science proof creation

[time]

After talking to some experts in cosmology, I saw that they seemed to have some pretty good answers.
Reflecting on how the stars could be billions of light years away, and yet still made only recently, I was able to come up with the following. I don't think that all of modern science can touch it, and so far they have not come up with anything to refute it.
So, I thought I'd run it by the christian only forum, to see if someone might see something wrong biblically with the idea.
In a nut shell here it is.
Back near the creation of our universe, it was necesary for the process of time to be set up, that the physical universe be seperated from the invisible, or spiritual one. As it was seperated, what we had was more or less what we see now. Our physical universe was now under time. So that, the cosmos would reflect that. In other words it really is billions of our light years away! The day that the two universes merge into one, time will be no more. Heaven itself will suddenly appear different, as even the bible talks about. The invisible, the spiritual, the unseen, will then be no longer seperate. We can not detect the invisible universe now, with our physical science, so I guess it could never be disproved! It explains a 6200 year old creation, despite the present physical time distance! It leaves science pretty well intact! ----
Well that's it. Thanks

 

[rmills]

I would be interested in hearing more on what experts in cosmology have to say specifically regarding our understanding of time distance.

My step Father is a scientist for NCAR and NASA. He worked the math for the corrective lens on the Hubble Telescope for fun (he is that kind of guy). His findings were that the Hubble may well have been better suited to focus under water than outside of our atmosphere. His math turned out to be correct and was submitted as part of the corrective lens proposal. The point was that he proved that we know very little about space time distances outside of our atmosphere. He does not hold to this exact theory but supports parts of it.

 

[Ark-Guy]

Back near the creation of our universe, it was necesary for the process of time to be set up,

Was this during day 1-6 or a little while after creation?

that the physical universe be seperated from the invisible, or spiritual one. As it was seperated, what we had was more or less what we see now. Our physical universe was now under time.

Was this seperation due to the fall of man in the garden?

So that, the cosmos would reflect that. In other words it really is billions of our light years away! The day that the two universes merge into one, time will be no more.

Will this be the new heavens and new earth?

Heaven itself will suddenly appear different, as even the bible talks about. The invisible, the spiritual, the unseen, will then be no longer seperate. We can not detect the invisible universe now, with our physical science, so I guess it could never be disproved!
It explains a 6200 year old creation, despite the present physical time distance! It leaves science pretty well intact! ----
Well that's it. Thanks

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

I would be interested in hearing more on what experts in cosmology have to say specifically regarding our understanding of time distance.

My step Father is a scientist for NCAR and NASA. He worked the math for the corrective lens on the Hubble Telescope for fun (he is that kind of guy). His findings were that the Hubble may well have been better suited to focus under water than outside of our atmosphere. His math turned out to be correct and was submitted as part of the corrective lens proposal. The point was that he proved that we know very little about space time distances outside of our atmosphere. He does not hold to this exact theory but supports parts of it.

What is the meaning of the water comment?

Not exactly complicated working out the optics required to correct the HST. So what the heck as that to do with space time distances outside the atmosphere?

He proved nothing? You are equating two things that are unconnected.

Either you have misunderstood something he told you OR he is dabbling outside his field.

Let me hazard a guess - he is an engineer.

 

[time]

I would be interested in hearing more on what experts in cosmology have to say specifically regarding our understanding of time distance.

Well. one thing they really mess up on is extrapolating backwards, past creation, leaving God out of the picture, and say this..
The whole universe came flying out of a speck that could have fit on the head of a pin! All this billions of years ago! That's what happens when you try to leave God out.
Anyhow, there is also a lot of hard working guys in that stuff, who have some ideas about huge ditances to the stars. The problem being that light would take so long to get there.
Hence, the idea, here, that takes out the time aspect.

 

[time]

Was this during day 1-6 or a little while after creation?

I don't know exactly. One would think it would have been there, or maybe at latest after the fall.

Will this be the new heavens and new earth?

Bingo! When the heavens depart as a scroll.

 

[rmills]

What is the meaning of the water comment?

The math used to determine the lens curve was based on theory. The ability to focus on objects at an undetermined distance was all theory, it was such lousy theory that he pointed out the fact that there were distortion variables involved in the math that were almost equal to that of water.

Not exactly complicated working out the optics required to correct the HST. So what the heck as that to do with space time distances outside the atmosphere?

We don’t understand space time distances outside our atmosphere.

He proved nothing? You are equating two things that are unconnected.

Either you have misunderstood something he told you OR he is dabbling outside his field.

Let me hazard a guess - he is an engineer.

Correction, he worked with NASA, NCAR, and HAO. He designed and implemented radio telescopes, Mauna Loa coronameters, solar eclipse cameras, Stokes polarimeters, solar-stellar spectrophotometers, various low-L solar seismology experiments, and the first ever repair to a satellite in space for the coronagraph on the Solar Maximum Mission. He was heavily involved in designing the COMPATS SEE instrument, as well as nominated for various awards through UCAR, including his design, construction and successful operation of HAO’s LOWL.

I would guess that he has no business dabbling in any associated fields. Cut the mud slinging, it will not support your cause.

 

[rmills]

Well. one thing they really mess up on is extrapolating backwards, past creation, leaving God out of the picture, and say this..
The whole universe came flying out of a speck that could have fit on the head of a pin! All this billions of years ago! That's what happens when you try to leave God out.
Anyhow, there is also a lot of hard working guys in that stuff, who have some ideas about huge ditances to the stars. The problem being that light would take so long to get there.
Hence, the idea, here, that takes out the time aspect.

If I understand the theory correctly, a vast number of creationists hold to the same "flying out of a speck that could have fit on the head of a pin" belief. I think that the light travel distance issue is the basis for the argument, and also the failure of the argument.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

rmills,

you are not communicating this clearly.

Of course the curvature of the lens would be determined by theory - a theory that has been used for centuries - it works!

I still think you have misheard or confused something. Any focusing of the HST is moot. It focuses at infinity. This water comment makes little sense. Telling me you are really confused on what he told you.

What is this nonsense about 'not understanding space time distances outside our atmosphere'. This is nonsense. Again I don't think you know what you are trying to describe.

If you look at my first post I said 'you have misunderstood OR he was dabbling'.

I didn't say for sure he was 'dabbling'.

But I also doubt that you are accurately reporting what he said. If he did say this then I hope he gets better.

 

[rmills]

Of course the curvature of the lens would be determined by theory - a theory that has been used for centuries - it works!

How do you apply that theory outside of our atmosphere? Centuries ago, we did not understand what distortion variables the atmosphere caused, now we do!

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

What are you talking about????????????

What has optics got to do with 'outside atmosphere'?

I'm sorry but I don't think you know what you're trying to say. You seem almost to want to talk about adaptive optics but HST is not an AO system - nor does it need to be.

Please explain what you mean by 'space time distances' and the problems you perceive.

 

[rmills]

time,

I do not fully understand the theory in question but space time issues that seem to be current topics of debate is estimations based on theoretical math that puts our universe 8-12 billion years old and some of the stars therein are estimated to be 16 billion years old. There is a small but obvious problem. The suposed extremely distant stars do not have the time required to send light to earth.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

time,

I do not fully understand the theory in question but space time issues that seem to be current topics of debate is estimations based on theoretical math that puts our universe 8-12 billion years old and some of the stars therein are estimated to be 16 billion years old. There is a small but obvious problem. The suposed extremely distant stars do not have the time required to send light to earth.

rmills,

I think you need to keep up with astrophysics a little better. In fact the juxtaposition of the 2 sets of numbers you quote I don't think has ever been presented.

This argument though was a valid criticism some 10-20 years ago.

Current age estimation (from WMAP results) is 13.7 billion years. Current oldest star estimates are about 13 billion years old.

i.e. less than age of Universe estimate.

Please keep up to date.

 

[rmills]

What are you talking about????????????

What has optics got to do with 'outside atmosphere'?

I'm sorry but I don't think you know what you're trying to say. You seem almost to want to talk about adaptive optics but HST is not an AO system - nor does it need to be.

Please explain what you mean by 'space time distances' and the problems you perceive.

I guess that you contend that our atmosphere is not a cause of distortion? Remove that variable (atmosphere) and the math for grinding a lens must change. Thus, our theory on distance in space is different outside the atmosphere where Hubble lurks than inside our atmosphere where we have the added lens called atmosphere. I may be an idiot but this makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Of course the atmosphere distorts - hence sticking telescopes on top of mountains or (even better) in space like HST.

So how does this affect distance determinations - which seems to be your premise.

 

[rmills]

We see Galaxies billions of light years away so that means that universe is billions of years old, right? Talk about keep up with astrophysics, the speed of light has decreased a minimum of 160+ times in the last 300 years based on various tests. The first obvious question is if light has slowed down, what was its speed when creation happened? Or we could decide that the speed of light is a constant. Thats not a wise decision so is it conceivable that our measurments based on flawed distance calculations added to our measurments of the speed of light based on flawed calculations are providing false data? Could it then be the case that light could have reached us in several thousands of years rather than several billions?

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Well if you believe the speed of light has slowed down in the last 300 years you are either deluded or lying.

When people like Setterfield doctored the data to reach a conclusion they wanted - and people like you believe it - then it just goes to show the old quote applies: "as long as it is profitable to shovel "fecal matter" to the public someone shall always be willing to do so.

The supposed variations were CONCOCTED by analysing expermental data and taking the extremal values and getting a WRONG result. The experimental errors on those early measurements were very large.

How come modern measurments show no variation? Oh that's it it magically stopped slowing down just as experiments became sensitive enough. What a disgraceful crock - pure intellectual dishonesty of the first magnitude.

So many lines of evidence point to the value of c being constant over billions of years that Setterfield should be strung up for dishonesty. Of course he isn't a scientist - some Christian degree mill in Australia if I remember. He is a religious zealot with only one agenda - the simultaneous presentation of fake data whilst lining his own pockets from donations by the clueless.

And NO it is not possible the light took several thousand years instead of billions. So many observations show this is not the case and so many physical phenomena would have changed as to make the Universe not as we see it. It's not even joke science - it's just a joke for people with a childlike comprehension of science.

 

[rmills]

Quoted from: Ardeshir Mehta

No one -- and I mean no one -- has ever performed an experiment in a total vacuum to see whether the speed of light is really independent of the velocity of its source or observer, or both. Even the best vacuum on earth has thousands of molecules of air in it per cubic centimetre. There is no way a Michelson-Morley-type experiment can be performed in a man-made vacuum on earth, making sure the light avoids all contact with air.

And even in outer space there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum -- at least not in volumes of space large enough to perform such an experiment conclusively.

It is well-known that once light enters a medium, its speed changes from whatever it was earlier, to the speed of light which is specific to that medium. That, in fact, is how refraction works! Even the tiniest particle of such a medium affects light this way: witness the rainbow, created by refraction of light from tiny droplets of water.

As a result, even if light enters the air at a gazillion miles per hour, if its speed is measured after it enters the air, its speed will be measured as the speed of light that is specific to air.

And if the air is not moving relative to the observer, this will be the speed of light regardless of the direction the light is shining. Of course if the air is moving relative to the observer, the speed of the air will have to be added to or subtracted from the measured speed of the light, depending on direction -- since the Fizeau experiment shows that when a medium moves, the speed of the medium affects the speed of light in it correspondingly.

And this simple and straightforward explanation would account for the almost null result of all Michelson-Morley-type experiments.

Note that with this explanation, all evidence for assuming that the speed of light is a constant disappears -- and with it, all need for the Theory of Relativity.

Einstein once said words to the following effect: "Explanations should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". He should have followed his own advice -- the above explanation is as simple as possible, and there could hardly be any simpler!

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Quoted from: Ardeshir Mehta

No one -- and I mean no one -- has ever performed an experiment in a total vacuum to see whether the speed of light is really independent of the velocity of its source or observer, or both. Even the best vacuum on earth has thousands of molecules of air in it per cubic centimetre. There is no way a Michelson-Morley-type experiment can be performed in a man-made vacuum on earth, making sure the light avoids all contact with air.

A statement by somebody who has no clue about electromagnetism or how light propagates in a medium. Hint: you don't have to perform every experiment theoretically possible. Arrgh - why bother even explaining the why's of this - it would do no good. Go take some physics classes.

And even in outer space there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum -- at least not in volumes of space large enough to perform such an experiment conclusively.

As above - no clue at all about light and it's interaction with matter. A total disregard of physics - if our knowledge was on your rudimentary level we wouldn't even have light bulb or a steam engine yet.

It is well-known that once light enters a medium, its speed changes from whatever it was earlier, to the speed of light which is specific to that medium. That, in fact, is how refraction works! Even the tiniest particle of such a medium affects light this way: witness the rainbow, created by refraction of light from tiny droplets of water.

Starts off OK - then again COMPLETELY goes to idiocy with some silly comment about 'tiniest particle'. Again - no clue as to light propagation in a material medium.

As a result, even if light enters the air at a gazillion miles per hour, if its speed is measured after it enters the air, its speed will be measured as the speed of light that is specific to air.

Yawn - this is just getting dull

And if the air is not moving relative to the observer, this will be the speed of light regardless of the direction the light is shining. Of course if the air is moving relative to the observer, the speed of the air will have to be added to or subtracted from the measured speed of the light, depending on direction -- since the Fizeau experiment shows that when a medium moves, the speed of the medium affects the speed of light in it correspondingly.

LOL LOL LOL - shows me your physics knowledge is not even high school level. The above paragraph is pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this simple and straightforward explanation would account for the almost null result of all Michelson-Morley-type experiments.

WRONG!

Note that with this explanation, all evidence for assuming that the speed of light is a constant disappears -- and with it, all need for the Theory of Relativity.

Einstein once said words to the following effect: "Explanations should be as simple as possible, but not simpler". He should have followed his own advice -- the above explanation is as simple as possible, and there could hardly be any simpler!

COMPLETE HOMESPUN NONSENSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know how old you are rmills but if you are an adult this level of misconceptions and foolishness is FRIGHTENING!!

It shows a basic incapability of even understanding the rudiments of high school physics that should embarrass you.

Please learn some physics or quit writing tripe.

PS

You still haven't answered why our distance determinations would be affected by the atmosphere.

PPS

I actually don't mean insult above - but it just has to be said that you are way out of your depth in discussing physics based issues, to the point where explaining all your fallacies and misconceptions would take a couple of high school/freshman college textbooks. Thankfully that is not my job.

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

Oh my God!

I just went to this Ardeshir Mehta's website. ROTFLMAO.

He needs some help.

Anyone who gets their science of this guy needs to STOP NOW. This stuff will get you in a padded cell pronto!