They say that it takes light from planets and stars millions if not billions of years to reach the earth does that mean that some of those stars may be non existant today even though thier light is still visible and did GOD hang those stars with thier light instantaineously shining on earth and Adam seeing them? Or is Einstein theory wrong ?:tongue3:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Stars
- Thread starter ryarn
- Start date
I personally believe the speed of light was MUCH faster in the very recent past, and that light from the farthest reaches of space arrived here almost instantaneously. When we see supernovas or other such phenomena, that occurred within the last 6000 or so "solar years", although it may have occurred millions or even billions of "radiometric years" ago.
You can study this at Barry Setterfield's website.
http://www.setterfield.org/
You should probably start with this original article.
http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Send him an e-mail, he will answer you.
According to science, light speed is constant and therefore the Big Bang occurred about 14 billion years ago. The Universe expanded and cooled and clumped into galaxies made up of various sized stars over the next few billions of years.
YEC say God created the Universe about 6000 years ago with apparent age.
The issue then becomes why would God create light in transit to earth such that it creates the impression of a supernova occurring 165,000 years ago.
OEC face difficulties with accepting the Bible as written which suggests Adam and Eve were created from "dust" about 6000 years ago.
Eventually everyone seeks refuge in the "its a mystery" answer.
YEC say God created the Universe about 6000 years ago with apparent age.
The issue then becomes why would God create light in transit to earth such that it creates the impression of a supernova occurring 165,000 years ago.
OEC face difficulties with accepting the Bible as written which suggests Adam and Eve were created from "dust" about 6000 years ago.
Eventually everyone seeks refuge in the "its a mystery" answer.
saturneptune
New Member
That will be a great question. The two choices you mention seem likely, unless there was some kind of bending or warping of the space time elements during Creation that is not constant and we do not understand.
saturneptune
New Member
Or, if A*C/D, then B*E(3.1416) replaces the constant, then the wave propogation would more likely progress at V/C(433.4).
With that in mind, consider the neutrino.
Laboratory measurements and limits for neutrino properties Upper limits for neutrino masses
•Electron neutrino: m < 2.2 eV (Mainz)
•Majorana mass of the electron neutrino: 0.24 eV Depending on the nuclear matrix element.
•Muon neutrino: m < 170 keV
•Tau neutrino: m < 15.5 MeV (95 % C.L.) Combined
m < 18.2 MeV (95 % C.L.) Aleph
m < 28 MeV (95 % C.L.) CLEO
Limits from cosmology
Sum of neutrino masses: Σ m < 1.0 eV (Hannestad)
from WMAP and 2dF data.
Sum of neutrino masses: Σ m < 0.7 eV (Sperger et al.)
from WMAP, 2dF, CBI, ACBAR and Lyman-α forest data.
Also other analysis exists.
Measurements for electron neutrino mass
The mass of electron neutrinos is measured in tritium beta decay experiments. The decay results in a 3-helium, electron and an electron antineutrino. If neutrinos have non-zero mass, the spectrum of the electrons is deformed at the high energy part, i.e. the neutrino mass determines the maximum energy of emitted electrons.
To be excact, the experiments measure the neutrino mass squared. Curiously, when taken at the face value, all results point to a negative mass squared, particularly the oldest experiment. This is probably due to a systematic error, and actually two running experiments, Mainz and Troitsk, have been able to measure physically acceptable values.
Experiment measured mass squared formal limit C.L. Year
Mainz -1.6 ± 2.5 ± 2.1 2.2 95 % 2000
Troitsk -1.0 ± 3.0 ± 2.1 (**) 2.5 95 % 2000
Zürich -24 ± 48 ± 61 11.7 95 % 1992
Tokyo INS - 65 ± 85 ± 65 13.1 95% 1991
Los Alamos - 147 ± 68 ± 41 9.3 95% 1991
Livermore - 130 ± 20 ± 15 7.0 95% 1995
China - 31 ± 75 ± 48 12.4 95% 1995
Average of PDG (98) -27 ± 20 15 95 % 1998
Masses in units of eV.
(**)The electron endpoint spectrum of Troitsk experiments can be fitted by an ordinary decay spectrum with a massless neutrino and a monoenergetic line just beyond the endpoint. In the values quoted in the above table the monoenergetic line has been extracted, assuming it to be of an external source. Making a fit to full data leads to negative mass squared and weaker limits. The position of the line varies, with a period of 0.503 ± 0.003 a.
The Mainz experiment does not support the Troitsk anomaly.
Presently the choice for the best limit of the electron neutrino mass is ambiguous. One should be careful with the interpretations until the anomalies will be clarified.
Future tritium beta decay experiment
Experiment mass sensitivity/eV Status Year
KATRIN 0.3 proposed
2006?
The KATRIN experiment can push the limit for electron neutrino mass down for an order of magnitude.
Limits for electron neutrino Majorana mass
The Majorana mass is measured by double beta decay experiments. These experiments use a nucleid that is stable in normal beta decay (involving one weak interaction vertex) but it can decay by a double weak interaction process that changes the charge of the nucleus by two units. In such a decay two neutrinos are emitted. However, if neutrinos have Majorana mass, a vertex with no external neutrinos is possible. A neutrinoless double beta decay is an unambiguos signal of a Majorana mass. In practice the neutrinoless double beta decay is identified from the normal two neutrino double beta decay by electron spectra, which requires lots of data to be taken.
In case of neutrino mixing the Majorana mass experiments measure a specific mixture of neutrino mass eigenvalues,
< m > = Uei2 mi, i summed over all mass eigenstates.
For sufficiently small masses, the measured value is close enough to the diagonal component of the mass matrix connected to electron weak eigenstate,
< m > = mee
Some models, like the Zee model, predict very low values for neutrinoless double beta decay, still allowing the physical masses of all neutrinos to be orders of magnitudes larger than the observed limit of effective Majorana mass.
Experiment nucleid half life/a mass limit/eV majoron coupling Year
Heidelberg-Moscow 76-Ge 5.7 1025 0.2 (90%) 1999
IGEX 76-Ge 1.57 1025 0.33 1999
NEMO 116-Cd
82-Se
96-Zr
100-Mo 5*1021
9.5*1021
1.3*1021
6.4*1021 9.8
.
6-18 (90%) 1.2*10-4
*
*
(2-6)*10-4 1998
Elegants 76-Ge
100-Mo
116-Cd
48-Ca
4.5 * 1022
6.4 1021
5.2 * 1022
3 (90%) 1995
Gothard tunnel 136-Xe 4.4*1023 (90%) 1.8-2.8 (90%) 1.5* 10-4 1993-
Milano-Gran Sasso 130-Te
128-Te 1.4 * 1023 (90 %)
8.6 * 1022 (90 %) 2.6 6.7 10-4 1995,1998
Solotvina 116-Cd 7.0 * 1022 (90 %) 2.6 (90 %) 1.2 * 10 -4 (90 %) 2000
•The life time is given in second, the column corresponds to the lower limit for neutrinoless double beta decay.
•The limit for the Majorana mass depends on the nuclear matrix elements.
•Majoron column is the upper limit for the neutrino-majoron coupling, deduced from the non-observation of majoron emitting double beta decay.
So far, the only experiment claiming to have measured the Majorana mass, is the Heidelberg-Moscow -group. The best value given in (ref) is 0.39 eV. The data analysis has been critised ( ref).
Experiment nucleid half-life/a mass/eV Year
Heidelberg-Moscow 76-Ge (0.8-18.3)*1025 0.11-0.56 eV 2001
Future double beta decay experiments and proposals
Experiment nucleid detector sensitivity/eV Year
GENIUS 100-1000 kg 76-Ge Ge 0.01 200?
CUORE 225 kg 130-Te TeO2
NEMO 3 several, 10 kg drift chamber 2002
MOON Mo
The start times are only suggestive, and not all proposals have decisive funding. Other proposals exist.
neutrino magnetic moments
•Electron neutrino: µ < 1.8 10-10 µB
•Muon neutrino: µ < 7.4 10-10 µ B (LAMPF)
•Tau neutrino: µ < 4.2 10-7 µ B (NUTEV)
New projects:
•MUNU- sensitivity up to (2-3) 10-11 µ B.
Number of neutrino types
•Accelerator: 2.994 ± 0.012 (PDG fit to all LEP data)
•Cosmology: less than five (or sixteen). less than 3.9 (95% Olive)
Last edited by a moderator:
Translation:
"Numbers, symbols, numbers, big words, numbers, made-up words, numbers, headache, numbers, Acronymns, numbers, more headache..."
This is not what I want to see when I log on to a THEOLOGY forum. :tonofbricks:
Wouldn't it also means we can see the past presently?
Let's look at the Bible really quick....IT'S SUPERLY-DUPERLY complicated folks (I promise) 
So pay attention:
Let's begin at Book #1 and Chapter #1:
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So...light happened but let's keep going
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Are we all on the same page??? I hope so...Now let's yack about stars...
Gen 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. .............Now let's all focus here:
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
DING DING!!! Do we catch it now???? :BangHead::BangHead:
So pay attention:Let's begin at Book #1 and Chapter #1:
Gen 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
So...light happened but let's keep going
Gen 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Are we all on the same page??? I hope so...Now let's yack about stars...
Gen 1:14 ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. .............Now let's all focus here:
Gen 1:19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
DING DING!!! Do we catch it now???? :BangHead::BangHead:
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems so to me
Sound and light are all of the same spectrum or with different frequencies I think,one is audible,one is visible and others unseen (Ultra Violet,Gamma etc..)
Also we're does sound go? Every conversation or audible sound must go somewhere, does it stay around for eternity. Maybe that's how we will be judged at the Bema and others at the Great White Throne. Maybe this is how GOD records things ????
saturneptune
New Member
Then don't look.
True story. And it's because of the constant, incessant Darwinist indoctrination.
I think if you can prove any aspect of creation is designed with age built in, it no longer is an assumption. Case in point, Adam. Even if God created a newborn and not a grown man we know He didn't create an embryo, so even an infant would have been created with 'age built in'.
Apparent age: When the folks sipped the wine at Cana, did they think it didn't exist minutes ago, or did they think it was produced over a similar time span as the wine they had been drinking before?
From an article: "Many young Earth creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the "Omphalos hypothesis", today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the naturalist and science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Omphalos was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. Gosse proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. The Omphalos hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. Although both logically unassailable and consistent with a literal reading of Scripture, Omphalos was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and by theologians because it implied to them a deceitful God, which they found theologically unacceptable."
From an article: "Many young Earth creationists distinguish their own hypotheses from the "Omphalos hypothesis", today more commonly referred to as the apparent age concept, put forth by the naturalist and science writer Philip Henry Gosse. Omphalos was an unsuccessful mid-19th century attempt to reconcile creationism with geology. Gosse proposed that just as Adam had a navel (omphalos is Greek for navel), evidence of a gestation he never experienced, so also the Earth was created ex nihilo complete with evidence of a prehistoric past that never actually occurred. The Omphalos hypothesis allows for a young Earth without giving rise to any predictions that would contradict scientific findings of an old Earth. Although both logically unassailable and consistent with a literal reading of Scripture, Omphalos was rejected at the time by scientists on the grounds that it was completely unfalsifiable and by theologians because it implied to them a deceitful God, which they found theologically unacceptable."
Last edited by a moderator:
The speed of light, about 186,000 miles per second, is constant. Therefore light emitted from the surface of our sun takes about 8 minutes to reach earth. Over that interval, the light is "in transit."
Bottom line, no one has an answer that seems solid when studied, no matter how loud the YEC and OEC shout. Job 38 provides that real answer.
Bottom line, no one has an answer that seems solid when studied, no matter how loud the YEC and OEC shout. Job 38 provides that real answer.
Adam was created "MATURE"...no doubt...he wasn't an infant.
This is what I buy:
But the appearance of "age" means Adam was plausibly created with something like: "an appearance of having somehow endured a signifigant amount of successive events properly understood as moments of calculable time"
That's Chicken-hooey....and there's no reason I should buy it......NONE