Light

[Jon]

Jump from thread:Best argument agenst Creationism?

Assuming you're talking about Creation in the recent past and not Creation in general, I would have to say that since we can see about 13 billion years into the past with modern satellites. That would be pretty good evidence.

I never knew that satellites could see the past <IMG alt="" src="http://www.christianforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif" border=0>

And yes, satellites can see into the past because there is energy released billions of years ago that is just reaching us because it took so long to get here. Even looking at the sun is looking into the past, because the light takes 8 minutes to get to the Earth from the sun.

Because light can't break its own speed limit, and that's how long it takes light to get here from the early Universe.

 

[DNAunion]

DNAunion: I still say the best argument against YEC is seafloor spreading (of course, along with the related continental drift, symmetrical stripes of magnetic reversals on the seafloor, older islands being farther from the spreading center and younger islands near it, plate tectonics theory in general, and so on).

Unlike arguing about things that exist billions of light years away that people can't see for themselves, seafloor spreading and the others occur right here on Earth for "all" to see. It's easily observable and verified, and easy to understand, and it all fits together so perfectly.

 

[Arikay]

I agree.

The Hawaiian islands evidence was very interesting.

 

[Jon]

I forgot to put my question:
quote:
Because light can't break its own speed limit, and that's how long it takes light to get here from the early Universe.


Say there is a car that can only go at 20 km/h. You see that car driving along the highway, all you know is that the car is going at 20km/h.
You don't know were it started...

How do you know were the light started?

 

[gentu]

If you can see something, that means that light has arrived at your eyes from whatever reflected or produced that light. If you can see stars that are in the sky, that means that light has traveled from the stars, where it originated, to your eyes.

How do you know where light rays from the sun came from? The sun, of course, because the light reaching your eyes from the sun produce the picture of the sun on your eyes. If you see light coming from space that forms the images of stars and galaxies, it is not unreasonable to assume that the light came from stars and galaxies.

 

[Taffsadar]

Today at 01:52 AM Jon said this in Post #4

I forgot to put my question:
quote:
Because light can't break its own speed limit, and that's how long it takes light to get here from the early Universe.


Say there is a car that can only go at 20 km/h. You see that car driving along the highway, all you know is that the car is going at 20km/h.
You don't know were it started...

How do you know were the light started?

Your metaphor is faulty. You would have two cars going in 20km/h away from each othe rand you know that they started right&nbsp;next to eachother. You see them 20km away you can guess that they have been going for an hour.

 

[Quath]

Yesterday at 05:52 PM Jon said this in Post #4

I forgot to put my question:
quote:
Because light can't break its own speed limit, and that's how long it takes light to get here from the early Universe.


Say there is a car that can only go at 20 km/h. You see that car driving along the highway, all you know is that the car is going at 20km/h.
You don't know were it started...

How do you know were the light started?

We can measure the distance to other galaxies by use of Cepheid star.&nbsp; By knowing their frequency, we also know their real brightness.&nbsp; Then we look at their apparent brightness and we can see how much light we did recieve.&nbsp; That way, we know how far the light must have traveled.&nbsp; A good small explanation of this can be found at http://www.fi.edu/tfi/publications/inquirer/task2.html.

Scott (Quath)

 

[JohnR7]

Yesterday at 08:59 PM gentu said this in Post #5&nbsp; If you can see stars that are in the sky, that means that light has traveled from the stars, where it originated, to your eyes.&nbsp;

Everything in the universe is moving way from each other we are told.&nbsp;Everything is &nbsp;moving away from a common point, but they are also moving away from each other.

As our solar system travels though space, the light from other stars is traveling along with us. The only way it can catch us is if we are traveling slower than the speed of light.&nbsp;We only have to be slighly slower.

 

[Quath]

Today at 08:35 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #8
Everything in the universe is moving way from each other we are told.&nbsp;Everything is &nbsp;moving away from a common point, but they are also moving away from each other.

As our solar system travels though space, the light from other stars is traveling along with us. The only way it can catch us is if we are traveling slower than the speed of light.&nbsp;We only have to be slighly slower.

Relativity shows that everything is moving slower than the speed of light.&nbsp;&nbsp; Say there is a Newtonian universe (classical) in which light travels at 100 mph.&nbsp; You could get in a car and race light.&nbsp; If you went 80 mph, you would see light moving away from you at 20 mph.&nbsp; A man on the road would see light pass him at 100 mph.

However, in reality it is much different.&nbsp; In that same setup, a man on the road would see the light going past him at 100 mph.&nbsp; You in the car would see the same light going away from you at 100 mph.&nbsp; Even if you went 99.99999 mph, you would still see the light pass you going 100 mph faster than you.

Scott (Quath)

 

[aggie03]

This is just a thought that I decided to throw in here - there is a difference between "evolution" and "Evolution" (notice the small 'e' on the first one). Specifically, I am speaking of Macro- and Micro- evolution. I don't have a problem with microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand is a religion, does try to explain the beginning, yadda yadda yadda...you all know the spiel.

 

[aggie03]

oops, wrong thread, sorry

 

[Arikay]

To reply to it anyway

Evolution really doesnt distinguish between Micro and Macro evolution. They are terms that creationists came up with so that they could believe part of evolution without saying creationism was wrong.
Both Micro and Macro evolution has been observed.

Well, if you mean the begining of the universe or the begining of life, they are delt with in other theories. One is the big bang theory and the other is the abiogenesis theory.

Today at 02:51 PM aggie03 said this in Post #10

This is just a thought that I decided to throw in here - there is a difference between "evolution" and "Evolution" (notice the small 'e' on the first one). Specifically, I am speaking of Macro- and Micro- evolution. I don't have a problem with microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand is a religion, does try to explain the beginning, yadda yadda yadda...you all know the spiel.

 

[DNAunion]

Quath: Relativity shows that everything is moving slower than the speed of light.

DNAunion: Interestingly, relativity also says that everything is moving through spacetime AT the speed of light.

 

[DNAunion]

Arikay: Evolution really doesnt distinguish between Micro and Macro evolution. They are terms that creationists came up with so that they could believe part of evolution without saying creationism was wrong.

DNAunion: I doubt that is true. Got material and references?

I know I have read some of the mainstream biggies in biology discuss macro vs. micro evolution in their books written many decades ago, one even going so far as to say that another type of evolution should be added: megaevolution, I believe.

Also, my 1990's and above college biology texts make a distinction between microevolution and marcoevolution, discussing each in a separate section. Are you suggesting that mainstream scientists have fallen prey to Creationists tactics????

 

[Arikay]

To clarify my statement a bit. Im sure that Micro and Macro evolution were issues in the past, however they arent anymore. Evolution is just plain evolution. Micro and Macro evolution are being used Today by creationists to show that evolution doesnt quite work. The problem is that their definition of Macro evolution seems to keep changing based on what science finds. It seems to constantly raise the bar so that science can never trully show macro evolution.

Since, in the science perspective, both Micro and macro evolution have been observed, there really isnt any need for a specific break in the term. Just like the term "darwinism" is generally considered to be outdated.

If that helps to clarrify my statement any.

Today at 03:32 PM DNAunion said this in Post #14



DNAunion: I doubt that is true. Got material and references?

I know I have read some of the mainstream biggies in biology discuss macro vs. micro evolution in their books written many decades ago, one even going so far as to say that another type of evolution should be added: megaevolution, I believe.

Also, my 1990's and above college biology texts make a distinction between microevolution and marcoevolution, discussing each in a separate section. Are you suggesting that mainstream scientists have fallen prey to Creationists tactics????

 

[Quath]

Today at 03:28 PM DNAunion said this in Post #13



DNAunion: Interestingly, relativity also says that everything is moving through spacetime AT the speed of light.

I am not sure what you mean by this.&nbsp; Speed is the rate of change in spatial dimension per unit in the time dimension.&nbsp; So we do track things going slower than the speed of light all the time.

Or are you saying that through a frame of reference that is moving at the speed of light, everything else appears to it to be moving at the speed of light?&nbsp; I don't think this is the case since, a frame moving at the speed of light would see every other particle as infinitely massive.&nbsp; However, the local time would also work out to be 0.&nbsp; (In other words you would travel for infinity before you experienced any time.)

Or are you are talking about quantum mechanics which looks at group wave speed and individual wave speed multiplying to get c^2.&nbsp; (It has been awhile since I had some quantum mechanics.)

Scott (Quath)

 

[DNAunion]

Quath: I am not sure what you mean by this.

DNAunion: I gotta go tutor someone so I don't have time right now to explain. I have posted the explanation before and will try to find it. For the time being, here's a really rough idea.

Spacetime is four dimensional. Objects move through time as well as through space. And, they move through spacetime at the speed of light. That does not mean they move through space at speed c because some of that light speed is shared with the time dimension.

Light travels through space at the speed of light so time does not pass for a photon: they do not age.

If you are perfectly motionless (have to imagine that) then you don't move through space at all and all of your speed is going to the time dimension: you are traveling through time quickly. If you start moving through space, then you begin to share your total light speed with spatial dimensions and thus you move through time more slowly. That's what causes relativistic time dilation.

 

[Smilin]

26th March 2003 at 11:35 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #8

As our solar system travels though space, the light from other stars is traveling along with us. The only way it can catch us is if we are traveling slower than the speed of light.&nbsp;We only have to be slighly slower.

Jon,
What happens if we are traveling faster than the light?

 

[Jon]

Jon,
What happens if we are traveling faster than the light?

If we were traveling faster than light and going away from the stars then we wouldn't see the stars.

If we were traveling faster than light and going towards then stars then........shortly we will run into the stars.....

 

[Jon]

Or were you talking to JohnR7? (His name is John not Jon )