Happy Halloween

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
Expansion Theory

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on July 22, 2002 13:31:50 UTC

I have posted the hyperfine data previously, but the emperor has never responded.
Here is a copy of his view:

***Oh back to the main point. the thing of forgot. The expansion thoery. I have brought this up before and I was surprised that you didn't list the leading theory. The theory allows for one to simaltaniusly have a universe that is 6,000 and 15 billion (or 30 if you wish) years old. Using the basic principle that time is just another part of space and the idea that time moves faster or slower depending on the speed at which you travel.***

Astronomers have measured the hyperfine constant, which depends on the speed of light, from quasars some 12 billion light years ago. These quasars are speeding away from us at around half the speed of light. So the expansion theory can be tested with light from these objects; and the relevant numeric is the hyperfine constant.

The measurements indicate that the hyperfine constant is smaller (or is it larger?) by one millionth of its value. This negates the expansion theory. But I must compliment the creationists for publishing a theory that is falsifiable. Nothing in the bible is experimentally falsifiable.

On the other hand, the one millionth discrepancy also negates the standard theory. So physics still has even fundamental unanswered questions.

Finally, I would like to point out a logical discrepancy in the expansion theory. They make the speed of light a constant and then allow the rate of time to vary with the speed of an object in relation to the speed of light. However, if you just plug time back into the speed of light- obviously if time the rate of time is changing, the speed of light is also changing- the speed of light slows down so much that light ends up taking the same amount of time to get here as it did with no change to the rate of time.

AAron. Would you please look at that theory again. You sound like an intelligent person and as the expansion theory stands, it needs some serious help. It is the fundamental obstacle to any astronomer accepting young earth theory. Ross is the best example- a creationist astronomer of high reputation in that community. Even though he is an avowed creationist, he rejects the young earth theory.

Regards,

Richard

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 1994-2020 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