Supernova Observation

[Canuckster1127]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... news_rss20

This might have some impact on better establishing the age of the universe based upon firming up measurements based upon the speed of light and distance covered.

Not that there's a lot of debate in the science field on that. However, it is a common argument by those who hold to a young earth that it is an unreasonable or incorrect assumption to believe that the speed of light has always been constant.

Maybe more will be forthcoming with data being collected on this event.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

There is no strong evidence to support the idea that the speed of light used to be significantly different (who knows), but there is stong evidence that the distance to the stars has not been constant.

Of course the distance has not been constant. The universe is expanding and apparently from a common point. That change in distance is evidenced based upon such factors as red-shifting, luminosity and the candle-power intensity of the light being received. Instances such as these super-novae introduce new factors that allow for further collaboration and inference based upon new data. In all of this the speed of light is a presumed constant upon which the conclusions rest. So what is your point?

The white hole cosmology has done the best job of addressing the apparent problem that would exist if one accepts as facts the assumptions of modern cosmology.

White hole cosmology to my knowledge, which is admittedly not exhaustive, has more to do with the "recycling" or method of release of that which is drawn into a black hole than with the standard measures of light speed. There are implications in terms of gravity upon the path of light, but not upon speed in open space of which I am aware. What are you referring to here?

Of course the idea that light only travels at "light speed" in a vacuum is based upon some pretty weak theories of relativity.

Really? I was under the impression that the speed of light itself is a foundation, not a derivative of said theories. Weak according to who and upon what basis?

After all when one tries to solve light speed using relativity the equation comes up against some impossibilities. Including infinite mass, infinite size, and infinite energy.

Source?

It is clear to me that there are enough questions about the workings of space, light transmission, expansion, and others, that we would have to leave fact and knowns aside and talk about suppositions.

That does seem to be a fairly consistent modus operandi in speaking with you on these issues. You don't like the conclusions and so rather than offering a viable, testable, proven or even likely counter-explanation the focus seems to be upon contrarianism and obfuscation and to leave the observer thinking that a young earth or universe is as likely an explanation than any. The problem with that is that information is continually accruing and at some point you need to synthesize it into some model or theory to bring meaning from it. YEC seems notably short in that area.

We see the practical results in terms of technology and theoretical advances today which demonstrate the probability and efficacy of the advances being made. How are those possible if the conclusions and even the foundation of the theoretical constant of the speed of light and distance are so unclear?

The distance questions, as I understand them are focused upon the presumed singularity immediately following the big bang. The issues involved with super-novae are not based directly upon distances in that period. We're talking here about good old normal, post big-bang existence and not the theoretical nano-seconds immediately following the big bang itself that is the focus of the types of issues I think you may be referring to. In fact, that they are consistent despite differing occurence times and utilizing such factors as red-shifting, luminosity and intensity speaks to the constancy of the speed of light within this time frame.

What is it that you know in this area that I don't?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

There is no strong evidence to support the idea that the speed of light used to be significantly different (who knows), but there is stong evidence that the distance to the stars has not been constant.

This doesn't factor into the equation at all. The distance we are measuring when we see a star is the point at which the light was emmitted. The actual distance to the star is unknown, it is even posible that the star we are "seeing" is no longer there. Here's an analogy.
Lets say you and a friend are tossing a football around in the park. On his last toss you go long and after he tosses the ball he starts running away from you towards the far end of the park. You can calculate the distance covered by noting the position of your friend when he released the ball. A star is like your friend, each photon is like a football, as the star is moving away it is releasing these balls, the ball we capture today has with it information regarding the distance the star was when it released the ball. The photon covered the distance it traveled regardless of the movement of the various parties involved.

Of course the idea that light only travels at "light speed" in a vacuum is based upon some pretty weak theories of relativity. After all when one tries to solve light speed using relativity the equation comes up against some impossibilities. Including infinite mass, infinite size, and infinite energy.

The idea is based on measurement, the equations are based on experimental results. If it worked the other way around it would simply not be science.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

Interesting article.

The conclusion kinda says it all, doesn't it?

Conclusion

The amount and passage of time in the cosmos is pertinent to the creationist because we need to interpret the evidence within a self-consistent framework of the model we adopt. Therefore in a model of type 1) or type 3), which incorporate astronomical time, explanations of
the rotation curves in galaxies,28 the Tully-Fisher law29 or the apparent excess of mass inferred from the dynamics of equilibrium clusters of galaxies become an issue to creationist cosmology.

A new model, of a type similar to Humphreys', has been described that allows billions of years to pass in the cosmos but only 24 hours on Earth during Day 4. In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress and enormous time dilation occurs between Earth clocks and astronomical clocks. This solves the light-travel-time problem faced by creationist cosmology and makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis account. No nonphysical requirements are placed on the model.

After going through all the "science" the solution is that "the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress ..."

Further, the article itself does not appear to be peer reviewed. I see that the author, Hartnett has credentials and articles that have been peer reviewed. I suspect not with this material however.

Why bother going through all the mental gymnastics and in the end effectively just state that it doesn't matter anyway because the goal is one which "... makes all astronomical evidence fit the Genesis Account."

That's not the real goal, in my opinion. The goal is to make all astronomical evidence fit the YEC interpretation of the Genesis account.

Why even bother incorporating science into such an article? Just start with your conclusion and make all the evidence say what you want. It'll save a lot of time.

No wonder this had to be published by AIG. It's preaching to the choir and no scientific journal or publication that is peer reviewed and accepts the scientific method would give it more than 5 seconds consideration.

No sarcasm intended. This is just poor science, poor reason, and a very poor defense on a scientific level. It is a good representation, however of what holding a YEC position leads to, in my opinion.

[Canuckster1127]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... news_rss20

Another article showing advances in this arena.

[Jbuza]

gone

[Canuckster1127]

First I will say that special creation by God by definition suspends the laws of physics, if you can't accept that then I'm not sure what else to say about that.

Secondly peer reviewers are not the determiners of truth.

Thirdly you seem to be doing an excellent job of trying to clense this website of any YEC thought.

IT appears the party line is, "since we know the earth to be old, anything suggesting the earth to be young must be foolishness."

I'm glad that science is a happy group that can live in harmony knowing there decrees to be enlightened and above alternative possiblities. Some of the acadmic robes are begining to smell rotted an putrid. Holding onto possiblities as if they are truth then demanding proof for alternative possiblities is well . . . FUNNY.

And lastly I am convinced that we know far, far less than we think we do.

What is science falsley so called, and why did God see fit to have it in his Living and Holy Word?

Jbuza,

Science falsely so called is gnosticism in the context of the passage referred to, and your use of it in this context is remarkably out of context.

A site you have referred to on other occassions appeals to YEC supporters to not use this type of misapplication of hermeneutics because they believe it damages their cause.

Here's the link and their admonition in this regard.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... nt_use.asp

“The phrase 'science falsely so called' in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.”

To develop a scriptural model properly, we must understand what the author intended to communicate to his intended audience, which in turn is determined by the grammar and historical context. We must not try to read into Scripture that which appears to support a particular viewpoint. The original Greek word translated “science” is gnosis, and in this context refers to the elite esoteric “knowledge” that was the key to the mystery religions, which later developed into the heresy of Gnosticism. This was not an error by the KJV translators, but an illustration of how many words have changed their meanings over time. The word “science” originally meant “knowledge,” from the Latin scientia, from scio, meaning “to know.” This original meaning is just not the way it is used today, so modern translations correctly render the word as “knowledge” in this passage.

Of course AiG believes that evolution is anti-knowledge because it clouds the minds of many to the abundant evidence of God's action in creation and the true knowledge available in His Word, the Bible. But as this page points out, it is wrong to use fallacious arguments to support a true viewpoint. On a related matter, it is linguistically fallacious to claim that even now, “science really means knowledge,” because meaning is determined by usage, not derivation (etymology).

Aside from the fact that the science we are discussing here is not evolution, the point derived is still the same.

I'm very happy to have YEC supporters here. If I were to go on a YEC site I would expect to be vigorously challenged and I should be. This site unapologetically is an Old Earth Site and you should expect to be challenged on your claims.

Maybe others haven't been as strong on it in the past. I don't know. I've been asked to be a part of it as a participant and a moderator and I will ask hard questions without apology just as I expect you will in terms of your position.

I do not profess to know everything nor do I believe we can. I rather suspect many of my understanding will change as I grow and as more information becomes available.

I believe wholeheartedly in the Bible and I believe it to be in harmony with all Truth including the truth of the natural world as explored and interpretted in science.

Science is not infallible and it often wrong. Sometime spectacularly so.

The Bible is infallible but theology is not. Theology is man's interpretation of that scripture and I think everyone, YEC and OEC included needs to have some humility and be able to admit to being wrong in their interpretation of something without equating their belief as the Bible itself.

I'm kinda hoping you may do that in terms of your use of this passage in a manner that even YEC proponents have come to rcognize as a misuse of Scripture.

That's up to you however.

I have been rough on you.

Frankly, I have some respect for you verses some of the other drive-by types we see here who cut and run when asked the tough questions.

I don't question your faith or your sincerity. I hope you don't mine either, but that is up to you.

It's a risk you take when you mix things up in this field. It can be an emotional experience.

Blessings,

Bart

[Jbuza]

gone

[dad]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... news_rss20

This might have some impact on better establishing the age of the universe based upon firming up measurements based upon the speed of light and distance covered.

Sorry, but that is same past, same light speculations. Lightspeed was constant only since we were left with present light. No matter what expansion occurred in the last several thousand years, it used to get here pronto, as the different light.

Not that there's a lot of debate in the science field on that. However, it is a common argument by those who hold to a young earth that it is an unreasonable or incorrect assumption to believe that the speed of light has always been constant.

Not with me. I agree, more or less. But our light has only been here 4400 years or so.

[Canuckster1127]

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... news_rss20

This might have some impact on better establishing the age of the universe based upon firming up measurements based upon the speed of light and distance covered.

Sorry, but that is same past, same light speculations. Lightspeed was constant only since we were left with present light. No matter what expansion occurred in the last several thousand years, it used to get here pronto, as the different light.

Not that there's a lot of debate in the science field on that. However, it is a common argument by those who hold to a young earth that it is an unreasonable or incorrect assumption to believe that the speed of light has always been constant.

Not with me. I agree, more or less. But our light has only been here 4400 years or so.

Dad,

Does your belief in "present light" have any basis in provable observation or do you draw it as a necessary truth based solely on your understanding of Scripture?

[Canuckster1127]

A couple of articles I found to be interesting

http://metanexus.net/metanexus_online/s ... sp?id=8531

http://www.aloha.net/~johnboy/Quantum_T ... hought.htm

http://home.gwi.net/~erichard/fastlit.htm

Jbuza,

Those are interesting articles.

I've often wondered if perhaps at some point understanding of these types of physics might not develop to a point where a reconciling perspective might not emerge that allows for both a literal 24 hour day and a day-age perspective based upon different points of reference.

The problem with that that I see based on current knowledge is the type of physics referenced seem to apply more in the neighborhood of the big bang itself which was about 14.7 billion years ago and then the formation of our solar system which relatively speaking was a much more recent development of 4.7 billion or so years ago.

Frankly, I think it unnecessarily superimposes elements into the Genesis Text to require that text to incorporate modern science concepts that were not understood by the original audience and certainly not understood by the vessel of writing the inspired text, in this case Moses.

The purpose of Genesis was not to provide us with scientific theory. It was to establish cause tied to God and then his development of the Nation of Israel.

Both of us for instance believe firmly that God created this world. We differ as to means, but not cause.

Thanks for the links. I encourage others to read them as well. They are interesting and bear on much that we are discussing here and in other threads.

[Jbuza]

gone

[dad]

Dad,

Does your belief in "present light" have any basis in provable observation or do you draw it as a necessary truth based solely on your understanding of Scripture?

The present light is quite provable and observable. In fact, it is the only light we have ever known, or science.

The light in heaven is different than this. As was, I contend, the past light.