When God said "Let there be light" there was light instantaneously regardless of it's source and the distance of it's source! For an all powerful, almighty, omnipotent God, it is like flipping on a light switch!
Read Genesis from where God's spirit was hovering over the waters. That's the perspective of what is written. But yes your right, light had to travel fast. The light from the universe was already there but the Earth was dark because of the dark cloud wrapped around the earth as mentioned in the book of Job. Read Genesis from right above the waters and it all makes perfect sense! 👍
interesting......either way....all the prophecies of scriptures have and are coming to pass.....so that alone is reason for any person to believe.... @@alexashworth3119
"When god said..." Apart from the bible with its bronze age folklore, is there ANY corroboration that ANY god ever said ANYTHING? The ancient, scientifically illiterate rabbis who composed Genesis wrote what they thought might be understood by the even more ignorant people, but is there any evidence, other than biblical claims, that a god exists and said anything at all? No.
Don’t forget Dr.Lisles proposal of infinite speed of light in one direction, and half in another. This answers all the math properly and means we are viewing the heavens in real time.
Roger Spurr has conducted experiments 10 years ago that show that Light clearly slows down and speeds up. It is not constant. No one wants to listen. What's more the Quantum Foam which has reemerged in the Scientific community once referred to as The Ether stands in it's path and clearly impedes it. Space is saturated with particles, to say nothing of all the other obstacles encountered. I don't see how it's never been questioned that the speed of light can't possibly be constant. And yes, that would nullify the concept of light years as well. We really don't know they distances between Stars, solar systems, constellations and galaxies. All that needs to be totally reconfigured.
I also have a proposal: let the light be shone into a dark barrel where it spins around faster and faster and then is released to zoom off at infinite speed. This answers all those pesky cosmological questions raised by scientists.
Yep stars displaced hundreds of thousands of light years, as with mice galaxy tail, from billion year collisions halfway finished make lightspeed irrelevant , those stars moved . Also black hole jets , some millions of light years
What about index of refraction (index)? When a beam of light goes from one medium into another, the mediums' index alters the speed of light - think about looking at a spoon in a glass of water and how it looks bent. In radio communications we have to know the index for a type of cable whose wavelength is dependant upon the index for tuning. My thinking is the index can explain some of this issue.
My position on something like this has always been if God created the physical laws , he can also manipulate those physical laws and therefore could have star light visible instantaneously on the earth. It's why I believe that Jesus was able to turn water into wine. Just my 2 cents.
Thank you so much for these podcasts! I find them informative and fascinating! It’s encouraging to know that there are many scientists from all disciplines who believe in Biblical creation and provide evidence to support that.
Actually, they have provided no evidence for that or for anything else. They have given contrarian arguments, sometimes with a smattering of scientific lingo, but no peer-reviewable evidence.
@@stevepierce6467Your argument is a logical fallacy. It's called the invincible ignorance fallacy. You completely reject all evidence presented to you but yet no offer of evidence of your own claim. Peer reviewed? That's a complete joke. If 12 scientists go outside and look at a clear blue sky and one of them writes the sky is blue and the other eleven right that the sky is grey, AND the 11 are wearing sunglasses, the 11 are going to peer review all 12 papers and conclude that the scientist who wrote that the sky is blue is wrong. The problem is that the sky is not gray and the clear color vision of the 11 was compromised. Peer review is nothing but a bunch of like-minded people all agreeing about the same thing.
@@rayspeakmon2954 Whatever I wrote to elicit your response has disappeared, so I can't answer properly. All I can say is that the day anyone presents me with real evidence of creation from 6000 years ago, I will consider it with all deliberate care. I cannot reject something until it is offered to me. Biblical apologists have yet to come up with a single shred of real testable verifiable evidence. As for my "claim," I don't remember making one. As for peer review, I trust it over any alternative. Most scientists practice their trade with a strong sense of intellectual honesty and obligation to the general public.
@@stevepierce6467 Nice. Ad Hominem attacks all around. No surprise. I have no reason or desire to present any evidence to you. "For those with faith, no evidence is required. For those without faith, no evidence will suffice." ---- Thomas Aquinas.
@@stevepierce6467 You're talking about historical science vs. modern observable science. I too can claim that evolutionary apologists have yet to come up with a single shred of real testable verifiable evidence for their grand, overarching, historical theories and claims. So that logic swings both ways, whether you want it to or not. None of us observed the past ourselves, so we have to be extremely careful with any claims about it. And in my opinion, evolutionary scientists are not being properly careful with their claims and assumptions. They are being very careless. Secondly, as for current academia and "peer" reviewed papers. I don't know if you saw the academic "hijacking" that just took place in the last half-century? But peer review has quickly turned into "pal review", as certain people were placed into positions of power in academic chairs and administrations. And they "gate-keep" these departments like crazy. Saying "most scientists practice their trade with a strong sense of intellectual honesty and obligation to the general public" is actually pretty funny to me. Many do, but there are quite few that do not nowadays. And most of the ones that do not, are precisely the ones propped up, popularized in the culture, and championed. It's just sad.
Opinion: I think the answer to this question is yes. The light from the car's headlights travels at c + v. I think the 50 nanosecond difference, due to the Sagnac Effect, that occurs when we send microwave beams to an approaching or receding Global Positioning Satellite supports my answer to Steven Wright's question. The data provided by GPS reveals that electromagnetic signals sent East to West travel at c + v and electromagnetic signals sent West to East travel at c - v. If that is true for GPS, then why wouldn't it be true for a car traveling at 186,000 miles per second? "One of the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect - appears in rotating reference frames. The Sagnac effect is the basis of ring-laser gyroscopes now commonly used in aircraft navigation. In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds." - Neil Ashby (Relativity and the Global Positioning System) In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error-the Sagnac effect illustrates that error. - Ronald R. Hatch (Relativity and GPS)
Only light can move at the speed of light. (Period) Anything with mass will never match the speed of light. This is why I don't believe in the BigBang lie. Galaxies are huge. Impossible to get as far as they are in only 13.8 Billion years.
Light speed is relative to the observer. Time slows the faster you go. So light always appears to move at light speed. Until you reach light speed,then time stops. Travel would appear instantaneous to the traveler. Or something like that. Lol
Maybe our understanding of light is just wrong and the distances and ages are just not what is claimed. God said let there be light and it was so. That means light has always been here from that very moment. Light fills space. Light is everywhere. Why are we still thinking that every thing is expanding. Why can't it be that when God made it all he just placed it where it needed to be. It had to be in total balance from the beginning.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu As I have said. We maybe moving through space which looks like expansion but you can't see space itself. So you can't say space is expanding. Matter within space may be expanding with the explanation being that we are moving outward from a central point. Maybe. This thought is why they think we are expanding from a central point of existence hence the big bang. But we don't know that for sure. We do know we move through space around the sun. Just because we think we see red shift or blue shift doesn't mean we are moving away or towards. That means some are moving slower or faster. How can that be if we are all expanding at the same rate from the same bang. Back to the original thing. People say space is expanding yet there is no proof it expands or is moving.
God stretched out the heavens from the place where he was doing all his work. Namely, the Earth. When the entire universe started here and expanded from here, there's no problem with distant starlight.
Bingo! Scientists can be quite dense when facts contradict their pet theories. Your proposal is far better than, but possibly related to, the time dilation theory.
@@Howchon Only one tiny correction is needed to make your statement absolutely true and undeniable: put the words "I believe that..." right in front of "God." Otherwise it is just meaningless drivel.
Glad you said "believer." That is a true statement. It is possible to believe absolutely anything. Any time you say "I am a believer in..." you are making a true statement.
Dr Hebert always communicates well to the layman. As for Revelation, it is a book that communicates John’s vision in symbols-it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." (Proverbs 25:2). Those of us who have trusted Christ as Savior and are born of God are these kings (Revelation 1:6). What an honor God gives us to give us with the charge, intellect and tools to seek Him in all respects. Dad (Abba-Father) wants us to learn. Looking forward to the right answers sooner than later. 🙂
Well said. I believe God doesn't tell us everything outright for his own reasons. He could just tell us. But he wants us to seek him first. God is a "person/being", not a robot. He has his own will and desires.
Excellent talk. Thanks, Jake. Especially important, I think, is pointing out that the evolutionists don’t have all their ducks in a row or have all the answers they demand of creationists on this topic.
@@kathleennorton2228 Like, all of us living beings share the same origins and much of the same genetic material. You of course know how closely related we are to chimps and bonobos, but did you know that we share 50% of our genetic info with .................TREES?!!!!
@@stevepierce6467 See! It's not a fact that means anything more than how you interpreted it. The fact that all life created by God shares same designs means that they all share the same absolutely brilliant Creator. They work, so He uses them in many of His designs. They also, intrinsically, reflect His being and speak volumes about Him. You just have to learn how to listen.
@@kathleennorton2228 So, from your comment I see that you do accept evolution's main premise, that we all come from the same origins and we all share DNA and that we humans are very close cousins of several simian species. We do not agree on the assertion that this is evidence for a god/creator. So far, there is no evidence at all anywhere to either prove or disprove the existence or the non-existence of a god who designed and created anything. The fact that all life shares common aspects is proof that all life shares common aspects and derived from a common source, nothing more. Since well before the writing of the Genesis story, humans have tried to explain all the stuff around them that they could not explain, and the best they could come up with was herds of mysterious nymphs or elves or spirits or...gods...who inhabited the rocks and trees and clouds and sun and wind and everything. As we got more sophisticated (ie. self-aware) we made more and more of these gods look and talk and act just like us. As the religious move to consolidate power by having a single god progressed, he took on the pure image of an ancient Jewish patriarch, the classic authority figure of the time. But our relationship to this god is exactly the same as it was with the many gods earlier, namely, "There is stuff that we don't understand, therefore god."
God created a mature Adam, Eve and a mature garden. Why couldn't He also create a mature universe. Being mature doesn't discount a young creation when it's in the hands of God.
@@felixvecchiarelli6458 There is no evidence that any god exists or that he created anything, young or mature. So yes, any sentence that starts with "why couldn't he..." where "he" is a totally conjectural entity is perfectly plausible.
@stevepierce6467 - Prophecy is the proof. 2,500 years ago, the prophets detailed the verifiable work of Babylon, medo-persia, Greece, Rome, papal Rome, and the USA. It's pretty incredible when you study it.
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? - James 2:21-25
EWTN Bible 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. James 2:21-26 RSV-CE
Assuming that the average speed of reflected light is the same as the one way speed of light is the problem. The light from the stars arrives here instantly. There is no need to play around with time.
The light only arrives here instantly from the light frame of reference. Our frame of reference yields various results depending on the location of the stars.
@@williamwightman8409 Whatever the case is, we know that the light travelled from where the galaxies are to the earth before the evening of the fourth day.
@@stevepierce6467 Isn't He so amazing? And it makes sense, too. I throw a tennis ball against a brick wall (at a school I went to every morning before "the bell rang"), and it returns slower than it went out.
@@busker153 By "he," I assume you mean "Physics." A ball thrown against a wall loses some of its impetus in the energy lost in the impact with the wall, not to mention the air resistance and the downward pull of gravity. Physics is indeed very amazing.
Man, this is one question that bugs me and unfortunately the annswers i was looking for have not been provided in this video. Nothing convincing.at all.
God does not work with the laws that we perceive he perceives the laws on or that we understand, and our understanding is limited by gods perception in us
Very distant galaxies look as mature as near galaxies. Relativity has contradictions, eg. A twin in a spaceship and twin ‘stationary’ on earth age at different rates yet there is no ‘preferred frame of reference’ so each sees the other moving away at a fraction of the speed of light, yet they can’t both be younger than each other. The Sagnac effect works and is the basis of most precision navigation, it relies on there being a fixed ‘frame of reference’ that you can detect rotation against. Light half way between the sun and earth is a wave in transit, but where is the energy, the need for a ‘luminiferous aether’ is still a valid question with no answer. You can get to E=mC2 without relativity, so it is not a confirmation of relativity. James Clark-Maxwell accurately calculated the expected speed of light from the physical properties of ‘empty space’ ( it’s permeability and permativity). There is no observation or calculation that can be done that can prove that the earth is either moving or not moving, although the sagnac effect would suggest that it is stationary. The bible talks of ‘the firmament’ ie something that is firm and immovable. There may be different ways to understand and interpret all these observations but the idea that there is an aether and a stationary earth is contradicted by scientific dogma and treated with ridicule but is not contrary to observable evidence.
Question: Does time stand still (i.e. stop) at the speed of light? The reason I ask is because God is described as Light, and so I would gather that when light appeared, it appeared everywhere at the same "time", and is therefore "timeless".
The physicists I’ve listened to say that anything moving the speed of light doesn’t experience time at all. So if you were moving light speed you wouldn’t even be aware of your own existence. Granted, I’m no physicist so it might be worthwhile to fact check me on that.
Time is a concept, it has no properties, how can you affect a concept by anything in the material world? The universe does not have a Rolex to keep track of time, its Gods laws that keeps the precision of the Cosmos. God is not affected by time because he is not constrained by the limitations of what he can accomplish within time, he created human bodies that process more instructions per second than every computer on Earth combined, he can have more thoughts in one second than all 8 billion human bodies processing combined, but it is still one second because time is a concept without physical properties.
Spiral galaxies like our Milky Way have beautiful, intricate arms. Their cores are spinning at a faster rate than their arms meaning that the arms should collapse to their center over time. That collapse has been modeled to take place in less than three hundred million years. Yet we see spiral galaxies to the farthest distances even the Webb satellite can see. The universe is not billions of years old.
@@S1SEPUEDE Any astronomy textbook will tell you that the center of a spiral galaxy is spinning at a faster rate than it spiral arms. Ultimately these arms should collapse to their galactic core. Yet we see fully formed spiral galaxies to the furthest extent the Webb can see. Scientists have tried to say that these arms are constantly being reformed (gravitational waves) and therefore are still there but this defies other laws of physics. Next time you get a cup of coffee...do this experiment....put a teaspoon of powdered coffee creamer on top of the center of the coffee. Then take a a spoon and stir the center of the coffee...it will form a "spiral galaxy" shape, then its arms will collapse as the coffee creamer at the center spins faster than the powder outside the center.
My opinion of the best way to explain the distant starlight problem and the mature galaxies problem is to point out that the faster you travel the slower time passes. Speed has an exponential effect on the passage of time. Traveling at the speed of light no time at all would pass. Traveling faster than the speed of light you would arrive at your destination before you left your starting point ie. you would travel backwards in time. I realise that it is currently impossible for us to travel at, or faster than the speed of light but guess what! Light travels at the speed of light. Light can take no time to travel from A to B while still appearing to us to be traveling at 186,000 MPS. This fact would also allow galaxies at the extremes of our perception to appear their true age.
@@donmoyer8147 You are entirely correct. Atheists however try to use reason to argue against God but there is no reasoning or logic which will work against God. Human knowledge is waaaaay behind the knowledge of God. Atheists suggest that believing in God is akin to believing in magic, but just the opposite. God has knowledge, reason, skill and ability. It is the atheists who must depend upon magic, matter, universes and life creating themselves out of nothing, for no purpose.
Can time be more accurately expressed as an ocean full of galaxies in which energy bumping a light particle has immediate effect on the other side of the ocean of time? The energy of the wave moves slow, but the notification on the other end of the ocean is immediately apparent because time-space is a single continuous unit? In other words the whole ocean is notified because it is a singular thing of its own.
Question: does the speed of our solar system moving through the universe affect our precipitation of C? How close to the speed of light is our solar system moving?
My opinion is that the constant of light speed before the fall of Adam was infinite, and at the fall, dropped exponentially. I believe that the measured speed of light has decreased over the years, and if you follow this decrease back on an exponential curve, you would reach infinite value about 6,000 years ago. I could be wrong about this though.
What is physical and what is not when we are all vibration created by the infinite how could we perceive the truth? Well, we perceive what God allows us to perceive when he allows us to perceive it.
I’m sorry but I really don’t understand why the simplest answer never comes out; where in the Scriptures is taught of a universe vast billions of light years? and how are the distances of the stars measured? Is that really a reliable method? What if the stars just weren’t that far apart?
I wanna talk for a minute about comets. It's generally agreed that some of them take well over ten thousand years for them to complete one orbit of our sun. Astronomers have charted enough of their orbital paths to extrapolate their complete orbits. Where did they start their orbits if the universe is only 6,000 years old? Do they have a slow running clock?
How do comets start? A comet is an object which is flying through space and normally ends up doing some sort of orbit round the sun (very rough description.). If two planets collided and a piece broke off and away from the 2 planets that might end up as a comet, imagine a headlight in a car crash. Or if a far away star exploded and sent one piece in our direction. Or a piece of space debris had a planet pass nearby and sent it towards the sun, we have the start of a comets orbit. It could just hit another planet or the sun but is most likely to orbit the sun a number of times before the orbit decays and it is destroyed. Once headed on it’s course in our solar system we can predict the orbit. It may have just been sent off course by a passing planet 1 day ago and we should be able to predict its orbit which might be 100,000 years. Ie. There is no real correlation between the time since it ‘became a comet’ and the length of its orbit. A comet we observe on a 100,000 year orbit may have only started on that orbit 3 years ago.
I suggest that physicists need to look beyond the speed of light to the interconnectedness of the universe, as an environment, or composite ecosystem. From this perspective, light energy is part of the energy connectedness of the universe, and so is not individually variable in the universe, but is potentially wholistically variable, just as one's heartbeat may speed up, due to exercise, and slow down due to rest from exercise, but it's effects extend throughout the body's circulatory system. Things like gravity, atmospheres and pollutants may regionally or locally affect the actual speed of light in an area, as well as factors such as distance from source, chemistry, cold and heat. Bearing in mind that light travels not in endless veins, but as pulsations of waves or particles, the interconnectedness of the cosmos, of which light energy is a key connector, means that what I can see of distant stars and galaxies is momently accurate, based on the continual flow of light, and the constancy of the flow - rather like looking through one window on Earth through all of the communicating windows leading to the various stars and galaxies. So long as the speed of light pulsations remains universally constant, what I am seeing through the light pulsations currently reflecting off my retina is accurate along the pulsation reflectors, all the way to the currently first reflecting pulsation emanating from the surface of the star or galaxy, however long it would take for that individual pulsation to eventually travel through the light stream to my eye. Since the universe has always been connected since creation, there has always been a continual flow of light energy pulsations connecting itself as a whole, at a potentially variable, but universally constant pace of pulsation, except for specific and extreme local conditions, probably inclusive of gravitational effects, and also involving matter. This concept of energy connectedness of the universe may also involve adjustment of concepts of space distances, vis-a-vis the functionality of connecting light energy, and the necessary distances for radiation and gravitation protection.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Proponents of differing views of universal connectedness and cosmic photoreflective mechanisms may progressively subject their hypotheses to scientific study and laboratory testing. However, some proposals make existential sense, and some do not. In view of the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum has long ago been calculated, what would prevent increasingly sophisticated scientific experiments from confirming that each light wave pulsation is photoreflective, and from even measuring the smallest and largest dimensions of a photoreflective unit of light energy pulsation? However, up to the 21st century, humankind is limited in absolutely precise measurement of the speed of light, by factors such as space not being a literal vacuum, and there not being true vacuums in existence. This should encourage us to remain humble and to keep on learning, in an area where humankind's capacity to actually measure has not developed overwhelmingly since the 17th century CE.
The comment about measuring speed of light one way I believe is wrong. The first measurement was by observing the moons of Jupiter and one was due to eclipse at a specific time and the time was off by about 40 minutes which the observer (I forgot who) attributed the time error to the fact that Jupiter was millions of miles further from the earth at that time. So that was a one way measurement. Later Maxwell's equations calculated a speed of electromatic wave based on electrostatic and magnetic properties in empty space which agreed very closely to the above mentioned speed which led to the correct speculation that light is an electromagnetic wave.
I do disagree that they're billions of light years away. For many reasons, not the least of which is failure to confirm those distances. If we have only one unproven method, (parallax lensing) then we have one unproven speed of light, then we leave out known variables like gravity's interaction with light, light defraction through gas mediums and other variables, then it is all simply a guess upon a guess upon a guess. No matter how "educated" the guess may be. That can compound errors, quickly. And with distances prooosed to be so great, that makes a big difference.
The book of Job, when god is asking Job, who put the stars in the sky, who can change them who can even conceive of these things? It definitely is not something capable of perceiving by any human stretch of the imagination. Exactly you understand that faith the decision to believe the Onde what we can see is part of the reason we are here.
Hmmm, scripture says that the sun, moon, and stars came after the earth so how does that fit with old galaxies colliding? So does that mean the stars were out there but phenomenally the light didn’t get here until day 4 while the heavens were created in day 2? Somehow I don’t believe God would have worded the history the way ‘science’ interprets origins. As God stretched out the heavens wouldn’t there be a continuous trail of light coming to us?
This may be an ignorant ?, but I’ve not found an answer. How do scientists KNOW for sure that traveling starlight, does/doesn’t have a LIMIT in how FAR said starlight can travel?
The fact that we can see light from stars that are extremely far away (trillions of miles) is strong evidence that light travelling through a vacuum just keeps going and going and going. A bundle of light energy (called a photon) will keep travelling until it is absorbed by an electron in an atom. -Dr. Hebert
@@icrscience Question: What about a limit to the starlight's speed? Could we use the General Theory of Relativity to answer how starlight could reach the Earth on the 4th day? To the best of my knowledge, light can go faster than 186,000 miles per second in the General Theory of Relativity. "Relative to the stationary roundabout, the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction...that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.... If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec under these conditions." - W.G.V. Rosser (Introductory Relativity) "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light)." - Albert Einstein (Relativity: The Special and General Theory) "In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error-the Sagnac effect illustrates that error." - Ronald Hatch (Relativity and GPS)
So let me educate you on the special Theory of Relativity in relevance to time dilation and the distant galaxy issue. First: the universe is very old as we have measured the distances of huge galaxies that bend the path of light ( general theory of relativity) and we can measure the time differences when another huge object crosses lights way and we see there is a measurable time difference, demonstrating that time and space is curved. The photon itself travelling at the speed of light doesn't experience time, but relative to us we nevertheless see that light needs time to travel, ie from the Sun to us roughly 8 min or to the next Galaxy Andromeda 2,5 million years. Exploding stars are seen on earth like a static event because they are so far away that relative to us the motion involved can't be seen. That's a huge proof that the universe is huge and light takes very long to get here. We see Galaxies colliding and we know such phenomenon needs hundreds of millions of years, more like a couple of billion years. That too is a huge proof of light needing a long time to get here. Does that take anything away from God's glory? No. The opposite is the case. It demonstrates the huge and majestic power of God. ❤
Trying to explain processes when God’s hand was interactive in creation. In Revelations, the End of Days, God intervenes again….. not sure why this is so hard to understand.
I learned that Light does NOT use Time to travel across the universe. (It is only our human perception) Light is simultaneously everywhere. It makes sense because there is a Quantum entanglement reality.
Light is everywhere all at once, but light from each discrete source is traveling across the universe out from its source at its appointed speed and direction.
This is quite easily provably false. Look at the time it takes to talk to Voyager space craft for instance. Radio waves are just another form of light.
Well, in tbe spirit world there is no time or distance, there's no such thing as eternity past or eternity future, eternity is sternity and has no time constraint, so i think when God created it was rather a system of orderly processes where time was not and i think in order to explain the six days of creation our finite brains might find some reason in this explanation, does this make sense?
I don't think his interpretation of Revelation 8 :12 is correct that this means that distant stars were dimmed. But rather their starlight along with the sun and moon's light was partly obscured here on earth. In fact, only 3 verses later in Chapter 9 verse 2, it plainly tells you why they are darkened. It says: "When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss." This itself is a furnace -like abyss on earth created by "a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth" (the verse right before it). Since a star is much larger than the earth, then this "falling star" has to be a comet or asteroid. Scientists may have studied a certain science more than you or I, but that does not mean they have studied scripture more carefully.
When God said, let there be light, there was light. This would infer that the one way speed of light is whatever God wants it to be galaxies can be as far away as Ary, but the light from those galaxies has been here from the beginning. Another way to look at this is that when Adam was created, although he was merely moments old, he had the appearance of mature man. He may have looked 15 years old, 21 years old, 25 years old, but he was mere seconds old. He looked as though he came from distant land, where he was raised be, the age that he was when God encountered him, but God just created him to be before his fairy eyes at that instant. In the same way light from far away distances, that would be continuously moving away at exceptional speeds Could be here at the time that God said let there be light. Does anyone doubt that when God speaks things happen?
Here is a thought, the light supposedly has a speed limit of 186k miles/sec or 300k kilometer/sec. Well what about the light from the Father and the Son, Are they limited by this speed limit? Are they limited by their own creation?
That's the point. If you believe that the speed of light is constant the dilemma arises as a Christian that believes in the inspired word of God that there are guesses on how the speed of light and other things should be calculated. They forget the part of the equation that includes the Creator. :)@@StudentDad-mc3pu
I don't understand why when God said let their be light their was' not light everywhere it is supposed to be. We know at the word of God the world was of old..
Taking the "time dialation" premise to another level, Have you considered that God, and His angels, all spiritual things could be moving in a faster resonance? what takes our clocks 1 second to click off that one second, in "God time" could be, in fact a week or longer in "God time" Thats why 1 angel had plenty of time to kill 186,000 Asserian soldiers in one night. Since angels are spiritual beings, moving at a different "speed" they're vibrating at a different frequency than us. That's how Jesus manifested himself through the closed door room after his reserection, he sped up his vibration or frequency and his material self just went between the atoms of the door, or wall, the same way the "angels of the Lord, slowed down their vibration to talk to Abram.
If Adam was created with the apparent age of thirty or so, not a newborn, and the starlight is literally part of the star, why isn't the star and all of its light created and has the appearance of age?
Dr. Russell Humphreys provides a biblical model that seems very satisfying. The effect described in Revelation 8 could occur via occlusion (e.g., atmospheric occlusion), but that might not be what is being described, there.
Speed = Distance ÷ Time 46.5 Billion Lightyears ÷ 13.8 Billion Years = 3.4 times the Speed of Light. So according to the deep time model, space moves faster than light. If space can move both matter and light, and space can move faster than light, then space can move both matter and light faster than the speed of light. What do we observe beyond the Hubble Sphere? Galaxies and photons moving faster than light. Since space can move faster than light, it is possible that space can have reached its enormous size in very little time, and it is possible for light from those distant objects to reach us in very little time. I think it's unlikely that the speed of light changes, since it's one of the constants of fine tuning. If it did change then either stars would be too luminous or not be luminous enough. It might also affect vacuum permeability (μ0) and vacuum permittivity (ϵ0), which effects quantum tunnelling, which effects both nuclear fusion in stars as well as some biological processes. So if the speed of light changed, then stars wouldn't burn and biological life would die out.
There isn't just a light travel problem, but a matter travel problem with galaxy collisions. I personally think accelerated destruction took place during Noah's Flood on a cosmic scale. The reasoning behind that is that God declared His creation was good, and yet radiogalaxies depict God destroying billions of solar systems by fire in a whirlpool fashion. This destruction only fits after Adam's sin during a time of judgment like Noah's Flood. If true, then the cause of gravity was used to destroy portions of galaxies faster than light. Bing image search Bode's Galaxy Poster and Giant Biggest Whirlpool by whirlpoolhitman to see how galaxies resemble whirlpools. Isaiah 34:4, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 21:1 states the host of heaven will fall and be gathered together to destroy everything by the fire of the stars. It requires new physics, but the destruction of all creation by the fire of the heavens is required as Earth was with its water.
If we form an explanation of observed phenomenon based upon inaccurate assumptions, then our thesis/explanation will be inaccurate. The Copernican revolution brought in many assumptions. Copernicus stated his model was based upon 7 pre selected assumptions, which he further stated that he had no evidence for them and did not claim they were true. One of those assumptions was that stars (galaxies, nebula etc) are extremely far away, "infinitely distant" was a term which predated Copernicus but which he accepted as one of hoe assumptions. A careful examination of each test to prove these 7 assumptions in the years since 1542 shows none of them have been proved. It is a fact that the distance between Earth and any other heavenly body sun, moon, any planet or any star has never ever been proven. The distance from Earth to Mars is the basis for the distance from Earth to the other planets and the sun but the method of measuring Earth to Mars distance is totally flawed. Therefore modern astronomy/cosmology has zero proof for any of their assumptions. We can not harmonize lies and truth.
So these are Axioms and NOT assumptions - and axiom is a fact taken to be obviously true which is why no evidence is required. The axioms are: 1. There is no one centre in the universe. 2. The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe. 3. The centre of the universe is near the sun. 4. The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars. 5. The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars. 6. The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving round it. 7. The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth from which one observes. Remembering that Copernicus did not have access to a mathematical model of gravity, his Axioms are surprising good. Obviously some of the wording needs amending however there is lots of insight here. 1 is still a matter of debate. 2. is easily provably correct, the Earth is not even the centre of the Solar System. 3. If you replace 'universe' with 'solar system' we get the idea. 4. this is clearly the case. 5. there is no doubt at all about this. 6. No doubt about this either. 7. This is provably true. So your statement that "none of them have been proved" - is false. They have been tested again and again, we have gone to the moon, sent probes to Mars (so we know exactly how far it is) and had probes sling-shot around the Sun. We have sent ships to other planets as well as sending two deep space probes beyond the orbit of the furthest object in the Solar System. We can deduce the distance of all the planets to the sun by their orbital paths, it's simple maths. The same with our distance to the sun (92 million miles or so). Newton proved mathematically that all orbits are elliptical. Your statement is like saying the Axiom: My Cat Likes Cream has never been proven despite the fact that the cat is licking the inside of an empty cream bowl.
Replace the car with a boat at 10 mph , and the boat shoots a water jet at you at 10 mph, how fast will the waves from that boat jet reach you? Same as the boat's waves. Replace the car with a jet plane traveling at 99% the speed of sound and it blows a horn ahead of it at the speed of sound, how fast will that horn sound reach you? The same time as the plane. This may not be the same with light speed unless there is a medium like air or water that restricts it's travel speed.
A boats wake does not move as fast as the boat; in fact, it stays motionless in the forward direction and radiates out sideways rather slowly. The water jet will be clocked at 20mph. Have you ever seen cockpit videos of fighter planes firing rockets? The rocket takes advantage of the plane's speed to get even greater speed.
@@stevepierce6467 I ldon't know the wave speed on calm water, but suppose it is 10 mph and the boat is going 9, the wake will lead ahead of the boat by one mile per hour and the water jet pushing forward from the water line will initially go 20 as you say but will settle out at 10 mph also as that is the restriction of the medium those waves are traveling in. If "Space Time" is the medium that restricts light speed then nothing will travel faster than the 186,000 mph or so that light normally travels whether the source of that light is a fast ship or a slow planet. However if there is NOT a restricting medium light from a fast ship will outrun light from the planet of origin.
@@TheWadetube Have you ever actually seen a boat moving in the water, and do you know the meaning of the word wake? The wake does not go in front of the boat but rather mostly behind it and somewhat out to the side. The wake is the trail left by a boat moving in water, the operative word being trail, as in trail behind. By your peculiar logic, a person walking forward on a train is going the same speed as the train, even though he is actually going slightly faster.
@@stevepierce6467 Yes, but any object in the water creates a wave 360 degrees around it even if it is not moving because the water itself has it's waves. Let me SIMPLIFY this for you. Waves have a limited speed in a lake, the water is the medium, this restricts the speed of those waves due to it's density . This is analygis to space time fabric. The motion of a boat forward produces a wave forward, usually the boat goes faster than that wave, this seems to be where I lose you. I don't know how fast a wave travels forward off of a moving boat, do you? Then let's switch this to air planes. A jet is traveling at 600 miles per hour, it's wake travels at 730 mph and so travels ahead at 130 mph FASTER than the plane, and if the plane blows a horn ahead of it to announce it is coming at what speed does THAT sound wave travel? 730 mph! It doesn't matter if the plane is doing mach one, if it blows it's horn it's sound will reach a person ahead at the same speed as the sound of the plane. Do you get it now? So too with light instead of blowing a horn you are doing half the speed of light and you shine a light ahead of you and it either goes 50% faster than the speed of light, adding the sum of both speeds OR it only travels at the normal speed of light proving that there is a limiting medium of space fabric. I have not seen it done, they don't even know how to measure the speed of light in one direction.
The big bang and inflation and dark matter and dark energy all sound analogous to trying to explain planet orbits with epicycles!! It is a big kluge - because the underlying assumption is wrong!!
The phrase "impossible distances" tells it all. The firmament was much closer at creation and at Noah's flood God expanded the firmament which made the stars farther away but not the distances science (so called) tells us. God may have expanded the heavens more often as in the long day of Joshua where the sun and moon stopped moving. We don't know yet.
And God created "man".. Adam was a full grown man the very day, even second, he was created... If all these suppose to be smart & highly intelligent people of today who understand the birds & bees, conception, pregnancy & all the stages of man's seed going from sperm to developing into a full grown man saw Adam at one day old they would be absolutely lost & render stupid trying to comprehend how someone is just a few minutes old yet fully grown "if" they dismiss the power of the Father of that man. Now, "& God created light..." Just as Adam was created a full grown functioning man simultaneously when he was created so was light here in this earth... As long as the scientific community dismiss the power of the Creator of this light, dismissing how instantaneous, immediate, sudden He in all His great power created it & can only theorize based on their present knowledge of how light travels dismissing the instantaneous creation of light in the beginning, they'll forever be confused & stuck in a cycle of theorizing. Here, the answer to the old question; What came first, the chicken or the egg?... The chicken! God creation of everything in the beginning was instantaneous, the working process of creation came afterwards. A full grown man was made 1st, then after the woman was shaped & formed THEN the process of reproduction to bring forth more men (& women) begun. Scientists today are lost & confused because they began all their theories based on the working process "after" the very beginning, if they go back, all the way back to very beginning, that is start with God Almighty creative power first, then they can grasp things a lil better.
Even though this "Inflation Theory" does create more problems for evolutionists, it actually does a great job of showing us what happens when we tell lies. Irony is great sometimes😂 😂
Dr. Hebert: "The bible is always right". The bible says nothing about the speed of light. The bible says nothing about the age of the universe, the age of the sun, the age of the stars, or the age of earth. All of the creationist beliefs about those ages are extrapolations from some interpretations of the bible. There is no need within the bible, or within Christianity, to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. That is strictly a human assumption.
With his knowledge and wisdom God created and established all that we can and cannot see and I think this is the problem that people have when they try to attain to God's intellect what makes mankind think that they could possibly understand everything ultimately God created everything for himself and his good pleasure so does it really matter whether or not we understand how it all ticks God said that he created the heavens for signs times and seasons and to declare his glory also the unbelieving atheistic scientist is looking for something that he will never find because he thinks that something other than God brought all of this into existence so is it really wise for us to jump on the bandwagon Maybe in God's mercy he will put a stop to all their muddling around and bring them to their senses so that in seeing his Glory they will know that he is I don't think it could be put in a better perspective than the end of job ‐ where you when I laid the foundations of the Earth so what do you think you know
I love WHAT you are saying but not HOW you are saying it. Please remember that periods separate sentences and increase the intelligiblity of written communication. God gave humans dominion over His creation, curiosity, and a desire to explore. So, scientific inquiry is well within the will of God for human kind to engage in. Humans may never be able to learn everything about God's creation, but that should not stop us from scientific inquiry.
@@offthefront7537 This is a ridiculous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone misspoke that they don't have credibility? Seems more like your grasping for anything to discredit what is being said.
I'm very happy for this channel and the proofs of a young creation as scripture testifies. Regarding the book of Revelation and understanding it's mention of the sun, moon and stars are definitely a metaphor and not the literal sun, moon and stars. It's a metaphor for the physical representation of Joseph [ becoming Israel] and his 11 brothers, all becoming the 12 tribes of Israel. Rev 12:1 Genesis chapter 37 : 9-11 "And Joseph dreamed another dream and related it to his Father and to his brethren and said," Behold I have dreamed another dream; as it were the sun and the moon and the 11 stars did me reverence. And his Father rebuked him ans said, What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall indeed both I and your Mother bow before thee to the earth? And his brethren envied him but his Father observed the saying." Revelation 12:1 " And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and upon her head a crown of 12 stars. This is a metaphor for the representation of the physical Israel that God created through the Hebrew people. As God made a physical representation of His power on the earth, there is also a spiritual representation of the powers in the heaven and that is either good angels or fallen angles. So Satan is referenced as a great red dragon having 7 heads and 10 horns. This is not a physical red dragon etc it's a metaphor for a spiritual principality and power. Rev 12:4 "And his tail drew a third of the stars from heaven and cast them to the earth." These stars are a metaphor for fallen angels. Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in the celestial places." Colossians 1:16 "For by Him were all things created that are in the heaven and in the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created by Him and for Him." The book of Revelation is very Hebrew in structure and principle and is a prophetic book and has dozens of old testament references that were promised to the nation of Israel and then to the nations of the world. One must understand the old covenant to understand the prophecies of the book.
If some stars you see are stars from the past You would not see a dot you would see millions of different size halos i have never seen one Light is not matter and weighs nothing once the source is gone the light is gone
4:43 "If you take revelation literally like I do." Glad to hear it. That means you take John 6 literally. Welcome to the Real Presence, fellow-Catholic... Oh... You only take some of revelation literally. 😢 Yes, I know, he was speaking of big R Revelation, but nevertheless he would say the same of small R.
watching now. if Pearlman YeC SPIRAL 99% + of starlight we see here and now, we are seeing from photons that departed, when the distant stellar objects they departed from were 6k rounded light years distance (The number of LY as years elapsed) on literal day 4. Same SPIRAL LY radius 'i' distance we see CMB from.
ironically, a light speed limit of 'c' standard light speed attests to YeC and falsifies ALL current consensus deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses and assumptions (like SCM-LCDM and NDT Darwinism) for all practical intents and purposes
I believe Jesus created the universe. Now, many times i heard creation apologists say that God created everything is 6 days, as in six earthly days. But this videos presents time dilation. If time dilation is real, then there's a strong reason NOT to insist that the six days recorded in Genesis has to be an earthly timeframe. The guys in the video proclaim that they take the words in the Bible as literal, but i'm seeing the possibility that the six days mentioned in Genesis has to mean earthly six days.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
When God said "Let there be light" there was light instantaneously regardless of it's source and the distance of it's source! For an all powerful, almighty, omnipotent God, it is like flipping on a light switch!
Read Genesis from where God's spirit was hovering over the waters.
That's the perspective of what is written.
But yes your right, light had to travel fast.
The light from the universe was already there but the Earth was dark because of the dark cloud wrapped around the earth as mentioned in the book of Job.
Read Genesis from right above the waters and it all makes perfect sense! 👍
interesting......either way....all the prophecies of scriptures have and are coming to pass.....so that alone is reason for any person to believe....
@@alexashworth3119
@@alexashworth3119right!?!? What? That makes no sense.
@@phoenixskeptic7698 What is your question?
"When god said..." Apart from the bible with its bronze age folklore, is there ANY corroboration that ANY god ever said ANYTHING? The ancient, scientifically illiterate rabbis who composed Genesis wrote what they thought might be understood by the even more ignorant people, but is there any evidence, other than biblical claims, that a god exists and said anything at all? No.
Don’t forget Dr.Lisles proposal of infinite speed of light in one direction, and half in another. This answers all the math properly and means we are viewing the heavens in real time.
What is half of infinity? Lol. I love listening to Dr. Lisle.
Roger Spurr has conducted experiments 10 years ago that show that Light clearly slows down and speeds up. It is not constant. No one wants to listen. What's more the Quantum Foam which has reemerged in the Scientific community once referred to as The Ether stands in it's path and clearly impedes it. Space is saturated with particles, to say nothing of all the other obstacles encountered. I don't see how it's never been questioned that the speed of light can't possibly be constant. And yes, that would nullify the concept of light years as well. We really don't know they distances between Stars, solar systems, constellations and galaxies. All that needs to be totally reconfigured.
I also have a proposal: let the light be shone into a dark barrel where it spins around faster and faster and then is released to zoom off at infinite speed. This answers all those pesky cosmological questions raised by scientists.
Yep stars displaced hundreds of thousands of light years, as with mice galaxy tail, from billion year collisions halfway finished make lightspeed irrelevant , those stars moved . Also black hole jets , some millions of light years
@@guylelanglois6642 half the current believed speed of light
What about index of refraction (index)? When a beam of light goes from one medium into another, the mediums' index alters the speed of light - think about looking at a spoon in a glass of water and how it looks bent. In radio communications we have to know the index for a type of cable whose wavelength is dependant upon the index for tuning. My thinking is the index can explain some of this issue.
Thank you for helping clarify the problem of starlight and the age of the universe. It's nice to know there are answers to some of our questions.
My position on something like this has always been if God created the physical laws , he can also manipulate those physical laws and therefore could have star light visible instantaneously on the earth.
It's why I believe that Jesus was able to turn water into wine.
Just my 2 cents.
From a photon's perspective, it can pass through the entire Universe without experiencing time at all.
Thank you so much for these podcasts! I find them informative and fascinating! It’s encouraging to know that there are many scientists from all disciplines who believe in Biblical creation and provide evidence to support that.
Actually, they have provided no evidence for that or for anything else. They have given contrarian arguments, sometimes with a smattering of scientific lingo, but no peer-reviewable evidence.
@@stevepierce6467Your argument is a logical fallacy.
It's called the invincible ignorance fallacy.
You completely reject all evidence presented to you but yet no offer of evidence of your own claim.
Peer reviewed? That's a complete joke. If 12 scientists go outside and look at a clear blue sky and one of them writes the sky is blue and the other eleven right that the sky is grey, AND the 11 are wearing sunglasses, the 11 are going to peer review all 12 papers and conclude that the scientist who wrote that the sky is blue is wrong.
The problem is that the sky is not gray and the clear color vision of the 11 was compromised. Peer review is nothing but a bunch of like-minded people all agreeing about the same thing.
@@rayspeakmon2954 Whatever I wrote to elicit your response has disappeared, so I can't answer properly. All I can say is that the day anyone presents me with real evidence of creation from 6000 years ago, I will consider it with all deliberate care. I cannot reject something until it is offered to me. Biblical apologists have yet to come up with a single shred of real testable verifiable evidence. As for my "claim," I don't remember making one. As for peer review, I trust it over any alternative. Most scientists practice their trade with a strong sense of intellectual honesty and obligation to the general public.
@@stevepierce6467 Nice. Ad Hominem attacks all around.
No surprise.
I have no reason or desire to present any evidence to you.
"For those with faith, no evidence is required. For those without faith, no evidence will suffice." ---- Thomas Aquinas.
@@stevepierce6467 You're talking about historical science vs. modern observable science. I too can claim that evolutionary apologists have yet to come up with a single shred of real testable verifiable evidence for their grand, overarching, historical theories and claims. So that logic swings both ways, whether you want it to or not. None of us observed the past ourselves, so we have to be extremely careful with any claims about it. And in my opinion, evolutionary scientists are not being properly careful with their claims and assumptions. They are being very careless.
Secondly, as for current academia and "peer" reviewed papers. I don't know if you saw the academic "hijacking" that just took place in the last half-century? But peer review has quickly turned into "pal review", as certain people were placed into positions of power in academic chairs and administrations. And they "gate-keep" these departments like crazy. Saying "most scientists practice their trade with a strong sense of intellectual honesty and obligation to the general public" is actually pretty funny to me. Many do, but there are quite few that do not nowadays. And most of the ones that do not, are precisely the ones propped up, popularized in the culture, and championed. It's just sad.
I love every one of your broadcasts and look forward to more.
There is no distant light problem, only an underestimation of God's might problem.
Unfathomably immense distances that I cannot grasp, therefore god.
If you're driving a car at the speed of light, and you turn your headlights on, does anything happen? - Steven Wright
Opinion: I think the answer to this question is yes. The light from the car's headlights travels at c + v.
I think the 50 nanosecond difference, due to the Sagnac Effect, that occurs when we send microwave beams to an approaching or receding Global Positioning Satellite supports my answer to Steven Wright's question. The data provided by GPS reveals that electromagnetic signals sent East to West travel at c + v and electromagnetic signals sent West to East travel at c - v. If that is true for GPS, then why wouldn't it be true for a car traveling at 186,000 miles per second?
"One of the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect - appears in rotating reference frames. The Sagnac effect is the basis of ring-laser gyroscopes now commonly used in aircraft navigation. In the GPS, the Sagnac effect can produce discrepancies amounting to hundreds of nanoseconds." - Neil Ashby (Relativity and the Global Positioning System)
In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error-the Sagnac effect illustrates that error. - Ronald R. Hatch (Relativity and GPS)
@@S1SEPUEDE
wow...
Yes, you get a speeding ticket.
Only light can move at the speed of light. (Period)
Anything with mass will never match the speed of light.
This is why I don't believe in the BigBang lie.
Galaxies are huge. Impossible to get as far as they are in only 13.8 Billion years.
Light speed is relative to the observer. Time slows the faster you go. So light always appears to move at light speed. Until you reach light speed,then time stops. Travel would appear instantaneous to the traveler. Or something like that. Lol
Maybe our understanding of light is just wrong and the distances and ages are just not what is claimed. God said let there be light and it was so. That means light has always been here from that very moment. Light fills space. Light is everywhere. Why are we still thinking that every thing is expanding. Why can't it be that when God made it all he just placed it where it needed to be. It had to be in total balance from the beginning.
Maybe...a good answer. Why can't things be the way I imagine them to be? Who knows?
Because we can see it is expanding and prove this observation.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu As I have said. We maybe moving through space which looks like expansion but you can't see space itself. So you can't say space is expanding. Matter within space may be expanding with the explanation being that we are moving outward from a central point. Maybe. This thought is why they think we are expanding from a central point of existence hence the big bang. But we don't know that for sure. We do know we move through space around the sun. Just because we think we see red shift or blue shift doesn't mean we are moving away or towards. That means some are moving slower or faster. How can that be if we are all expanding at the same rate from the same bang. Back to the original thing. People say space is expanding yet there is no proof it expands or is moving.
"Why can't it be....?" Why can't everything be the way I want it to be?
God stretched out the heavens from the place where he was doing all his work. Namely, the Earth. When the entire universe started here and expanded from here, there's no problem with distant starlight.
Bingo! Scientists can be quite dense when facts contradict their pet theories. Your proposal is far better than, but possibly related to, the time dilation theory.
@@robbysguitars8223tell me what you think time dilation theory is, please, this should be good.
I actually have reason to believe god's center of operations was from Planet Z42MKT39 in the Sombrero Galaxy.
I agree. God created man as the crown jewel of His creation, and so of course man is placed at the center of creation.
@@Howchon Only one tiny correction is needed to make your statement absolutely true and undeniable: put the words "I believe that..." right in front of "God." Otherwise it is just meaningless drivel.
BTW, I am a believer in young Earth.
Glad you said "believer." That is a true statement. It is possible to believe absolutely anything. Any time you say "I am a believer in..." you are making a true statement.
I just found out about your channel on @Standing for Truth channel 😁 Glad to have found you all!
We're glad you found us!
Great talk. I enjoy this channel. Thanks for posting. God bless.
Dr Hebert always communicates well to the layman. As for Revelation, it is a book that communicates John’s vision in symbols-it wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter." (Proverbs 25:2). Those of us who have trusted Christ as Savior and are born of God are these kings (Revelation 1:6). What an honor God gives us to give us with the charge, intellect and tools to seek Him in all respects. Dad (Abba-Father) wants us to learn. Looking forward to the right answers sooner than later. 🙂
Well said. I believe God doesn't tell us everything outright for his own reasons. He could just tell us. But he wants us to seek him first. God is a "person/being", not a robot. He has his own will and desires.
@@222ableVelo Indeed, as we do; we are made in His image.
We don't even understand earthly things, how are we expected to understand heavenly things.
Excellent talk. Thanks, Jake. Especially important, I think, is pointing out that the evolutionists don’t have all their ducks in a row or have all the answers they demand of creationists on this topic.
We evolutionists do indeed have all the answers. All that creationists have to offer is denials, saying it does not conform to Genesis.
@@stevepierce6467Like what?
@@kathleennorton2228 Like, all of us living beings share the same origins and much of the same genetic material. You of course know how closely related we are to chimps and bonobos, but did you know that we share 50% of our genetic info with .................TREES?!!!!
@@stevepierce6467 See! It's not a fact that means anything more than how you interpreted it.
The fact that all life created by God shares same designs means that they all share the same absolutely brilliant Creator. They work, so He uses them in many of His designs. They also, intrinsically, reflect His being and speak volumes about Him. You just have to learn how to listen.
@@kathleennorton2228 So, from your comment I see that you do accept evolution's main premise, that we all come from the same origins and we all share DNA and that we humans are very close cousins of several simian species. We do not agree on the assertion that this is evidence for a god/creator. So far, there is no evidence at all anywhere to either prove or disprove the existence or the non-existence of a god who designed and created anything. The fact that all life shares common aspects is proof that all life shares common aspects and derived from a common source, nothing more. Since well before the writing of the Genesis story, humans have tried to explain all the stuff around them that they could not explain, and the best they could come up with was herds of mysterious nymphs or elves or spirits or...gods...who inhabited the rocks and trees and clouds and sun and wind and everything. As we got more sophisticated (ie. self-aware) we made more and more of these gods look and talk and act just like us. As the religious move to consolidate power by having a single god progressed, he took on the pure image of an ancient Jewish patriarch, the classic authority figure of the time. But our relationship to this god is exactly the same as it was with the many gods earlier, namely, "There is stuff that we don't understand, therefore god."
11:44 Good to know that the "oldest" starlight reveals MATURE galaxies.
The oldest starlight reveals galaxies that if they still exist today are very mature. The light we see was emitted when they were very young.
God created a mature Adam, Eve and a mature garden. Why couldn't He also create a mature universe. Being mature doesn't discount a young creation when it's in the hands of God.
@@felixvecchiarelli6458 There is no evidence that any god exists or that he created anything, young or mature. So yes, any sentence that starts with "why couldn't he..." where "he" is a totally conjectural entity is perfectly plausible.
@stevepierce6467 - Prophecy is the proof. 2,500 years ago, the prophets detailed the verifiable work of Babylon, medo-persia, Greece, Rome, papal Rome, and the USA. It's pretty incredible when you study it.
@@felixvecchiarelli6458 Can you show me a single prophecy, fulfilled or not, that mentions the USA or the pope in Rome?
It's 186,000 miles per SECOND
Faith alone can only ever be faith alone when faith is required.
[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? [25] And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? - James 2:21-25
EWTN Bible
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
James 2:21-26 RSV-CE
Assuming that the average speed of reflected light is the same as the one way speed of light is the problem. The light from the stars arrives here instantly. There is no need to play around with time.
The light only arrives here instantly from the light frame of reference. Our frame of reference yields various results depending on the location of the stars.
@@williamwightman8409 Whatever the case is, we know that the light travelled from where the galaxies are to the earth before the evening of the fourth day.
Yes, instantly. The light from the stars is visible to our eyes at the exact instant it arrives at our eyes.
@@stevepierce6467 Isn't He so amazing? And it makes sense, too. I throw a tennis ball against a brick wall (at a school I went to every morning before "the bell rang"), and it returns slower than it went out.
@@busker153 By "he," I assume you mean "Physics." A ball thrown against a wall loses some of its impetus in the energy lost in the impact with the wall, not to mention the air resistance and the downward pull of gravity. Physics is indeed very amazing.
Man, this is one question that bugs me and unfortunately the annswers i was looking for have not been provided in this video. Nothing convincing.at all.
blessings in Christ ❤️🙏🏾
may the Lord bless this ministry in all things in Jesus mighty name
God does not work with the laws that we perceive he perceives the laws on or that we understand, and our understanding is limited by gods perception in us
Yep, the old argument: there is all sorts of stuff I don't understand, therefore god.
Very distant galaxies look as mature as near galaxies.
Relativity has contradictions, eg. A twin in a spaceship and twin ‘stationary’ on earth age at different rates yet there is no ‘preferred frame of reference’ so each sees the other moving away at a fraction of the speed of light, yet they can’t both be younger than each other.
The Sagnac effect works and is the basis of most precision navigation, it relies on there being a fixed ‘frame of reference’ that you can detect rotation against.
Light half way between the sun and earth is a wave in transit, but where is the energy, the need for a ‘luminiferous aether’ is still a valid question with no answer.
You can get to E=mC2 without relativity, so it is not a confirmation of relativity.
James Clark-Maxwell accurately calculated the expected speed of light from the physical properties of ‘empty space’ ( it’s permeability and permativity).
There is no observation or calculation that can be done that can prove that the earth is either moving or not moving, although the sagnac effect would suggest that it is stationary.
The bible talks of ‘the firmament’ ie something that is firm and immovable.
There may be different ways to understand and interpret all these observations but the idea that there is an aether and a stationary earth is contradicted by scientific dogma and treated with ridicule but is not contrary to observable evidence.
Question: Does time stand still (i.e. stop) at the speed of light? The reason I ask is because God is described as Light, and so I would gather that when light appeared, it appeared everywhere at the same "time", and is therefore "timeless".
The physicists I’ve listened to say that anything moving the speed of light doesn’t experience time at all. So if you were moving light speed you wouldn’t even be aware of your own existence. Granted, I’m no physicist so it might be worthwhile to fact check me on that.
If you say God is light, you are saying God is Electromagnetic Radiation. I would say God created Electromagnetic Radiation.
Time is a concept, it has no properties, how can you affect a concept by anything in the material world? The universe does not have a Rolex to keep track of time, its Gods laws that keeps the precision of the Cosmos. God is not affected by time because he is not constrained by the limitations of what he can accomplish within time, he created human bodies that process more instructions per second than every computer on Earth combined, he can have more thoughts in one second than all 8 billion human bodies processing combined, but it is still one second because time is a concept without physical properties.
Creation doesn't require billions of years. The speed of light is still more mysterious than average people can appreciate.
Spiral galaxies like our Milky Way have beautiful, intricate arms. Their cores are spinning at a faster rate than their arms meaning that the arms should collapse to their center over time. That collapse has been modeled to take place in less than three hundred million years. Yet we see spiral galaxies to the farthest distances even the Webb satellite can see. The universe is not billions of years old.
Where did you find this information?
@@S1SEPUEDE Any astronomy textbook will tell you that the center of a spiral galaxy is spinning at a faster rate than it spiral arms. Ultimately these arms should collapse to their galactic core. Yet we see fully formed spiral galaxies to the furthest extent the Webb can see. Scientists have tried to say that these arms are constantly being reformed (gravitational waves) and therefore are still there but this defies other laws of physics. Next time you get a cup of coffee...do this experiment....put a teaspoon of powdered coffee creamer on top of the center of the coffee. Then take a a spoon and stir the center of the coffee...it will form a "spiral galaxy" shape, then its arms will collapse as the coffee creamer at the center spins faster than the powder outside the center.
Stars are angels in the firmament. You can see the waves through the stars from the waters above ✝️
All the stars are closer 👁
Whatchu talkin' 'bout, Willis? Everyone knows the stars are glitter thrown by attendees at a big birthday party in heaven.
Please bring the astrophysicists down to earth I love God and I love science.
My opinion of the best way to explain the distant starlight problem and the mature galaxies problem is to point out that the faster you travel the slower time passes. Speed has an exponential effect on the passage of time. Traveling at the speed of light no time at all would pass. Traveling faster than the speed of light you would arrive at your destination before you left your starting point ie. you would travel backwards in time. I realise that it is currently impossible for us to travel at, or faster than the speed of light but guess what! Light travels at the speed of light. Light can take no time to travel from A to B while still appearing to us to be traveling at 186,000 MPS. This fact would also allow galaxies at the extremes of our perception to appear their true age.
How ever we try to measure time or speed it still doesn't matter to God. He is restricted by neither.
@@donmoyer8147 You are entirely correct. Atheists however try to use reason to argue against God but there is no reasoning or logic which will work against God. Human knowledge is waaaaay behind the knowledge of God. Atheists suggest that believing in God is akin to believing in magic, but just the opposite. God has knowledge, reason, skill and ability. It is the atheists who must depend upon magic, matter, universes and life creating themselves out of nothing, for no purpose.
Can time be more accurately expressed as an ocean full of galaxies in which energy bumping a light particle has immediate effect on the other side of the ocean of time? The energy of the wave moves slow, but the notification on the other end of the ocean is immediately apparent because time-space is a single continuous unit? In other words the whole ocean is notified because it is a singular thing of its own.
Question: does the speed of our solar system moving through the universe affect our precipitation of C? How close to the speed of light is our solar system moving?
My opinion is that the constant of light speed before the fall of Adam was infinite, and at the fall, dropped exponentially. I believe that the measured speed of light has decreased over the years, and if you follow this decrease back on an exponential curve, you would reach infinite value about 6,000 years ago. I could be wrong about this though.
I'm glad you say it is your opinion. Yes, you could be wrong.
Yep - your opinion, out of your head. Just made up.
"There was darkness on the void. God said let there be electromagnetic radiation"
Is there any evidence that could lead us to say that our clocks work differently from the clocks in deep space?
Yes. GPS depends on and is calibrated with that fact. GPS simply would not work without making corrections based on Einstein’s calculations.
@@SpaceDad42 This happens due to Earth's gravity. I know. But it works exactly the same in deep space, in the same gravity (of some other planet)
LISTEN TO THIS !!
What about this being literally a projection in an infinite God’s mind we are all part and connected
What is physical and what is not when we are all vibration created by the infinite how could we perceive the truth? Well, we perceive what God allows us to perceive when he allows us to perceive it.
He needs to get his numbers right the speed of light 165,000 mph I thought it was per second
186,000 miles per second.
I have heard this so often and it's great to finally hear such a detailed response!
How do they know the distance to the galaxies. Is it possible that those calculations can be wrong? Maybe they are not as distant as we think?
I’m sorry but I really don’t understand why the simplest answer never comes out; where in the Scriptures is taught of a universe vast billions of light years? and how are the distances of the stars measured? Is that really a reliable method? What if the stars just weren’t that far apart?
Great explanation.....What if!
I wanna talk for a minute about comets. It's generally agreed that some of them take well over ten thousand years for them to complete one orbit of our sun. Astronomers have charted enough of their orbital paths to extrapolate their complete orbits. Where did they start their orbits if the universe is only 6,000 years old? Do they have a slow running clock?
Longer than that, one comet is calculated to take 27,000 years.
How do comets start? A comet is an object which is flying through space and normally ends up doing some sort of orbit round the sun (very rough description.). If two planets collided and a piece broke off and away from the 2 planets that might end up as a comet, imagine a headlight in a car crash. Or if a far away star exploded and sent one piece in our direction. Or a piece of space debris had a planet pass nearby and sent it towards the sun, we have the start of a comets orbit. It could just hit another planet or the sun but is most likely to orbit the sun a number of times before the orbit decays and it is destroyed.
Once headed on it’s course in our solar system we can predict the orbit. It may have just been sent off course by a passing planet 1 day ago and we should be able to predict its orbit which might be 100,000 years. Ie. There is no real correlation between the time since it ‘became a comet’ and the length of its orbit. A comet we observe on a 100,000 year orbit may have only started on that orbit 3 years ago.
Wonderful.
Just trust GOD!
Why? He built my prostate around my urethra, how brilliant is that?
I suggest that physicists need to look beyond the speed of light to the interconnectedness of the universe, as an environment, or composite ecosystem. From this perspective, light energy is part of the energy connectedness of the universe, and so is not individually variable in the universe, but is potentially wholistically variable, just as one's heartbeat may speed up, due to exercise, and slow down due to rest from exercise, but it's effects extend throughout the body's circulatory system. Things like gravity, atmospheres and pollutants may regionally or locally affect the actual speed of light in an area, as well as factors such as distance from source, chemistry, cold and heat. Bearing in mind that light travels not in endless veins, but as pulsations of waves or particles, the interconnectedness of the cosmos, of which light energy is a key connector, means that what I can see of distant stars and galaxies is momently accurate, based on the continual flow of light, and the constancy of the flow - rather like looking through one window on Earth through all of the communicating windows leading to the various stars and galaxies. So long as the speed of light pulsations remains universally constant, what I am seeing through the light pulsations currently reflecting off my retina is accurate along the pulsation reflectors, all the way to the currently first reflecting pulsation emanating from the surface of the star or galaxy, however long it would take for that individual pulsation to eventually travel through the light stream to my eye. Since the universe has always been connected since creation, there has always been a continual flow of light energy pulsations connecting itself as a whole, at a potentially variable, but universally constant pace of pulsation, except for specific and extreme local conditions, probably inclusive of gravitational effects, and also involving matter. This concept of energy connectedness of the universe may also involve adjustment of concepts of space distances, vis-a-vis the functionality of connecting light energy, and the necessary distances for radiation and gravitation protection.
yes
well said
This is a word-salad of utter nonsense, I'm afraid. Science needs evidence and experiment - not fantasy.
@@lisamoag6548 Thank you.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Proponents of differing views of universal connectedness and cosmic photoreflective mechanisms may progressively subject their hypotheses to scientific study and laboratory testing. However, some proposals make existential sense, and some do not. In view of the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum has long ago been calculated, what would prevent increasingly sophisticated scientific experiments from confirming that each light wave pulsation is photoreflective, and from even measuring the smallest and largest dimensions of a photoreflective unit of light energy pulsation? However, up to the 21st century, humankind is limited in absolutely precise measurement of the speed of light, by factors such as space not being a literal vacuum, and there not being true vacuums in existence. This should encourage us to remain humble and to keep on learning, in an area where humankind's capacity to actually measure has not developed overwhelmingly since the 17th century CE.
So?
The comment about measuring speed of light one way I believe is wrong. The first measurement was by observing the moons of Jupiter and one was due to eclipse at a specific time and the time was off by about 40 minutes which the observer (I forgot who) attributed the time error to the fact that Jupiter was millions of miles further from the earth at that time. So that was a one way measurement. Later Maxwell's equations calculated a speed of electromatic wave based on electrostatic and magnetic properties in empty space which agreed very closely to the above mentioned speed which led to the correct speculation that light is an electromagnetic wave.
We communicate with far of space probes and can easily calculate the speed of light from this.
I do disagree that they're billions of light years away. For many reasons, not the least of which is failure to confirm those distances. If we have only one unproven method, (parallax lensing) then we have one unproven speed of light, then we leave out known variables like gravity's interaction with light, light defraction through gas mediums and other variables, then it is all simply a guess upon a guess upon a guess. No matter how "educated" the guess may be.
That can compound errors, quickly. And with distances prooosed to be so great, that makes a big difference.
Hypothetically, could Creation, Our Creation, the Word God gave for us here on earth, be alternate from the rest of the universe?
The book of Job, when god is asking Job, who put the stars in the sky, who can change them who can even conceive of these things? It definitely is not something capable of perceiving by any human stretch of the imagination. Exactly you understand that faith the decision to believe the Onde what we can see is part of the reason we are here.
Hmmm, scripture says that the sun, moon, and stars came after the earth so how does that fit with old galaxies colliding? So does that mean the stars were out there but phenomenally the light didn’t get here until day 4 while the heavens were created in day 2? Somehow I don’t believe God would have worded the history the way ‘science’ interprets origins. As God stretched out the heavens wouldn’t there be a continuous trail of light coming to us?
This may be an ignorant ?, but I’ve not found an answer.
How do scientists KNOW for sure that traveling starlight, does/doesn’t have a LIMIT in how FAR said starlight can travel?
The fact that we can see light from stars that are extremely far away (trillions of miles) is strong evidence that light travelling through a vacuum just keeps going and going and going. A bundle of light energy (called a photon) will keep travelling until it is absorbed by an electron in an atom. -Dr. Hebert
@@icrscience
He stretches out the heavens as a scroll.
@@icrscience Question: What about a limit to the starlight's speed? Could we use the General Theory of Relativity to answer how starlight could reach the Earth on the 4th day? To the best of my knowledge, light can go faster than 186,000 miles per second in the General Theory of Relativity.
"Relative to the stationary roundabout, the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction...that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.... If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 10 [to the] 8 m/sec under these conditions." - W.G.V. Rosser (Introductory Relativity)
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light)." - Albert Einstein (Relativity: The Special and General Theory)
"In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error-the Sagnac effect illustrates that error." - Ronald Hatch (Relativity and GPS)
So let me educate you on the special Theory of Relativity in relevance to time dilation and the distant galaxy issue. First: the universe is very old as we have measured the distances of huge galaxies that bend the path of light ( general theory of relativity) and we can measure the time differences when another huge object crosses lights way and we see there is a measurable time difference, demonstrating that time and space is curved. The photon itself travelling at the speed of light doesn't experience time, but relative to us we nevertheless see that light needs time to travel, ie from the Sun to us roughly 8 min or to the next Galaxy Andromeda 2,5 million years. Exploding stars are seen on earth like a static event because they are so far away that relative to us the motion involved can't be seen. That's a huge proof that the universe is huge and light takes very long to get here. We see Galaxies colliding and we know such phenomenon needs hundreds of millions of years, more like a couple of billion years. That too is a huge proof of light needing a long time to get here. Does that take anything away from God's glory? No. The opposite is the case. It demonstrates the huge and majestic power of God. ❤
Trying to explain processes when God’s hand was interactive in creation. In Revelations, the End of Days, God intervenes again….. not sure why this is so hard to understand.
Gibberish.
I learned that Light does NOT use Time to travel across the universe.
(It is only our human perception)
Light is simultaneously everywhere.
It makes sense because there is a Quantum entanglement reality.
Light is everywhere all at once, but light from each discrete source is traveling across the universe out from its source at its appointed speed and direction.
This is quite easily provably false. Look at the time it takes to talk to Voyager space craft for instance. Radio waves are just another form of light.
Give my regards to Captain Picard.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu What exactly is it that you think is proven false? I can't tell whose comment you are replying to.
Well, in tbe spirit world there is no time or distance, there's no such thing as eternity past or eternity future, eternity is sternity and has no time constraint, so i think when God created it was rather a system of orderly processes where time was not and i think in order to explain the six days of creation our finite brains might find some reason in this explanation, does this make sense?
Spelling
Thank you for sharing the truth
God bless you all !!!!
Love this channel
I don't think his interpretation of Revelation 8 :12 is correct that this means that distant stars were dimmed. But rather their starlight along with the sun and moon's light was partly obscured here on earth. In fact, only 3 verses later in Chapter 9 verse 2, it plainly tells you why they are darkened. It says:
"When he opened the Abyss, smoke rose from it like the smoke from a gigantic furnace. The sun and sky were darkened by the smoke from the Abyss."
This itself is a furnace -like abyss on earth created by "a star that had fallen from the sky to the earth" (the verse right before it). Since a star is much larger than the earth, then this "falling star" has to be a comet or asteroid. Scientists may have studied a certain science more than you or I, but that does not mean they have studied scripture more carefully.
When God said, let there be light, there was light. This would infer that the one way speed of light is whatever God wants it to be galaxies can be as far away as Ary, but the light from those galaxies has been here from the beginning. Another way to look at this is that when Adam was created, although he was merely moments old, he had the appearance of mature man. He may have looked 15 years old, 21 years old, 25 years old, but he was mere seconds old.
He looked as though he came from distant land, where he was raised be, the age that he was when God encountered him, but God just created him to be before his fairy eyes at that instant. In the same way light from far away distances, that would be continuously moving away at exceptional speeds Could be here at the time that God said let there be light. Does anyone doubt that when God speaks things happen?
Berry Setterfield has already solved this issue.
"Seeing stars at impossible distances?" If we are seeing them, then it is not impossible, just merely incomprehensible to creationists.
Here is a thought, the light supposedly has a speed limit of 186k miles/sec or 300k kilometer/sec. Well what about the light from the Father and the Son, Are they limited by this speed limit? Are they limited by their own creation?
That does not qualify as a 'thought'
That's the point. If you believe that the speed of light is constant the dilemma arises as a Christian that believes in the inspired word of God that there are guesses on how the speed of light and other things should be calculated. They forget the part of the equation that includes the Creator. :)@@StudentDad-mc3pu
I don't understand why when God said let their be light their was' not light everywhere it is supposed to be. We know at the word of God the world was of old..
I always thought that was a local blocking of distant light
Maybe not
19:05 Good to know that "there is ZERO evidence for inflation."
Have you noticed that prices of groceries lately? 😱
Time and speed are correlated. The Biblical solution is there.
Taking the "time dialation" premise to another level, Have you considered that God, and His angels, all spiritual things could be moving in a faster resonance?
what takes our clocks 1 second to click off that one second, in "God time" could be, in fact a week or longer in "God time" Thats why 1 angel had plenty of time to kill 186,000 Asserian soldiers in one night. Since angels are spiritual beings, moving at a different "speed" they're vibrating at a different frequency than us. That's how Jesus manifested himself through the closed door room after his reserection, he sped up his vibration or frequency and his material self just went between the atoms of the door, or wall, the same way the "angels of the Lord, slowed down their vibration to talk to Abram.
If Adam was created with the apparent age of thirty or so, not a newborn, and the starlight is literally part of the star, why isn't the star and all of its light created and has the appearance of age?
Dr. Russell Humphreys provides a biblical model that seems very satisfying.
The effect described in Revelation 8 could occur via occlusion (e.g., atmospheric occlusion), but that might not be what is being described, there.
maybe, the speed of light was infinitive before Adam's fall
Speed = Distance ÷ Time
46.5 Billion Lightyears ÷ 13.8 Billion Years = 3.4 times the Speed of Light. So according to the deep time model, space moves faster than light.
If space can move both matter and light, and space can move faster than light, then space can move both matter and light faster than the speed of light.
What do we observe beyond the Hubble Sphere? Galaxies and photons moving faster than light.
Since space can move faster than light, it is possible that space can have reached its enormous size in very little time, and it is possible for light from those distant objects to reach us in very little time.
I think it's unlikely that the speed of light changes, since it's one of the constants of fine tuning. If it did change then either stars would be too luminous or not be luminous enough. It might also affect vacuum permeability (μ0) and vacuum permittivity (ϵ0), which effects quantum tunnelling, which effects both nuclear fusion in stars as well as some biological processes. So if the speed of light changed, then stars wouldn't burn and biological life would die out.
True but only if pie r round and cornbread r square.
They have a Siri in science about distant connectivity instantly
Sorry I'm late for the party guys ☺️🙏 God bless everyone
There isn't just a light travel problem, but a matter travel problem with galaxy collisions.
I personally think accelerated destruction took place during Noah's Flood on a cosmic scale. The reasoning behind that is that God declared His creation was good, and yet radiogalaxies depict God destroying billions of solar systems by fire in a whirlpool fashion. This destruction only fits after Adam's sin during a time of judgment like Noah's Flood. If true, then the cause of gravity was used to destroy portions of galaxies faster than light. Bing image search Bode's Galaxy Poster and Giant Biggest Whirlpool by whirlpoolhitman to see how galaxies resemble whirlpools.
Isaiah 34:4, 2 Peter 3:10, and Revelation 21:1 states the host of heaven will fall and be gathered together to destroy everything by the fire of the stars.
It requires new physics, but the destruction of all creation by the fire of the heavens is required as Earth was with its water.
If we form an explanation of observed phenomenon based upon inaccurate assumptions, then our thesis/explanation will be inaccurate.
The Copernican revolution brought in many assumptions. Copernicus stated his model was based upon 7 pre selected assumptions, which he further stated that he had no evidence for them and did not claim they were true.
One of those assumptions was that stars (galaxies, nebula etc) are extremely far away, "infinitely distant" was a term which predated Copernicus but which he accepted as one of hoe assumptions.
A careful examination of each test to prove these 7 assumptions in the years since 1542 shows none of them have been proved.
It is a fact that the distance between Earth and any other heavenly body sun, moon, any planet or any star has never ever been proven. The distance from Earth to Mars is the basis for the distance from Earth to the other planets and the sun but the method of measuring Earth to Mars distance is totally flawed. Therefore modern astronomy/cosmology has zero proof for any of their assumptions. We can not harmonize lies and truth.
So these are Axioms and NOT assumptions - and axiom is a fact taken to be obviously true which is why no evidence is required. The axioms are:
1. There is no one centre in the universe.
2. The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe.
3. The centre of the universe is near the sun.
4. The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars.
5. The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars.
6. The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving round it.
7. The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth from which one observes.
Remembering that Copernicus did not have access to a mathematical model of gravity, his Axioms are surprising good. Obviously some of the wording needs amending however there is lots of insight here. 1 is still a matter of debate. 2. is easily provably correct, the Earth is not even the centre of the Solar System. 3. If you replace 'universe' with 'solar system' we get the idea. 4. this is clearly the case. 5. there is no doubt at all about this. 6. No doubt about this either. 7. This is provably true.
So your statement that "none of them have been proved" - is false. They have been tested again and again, we have gone to the moon, sent probes to Mars (so we know exactly how far it is) and had probes sling-shot around the Sun. We have sent ships to other planets as well as sending two deep space probes beyond the orbit of the furthest object in the Solar System. We can deduce the distance of all the planets to the sun by their orbital paths, it's simple maths. The same with our distance to the sun (92 million miles or so). Newton proved mathematically that all orbits are elliptical.
Your statement is like saying the Axiom: My Cat Likes Cream has never been proven despite the fact that the cat is licking the inside of an empty cream bowl.
Replace the car with a boat at 10 mph , and the boat shoots a water jet at you at 10 mph, how fast will the waves from that boat jet reach you? Same as the boat's waves. Replace the car with a jet plane traveling at 99% the speed of sound and it blows a horn ahead of it at the speed of sound, how fast will that horn sound reach you? The same time as the plane. This may not be the same with light speed unless there is a medium like air or water that restricts it's travel speed.
A boats wake does not move as fast as the boat; in fact, it stays motionless in the forward direction and radiates out sideways rather slowly. The water jet will be clocked at 20mph. Have you ever seen cockpit videos of fighter planes firing rockets? The rocket takes advantage of the plane's speed to get even greater speed.
@@stevepierce6467 I ldon't know the wave speed on calm water, but suppose it is 10 mph and the boat is going 9, the wake will lead ahead of the boat by one mile per hour and the water jet pushing forward from the water line will initially go 20 as you say but will settle out at 10 mph also as that is the restriction of the medium those waves are traveling in. If "Space Time" is the medium that restricts light speed then nothing will travel faster than the 186,000 mph or so that light normally travels whether the source of that light is a fast ship or a slow planet. However if there is NOT a restricting medium light from a fast ship will outrun light from the planet of origin.
@@TheWadetube Have you ever actually seen a boat moving in the water, and do you know the meaning of the word wake? The wake does not go in front of the boat but rather mostly behind it and somewhat out to the side. The wake is the trail left by a boat moving in water, the operative word being trail, as in trail behind. By your peculiar logic, a person walking forward on a train is going the same speed as the train, even though he is actually going slightly faster.
@@stevepierce6467 Yes, but any object in the water creates a wave 360 degrees around it even if it is not moving because the water itself has it's waves. Let me SIMPLIFY this for you. Waves have a limited speed in a lake, the water is the medium, this restricts the speed of those waves due to it's density . This is analygis to space time fabric. The motion of a boat forward produces a wave forward, usually the boat goes faster than that wave, this seems to be where I lose you. I don't know how fast a wave travels forward off of a moving boat, do you? Then let's switch this to air planes. A jet is traveling at 600 miles per hour, it's wake travels at 730 mph and so travels ahead at 130 mph FASTER than the plane, and if the plane blows a horn ahead of it to announce it is coming at what speed does THAT sound wave travel? 730 mph! It doesn't matter if the plane is doing mach one, if it blows it's horn it's sound will reach a person ahead at the same speed as the sound of the plane. Do you get it now? So too with light instead of blowing a horn you are doing half the speed of light and you shine a light ahead of you and it either goes 50% faster than the speed of light, adding the sum of both speeds OR it only travels at the normal speed of light proving that there is a limiting medium of space fabric. I have not seen it done, they don't even know how to measure the speed of light in one direction.
@@TheWadetube Self-delusion, the best kind. You have no idea what you are saying.
because they are very close up after all. The bible is correct and our interpretation is wrong.
deut 29:29
The secret things belong to our LORD GOD, the things revealed belong to us. We cannot pull the COVERED curtain of the infinite ONE!
The big bang and inflation and dark matter and dark energy all sound analogous to trying to explain planet orbits with epicycles!! It is a big kluge - because the underlying assumption is wrong!!
The phrase "impossible distances" tells it all. The firmament was much closer at creation and at Noah's flood God expanded the firmament which made the stars farther away but not the distances science (so called) tells us. God may have expanded the heavens more often as in the long day of Joshua where the sun and moon stopped moving. We don't know yet.
Not really impossible distances, just impossible for you to conceive of or grasp.
There is no 'firmament' unless you live in Bronze Age ignorance and superstition.
And God created "man"..
Adam was a full grown man the very day, even second, he was created...
If all these suppose to be smart & highly intelligent people of today who understand the birds & bees, conception, pregnancy & all the stages of man's seed going from sperm to developing into a full grown man saw Adam at one day old they would be absolutely lost & render stupid trying to comprehend how someone is just a few minutes old yet fully grown "if" they dismiss the power of the Father of that man.
Now, "& God created light..."
Just as Adam was created a full grown functioning man simultaneously when he was created so was light here in this earth... As long as the scientific community dismiss the power of the Creator of this light, dismissing how instantaneous, immediate, sudden He in all His great power created it & can only theorize based on their present knowledge of how light travels dismissing the instantaneous creation of light in the beginning, they'll forever be confused & stuck in a cycle of theorizing.
Here, the answer to the old question; What came first, the chicken or the egg?... The chicken!
God creation of everything in the beginning was instantaneous, the working process of creation came afterwards. A full grown man was made 1st, then after the woman was shaped & formed THEN the process of reproduction to bring forth more men (& women) begun.
Scientists today are lost & confused because they began all their theories based on the working process "after" the very beginning, if they go back, all the way back to very beginning, that is start with God Almighty creative power first, then they can grasp things a lil better.
Exactly. These people are apparently so good at math, but they're forgetting the biggest variable in the whole equation........ God.
Even though this "Inflation Theory" does create more problems for evolutionists, it actually does a great job of showing us what happens when we tell lies. Irony is great sometimes😂 😂
Dr. Hebert: "The bible is always right". The bible says nothing about the speed of light. The bible says nothing about the age of the universe, the age of the sun, the age of the stars, or the age of earth. All of the creationist beliefs about those ages are extrapolations from some interpretations of the bible. There is no need within the bible, or within Christianity, to believe the earth was created 6000 years ago. That is strictly a human assumption.
With his knowledge and wisdom God created and established all that we can and cannot see and I think this is the problem that people have when they try to attain to God's intellect what makes mankind think that they could possibly understand everything ultimately God created everything for himself and his good pleasure so does it really matter whether or not we understand how it all ticks God said that he created the heavens for signs times and seasons and to declare his glory also the unbelieving atheistic scientist is looking for something that he will never find because he thinks that something other than God brought all of this into existence so is it really wise for us to jump on the bandwagon Maybe in God's mercy he will put a stop to all their muddling around and bring them to their senses so that in seeing his Glory they will know that he is I don't think it could be put in a better perspective than the end of job ‐ where you when I laid the foundations of the Earth so what do you think you know
I love WHAT you are saying but not HOW you are saying it. Please remember that periods separate sentences and increase the intelligiblity of written communication.
God gave humans dominion over His creation, curiosity, and a desire to explore. So, scientific inquiry is well within the will of God for human kind to engage in. Humans may never be able to learn everything about God's creation, but that should not stop us from scientific inquiry.
I get it....there is lots of really complicated stuff out there I don't begin to understand, therefore god.
Wait is the speed of light 186,000 miles per hour or miles per second? He said both!
second. It's an easy slip
@@StudentDad-mc3pu seconds miles per hour, not if you’re an expert. And if you did you’d catch it right away. Speaks to credibility.
@@offthefront7537 This is a ridiculous argument. Are you seriously suggesting that if someone misspoke that they don't have credibility? Seems more like your grasping for anything to discredit what is being said.
@@ryanfilkins324 yes, I misspeak all the time but immediately correct myself.
The farthest galaxy that JWST can detect is closer to us than the center of our black hole Sagittarius A.
The speed of light is not 186,000 miles per hour, but 186,000 miles per second. I assume he knows that, but just misspoke.
I'm very happy for this channel and the proofs of a young creation as scripture testifies.
Regarding the book of Revelation and understanding it's mention of the sun, moon and stars are definitely a metaphor and not the literal sun, moon and stars. It's a metaphor for the physical representation of Joseph [ becoming Israel] and his 11 brothers, all becoming the 12 tribes of Israel. Rev 12:1
Genesis chapter 37 : 9-11
"And Joseph dreamed another dream and related it to his Father and to his brethren and said," Behold I have dreamed another dream; as it were the sun and the moon and the 11 stars did me reverence. And his Father rebuked him ans said, What is this dream that you have dreamed? Shall indeed both I and your Mother bow before thee to the earth? And his brethren envied him but his Father observed the saying."
Revelation 12:1 " And there appeared a great wonder in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun and the moon under her feet and upon her head a crown of 12 stars.
This is a metaphor for the representation of the physical Israel that God created through the Hebrew people.
As God made a physical representation of His power on the earth, there is also a spiritual representation of the powers in the heaven and that is either good angels or fallen angles.
So Satan is referenced as a great red dragon having 7 heads and 10 horns. This is not a physical red dragon etc it's a metaphor for a spiritual principality and power. Rev 12:4 "And his tail drew a third of the stars from heaven and cast them to the earth." These stars are a metaphor for fallen angels.
Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual wickedness in the celestial places."
Colossians 1:16 "For by Him were all things created that are in the heaven and in the earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created by Him and for Him."
The book of Revelation is very Hebrew in structure and principle and is a prophetic book and has dozens of old testament references that were promised to the nation of Israel and then to the nations of the world. One must understand the old covenant to understand the prophecies of the book.
Genesis is the same.
If some stars you see are stars from the past
You would not see a dot you would see millions of different size halos i have never seen one
Light is not matter and weighs nothing once the source is gone the light is gone
Light existed before stars. There was evening and morning on the first day.
Not necessarily. An Earth day is defined as the rotation of the Earth on its axis 360°. You don't need stars or even the sun in that definition.
4:43 "If you take revelation literally like I do."
Glad to hear it. That means you take John 6 literally. Welcome to the Real Presence, fellow-Catholic...
Oh... You only take some of revelation literally. 😢
Yes, I know, he was speaking of big R Revelation, but nevertheless he would say the same of small R.
Error !! Correcting the scientist. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per SECOND... not per hour !!!!
He did misspeak. People do make mistakes. Thanks for the catch.
God bless ICR
watching now.
if Pearlman YeC SPIRAL 99% + of starlight we see here and now, we are seeing from photons that departed, when the distant stellar objects they departed from were 6k rounded light years distance (The number of LY as years elapsed) on literal day 4.
Same SPIRAL LY radius 'i' distance we see CMB from.
some nice points. shared.
Past galactic interactions also aligns best w/in YeC SPIRAL
Let me know if you want to do an interview segment on YeC SPIRAL
The solution (Pearlman YeC SPIRAL) was hiding in plain sight :)
it is based on basic science and math.
ironically, a light speed limit of 'c' standard light speed attests to YeC and falsifies ALL current consensus deep-time dependent scientific hypotheses and assumptions (like SCM-LCDM and NDT Darwinism) for all practical intents and purposes
What about the fact that photons change on a quantum level through measurement and observation? We know nothing! Lol!
his issue from revelation should be assessed from an amil or postmil perspective. it’s really a non-issue
I believe Jesus created the universe.
Now, many times i heard creation apologists say that God created everything is 6 days, as in six earthly days.
But this videos presents time dilation. If time dilation is real, then there's a strong reason NOT to insist that the six days recorded in Genesis has to be an earthly timeframe.
The guys in the video proclaim that they take the words in the Bible as literal, but i'm seeing the possibility that the six days mentioned in Genesis has to mean earthly six days.