Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, okay, You got him. He did not want to reveal his secret source. It was his favorite aunt's third cousin's girlfriend. There now you know.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe
- Thread starter Wandering Monk
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
Andromeda Galaxy is the nearest large spiral galaxy is more than 2.5 million light years from Earth. It can be view without telescope, hence the naked eye, but it would be fuzzy to look at, and certainly don’t like a galaxy.
If Genesis is true, hypothetically, and the Earth and the universe were only 6000 or 12,000 years old, then we should not be able to see Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, today.
There are smaller galaxies closer than Andromeda, but only the Large Magellanic Cloud (163,000 ly) and Small Magellanic Cloud (200,000 ly) are visible to the naked eye, while Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy (70,000 ly) and Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy (25,000 ly) are closer still to the Earth, they are not visible to the naked eye.
LMC & SMC, like Andromeda, shouldn’t be visible today if we were to believe Genesis to be true.
And all these light-year numbers that I have mentioned, only referred to the respective distance from Earth, and not the ages of the respective galaxies. So each one them, would be older than our Solar System, including Earth’s 4.7 billion years old.
And the most distant galaxy that we can see with the naked eye is the Triangulum Galaxy.
Also the number of white dwarf stars presented in the Milky Way, the most recent approximate estimate is about 10 billions. Do creationists like dad would know what white dwarfs mean? They are stars much older than our solar system, nearing the end of their life cycle, where only the cores of stars exist.
But according to Genesis 1, the Earth is older than the stars as well as the Sun, which is completely ridiculous.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
But "god can do anything". Meaning he is certainly capable of creating a 6000 yo universe of 96 billion lightyears across and then create all the photons "en route" to earth from this andromeda galaxy just so we could enjoy observing his marvelous creation. Just because it appears to us ignorant humans that this light has been travelling for 2.5 million years to reach us, doesn't mean that it actually has.
Go ahead, try and prove that god did NOT create these photons "en route" to earth just 6000 years ago.
;-)
(/end sarcasm)
gnostic
The Lost One
dad
Undefeated
False, the stars were made for man to see! Your imaginary great time that light takes in far space to move is wrong. If there is no time out there then obviously it could not TAKE time for light to move there. (or if time is not the same as here it could not take the same time)
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
You, dad, seriously don’t understand astronomy, especially naked eye star gazing.
Naked eye means observing without binoculars and any form of telescopes. So naked eye is just seeing with your own eyes, unaided.
This would be methodology of the prehistoric, ancient and medieval people see the night sky, before the invention of the first telescope, and before Galileo.
Anyway, the total number of stars visible in the night sky from all location on Earth (both northern hemisphere and southern hemisphere), only 9096 visible stars can be observed, and all of them in close proximity to Earth. Hence they are all in tiny area of the Milky Way, and we only see a fraction of Milky Way’s 100 - 400 billion stars.
To the naked eye, and in your current location, you might be able to see from 1900 to 2100 stars in the moonless night sky.
The total numbers of galaxies (not counting the Milky Way) that are visible to naked eye, is 4 galaxies: Andromeda, Triangulum, Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud.
There are couple of dwarf galaxies that are closer than LMC & SMC, such as Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy and Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, but they are not visible unless you are observing them through telescope.
Are you an American, dad, living in the US?
Then you will only see two other galaxies beside the Milky Way (Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies), you won’t be able to see LMC or SMC, which are seen in Southern Hemisphere. It would be the same for anyone living in Europe and Asia’s mainland.
You would be able to see SMC in the Northern Hemisphere, but only if you were living within 15° latitude north of the Equator.
People living in Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide, not only can see LMC & SMC, but also Andromeda Galaxy, but people living in Hobart (Tasmania) won’t be able to see Andromeda Galaxy at all.
So if you live in a country on the Earth’s equator or near the equator, you will be see all 4 galaxies unaided, otherwise you will only see 2 per hemisphere.
Of course, you will be to see more stars and galaxies with a good telescope, but the ancient people didn’t have telescopes, so the number of stars are only visible and limited.
According to NASA, from their Hubble Deep Field image of tiny portion of our sky, they estimated that there could be as many as 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the observable universe. And the number of galaxies could increase, as our technology advanced further.
My points are that what we see in the night sky, it would be able to view around 2000 stars, and all these stars are far closer to earth, than other Milky Way stars.
No matter how good is your eyesight, you will only seen a tiny portion of the Milky Way, and only fraction of stars in the Milky Way.
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
According to Einstein and Relativity, observational reference is relative to the observer. Relativity also assumes there is no absolute reference, because reference is relative to the observer, and therefore can be different for different reference points.
The science dating for the age of the universe is based on the Earth reference. However, Einstein said this is also a relative reference, yet it is treated like it is the absolute universe reference, which science then says does not exist. What type of two faced double talking scam is this?
If we side with Einstein, and only use one of the two faces of science, the one that implies the earth is nothing more than relative reference, then one might ask, what would have to the relative reference of God, so the universe would appear only 6000 years old in his reference?
God is historically symbolized by light; light of the world, so the speed of light is a good starting point. At the speed of light the universe would appear to be born and die in an instant, within that relative reference. This is too time dilated to achieve the full 6 days and then 6000 years. God's relative reference would have to average slightly less than the speed of light.
If you read Genesis, each day of creation take less and less time to occur even in earth reference. For example, forming the sun and earth takes more time than forming life , etc, but is also one day. This suggests the relative reference of God was not fixed, but was descending from the speed of light; C, to less than C, so the total time in his series of relative references adds to 6 days.
I often wondered how to explain the changing relative references of Genesis. One idea that can to mind was connected to an observation within particle accelerators. Matter that we live among; atoms, are composed of sub particles called quarks. The proton, for example, is actually composed of smaller units of matter called quarks. In accelerators, these quarks can be seen, but are very short lived. We cannot collect a vial of quarks and leave them on display in a museum to investigate, like we can with atomic matter like water.The quarks disappear very fast.
The question that came to mind was, why can the sub particles of the proton last for billions of years while inside the proton, but once they are released into the lab, then only have very shorts life expectancy? One theoretical explanation was connected to time dilation. The quarks inside the proton were created in the early universe when time ran slower. Maybe the proton has a frozen or residual highly time dilated reference, where time moves very slow, allowing its short lived quarks to live for billions of years while inside this reference. Once they enter our reference, time speeds up and they do not appear to last as long. They have the same life expectancy in both references, but due to internal proton frozen time dilation, they appear to last for billions of years, while inside a proton.
If the atoms of the universe was designed to last as long as the universe, the time dilation reference inside the proton would be getting less and less as time propagates. God's changing relative reference appears to follow this internal proton reference, since it would define the universal clock at each point in tine, all the way to universe expiration.
The science dating for the age of the universe is based on the Earth reference. However, Einstein said this is also a relative reference, yet it is treated like it is the absolute universe reference, which science then says does not exist. What type of two faced double talking scam is this?
If we side with Einstein, and only use one of the two faces of science, the one that implies the earth is nothing more than relative reference, then one might ask, what would have to the relative reference of God, so the universe would appear only 6000 years old in his reference?
God is historically symbolized by light; light of the world, so the speed of light is a good starting point. At the speed of light the universe would appear to be born and die in an instant, within that relative reference. This is too time dilated to achieve the full 6 days and then 6000 years. God's relative reference would have to average slightly less than the speed of light.
If you read Genesis, each day of creation take less and less time to occur even in earth reference. For example, forming the sun and earth takes more time than forming life , etc, but is also one day. This suggests the relative reference of God was not fixed, but was descending from the speed of light; C, to less than C, so the total time in his series of relative references adds to 6 days.
I often wondered how to explain the changing relative references of Genesis. One idea that can to mind was connected to an observation within particle accelerators. Matter that we live among; atoms, are composed of sub particles called quarks. The proton, for example, is actually composed of smaller units of matter called quarks. In accelerators, these quarks can be seen, but are very short lived. We cannot collect a vial of quarks and leave them on display in a museum to investigate, like we can with atomic matter like water.The quarks disappear very fast.
The question that came to mind was, why can the sub particles of the proton last for billions of years while inside the proton, but once they are released into the lab, then only have very shorts life expectancy? One theoretical explanation was connected to time dilation. The quarks inside the proton were created in the early universe when time ran slower. Maybe the proton has a frozen or residual highly time dilated reference, where time moves very slow, allowing its short lived quarks to live for billions of years while inside this reference. Once they enter our reference, time speeds up and they do not appear to last as long. They have the same life expectancy in both references, but due to internal proton frozen time dilation, they appear to last for billions of years, while inside a proton.
If the atoms of the universe was designed to last as long as the universe, the time dilation reference inside the proton would be getting less and less as time propagates. God's changing relative reference appears to follow this internal proton reference, since it would define the universal clock at each point in tine, all the way to universe expiration.
dad
Undefeated
Well, perhaps the sky in the former nature had a better view than we see today?
Great...so? Since God also made the stars for TIME (seasons and times) for earth, one might assume that even non visible stars might have had some role to play? Who knows? In the bible we do see that all the universe we know ceases to exist one day. So it is all tied inexorably to man and this earth!
gnostic
The Lost One
There would be no light pollution back then...but even then, you won’t even come close to seeing 1 million stars in the Milky Way, let alone 100+ billion of stars that’s in the Milky Way alone.
We only see a fraction of number of stars in the Milky Way. They (ancient star gazers) didn’t have super-eyesight. Not all the stars are visible, even in the most clearest and moonless nights, because most stars are too far away, what we see are stars closest to Earth, while other stars aren’t luminous to be visible.
The only other 4 galaxies that are visible to the naked eye (Large Magellanic Cloud, Small Magellanic Cloud, Andromeda Galaxy and Triangulum Galaxy). If you want to see more stars or galaxies, then you would either get a powerful telescope or visit one of the observatories.
And this number don’t even include the stars among other galaxies, and as I stated in my last reply, NASA there are any between 100 or 200 galaxies.
And the people who wrote the Genesis or any other OT books give us any number of stars, didn’t catalogue all the stars or all the constellations. And even when bible mentioned stars, the books (eg Genesis) lack information and lacking in details.
Seriously, man. You really shouldn’t make claims.
dad
Undefeated
I would tend to agree that even if more stars were visible in the former nature skies, we probably would not have seen all the universe...but so what!? If God made the machinery of this universe to determine and mark time for earth and the whole universe will fold up like a roll up curtain one day leaving earth still here, then who cares how many little points of light there are out there we can't see?!
One problem with that thinking, is that you assume that the standard model of cosmology is correct. I would lean more toward the opinion that we do not know how time affects space out there. Since we do not know if time itself exists as we know it here out in deep space, we can't know distances, because time may be woven with space out there quite differently. The 'apparent' distances from earth are based on our time and space here being applied uniformly out there also. What we think of as stars might be something else way out there. Even if distances were correct, and time did not exist out there as it does here, then we could not assign any times to anything out there, such as light speed.
Light here in the area of this little solar system moves through our space in ..so much time. But this little fishbowl of a solar system is tiny in the universe. Let's say it was, for example, 1/40 the distance to the nearest star. That means that we only have experience with one out of 40 sections/units of the (in this example, for the sake of a simplified number)! How about what time is like and space in the other 39 sections that compose the distance to that near star? So, regarding the age of the universe we can't know. All ages and time has been gauged and compared to and based on fishbowl time!
It does have details that go beyond what science thinks it knows! Details like when they stars started and when they will cease to exist and where the world fits in all this. Details like how there is some spiritual aspect to distant space and stars! Etc.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
A year later and...
He never did...
Almost as if he... made the whole thing up to save face...
Of course, getting caught destroys face, so....
Astrophile
Active Member
Good. We are making some progress.
I don't understand what you mean. The earliest fossils, of prokaryotic life-forms, appear in Archaean rocks, which are about 3.5 billion years old. The first fossil eukaryotes appear in Proterozoic rocks, about one to two billion years old, and multi-cellular animals and plants that are classifiable in extant phyla don't appear until the Ediacarian period, about 600 million years ago. Even the Ediacarian fossils and the Cambrian fossils that follow them are very different from living animals and plants; at this time (500-600 million years ago), there were no tetrapods, no insects, and no flowering plants.
In the light of these facts, can you explain what you mean when you say that present living things are not very different from the first terrestrial life forms?
There is no contradiction between an Earth and other parts of the cosmos being billions of years old and a Biblical creation taking place in six days. Both can be true simultaneously as shown by Einstein’s relativity theory.
Explore this for more,
Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible | Gerald Schroeder
Explore this for more,
Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible | Gerald Schroeder
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Let me clarify. current life forms are still DNA based, as are the earliest fossils. The form of these creatures fits into the Linnaean classification system. In other words an ancient extinct sponge, is still a sponge. An ancient extinct vertebrate is still a vertebrate with all the basic characteristics of vertebrates living today.
Audie
Veteran Member
ecco
Veteran Member
A short version of his beliefs are here:
Gerald Schroeder - Articles - Age of the Universe
Basically Gerald Schroeder is a fundamentalist Jew who is also a physicist who desperately needed to reconcile his knowledge of physics with his ingrained religious beliefs. His beliefs are not shared by most physicists and they are not shared by most fundamentalist religious folk. They are absolutely unconvincing.
Gerald Schroeder held Doctorates in both Earth Sciences and Physics from MIT (where he also taught Physics) and was on the Board of the Atomic Energy Commission. And, yes, he also happened to be a Jew. That doesn’t make him or his ideas wrong. If you can’t refute the soundness of his work through actual proof, then why comment at all? Being capriciously dismissive and committing ad hominem is wrong.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Schroeder is a solid scientist with superb credentials. As you have learned, this is irrelevant to the atheist crowd.
He, like many other scientists is immediately dismissed, and ridiculed because he doesn't toe their line.
The pocket scientists in this forum are big on dogma, sans any objectivity. No one can be a "real" scientist unless he/she pimps their beliefs.
They comment because they feel threatened, they employ childish methods because at heart many are children.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
I read Shroeder's book. It was interesting cosmology, but it is not evidence of God since, BY DEFINITION, God is not material; therefore, God's existence is outside the purview of science. Credentials don't matter squat when you are dealing with the immaterial.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Who said it was evidence of God? I read the cosmology book as well. It was evidence of a different interpretation of the creation of the universe applying physics in a different way.
Most believe there was a first cause of it's creation, be it a singularity or God, it's properties can only be speculated about, since both God and the singularity were and are outside the universe.