Real Science Friday: The Best Astronomy DVD Ever Made

[Tyrathca]

OK, thanks for the straight answer.

The DVD makes the case that evidence shows the age of the solar system cannot be millions of years old, and only thousands of years old, which lends greater support for creation over evolution.

Actually from the chapters that I can view for free he does not actually do this, he mostly makes claims that say that the current hypothesis for the formation of the solar system is wrong not claims that would put well defined limits on age of the solar system. At best I recall him saying Io could be at most millions of years old otherwise it would have cooled down, though he never cites his calculations for this and as I have pointed out he ignored obvious extra sources of heat.

He uses published scientific findings to support the evidence, which makes a compelling case against evolution.

First of all he actually mainly quote mines statements saying variations of "we don't understand how this process occurred" he rarely cites the factual data he sprouts.

You said "...the video seems to rely on the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers..." but I don't think you've seen the video and can make this criticism. You should watch it. It is a good video even if you disagree with it.

I have watched it, or at least the chapters I can see for free on the website. Based on those chapters I make my criticism and based on those chapters there is no way I would pay money to see the rest.

Tyrathca, if God did make the universe, wouldn't it be a miraculous, supernatural event? If God is powerful and intelligent enough to do all this amazing stuff, then why do you think he couldn't get the star light to us within a day's time?

Because such massive changes in the speed of light would leave changes in our observations of objects unless he created the light "in transit already" and thus we are seeing false history.

Do you think such a creator would slap his head and scream "DUH" Homer Simpson style because he put the stars too far away for anyone to see?

No, I'd have thought he'd put the speed of light at an appropriate amount to see everything and then not mess with it in such a way that it looks like it is and always has been constant. Why not make light instantaneous?

Furthermore what reason would anyone have other than faith to conclude that God did such a thing as mess with the speed of light?

 

[Stripe]

Because such massive changes in the speed of light would leave changes in our observations of objects unless he created the light "in transit already" and thus we are seeing false history.No, I'd have thought he'd put the speed of light at an appropriate amount to see everything and then not mess with it in such a way that it looks like it is and always has been constant. Why not make light instantaneous? Furthermore what reason would anyone have other than faith to conclude that God did such a thing as mess with the speed of light?

It also see he doesn't address the biggest problem in astronomy for creationism, the speed of light and the distance of objects, but instead focuses only on the solar system. The theory of relativity is basically an auto-win against young earth creationists, unless they are able to show ground breaking new physics which would win them a Nobel prize.

You seem really keen to talk about something that is not the topic at hand.

If you want to talk about the starlight problem, I reckon it's probably the strongest case against a young universe. And most of the answers are very poor attempts at a reasonable explanation.

Start a thread. :thumb:

 

[voltaire]

Because such massive changes in the speed of light would leave changes in our observations of objects unless he created the light "in transit already" and thus we are seeing false history.

---Tyrathca

It did leave changes in our observations. If the speed of light has always been the same, we would not be able to see light from objects at the end of the universe. We would only be able to see stars a few hundred thousand light years away since that is how old the universe is. Since we can see light from very distant stars, it means that the speed of light has not always been the same. What other changes in our observations should we see in a universe that is 300,000 years old?

 

[voltaire]

Why not make light instantaneous?

--Tyrathca.

God did make light instantaneous on day one. It was only after creation week that the speed of light took a precipitous drop. This was caused by an increase in the things that light bumps into and slows it down. These things are called planck particle pairs that come into and out of existence and create the zero point energy. As the zero point energy increased, the resistance to light speed increased. The zero point energy is almost at its maximum now and therefore the speed of light has leveled off to near constant value of about 386,000 meters per second.

Furthermore what reason would anyone have other than faith to conclude that God did such a thing as mess with the speed of light?

God did not mess with the energy of photons tyrathca. He created them with a set value that remains the same to this day. The speed at which light travels is determined by how much resistance it meets along the way. This is similar to friction. An increase in the zero point energy as slowed down how fast light moves. Light photons still carry the same amount of energy however. The only thing God did was stretch out the heavens at the beginning of creation. That took an input of energy at that energy is manifesting itself as in increase in the zero point energy over time and has almost reached its maximum.

 

[Stripe]

:doh:

 

[The Barbarian]

It did leave changes in our observations. If the speed of light has always been the same, we would not be able to see light from objects at the end of the universe. We would only be able to see stars a few hundred thousand light years away since that is how old the universe is.

The only problem with that, is that radioactive decay depends on the speed of light, and if it was that much different, the radiation would have fried all living things. So either the universe is very old, or we are all dead.

Seems like an easy choice.

 

[Yorzhik]

Hmmm the video seems to rely on the argument that because science doesn't have all the answers then he does.

Nah. He says that until you have the answers to support your theory, you don't have a theory.

 

[Stripe]

The crater counts of the moons of Jupiter was an intriguing discussion. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

Crater counts sounds like an intriguing approach. Tell us about that one.

How does it relate to the fact that the crater count on such moons as Europa show that about 95 percent of smaller craters are actually secondary craters from the ejecta of large impacts?

 

[Tyrathca]

Crater counts sounds like an intriguing approach. Tell us about that one.

I doubt he can, unfortunately the video didn't give much detail either.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes, it gives the impression of just gathering facts, but not pulling anything together to make a rational conclusion.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

It also see he doesn't address the biggest problem in astronomy for creationism, the speed of light and the distance of objects, but instead focuses only on the solar system. The theory of relativity is basically an auto-win against young earth creationists, unless they are able to show ground breaking new physics which would win them a Nobel prize.

Actually, general relativity provides a solution to the problem. Of course, it requires an alternate model in which the universe has a gravitational center with us near it (admittedly, most astronomers reject both of these premises). Incidentally, it would also explain why the quasars appear so energetic.

 

[Dr.Watson]

Nah. He says that until you have the answers to support your theory, you don't have a theory.

Theories aren't supported with "answers", they're supported with facts (data). His argument is the creationist canard that is essentially "If science hasn't yet discovered the truth, then my religious answer for the observed phenomena is correct". It's terrible logic and terrible theology.

 

[Persephone66]

Why does the universe look like it is speeding up?

If you really wanted to know you can look it up, there has been quite a bit written on the subject.

 

[The Barbarian]

Looks like this one's going to end as usual, in a cloud of creationist obfuscation.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Why does the universe look like it is speeding up?

Maybe it just looks that way from our perspective. It could be moving at the same old pace from its perspective. If time itself is speeding up for the things we're looking at, they would naturally appear (to us) to be accelerating, when in fact more time is going by there than we realize, and it's going by faster and faster the further these things get from the (hypothetical) gravitational center of the universe.

In theory, of course.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Theories aren't supported with "answers", they're supported with facts (data). His argument is the creationist canard that is essentially "If science hasn't yet discovered the truth, then my religious answer for the observed phenomena is correct". It's terrible logic and terrible theology.

That does sound pretty shady. I prefer an approach that's more up-front and direct by proposing an alternate theory based on scientific facts. You can't hide in the nooks and crannies forever.

 

[Squishes]

Nah. He says that until you have the answers to support your theory, you don't have a theory.

What are "answers"? Are they like data?

 

[Stripe]

Actually, general relativity provides a solution to the problem. Of course, it requires an alternate model in which the universe has a gravitational center with us near it (admittedly, most astronomers reject both of these premises). Incidentally, it would also explain why the quasars appear so energetic.

Looks like this is doomed to be another starlight thread. :chuckle:

If we are at the center of the universe then gravity is increasing for all light as it travels toward us. But I don't see how this solves the travel time problem.

Can you explain?

 

[Yorzhik]

What are "answers"? Are they like data?

Could you give my post a more uncharitable reading? I doubt it.

Psarris brought up some contradictions in the theory on how the solar system was made using the data provided by the theory itself. Until the theory can answer the contradictions within it, it isn't a theory.