Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CreationTalk] Re: "Let there be light;"

Expand Messages
  • reddneo
    Charles Creager Jr. ... Ken ... of ... Actually Genesis 1:3 like the entire book of Genesis is History. I was the one supplying the physics. Charles, please
    Message 1 of 30 , Aug 31, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Charles Creager Jr.
      >> You do however make an interesting point. The electromagnetic
      >> fields needed for light to propagate would have been created in
      >> verse one as part of the heavens and so in verse 3 all God did
      >> was start up a vibration in those electromagnetic fields to form
      >> electromagnetic wave. (light). You are correct that where God
      >> says "let there be" he does not create any new substance, but

      >> rearranges existing substance.

      Ken

      > Charles, it is my belief that Gen 1:3 has absolutely nothing to do
      of
      > with physics.

      Actually Genesis 1:3 like the entire book of Genesis is History. I was the
      one supplying the physics.

      Charles, please give me a single shred of evidence that supports your view. Well let's see here there was Lot's wife turned to salt, the flaming bush, transformation of Moses' rod to a serpent, pillar of cloud and fire, passage of the Red Sea and destruction of Pharoah and his army to name a few. But Charles,none of these events can be said to be pysiologically correct. Please explain.

      Actually, the light in Gen 1:3 is the light of the Word (John1:1-4) shinning because of the faith of the Lamb, slain (Rev 13:8) from the spirituality of the foundation of the world (Rev 11:8) before this Universe ever was.

      Ken



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Chuck
      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 5:06 PM
      Subject: RE: [CreationTalk] Re: "Let there be light;"


      Charles Creager Jr.
      >> You do however make an interesting point. The electromagnetic
      >> fields needed for light to propagate would have been created in
      >> verse one as part of the heavens and so in verse 3 all God did
      >> was start up a vibration in those electromagnetic fields to form
      >> electromagnetic wave. (light). You are correct that where God
      >> says "let there be" he does not create any new substance, but

      >> rearranges existing substance.

      Ken

      > Charles, it is my belief that Gen 1:3 has absolutely nothing to do

      > with physics.

      Actually Genesis 1:3 like the entire book of Genesis is History. I was the
      one supplying the physics.

      > It doesn't make sense that the book written to reveal the Son of
      > God to the world would start off with a lesson in physics but
      > have no reference to it anywhere else after that.

      Actually the Bible starts out with history and has loads of history after
      that. As history Genesis 1:3 is describing a real even and so physics would
      be involved, but this does not make it a physics lesson. Furthermore while
      the Bible is not intended to teach physics is it has a lot of physics in it
      starting with Genesis 1:1.

      > The story of the Creation speaks of the spiritual aspect of the

      > gospel of Christ.

      The Genesis 1 account speaks of history, specifically a description of God
      creating the world. It is laying the historical foundation for the gospel of
      Christ and not speaking of its spiritual aspects.

      > Physics is beside the point other than proving the Truth of the

      > gospel of Christ.

      The Physics of Biblical events are important precisely because it helps
      prove the Truth of the gospel of Christ.

      > Why would physics have anything to say about the spirituality
      > the LORD God?

      Actually, physics provides some excellent illustrations of spirituality. A
      good example of this comes from Special Relativity.

      According to the Bible no mater how hard you try, no mater how many good
      works you do we all fall short of being good enough to get into heaven. In
      fact we are all equally far from being good enough, even though from our
      perspective some people seem better than others.

      According to Special Relativity no mater how much you accelerate an object
      it will always fall short of the speed of light. In fact from despite near
      light relative speeds, all objects in the universe see the speed of light as
      just as far away.

      See the parallel. So it sounds to me like physics has much to say about
      spirituality, even if only by providing illustrations.

      > It wouldn't and I can tell you why.

      Bring it on!

      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

      Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Oliver Elphick
      ... ...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day... (Exodus 20:11)
      Message 2 of 30 , Aug 31, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 13:27 -0500, reddneo wrote:
        > I believe Genesis 1:1 is not a first creation - it is a SUMMARY.
        > God is saying in effect "I created the Heaven and the earth in the
        > beginning - now I will tell you how I did it or what I did. and then He
        > continues in the next verses to describe this" - Its pretty simple really.

        ...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
        them is, and rested the seventh day... (Exodus 20:11)
      • Chuck
        Ken ... Charles ... Ken ... 1. The vary structure of the chapter and indeed all of Genesis indicate that it is intended to describe real historical events. Not
        Message 3 of 30 , Sep 1 11:31 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Ken
          >>> Charles, it is my belief that Gen 1:3 has absolutely nothing

          >>> to do of with physics.


          Charles
          >> Actually Genesis 1:3 like the entire book of Genesis is History.
          >> I was the one supplying the physics.



          Ken
          > Charles, please give me a single shred of evidence that supports
          > your view.



          1. The vary structure of the chapter and indeed all of Genesis indicate that
          it is intended to describe real historical events. Not only is it a list of
          sequential events but it gives a precise chronology of those events. In
          chapter 1 it is evident in the fact that it lists events as occurring on
          specific days 1-7. In chapters 4 & 5 there are genealogies with chapter 5
          giving chronological data. Chapters 7 & 8 describe the Flood in precise
          chronological detail as when events occurred. Chapters 10 & 11 once again
          are genealogies with chapter 11 giving chronological data.



          2. Exodus 20:11, "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea,
          and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD
          blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

          This is a direct reference back to Genesis 1.



          3. Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth II, chapter 9 gives detailed
          statistical evidence for Genesis being a historical narrative.



          > Well let's see here there was Lot's wife turned to salt, the

          > flaming bush, transformation of Moses' rod to a serpent,

          > pillar of cloud and fire, passage of the Red Sea and

          > destruction of Pharoah and his army to name a few.

          > But Charles,none of these events can be said to be

          > pysiologically correct. Please explain.



          First of all God's actions do not have to be physiologically correct, but
          clearly God did cause physical process to occur.



          Lot's wife turned to salt

          The simplest possibility here would be that she became encased in salt, but
          God is just as capable of changing the atoms of her body into salts.



          The flaming bush,

          Besides the fact that God could have used an ordinary fire while
          miraculously protecting the bush, he could also have used cold plasma which
          in Hebrew would still have been called a fire.



          Transformation of Moses' rod to a serpent

          One again it no problem for Got to rearrange the atoms of an object in this
          case a sick to any form he wishes including a living sake.



          Pillar of cloud and fire,

          Once again God is quite capable of manipulating matter at the subatomic
          level, so switching between water vapor, or smoke, to plasma and back again
          not a problem for God.



          Passage of the Red Sea

          Exodus 14:20 says that God pushed the water back wit ha strong east wind. In
          any case we see God's mastery of the mater in that he pushed and held back
          the water.



          Destruction of Pharoah and his army

          This one is simple. God was holding back the water of the red sea and after
          the Israelites got through he released it and as a result with Pharoah and
          his army in the red sea, God just let nature take its course.


          > Actually, the light in Gen 1:3 is the light of the Wor[l]d
          > (John1:1-4) shinning because of the faith of the Lamb,
          > slain (Rev 13:8) from the spirituality of the foundation
          > of the world (Rev 11:8) before this Universe ever was.



          Let me introduce you to a concept known as context and the context of
          Genesis 1:3 is clearly that of ordinary visible light. You can quickly get
          into trouble when you ignore the context of scripture and just start
          stringing verses together. For example:



          He went and hanged himself. (Matthew 27:5) Go, and do thou likewise. (Luke
          10:37) That thou doest, do quickly. (John 13:27) You see putting these
          verses together out of context can lead one to the conclusion that the Bible
          is directing one to commit suicide. Obviously this is not the case but it
          shows how important context is.



          ------ Charles Creager Jr.

          Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Stephen Hiscock
          ... Chuck Replied saying: That s exactly it. The CBR is a black body spectrum so the only reason the Big Bang predicts it so well is that it predicts a black
          Message 4 of 30 , Sep 2 4:11 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Stephen Originally said:
            > But all I was doing is saying that there is another General view
            > that does need ANY explanation - just like the big bang theory
            > does not need to be cited as the best explanation of a piece of
            > steel glowing red hot. - ie producing a visible light black body
            > spectrum at 1200 degrees. Anyway its good to have these
            > discusions...after all its just my opnion....
            Chuck Replied saying:
            That's exactly it. The CBR is a black body spectrum so the only reason the
            Big Bang predicts it so well is that it predicts a black body spectrum. The
            sun's light is also a black body spectrum and so the Genesis 2:3 light would
            logically be a black body spectrum since God used it for the first plants.
            The point is any theory of what the CBR is that has a black body spectrum
            from beyond the visible stars will describe the CBR at least as well as the
            Big Bang.

            Stephen's Question:
            Are you saying that the IDEAL Spectrum for plants or animals is a black
            body spectrum or just that it is one they CAN use?
            I remember when I had a tropical fish tank looking at the spectrum
            charts for ideal growth & health of plants and fish. Plants needed
            mostly red light or a pinkish orangy light - and the fish needed more of
            a bluish light - hence most plants look green because they reflect that
            light, and under red light many plants appear black or very dark -
            because that is the light they absorb...
            was this something you heard about or are you just concluding this based
            on the suns current light output?
            I would have guessed that God would provide a very broad spectrum of ALL
            the light that ALL animals need, and the rest they just reflect or
            absorb in a harmless way - ie melanin in the skin - if this happens to
            agree with a particular spectrum it might mean something - but its hard
            to prove isn't it?

            -Stephen




            Chuck wrote:
            >
            >
            > > Hey chuck - Perhaps the way I worded it implied that you
            > > believed everything I was countering - I don't believe you do.
            > > Sorry for the confusion.
            > > I was ALSO answering some of the GENERAL views on the
            > > cosmic background Radiation arguments relating to the Big Bang.
            > > and how by themselves they DON"T prove anything - and I'm
            > > Glad you agree with that..eg. relating to the CBMR
            >
            > No problem that happens.
            >
            > >I said this - and you answered
            > >>> SO WHAT!
            > >>> It doesn't prove space expanded,
            > >> Chuck: NO ONE says that CMBR by it self proves space
            > >> expanded. Galactic red shift also supports it as well the Bible.
            > >> See above.
            > >>> it doesn't prove space contracted,
            > >> Chuck: NO ONE is making this claim. No one at all.
            > >>> it doesn't prove a leftover of the big bang heat
            > > Chuck: No kidding. I NEVER said that it was.
            > > But I have to add that MANY people do believe this.....
            > > Below is a quote from Wikipedia and I know its not Gospel -
            > > but I also know how quickly ANYTHING gets edited that does
            > > not Agree with consensus opinion on wikipedia - that is what is
            > > important - the consensus is that the CMBR is proof of the
            > > big bang.
            >
            > It is interesting that the powers that be on Wikipedia have locked that
            > page. They tend to do that when their "consensus opinion" is being
            > actively
            > challenged.
            >
            > > And the TalkOrigins site say that the CMBR is proof because
            > > virtually every aspect of it was predicted by the big bnag theory
            >
            > > - so therefore it IS proof to them...
            >
            > You have to like it when they talk about a theory like the Big bang
            > predicting any thing when they are constantly having to be adjusted to fit
            > reality.
            >
            > > But all I was doing is saying that there is another General view
            > > that does need ANY explanation - just like the big bang theory
            >
            > > does not need to be cited as the best explanation of a piece of
            > > steel glowing red hot. - ie producing a visible light black body
            > > spectrum at 1200 degrees. Anyway its good to have these
            >
            > > discusions...after all its just my opnion....
            >
            > That's exactly it. The CBR is a black body spectrum so the oly reason the
            > Big Bang predics it so well is that it predics a black body spectrum. The
            > sun's light is also a black body spectrum and so the Genesis 2:3 light
            > would
            > logically be a black body spectrum since God used it for the first plants.
            > The point is any theory of what the CBR is that has a black body spectrum
            > from beyond the visible stars will describe the CBR at least as well
            > as the
            > Big Bang.
            >
            > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
            > Genesis Mission <http://genesismission.4t.com/
            > <http://genesismission.4t.com/>>
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Stephen Hiscock
            Oliver Elphick wrote: On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 13:27 -0500, reddneo wrote: (ACTUALLY STEPHEN SAID THIS) ... really. ...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth,
            Message 5 of 30 , Sep 2 4:14 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              Oliver Elphick wrote:
              On Sun, 2009-08-30 at 13:27 -0500, reddneo wrote:
              (ACTUALLY STEPHEN SAID THIS)
              > I believe Genesis 1:1 is not a first creation - it is a SUMMARY.
              > God is saying in effect "I created the Heaven and the earth in the
              > beginning - now I will tell you how I did it or what I did. and then He
              > continues in the next verses to describe this" - Its pretty simple
              really.

              ...in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
              them is, and rested the seventh day... (Exodus 20:11)

              (for some reason reddneo was thought to have said the above - it was
              actually me - but I will explain what I meant)
              Exactly Exactly God took 6 days to make Heaven and Earth.
              So the "beginning" is the 6 days that he took to make the heaven and the
              earth.
              - no room for any Gap theory's or other Ideas between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2..
              so Gen 1:1 is a summary of what he achieved over those 6 days as I said.

              I always get amazed that there are still people that think there was
              some sort of gap between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2...

              - Stephen





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Chuck
              All I was saying is that it is logical to conclude that Genesis 1:3 light would have the same spectrum as sun light nothing more implied. That said there is
              Message 6 of 30 , Sep 2 9:59 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                All I was saying is that it is logical to conclude that Genesis 1:3 light
                would have the same spectrum as sun light nothing more implied. That said
                there is more than the light used directly by plants and animals to be
                considered but the way the entire spectrum interacts with the atmosphere.





                ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                _____

                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of Stephen Hiscock
                Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 7:12 AM
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Re: "Let there be light;"





                Stephen Originally said:
                > But all I was doing is saying that there is another General view
                > that does need ANY explanation - just like the big bang theory
                > does not need to be cited as the best explanation of a piece of
                > steel glowing red hot. - ie producing a visible light black body
                > spectrum at 1200 degrees. Anyway its good to have these
                > discusions...after all its just my opnion....
                Chuck Replied saying:
                That's exactly it. The CBR is a black body spectrum so the only reason the
                Big Bang predicts it so well is that it predicts a black body spectrum. The
                sun's light is also a black body spectrum and so the Genesis 2:3 light would
                logically be a black body spectrum since God used it for the first plants.
                The point is any theory of what the CBR is that has a black body spectrum
                from beyond the visible stars will describe the CBR at least as well as the
                Big Bang.

                Stephen's Question:
                Are you saying that the IDEAL Spectrum for plants or animals is a black
                body spectrum or just that it is one they CAN use?
                I remember when I had a tropical fish tank looking at the spectrum
                charts for ideal growth & health of plants and fish. Plants needed
                mostly red light or a pinkish orangy light - and the fish needed more of
                a bluish light - hence most plants look green because they reflect that
                light, and under red light many plants appear black or very dark -
                because that is the light they absorb...
                was this something you heard about or are you just concluding this based
                on the suns current light output?
                I would have guessed that God would provide a very broad spectrum of ALL
                the light that ALL animals need, and the rest they just reflect or
                absorb in a harmless way - ie melanin in the skin - if this happens to
                agree with a particular spectrum it might mean something - but its hard
                to prove isn't it?

                -Stephen

                Chuck wrote:
                >
                >
                > > Hey chuck - Perhaps the way I worded it implied that you
                > > believed everything I was countering - I don't believe you do.
                > > Sorry for the confusion.
                > > I was ALSO answering some of the GENERAL views on the
                > > cosmic background Radiation arguments relating to the Big Bang.
                > > and how by themselves they DON"T prove anything - and I'm
                > > Glad you agree with that..eg. relating to the CBMR
                >
                > No problem that happens.
                >
                > >I said this - and you answered
                > >>> SO WHAT!
                > >>> It doesn't prove space expanded,
                > >> Chuck: NO ONE says that CMBR by it self proves space
                > >> expanded. Galactic red shift also supports it as well the Bible.
                > >> See above.
                > >>> it doesn't prove space contracted,
                > >> Chuck: NO ONE is making this claim. No one at all.
                > >>> it doesn't prove a leftover of the big bang heat
                > > Chuck: No kidding. I NEVER said that it was.
                > > But I have to add that MANY people do believe this.....
                > > Below is a quote from Wikipedia and I know its not Gospel -
                > > but I also know how quickly ANYTHING gets edited that does
                > > not Agree with consensus opinion on wikipedia - that is what is
                > > important - the consensus is that the CMBR is proof of the
                > > big bang.
                >
                > It is interesting that the powers that be on Wikipedia have locked that
                > page. They tend to do that when their "consensus opinion" is being
                > actively
                > challenged.
                >
                > > And the TalkOrigins site say that the CMBR is proof because
                > > virtually every aspect of it was predicted by the big bnag theory
                >
                > > - so therefore it IS proof to them...
                >
                > You have to like it when they talk about a theory like the Big bang
                > predicting any thing when they are constantly having to be adjusted to fit
                > reality.
                >
                > > But all I was doing is saying that there is another General view
                > > that does need ANY explanation - just like the big bang theory
                >
                > > does not need to be cited as the best explanation of a piece of
                > > steel glowing red hot. - ie producing a visible light black body
                > > spectrum at 1200 degrees. Anyway its good to have these
                >
                > > discusions...after all its just my opnion....
                >
                > That's exactly it. The CBR is a black body spectrum so the oly reason the
                > Big Bang predics it so well is that it predics a black body spectrum. The
                > sun's light is also a black body spectrum and so the Genesis 2:3 light
                > would
                > logically be a black body spectrum since God used it for the first plants.
                > The point is any theory of what the CBR is that has a black body spectrum
                > from beyond the visible stars will describe the CBR at least as well
                > as the
                > Big Bang.
                >
                > ------ Charles Creager Jr.
                > Genesis Mission <http://genesismissi <http://genesismission.4t.com/>
                on.4t.com/
                > <http://genesismissi <http://genesismission.4t.com/> on.4t.com/>>
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • steelville
                ... However you define physics , nonetheless Genesis 1:3 tells us about how light originated: God created it. Meantime, history testifies to the fact that
                Message 7 of 30 , Sep 7 10:09 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Charles, it is my belief that Gen 1:3 has absolutely nothing to do
                  > with physics.
                  ---
                  However you define "physics", nonetheless Genesis 1:3 tells us about how
                  light originated: God created it.

                  Meantime, history testifies to the fact that whenever there is a
                  conflict between what man says and what God says, God wins. God 1000
                  (conservatively speaking), man's wisdom 0.

                  Archeology has exposed Man's Wisdom as the most ridiculous of fools for
                  contradicting what the Bible clearly says. God 1001, man's wisdom 0.

                  Paleontology has exposed darwinian evolution as crackpot origins
                  paganism. willful, because they keep going in the same mire. God 1002,
                  man's wisdom 0.

                  Genetics has made fools of darwinist biologists. God 1003, Man's wisdom 0.

                  Fulfilled prophecy has exposed Isaac Asimov's foolishness.

                  > It doesn't make sense that the book written to reveal the Son of God
                  > to the world would start off with a lesson in physics but have no
                  > reference to it anywhere else after that.
                  ---
                  2Peter 3 says that in the last days you would see denials of Genesis 1
                  creation (of the YEC kind, since that's the Bible kind). Saying the same
                  things that atheists say about Genesis (it didn't really happen, it's
                  just a morality play) fits the bill.

                  95 percent of tribes on the Earth had ancient stories of floods wiping
                  out populations, and 85 percent of them featured a /worldwide/ flood.
                  Only the last century have denials of Noah's Flood gotten more
                  generalized currency among otherwise smart people.

                  What makes sense is to just believe God, straightforwardly. Using
                  figures of speech to twist historical narrative into fantasy doesn't
                  work here. Did Jesus really exist? Those miracles are still in the
                  "physically impossible" column today. Did they really happen?

                  Modern science facts found in the Bible:

                  The Bible has made fools of those who deny its truth throughout history.

                  Archeology exposed history deniers as fools, thousands of times the last
                  couple of centuries.

                  There are verses that describe DNA.

                  Zechariah 14:12 describe a nuclear explosion as judgment, unknown to
                  "science" until the 20th century.

                  Find the hydrological cycle described in Ezekiel.

                  Find the stretching of space in the Bible, the expanding universe.

                  Find great immense deep ocean currents, whereas ancient Greek
                  "scientists" were saying the entire ocean was calm, and not very deep.

                  Find the earth hanging on nothing. Some geocentricists use this verse to
                  say it's not even hanging on gravity to something else, but I believe it
                  just means it is isolated in space.

                  One verse in Job may infer that there are directions one can look into
                  space which are less populated than others.

                  Another verse in Job infers a globally round earth.

                  Another says the number of stars in space are uncountable for us. Some
                  Greek scientists saying there were no more than about three thousand.
                  The Bible wins.

                  Peter describes a day during God's judgments in which even the elements
                  will melt, sounds like the plasma state of matter to me.

                  Dinosaurs are described in Job, and physicists say it's impossible.

                  Creation scientists (YECs) were not surprised in the least bit by the
                  "discovery" of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, where their remains
                  still raise a foul stench in the scene at Montana. In fact, YEC
                  paleontologists were /first/ in reporting soft tissue in a dig in
                  Alaska, where they were subsequently denied access.

                  Dinos still expose darwinists as willfully ignorant because they now
                  claim soft tissue is preserved 65 million years in exposed fossil bones.
                  (As opposed to within amber enclosures).

                  The age of dinosaurs being within the genealogically dated history of
                  the Bible since creation,

                  Physicists used to say fossils as old as dinosaurs would never offer up
                  actual remnants of real soft flesh. Then they found some, and instead of
                  admitting the Bible was right all along, they now said soft tissue can
                  be preserved for 65 million years.

                  Mount St. Helens exposed darwinist geologists when it carved out a
                  small-scale Grand Canyon overnight, compressed the first 5,000-6,000
                  years of coal making processes into a few days, began petrification of a
                  forest underwater, and a few other things thrown in for good measure.

                  > The story of the Creation speaks of the spiritual aspect of the gospel
                  > of Christ. Physics is beside the point other than proving the Truth of
                  > the gospel of Christ.
                  --
                  Exactly. Physics time after time proves the truth. It is a testimony to
                  the word of God, including the physicality of Genesis One, basis for
                  belief in the whole Bible.

                  God gave birth to modern science in the framework of the Creation
                  science of such masters as Isaac Newton, but with the growth in modern
                  disbelief he has allowed science to uncover all kinds of testimonies
                  embedded in the world around us.

                  Start with the anthropic principle, and go from there....

                  --aec
                • hugenex2000
                  Hello Dr. Herrmann, In my discussions with those opposed to creation, the subject of light travel from distant stars comes up. They say that light from a star
                  Message 8 of 30 , Sep 10 3:11 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello Dr. Herrmann,

                    In my discussions with those opposed to creation, the subject of
                    light travel from distant stars comes up. They say that light
                    from a star 'so many' light years away takes 'so many' years
                    to travel to Earth. For an answer I took a look at physics and
                    considered time dilation as it is defined within the Lorentz
                    transformation.

                    In the equations where Speed=v, Distance=d and Time=t
                    and of course LightSpeed=c

                    v=d/t, d=vt, t=d/v

                    If v<c then Time is finite and definable but at the speed of
                    Light (for a photon v=c) then Time is no longer finite but rather
                    infinite because by the Lorentz transformation you wind up having
                    to divide by zero where gamma=1/sqrt of 1-v^2/c^2.

                    If c=v then gamma=1/0.

                    So it would seem that Light travel should be instantaneous but
                    measurements show that it isn't. Why not?
                    Is it because of gravitational distortion? That is all measurements
                    were subject to the gravitational fields of Earth and the Sun.

                    It seems too obvious to say but Light travels at the speed of
                    light. Now, to measure speed(velocity), time must be defined
                    in order to determine distance divided by time as expressed in
                    the equations:

                    v=d/t
                    d=vt
                    t=d/v

                    If v=c then what is the value for time?
                    gamma=1/sqrt of 1-v^2/c^2.




                    --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Robert A. Herrmann" <drrah@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > And God said "let there be light: and there was light." (1201 words)
                    >
                    > What have I been doing since my last posting many weeks ago? Notice, I've not "bothered" the members of this network by repeated applications of the GGU-model or GID to the subjects recently discussed. Some, if not many, creationary scientists have criticized Special Relativity due to its perceived contradictions. Many years ago (14 Nov. 1992), I pointed out that prior derivations do have a logical error - "The Model-Theoretic Error of Generalization." Derivations of the Lorentz transformation use a particular mode for time measurement, a logical predicate, which uses a light propagation language describing a physical-world light-property. But, the use of this "light" property is suddenly dropped and it's claimed that the result holds for all modes of time measurement. This type of generalization leads to contradictions. But, to what would one attribute the experimental confirmations for this theory, including apparent variations in general physical time measurements?
                    >
                    > In 1993 - 94, I presented a new foundation that yields the same predictions as the original approach, dose not have this error and relies entirely upon the behavior of "light." Recently, I discovered an additional aspect of this new foundation that has now been used to better substantiate the derived conclusions. In some respects, this foundation is rather simple. It also leads to a slight alteration in my 1994 approach to the General Theory as well.
                    >
                    > For those who may have considered my (on-line) monograph (on my web site and at arXiv.org) or published papers on this subject, I have modified the monograph and each of my math. and physics arXiv.org papers. All, but one, of these arXiv.org papers appeared in published journal form and, hence, the published papers are modified as well.
                    >
                    > A medium is employed. It is termed the "Nonstandard Photon-Particle Medium" (NSPPM). It only requires the "photon" concept, which is the only known physical entity that can be fully "infinitesimalized." (From subparticle theory, the NSPPM is composed of the intermediate subparticles that are turned into physical photons by application of the "st" operator, which is also the last step needed for the GGU-model predictions to appear materially.) In the NSPPM, only one aspect of photon behavior is needed. But, this behavioral aspect is nonstandard in the sense that photons don't seem to behave this way in our perceived physical-world. Between physical-world points, but in this medium, each photon when emitted from a source takes on the uniform velocity (i.e. speed) of the source. The most recent idea is that, in the non-infinitesimal portion of the NSPPM, if more than one uniform velocity is involved, then the photon takes on the additional velocities as well. That is, the medium velocity is the usual composition of velocities.
                    >
                    > In the infinitesimal portion, only the medium velocity in the direction of the photon's linear path of motion through the infinitesimal-world is added to c. This infinitesimal region is a "monadic cluster" of subparticles. There are aspects of the region of which we can have no knowledge. I have illustrated this on p. 171 of my GID book.
                    >
                    > This method uses the usual notion of "conceptual" time in the NSPPM. This is a measurement relative to a fixed NSPPM ``clock" (or clocks). The notion of fixed implies that, without the NSPPM special properties, no aspects of relative velocity can alter conceptual time behavior. In the General Theory, conceptual clocks are also used in that gravity doesn't alter their behavior. (Humphreys uses such clocks for his newest model.) The investigation yields results that show how conceptual time is altered. Using only classical particle-behavior and a simple four-point configuration in the NSPPM, photon behavior is "trivially" analyzed relative to the classical notion of flight-time between material-like photon events. But, then, after this analysis, a previously somewhat complex result from infinitesimal analysis is employed to predict the distance between the NSPPM photon paths of motion.
                    >
                    > In comparing this classical approach with the result due to infinitesimal behavior, it is immediately established that the relative velocities being used follow the rules for a hyperbolic velocity-space. This is then applied to a somewhat trivial three-point problem. After a little work, the basic physical-world Lorentz Transform is derived. But, relative velocity measures for our physical-world must be done in a special or equivalent way. They must be made by the "radar" method as first introduced by Einstein - a method that suddenly disappeared from his and mostly all other work on this subject. It is this method the yields the apparent physical-world wave-behavior.
                    >
                    > What all this means is that simple classical behavior for relative velocities within the NSPPM is transformed via hyperbolic geometry when the physical-world velocities are considered. Since this is a velocity transformation, it's not the usual path of motion alterations one observes in the physical-world. It has been shown that it manifests itself in terms of alternations in infinitesimal light-clock behavior, which in-turn generally predicts alterations in various physical-world measures.
                    >
                    > In this case, there is only one aspect of physical-world behavior that corresponds to the infinitesimal-world behavior. This is the sudden photon interaction with other particles. Hence, such interactions are particle-like, which predicts the QED assumption. An NSPPM velocity for the source is always necessary for photon emission due to a photon's momentum. In the actual derivation, the wave-property, where classical wave-mechanics can be applied, is not a property within the infinitesimal-world. That is, classical wave-mechanics can model photon paths of motion within our physical-world. Wave-behavior emerges after the "st" operator is applied. The particle behavior takes place only for the interactions. Hence, the probability interpretation that comes from a photon's wave-property can be used for photon interactions. Consequently, there is neither a contradiction between these two interpretations nor the particle assumption.
                    >
                    > It may also be of interest that in 1993-4 a special physical metric was derived, the "linear effect line element," that predicts all other known Special Theory effects. Further, a simple reason for such behavior emerges. This new foundation predicts that only alterations in the infinitesimal light-clocks "counts," which are related to alterations in atomic-clock behavior, yield Special Theory behavior in our physical-world. Assuming that non-photon aspects of an infinitesimal light-clock are not altered, then indirect evidence implies that the effects emerge from alterations in subatomic behavior related to photon speed, the local physical-world measured value c, which need not be the same as the "actual" physical-world speed. Further, this generalized physical metric predicts various General Theory metrics including the one used by Humphreys in his latest model - a metric for a constant gravitational potential. This metric is also the Special Theory metric and shows why the Special Theory manifestations are apparent for a constant (or approximately constant) potential. Also the same type of alteration in c can cause the General Theory effects. However, this is a rather simple possibility. An improved method to derive this general metric may appear shortly in journal form.
                    >
                    > Within our physical-world, the c appears to be rather foundational in character. So, maybe this is a reason that God created "light," say photons, so early during creation week. Although there is no "Sun" as yet, photons would exist and can be employed for various purposes.
                    >
                    > Dr. Bob
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                  • Chuck
                    You have the right idea but the Lorentz transformation is not the way to go since that has to do with relative velocity. Gravitational time dilation from
                    Message 9 of 30 , Sep 10 10:22 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      You have the right idea but the Lorentz transformation is not the way to go
                      since that has to do with relative velocity. Gravitational time dilation
                      from General Relativity and expansion time dilation from Cosmological
                      Relativity both of which in a bounded universe can produce adequate to
                      answer this question.



                      See: http://creationwiki.org/Cosmological_relativity



                      http://creationwiki.org/White_hole_cosmology



                      The second one needs to be updated, because Humphreys has since found a
                      timeless zone in the gravity well a smaller universe, but the point is this
                      how to deal with the distant star light problem..





                      ------ Charles Creager Jr.

                      Genesis <http://genesismission.4t.com/> Mission

                      _____

                      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                      Behalf Of hugenex2000
                      Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:11 AM
                      To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: "Let there be light;"





                      Hello Dr. Herrmann,

                      In my discussions with those opposed to creation, the subject of
                      light travel from distant stars comes up. They say that light
                      from a star 'so many' light years away takes 'so many' years
                      to travel to Earth. For an answer I took a look at physics and
                      considered time dilation as it is defined within the Lorentz
                      transformation.

                      In the equations where Speed=v, Distance=d and Time=t
                      and of course LightSpeed=c

                      v=d/t, d=vt, t=d/v

                      If v<c then Time is finite and definable but at the speed of
                      Light (for a photon v=c) then Time is no longer finite but rather
                      infinite because by the Lorentz transformation you wind up having
                      to divide by zero where gamma=1/sqrt of 1-v^2/c^2.

                      If c=v then gamma=1/0.

                      So it would seem that Light travel should be instantaneous but
                      measurements show that it isn't. Why not?
                      Is it because of gravitational distortion? That is all measurements
                      were subject to the gravitational fields of Earth and the Sun.

                      It seems too obvious to say but Light travels at the speed of
                      light. Now, to measure speed(velocity), time must be defined
                      in order to determine distance divided by time as expressed in
                      the equations:

                      v=d/t
                      d=vt
                      t=d/v

                      If v=c then what is the value for time?
                      gamma=1/sqrt of 1-v^2/c^2.





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Dr. Robert A. Herrmann
                      When one applies these theories property, there are no contradiction s. You never use the time dilation in this way for Special Relativity. Also it is not used
                      Message 10 of 30 , Sep 11 5:07 AM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        When one applies these theories property, there are no contradiction s. You never use the time dilation in this way for Special Relativity. Also it is not used this way in the General Theory. In the special theory, the basic expression that used for "pure" velocity is the velocity transformation expression, v_3= (v_1 + v_2)/(1 + (v_1v_2)/c^2). In this case, if one lets v_1 = c or v_2 = c or both, you get v_3 = c. Technically, this is actually not correct. You need to assume that the velocities v_1 and v_2 are always less than c. But you can make them approximately equal to c. Why can't one simply substitute c for. v. The reason is the relative velocity v, which is not the NSPPM velocity, is measure by the radar method in the Special Theory. These are called Einstein measures. This mode of measurement fails if one assumes v = c. These measures introduce the wave property of light into special relativity. Prior to this, as I have shown, photons behavior like particles. After all, it was Einstein who introduced the modern notion that physical notions that are characterized by variable measures also need a method to make such measurements. Why aren't the correct notions taught today?

                        Within a gravitational field, the unmodified Special Theory applies only in regions where the gravitational potential is constant or nearly constant.
                        I have shown in my book exactly how the time dilation must be applied for gravitational fields. It is applied to differentials only and also requires other procedures to be applied to physical behavior. In my book it is shown, that "as compared to regions where there is no Special Theory effects or, for the General Theory, no gravitational potential," that all such effects are either produced by or yield a decrease in c.

                        Dr. Bob.

                        Robert A. Herrmann, Ph.D
                        Professor of Mathematics (Ret.)
                        U.S. Naval Academy
                        www.raherrmann.com
                        "Science Declares Our
                        Universe Is Intelligently Designed"


                        From: hugenex2000
                        Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 6:11 AM
                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: "Let there be light;"


                        Hello Dr. Herrmann,

                        In my discussions with those opposed to creation, the subject of
                        light travel from distant stars comes up. They say that light
                        from a star 'so many' light years away takes 'so many' years
                        to travel to Earth. For an answer I took a look at physics and
                        considered time dilation as it is defined within the Lorentz
                        transformation.

                        In the equations where Speed=v, Distance=d and Time=t
                        and of course LightSpeed=c

                        v=d/t, d=vt, t=d/v

                        If v<c then Time is finite and definable but at the speed of
                        Light (for a photon v=c) then Time is no longer finite but rather
                        infinite because by the Lorentz transformation you wind up having
                        to divide by zero where gamma=1/sqrt of 1-v^2/c^2.

                        If c=v then gamma=1/0.

                        So it would seem that Light travel should be instantaneous but
                        measurements show that it isn't. Why not?
                        Is it because of gravitational distortion? That is all measurements
                        were subject to the gravitational fields of Earth and the Sun.

                        It seems too obvious to say but Light travels at the speed of
                        light. Now, to measure speed(velocity), time must be defined
                        in order to determine distance divided by time as expressed in
                        the equations:

                        v=d/t
                        d=vt
                        t=d/v

                        If v=c then what is the value for time?
                        gamma=1/sqrt of 1-v^2/c^2.

                        --- In CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Robert A. Herrmann" <drrah@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > And God said "let there be light: and there was light." (1201 words)
                        >
                        > What have I been doing since my last posting many weeks ago? Notice, I've not "bothered" the members of this network by repeated applications of the GGU-model or GID to the subjects recently discussed. Some, if not many, creationary scientists have criticized Special Relativity due to its perceived contradictions. Many years ago (14 Nov. 1992), I pointed out that prior derivations do have a logical error - "The Model-Theoretic Error of Generalization." Derivations of the Lorentz transformation use a particular mode for time measurement, a logical predicate, which uses a light propagation language describing a physical-world light-property. But, the use of this "light" property is suddenly dropped and it's claimed that the result holds for all modes of time measurement. This type of generalization leads to contradictions. But, to what would one attribute the experimental confirmations for this theory, including apparent variations in general physical time measurements?
                        >
                        > In 1993 - 94, I presented a new foundation that yields the same predictions as the original approach, dose not have this error and relies entirely upon the behavior of "light." Recently, I discovered an additional aspect of this new foundation that has now been used to better substantiate the derived conclusions. In some respects, this foundation is rather simple. It also leads to a slight alteration in my 1994 approach to the General Theory as well.
                        >
                        > For those who may have considered my (on-line) monograph (on my web site and at arXiv.org) or published papers on this subject, I have modified the monograph and each of my math. and physics arXiv.org papers. All, but one, of these arXiv.org papers appeared in published journal form and, hence, the published papers are modified as well.
                        >
                        > A medium is employed. It is termed the "Nonstandard Photon-Particle Medium" (NSPPM). It only requires the "photon" concept, which is the only known physical entity that can be fully "infinitesimalized." (From subparticle theory, the NSPPM is composed of the intermediate subparticles that are turned into physical photons by application of the "st" operator, which is also the last step needed for the GGU-model predictions to appear materially.) In the NSPPM, only one aspect of photon behavior is needed. But, this behavioral aspect is nonstandard in the sense that photons don't seem to behave this way in our perceived physical-world. Between physical-world points, but in this medium, each photon when emitted from a source takes on the uniform velocity (i.e. speed) of the source. The most recent idea is that, in the non-infinitesimal portion of the NSPPM, if more than one uniform velocity is involved, then the photon takes on the additional velocities as well. That is, the medium velocity is the usual composition of velocities.
                        >
                        > In the infinitesimal portion, only the medium velocity in the direction of the photon's linear path of motion through the infinitesimal-world is added to c. This infinitesimal region is a "monadic cluster" of subparticles. There are aspects of the region of which we can have no knowledge. I have illustrated this on p. 171 of my GID book.
                        >
                        > This method uses the usual notion of "conceptual" time in the NSPPM. This is a measurement relative to a fixed NSPPM ``clock" (or clocks). The notion of fixed implies that, without the NSPPM special properties, no aspects of relative velocity can alter conceptual time behavior. In the General Theory, conceptual clocks are also used in that gravity doesn't alter their behavior. (Humphreys uses such clocks for his newest model.) The investigation yields results that show how conceptual time is altered. Using only classical particle-behavior and a simple four-point configuration in the NSPPM, photon behavior is "trivially" analyzed relative to the classical notion of flight-time between material-like photon events. But, then, after this analysis, a previously somewhat complex result from infinitesimal analysis is employed to predict the distance between the NSPPM photon paths of motion.
                        >
                        > In comparing this classical approach with the result due to infinitesimal behavior, it is immediately established that the relative velocities being used follow the rules for a hyperbolic velocity-space. This is then applied to a somewhat trivial three-point problem. After a little work, the basic physical-world Lorentz Transform is derived. But, relative velocity measures for our physical-world must be done in a special or equivalent way. They must be made by the "radar" method as first introduced by Einstein - a method that suddenly disappeared from his and mostly all other work on this subject. It is this method the yields the apparent physical-world wave-behavior.
                        >
                        > What all this means is that simple classical behavior for relative velocities within the NSPPM is transformed via hyperbolic geometry when the physical-world velocities are considered. Since this is a velocity transformation, it's not the usual path of motion alterations one observes in the physical-world. It has been shown that it manifests itself in terms of alternations in infinitesimal light-clock behavior, which in-turn generally predicts alterations in various physical-world measures.
                        >
                        > In this case, there is only one aspect of physical-world behavior that corresponds to the infinitesimal-world behavior. This is the sudden photon interaction with other particles. Hence, such interactions are particle-like, which predicts the QED assumption. An NSPPM velocity for the source is always necessary for photon emission due to a photon's momentum. In the actual derivation, the wave-property, where classical wave-mechanics can be applied, is not a property within the infinitesimal-world. That is, classical wave-mechanics can model photon paths of motion within our physical-world. Wave-behavior emerges after the "st" operator is applied. The particle behavior takes place only for the interactions. Hence, the probability interpretation that comes from a photon's wave-property can be used for photon interactions. Consequently, there is neither a contradiction between these two interpretations nor the particle assumption.
                        >
                        > It may also be of interest that in 1993-4 a special physical metric was derived, the "linear effect line element," that predicts all other known Special Theory effects. Further, a simple reason for such behavior emerges. This new foundation predicts that only alterations in the infinitesimal light-clocks "counts," which are related to alterations in atomic-clock behavior, yield Special Theory behavior in our physical-world. Assuming that non-photon aspects of an infinitesimal light-clock are not altered, then indirect evidence implies that the effects emerge from alterations in subatomic behavior related to photon speed, the local physical-world measured value c, which need not be the same as the "actual" physical-world speed. Further, this generalized physical metric predicts various General Theory metrics including the one used by Humphreys in his latest model - a metric for a constant gravitational potential. This metric is also the Special Theory metric and shows why the Special Theory manifestations are apparent for a constant (or approximately constant) potential. Also the same type of alteration in c can cause the General Theory effects. However, this is a rather simple possibility. An improved method to derive this general metric may appear shortly in journal form.
                        >
                        > Within our physical-world, the c appears to be rather foundational in character. So, maybe this is a reason that God created "light," say photons, so early during creation week. Although there is no "Sun" as yet, photons would exist and can be employed for various purposes.
                        >
                        > Dr. Bob
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • steelville
                        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32798238/ns/technology_and_science-science http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32798238/ns/technology_and_science-science/ Here you go.
                        Message 11 of 30 , Sep 12 4:45 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32798238/ns/technology_and_science-science

                          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32798238/ns/technology_and_science-science/

                          Here you go. Another ancient "mythical" animal is proven to be real.

                          Maybe they'll "discover" the same thing about behemoth and leviathan?
                          Oh, that's right, we already found them!

                          ---aec
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.