problems.

The interplay between these types and approaches helps advance our understanding of the physical world.

 

[AV1611VET]

The interplay between these types and approaches helps advance our understanding of the physical world.

Ooo ... so THAT'S why no one could answer it; even when I gave a strong hint!

Well no wonder.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ooo ... so THAT'S why no one could answer it; even when I gave a strong hint!

Well no wonder.

Doesn't mean it interplays at the same level of use or degree of explanatory efficacy as do other areas of Theoretical Physics.

Wormhole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But you know what? For me, it really doesn't matter. I don't need physics to mirror the Bible; nor do I need to think the biblical human authors wrote for any reason other than a prophetic one, with their writing directed to (or against) their contemporaries.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ooo ... so THAT'S why no one could answer it; even when I gave a strong hint!

Well no wonder.

Moreover, as a case in point, and from your favorite, the AI:

Wormholes are primarily theoretical constructs based on the equations of general relativity, and there is currently no experimental evidence to confirm their existence. While some physicists explore the possibility of creating or detecting wormholes, these ideas remain speculative and untested in practice.​

​

Fringe.

 

[AV1611VET]

But you know what? For me, it really doesn't matter. I don't need physics to mirror the Bible; nor do I need to think the biblical human authors wrote for any reason other than a prophetic one, with their writing directed to (or against) their contemporaries.

Frankly, you missed answering my challenge, didn't you?

That says it all.

Your chiming in with all that academic nonsense in Post 72 kept you from knowing the truth, didn't it?

Even ... when ... I ... gave ... a ... strong ... hint.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moreover, as a case in point, and from your favorite, the AI:

Wormholes are primarily theoretical constructs based on the equations of general relativity, and there is currently no experimental evidence to confirm their existence. While some physicists explore the possibility of creating or detecting wormholes, these ideas remain speculative and untested in practice.​

​

Fringe.

Wow.

Solid aurum.

Absolutely solid gold.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Frankly, you missed answering my challenge, didn't you?

That says it all.

Your chiming in with all that academic nonsense in Post 72 kept you from knowing the truth, didn't it?

Even ... when ... I ... gave ... a ... strong ... hint.

What truth am I not knowing here? That you're big on speculation and fringe explanations?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow.

Solid aurum.

Absolutely solid gold.

Oh, and one more thing: I don't put all of my time, effort and eggs into the basket of Genesis 1, thinking that everything else hinges on that first chapter being shown to dominate modern physics. The Bible is a big collection of books, letters and poems, and there are many other important topics to focus on other than the one you all too commonly land upon, all the way from the Exodus to the Resurrection.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, and one more thing: I don't put all of my time, effort and eggs into the basket of Genesis 1, thinking that everything else hinges on that first chapter being shown to dominate modern physics. The Bible is a big collection of books, letters and poems, and there are many other important topics to focus on other than the one you all too commonly land upon, all the way from the Exodus to the Resurrection.

Noted.