The speed of light, stars, and YEC?

[Darwinning]

I see Statler hasn't been back.....

I find that a bit insulting seeing the effort I put into these posts.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

That's the bit that confused me in the article. Is the author suggesting that the speed of light is different in relation to Earth, or in relation to the observer? Both seem ludicrous, and I can come up with all sorts of problems for both, but it was never quite clear to me from the article which of these nutty proposals it was putting forward.

It's been awhile since I've fully read the article, but that's about the short of it, yes, assuming I recall what it says accurately.
I don't remember precisely if it's referring to an 'observer' (as in a person) or the earth. Neither of which would make sense given that the earth is moving around the sun, the sun around the galactic core, and the galaxy itself and the local supercluster are all moving in independant directions.

So if the laws of physics were different depending on where you were, we would have noticed by now because the Earth is always moving and moving quickly. As such the pseudo-science in the article cannot be accurate given that simple fact as well as all of the practical data from our own efforts at space exploration of our solar system and beyond.

For example, it would make all of our space probes fail to do their job if we used Einstein's relativity and the universe was actually using an Asymmetric light convention where light would travel away from the earth at half light speed but return instantaneously because communications would arrive to our probes and satillites at half speed when we calculate their arrival at light speed - critically important when calibrataing very precise scientific instraments and the probe's thruster movements and orbital adjustments.

All the paper is is an attempt to allow for a young universe that's still the size that it is. It's a pointless venture anyway because to get to this point (among other young-earth conventions) you're already ignoring or severely rewriting major scientific understandings of humanity, the earth, and the universe to get to this point.

It's insane and utterly stupid.

EDIT:
Oh, there's also this.
Statler and others, if you check out that link, you'll notice that we filthy humans have invented a camera that can capture light in transit.
Perhaps it's just me, but given that we can speed-time light in real time frame-by-frame, we can easily tell now if light moves at a speed other than 300,000 km a second. That is, using a method you creationists can't BS around given that it's been well established in other reliable methods. I have yet to see any such major headlines by anyone anywhere stating that light moves at a speed other than 300000 km/second.

[helmespc]

That the laws of physics would change based on point of observation is completely without basis in reality. We've never seen it happen and have no reason to believe its true. Simply more wishful thinking by the willfully ignorant.

Nothing worse than having a conclusion before having the evidence.... that seems to be the only thing apologists ever want to do... square the circle with evidence that doesn't support anything they are saying, while ignoring everything that doesn't fit (generally accompanied by unwarranted, illogical attacks against the evidence itself). Science allows the conclusions to come to it... I don't see how anyone can argue against it, yet it seems to happen over and over.

[Darwinning]

I don't remember precisely if it's referring to an 'observer' (as in a person) or the earth. Neither of which would make sense given that the earth is moving around the sun, the sun around the galactic core, and the galaxy itself and the local supercluster are all moving in independant directions.

Imagine the speed of light does depend on the observer. What would someone sitting on a distant star gazing at Earth see? Light from Earth arrives at the alien observer instantly, so he'll see us typing; but light from the star is moving at half light speed, so has not yet reached Earth at all from his perspective.

So he's seeing our Earth, but one where we have never seen the stars (remember light from us to him is instant, so he is not seeing some distant past where his starlight has not yet reached him, it has to be Earth now but without starlight).

Ding! Paralel universe created.

But remember, it's only a different way of measuring things. Right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Movement? What movement? The stars are fixed in their place on the firmament..lol.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Imagine the speed of light does depend on the observer. What would someone sitting on a distant star gazing at Earth see? Light from Earth arrives at the alien observer instantly, so he'll see us typing; but light from the star is moving at half light speed, so has not yet reached Earth at all from his perspective.

So he's seeing our Earth, but one where we have never seen the stars (remember light from us to him is instant, so he is not seeing some distant past where his starlight has not yet reached him, it has to be Earth now but without starlight).

Ding! Paralel universe created.

But remember, it's only a different way of measuring things. Right?

It wouldn't even need to be an alien - we could perform the same measurements between two humans - one on the earth and the other on the moon or the international space station.
Does it go half-speed back and forth or instantaneously back and forth?
The problem with ASC is that the time corresponded to relativity's light-speed predictions easily visiible in the time-delays between communications between the lunar landers and Earth in the 60s and 70s Apollo missions.

Then there's the wierd thing about whether our robot probes count as observers or not and of course why time and space bends around us humans and/or other living things but not, say, our voyager space probe?

Are we of possession of psychic powers that bend and contort space and time uniquly to us that affects everything out to the end of space and time instantaneously? I can't even begin to say how many laws of physics that would break - mostly along the lines of the impossibility of energy being able to instantaneously travel anywhere - even within the confines of our solar system - let alone hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of light years distant.

Then there's the biological implications - why are humans unique in this ability and where do these space-and-time-altering abilities come from? Jesus? God? The Soul? Conciousness?
If so, then why would this benefit people of other faiths? What about the entirety of humanity prior to christianity (which hasn't been a thing until the last century and the forerunner of all the constituant christian faiths until a mere few thousand years ago). Were all the stars more than a few thousand light years distant prior to the birth of the Jewish faith invisible until light could propogate to the Earth?
What if the observer is an atheist or buddist or scientologist?
Why would these things matter at all especially considering that my religious conviction (or lack thereof) have no bearing on any other laws of physics except for the one that conveniently explailns why we're in a young universe?
If Jesus only does tihs for humanity as a whole, then why would this measure exactly as our wrong scientific predictions to our robotic space probes as well? Is Opportunity and plucky mars space rover a christian too? Did voyager get baptized before launch? Did the Kepler space telescope graduate from Baby Jesus University?

It's all mind-numbingly stupid and all it does is give some pseudo-scientifc BS explaination to handwave away the OVERWHELMING evidence for an exceedingly old universe.

[coffeeveritas]

First off let me admit something that many of you may find shameful. I have never studied out evolution and for the most part in school (Florida) I did not receive an education in it. That didn't really change much in college either because I am currently still attending that private Christian school as a senior.

One thing I am curious to know though is if you have a star that is 5 million light years away and we are seeing the light from it now how in the world can people say the earth was made 6,000 - 15,000 years ago? I have heard that people believe God created the light inbetween so we could see them or the idea that 6,000 - 15,000 years ago the speed of light wasn't the constant that it is now.

Is this seriously the best arguments that YEC has to offer? The other baffling thing to me is why people get so worked up with evolution anyway. It has nothing to do with the existence/non-existence of a higher power. The only thing is really shoots in the face is a literal interpretation of Genesis which even some Christians think wasn't intended to be literal in the first place.

I am not sure if the speed of light is one of the main arguments against YEC or not but it seems like that elephant in the room itself is enough to make the idea look pretty absurd.

Another possible explanation for why we can see stars that are 5 million light-years away that many Christians put forward is that the earth is actually billions of years old. As for why it appears that life on earth evolved, that's an easy one for Christians to explain, it appears that way because life on earth evolved. Ha! I have successfully refuted all of the claims put forward . . . by accepting them . . . because they're the only things that make sense logically.

[Darwinning]

What if the observer is an atheist or buddist or scientologist?

Tea just came out of my nose. Thank you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Another possible explanation for why we can see stars that are 5 million light-years away that many Christians put forward is that the earth is actually billions of years old. As for why it appears that life on earth evolved, that's an easy one for Christians to explain, it appears that way because life on earth evolved. Ha! I have successfully refuted all of the claims put forward . . . by accepting them . . . because they're the only things that make sense logically.

That's the spirit! In the face of evidence you prefer evidence to dogma...now if you were to continue doing so...what of things like "spirits", virgin births, prophecy, and resurrection? You see, you draw the line somewhere on one of these issues and at exactly that point you are engaging in the same sort of thinking that the young earthers and literal genesis people are putting forward. So, some of the myths are true, and others false, but they are all identical with regards to the evidence. I'm not sure how you've determined which is which? I'm afraid that I would have to defend their beliefs against your criticisms unless you have something other than your own beliefs to support the distinctions you've made.

[coffeeveritas]

Another possible explanation for why we can see stars that are 5 million light-years away that many Christians put forward is that the earth is actually billions of years old. As for why it appears that life on earth evolved, that's an easy one for Christians to explain, it appears that way because life on earth evolved. Ha! I have successfully refuted all of the claims put forward . . . by accepting them . . . because they're the only things that make sense logically.

That's the spirit! In the face of evidence you prefer evidence to dogma...now if you were to continue doing so...what of things like "spirits", virgin births, prophecy, and resurrection? You see, you draw the line somewhere on one of these issues and at exactly that point you are engaging in the same sort of thinking that the young earthers and literal genesis people are putting forward. So, some of the myths are true, and others false, but they are all identical with regards to the evidence. I'm not sure how you've determined which is which? I'm afraid that I would have to defend their beliefs against your criticisms unless you have something other than your own beliefs to support the distinctions you've made.

Haha! I'm glad for your encouragements! As far as evolution is concerned I think there is a large portion of Christians who have no problem with it. The Pew Forum showed that the majority of Catholics and Mainline Protestants actually believe evolution is the best explanation for the origins of life. As for virgin birth, that is scientifically possible, but not all that important to me anyway. It really comes down that I don't think science can eliminate the possibility of something more. Increasingly, in light of postmodernism, I feel that many would say we aren't even close to knowing everything, let alone knowing enough to define the universe by exclusion. It's all just a part of the way I filter things. I can certainly see how you would filter things differently, and I respect that.