The other day, an atheist showed me evidence that the earth and the universe are both older than I thought. He said that scientists can see stars that are so far away, it would take a hundreds of millions of years just for this light to reach us. Clearly this contradicts my beliefs, and we simply can't have any of that, so I propose a theory. God must have realized it would be really nice for us to have a bunch of stars to look at, so because of how much he loves us he must have moved the googolplex+ of photons from the trillions of stars closer to the earth, when he created it 6000 years ago. What do you guys think?Huh?
The other day, an atheist showed me evidence that the earth and the universe are both older than I thought. He said that scientists can see stars that are so far away, it would take a hundreds of millions of years just for this light to reach us. Clearly this contradicts my beliefs, and we simply can't have any of that, so I propose a theory. God must have realized it would be really nice for us to have a bunch of stars to look at, so because of how much he loves us he must have moved the googolplex+ of photons from the trillions of stars closer to the earth, when he created it 6000 years ago. What do you guys think?Huh?
I had a similar argument with a young earth creationist once. I was stumped after the person made up some reasons for distant starlight.
The other day, an atheist showed me evidence that the earth and the universe are both older than I thought. He said that scientists can see stars that are so far away, it would take a hundreds of millions of years just for this light to reach us. Clearly this contradicts my beliefs, and we simply can't have any of that, so I propose a theory. God must have realized it would be really nice for us to have a bunch of stars to look at, so because of how much he loves us he must have moved the googolplex+ of photons from the trillions of stars closer to the earth, when he created it 6000 years ago. What do you guys think?Huh?
What he's saying is that if the Earth really is only about 6 to 10 thousand years old, how can we see galaxies that are billions of light years away?
Which is a damn good point.
Time is relative.
It seems to based on the idea that we are relatively still.
Time is relative.I agree. This is why I'll never agree with the 'age' of the earth. There's no absolute measurement for time or space.
It would be more correct to say that (if space time was uniform, which it isn't):It seems to based on the idea that we are relatively still.
???????
It would be more correct to say that (if space time was uniform, which it isn't):It seems to based on the idea that we are relatively still.
???????
At this point in space, that light source took 15 billions to reach here from it's previous position of 15 billion years ago.
Time is relative.I agree. This is why I'll never agree with the 'age' of the earth. There's no absolute measurement for time or space.
To be specific, we're talking about atomic time, right?It would be more correct to say that (if space time was uniform, which it isn't):It seems to based on the idea that we are relatively still.
???????
At this point in space, that light source took 15 billions to reach here from it's previous position of 15 billion years ago.
obvious much? We are still seeing the stars in their positions 15 billion years ago, but of course they aren't there any more.Time is relative.I agree. This is why I'll never agree with the 'age' of the earth. There's no absolute measurement for time or space.
What is an "absolute measurement", one made by god? Measurement systems are by definition subjective amounts, but why would that prevent you from agreeing that the earth is 4.54 Billion years old?
What is an "absolute measurement", one made by god? Measurement systems are by definition subjective amounts, but why would that prevent you from agreeing that the earth is 4.54 Billion years old?To be specific, we're talking about atomic time, right?
What is an "absolute measurement", one made by god? Measurement systems are by definition subjective amounts, but why would that prevent you from agreeing that the earth is 4.54 Billion years old?To be specific, we're talking about atomic time, right?
So, for arguments sake, say it took longer for the Earth to go around the sun 4.5 billion atomic time years ago, we could have any number of trips around the sun since then, letting both (theoretically) 10k Earth years and 4.5 billion atomic years be accurate.
This is also assuming that atomic clocks have been completely stable for the last 4.5 billion years with absolutely 0% change.
What is an "absolute measurement", one made by god? Measurement systems are by definition subjective amounts, but why would that prevent you from agreeing that the earth is 4.54 Billion years old?To be specific, we're talking about atomic time, right?
So, for arguments sake, say it took longer for the Earth to go around the sun 4.5 billion atomic time years ago, we could have any number of trips around the sun since then, letting both (theoretically) 10k Earth years and 4.5 billion atomic years be accurate.
This is also assuming that atomic clocks have been completely stable for the last 4.5 billion years with absolutely 0% change.
-10k Earth years would not be possible unless god also drastically altered the earth to move slower or somehow keep its relatively moderate temperature while moving it incredibly far from the sun. YEC would never accept that the earth is 4.5 billion atomic years anyways, so its irrelevant.
-Why would we ever assume atomic time has changed?
What is an "absolute measurement", one made by god? Measurement systems are by definition subjective amounts, but why would that prevent you from agreeing that the earth is 4.54 Billion years old?To be specific, we're talking about atomic time, right?
So, for arguments sake, say it took longer for the Earth to go around the sun 4.5 billion atomic time years ago, we could have any number of trips around the sun since then, letting both (theoretically) 10k Earth years and 4.5 billion atomic years be accurate.
This is also assuming that atomic clocks have been completely stable for the last 4.5 billion years with absolutely 0% change.
-10k Earth years would not be possible unless god also drastically altered the earth to move slower or somehow keep its relatively moderate temperature while moving it incredibly far from the sun. YEC would never accept that the earth is 4.5 billion atomic years anyways, so its irrelevant.
-Why would we ever assume atomic time has changed?
Lol, why would you ever assume it constant, and what would you be basing this off of?
10k Earth years would be possible if:
We are progressively slowing our motion around the sun relative to atomic time;
or atomic time has been progressively slowing down.
Unless you can prove the relationship between atomic time and earth time to be absolute over this apparent 4.5 billion year period, the claim that the Earth is (relatively) 4.5 billion years old is hogwash.
I think we can assume certain things are constants after they have been thoroughly tested to be constants. Similarly to how we can assume the earth is not flat after thoroughly examining it to be flat.
The other day, an atheist showed me evidence that the earth and the universe are both older than I thought. He said that scientists can see stars that are so far away, it would take a hundreds of millions of years just for this light to reach us. Clearly this contradicts my beliefs, and we simply can't have any of that, so I propose a theory. God must have realized it would be really nice for us to have a bunch of stars to look at, so because of how much he loves us he must have moved the trillion trillion trillion+ of photons from the trillions of stars closer to the earth, when he created it 6000 years ago. What do you guys think?
The other day, an atheist showed me evidence that the earth and the universe are both older than I thought. He said that scientists can see stars that are so far away, it would take a hundreds of millions of years just for this light to reach us. Clearly this contradicts my beliefs, and we simply can't have any of that, so I propose a theory. God must have realized it would be really nice for us to have a bunch of stars to look at, so because of how much he loves us he must have moved the trillion trillion trillion+ of photons from the trillions of stars closer to the earth, when he created it 6000 years ago. What do you guys think?Yes. God is a trickster. Gives you reason. So you conclude that God given reason is at fault. That would make God a trickster. Why does love demand such dishonest trickery?
How do we know that they are billions of miles away?
How do we know that they are billions of miles away?Trigonometry. Parallax.
Unless we're moving through time at a different speed than the light sources. Then your measurements go to crap.How do we know that they are billions of miles away?Trigonometry. Parallax.
But we are not. We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time. As is every observer.Unless we're moving through time at a different speed than the light sources. Then your measurements go to crap.How do we know that they are billions of miles away?Trigonometry. Parallax.
That statement is untrue. How can we measure time with speed? Speed is the quotient of distance/time.But we are not. We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time. As is every observer.Unless we're moving through time at a different speed than the light sources. Then your measurements go to crap.How do we know that they are billions of miles away?Trigonometry. Parallax.
No. Speed is the movement of one thing compared to the movement of another. Time is a measurement of distance. A clock measures movement. Speed is distance Y/distance Z. Velocity is the change in position of one thing compared to the change in position of another.That statement is untrue. How can we measure time with speed? Speed is the quotient of distance/time.But we are not. We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time. As is every observer.Unless we're moving through time at a different speed than the light sources. Then your measurements go to crap.How do we know that they are billions of miles away?Trigonometry. Parallax.
That's like defining a word with itself.
Example: What is a chicken? A chicken-like animal.
Great, so we figured out that it's an animal, but that's it.
You made every bit of that up. Zero truth to that. However, I'll give you the chance to link to some source information that (even if very remotely) attempts to make such statements.No. Speed is the movement of one thing compared to the movement of another. Time is a measurement of distance. A clock measures movement. Speed is distance Y/distance Z. Velocity is the change in position of one thing compared to the change in position of another.That statement is untrue. How can we measure time with speed? Speed is the quotient of distance/time.But we are not. We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time. As is every observer.Unless we're moving through time at a different speed than the light sources. Then your measurements go to crap.How do we know that they are billions of miles away?Trigonometry. Parallax.
That's like defining a word with itself.
Example: What is a chicken? A chicken-like animal.
Great, so we figured out that it's an animal, but that's it.
You made every bit of that up. Zero truth to that. However, I'll give you the chance to link to some source information that (even if very remotely) attempts to make such statements.Nah, I didn't make it up. I read it in the tea leaves.
http://www.forbes.com/2008/02/28/what-is-time-oped-time08-cx_ee_0229thought_slide_6.html?thisSpeed=undefinedhttp://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/
A Revaluation of Time. (http://milesmathis.com/time.html) I apologize for putting up Forbes as an authority.
While I quoted a university on the topic of relativity, you quoted some douche-bag's home page.
You can't measure 'time.' You can record the amount/frequency of events during a set period of time, but you cannot measure time itself.
So, if the 'flow' of time is not constant througout the universe, then it's impossible to say how far away something is by measuring it's apparent distance utilizing the speed of light.
While I quoted a university on the topic of relativity, you quoted some douche-bag's home page.Wow. You won't even look at Mathis's points long enough to discover they are your own. Cheap ad hominems instead. Impressive.
You can't measure 'time.'Careful. You're sounding a lot like some douche bag. He says the same.
You can record the amount/frequency of events during a set period of time, ...Now who's calling a chicken a chicken?
...amount/frequency of events during a period of time.That's like defining a word with itself.
...but you cannot measure time itself.Spot on. I agree with you. So does Mathis the douche bag.
So, if the 'flow' of time is not constant throughout the universe, then it's impossible to say how far away something is by measuring it's apparent distance utilizing the speed of light.Far out. So all measurements of distance by figuring parallax are scams? Optical range finders. (http://www.nextag.com/range_-_finder/shop-html)
Investigate relativity, it becomes quite clear.I don't know why my statement that parallax and trigonometry could determine the distance of a star in excess of a billion miles away caused you to say it used the speed of light in its calculations. Hold your finger in front of your right eye at arms length with left eye shut. Hold your finger still and then close your right eye and open the left and not that your finger moves relative to the background. The arc length of the angle is used to determine distance with trig. In fact that is what the term "parsec" is derived from; parallax and arcseconds. Parallax. The apparent change in position of an object when seen from two different points of view.
Show us the parallax calculations which calculates a star out to "billions of light years away".Gee whiz. You'd asked for how to do it for "billions of miles". Are you acknowledging that parallax calculations measures distances to stars billions of miles away, even trillions?
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.
It doesn't exist.
Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.
It doesn't exist.
Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.
Show me a calculation that shows stars not to be billions or millions of light years away.
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.
It doesn't exist.
Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.
Show me a calculation that shows stars not to be billions or millions of light years away.
Look out of your window. See any stars? Thought not.
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.All the colour tells you is how fast it is moving away. The colour of a star doesn't tell you the distance.
It doesn't exist.
Astronomers use the color of the stars (doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative doppler shift of light hypothesis.
All the colour tells you is how fast it is moving away. The colour of a star doesn't tell you the distance.
Show me a parallax calculation which calculates a star to be billions or millions of light years away.The calculation is hindered, at those distances, by the inability of our instruments to resolve a signal out of the noise "p" in the equation d=1/p. It does work. Beyond even the limits you specified originally as well as within them. I could be wrong. But where?
It doesn't exist.
Astronomers use the color of the stars (Doppler shift), not parallax, for their hypothesis of stars being "billions" or "millions" of light years away. It's a very loose guess based on the unconfirmed and speculative Doppler shift of light hypothesis.Certain apparent positions of quasars in front of less distant galaxies have certainly caused astrophysicists some headaches, but not enough to downgrade the Doppler Effect to that of a hypothesis.
Why do you say the Doppler Effect is speculative? The effect of movement, relative to the observer, on the frequency of observed light is understood.
See Mossbauer effect.QuoteWhy do you say the Doppler Effect is speculative? The effect of movement, relative to the observer, on the frequency of observed light is understood.
The Doppler Effect of sound is not speculative because it can be easily reproduced. For example, when one hears a train pass by the pitch changes as it approaches and passes you.
The Doppler Effect of light, in contrast, is entirely speculative because it has not been reproduced. No one has seen blue or red tinted trains, for example. The Doppler Effect of light exists only as an untested hypothesis.
Therefore the meaning of looking up at a blue tinted star does not automatically lead one to conclude that it must be moving toward the earth. It could be blue for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the star is just blue.