Being a YEC I am not a fan of TalkOrigins. However, with that being said I wanted some feedback regarding some TalkOrigins material.

TalkOrigins states the following:



Are the resources below the best young earth creationist responses to the above TalkOrigins material:

Speed of light slowing down after all?Famous physicist makes headlines
by Carl Wieland
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?
by Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/fine_structure.asp

Also, I was told that Lambert Dolphin's website has some good material too on this subject and here is his website: http://www.ldolphin.org/ Since Mr. Dolphin has a lot of material if anyone could recommend a key article or articles that they made have read on his website in regards to this issue I would appreciate it. Here is one article which discusses the cobalt issue: http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html

The thing about the now and then (billions of years ago) issue, is that no one can actually prove what is claimed about light, or anything else. But the only thing that is pondered or accepted is what supports evolution.

Example: The speed of light does not have to change to make evolution work. But it does to make creation to work (with some creation theories). But what if it were the other way around? What you would see are several papers, claims, tests, assumptions, theories, etc... all written to make it work just because it has to for evolution. But since it would only support creation if it did, why bother? After all, evolution is the only accpeted truth so there is no other direction science needs to go in except a direction that always leads to evolution. Evolution is basically a one way street, with warning signs all the way down it, that if you should turn around. It will always say: Wrong way.

Evolution is a road that does not allow anyone to turn around. Either everyone believe in the end goal, or you get off the road because you get ejected.

Peter,
Check out this page:
http://www.setterfield.org/index.html

You also might want to check out Russell Humphreys book Starlight and Time.

It would appear that c has remained a constant, at least for the 6000 years that creationists would suggest that the universe has been in existence for. See http://www.csharp.com/starlight.html

jason78,
Currently there are severl theories out there being studied....which is good...considering that answer is unknown.

I can see where we are having a problem now. You are confusing the words "theory" with "evidence".

I once met a Catholic priest that worked for the Vatican Observatory. The subject of his life's research was 'galaxy collisions'. At first learning this, I thought the this was an odd subject for someone that had given his life to God and worked at the Vatican. However, I learned that research into Galaxy collisions provides some of the best evidence that the universe is a very old place.

Many of these galaxies after colliding are racing away from each other at very high velocities leaving all the debris (the evidence that they collided many millions of years ago). It is like getting a movie of a car collision a second after the collision while the cars are still spinning away from each other leaving pieces of the crash in the wake. It is straightforward to work backwords from the speed of the cars to determine when the crash occured.


This left the vatican astronomers with the choice that either the universe was very old, or God gave it the appearance that is was old. And they chose the former since it fit with the evidence and they don't go for the idea that God is trying to deceive.


Here is a link to some of the work on these collisions from U. of Hawaii
http://ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/transform.html
James


p.s. funny thing. His name was Father Christopher Moss. Or for short, he was Father ChrisMoss. Although he didn't really appreciate that 'nick' name

Ask the priest...how old did Adam look when he was created?

You know, 2 seconds after he was made, how old did he look?

Well, in the book is says that God created him in thier image, so I would guess he looked as old as they were.

I like to call it "apparent age".

For example, the trees in the garden had fruit on them. This would imply age. This would imply there once was a flower where the fruit now is.
You could even imply that the tree was once a seed...a product of the seeds from the fruit of a previous tree.

Perhaps the universe also has apparent age. Perhaps the light from the distant stars was created in-route.
Then again maybe Russ Humphries is correct with the white hole theory.
Maybe Barry Setterfield theories are correct.

This is what creation science is about. The creationist scientist don't have all of the answers. What is interesting is that in the search for scientific answers they are coming up with remarkable theories on how God may have done it.

Actually you can prove the speed of light with a computer controlled laser a sensor and a mirror. Set the mirror a known distance from the laser. Have the computer activate the laser and compare the time it takes the light to go from the laser to the mirror and back to the sensor. Then take half the time for the round trip distance and you have how long it takes to reach the mirror then a bit of math to see how far it would travel in one second.

The light from those stars contain information. Why would your God put information in that light about things that haven't happened? It smacks of Last Thursdayism, but it is the best theory out of the three that you have cited.

Russel Humpries did something quite unusual in the field of creationism, he came up with a theory that could be falsified, and it was. The predictions that his theory made didn't pan out.

Barry Setterfield has also been proven wrong with emperical observations. His theory fails because it is easy to prove through observation that it is wrong. There is no maybe about it.

First consider the source. I have read other articles at TalkOrigins and have found them to be very bias toward the Big Bang. I have also found some of the material presented very questionable.

To answer your post I have been reading quite a few articles about lightspeed and while I am not familiar with the article from TalkOrgins I have found some very interesting articles written by AinG, ICR, and Apologetics press. The claim in TalkOrigins about the creationists stating that the speed of light is slowing is false Dr. Morris' article "The Uncertain Sped of Light" (www.icr.org) reports that two evolutionists Magueijo and Amelino-Camelia have been working on the strong possibility that the speed of light is changing that is it is slowing down. This work is slowly gaining ground in the evolutionist camp. If this should prove to be true it would mean that light was traveling faster when God created everything. Dr. Morris also states that when measuring the distances to the stars the geometric measurements are only possible to about 300 lightyears and anything after that is merely guessing.

In AinG (www.answersingenesis.org) an article entitled "Cosmic Breakthrough" introduces Dr. Russell Humphrey's theory about the light speed problem. All this article does is to state 4 main points of his theory to get the full story you have to buy his book. I have not read Humphreys book so I have not formed an opinion on it yet.

The following four points are:
1. Humphreys accepts the gravity theory or otherwise known as general relativity as correct without the evolutionists views.

2. That the Big Bang is based on an unbounded universe having no no edge or centre and fits the general relativity equations very well.

3. Holding that the universe is bound the general relativity equations create very different results.

4. With the bounded universe approach with very little expansion the "proven time-distorting effects of gravitation" will fit very nicely into six literal days of creation. Making it possible for Adam to see all the stars on the sixth day.

Apologetics Press (www.apologeticspress.org) has an article "The Big Bang Theory-A Scientific Critique Part I" that brings out the fact that the Hubble constant and the redshift measurements "were in error" (buy the way Dr. Robert Gentry at www.halos.com has some very interesting articles on redshifts). The Hubble Constant is used to calculate the expansion rate of the universe by using the constant between relative velocity and distance. The Hubble Constant has been changing over the years and I do not know if it has been resolved yet or not. The redshift is used to find out if an object is moving toward and or away from you and it measures how fast it is doing so. If these two constants are incorrect then the distances, expansion of the universe, etc. will have to be re-evaluated.

There are many other theories out there I have just put out few. I am a Young Earth Creationist and I believe evidence supporting my view will soon come to light. What I have read so far I have not really pointed at it and said this is it. As I study the subject more I will form that opinion.

I hope this has helped you.

Bob Barclay

What strong possibility? Can you answer how that would change the fine structure constant? Can you explain the effects if it were to be changed?

I posted part of this in the unanswered questions thread right before it got merged so it probably got missed.

Changing light speed
-------------------------------------------------------
It's actually not that difficult to show that the speed of light hasn't slowed down by any significant amount. Any research being done on slowing light is talking about miniscule changes that wouldn't affect calculations of the age of the universe.

Every time a pulsar spins around we see a flash of energy. The time between the flashes is a measure of the speed the pulsar spins at.

Let's look at the scenario of a decaying speed of light. The pulsar sends the first flash of light to us. The flash travels at the proposed superspeed of light.
P: 1
P: 2-----1
The pulsar spins around and sends a second flash of light. The speed of light has decreased so both travel a shorter distance before the next pulse is sent.
P: 3----2-----1
P: 4---3----2-----1
The speed of light keeps decreasing so the pulses can't travel as far before the next pulse is sent.
P: 5--4---3----2-----1
P: 6-5--4---3----2-----1

Now, how does this look to an observer. If the pulsar is spinning every second but the speed of light decreased by 5x between the time the pulses were sent and the time they were seen, then there would be five modern light-seconds between 1 and 2. It would look like the pulsar was spinning 5 times slower than it actually is.

Here's where problem number one happens. There are pulsars out there that look to us like they have a spin rate of milliseconds. But if light had slowed down by any significant amount that would mean that these pulsars are actually spinning much faster than they look. This is quite literally a physical impossibliity. They couldn't exist if they were spinning much faster because the rotation would tear them apart. If light had slowed down by any significant amount there would be no such thing as millisecond pulsars.

Here's problem number two. Notice that the distance between the pulses changes as the speed of light continues to decrease. This means that if light had slowed down it would look to us like the pulsar was changing it's rotational speed. This simply doesn't happen. In fact pulsars are among the most precise clocks in the known universe. If lightspeed had changed we could take some measurements of a pulsar, wait 5 or 10 years, perform the same measurements and see how much of difference in rotational speed had occured. We've been observing pulsars for close to 40 years and simply don't see the difference in speed that would be necessary if light had slowed down.


P: 1
P: 2-1
P: 3-2-1
P: 4-3-2-1
P: 5-4-3-2-1
P: 6-5-4-3-2-1

This is what we do see. Pulses at regular intervals.


In-situ light creation
---------------------------------------------------------------------

A problem with the idea of light being created already in transit from the star to earth is that we can see supernova that are further than 6000 years away. If the light from the explosion was created already on the way to earth, then what exactly exploded?

If the light was created in transit, this means that light from a star that never existed and therefore couldn't have exploded was created midway to earth. There's no reason to do such a thing unless there's an intent to decieve us on what actually took place to make the universe look the way it does.

One question : Does the age of universe imply the age of the earth ?

Not exactly. But cosmology does give rough parameters for when and how the earth was formed.

So, the matter about the velocity of the light implies only the age of the universe.

High all, I am new to the board and kinda just glancing around for the time being. A little about myself for familiarity: I started off an evolutionist/atheist/agnostic (it varied over time) raised in what I call "quasi-Catholicism" in that my family is die-hard Catholics, yet none of them go to church or read the Bible, etc. Anyways, I came to conclude a general lack of "conclusive" evidence for evolution through my endeavour in life, and really, only a small amount of "complimentary evidence" for evolution. By conclusive I mean "this evidence means evolution is verified." By complimentary I mean "this evidence isn't really evidence, but its findings that do not necessarily contradict evolution. An evolutionist could have their faith in their beliefs, and this evidence would be fine with it." Anyways, that wasn't good enough for me. I searched elsewhere, went to college, became a Christian after having found the only "conclusive evidence" for any matters of faith. So here I am, a young earth creationist...still looking and searching. I found this site, which seems to be really neat. Many of the arguments pro and con I have heard already, but I have come across 3 or 4 that I had not heard, which is great!

Ok, so thats my intro. Back on topic: Does the speed of light change? It is a difficult question. However, I had come across an experiment apparently verified in the scientific community in which the speed of light, infact, can vary. It really depends on the frame of referance, too. Anyways, the experiment involved shining a light into a mirror and recording the length of time it took to go there and back, straight there, straight back, 90 degree angle with the mirror's plane. Then the experimenters took that light and shined it at 45 degrees so that its reflection point was similar to the head of an arrow. The distance away from the mirror was the same, but the angle was changed. The prediction was that since the distance had increased, the time it takes for the light to get to its destination point should also increase. The results were quite different. The amount of time it took was exactly the same. A greater distance....the same amount of time. I will try to find the link for the experiment, but the scientific community apparently accepted it from what I understand.

A good way to understand this possibility, now, is to remember my point about "frame of referance." I see no reason why light couldn't travel at different speeds with the following concept:

Imagine an incredibly fast moving planet A, say 100,000mps, from a point of origin....another planet B. Imagine that planet A emits a light ray in the same vector that it is traveling. That light ray should be moving at roughly 186,000mps forward in the vector from planet A, correct? And since planet A is moving 100,000mps away from planet B in the same direction...the light ray should be moving 186,000mps + 100,000mps = 286,000mps away from planet B. Am I missing something? And to throw another bone into it, lets say planet B emits a light ray in a direction the opposite vector that planet A was traveling. Would not that light ray be moving 286,000mps + 186,000mps away from the light ray emitted by planet A?

In summary...there is plenty of opportunity for VERY incredible speeds of light (and possibly matter...in terms of relativism) that could bridge the whole "it had to have taken tons of time for this light ray to get to us" theory.

In theory...as long as a particle Abusts off (emits) from another particle B, and then another C from B, and another D from C, etc etc...there is no limit to the speed at which light or matter could be traveling from the original source.

Am I missing something? I really hate placing a cap on possibilities...one of which is the speed of light and even matter, for that matter.

Yes, your missing relativity. What you described is newtonian physics where velocity adds up linearly. Newtonian physics does not work at speeds approaching the speed of light. Your thought expriment with the planet is incorrect. the light would not be travelling at 286.000+186,000 speed, it would be travelling at 186,000mps no matter how fast the planet was travelling. This is one of the most counterintuitive but well tested features of relativity. The speed of light is the same regardless of reference point.

Wikipedia on Relativity
2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.

So, to get things clear in my head: You are arguing that 1) light ray B is traveling 186,000mps away from planet B 2) Light ray B is traveling 186,000mps away from planet A and 3) Light ray B is traveling 186,000mps away from light ray A 4) Light ray A is traveling 186,000mps away from planet B? Essentially, except that planet A and B are traveling 100,000mps away from each other, everything else is traveling 186,000mps away from everything else in this scenario? Can you explain the math to that? Its not just counterintuitive, its countermathematical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

QUOTE

Galilean Addition Of Velocities

If a ship is moving relative to the shore at velocity v, and a fly is moving with velocity u as measured on the ship, calculating the velocity of the fly as measured on the shore is what is meant by the addition of the velocities v and u. When both the fly and the ship are moving slowly compared to light, the addition law is a vector sum:

vec s = vec v + vec u

Where s is the velocity of the fly relative to the shore.

Special Theory of Relativity

In relativity, the frame of the ship has a different clock rate and distance measure, and the notion of simultaneity in the direction of motion is altered, so the addition law for velocities is changed and can also be called a composition law for velocities. For collinear motions, the velocity of the fly relative to the shore is given by:

s = {v+u} / {1+(v/c)(u/c)}


END QUOTE


Velocity doesn't add linearly. It looks like it does at normal everyday speeds but the difference becomes measurable at high speeds.


S = speed of stationary observer
V = velocity of moving object
U = velocity of emmited object (fly,light beam etc.) relative to moving object
C = speed of light

I read a lot of the content and couldn't grasp all of it, especially the math part, but I did grasp the general concepts. As far as I can tell, it basically states that what I said is right and true. The only issue is with the statement that s is a constant, and that, in reality, is just a matter of perspective due to how the equations are set up. Its basically the same as the following:

The Earth is the center of the universe = no different than the Sun is the center of the universe. Why can both statements be considered true? (And no, I did not mean solar system, I meant universe, for the time being. So if that confused you or you thought I err'd, keep reading, as you haven't grasped my thought yet).

Both statements can be considered true because to have a "center" means to place a focus point, a stationary point, upon which to create a referance frame for the rest of space will be exhibited. One may choose this to be Earth. One may choose it to be the Sun. One may choose it to be some random star from another galaxy. In the end, all of the mathematical equations will work for any referance point you choose. *Some* referance points are easier to work the equations with. For example, it is easier to make the Sun the referance point for the solar system when using equations to related the planetary paths as they circle the Sun. However, one may use the Earth instead of the Sun, and all that need be done is the formulas for the equations be adjusted as such. In the end, any point works.

To me, the article linked is basically doing just that. But for relativity, the elements in the formula are distance, time, the speed of light. The speed of light is held constant and everything else is to change in the formula accordingly. However, it is just as possible to have the speed of light vary, and hold a different element as the constant...maybe even something such as distance.

In the end...with such flexibility in mathematical formulas, there is no reason to think the universe took millions of years to form. Space, time, and the speed of light all vary...and in the end, it could have taken only one second for the entire universe to form to its current size and complexity if time and the speed of light are adjusted accordingly.

No, the math contradicts what you were claiming in your planet example. I'll walk you through it.



Your example had Light a coming from Planet A and Light b going from Planet B in the opposite direction.

Light b <---186,000----Planet B -----100,000------->Planet A----186,000----->Light a

From planet A perspective:
Planet A is stationary
Planet B is moving at 100,000.
Light b is moving at (186,00+100,000)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(100,000/186,000)) = 186,000
Light a is moving at 186,000

From planet B perspective:
Planet B is stationary
Light b is moving at 186,000
Planet A is moving at 100,000
Light a is moving at (186,00+100,000)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(100,000/186,000)) = 186,000

From light beam a perspective:
light beam a is stationary
Planet A is moving away at 86,000
Planet B is moving away at (86,00+100,000)/(1+(86,000/186,000)(100,000/186,000)) = 148,968
Light b is moving away at (148,968+186,000)/(1+(148,968/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000

From light beam b perspective:
light beam b is stationary
Planet B is moving away at 86,000
Planet A is moving away at (86,00+100,000)/(1+(86,000/186,000)(100,000/186,000)) = 148,968
Light a is moving away at (148,968+186,000)/(1+(148,968/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000

Nothing ever travels faster than 186,000, not matter what focus point you use.

This is based on that if everything remains the same. I also notice no biblical scripture used. A young universe is based on the creation. The creation is based on Genesis.

The first indication that natural light, upon being created, did not shine upon the earth is in this verse:

Genesis 1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

1) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.

The first part explains why the lights were created. They were created to give light upon the earth. Now why use the word lights instead of stars? Because it was to make clear that the objected created was already giving off light.

2) And it was so.

And it was so also means there was a point it was not so. So light producing objects were created to shine upon the earth, and then it was so. How was it made so?

is 42:5 Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein:

Heaven is a representation of our universe. and there are three heavens.

2cor 12:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.

1) Is the physical heaven created for us (Genesis 1:1).
2) Is the spiritual heaven created for Satan (Genesis 1:4 Separation of light and darkness).
3) Is the spiritual heaven for God and the angels (already existed so by default it becomes the third heaven).

Also note that this is a trinity.

So when the universe (physical heaven) was created. And then the stars (lights). The heaven had to be stretched in order to fit all of the creation. Stretching light that is already shining upon the earth causes a red shift. And like science already knows, it would take knowledge in order to do this correctly and to still have the light shining upon the earth.

jer 51:15 He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding.

This verse is making it known that knowledge is required for creation. That it is not a "poof there it" is sort of thing.

1) He hath made the earth by his power. This shows that it takes God to create.
2) He hath established the world by his wisdom. So how much wisdom does it take? Just look around us.
3) and hath stretched out the heaven by his understanding. To make it work, the understanding is knowing how the established physical laws work.

I already addressed in-situ light creation in a previous post on this thread. Previous Post


In-situ light creation
---------------------------------------------------------------------

A problem with the idea of light being created already in transit from the star to earth is that we can see supernova that are further than 6000 years away. If the light from the explosion was created already on the way to earth, then what exactly exploded?

If the light was created in transit, this means that light from a star that never existed and therefore couldn't have exploded was created midway to earth. There's no reason to do such a thing unless there's an intent to decieve us on what actually took place to make the universe look the way it does.


Just to make sure it's clear here's why in-situ doesn't make sense unless the light creator is trying to trick us.

Old universe scenario for million light-year distant star going nova
________________________________________________________________
1 million and 1 day ago: star exists and sends light toward earth
1 million years ago: star goes nova and sends explosion to earth
.
1 million years pass
.
1 day ago: light from star reaches earth
today: light from explosion reaches earth


In-Situ light scenario for million light-year distant star going nova
_____________________________________________________________
1 million and 1 day ago: star does not exist exists and does not send light toward earth
1 million years ago: star does not go nova and does not send explosion to earth
.
.
6000 years and 1 day ago: light from star is created 6000 years away from earth
6000 years ago: light from nova is created 6000 years away from earth
.
6000 years pass
.
1 day ago: light from star that never existed reaches earth
today: light from explosion that never happened reaches earth

I understand all that. But who is to say that anything is even left out there as we can only see what has happened billions of years ago? Half of what we see may even be burned out, or exploded. But understanding the wealth of knowledge in this one verse tells just how creation happened.

2pet 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

1) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years.

1 day equals 1000 years. There are 365 days in a year. So in our time the difference is 365,000 years. So the difference in how every thing operates in creation is 365,000 times faster. Divide by 2 you get near the top known top speed of everything (186,282.397 vs 182,500.000). Could God have been revealing the formula for how things worked in creation?

But the second part of the verse:

2) and a thousand years as one day.

Cancels out the first part. How? The phrase "with the Lord" is a refernce to being in eternity (infinite time). The phrase is not mentioned again because the next comparison for eternity (with the Lord) is not included. So this cancel out was to show that time was infinite during creation. So everything that was controlled by time was infinite as well.

Infinite: having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.

So creation being in time that was infinite, means all that time controlled became infinite:

1) Everything that has a speed limit and it's speed can be measured by time. Became infinite. This is how light can travel billions of light years in one day. The speed of light was infinite because the time that measured it was also infinite.

2) Age is controlled by time also. So aging becomes infinite which makes all life eternal.

3) Decay rates are controlled by time. Since time is infinite the decay rates become infinite. This explains how halos can be caught in granite rock in perfect condition.

Infinte time also most allow for created matter to be created of any age when created. Why? God is about choice. So if man chooses sin, God's creation has to be able to exist in that realm of sin (a parallel time-line). You see "sin" caused a parallel time-line that works with different rules. One where time itself is not infinite. The laws of non-infinite time would cancel out a creation not created to exist in it. So everything has to work as if time were always that way or it could not exist. So in other words, if Adam and Eve choose not to sin. Everything would be under the laws of infinite time. And would be the same as it was before the first sin. So here is an example of how this works.

Infinite time:

Days 1,2,3,4,5,6. And all that were created, fell under the infinite (eternal) time laws. Nothing was hendered by time. Not speed, not age.

Non-infinite time:

On day 6 man was created and sinned the very same day. So the last part of day six there was a parallel time-line that was created and controlled by time.

The switch from infinite time to non-infinite time must not be instant. This is because we can observe that by reading the bible that man lived longer (800 year plus) and gradually lived less and less. Until it is what we see today (less than 100 years).

So in "infinite time" the earth had to be created with the correct age so when man choose sin, the earth could exist in the new non-infinite time-line that was created by sin. Or the laws of that new "non-infinite" time would not allow the earth to exist.

So the laws of non-infinite time more or less controlled how God had to create so that it could all exist and work when time changed to non-infinite time when man sinned.

Example:
1) God created earth new and with no age attached. Man sins earth is now in a time-line (non-infinite time) where laws are different. Earth does not fit into those laws of time, so earth ceases to exist.

2) God creates earth 4.5 billion years aged on the day it was created. Man sins and earth is now in a time-line that has new laws. Earth fits into those laws and is able to exist in the new non-infinite time-line.

So everything was created with age on the very day they were created because there were two possible time-lines that the creation could exist in. So the creation had to be created to fit both time-lines so that it would not cease to exist.

Where does the divide by 2 come from? Why in the world would god want to give the wrong number (186 vs. 182) of miles per second when miles weren't even invented yet. Cubits per second would make more sense.
Why stick with miles per second instead of miles per day or miles per hour or miles per year or meters per second or meters per year. Miles is the dominant measuring system only in the US and a couple other countries. The rest of the world uses kilometers. It seems like your searching for something to fit your pre-concieved idea.



From a mathematical perspective your definition of infinite is wrong. Infinite series can have limits and boundaries. 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16....=1
There are an infinite number of numbers bounded by 1 and 2. 1.1,1.01,1.001,1.0001...

In math and physics infinite means endless, it does not necessarily mean boundless.



That does not follow logically. Time is already infinite. Time is never going to end. If time does not end, that does not mean that everything affected by time never ends. You and I will eventually die of old age, while time will keep on going without ending (assuming no Big Crunch at the end of the universe).


You seem to be saying mixing up what happens when something is infinite. In 1 you say infinite speed means movement happens all at once. In 2 you seem to be saying infinite aging means aging stops. In 3 you say infinite decay rates means decay doesn't happen. Which is it? Does infinite mean a lot happens at once (movement happens instantly) or nothing happens at all (aging stops). If aging happened at an infinite rate, the universe would have ended the instant it started.

I do not think you are grasping my point. From what I can see, the equations you gave, as correct as they might be, are simply a matter of perspective. If you will notice, the RATIO of change between all 4 objects (light A, planet A, light B, planet are all still separating at the same rate. It doesn't really matter what units you stick on the end...heck it could be inches. For example, light B and light A are traveling the fastest away from each other than any other relationship compared. Planets A and B are moving away from each other at the slowest rates. I think you typo'd light a traveling away from planet a and light b traveling away from planet b...because you put the value "86,000" in instead of "186,000." If you did not, then please explain why you put 86,000 as you did not show the math for them. In the end...the ratio of expansion between the 4 look to me like it was preserved, even if their specific speeds were not. If the ratios of expansion were not preserved, could you provide the math for that? I tried to scribble it some but failed. Instead, I just checked your values to see which "moved the fastest" and which "moved the slowest"

I'm no longer sure I know what your arguing. My understanding of your original statement was that you thought light could be moving faster than the speed of light if it came from a fast moving object. I tried to show you that no matter how fast something is going, anything that is emmitted by that object will never go faster than the speed of light. I don't know where ratios come into the picture. Nothing ever goes faster than 186,000 miles per second, period.

I made two mistakes. I had planet B moving instead of being still, and I messed up on the from light b perspective. Was copying/pasting and forgot to update the numbers. Sorry for any confusion.
The 86,000 came from (0-86,000)/(1+(-86,000/186,000)(0,000/186,000) = 86,000
The more I think about it the more it may need to be (186,000-100,000)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(-100,000/186,000) = 186,000
but either way is still not faster than speed of light.

From light beam a perspective:
light beam a is stationary
Planet A is moving away at (0-86,000)/(1+(-86,000/186,000)(0,000/186,000) = 86,000
Planet B is moving away at (186,00+0)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(0/186,000)) = 186,000
Light b is moving away at (186,000+186,000)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000


From light beam b perspective:
light beam b is stationary
Planet B is moving away at (186,000+0)/(1+(0/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000
Planet A is moving away at (186,00+100,000)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(100,000/186,000)) = 186,000
Light a is moving away at (186,000+186,000)/(1+(186,00/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000

None of the answers are bigger than the speed of light which is the whole point. Nothing ever goes faster than the speed of light, no matter what.



1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes

All four are true because the speed of light is the same in all reference points.

What I meant by ratios was that if all the objects are moving away from each other at the same rate as the galilean mathematics suggest, then I have no issue with someone saying "the speed of light is constant, just time slowed down" as its really just a matter of perspective. So for example, if light a is traveling more than twice as fast away from light b as it is from planet a, it holds true to galilean mathematics. In the mathematics of relativity is light a traveling away from light b more than twice as fast as it is from planet a? I wish I could get more specific than "twice" but the math is something Im kind jumbled on at this point. Here, another example:

There is a planet C, has no relation to the other scenario. Planet C is stationary for our referance frame. Planet C emits two light rays, D and E, in opposite directions. Galilean mathematics would say the light rays are traveling 186,000 + 186,000 = 372,000mps away from each other. Relativity would say how fast? (Give an answer please). Now, if my point is true, the light rays are traveling away from each other twice as fast as they are from Planet C in both galilean mathematics and in relativity. So if the light waves each went 100ft in their opposite directions, they would be 200ft away from each other but only 100ft away from Planet C....galilean and relativity both. The rates at which they expand apart from each other is half of what they each are expanding away from planet C. If this is not true, please explain why. If it is true, then "the speed of light is the constant in all circumstances" is purely subjective as far as I am concerned.

The reference point is what is important.

From planet C each light beam is travelling at 186,000.
(186,000+0)/(1+(0/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000

Planet C would see each light beam move 100 ft.
Planet C would see the light beams end up 200 ft apart.
Nothing moved faster than light from C's perspective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Each light beam sees the other light beam travelling at 186,000.
(186,000+186,000)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000

Each light beam would see the other move 100 ft not 200ft. The reason is due to time dialation and length contraction that occurs at the speed of light.
Each light beam would see the other as 100 ft. away.

This has been experimentally verified. Observers on fast moving objects (such as high speed jets) measure light travelling at the same 186,000 whether they are moving toward or away from the light source.

Nothing moved faster than light from either light beam's perspective.

There is no reference point where the light beams are travelling at 372,000. There is no reference point where something moved 200 ft in the time it takes light to move 100 ft.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To relate this back to the original topic, if we see something that means light reached us travelling at 186,000. If the object is 1 light year away the light took 1 year to get here. There is no reference point where the light could reach us in less than 1 year. That means that if there are objects 1 million light years away (verifiable with geometry) the light took 1 million years to get here, no matter what direction or how fast or slow the object was moving.

Please address the last bit of importance: Since light d and e, from either of those referance points, would appear to be going apart from each other at 186,000mps...would that make planet c appear to be moving away from them at half that speed, 93,000mps? Point being: planet c is moving away from light d half as fast as light d is moving away from light e?

Look. Lets make this simple. Forget speed altogether. Forget units. All I want to know is if we hit the max boundary of speed, no matter what that unit value is...are not light rays d and e moving away from each other twice as fast as they are from the planet c?

No, both the planet and opposite light beam are moving away at the speed of light.

Technically we shouldn't be talking about how things look when moving at the speed of light since time stops completely at that point, but the planet would not be moving at half the relative speed of the light going in the opposite direction. Both would be falling behind at or close to the speed of light.

light beams
(186,000 + 186,000)/(1 + (186,000/186,000)(186,000/186,000) = 186,000
planet
(186,000+0)/(1+(186,000/186,000)(0/186,000) = 186,000

A better case to illustrate the principle would be two objects moving in opposite directions, each moving at 99% of the speed of light ~ 184,000

speed of opposite object
(184,000 + 184,000)/(1 + (184,000/186,000)(184,000/186,000) = 185,989
speed of Planet moving at 0
(184,000 + 0)/(1 + (184,000/186,000)(0/186,000) = 184,000

Notice how the planet is falling behind slower than the opposite object but the opposite object is not moving at anything close to twice as fast as the stationary planet.

Velocity does not behave linearly at speeds approaching the speed of light.

Question: Has it been proven that time stops at that speed?

I know what time dilation is, so no need to explain it. But until it's actually experienced, it's not a proven theory. Only one that seems true because the evidence seems to point to that conclusion.

"Notice how the planet is falling behind slower than the opposite object but the opposite object is not moving at anything close to twice as fast as the stationary planet." -IK

K, now that we got that far. How in the heck does science "explain this away"? In other words, what changes so that the 3 objects, planet c, light e, and light d, are not always proportionately distant? In this particular question I do not care so much about "perspective from any one focus point" but rather an objective knowledge of the relationship of the 3. So, for example, are light d and e both equally distant from planet c as they both travel the speed of light away from planet c in opposite directions? If so, then how can planet c and light d *actually* be traveling away from light e at roughly the same speed and be roughly the same distance away from light e? It seems contradictory to me, unless your last post was strictly talking about perspectives and not actualities.

Ultimately, I want to get these details in order to bring up my big question: If the actual distances and speeds are not the same as the perceived...then how are we, as humans measuring from such points in a grid of the universe, able to discern accurately what is *actually* happening in the far distance of the universe instead of simply perceiving it incorrectly?

Yes. What other problems can you find with General Relativity that have not been already figured out?

There's no such thing as an "actual distance and speed". Every distance and speed will be seen from some reference point, whether it's a stationary observer or a moving observer. That's why I'm emphasizing the difference between the different perspectives. There's no correct answer in an absolute sense, only correct answers for each reference point. Humans tend to treat the answer given by stationary observers as "true" but the fact is that there is no absolute answer. The one constant is that at no point can anything in any perspective be moving faster than light, the universe just doesn't work that way.

The distances and speed vary because reality changes depending on how fast you are moving. Time slows down and space contracts the faster you go. 100 ft for someone travelling at X miles per hour is 200 ft for someone travelling at Y miles per hour, and the mind-bending fact is that both are correct answers.

There is no *actually* happening vs. incorrect perception. As long as we specify what reference point we are using our answers are correct. Because the speed of light is the same for all reference points we know how long it takes light to reach us for any given distance. We know the distance because geometry works the same way for any relatavistic reference point (trying to compare answers between different reference points might give different answers but since nobody is living on mercury trying to compare astronomy notes it's not a problem).

Yes, time dilation has been proven. Atomic clocks have been synchronized on earth, then one has been placed on a supersonic jet and flown around the world. When returned to earth the clocks were out of sync by the expected amount.

Aye, I can attest to knowing this also. Time does infact change depending on perspective and speed. My personal goal in learning about such things is to figure out all the effects of such knowledge. Thus, why I am asking what I am asking here.

That people will imply that someone else is wrong with what they cannot prove themselves. I think that science would already have the answers to most of what seems un-answerable if they were not so stuck on sticking to one thing as being right and accepted. No one wants to admit they are wrong, but how else do you find the truth until you do?

Does God have to wait for man to invent something before he can talk about it, or relay to it? And the divide by two came from noticing how close the speed of light is to 1/2 of the number I provided. I thought: Look at that. Light could have travelled at a different speed back then. It's still up in the air about that one.



Just like evolutionist do all the time.



You are right when you apply it to math. But it can be also applied to other things.



I do believe there are several websites that would disagree with you on this. Here is a math website:
Infinite - Immeasurably great or large; boundless.
http://www.math.tamu.edu/FiniteMath/FinalB...roduction0.html

Here is where you can contact them to let them know that they got it wrong: http://www.tamu.edu/home/contactus/index.html



Time always existing has yet to be proven. For can you prove that time was before the supposet Big Bang? Nope? Well then you can't say I'm wrong with what you cannot prove to be right.



This is where my understanding goes beyond your's.

But I will try one more time to explain. Infinite only applies to time. But, all that is affected by time is no longer a part of it becuase time is infinite.

Example: Age is measured by what? Passage of time. So when time becomes infinite, aging is cancelled out.

Speed is measured by what? Time and distance. So if time is infinite, then speed is cancelled out.

Decay rate (half-lifes) of halos is measured by time. If time is infinite, then the decay rate is cancelled out.

So this is not about these processes becoming infinite. But how they are affected when time becomes infinite.

If you cannot understand that, then it is beyond your comprehension.

Who created time and when was it created ?
Is there a universal definition of time that would be valid on Mars, or in another solar system ?
In the history of mankind, the way in which we calculate time has changed as we obtained more knowledge of our planet and solar system. This makes any reference of time questionable, as the dates have had to be calculated back from ancient measurement systems of time to our systems.

Please reread my post. I said that infinity does not necessarily mean boundless. It is possible for there to be boundless infinities, but it is also possible for there to be bounded infinites.

Boundless infinity: -inifinty .....0 ....... +infinity
Bounded infinity: 0........+infinity




Time does not have to exist prior to the big bang for it to be infinite. Count up from zero until you reach the highest number.... That's an infinite series that has a starting point but no ending point. Time can have a starting point and yet still be infinite. It is unknown whether time existed prior to the big bang but whether it did or not is irrelevant. Time is infinite because it is never going to end, not because it never had a beginning.



I think your concept of infinite is flawed. Let's start by clarifying what I mean by infinite. I'm using infinite as a synonym for "does not end" or "endless". Is that an acceptable definition for you? If not, please provide a definition you agree with and we can work from there.



Here, try this. Replace the word infinite with endless and see if what you said still makes sense.

So when time becomes endless, aging is cancelled out.

You want to say that an endless amount of time leads to no aging but that is nonsensical. One second is still going to follow another, hours and days will still pass. If time is infinite there will simply be no point where there are no more hours or days, it does not mean that hours and days won't happen. Endless amounts of time lead to endless amounts of aging, not no aging.



You are mixing up Time as it applies to the velocity equation, and Time as it applies to a dimension of the universe.

Speed (velocity) = Distance/Time. In this equation Time is the amount of time it takes to move a specified distance. If Time=infinity then speed = 0. Nothing moves if it takes infinite amounts of time to move. That does not solve the problem of how light could move faster than the speed of light.

Time as it applies to the universe is just a measurement of change, typically measured by humans in seconds,hours,days etc. If time is endless all that means is that there will always be another second/hour/day following the previous second/hour/day. It does not mean that movement won't take a specific amount of those seconds,hours,days etc. to occur.



Again, try replacing the word infinite with endless and see if your statement still makes sense.

If time is endless, then the decay rate is cancelled out.

Refer to my statement about aging above. Radioactive elements subjected to an endless amount of time simply guarantees that eventually all the radioactive elements will decay to a non-radioactive element. It does not mean radioactive decay does not occur or occurs at a different rate.



I understand the concept of infinity quite well, what you are saying is simply wrong for any definition of infinity I am aware of. If you have a different definition it would help if you provided it so I could get a better idea of what you think infinite means.

The way we measure time, like the way we measure anything else is based on a convention. Everyone agrees that a second is X amount of something. Currently we use 9,192,631,770 vibrations of a cesium atom under specific conditions to measure a second, which would be reasonably universal. Previous definitions related time to motion of the sun with is not as universal a measurement.

All of creation was done in Threes, fours, or sevens.

Time is created within the numbers that represent God, and point to God.

Time trinity (3):
1) Past.
2) Present.
3) Future.

Time broken down becomes God's perfect number (7):
1) Seconds. 2) Minutes. 3) Hours. 4) Days. 5)Weeks. 6) Months. 7) Years.

Like itself is done the very same way.

Light trinity (RGB):
1) Red.
2) Green.
3) Blue.

And when light is put through a prism, you get the perfect number of God (7):

1) violet 2) blue 3) green 4) yellow 5) indigo 6) orange 7) red

Then we have other things with 7s

Wavelengths that extend from 0.00004 centimeters for violet light to about 0.00007 centimeters for extreme red. These wavelengths are so short that astronomers use a small unit of distance, the Angstrom (A), which is 0.00000001 centimeters long. The violet limit therefore falls at 4000 A and the red limit near 7000

The one substance that is known to be needed for all life, represents life itself by the three states in which it can exist. Water has three states.
1) Solid.
2) Liquid.
3) Gas.

And it's make up is also a trinity because it takes 3 molcules (H2O).

The planet earth is a representation of life, not only because it's the only known planet to have life. But it's the third planet from the sun. Because three is not only a representation of the trinity. But is also a represenation of life that Christ rose in 3 days.

And even some things that are set up in fours, come in sevens:

1) Four regions: North, South, East, West.
2) Four elements: Earth, Air, Fire, Water.
3) Four seasons: Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter.
4) Four kingdoms: Mineral, Vegetable, Animal, Spiritual.
5) Four winds: North, South, East, West.
6) Four divisions of a day: Morning, Noon, Evening, Night.
7) Four phases moon: 1st quarter, New moon, Last quarter, full moon.

Just to show even more of how the creation points to a Creator. The anti-Christ is said to bare a number that is 666. And that he will be a man. Now most don't realize what 666 really means.

Subatomic particles include the atomic constituents protons, neutrons, and electrons (Trinity). Everything in the known universe is made up of a combination of these three things. Man, which is made of carbon, has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons (666). So how did God's word know this before man did?

Now I know it is said that photons is now included in the subatomic list. But that is still up for debate.

So it can be ignored that creation points to a Creator. But random chance does not have numbers that point to the numbers in which God identifies Himself. It would instead point to random numbers. And God's word would not be able to tell us more than man currently knew, unless man's writting of it was inspired by the one who Created us.

Well I'm getting sarted a little late on this one, but I have a theory on this subject. I'm a YEC with an engineering background, but I love science, because true science really reveals God. Now to me the scripture is clear that on day one, God created the heavens and the earth (formless). He also created light. He also is light. Now from a physics standpoint, God created all matter and all energy. But the energy was within Himself. Remember, E=mc(2) So all of the energy is related to all of the matter and light.

On days two and three He dealt with the earth giving it form etc. Now on day four it clearly says that He said "let there be lights in the sky". Now cetainly we believe that God created the stars and starlight. But what if the stars were created on day one (under the heavens, matter) and they were set on fire on day 4? Now there are two ways that we percieve things. One is we see light emitted from an object, like car brake lights. The other is we see light that is reflected. When we look at the brake lights we are usualy seing both, and we cannot distinguish between whether that is reflected light from another source or whether it is emitted light from that source.

So here is the theory. Rather than God creating light along the way from the stars, what we are seing is the reflection of God on day 4 of creation. God who is light accelerated from the realm of where the earth is and He reached out with a tremendous energy to touch the stars. That energy created huge universal atomic nuclear reactions which set those stars ablaze. That is part of the stretching out phase. The God's light returned to to the realm of the earth while decelerating to about 186,000 m/s.

So what we are seeing today is a combination of emitted light and God's reflected light that set the stars on fire on day four. So wen we see a supernova, we are probably seeing stars that exploded on day four of creation from the great energy. This is a part of God'd fireworks show for us to enjoy.

A couple of points of disagreement



You have forgotten Decades (10 Years), Centuries (100 Years) and Millennium (1000 Years) I know that each are made of a number of years but years can be indicated as a number of months or weeks



We see 3 primary colors because we have only three types of color receptors called cone cells in our eyes but most mammals other than primates have only two types of color receptors and therefore they see only two primary colors. That means there would be a different number of colors coming out of a prism for them.




1) Eight Regions North, Northeast, East, Southeast, South, Southwest, West, Northwest.
4) Five kingdoms: Mineral, Vegetable, Animal, Spiritual, Intellectual.
6) Five divisions of a day: Morning, Noon, Evening, Night, Midnight.
7) Eight phases of the moon New Moon, Waxing Crescent Moon, First Quarter Moon, Waxing Gibbous Moon, Full Moon, Waning Gibbous Moon, Last Quarter Moon, Waning Crescent Moon