the light of stars
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-07-2016, 10:51 PM
RE: the light of stars
We may have questions but they sure as hell do not have answers!

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 10:51 PM
RE: the light of stars
And then god said "let there be light" (I bet he likes my answer best)

1 Like = 1 Prayer
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes izel's post
24-07-2016, 10:56 PM
RE: the light of stars
But the light was blue-shifted and temporally compressed multimegawatt gamma radiation. The Lord God saw the light and saw that it was Not Good. "Fuck!" said God as the Face of the Deep began to boil.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
25-07-2016, 12:53 AM (This post was last modified: 25-07-2016 12:57 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: the light of stars
(24-07-2016 07:14 PM)genericamerican22 Wrote:  hi I was wondering if someone can respond to this article if you don't want to read all of it I will understand http://www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html

Quote:According to Albert Einstein, space is not the empty “nothingness” that most of us perceive it to be. It is filled with what Einstein called ether.

This very first paragraph is enough to

- stop reading and
- discard the rest as probably utter bollocks

The classic theory of ether was debunked long before Einstein (Michaelson interferometer, i have worked with one for 3 years.). What Einstein was calling "aether" was a philosophical proposition, without having the slightest clue or evidence. He was guessing.

So someone either is ignorant or dishonest or....has evidence to support Einsteins guess/hypothesis. I dont see any data in the article so im stuck with ignorance or dishonesty, both of which i am not interested in.

End of story.

P.S.: Palephyte aleady has explained that for gravitational time dilation to have significant effects on time you need absurdly big black holes and need to be absurdly close to them, both of which i am not aware of.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
25-07-2016, 01:26 AM
RE: the light of stars
Just a quick back of the envelope calculation on death by starlight:

If the rest of the universe experiences 13.8 billion years while you only experience 6000 years then you have a time dilation factor of 13,800,000,000 yr / 6,000 yr = 2,300,000.

If, during that time, the rest of the universe is bathed in the usual 0.1 microWatts/square meter of 600 nanometer warm yellow starlight then what you get is 0.23 Watts per square meter of 260 femtometer gamma radiation.

If it were visible light, 0.23 Watts per square meter is a poorly lit room. Enough to read by but not comfortably. It'll wreck your eyes in the long run. Not that you're going to have a long run in this case. Or eyes.

Of course, measuring gamma radiation in Watts per square meter isn't terribly useful. It isn't as if you can see this stuff. Grays or sieverts would be more meaningful but then we'd have to make some assumptions about how much energy was being depositted in your body and how much was going slap through you.

Perhaps it's more useful to simply state that the air itself will glow faintly blue as its molecules are torn apart. Your molecules too, so enjoy the show while it lasts.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
25-07-2016, 01:42 AM
RE: the light of stars
There's a clue when it says;

"The growing body of evidence supporting the YE view is substantial enough, however, to warrant a thoughtful investigation into whether or not this apparent contradiction can be resolved reasonably."

But doesn't actually say what that evidence is.

A well thought out answer to this question would have lots and lots of citations and references if there were a "growing body of evidence". To merely quote-mine scientists and provide a minimal number of references to further reading speaks volumes about the honesty (or rather the lack of honesty) of the creationist answer.

The recommended "further reading" is a book by a creationist D Russell Humphries. You can find more on Humphries here and the nonsense of the creationist cosmology:



The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike
Excreta Tauri Sapientam Fulgeat (The excrement of the bull causes wisdom to flee)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Silly Deity's post
25-07-2016, 05:32 AM
RE: the light of stars
(24-07-2016 07:14 PM)genericamerican22 Wrote:  hi I was wondering if someone can respond to this article if you don't want to read all of it I will understand http://www.gotquestions.org/star-light.html

They are speculating that gravitational time dilation causes time to move faster outside of the galaxy than it moves within the galaxy. What about things inside the galaxy that are much further away than 6000 light years?

Meet ULAS J0013+01 a star on the outer edge of our galaxy; yet still within it's gravitational influence, that is 900,000 light years away!

Sorry YEC's, distant star light still disproves your dingbat theological presuppositions EVEN IF WE GRANT YOUR RIDICULOUS SPECULATION AS REAL!

Rocketsurgeon has already pointed to the retired scientist George F.R. Ellis as a ringer that they quoted, he's a Quaker that practices a pretty solid amount of cognitive dissonance in his past work.

Not that his ideas are necessarily wrong because of that, but if gotquestions.org is quoting him, there's bound to be some kind of quote-mining funny business going on.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 06:42 AM
RE: the light of stars
YE depends on so many things being “magically” created in place such as light already on it’s way to Earth, fossils being created in place or trees being created thousands of years old already. It’s all nonsense.

Do you know anything about Dendrochronology?
[Image: dendrochronology.jpg]

In Germany oak trees have been used to build tree ring sequences of more than 10,000 years. YECs would have to say claim that the original trees were ‘created’ to look as though they were 4,000 yo. But I suppose if you can be made to believe in an invisible sky daddy this is no big leap of faith.

http://archaeology.about.com/od/dterms/g/dendrochro.htm

In the end YEC always require some sort of non-natural explanation because every time they try to force fit unnatural explanantions into well understood science proceces they are soundly debunked, whether star light or tree rings.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Full Circle's post
25-07-2016, 06:49 AM
RE: the light of stars
Creationist PHD ---

bullshit - piled higher, deeper....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-07-2016, 10:07 AM
RE: the light of stars
Quote from Dillahunty vs Lounsbery: "A god that can do everything is consistent with anything"

So if anyone is gonna try and pull the "god faked it" card, yeah, he can fake anything (if he exists).....so?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: