Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 948 (179739)
01-22-2005 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by RAZD
01-22-2005 4:32 PM


one dimension short of a full deck
What I was saying was that I have no quarrel with the speed of light, We can use that as a ruler to a large extent. For example to denote a cosmic distance, i.e. 17,000 light years to 1987a. I can agree. That the decay rates as seen by the rings, etc, fine, that tell me only that it's been the same since that thing blew. Where I contest the ruler here being applied is to time, instead of just distance. I have leaned toward the spiritual universe, and light proposal, from last year here on this forum, by arcathon. In other words another form of light that traveled infinitely fast, being spiritual, was the one first here, to be somehow replaced in a way that couild leave only our slow light. This is how I am looking at it till and unless a better explanation comes along with the timeframe of the bible. In other words, you can't prove it wrong, I can't prove it right, unless we admit the preasence of spirits. Hence, thats why I issued the 'great final test'. It received a thread closing response, I think twice now, so, my last post simply says we'll have to agree to disagree for now on this point.
Then I went on to say, unless someone like those christians who wrote starlight and time can win the day with their approach. I think their approach (setterfield etc) is working only with 'black crows' (not a spiritual factor, like a split), so they try to go up against the goliath of cosmology, challenging redshift, and other things on science's own present terms. If they win, I'll get on board, meanwhile I feel safe over in the place I am on this, as it can't be disproved, and seems to put science on the defense.
So, yes, I can go no further at the moment here on this, so, having tried to make my point, I get out of the way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 4:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:27 PM simple has not replied
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:43 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 244 of 948 (179849)
01-23-2005 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
01-22-2005 6:43 PM


quote:
: that would have been in the "instantaneous light" period OR the universe since the time instant light ended is still older than 168,000 years
This is an interesting point. I have to mull it over for awhile. I think you have something there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 948 (179962)
01-23-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by RAZD
01-22-2005 6:43 PM


fireworks!
quote:
this little scenario here completely and utterly destroys the arkathon instant light before the fall (or whenever) theory
Afraid not. Now in science of the stars, they say we have a lot of complications, factors, and anomilies, and such. In a concept like the 'split' one, it seems somewhat less complicated. Nevertheless it seems you found a little wrinkle.
I would see the supernova as happening post split. So, for most of the stars, we would have had Adam seeing them in the garden, as the light was S light. Then, afterwards, the new light then, coming to take it's place, more or less. Here's the wrinkle - The bible tells us in a certain period in particular, (endtime) there will be 'signs in the sky'. Lots of them, so I guess they would 'already' have happened, as our understanding of time goes at least, and the light is on it's way that we'll see soon. In history there have been some of these heavenly signs as well, first thing that comes to mind is the three scientists of their day, who followed such a sign to Bethlehem!
One property of spirtiual light is not that it travels fast, but that it 'can' travel fast. Any way it feels like, or God orders, or wants it to. If we think of an angel, he would not be 'flying all the time', but could get somewhere in a hurry if need be. So I don't know if some 'coding' was involved, where some light was to have a delay, and designed to be seen at a certain time.
The other possibility I can see is, say S light speed was all 'instant' all the time, then, here is how I could arrange things if I were God.
If I wanted a sign in the heaven, such as a supernova to arrive in, say, 1987, (maybe to denote an important event, like the beginning of the rise of a leader, say)- all I do is set it off, so the fireworks happen on cue, or in the right time. Since the event has to take place in a 'universe', now with only P light, I would have to set it in progress within the several thousand years of creation, if I decided only on that. Otherwise, I would use the S light, before split, and have it delayed, so it would arrive precisely on time, or be visible to men, in their light.
If I set off a fireworks show, I have some things go off in sequence, and some that take a little longer for effect! Just when viewers think the show was over, boom, surprise, a grand finale!
Now that makes the universe a more alive, exciting, vibrant, wonderful place! Not just a 'graveyard' of dead, ancient bygone happenstance explosions!
The nice thing about the whole split thing (besides it getting back together one day) is that it very much includes a creator, and spirits, and prophesy, etc. etc.
Hope that helps

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by RAZD, posted 01-22-2005 6:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Admin, posted 01-23-2005 3:39 PM simple has not replied
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 4:27 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 948 (180048)
01-23-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by RAZD
01-23-2005 4:27 PM


Re: fireworks!
quote:
yep when in doubt pull out the god-did-it-it's-a-miracle card
What do you think the S light was, chopped liver? I guess I don't hold the no-one-did-it-its-all-a-fluke- card, so I had to play what I had. Hey, it's what I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 4:27 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 10:06 PM simple has replied

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 261 of 948 (180110)
01-24-2005 3:52 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
01-23-2005 10:06 PM


Re: fireworks!
quote:
but then we always pull out the it's-not-science trump card
Glad you call it a 'trump' card, kinda sounds like the person using it wins. But I prefer to think of it like this. When someone pulls out 'it's just one big giant series of flukes' card, I pull out a 'it's not yet accepted science' trump card. (I know, it never will be.................)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 01-23-2005 10:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by RAZD, posted 01-25-2005 6:47 PM simple has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024