Evidence for God from Science

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Jbuza wrote:The question of how can very distant stars can be sheding light in a young universe is answered by this new hypothesis. The new hypothesis, that may well be posed elsewhere, also explains how stars would shed light on a young evolved world resulting from a big bang.

Actally in this scenario the Earth would be 5 Billion Years old. Only from God's perspective will several days have gone by, as the Universe speeds up around him as he is in the event horizzon of the black hole.

Jbuza wrote:If as you say God, and is reasonable, was in the center of the universe when he created it, or if you would like the big bang was, than when the stars are created as the propell out from the point of creation they would leave there light trails behind them. IT appears from big bang the stars would have to expel outward faster than light in order to escape the swirling mass. Wouldn't it be the same for stars radiating out into the heavens from a point of creation?

Mass cannot acheive superluminous speeds as far as we can tell.

The stars moving relative to each other would experience similar time dialations. And the distance between then will continue to grow as they spread apart. The time it would take for us to see the distant stars remain the same in this situation.

Well I realize that if one were to hypothesize that God were a literal black hole that may be true. But God did not stay at those moments of creation he traveled forward with it. Actually a test was done that did make light travel faster than light, I posted or linked to it somewhere, but it certainly wasn't under normal conditions, but interesting. This is a problem for the big bang theory. We don't see things escaping from these black holes, we don't see matter escaping the gravity of swirling masses.

No that is false in this situation, as with the big bang, as the universe is spread out from the point of creation the stars would be emitting light while they were being spread out. There is no reason to conclude that planetary bodies from either theoretical explanation would be traveling the same speed they did during the moments of creation. IT is interesting to point out that some of the newest theories in space travel are investigating the fabric of space and trying to determine how it could be stretched and compressed.

A young earth as seen from the perspective of the big bang would also not have to wait for starlight to arrive. The stars as they were flung out into there galaxies would emit light in their travel as well.

So this distance to the stars thing and time for light travel really seem to be a non-issue. It is extremely difficult to say with any authority how far the farthest stars are, or exactly how light is transmitted through space; both these areas need further scientific investigation.

You seem to be confusing things. The measurement to the star shows that the light we are receiving now. It doesn't matter if at one point the star was closer. The apparent source of the image is not moving away, the image we see originated presicely where the image formed.

I'll give you an example.
I and a friend are together on a mountain top. My friend starts down the mountain side shining a flashlight in my direction. When I see that he has reached the bottom of the mountain I take a angle measurements from two locations and determine the distance he is away fom me. The image does not move only the origin of the image moves. I see that he has reached the bottom of the mountain.

The further away he travels the longer it takes for the light to reach me. As he continues further and further away I am seeing information which has taken more time to reach me. When he has walked 100 light years away I see him in a position he was at 100 years ago. However he has since moved on and I will never know his current position. However the image I see of him has indeed traveled 100 light years.

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: You seem to be confusing things. The measurement to the star shows that the light we are receiving now. It doesn't matter if at one point the star was closer. The apparent source of the image is not moving away, the image we see originated presicely where the image formed.

I don't believe that you can establish this as fact. So you are saying that you to reject that redshift is caused by the stars moving out? It is critical to know if the stars were closer. Yes I agree the image formed were it formed, but there is no way of knowing exactly were the image formed.

This was in responce to

Jbuza wrote:A young earth as seen from the perspective of the big bang would also not have to wait for starlight to arrive. The stars as they were flung out into there galaxies would emit light in their travel as well.

This statement would imply that the image did not emanate from where they apear to be emanating.

Jbuza wrote:

I'll give you an example.
I and a friend are together on a mountain top. My friend starts down the mountain side shining a flashlight in my direction. When I see that he has reached the bottom of the mountain I take a angle measurements from two locations and determine the distance he is away fom me. The image does not move only the origin of the image moves. I see that he has reached the bottom of the mountain.

The further away he travels the longer it takes for the light to reach me. As he continues further and further away I am seeing information which has taken more time to reach me. When he has walked 100 light years away I see him in a position he was at 100 years ago. However he has since moved on and I will never know his current position. However the image I see of him has indeed traveled 100 light years.

No this is not so the image you see of him will always be exactly were he was when he released that image. IF he started out pointing his light at you and started walking away, you would always be seeing him at his exact location. The image is being released all the time, so a steady stream of information is being released. For every second that passes you will be receiving a new image. When he is one lightyear away you would have received one years worth of information from him. That is the point I make you don't have to wait until he, or the stars get some distance away before you begin to see them, if they were shining there light the whole time they were moving away, than they would always be visible.

I do agree from what we know now we will never see the light the star makes today.

There is no reason to beleive that stars would wait until they were millions of light years away before they started shining light.

Sure there is. The stars are not waiting however.

Try this thought experiment.
You know that sound takes some time to travel to your ear.
Imagine if I start banging away on a drum and at the same time I start walking away.
The whole time you hear me banging on my drum. I can walk very slowly but eventually I will be several miles away. Yet the whole time you have been listening to me banging on my drum.

However you can then calculate that at this point that the sound from my drum will take aproximately 3 seconds to reach your ears. If I stop drumming and then begin again, you will not hear it for aproximately 3 seconds.

Another example tossing nerf balls at you at a constant rate. Lets say one a second. I do this as I slowly walk away. No matter how slowly I walk eventually I reach a distance of 100 yards. You can calculate that the ball will take aproximately 4 seconds to reach you. However the whole time you have been receiving nerf balls. If I stop throwing the balls and begin again, you will not receive the first new nerf ball untill approximately 4 seconds later.

A final example I am in a boat pouring water into the lake with a hose.
You are in another boat and slowly float away. You see the waves resulting from the hose comming towards your boat. You have been receiving the waves the entire time. At about 20 feet I stop pouring. Yet you still receive the waves from the pouring water for a short time after I have stopped pouring.

The problem is you think of the light as instaneous, however light acts as a wave. There is a finite speed to a light wave and even though you are receiving information at a constant rate the information wave is being stretched. When a star is at a significant distance from you the particular wave you are receiving has taken a considerable amount of time to reach your eyes.

gone

Jbuza wrote:The fact remains that stars in a young earth would be visible if they were proprelled outward from a point of creation

But if time has not progressed the stars could not have traveled as far as the appear to have.

Unless you are trying to say, that stars would appear farther than they actually were when the light left them.

Why are you so stubborn? You can't even acknowledge that the explanation I gave explains how given large distances what you see is not real-time. You disregard good points, this is very discouraging.

gone

gone

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: But if time has not progressed the stars could not have traveled as far as the appear to have.

This assumes we know the speed they traveled at. I know you will say, but if they traveled at the fastest speed known, than that still dictates xx billion years for them to get to there present position, which really isn't there present position, since we wont see light from there present position in our lives. Def. comples.

There is investigation about the ability to compress and expand the fabric of space itself. I am not sure that stars moved, it could quite probably be the fabric of space that is stretching.

Don't know.

Thank you, for finally conceding a point. And even comming up with a good point of your own.

=)

Space itself is stretching, we will have to do a mind experiment to see what would be the results. For this experiment we will assume space stretches where there is least matter. Mind you I do not know where this will lead.

Before I begin, some preliminery observations. Stretching of space will incur a redshift onto light from the stars.
Stretching of space will cause expansionism to appear to be accelerating.

[quote="Jbuza


I guess that is your interpretation, but IF God can operate at the speed of light, there is no reason he couldn't have done it in 6 literal days.

[/quote]

Speed would be defined as distance/time... God doesn't not exist within our time or our space...

However, the point I want to make, is yes '6 literal days' from GOD's perspective, GOD's reference frame. Which is NOT six literal days for earth... we are a different reference frame, one where GOD's 6 days equals 15 billion years, earth time...

gone

Jbuza wrote:
How do you know? He could exist in our space/time, but not be limited by them.

And you do?

SpaceCase wrote
However, the point I want to make, is yes '6 literal days' from GOD's perspective, GOD's reference frame. Which is NOT six literal days for earth... we are a different reference frame, one where GOD's 6 days equals 15 billion years, earth time

15 billion huh. How do you know. Well if he was on earth creating he would be in that space/time.

Both are extremely Speculative. But by current Data we humans have of Earth and the Heavens it is About 13.7 Billion Years old. Is that Data Correct... Well we can only be as correct as our minds will allow us to be

gone

Jbuza wrote:

bizzt wrote:

Jbuza wrote:
How do you know? He could exist in our space/time, but not be limited by them.

And you do?

SpaceCase wrote
However, the point I want to make, is yes '6 literal days' from GOD's perspective, GOD's reference frame. Which is NOT six literal days for earth... we are a different reference frame, one where GOD's 6 days equals 15 billion years, earth time

15 billion huh. How do you know. Well if he was on earth creating he would be in that space/time.

Both are extremely Speculative. But by current Data we humans have of Earth and the Heavens it is About 13.7 Billion Years old. Is that Data Correct... Well we can only be as correct as our minds will allow us to be

LOL No I don't know I only beleive it, but I am not trying to prove a universal negative, I am suggesting it is quite possible. God says he came into the garden of eden, that he moved across the face of the waters, and appeared to men at different times, so I simply conclude that it ispossible for God to exist in our Space/Time when he wants.

I don't agree there is any evdience to suggest the earth is 13.7 billion years old. Such as?

The Speed of Light for one... How far our Distant Stars are away from us. There is no reason for us to not believe something as basic as that.

gone