Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Clete]

This is not what is meant by the "one-way speed of light."

The one way speed of light not in a universe relative direction, or in an earthward direction, it's ANY direction, particularly the initial direction light travels when being measured.

The problem is that in order to measure it, we need the clocks to be synchronized, which requires the reflection of the light, which makes it impossible to know if the speed of light in the first direction is the same as the second, or if it's instantaneous, and the second pass, the reflection, is half of c.

One-way speed of light - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The first time I ever heard anything about this issue was during my junior year, high school astronomy class in 1985/1986. We discussed it as part of a discussion about the "Einstein synchronization convention". There isn't anyone, (that I've ever heard of), that would entertain that light would or could travel at a different speed in one direction vs any other direction without there being some sort of cause (like the presence of an Eather, for example). Meaning that if it isn't the same speed in every direction, there would be a particular direction that the light "preferred" to go due to whatever it was causing the difference in speed.

There was at least one guy who spent some energy on it. I totally forget who it was or even much of any details except a point being made about, if such a directional preference could be detected, it would form the basis of universal coordinate system in at least two dimensions. All moving objects could be classified in accordance with the degree to which it was moving with or opposed to light's preferred direction and also whether it was parallel vs perpendicular to the direction that light likes to travel in. That, in fact, may have just been an idea that my astronomy teacher came up with himself.

That however, hasn't really ever been the focus of the issue because there isn't anyone who gives any serious credence to the idea that light actually travels faster in one direction than in any other because there isn't any way, even conceptually, that a difference in the speed of light in one direction vs another could ever be detected. The issue is merely about the nature of light causing it to be physically impossible to measure the one way speed of light. As you say, you have to synchronize clocks and the information being communicated by the clock is itself traveling at the speed of light, etc. Because of this quirk of the nature of light and the speed of information forcing a round trip measurement of the speed of light, it is theoretically (i.e. conceptually) possible that light could be traveling at a different speed in one direction vs another but no one actually takes it seriously enough to believe that it actually does so and those few who have postulated it as a real possibility universally believe that there would be a cause for it and that therefore, as I said a moment ago, there would likely be a directional preference.

The only thing anyone ever needs to see in order to fully understand the issue is this excellent video...

Which is why I don't think it's a good direction to go. But it is certainly a possibility.

And again, maybe the fact that God stretched out the heavens has something to do with it.

Well, I can't tell if you see it yet or not, but I think I've proven that, by itself, stretching out the heavens is insufficient to explain the celestial events we witness. Something else is going on. Either God created the universe much longer ago than 7500 years, or God created stars in an already exploded state, or the Andromeda Galaxy (and several other, supposedly further away galaxies) are less than 7500 light years away, or some combination of those possibilities. No matter how you cut it, heavens stretching, by itself, doesn't get the job done.

Clete

 

[Clete]

This is the number that Walt Brown came up with when calculating both the date of the flood and extrapolating based on Biblical data to get the approximate year that the earth was created.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - When Was the Flood, the Exodus, and Creation?

hpt.rsr.org

Wow. There's more of that book that I've forgotten than what I remember. I probable ought to read it through again.

 

[Idolater]

Absolutely. That doesn't mean I'm completely on board with it, but it is a biblically sound, physical, material cause (fountains of the deep) for a physical, material phenomenon (flood ejectiles), that results in a physical, material scar.

Rather than postulating that He made something look scarred without a scarring event.

I think this is begging the question but I'll address it below.

As @Clete pointed out, there are other options.

Of course. I'm not being doctrinaire here. We're hashing out our individual thoughts, right?

I'm okay with idea that the process of creating the moon caused some scarring.

Again, I'll address this below here.

But you can't have a star explode before it exists. God giving evidence of such is a delusion

I'm not sure if you mean to use this word? Who's delusion would it be, if God created stars which have "already" exploded? When I propose either man or God, in either case, this statement doesn't represent for me a sensible picture of reality.

, if not a lie (different thread, but important).

I don't accept that God creating the Universe "with the appearance of age" is in any way a lie. Not where we're here taking Genesis literally. It says six days. It doesn't matter how it "looks," it matters that it's only six days old, not six katrillion days old. If it's actually the latter, then THAT makes God a liar, but not before. Not ever before, is that a lie.

God created Adam and Eve with their adult teeth, correct? It means their jaws never actually held baby teeth, and had those teeth fall out and get replaced with adult teeth. But I bet their jaws looked exactly like all of our jaws and gums and teeth, I bet there was evidence of having had baby teeth, even though they hadn't had baby teeth. Same thing where I bet they had belly buttons too.

Lies? No. Appearance of age is not a lie, not unless we're thinking the "day" He made Adam wasn't really a day. If that's what we're saying, then why are we even itt talking about Noah's Flood being literal? Isn't that why we're here? (To say you think the appearance of age would be a lie means you don't take Genesis literally.)

That's not to say God can't make a mature man or tree, but to make a dead tree is delusory.

You're basically saying an "already" exploded star is "dead," which is begging the question that your view is right. Why attempt the analogy between a star and life? We're here taking Genesis literally, and Genesis literally says (pretty much) God's Spirit ("Holy") is the giver of life. He never gave life to a star (the Sun for example we aren't taught God breathed into the Sun), why the attempted parallel between stars and being alive versus dead? Who cares what a star "already did?" It has no moral implication to any of us. And if you think it has implication for your systematic theology (basically analysis of the Bible and everything else) I'm here to tell you: it doesn't.

How you view the Bible and God shouldn't have anything to do with whether you believe in the Flood, the Big Bang, Six Literal Days, the appearance of age, cosmology, etc. It has nothing to do with Christianity, it's a hobby, for many Christians, but it is not near the core of our faith.

I personally think He means six literal days, and I also have found zero logical reason to reject the appearance of age theory. I don't appreciate you accusing me of thinking God's a liar. There's no reason for that.

 

[Clete]

I had forgotten about this old thread....

Real Science Radio: One Way Speed of Light Measurement Proposal

Turns out that, while there may not be a way to do a one way measurement of the speed of light, there might be a way to tell whether light travels at the same speed in all directions! I can't believe that I forgot about this idea!

 

[Clete]

Well, after rediscovering that old thread (see my previous post above), I spent some time thinking it through and I don't think it would work because the two cameras are functioning as clocks and so the same clock synchronization problem arises.

If you didn't care about the cameras being perfectly in sync with each other or if you did completely away with a camera and simply had some other sort of photon detector, then you'd have to introduce a different set of clocks that told you when the light left the laser and arrived at each sensor and the same problem arises.

 

[Right Divider]

There is forensic evidence that leads us to speculate why things were the way they were. I'm speculating there was a canopy, while you speculate there wasn't - both of us using the same evidence.

What evidence do you have that there was a canopy?
Saying that a canopy could have had benefits is NOT evidence that one actually existed.

It sure is. If there was a canopy, the windows of heaven would be an adequate mention of it.

Again, this does not actually support the idea that there was a canopy.

You are begging the question.

"If there was a canopy... <insert anything here>"

"Windows of heaven" would also adequately describe what happened without a canopy.

 

[Derf]

Well, after rediscovering that old thread (see my previous post above), I spent some time thinking it through and I don't think it would work because the two cameras are functioning as clocks and so the same clock synchronization problem arises.

If you didn't care about the cameras being perfectly in sync with each other or if you did completely away with a camera and simply had some other sort of photon detector, then you'd have to introduce a different set of clocks that told you when the light left the laser and arrived at each sensor and the same problem arises.

I think they have to be perfectly in sync to show what he wanted to show. And there's some question whether that's possible.
The idea of a camera instead of a sensor is to capture an image showing the light's progress. If it makes it partway through the field of view, as represented in the multiple cameras, then it shows a non-instantaneous transmission. A sensor array might do the same thing. But you're correct that the synching would be a time problem, so it might not prove anything.

 

[Yorzhik]

I think they have to be perfectly in sync to show what he wanted to show. And there's some question whether that's possible.
The idea of a camera instead of a sensor is to capture an image showing the light's progress. If it makes it partway through the field of view, as represented in the multiple cameras, then it shows a non-instantaneous transmission. A sensor array might do the same thing. But you're correct that the synching would be a time problem, so it might not prove anything.

Hasn't there been another proposal to sync a clock using entangled particles?

 

[Derf]

Hasn't there been another proposal to sync a clock using entangled particles?

Probably. You just set one of the particles to 2:45 PM, and other particle automatically jumps to 2:45 PM.

 

[Clete]

I think they have to be perfectly in sync to show what he wanted to show. And there's some question whether that's possible.
The idea of a camera instead of a sensor is to capture an image showing the light's progress. If it makes it partway through the field of view, as represented in the multiple cameras, then it shows a non-instantaneous transmission. A sensor array might do the same thing. But you're correct that the synching would be a time problem, so it might not prove anything.

Right. That's Bob's experiment. My comment was in reference to my modified version of it.

As for Bob's experiment, I honestly can't figure out whether it would work or not. I think it through one day and it seems like it wouldn't work and then I'll think it through again and it seems like it would work. I keep bouncing back and forth on it.

Right now, it seems like it would work if the distance between the milk particles and the cameras was a tiny fraction of the distance that the light traveled from the laser to the milk particles or vise versa. If one leg of the trip is dramatically shorter than the other, it seems that a significant difference in directional speed would be detectable.

Now, later today, something will strike me as an obvious reason why that won't work and I'll be back to thinking that he's snuck in the two way speed of light again.

Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

What evidence do you have that there was a canopy?
Saying that a canopy could have had benefits is NOT evidence that one actually existed.

A canopy benefiting the conditions that we find before the flood is exactly evidence for a canopy.

Why you don't understand what evidence is surprises me. Here's an example how it works, even today: Have you ever watched Forensic Files? It's a TV show that shows murder cases, frequently cold cases, and how forensic evidence solves the case. So often a cold case is re-opened because new technology allows for new evidence they can use to crack a case. And so often they originally speculated at least two possibilities, based on the evidence they had at the time. Are their speculations not based on evidence? It's true that they did, in fact, base their speculations on evidence. And because of their speculations they had their eyes open for evidence related to what they were guessing, and when the new technology gave them the additional evidence, they solved the case.

Now we can expand on this example to point out each element in parallel with "the case of the missing canopy" but I think you should be able to figure it out.

Again, this does not actually support the idea that there was a canopy.

You are begging the question.

"If there was a canopy... <insert anything here>"

"Windows of heaven" would also adequately describe what happened without a canopy.

It isn't "If there was a canopy... <insert anything here>". It's "If pressure was higher before the flood... <you can't insert anything here, but a canopy would be one of the obvious things you could put here>".

 

[Idolater]

A canopy benefiting the conditions that we find before the flood is exactly evidence for a canopy.

Why you don't understand what evidence is surprises me. Here's an example how it works, even today: Have you ever watched Forensic Files? It's a TV show that shows murder cases, frequently cold cases, and how forensic evidence solves the case. So often a cold case is re-opened because new technology allows for new evidence they can use to crack a case. And so often they originally speculated at least two possibilities, based on the evidence they had at the time. Are their speculations not based on evidence? It's true that they did, in fact, base their speculations on evidence. And because of their speculations they had their eyes open for evidence related to what they were guessing, and when the new technology gave them the additional evidence, they solved the case.

Now we can expand on this example to point out each element in parallel with "the case of the missing canopy" but I think you should be able to figure it out.


It isn't "If there was a canopy... <insert anything here>". It's "If pressure was higher before the flood... <you can't insert anything here, but a canopy would be one of the obvious things you could put here>".

I feel like the most prominent evidence for what a collection of very small particles orbiting a planet would look like isn't what I'd call a canopy but like the rings of Saturn.

 

[Clete]

I found Bob's prediction!

Just by pure lucky chance, over the last few weeks, I happened to be listening through some of Bob Enyart's bible studies while driving in my truck instead of listening to talk radio or whatever else. I started with the study through the book of John, which was just excellent, by the way, but when I finished it, I wanted to listen to some more and so decided to listen through his bible studies on the book of Genesis. Yesterday evening, while we were on our way home from having diner with some family, Bob started talking about stars and how far away they are and gave his prediction about how all the supernovae we see should be within a sphere around the Earth that is 6000ly in radius. (His belief at the time of that recording was that creation happened about 6000 years ago instead of the 7500 years that Dr. Brown has calculated.)

Just for reference, in case anyone wanted to listen to it for themselves, you can find the discussion starting at 35:46 into section 3a of the "Genesis: Creation" series and it continues into the first few minutes of section 3b. (These studies were originally released on audio cassette and so this would have been on tape 3 near the end of side a and the beginning of side b.)

Lastly, by way of endorsement, Bob's studies series through the book of Genesis is flat out incredible! It isn't perfect. There are a tiny handful of factual errors here and there that Bob himself became aware of later on, but none of them effected the substance of the teachings. The series entitled "Genesis: The Fall" is particularly great. I strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand God and the book that He wrote.

 

[Yorzhik]

I feel like the most prominent evidence for what a collection of very small particles orbiting a planet would look like isn't what I'd call a canopy but like the rings of Saturn.

This could very well be true.

 

[Right Divider]

A canopy benefiting the conditions that we find before the flood is exactly evidence for a canopy.

That a canopy COULD be beneficial is NOT evidence that it existed. You just keep repeating this falsehood.

It isn't "If there was a canopy... <insert anything here>". It's "If pressure was higher before the flood... <you can't insert anything here, but a canopy would be one of the obvious things you could put here>".

You have given NO evidence that the pressure was actually higher before the flood.

If you have some, present it.

 

[Derf]

I feel like the most prominent evidence for what a collection of very small particles orbiting a planet would look like isn't what I'd call a canopy but like the rings of Saturn.

We currently have a canopy. It's called "the ozone layer", and it does not look like the rings of Saturn.

 

[Clete]

We currently have a canopy. It's called "the ozone layer", and it does not look like the rings of Saturn.

The ozone layer is a gas, not a bunch of very small particles, unless you count molecules as particles. I think the point had to do with small but not microscopic sized particles.

I've lost track of that side of the discussion though, so that might be incorrect.

 

[Derf]

The ozone layer is a gas, not a bunch of very small particles, unless you count molecules as particles. I think the point had to do with small but not microscopic sized particles.

I've lost track of that side of the discussion though, so that might be correct.

My point was that not everything that could be considered a canopy would end up looking like Saturn's rings.

Another thought is that the rain forest treetops are considered a canopy, but air and water can go through it. That would be similar to a net-work or lattice idea for the windows of heaven.

 

[Yorzhik]

That a canopy COULD be beneficial is NOT evidence that it existed. You just keep repeating this falsehood.

I've never said being beneficial is the evidence. That you would claim I have shows a non-charitable reading of ground I've covered many times. What you should be able to see is that a canopy is a reasonable result of the evidence.

You have given NO evidence that the pressure was actually higher before the flood.

If you have some, present it.

That isn't true. Since we both agree the mix of gasses was different, and likely that CO2 was a great deal higher, higher pressures would be required for life depending on the mix - especially life that was in a very good environment to thrive - especially life that was living very long - especially life that could grow quickly - especially life that could grow very large.

That you claim I haven't presented this evidence previously when I repeat the evidence every time you ask shows a lack of curiosity for understanding what you are arguing against.

 

[Idolater]

Another thought is that the rain forest treetops are considered a canopy, but air and water can go through it. That would be similar to a net-work or lattice idea for the windows of heaven.

There are holes in the ozone layer, so I've heard.