Movey light theory

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 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?

Quote from: Sadistic on March 31, 2010, 05:16:24 PM

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.

I had a similar argument with a young earth creationist once.  I was stumped after the person made up some reasons for distant starlight.

I realize that a googol and especially a googolplex is far greater than the actual number of photons god would have to move, so instead ill just say a trillion trillion trillion+

I had a similar argument with a young earth creationist once.  I was stumped after the person made up some reasons for distant starlight.

Some say that god made photons faster earlier in time, but seeing as that would drastically effect the universe (why E=mc^2 of course), I think my theory is much more accurate.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 05:19:44 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on March 31, 2010, 05:16:24 PM

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.

That's a good question.  But what's always bothered me with this is...So, if the light takes billions of years to reach us, then nothing is where it appears to be, right?
It seems to based on the idea that we are relatively still.  However, we are also moving, and the stars in the sky is just light that happens to be intersecting our field of view at this specific moment in time, from billions of years ago.
That's what I love about relativity.  We don't know absolutely when anything happened, or where it happened.  We also seem to argue for uniform space time, which I think is fallacy.
If there are super massive black holes at the centers of these distant galaxies, most of the time light spends propagating on it's way towards us would be spent within that black hole's gravitational influence.

Note:  I just edited this post.

Time is relative.

Time is relative.

Very good!! *pats parsec on head* Now go along and play with your friends.

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.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 05:28:15 PM

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):
At this point in space, that light source took 15 billions to reach here from it's previous position of 15 billion years ago.

Quote from: Sadistic on March 31, 2010, 05:34:00 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 05:28:15 PM

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):
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.

Quote from: parsec on March 31, 2010, 05:31:33 PM

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?

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 05:37:24 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on March 31, 2010, 05:34:00 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 05:28:15 PM

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):
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.

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 05:35:07 PM

Quote from: parsec on March 31, 2010, 05:31:33 PM

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?

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.

I refer you to the equations in this article about uniformly accelerated motion:

If an observer starts from rest with a proper acceleration a and a point a distance d along the axis of motion shines a light signal at t = 0 towards the observer, then the equation of motion of the observer is:
and of the light front:
where is the proper time for the observer.

The light ray will hit the observer when their coordinates are equal. By equating the right hand sides of the above equations, we get an equation for . Some algebra and hyperbolic trigonometry should convince you that the solution is:
It is important to appreciate the logarithmic dependence of the reception time on the distance for large distances. This is much slower than a linear dependence. Or in another way, we can solve for is we know . The equation is:
Let us take = 6000 y and a = g = 9.81 m/s². Then, = 0.970 y (see here). With these figures, it is easy to show that d ~ 10²⁶⁸⁶ light years, a far bigger figure than the RE accepted size of the Universe.

So, yes, time is relative.

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.
[/quote]

-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?

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:03:23 PM

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?
[/quote]

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.

Quote from: Sadistic on March 31, 2010, 06:21:35 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:03:23 PM

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.
[/quote]

Ah, I looked up atomic time, and it is far different from what I interpreted it to mean.

We can believe that our planet earth is 4.5 billion (current earth) years old based on radioactive half life measurements, which is what I interpreted atomic time to mean for some reason. We know that decay is constant, if it wasn't, that would mean the weak nuclear force and the electrostatic force are not constant either, and our solar system would have collapsed by now (seeing as their perfection is a very common argument from design, i'm surprised you didn't know that).



p.s. what does "absolute" even mean in this context? I hope it doesn't just mean standards so hard as to make it impossible to succeed, sort of like asking evolutionary biologists to find every single transitional fossil from one particular species to the next....

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:58:45 PM

Quote from: Sadistic on March 31, 2010, 06:21:35 PM

Quote from: Mizzle on March 31, 2010, 06:03:23 PM

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.

Ah, I looked up atomic time, and it is far different from what I interpreted it to mean.

We can believe that our planet earth is 4.5 billion (current earth) years old based on radioactive half life measurements, which is what I interpreted atomic time to mean for some reason. We know that decay is constant, if it wasn't, that would mean the weak nuclear force and the electrostatic force are not constant either, and our solar system would have collapsed by now (seeing as their perfection is a very common argument from design, i'm surprised you didn't know that).



p.s. what does "absolute" even mean in this context? I hope it doesn't just mean standards so hard as to make it impossible to succeed, sort of like asking evolutionary biologists to find every single transitional fossil from one particular species to the next....

[/quote]

Watched the video...pretty standard stuff there.
So, what it's asserting is that radio active decay is constant over time.  Although I don't think this is definitively proved, just statistically proved, that's not the issue here.
The rate of decay also assumes time is constant.  If time isn't constant, meaning that the rate of time flows faster or slower locally than other places in the universe, such as inside a black hole, there's no definitive way to know for sure how 'old' something is, because age is relative.
When there's a uniform base measurement for space time throughout the universe so we can calculate the alteration locally, we'll have something to work with.

What do you think?

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.

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.

Where has time shown to be a constant?  I know it's employed as a constant, but that doesn't make it so.

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?

And your figure of 6000 years is derived how?

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?

Come on guys....really?

How do we know that they are billions of miles away?

How do we know that they are billions of miles away?

I love this guy 

How do we know that they are billions of miles away?

Trigonometry.  Parallax.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2010, 12:13:05 PM

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.

Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 01:34:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2010, 12:13:05 PM

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.

But we are not.  We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time.  As is every observer.

Quote from: Mizzle on April 18, 2010, 01:36:29 PM

Quote from: minorwork on April 18, 2010, 01:34:29 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2010, 12:13:05 PM

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.

But we are not.  We are, each of us, moving at the speed of light thru time.  As is every observer.

That statement is untrue.  How can we measure time with speed?  Speed is the quotient of distance/time.
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.