# The Heavens Declare The Glory Of God



## Guest (Mar 10, 2004)

This image un-hinges my mind. . . . .

Does anyone know any good resources on Cosmology written from a Christian world-view ? ? ?


[img:d132ea3fb9]http://63.147.65.169/full_jpg.jpg[/img:d132ea3fb9]


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2004)

That book you mentioned is free online here:


http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/jjne.pdf


Have you heard of Stanley Jaki ? ? ?
Is he any good ? ?


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2004)

Very cool.


I am wondering about the appearance of starlight and the vast amount of time implied in the image above. 
You are looking at objects existing so far in the past that they may not even exist anymore, and other objects may now be in their place .. . . 

Is it not also interesting that scientists postulate that if we could see back far 
enough we would eventually focus in on nothing but a blazing wall of light. . ..

[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2004)

I hold to the appearance of age concept. Adam was a full grown man when created.
So the world, galaxy, universe could be a full grown universe with the appearance of age. But that sound so simplistic that I would like to hear some other views as well.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:72d2dc616b]
Are the stars still there? 
[/quote:72d2dc616b]

I do not know.

And are there other solar systems with living creatures in those galaxies ? ? ?


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:2a574bcb25][i:2a574bcb25]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:2a574bcb25]
I hold to the appearance of age concept. Adam was a full grown man when created.
So the world, galaxy, universe could be a full grown universe with the appearance of age. But that sound so simplistic that I would like to hear some other views as well. [/quote:2a574bcb25]

I am not sure about this view, and I have held it to some degree, but someone brought up a good point. Would God creating an image of something not really there make Him to be a liar? The same concept applies to the idea that modern science(at least that is what geologist say) insists on an old-earth. I think that is a stetch, but maybe you could address it anyway?

I lean young earth, but am not real sure.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:045a34fe86]
Would God creating an image of something not really there make Him to be a liar?
[/quote:045a34fe86]

If you are referring to the apparent age/distance of the galaxies above, then no, it does not make Him a liar. 
They really were there, and it took x amount of time for the light to travel here.

And He really did make Adam a grown man. 
Could He not as easily make the Universe a fully grown universe, as old as we perceive it.

Then again, how trustworthy is human perception ? ? 
(Without getting into cartesian implications)



[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2004)

:shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked::shocked:

OK, think about this for a minute . . . 

Each object in the photo above is a galaxy. Even the smallest ones.
Not stars but galaxies.

Each galaxy has a billion stars or more.

The field of view is something equivalent to like 10% of our moon.

Now think about this. . . . 

The Bible says somewhere I think that God knows them all BY NAME ! ! ! ! ! !

And what does this say about the promise of Abraham when he looked up at the night sky and God told him hid descendants would be that vast in number. . . . . 



AWESOME ! !! ! !

[Edited on 3-11-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## pastorway (Mar 10, 2004)

I also agree with the idea of creation with the appearance of age....

oooh, think about that for a minute.

Paul, Visigoth, and I ALL AGREE ON SOMETHING!

Whooo-Hooooo!

Phillip:tongue::spin::tumble:


----------



## Gregg (Mar 10, 2004)

Commander Bouncy hopes to 1 day be the first bouncing head in space.


----------



## raderag (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:90c0f9bdcc][i:90c0f9bdcc]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:90c0f9bdcc]
[quote:90c0f9bdcc]
Would God creating an image of something not really there make Him to be a liar?
[/quote:90c0f9bdcc]

If you are referring to the apparent age/distance of the galaxies above, then no, it does not make Him a liar. 
They really were there, and it took x amount of time for the light to travel here.

And He really did make Adam a grown man. 
Could He not as easily make the Universe a fully grown universe, as old as we perceive it.

Then again, how trustworthy is human perception ? ? 
(Without getting into cartesian implications)



[Edited on 3-10-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:90c0f9bdcc]

The point is that we see stars that are older than creation(according to young earth). Therefore, we would see stars that never existed. Do you see where I am coming from?


----------



## fredtgreco (Mar 10, 2004)

[quote:c027797333][i:c027797333]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:c027797333]
I also agree with the idea of creation with the appearance of age....

oooh, think about that for a minute.

Paul, Visigoth, and I ALL AGREE ON SOMETHING!

Whooo-Hooooo!

Phillip:tongue::spin::tumble: [/quote:c027797333]


I diagree vehemently!!!
















Oh wait, I do agree. I'm just so used to disagreeing. 

never mind. :smug_b:


----------



## Gregg (Mar 10, 2004)

Mrs. Appleby's 4th grade math class also agrees.


:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:

:yes::yes::yes::yes::yes:


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

[quote:0469976966]
The point is that we see stars that are older than creation(according to young earth). 
Therefore, we would see stars that never existed. 
Do you see where I am coming from? 

[/quote:0469976966]

Sort of. 

But how can they be older than creation merely because He created them old ? ? ?

Do you mean older in appearance than the chronological account of the Bible ? ? ?

When considering the omnipotence of the God of that same Bible, I suppose we would have 
to conclude that He is not lying because He never said He did not make everything instantaneously 
with real agedness. (does that sentance even make sens ? ?)

[Edited on 3-11-2004 by Visigoth]


----------



## raderag (Mar 11, 2004)

[quote:5a562b1ecd][i:5a562b1ecd]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:5a562b1ecd]
[quote:5a562b1ecd]
The point is that we see stars that are older than creation(according to young earth). 
Therefore, we would see stars that never existed. 
Do you see where I am coming from? 

[/quote:5a562b1ecd]

Sort of. 

But how can they be older than creation merely because He created them old ? ? ?

Do you mean older in appearance than the chronological account of the Bible ? ? ?

When considering the omnipotence of the God of that same Bible, I suppose we would have 
to conclude that He is not lying because He never said He did not make everything instantaneously 
with real agedness. (does that sentance even make sens ? ?)

[Edited on 3-11-2004 by Visigoth] [/quote:5a562b1ecd]

No, I think you are missing the point. Assume the earth is &lt;10,000 years old. If a star is 1 billion light years away, and we see a nova or even a star that is dead, it was NEVER actually there. God just created an image for us to see of a star that wasn't there. 

Anyway, this might be a reach, and I think I lean the same way as you do, but I am not quite sure. Anyway, I don't see how old earth and Scritpure can be harmonized anyway.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

I do get your point and that is what makes this such a mystery. 

Wheels within wheels.

That is also why I would like to read about it from a cosmologist with a Christian world-view.
I am certain that I am missing quite a bit in my simplistic understanding.


----------



## raderag (Mar 11, 2004)

[quote:b80b8aad9b][i:b80b8aad9b]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:b80b8aad9b]
I do get your point and that is what makes this such a mystery. 

Wheels within wheels.

That is also why I would like to read about it from a cosmologist with a Christian world-view.
I am certain that I am missing quite a bit in my simplistic understanding. [/quote:b80b8aad9b]

Thanks Mark, and let me know what you find.


----------



## alwaysreforming (Mar 11, 2004)

*That picture blows my mind!*

I can't even begin to fathom one sliver of that image!!! I'm so blown away by it that it seems useless to even begin to process it; my mind just shuts down!

As for the stars and/or galaxies that we see but may have in some times past actually died and no longer exist, I have another mind-blowing concept for you:

I was watching a physics 101 video from a college professor and he said that &quot;information&quot; only travels as fast as the speed of light. If something happened, lets say 100 years ago, and the light hasn't hit us yet, this actually means that THE EVENT HAS NOT YET HAPPENED. The event does not actually take place until the information reaches us. 

Obviously he drew out this concept more than my two sentences, and after hearing his full-orbed explanation of it I am convinced that he is correct. It has something to do with the theory of relativity.

He also explained how it is possible to go FORWARD in time, but never backwards. Lots of cool stuff! 

PS. The videos referenced above are from &quot;The Teaching Company&quot; and everyone here should find them online and order a catalog. LOTS of cool classes on everything from physics, history, economics, calculus, music, etc. All taught from the countries leading college professors and made explicitly for &quot;the laymen.&quot; These are the most interesting teachers one will ever encounter in their fields.


----------



## raderag (Mar 11, 2004)

*Ok, I talked to an astronomy expert here.*

He said a Nova or supernova takes days or at most weeks to finish burning out. Many of these are seen at over billions of light years. That would mean for the age appearnce theory to be true, God would have created an image of something that never existed. The star, or even Nova could not have existed as it would have taken more than 10000 years(billions) for the image to get to earth.

This is what I am not sure about.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 11, 2004)

It seems to me that the idea of &quot;apparent age&quot; has to do with our present theories that it takes light a certain amount of time to travel from point A to point B. That is under normal post-creation circumstances. But that doesn't have to be so under creative circumstances. So there is no real implication of misleading or whatever. 

I hold to my Cabinet-maker's view: that God had in mind the end product, and built according to a master plan, fitting everything in at its time; so that sun moon and stars being created on the fourth day in a framework of an already established day system is no problem at all. Why does the sun have to be there first in order to have a regular day?

I do not see an &quot;apparent age&quot; problem with this either, as cabinets that are made also have an &quot;apparent age&quot; to them, though they look brand new. The way I think about it, nothing can be created without an &quot;apparent age&quot; to it.

That's my :wr50:


----------



## raderag (Mar 11, 2004)

[quote:5599b93313][i:5599b93313]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:5599b93313]
It seems to me that the idea of &quot;apparent age&quot; has to do with our present theories that it takes light a certain amount of time to travel from point A to point B. That is under normal post-creation circumstances. But that doesn't have to be so under creative circumstances. So there is no real implication of misleading or whatever. 

I hold to my Cabinet-maker's view: that God had in mind the end product, and built according to a master plan, fitting everything in at its time; so that sun moon and stars being created on the fourth day in a framework of an already established day system is no problem at all. Why does the sun have to be there first in order to have a regular day?

I do not see an &quot;apparent age&quot; problem with this either, as cabinets that are made also have an &quot;apparent age&quot; to them, though they look brand new. The way I think about it, nothing can be created without an &quot;apparent age&quot; to it.

That's my :wr50: [/quote:5599b93313]

I see your point when you apply that to a macro view of the universe, but not when applied to a specific star. Did God make images of stars that have never existed? That is the question.


----------



## raderag (Mar 11, 2004)

> [i:acd746ef45]Originally posted by raderag[/i:acd746ef45]
> [quote:acd746ef45][i:acd746ef45]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:acd746ef45]
> It seems to me that the idea of &quot;apparent age&quot; has to do with our present theories that it takes light a certain amount of time to travel from point A to point B. That is under normal post-creation circumstances. But that doesn't have to be so under creative circumstances. So there is no real implication of misleading or whatever.
> [/quote:acd746ef45]
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Mar 11, 2004)

[quote:1dd1d4331c][i:1dd1d4331c]Originally posted by raderag[/i:1dd1d4331c]

You are saying the speed of light may have been faster? [/quote:1dd1d4331c]
Not really. I'm saying that the speed of light wasn't a factor. We're talking about creating, not evolving. 

It's like the chicken and egg thing: which came first, light, or the speed at which it must travel? Does it matter? 

[i:1dd1d4331c]Turning the questin around[/i:1dd1d4331c]:
Tell me: why [u:1dd1d4331c]should[/u:1dd1d4331c] it have to take the light of a star a million light years away a million years to get here at creation? Why [u:1dd1d4331c]would[/u:1dd1d4331c] it have to?


----------



## raderag (Mar 11, 2004)

[quote:d900062a60][i:d900062a60]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:d900062a60]
[quote:d900062a60][i:d900062a60]Originally posted by raderag[/i:d900062a60]

You are saying the speed of light may have been faster? [/quote:d900062a60]
Not really. I'm saying that the speed of light wasn't a factor. We're talking about creating, not evolving. 

It's like the chicken and egg thing: which came first, light, or the speed at which it must travel? Does it matter? 

[i:d900062a60]Turning the questin around[/i:d900062a60]:
Tell me: why [u:d900062a60]should[/u:d900062a60] it have to take the light of a star a million light years away a million years to get here at creation? Why [u:d900062a60]would[/u:d900062a60] it have to? [/quote:d900062a60]

Well, Science tells us that it takes light to travel that far. Could it have been different some other time? Possibly, but I haven't heard any theories to that account.


----------



## raderag (Mar 11, 2004)

[quote:18c80ce8cb][i:18c80ce8cb]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:18c80ce8cb]
[quote:18c80ce8cb][i:18c80ce8cb]Originally posted by raderag[/i:18c80ce8cb]
He said a Nova or supernova takes days or at most weeks to finish burning out. Many of these are seen at over billions of light years. That would mean for the age appearnce theory to be true, God would have created an image of something that never existed. The star, or even Nova could not have existed as it would have taken more than 10000 years(billions) for the image to get to earth.

This is what I am not sure about. [/quote:18c80ce8cb]

unless, of course, God created it along with the light hitting earth. That is, God created the star, and supernaturally made the stars light to be visible to us.

-Paul [/quote:18c80ce8cb]

Possibly, but wouldn't that mean we are seing things real-time? We know that isn't true with the Sun, etc.

hmmmm. I would really like to hear from some Christian astronomers.


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Very thought provoking. I want to get that book.

However, I thought the clocks at the top of buildings run slower, not faster . . .


----------



## pastorway (Mar 11, 2004)

According to Isaiah 44:24 God stretches the heavens (the universe) out between His hands. Now go back and look at that picture!

How great is our God?

Phillip


----------



## Guest (Mar 11, 2004)

Excellent quote.

Isaiah 44:24

I never read that in a scientific sense before.

Makes me wonder about Hubble's law and the doppler effect. Could it be the remnant evidence of God stretching out the heavens ? ??


----------



## JohnV (Mar 12, 2004)

Paul:

This is a very interesting article. It is not really far off from my &quot;Cabinet-Maker's&quot; theory. But my theory is much simpler. 

The objection of light travel, telling us of things that happened so far back beyond the date of creation, (that is, the entailment problems), assume a constant time frame before the creation, during the creation, and after the creation. The beginning of time is usually tied to any first movement. But we are not here referring to a Creator who is limited by time. Time too can have an &quot;apparent age&quot; just like anything that is created. No matter what &quot;age&quot; something is created at, it still has an &quot;apparent age&quot;. If Adam, or trees, had been created in infancy, that would have been an &quot;apparent age&quot; as well. The amount of age would vary with our perception, but not God's.

Or, to put it differently, if God could (conceivably) create the stars with the light already reaching the earth, why could He not create the time for it as well, with an &quot;apparent age&quot;? What that light tells us is no lie, nor is it telling us things that happened 11,000 years ago, or more, if the Earth is only 10,000 years old. What is wrong with our modern calculations is that we are not yet including [u:6884af2483]all[/u:6884af2483] the contingencies. Time too can, and must, be created with an apparent age. 

I know that this kind of bends the mind a bit. But the theory of General Relativity does too. I've read up on it a number of times, and I just don't get it. The models used by Stephen Hawking don't help in the least. Does the GR theory tell us that there is no constant? Or does it assume the Speed of Light (c) is a constant? If it is, to what? Does mass and energy change relative to how fast they are going? To the point of infinity? What then is the &quot;speed of light&quot;, if time also is &quot;bent&quot;, since speed of light is calculated on the basis of time and distance? How can these relative comparisons tell us what the speed of light is? In short, in keeping with the theory of GR, is the speed of light as we have observed it, or is it not possible to calculate it outside our gravitationally-oriented world, where time and distance are relative to the amount it is &quot;bent&quot; to our gravitational field? Would these calculations be the same if we measured outside our immediate solar system (that is, outside the reach of the suns's gravitational field) ?

All this might as well be Greek to me. I'll stick to my Cabinet-Maker's theory for now; it's much easier.


----------



## sastark (Mar 12, 2004)

*I can't believe no one else has said this....*

[quote:5da04d676e][i:5da04d676e]Originally posted by raderag[/i:5da04d676e]
[quote:5da04d676e][i:5da04d676e]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:5da04d676e]
[quote:5da04d676e][i:5da04d676e]Originally posted by raderag[/i:5da04d676e]

You are saying the speed of light may have been faster? [/quote:5da04d676e]
Not really. I'm saying that the speed of light wasn't a factor. We're talking about creating, not evolving. 

It's like the chicken and egg thing: which came first, light, or the speed at which it must travel? Does it matter? 

[i:5da04d676e]Turning the questin around[/i:5da04d676e]:
Tell me: why [u:5da04d676e]should[/u:5da04d676e] it have to take the light of a star a million light years away a million years to get here at creation? Why [u:5da04d676e]would[/u:5da04d676e] it have to? [/quote:5da04d676e]

Well, Science tells us that it takes light to travel that far. Could it have been different some other time? Possibly, but I haven't heard any theories to that account. [/quote:5da04d676e]

....but since I didn't see it quoted any where else: &quot;Then God said, &quot;Let there be light&quot;; and there was light.&quot; (Gen. 1:3).

Where did this light come from? How long did it take from God speaking these words for the light to actually appear? Let's not forget, the Sun, Moon, and stars had not yet been created! 

So, is it possible that we are seeing light from stars which never existed? Absolutely! That first light had no Star to originate from!

Did some one else already say this and I just missed it? I hope I'm not being arrogant (that really is the last thing I want to do). I just think the answer is too easy!

PS- I'm a Geographer, not an Astronomer.


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2004)

Light is all electromagnetic energy. Not just the visible spectrum we see from the sun/stars.


----------



## sastark (Mar 12, 2004)

[quote:dafc6b883d][i:dafc6b883d]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:dafc6b883d]
Light is all electromagnetic energy. Not just the visible spectrum we see from the sun/stars. [/quote:dafc6b883d]

So, does that mean that when God seperated the light from the dark, He actually seperated electromagnetic energy from the dark? Was there actual visible light when God said let there be light? Or was in invisible (to the human eye, at least) light? Another way to ask this is, did God only create the invisib;e spectrum of light on the first day and then the visible spectrum on the 4th? When God said &quot;Let there be light&quot; there was light, why should only part of it have been created that first day?

It seems to me that a plain reading of Scripture points to the fac that there was visible light on the first day, three days before the Sun, Moon and Stars were created.

So, again, I say, for God to create light from stars that never existed is totally possible. He did it on the first day of creation.

Just some thoughts...

(Visi, if your post was not directed to me, my apologies! Your comment just provoked me to think, is all.)


----------



## sastark (Mar 12, 2004)

[quote:c6aae98722][i:c6aae98722]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:c6aae98722]

I appreciate some of your thoughts, but this statement is problematic. It can't be light from STARS that NEVEr EXISTED. Maybe He created light particles...or whatever...but you can't say that he created light from a STAR that NEVER EXISTED.

-Paul [/quote:c6aae98722]

Yes, you wrote what I was thinking. 

It is possible for God to create light without stars. Hence, what we see in the night sky may be light in and of itself, not &quot;light from stars that never existed&quot;. Thanks for clarifying me! 

BTW- Here is something to ponder: If, in fact the lights we see at night are not associated with stars, then why would light from other &quot;stars&quot; be affected by the gravitational pull of a star that doesn't exist? In other words, how could light beam A be affected by the gravitational pull from light beam B, if there are no stars generating the light? Light in and of itself does not create gravity. So, maybe God created both the stars and the light covering the space from the stars to Earth. Thoughts?


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2004)

In my opinion (totally uneducated), when He seperated light from darkness He is seperating Energy and matter from dark matter and dark energy.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 12, 2004)

JohnV, you certainly ask a number of very relevant questions regarding both general and specific relativity. i'll try to just give the bottom line on a few of them, because obviously volumes have been written on each. 

yes, in general relativity (GR) the speed of light in any consistent medium is an absolute and unchanging constant, regardless of the motion of the source. This is vital. To make the contrast evident, the speed of anything else is not an absolute constant in this manner. For example, if you throw a baseball 50 mph from a car moving 20 mph....then the resultant speed of the baseball thrown from the car is 70 mph. But, if you emit a flash of light from a vehicle going half the speed of light - the flash you emit is NOT going 1.5 times the speed of light....it is only going the speed of light just as if you had emitted the light while not moving.

Now, mathematically, this is of unspeakable importance. To make a very long and complicated story short - it can be shown that IF the speed of light is constant, then virtually every other aspect of physics in the universe IS NOT A CONSTANT. This includes mass (you objectively become heavier as your speed increases toward the speed of light, this is not just more perceived weight, this is an actual change in mass), the length of an object changes, and of course, time moves much slower as you approach the speed of light.

length, mass and time are not constant - but the speed of light is. Additionally, time is also dependent upon gravitational force....time literally passes more slowly on a mountain than at sea level (because the gravitational force is lower at the top of the mountain).

there is a fundamental and proven set of equations relating mass, length, and time and how they change depending on the speed of the object in question. 

i just wanted to give a brief overview of the concepts first, and then if you still have more questions, i'll be happy to try and address those. hope this helps some.

edit:

and by the way, to address something else in the thread. Personally, i do not accept the idea that the speed of light could have been different in the past. Changing this constant will dramatically affect every interaction of every piece of matter in the universe. Electron orbits and speeds would change, the energy from nuclear reactions (crucial in the formation and nature of stars) would be altered by gigantic proportions. 

From a physics view, if the speed of light was different than it is now, then it would be a totally unpredictable universe. EVERYTHING would alter radically, and the world as we know it could not exist...let alone the consequences that would happen once the speed of light changed from it's &quot;old&quot; previous speed to it's current speed, that would be catastrophic in and of itself.

to give an example of how radically everything would change - let's take the example of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan. If the speed of light when that bomb was dropped was only 15% greater than it is now......then the ensuing blast would have released 10^15 TIMES MORE ENERGY. Hopefully, this gives you an idea of how much all nuclear physics, chemistry, and astronomy would change if the crucial speed of light were different.

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 13, 2004)

Smhbbag:
I was hoping you would respond. I guess you're our resident physics expert. 

You know, I have Hawking's book right here. Things like this interest me. But Hawking doesn't help me out here. 

[quote:6e66b465bd]length, mass and time are not constant - but the speed of light is. Additionally, time is also dependent upon gravitational force....time literally passes more slowly on a mountain than at sea level (because the gravitational force is lower at the top of the mountain). 

there is a fundamental and proven set of equations relating mass, length, and time and how they change depending on the speed of the object in question. [/quote:6e66b465bd]

So help me out here, please. If length and mass and time are dependant on the speed of light, then how do you define the speed of light, if it cannot be distance divided by time? How can one assert a value based on things that are contingent of that which is being valued? What exactly is being talked about when you refer to &quot;the speed of light&quot;?

And if 'time' (and I suppose 'distance' as well) are also (in addition to the speed of light) subject to gravitational influences, what do they have to do with determining what the speed of light is? Or is it that they don't anymore? Is unit of distance per unit of time a definition of the speed of light? 

If the speed of light is a constant, are you granting the same kind of value to the speed of light as philosophers do to truth and goodness? Are they corelative? I mean by that, that in philosophy truth is necessarily assumed in order to either deny or affirm anything, even truth itself. Is that how the speed of light is regarded in scientific assumptions as well? If this is so, then the &quot;speed&quot; of light is a misnomer, for &quot;speed&quot; infers a distance divided by time formula, when in fact it is an assumed constant that is not determined by formula but rather by inescapable necessity. One may as well talk about the &quot;speed&quot; of truth, or the &quot;distance&quot; of righteousness, as about the &quot;speed&quot; of light. 

Am I close in these thoughts, or am I way off base here? This is where I am lost, I don't know what science means by the terms it uses. They don't seem to correspond to the philosophical terms.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:b2f1234b9a]So help me out here, please. If length and mass and time are dependant on the speed of light, then how do you define the speed of light, if it cannot be distance divided by time? How can one assert a value based on things that are contingent of that which is being valued? What exactly is being talked about when you refer to &quot;the speed of light&quot;? [/quote:b2f1234b9a]

very good questions. i'll try and go in order addressing them. First, the speed of light must necessarily be measured by an observer. That observer will be forced to use both the time and distance passed by the light [i:b2f1234b9a]as it appears to him[/i:b2f1234b9a]. Now, this is where the great postulate of GR comes in - the speed of light will be measured identically by all observers regardless of their motion relative to the light. So, two observers may come up with different apparent times and distances for the light, but that distance divided by the time will be identical. Also, when we refer to the speed of light, we are 99% of the time talking about the speed of light in a vacuum, simply for convenience. Of course, the speed of light in water is slower than it is in the vacuum, but this is the reason for the qualification in my last post that the speed of light &quot;in any consistent medium&quot; is constant regardless of the motion of the source or the observer.

[quote:b2f1234b9a]And if 'time' (and I suppose 'distance' as well) are also (in addition to the speed of light) subject to gravitational influences, what do they have to do with determining what the speed of light is? Or is it that they don't anymore? Is unit of distance per unit of time a definition of the speed of light? [/quote:b2f1234b9a]

i'm not sure i understand what you're asking in the first part of that paragraph, but i think the answer may lie in what i just wrote. Regardless of the gravity acting on the observer, all observers will, in the end, come up with identical calculations for the speed of light. And the answer to the last question is &quot;Yes.&quot; The speed of light (C) is always defined in units of length divided by units of time (usually meters per second).

[quote:b2f1234b9a]If the speed of light is a constant, are you granting the same kind of value to the speed of light as philosophers do to truth and goodness? Are they corelative? I mean by that, that in philosophy truth is necessarily assumed in order to either deny or affirm anything, even truth itself. Is that how the speed of light is regarded in scientific assumptions as well? If this is so, then the &quot;speed&quot; of light is a misnomer, for &quot;speed&quot; infers a distance divided by time formula, when in fact it is an assumed constant that is not determined by formula but rather by inescapable necessity. One may as well talk about the &quot;speed&quot; of truth, or the &quot;distance&quot; of righteousness, as about the &quot;speed&quot; of light. [/quote:b2f1234b9a]

hopefully my previous statements would clarify this a bit, as this is a logical outcome of your questions. The speed of light is certainly not assumed out of necessity, but measured and calculated scientifically. Every single postulate of GR comes directly from the thoroughly proven idea that the speed of light is a constant. Mathematically, it is fact that if the speed of light is constant, then for any object with mass - it's mass, length, and experience of time depend on its speed. According to the math, either the speed of light must not be a constant, or all of these other physics concepts must not be a constant.

and to lighten things up a bit, if you ever want to lose some mass, just SLOW DOWN. :roll: so every time you hit the brakes on your car, you can say &quot;hey, i just lost some weight&quot;, just don't hit the accelerator again or you'll gain it all back - talk about your roller-coaster weight loss systems

[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 13, 2004)

[quote:9410028128]The speed of light is certainly not assumed out of necessity, but measured and calculated scientifically. Every single postulate of GR comes directly from the thoroughly proven idea that the speed of light is a constant. Mathematically, it is fact that if the speed of light is constant, then for any object with mass - it's mass, length, and experience of time depend on its speed. According to the math, either the speed of light must not be a constant, or all of these other physics concepts must not be a constant. [/quote:9410028128]
Any object of mass?

Does light have mass too? 

I still don't understand how we can get from calculating two contingencies, (distance and time) and get a constant. Especially when the constant we are calculating is the contingent we are seeking. 
If you divide miles by gallons, you get miles per gallon; if you measure speed you get feet per second, or kms/sec, or miles per hour. You always get a measurement relative to things you measure by. But (it seems to me) with speed of light you suddenly get something that is not altered by the things that are used to measure it, nor is it relative to them in terms of value. Instead it can be stated this way: (relative) distance divided by (relative) time equals (constant) speed. 

Well, here's the bottom line question: if the speed of light is constant, and time and distance are relative to the speed of light, then is it not also possible that the speed of light, under certain circumstances, such as contingencies in space, is immeasureable? In other words, is it not possible that light itself, as it travels, can have an apparent age, like everything else that is created must also have by definition? What criteria does science use to determine that if a supernova, 100,000 light years away, flares up, that it happened 100,000 years ago? Is is not actually like the geologic dating system, that the further back you go the greater the margin of error, and that giving rise to the possibility of a date that may have a margin of error as great or greater than itself? 

I think I understand that the speed of light is constant given a consistent medium, like in a vacuum. And no matter where one is or what speed one goes, the speed of light is the same. Always! And this works in scientific calculations. But is it not funny how everything created is effected by the speed of light, except light itself? What if that were not so? What if light too is effected (relative to) by the speed of light? 

See what I'm getting at? That flaring supernova doesn't have to mean that the supernova, or the universe for that matter, is at least 100,000 years old. God could have managed the time and the distance (since they are contingent) and the light could have been here in a mere minute, including all the information within the light rays, such as supernovas flaring. Or He could have created light with a greater apparent age than we assume. (I'm just thinking out loud) 

Anyways, the Hawking model is still more mysterious than it is revealing, at least to me. But then I am not a scientist.


----------



## smhbbag (Mar 13, 2004)

i think you might be getting tripped up by my imprecise use of the phrase &quot;relative to the speed of light.&quot;

to be absolutely clear:

if I am travelling at some speed, lets say 1/2 the speed of light (.5C) - then MY MASS changes accordingly, MY experience of time changes, and MY perception of MY length is altered. 

your statement &quot;relative divided by relative gives a constant&quot; is correct. The observers measurements of both time and distance will change depending on his velocity - but the division of those two numbers will give the same final constant for &quot;C&quot; even when calculated by different observers with different velocities.

I will try and find some sites online that have good presentations of GR - i think it would be much easier to communicate these things if i could draw figures and do sample calculations in front of you and actually discuss them, but alas, this board is limited in that regard.

i'll see what i can find for you, and i'll delay responding to your previous questions to try and find someone who can give a better and more systematic presentation of these things. 

http://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/qanda.html answers a lot of questions relating relativity and cosmology, and addressing many basic relativity questions. great answers regarding relativity, but cosmologically definitely not a creationist. look around there a bit



[Edited on 3-13-2004 by smhbbag]


----------



## JohnV (Mar 13, 2004)

smhbbag:
You've been great. You've done better than Mr. Hawking, that's for sure. 

I think I've got it now. We are talkiing about a different kind of &quot;constant&quot; than we talk about in philosophy, in a way. But if I was speeding along at 3/4C, and measured my time and distance, the equation would still come out at exactly the same as if I were almost standing still, that is if I were measuring the speed of light, whether instead of or in relation to my own speed. That now makes sense. 

Actually that would hold true if I were sliding along on a hockey puck, measuring the speed of a hockey stick as it was about to hit me. Same principle. No matter how I was moving in relation to the stick, it would not change the speed of the stick, just the impact if I were moving either faster or slower. But that is where the speed of light differs, as I understand: the impact will be just as great if I were moving at 3/4C or 1/4C or standing still. Am I right? And that is because my perception of time and distance will change as I accelerate from 31/4C to 3/4C. 
How am I doing? 

At one time I used to be a sparkle in someone's eye. But my mass is now different than it was back then. But contrary to science, I have slowed down as I increased my mass. Oh to be a little ray of light again. 

Thanks smhbbag. You've done a great job , considering you're dealing with a physics nincompoop like myself. But isn't it all amazing, regardless the scientific proficiency, or lack of it? 

I'll try your little weight loss trick, but I'm afraid I'll have to pick up some speed before I slow down. I have my doubts. :biggrin:


----------



## sastark (Mar 15, 2004)

[quote:db1e17980b][i:db1e17980b]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:db1e17980b]

I am no scientist. I have no idea. I try to be silent on topics I don't understand and learn from others. but now because of this my curiosity is peeked...so now I will have to study this stuff. So, I will be back in a year and give you my thoughts

-Paul [/quote:db1e17980b]




I wish I could take a year and just study some of this stuff! Anybody know where I can get a grant for this?


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2004)

[quote:a4ec5ed84d]
if I am travelling at some speed, lets say 1/2 the speed of light (.5C) - then MY MASS changes accordingly, MY experience of time changes, and MY perception of MY length is altered. 
[/quote:a4ec5ed84d]

As one accelerates towards C, his mass does change, but not necessarily his volume, so how does one perceive any difference in length ? ??


----------

