Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Once Again

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on May 24, 2002 13:39:22 UTC

I already covered this in a previous post but you were most likely bust with other posters. I am happy to finally get your attention.

First of all I have a PhD from Harvard in physics with a major in Electromagnetic Theory. Along with my major effort on light propagation and scattering for defense, I also published papers on solar astronomy and worked on the early adaptive optics efforts to correct ground-based astronomical observations for atmospheric turbulence. I am not expert in cosmology or relativity, but over the last 40 years I have followed the results in those fields as well as high energy physics very closely.

---------------------

The link you provided does not indicate its author, but its statements are similar to ICR impact articles on astronomy. Lets review them one at a time.
1. Created light- Tis is the claim that god created the universe with light already on its way to the earth. This is ipossible to falsify and therefore is unscientific. Between you and me, it's just plain silly.
2.Did light always travel at the same speed- We have direct measurements of the hyperfine structure constant from light the originated 12 billion years ago. These measurements indicate that light was one millionth faster at that time. Even though this is sufficient to shock astronomers and physicists. It puts the standard model into doubt. What is required for a 10,000 year old universe is light speed that increases exponentially. And even then, with an exponential increase, the light speed would be insufficient to explain light arriving in a days time after it was created. So this claim can be proven wrong by repeatably measurements. I posted this for you before and you just replied that you did not understand. Lack of understanding is not scientific- irt's just stupid, if you will please pardon my bluntness.
3. Humphrey's Whtie Hole Cosmology- This actually is not new. It has always been recoginized that the big bang could be a white hole. There is just no way to tell from available measurements if that is true or not.

There is one huge mistake in this cosmology as far as YEC is concerned. In order to have a white hole, you have to have a black hole to begin with. So that means that something (matter) had to exist before the white hole exploded. I am suprised that the YEC have not noticed this. It undermines the idea that God cretaed the unverse as with a white hole the universe had to exost before creation. It is e



What we can say is that at this point a plausible mechanism
has been demonstrated, with considerable observational and theoretical support.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins