Origins: Distant Starlight in a Young Universe
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2017
- Join Origins host Donn Chapman as he welcomes astronomer and astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle for, Distant Starlight in a Young Universe. Here on Earth we see light from galaxies billions of light years away. Based on this it seems that Creation would be billions of years old. However, Dr. Lisle presents a compelling argument to the contrary. Taking into account the speed of light and the passage of time in outer space the evidence may surprise you.
#OR1601 - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
![โอ้มายก๊อด! ไม่ถึงชั่วโมงหมดเป็นแสน 😅 [cc] แดนแพทตี้ SS2 | EP.42 |](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OH2ShXfO6tA/mqdefault.jpg)
When the Lord created the space components and the earth’s components, He created them as He wanted them ie. mature trees, mature Adam, mature animals, starlight in place, sunshine in place, etc. He didn’t do it to deceive us, He just did what He, as a sovereign God chose to do, not having to answer to anybody.
God created starlight with the APPEARANCE of having travelled great distances. God did this to deceive the non-elect into believing that the Bible is not true. "God will send upon them a deluding influence". (2 Thessalonians 2:11)
@@thomaschipgood7813 The 6 days of creation did not occur in a completed cosmos. Remember, itstarted with nothing. No space, no time, no energy, no 'quantum fluctuations' no nuthin'. The entirety of space-time was formed and maybe this involved an expansion (anisotropic over time) of all time-space; noting that gravity curves time-space, the creation of gravity at the same time (ie when the energy field (light) was created and deployed on day 1) the re-curving of space-time as it was deployed would make contemporary roughly steady state cosmos behaviour inapplicable to creation week.
@@thomaschipgood7813 There is this thing called Trigonometric Parallax. it allows us to make calculations on how far things are.
@@thomaschipgood7813 So god is deciveing us?
@@pogo1140 only when the angle is accurately measurable between the two seasons, not very far away, relatively
thank you. Very helpful.
Wow!!!! Awesome answer!
Hello Dr Lisle. Did Roemer's method measure the one directional speed of light? And do we learn anything from interferometer measurements like Michelson Morley? It seeme like fringe interference would be different if light had radically different speeds in both directions. Thanks for the thought provoking presentation!
To hear some people talk it is like mankind has figured out 99% of what is to be known.Mankind knows perhaps 1 billionth of 1% of what is to be known. This is probably a very very generous figure. With that in mind perhaps it would be prudent to keep an open mind.
How do you know there's 1 billionth of 1% left to be known??? How did you calculate that figure???
this is more a curiosity question than a dig at either side:
Does the universe expanding affect the distance light has to travel at all?
It has to right, it's the spot on balloon being blowed up
. Baloon is getting bigger and spots on balloon get further apart. As the spots are constantly being spread apart the distance ie. Time would increase I would think but I'm no physcist
An anisotropic medium is one where, say light, travels at different speeds in different directions. That’s not what you’re proposing here because the earth doesn’t just send and receive light in one direction but from all spherical directions. So the anisotropy you envision would be any direction heading to or away from a certain point in the universe (earth), which means the speed of light isn’t directional at all since light going away from the “top” of the earth would going in the same direction as light from a distant star arriving at the “bottom” of the earth, yet you would assign these lights going the same direction vastly different speeds.
When it comes to the early days of creation, it’s pretty clear forces were at work far beyond our comprehension, and the rules by which the universe would be governed were themselves being implemented, so I wouldn’t artificially constrain any of the creation activities by them. Once day 6 was complete, only at that time was creation finished and under the rules we know today.
The idea that God created distant stars but no provision for them to be immediately seen is of course nonsensical. Personally I wouldn’t rule light in transit out, for the same reason I wouldn’t rule out God creating trees with tree rings.
Please pray for me
you don’t need to explain what’s wrong if you don’t want to, but i will!
The anisotropic convention in the distant starlight problem seems totally counterintuitive because it took just over 2 seconds for the radio response to arrive during the lunar landing communication, where the one-way time dilation was verified afterward. For the one-way lightspeed to be instantaneous, it would've been the case that the lunar communication dilation would've been much shorter, since the radio signal wasn't operating under reflection, but rather a two one-way system. Moreover, this is compounded by the fact that the speed of one-way illuminations has been directly observed from distant stellar activity to be consistent with the established fundamentals of lightspeed within a vacuum...
"just over 2 seconds" according to which clock? The one on the lunar lander? How do you account for the change of its clock based on its movement in space? Isn't this just the same issue Dr. Lisle illustrated with synching two clocks and then moving one?
Your objection was literally addressed in this upload.
I think his point is that the radio response is over 2 seconds in either direction. It is 2 seconds according to either clock - the one on earth or the one on the moon.
So, it seems to indicate that the speed of light is the same, whether it is 1 way or round trip, whether you are on the moon or on the earth.
@@vshah1010The fact that both observers see a 2-second round trip in communications does not prove the speed in either direction: only the round-trip speed of light. If we use Anisotropic Synchropy Convention, the man on the moon says his communications take 2 seconds to reach earth, at which point earth replies and he gets the answer immediately (2 seconds later). The man on earth says his communications take 2 seconds to reach the moon, at which point the moon replies and he gets the answer immediately (2 seconds later). There is no way observationally to disprove ASC, or to prove the Einstein convention. That's what makes these "conventions" - they are arbitrary. Just like using the metric or English systems of measurement, or driving on the right or left side of the road. None of those are "correct" or "wrong," just different conventions.
Could you measure the one way speed of light using entangled photons? Where light could some how effect the distant entangled photon and then observe the entanled photon with/near you?
WOW! I don't have a pool but my head is swimming. Guess I'll have to sign up for a class in this when I am transferred to heaven. I like the word transfer rather than die. Verrry interesting even if I don't understand all of it.😘🎈
I know the science and i have no idea what he is on about and i don't think he does either because he doesn't seem to know that radio is light and that we now the speed of light and that it is the same in all directions due to how mess and speed work. The fact that light is unique in having no mass, in a vaccuum it would travel at the speed of causality, as there is no time dialation and there is no reason that it would be different speeds.
Im " beginnining to see the light" great video, great song.
@@charlestownsend9280 Dr Lisle posits that the ONE WAY speed of light cannot be measured. He is accurate and truthful. Einstein commented on this fact when he introduced his equation for E. He used the convention knowing that it works because everyone uses it. The convention is measured using bounce light. One way speed of light cannot be measured.
@@helicase2 well that's convenient. Do you know what science does when things can't be measured? It dismisses it.
@@charlestownsend9280 that's convenient for you, because no matter what evidence would be presented to you, you would reject God. Not because the evidence is flawed, but because you don't want to acknowledge who is God, you'd rather believe your crimes have no consequences. You'll see where that lands you.
Alternatively you could accept the free gift of God, eternal salvation. Once received it's never taken away.
I have one video showing the Bible way to heaven, explained by a trustworthy pastor.
There's a couple of fallacies, here. Waves obey the speed of light and that goes for light and for gravitational waves. Gravitational waves we measure, are unidirectional - they come from a source and we can measure them with measuring devises on different locations on Earth. And from that and the time difference between the signals as they arrive to those measuring devises, we can conclude that gravitational waves move unidirectionally at the speed of light.
But the bigger problem lies elsewhere: Supernova 1987A.
We can actually calculate how long it takes for a star of a given size to burn through it's nuclear fuel, collapse and go supernova. Supernova 1987A was a type II Supernova. And for a star of the size that gives rise to type II Supernovae (between 8 and 50 times the size of our sun) it takes in the range of 10s of millions of years to burn through their hydrogen. Then, at least a million years to burn through their helium, and so forth. I.e. a 6000 year old universe is not remotely old enough to give rise to any supernovae, at all! The absolute earliest superbnova we should be able to observe on Earth (which would not be a type II supernova), would not be observable for another 50,000 years in a 6000 year old universe.
Thirdly (but now it becomes nerdy) the speed of light is actually the speed of causality. So a universe can't be causally connected over distances the exceed the speed limit of causality. Thus, if you believe that the universe was created by God and is causally connected, that way, then the age of the universe - the time since its creation - cannot be shorter than then the distance it spans, in lightyears.
I appreciate the effort, but I'm skeptical. Even with unsynchronized clocks, wouldn't we get ballpark measurements that indicate speed greater in one direction than the other? Also, which direction is instantaneous when not directed toward the earth? What switches it as we reorient a light source?
I've read that light isn't actually limited by any intrinsic property of light, but by the speed of causality in the universe. That is, an event cannot effect a remote viewer faster than the speed of causality, so the speed of light must be limited.
This problem is about measuring the one way speed of light from a source to a detector because of the impossibility of synchronizing clocks well enough to time it.
This problem exists even on earth at unimpressive distances (and with no regard to direction) but in our lab tests, the round trip speed is reproducible.
For his theory to play out, the one way speed of light would have to be more than one million times greater from the source to detector direction then it would be reflected back to the source.
That means the return speed would be slower than most commercial airliners. If the speed of light was as slow as an airplane when traveling back to the source after a reflection … we would have noticed that problem. We reflect lasers off of mirrors on satellites for experimental and calibration reasons. If the return signal travelled slower than high speed jets and rockets - that would effect our ability to track those objects in space well enough to aim the laser for a reflection test.
@@Sovnarkom: _"That means the return speed would be slower than most commercial airliners."_
I don't follow that.
And BTW, I don't wear a mask.
@@KenJackson_US The round trip speed of light is C. Let’s assume that the one way speed is not C. It can vary as much as instantaneous in one direction and C/2 in the other. If the speed of light was half as fast, it would take 2x as long to travel the same distance. The round trip speed would still average out to C if it was instantaneous in one direction but took all the time to travel back. I hope your still with me.
If our understanding of light and distance makes us think the universe is over 14 billion years old because we estimate that the light from the GN-z11 galaxy took 13.4 billion years to reach us, then making that model work for a young world that is less than 13.4 thousand years old, would require that light traveled to us over a million times faster than the round trip speed of light. So this theory only works in the absolute limit where all light reaches us instantly but it takes C/2 to travel in the other direction.
The thought experiments that entertained this concept that the one way direction of light might not be the same, relied on the possibility that the universe might favor motion in one direction. Since the light would have to reach us instantaneous from all directions, this would still be outside the realm of those experiments. The theory is that the preferential direction is to Earth itself … unlikely but technically impossible to disprove.
BTW, we wear the mask is an old poem about wearing a smile in your toughest moments and handling life with stoic grace. It was written by Paul Lawrence Dunbar. It’s a metaphorical mask so you breath freely 😷
@@Sovnarkom, you should note that I started off this thread with my own skepticism about different rates for the speed of light based on direction. You're wrangling around with even more reasons to doubt, as if you need to convince me.
It's a shame how _everything,_ including even the word "mask", has been consumed by the left's lust for control.
You don't need to use clocks. Just use the double slit experiment, but shine the laser parallel to the plane of the slits. Like water waves, if the speed changes, then it'll affect the fringe pattern to reveal any changes. I personally haven't seen any.
I believe he right. When we observe the light from a star, it is not the light being created back in time, it is the light in the present. So it is how the star look like in real-time.
When you see a galaxy, you are looking at differing rates of time and differing measures of distance. Outside of a galaxy, there is very little matter mass and gravity to slow down time and shorten distance.
What slows down light *from our perspective* is the gravity in the vicinity that slows down the *rate* of time. (It’s not that light slows down, it’s the rate of time that slows down.)
So what happens where there is no gravity is that the rate of time speeds up relative to our rate of time so that starlight travels the same (or greater) distance at a faster rate of time. It’s still traveling the *same relativistic frame speed* but an entire second passes by from our perspective at a much faster rate, in a fraction of a second *where there is no gravity* to slow down time. So for most of the time, starlight is traveling through space at a faster rate of time relative to our rate of time.
That means starlight arrives much more instantaneously because the rate of time is free from the effects of gravity for most of the way. With no mass of its own, starlight arrives instantaneously as it experiences no time of its own traveling at the speed of light. We see things in slow motion *where time is slowed down* by gravity.
This relativistic effect allows for a young earth since it doesn’t take billions of lightyears for starlight to arrive through the *void* of space where there is no matter to slow down *time.*
Agree. Very much is know here on earth. When you get into space,who knows what variables may be at play.
Your the only other person who I've seen mention the idea that the abcesnce of gravity would allow light to be instant due to the lack of time distortion.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 I don't know why no one else thought of it.
@@JungleJargon the guy in the video mentions that this could be the case very passingly, but I dont know why. It sounds like the only logical conclusion of the theory of relativity is true.
More gravity = "slower" time distortion, less gravity = "faster" time / less distortion.
The only logical conclusion to carry that to is that in the complete absence of gravity there is no time distortion, and everything is instant. Ofcourse matter can never fallow this rule since it finally has gravity due to having mass. But light has no mass, and no gravity so that condition doesnt apply to it. So it can be instantaneous.
@@anthonypolonkay2681 Right ✅️
I think the biggest problem with lisle's theory is that even if it was true best case
scenario it would only explain half of the star in the night sky
the other half of the night sky would be traveling towards us at half of C
and we would just see darkness
Lisle does a subtle shift from the one way speed of light to the belief that Light exits a source instantaneously
and then travels back half the speed
this isn't a convention it's a hypothesis because you can synchronizes the two clock by sending a signal from the center (see 13:33 in the video ) out wards if lisle was right we should be able to synchronizes these two clock
of course if the one way speed of light is different based on different direction you can't do this
but you need light to be traveling from all direction instantly to solve the distant star light problem
so Lisle is doing a bait and switch
@@truthisbeautiful7492 I understand he is using Reference observers
but then two clocks can be synchronized
by placing an observer in the center and sending a signal out
(see my comment above and video time stamp) I think I understand his argument and special relativity quite well
thanks for the link I'll listen to him some more (as I have spent a lot of time research what he is saying )
but I think your response is largely a cop-out to what I'm saying, perhaps it is you that has poorly understand my argument or desires not to understand My argument
rather than me
An honest question: If radio waves travel at the speed of light, how does GPS work then? From my knowledge of GPS, the GPS satellites send out a radio signal to a GPS receiver that has what can be termed a synchronized clock. The distance from satellites to the receiver is then calculated by the difference in time -times the speed of light and the position on the ground is then calculated by trilateration. What am I missing?
Answer in twqo parts: the distance is short enough for travel time to be negligible, nonetheless, the software makes allowances for it,
Just wondering, what if you synchronized both clocks whilst physically together, and move them both away from each other by the same distance and speed, so that they both remain in sync with each other?
Hi, from my understanding the direction-vector of the movement of the clocks is (maybe) important in this matter.
That won't work. They may start synchronized when together, but as you move one clock away, it's rate of time starts to vary with respect to the other due to the relativity of time.
what if we dont move oe away from the other but both from the center at the same speed covering the same distance@@ChumX100
What about frequencies and wavelengths? Aren't they connected to the isotropic (Einstein) convention?
13:41 if they are not synchronized from the middel than you automatic have evindence that light speed is different in 2 directions... and so far this has not been the case....
So even the proces of synchronizing (and finding different results can get people out of this 2 way speed illusion.
At 9.11 you discuss speed of light out as instantaneous and a slower reflected speed. How does the reconcile with recent speed fo gravity experiments where the light from say a supernova reaches us at the same instant as a ripple in the gravitation fields - This effect was only recently determined.
with regard to the mirror experiment...why not have a detector next to the mirror and a detector next to the source of the light and measure the differential after the light is initiated?
This is just silly. If there were two observers standing on opposite ends of a light source, then does that mean that both observers simultaneously see the light the moment it left the light source. Why would the speed of light change when changing directions? He is basically saying that light teleported in one direction and then slowed down by half in the other way. This applies to the speed of sound as well, assuming it's traveling through the same medium. If there're two people standing at opposite ends of a football field, and one person says "hello", would the sound reach the other person instantaneously and then take twice as long as it usually does to reach the other person when the other person says hello back?
Except he isn't the one saying it. He is using Einstein's theory and the accepted concepts and conventions of scientists regardless of their belief in origins. Also, light and sound waves are very different.
@@devinmorse3607 Well, even if he isn't the one saying it, that is still a ludicrous theory. Even though light is an energy wave, and sound is a mechanical wave, the two share the same feature of having the same velocity with respect to itself when traveling through the same medium assuming a constant gravitational field.
Try watching it at 75 percent speed since it appears he answered your objection.
Plasma cosmology in combination with an increased ZPE explains a lot of what we see in the universe in a Biblical perspective. Check out YT videos on the topic by Barry Setterfield.
Why do the clocks need to be moved? You can synchronize them already in position.
Because they assume the signal you need to use to synchronize them doesn't travel same speed in both directions. Even if you can see the clock from a distance, the light still needs to travel until you see it.
@@EmileKleinhans But if you're using the same motion to set each clock then it would be impossible for them not to be synced. You wouldn't be relying on sight or sound to set the clock.
@@DavidSandyOfficial How to use the same motion? Maybe a steel bar or something long enough to measure it :D. You could have a point.
This just occurred to me for the first time: but if indeed the universe is billions of years old, and there are trillions of galaxies with quintillions of stars. And new stars are formed throughout the universe since the beginning of time. - and all that (star)light is in fact traveling at the time we think the speed of light is now.... shouldn’t we literally see new dots/stars poppin’ up and appearing across the entire sky in every direction all the time? Since there are countless of stars + new ones since the beginning of time at all different distances, we should be welcoming new stars that have their light finally reach us constantly right?
Also: if we measure the speed of light by reflection from a mirror/electric wave/ a clock etc.. we are using MATTER of material things to measure the lightest (in weight I mean :p) and fastest thing that ever existed! As quick as light travels, we have to assume and expect that any other material at least slows it down a bit and/or registers it with a tiny amount of delay?!
Taking into account that the universe itself is also expanding at an increasing rate (and we don’t know how this rate has developed throughout history) - since Einstein discovered that motion influences time as well, maybe the speed the earth spins and travels trough the Milky Way also influences things (and perhaps it’s speed changed over time as well)
Plus- from a biblical point of view it makes sense the light reaches earth immediately, coz the Bible claims they were meant to give us light and signs, (besides testifying of Gods glory) so it would be pointless to have them, if we couldn’t see them. - the Bible also says that in the end time a lot of knowledge would be revealed to mankind, also to give us a deeper comprehension of how great God is. So it actually all quiet makes sense :)
Very interesting thoughts you have. I wonder what Dr. Jason Lisle would say to your analysis. I wonder...if there is a way for you, to get your propositions to him? It would be interesting to hear what he has to say about your questions. Let us hope he sees this. Maybe he will respond. I for one...appreciate your inisghtful questions. This whole, not knowing, the one-way speed of light...literally drives me insane. Lol.
No, only these past few years have we been able to actually see individual stars in the nearest Galaxy, the Andromeda. Stars are born in huge clouds many light years across. They are obscured and the process takes millions of years. So, no, even in our own Galaxy it is very hard to watch stars form. We can catch star formation in all stages thanks to some infra red light telescopes that can see through the gas/dust. The James Webb telescope is a massive space telescope that will set Astronomy on its ear with all its new findings. I will be able to see Galaxies as they first form, when all the stars are pure hydrogen ones and are blue (population III stars). They will be much better able to see stars forming and directly photograph solar systems forming. It will be the grave of Young Earth Creation. Thank God.
Stars don't just pop into existance, they are slowly formed from clouds of gas slowly compacting in on themselves until the mass is so great that it sparks a nulcear reaction. As for why we don't see it happening, the earth on a galactic scale is very young so we missed the creation of most of the stars, although we do see some being formed (that is what a nebula is) and some die on a regular basis.
Yes light can be slowed down, the speed of light that is commonly used is the speed of light in a vaccuum.
It is not motion that influences time but acceleration and mass, as an object with mass accelerates to the speed of light (or more accurately the speed of causality) its mass increases.
As for the bible, what if you translate day as age instead, then it makes sense.
No one ever witnessed a single star being born out of dust or whatever material it may be, no one have ever seen how the Star is forming, they have no idea if they are forming at all only theories and CGI's like always and for everything so that's why science can't be trusted a 100%...they claim know everything yet doesn't have a clue what 95% of our Universe is made off they still call it black matter, they are clueless what 95% of our empty atom containing, the energy expanding the enormous Universe is still a dark energy for them but continuously arguing that they know everything...haha our scientists are very funny when they are holding to their theories or believes it's ok but we are uneducated and stupid for them while holding to ours... God bless y'all
Nice. We don't see popping-into-existence stars.
If light travels instantly from one direction to the other, why does it bend when passing through a lens? The light gets bent due to speed changes, thus it has to travel the same speed either way.
Just on earth or in the Universe?
Earth's gravity is one way isn't it? Hard (=slow) to travel out but easy (=fast) to travel in.
Electricity through a diode is also one way.
So can we assume (without proof) that the Universe behaves just like a conductor of light and not like a "diode" of light?
If this were the case, Ole Romer would not have been able to observe discrepancies in Io’s orbit , which led to the initial proof of finite light speed in the 1600’s. Each orbit would have instead been observed to happen on time each time. I appreciate this video and others like it, but can
you please explain this to a fellow young earth creationist?
At Ole Romer's age, people don't know about the time dilation effect and so a limited speed of light is the quick and easy answer and it remains good today except that a negligible time dilation would be needed to be accurate. But now, if we assumed the special theory of relativity, then time dilation alone can equally explain his observation, just that if we assume the light reaches us instantaneously, the ratio of time dilation will be different.
I am so glad that you have addressed this issue, but of course there will be many differences in the ways this is evaluated. What was the speed of light 6,000+ years ago at the time of creation? Did Adam and Eve see the entire universe right away? Since we have been able to measure it, the speed appears to have been slowing down and seems to follow an asymptotic curve that would wind up at infinity. Of course it will have something to do with the capability and accuracy of the instruments used to measure this, and obviously the instruments have improved.
Hi Walter, it's fairly easy to compare the speed of light presently with that in the past - and it is exactly the same, just under 300,000,000 metres per second. The simplest way to illustrate this is with "light echoes". When a star explodes as supernova the light radiates in all directions, some of which hits gas and dust nearby the supernova, and is reflected towards the Earth...we can see the these pulses and follow the course of the light flash from the supernova as it propagates throughout space. By measuring the distance between two nebula (for instance) and noting the time it takes for the light echo to hit each nebula, you can judge the speed of light at the time of the supernova - one of the most famous is SN1987A. it is 163,000 light years distant, and the light echoes from this supernova have confirmed that light was travelling at 300,000,000 metres per speed, 163,000 years ago, and therefore, SN1987A did indeed explode 163,000 years ago.....and by default, the universe must be at least this old, and of course, at least many millions of years older, for SN1987A's progenater star to have formed, evolved and died. By looking at how the expansion of the universe has stretched light, you can of course show the universe is around 13,8bn years old, as there is no evidence that the speed of light has ever varied. So to answer, your rhetorical question, 6,000 years ago the speed of light was the same as it is now, and the universe is most definitely "old".
@@roydodds3693 Your logic and common sense are not appropriate for this comment section
@@markb3786 Mark, I have a weird feeling that you are right. Common sense and logic will be alien concepts to anyone who believes the universe is mere thousands of years old....
@@roydodds3693, Having a PhD in astrophysics, Lisle knows this so he is being deliberately deceitful.
@@davidgardner863 Absolutely agree
had to stop vid @ 15:15....couldn't we just use entangled sub-atomic particles (electrons for example) as the synchronized "clocks"?
Atomic clocks have shown to become desynchronized when taken to the space station. Imagine taking it out of the Galaxy!
We do, they are called atomic clocks and when used the speed of light doesn't change.
@@thepramodgeorge not much difference at that distance, as the time dialation isn't much different from earth orbit and outside the solar system. The difference isn't just down to distance.
@@charlestownsend9280 You are missing the point.
The electrons that you can't even define because they are sometimes particle, sometimes wave?
If incoming light is instant then, when we do our measurements of how far the sun and our planets are away from us, we'd get a surprise when, on sending a mission to any of them, they planets ended up not being where we guessed they should be.
Everything was fast during creation week because it was a supernatural event. Like when Adam was created, it Should take more than 20 years if natural growth and development rates are to be followed. Same thing with turning water into wine... wine takes time to process especially if we count the planting of grape plants plus the fermentation process. In a natural world, every process is slow even mutations, and from conception to adulthood. We cannot deny the fact that scientific explanations are most likely right about almost everything. But we should just accept the fact that there's a supernatural process that we cannot explain using scientific explanation... it's a miracle.
Didn't NASA experience a 1 second delay when astronauts on the moon radio'd Houston from the moon? I'm a creationist believer, but is there any example of the phenomenon he's describing rather than an untestable hypothesis?
re. distant starlight,
1. they're SO far away, that every spot on Earth is effectively in the same direction
2. Regardless of #1 above, all the light leaving the distant object, would be travelling OUTWARD at the same speed (eg. instantaneously).
Even secular physicists recognize this issue:
* @Veritaseum's YT channel has a video on this
* in said video, they discuss that Einstein STATED, IN his Theory Of Relativity, that the speed of light is INHERENTLY UNMEASURABLE and MUST be ASSUMED by convention.
Light is on the quantum level, and there are already "confirmed" instantaneous things in quantum physics.
Isnt it circular to assume the second convention is correct because its in the Bible?
Every assumption is circular, but not all circles are bad. Think about it...
What about the video on utube that has camaras that do something like 14 mill frames a second , or more they are the fastest slow mo camarase in da world surely dey can measure
How do you expect anyone, to take you serious, with that poor grammar?
This makes no sense my friend, you are only taking pictures of one thing, light travels only in one direction, it looks like you don't even understand the problem. We need to see if light travels with the same speed in both directions. Is your camera emitting light and captures it at the same time?
And yet we know the time signals received from "voyager 1" (22,198,572,418 kilometers away) using our "convention"...
Someone explain that??
The result would be the same whichever convention is correct.
Time signals again bring you back to synchronicity and knowing the speed beforehand to get an accurate measurement
YOU CANT MEASURE THE ONE WAY SPEED
@@Jamie-Russell-CME But, practically, you can estimate it good enough for our discussion, there is a lot of room between instantaneouty and 150 billion years
@@lukezeng how? When did you measure the one way speed of light ?
if the goto speed of light is instantaneous then: use two light sources and a clock. put one light at a distance and the other light at haft that distance and shoot both lights at the same time, and see if there is a difference.
Send a signal to Mars and as soon as it's received instantly transmit it back to it's origin. Then you can measure the one-way speed of light. Could even do it if a transceiver is on the Moon. If the speed of light traveling out from the transmitter to it's destination is instantaneous then you'll receive it back to you instantaneously...
Time is constant
21:52 IF the 1 way speed is instantanious than observing in 2 directions (north and south) make your statement invalid Jason...
Try watching it again, except this time at 75% speed. In order to measure the one way speed of light, you'd have to know the speed of light already. However, that's precisely what we don't know yet. Therefore, we are stuck guessing from 150,000 km/s to instantaneous for either direction, and making up the difference in the opposite direction, to equal a grand total of 300,000 km/s for the round trip. So sure, maybe in some directions it's truly equal in both directions, but we can't know that for sure because it's impossible to conclude it one way or another. It would appear God has us chasing our tails once again. It seems pretty obvious to me that He wants us to trust His Word (for once), instead of doubting it like Adam and Eve, and everyone born thereafter.
One thing that has my head spinning is a question someone asked me recently about frequencies and wavelengths and their relationship to the speed of light. Apparently they're related through the isotropic (Einstein's) convention, but introducing the anisotropic (Dr. Lisle's) convention disconnects that relationship between the three.
He took the one leap in the special theory of relativity and said poor Albert was totally wrong because it’s impossible to prove him correct without relying on an assumption.
The same thing can be said about the young earth theory … although this one stands on many more unfounded assumptions.
We use evidence in science and evidence points to special and general relativity are correct. But we might be able to improve the theorys in the future, thus we don't say we "prove it correct". However we can disprove conspiracy theories like Young Earth Creationism.
The distant beams of light argument I find fairly week. I don't think it's about about the information being falsified, but rather that God can create something with knowledge pre-existing. For example on day 6 Adam is created by all interpretations as an adult man, he appears to be able to walk, talk and know language. He doesn't grow up, learn to walk and talk with God over years he is made with that information in bedded in his mind. It is perfectly reasonable for God to have created the Universe with the appearance of age and with the information of the Universe in bedded in the universe.
This isn't a hard issue for me, but I think it is a reasonable perspective to take without more information, I like Dr. Humphrey's time dilation model, but I'm totally open to other concepts.
Your point is excellent. Jesus turned water into wine, instantly. He multiplied fish and bread, instantly. All things that typically take hours, days and months to develop, he made instantly! No different with starlight on earth.
@@dkirton888 Yeah I am also for this view, as I think the dilation model would have problem with too much gravity at the beginning, to slow down time enough, for the rest of the universe to have millions of years to expand. Also as we have galaxies coming toward us it seems not everything is going outwards.
@@dkirton888 Yeah I am also for this view, as I think the dilation model would have problem with too much gravity at the beginning, to slow down time enough, for the rest of the universe to have millions of years to expand. Also as we have galaxies coming toward us it seems not everything is going outwards.
I think the quantum properties of photons explains it better
OK, explain.
You see there is a problem with the quantum properties, they sometimes behave like particles and sometimes like waves. This means that we don't have a good understanding of the nature of light in general and we can not really use something that we can not even define to prove something else.
@@ChonGeeSan except we do know the speed of waves and particles, so I don't see how particle wave theory affects anything. Also the speed of light has nothing to do with the properties of waves or particles, the speed of light is more accurately the speed of causality, a wave can be at that speed because it has no mass but it can't go past that speed, a particle can't reach that speed because it has mass. I don't see how that would be an answer to the problem of how a young earth creationist view fits with the obvious and factual truth that the universe in its current state is over 13 billion years old and that the bible is off by 13 billion years.
I’m fairly certain that the instant starlight idea is debunked by what we observe during a stellar occultation (planet passes in front of a star). We observe the starlight shadow, and the reflection of light passing through the atmosphere of the planet simultaneously.
Sorry, but doesn't that actually support that we CAN see light instantly from large distances?
@@TheHighestGodisGood I believe Dr. Lisle is saying that star light slows down when it gets reflected. Scientists would have detected that boy now based on observations of stellar occultations, but that is not the case. But maybe I am misunderstanding what Dr. Lisle is presenting.
@@mattandkim17 Oh ok, got it. Thank you sir.
I think you are misunderstanding hos argument
@@truthisbeautiful7492 thank you. Do you understand it?
Wow! Awesome
What if you synchronized both clocks in the center of distances and then mived both clocks at same time equal distance to end and beginning of measurement points , they would be exactly synchronized
Huge respect for you guys but there are some logical issues for a layman with this; too difficult to describe in a text, but will try one......
If clock A is x miles to the right and clock B xmiles to the left of M, and if you put a transmitter signalling the time by radio waves at M, then clock A and B will receive the radio waves at the same instant and be synchronised..... no?
Basically I don’t get it.
If you shine a light at a mirror and it travels unidirectionally at infinite speed, then why when the mirror sends it back should it not travel unidirectionally at infinite speed. This would mean in your 2 second test that the light got stuck in the mirror for 2 seconds, or more, or less, depending on how far away it is.
On a roll now... if the structure of an atom depends on our current measured speed of light, how can it hold together if the unidirectional speed is near infinite?
As you can see, I don’t understand at all....... 🤔
Watch it a few times, you will eventually get it. Also this is a shorter presentation. There are longer presentations by Dr. lisle that goes into more detail.
Lisle’s theory assumes a geocentric universe. Didn’t we get past that about 400 years ago?
SOLVED: synchronize both clocks together, the move both clocks away from eachother at the same speed for the same distance.
Nope the futher away the clocks are the more lag there will be from one observer on one clock observeing the other one.
The one-way speed of light is incalculable.
However, I don’t think the average explanation works.
I tend to believe that we really don’t see the stars but a “projection” of them via interlocked groups of photons.
Quantum physics solves the distant light issue in very strange ways.
Richard Fox And that is just your opinion. It’s very big and it might be very young.
LivingLight, he covered that possibility. You must have missed it.
How would you move the clocks? At what speed?
What Time Light Problem?
If light travels instantaneously then Einstein’s equation E=MC2 does not work.
I'm thinking you didn't watch the video or didn't understand it. You should read his book 'physics of einstein.'
but light comes in different wave lengths. So wouldn't you have to define the speed per each wave length? Good luck with that. And wouldn't you need to pinpoint the center of the light source to truly detect its travel of speed? Also does all light start with the same energy....do all "star explosions" release the same energy? Its been proven that gravity has a very minor effect on time. Two atomic clocks have been place one at sea level and another 1 mile high and both record time different. So now you got to figure out what gravitational pull the "light" has to pass through to effectively record its travel time. Good luck with all that.
No cause wavelength doesn't have anything to do with the speed, all light waves travel at the same speed, which is the maximum speed of the universe, the speed of causality (more commonly known as the speed of light), it reaches this speed because it is the only thing in the universe that has no mass (which is also why we know that it is the universal speed limit, due to relatively anything with more mass would be affected by time dilation).
Why would we need to know the exact distance of a star to measure the speed of light? We can just measure it on earth. We create a vacuum and then measure the speed of light.
The amount of energy in a wave also doesn't affect speed. Light is a form of energy (technically everything is a form of energy).
Yes gravity or more precisely mass has an effect on time but again it wouldn't be a problem if we just measured it on earth in a lab.
23:05 day 1 and god said let there be light.. day 4 so that they can shine litgh and it was so: if it was already crated on day 1 it had 4 earth days of travel time....
I've got a hypothesis: God stepped outside of time on the day when He created the Heavens, ergo poofing older stars next to a young Earth.
Given that prophecies work, God's clearly extratemporal.
The hypothesis presented here was falsified in 1676, when Ole Rømer discovered the speed of light. On a one way trip from Jupiter to Earth.
That never happened
@@truthisbeautiful7492 do your homework because yes, it did.
@@hendrikjanriesebos1293 can you provide evidence? Einstein didn't agree with you.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 why don't you look up some info on the discoveries made by Ole Rømer in the 1670s. It is in every astronomy textbook that takes itself seriously. And the most beautiful aspect of his observations is, that you yourself can repeat them with a pair of binoculars, a wrist watch and enough clear nights over a half year period
What are you waiting for?
He created 100 year old trees and acorns, birds and eggs, young stars and old supernaturaly, not through "naturalism."
Richard Fox
If we assume the Biblical account as accurate... I see no problem with the creation of an aged universe.
If you assume the Biblical account is fiction then you have to explain how zero energy, zero matter, zero space and zero time exploded into everything. You also have to explain how this catalyst accounts for intangibles like emotion, thought, and life itself. The creation cannot be more than its creator (Law of Cause and Effect).
Richard Fox And that is just your opinion. Your atheistic old universe has massive problems along with evolution which has never been observed, no transitional fossils, man made jewelry, pots, bells, etc found in coal supposedly millions of years old. The fact that the spontaneous generation has been proven too not occur but is then used to support evolution. The Bible is real and it’s prophetic events are happening right before our eyes. Science falsely so called changes it’s tune constantly because it doesn’t really know.
@@livinglifeoutdoorstv6550 It's only 'aged' on the assumption of materialism, which we know is a pack of pooh tickets.
@Richard Fox If we can't base our knowledge off an objective standard of truth, then we can't really know anything. So you just successfully refuted yourself. Have a good day.
@Richard Fox if we are going to say that something is inherently right or wrong, or objectively good or evil, we must be able to explain why. If we can’t, our appeal is nothing but conjecture, and anyone with power can simply overrule our opinion and there’s nothing anyone of lesser might can really say. In such a world, might equals right; individual opinions (like yours) don’t matter unless they’re wielded by force. Welcome to authoritarianism. Ironically, that’s the very thing people like you are trying to avoid (by denying God’s authority), but are unwittingly advocating for it anyway (by some malleable man’s authority). By denying the unchanging infallible Word of the Designer of the universe (God), you are defaulting to subjectivism, which is an ever changing opinion where sound argumentation is impossible, and power is the answer to everything. By taking this stance, you’re basically saying, “nothing can be proven,” thus nullifying and contradicting even your own assertions. Secular authoritarianism is what Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot believed. They are a prime example of what happens when power lands in the wrong lap. They believed that their rule and actions were just and that because they ruled, they were god. According to your worldview, they were right. They didn’t have to answer to anyone but themselves.
The difference between you and me is that I have a sound argument against them. According to my worldview, they were inherently and objectively wrong because they were breaking God’s law which is written on all our hearts, and is affirmed by his infallible Word. He is the authority of all mankind; he makes the rules, and no one can argue with him. Without believing in God and his revelation to us (the Bible), we’re logically (if we’re going to be consistent) forced into subjectivism, which is the death of intelligibility.
Sure you can side with absurdity if you want, but I’m going side with the obvious truth; that this creation has purpose and meaning, and that we’re all accountable to an objective standard of truth.
Does this theory put the earth back in the centre of the universe? If light travels TO earth in an instant, the light from galaxies in opposite directions is travelling in opposite directions and both are instant. The only constant is it’s travelling towards earth 🤔
Lol
We should keep in mind that if the naturalists are correct and the universe is 13.8 billion, they have the same problem that we do because the cosmos is 93 billion light years in the observable universe.
I don’t find this answer compelling. In fact- it comes across as silly. We have no reason to believe that light travels instantaneous in one direction. Take the moon landing missions for example... was there not a radio delay going both directions?
It is far more plausible that the speed of light has been slowing down. A close look at the data confirms this. The decay of light seems to have stopped in the ‘60’s when we began measuring with atomic clocks. Conclusion: it appears as if both the speed of light and certain atomic activities are slowing at the same rate.
how exactly we are communicating with the radio waves/signals considering the Earth is a globe. Our scientists are confronting themselves sometimes and say that the radio waves or signals just bouncing back from the ionosphere or whatever is there at the end of the earth atmosphere and other time the ionosphere is not a problem when the same radio signal has to travel to the moon...
Blink twice I happen to have some experience with bouncing radio signals... I’ve had an extra class amateur radio license since I was a teenager. The ionosphere is a real thing, and radio signals DO bounce around the globe. Have you heard of a directional antenna? If you point one at a steep enough angle.... say: at the moon... while the folks on the moon have their antenna pointed towards earth... it’s just not a problem.
I wonder if he tested his theory about a variable speed of light, because if it is testable then this will answer one of my greatest questions about the accuracy of the bible.
Considering that light has always been observed travelling at the same speed (unless it is travelling through something like air, then it's a bit slower), that disproves it, that and the fact that his hypothesis goes against everything we know about the speed of light and relativity and various other proven theories.
@@charlestownsend9280 It is funny that you mention relativity since the problem of the one way speed of light and the concept that the speed of light is a convention comes from the same person, Einstein, and the same formulas.
@@devinmorse3607 yes but the reason that einstein and every other scientist has viewed light as having the same speed in all directions is because that makes the most sense, unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise that is how we know that light works. Einstein says that we can not know for certain not that it is actually a possibility.
Basically unless you can prove that light travels at different speeds in different directions then the rational deduction is that light travels the same speed in all directions (because that is how everything else works, so for light to work differently from everything else you'd need to show that it does). There is no reason to think that light is at different speeds.
The premise also completely breaks causality, as it would mean that causality moves at different speeds in different directions.
@@charlestownsend9280 did you watch the video? When did you measure the one way speed of light?
@@charlestownsend9280 so it sounds like you are assuming your answer but don't actually make any argument.
So why is it that when NASA sends a signal to a Mars rover it takes 40 minutes to get there and another 40 minutes to get back?
Getting a signal to Mars and back is a round-trip speed and we all agree on the two-way speed of light. If you want to measure the one-way speed of light you need a one-way experiment. To get a one-way experiment you need clocks synchronized at a distance and to get clocks synchronized at a distance you need a synchrony convention. Conventions are always stipulated, ergo in order to measure the one-way speed of light we must first stipulate what it is.
@@diamonddogssw4512 then it wouldn't make any sense, as one why would be an impossible speed that breaks the universal speed of causality and the other would be two times slower than light travels. It just wouldn't make any sense.
This idea is certainly fascinating. However, the emphasis in Genesis 1:14-15 is on the 2 great lights that impact the earth--the sun and moon. Even the Hebrew of the text can be (not necessarily, but can be) understood as a parenthetical statement about the stars--perhaps in order to emphasize that star worship is wrong. In other words, the text may suggest that the rest of the universe was created much earlier than our solar system. The fact that Genesis refers to "the heavens [plural] and the earth" doesn't necessarily refer to all 3 heavens mentioned in Scripture because the Hebrew Scriptures always uses the plural (in the Hebrew even when the English translation is in the singular) for "heavens". At least this is another way to look at the age of the universe--with most of it perhaps being 13.8 billion years old, and our solar system being only about 6,000 years old.
The Moon is not a light. Nor is it a thing of the night. It is often in the sky during the day.
Actually the speed of light can be measured.
You take two light beams. And one mirror. You fire a light beam towards the mirror. The mirror has a second lightbeam. As soon as the light reached the mirror you fire a second light. Both can now travel back to the first light and you will be able to distinguish between the two.
Second option. You take two particles in superposition. And you separate them and use them to synchronize the clocks.
Pretty great right.
And he misrepresents the science and einstein.
No, you dont understand the convention of the 2 way speed of light. He has a Ph D, bruh
@@Jamie-Russell-CME light travels at the same speed in every direction and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise, especially as every observation has shown the same results and the maths only makes sense and work if light has a set speed because it's not actually the speed of light, light travels up to that speed because it has no mass, an object with no mass will travel at the speed of causality.
Also what is their PhD? I'm curious because normally when looked into with these sort of things, the PhD is either for a completely different subject or it's from somewhere like a religious college.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME
Having a PHD is not a ticket to lie and violate all scientific principles. No scientist would ever reason from an a priori position. That in itself makes it pseudo science at best.
You don't understand the experiment I stalked about. But that is not your fault.
Nope, he answered your objections in the video. Watch again.
@@charlestownsend9280 false. He has a PhD in astrophysics. There are plenty of creationists with degrees in chemistry, physics, Paleontology, geology, biology, if you had some basic research you would know that. Your last claim is not based on any actual evidence. I can certainly point to evidence of phDs in the above fields.
Which means the distances to the stars are also conventional.... God knows them we don't! Which is why the good doctor didn't want go into details at the beginning.
Actually, the Brits & the Aussies do drive on both sides of the road.
Ann Brown
So do most drunks...
@Tony Droid They do drive on both sides, except in different directions :P (before you call someone stupid, it is wise to think ;) )
The Earth is young but the universe is old
If light from stars got to us instantly than there wouldn't be red or blue shifting
thomassaurus
There certainly would be red and blue shifting.
Photons are quantum particles. They are non-local, and can “communicate” with each other over light years instantly.
Non-local = the particle can be in many places at once, occupy the same space as other particles, be existent or non-existent at the same time. Photons can also act as a wavelength or as a particle of both at the same time. They act differently under observation. Photons are cool.
Communicate = photons can interact with other photons even billions of light years away. I forget the exact term but they can be interlocked with other photons and affect each other over those distances.
My theory is:
Day 1 God created photons. “Let there be light”. These photons are free from any constraints at all. No wavelengths or anything. They are just on or off. Photons on = day; photons off = night.
Day 4 God created the “light emitting bodies” in space (stars). The free photons can now adhere to wavelengths and give color. The wavelengths are also non-local.
So you have a photon that is here and there at the same time and “communicating” with other photons here and there.
We are not seeing the actual star itself but a projection of the star via the photons. It can be red shifted if the information says to red shift. If you have interlocked photons (a group at the star and an equal group in the telescope) then you will see that distant star as a projection even billions of light years away.
Edit: if the information says to shift either red or blue then you will see that as well.
@@livinglifeoutdoorstv6550 - interesting
Says who? Source or citations?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 red shifting occurs during transit as the light is traveling towards us and the space around the light is expanding.
In other words since space is always expanding it causes the light to increase wavelength(redshift) but if the light got to us instantly it wouldn't have any time to. redshift.
The distances are indeed close it's based on clear repeatable math at least to a certain point because parallax only works to a certain point. There's also the standard candle of certain types of stars at further distances that seems to hold up fairly well. My contention is this God is not a liar all the things in the universe are as far away as we think they are God wants us to be able to measure out and understand the creation.
When He created the "greater light" (sun) it didn't take eight minutes to reach the earth.
The Bible says in Zechariah 12:1,Isaiah44:24 /,40:22 ,GOD ''stretcheth out the heavens'' Strongs concordance 5186 -''cause to yield''; ''deliver''; ''extend'',''spread out''. Hmmm !!! could HE do THAT with light. Too easy!!!!!!!
Amen!! With GOD, all things are possible. Better adjust my timer; pizza in oven😘
Then all the stars should look red or still not be visible (infra red, microwave and radio) as stretching out space would stretch out the light, shifting it into the red end of the spectrum. But that isn't the case, so, no.
One cannot assume that light travels under the same parameters in space as it does on earth. We observe how light travels on earth and assume that it is similar in space but it is obvious that isnt the case. Edit: So i was right in different words. The way we measure the speed of light on earth is a round trip, the speed of light in space is one way. I have heard that if someone goes to space for 10 years, their time, 60 years has elapsed on earth.
The speed of light in a vacuum is constant. We don’t know of anything that would alter its speed in a vacuum so we have to assume it’s the same.
@@diogeneslamp8004 What I mean is we don't know if the speed of light is the same both directions. Light coming towards us could be instant. That seems to be the only logical reason why we have pictures of stars before and after a supernova.
@@solofourohsixgaming
Why would there be an observer effect? How could the photon know it’s being observed?
@@diogeneslamp8004 So we know how long it takes light to be sent and bounce back, that is how we know how fast the speed of light is. But are we to assume light travels the same speed in both directions? The universe is only 6000 years old, so when I hear someone say it took millions of years for the light to reach us, it is obvious that they are interpreting the evidence they have collected is inaccurately based on a secular world view that we are a result of evolution. But if you conduct those same experiments with a world view that we are created by God, the evidence tells a different story. Meaning, what conclusions you come to when looking at evidence depends on what you believe and that all explanations are biased in today's age. When Albert Einstein made his discoveries, he applied God to the equation and that is why he discovered something, and scientists today, only study what he discovered. God is not the center of science anymore and that is why there have not been any other scientific breakthroughs because when a scientist in today's age discovers something that proves the existence of God, they do not publish their work.
@@diogeneslamp8004 In science, the term observer effect means that the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed. For example, for us to "see" an electron, a photon must first interact with it, and this interaction will change the path of that electron.
The speed of light is different in different directions lolol these people get crazier and crazier.
To his credit, he hasn't been scientifically refuted, and your ad hominem remarks don't help your case...lol
When and where did you measure the one way speed of light? Can I see your published physics paper ?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 it is impossible to measure the speed of light exactly but very accurate approximations have been corroborated independently from many sources, I will let you find them. This stuff is known and easily studied / understood.
An experiment to confirm the speed of light could be performed by having a series of shutter with a mirror at one end and a light at the other. Turn the light on then off. Have the shutters closed except when the light is supposed to get through each direction. Even if the clocks couldn't be guaranteed to be exactly in sync, the time between each shutters open phases could be timed precisely. If the light gets back to the source then you know that the speed of light is constant in both directions.
A more logical answer exists.
Why do we keep mentioning the word evolutionist when talking about cosmology..
:-)
So light coming from a mirror is faster than coming from a light bulb? 😳
Just a mental exercise.
There's really no difference between this theory and the one saying that light may have been faster in the past -- 186k/sec now, instantaneously in the past.
Earth being under intense gravity during creation week makes more sense.
Every time I think I’ve heard every crazy crackpot idea from Jason Lisle I come across another one. This one takes the biscuit. « The light from stars billions of light years away reaches us instantaneously »…. I have rarely heard such a preposterous idea, but this is coming from an alleged astrophysicist. The mind boggles. Where did he get his PhD? The Noddy College in Toyland?
That's a lot of slandering for someone who hasn't given a single explanation for why he's wrong. 🤔🤔
Another SOLVE: use a clock, light source, and a mirror. Put the LightSource and a mirror on the ends and the clock in the middle. Shoot a photon and when the speed of light "should" be past the middle then shoot another photon. and measure their difference.
Yeah watch the video again, I don't think that would work
He doesn’t know why the speed of light should be the same in all directions. Well, I am sure a first year undergraduate would be able to enlighten him.
Special pleading on steroids.
you are very kind , i would say he is lying poorly
If all lights coming from those stars and galaxies gets to earth instantaneously but if light is being sent out from earth to outside the planet takes a time, then it would definitely add another good reason that the earth might really be the center of the universe.
and if unicorns were scared of cars that might expain why you never see them near roads.
@@urasam2 I'm so going to nick that metafore, mate.👍
Aussies drive on the left because they're upside down. Kangaroos actually jump toward the South Pole.
It makes sense to me, God could do anything he wants, and he did it that fast in an instance in a blink of an eye.
God created the earth and it was birthed out of water on the second day, and He created the universe and it was birthed out of water on the third day, just like we were birthed out of water.
God could easily have done it all in the blink of an eye, but He said that He spread it out over six days.
Bs
OK as a creationist I have to object this; light is electro-magnetic signals and changing a magnetic filed induces an electric field and visa versa... that is univeral and in all directions that happens in the same time....
I know about this issue as it was posted several months ago by Derek for Veritasium...
This theory of the age of the universe does not take into consideration that what is very distant was once very close. Therefore the relative distance we observe today is insignificant as far as the speed of light is concerned because when everything spread out in the beginning the space time was stretched. Think about it. If we launch a pace probe into the expanse of the solar system we can see it in real time from very far away with the right telescopes. The distance of this object from us no matter how far away it is from us does not increase in 'age' any faster than if it was still on the launch pad on earth.
I'm no astrophysicist. I'm an industrial electrician. However I, like every sentient human being, possess the ability to reason .
I coulda been somebody but classrooms bored me and put me to sleep. LOL
Anisotropic speed of light seems to be chosen as a convention to cater for stars' distance from earth if they are assumed to be similarly distant from earth at creation as they are now (since the stars gave light to earth instantaneously).
We know that the universe is expanding with time and when time is reversed it shows the universe contracting into what is known as the big bang. This makes sense because God likes making things small, which become larger. Therefore, I think the stars (or at least some) where close enough at creation to give light instantaneously or approximately instantaneously without the need for the speed of light to be anisotropic.
Many scriptures seem to point to an older earth (if made at the same time as heaven, then is heaven 6000 years old? Don't think so) It seems it was the re-arrangement of the earth which took place 6000 years ago. This explains distant galaxies many light years away whilst some stars are
Paul b the universe is not expanding. God finished everything on the 6th day. Gen.1:31- Gen.2:1.your reasoning is based on ungodly science ,that is intended to get people away from God.
@@peterfriesen4885 but the universe is expanding, it's a proven fact. Also new stars, planets and black holes are being made all the time. The universe isn't stable, it's constantly changing.
Ancient cultures would have also said the earth is flat, ocean is another world, glass dome covers the earth held up by pillars in horizon, all set atop stilts. But yeah, use them as authority for ASC.
14:14 set clocks in the middle synchronize them and move both at the exact the same speed in opposite directions via a coupled mechanism... and stop at a pre-set time and measure
This has been thought about, and it doesn't work. I can't remember why but Veritasium did a video on it and I'm pretty sure he explains why.
Won't work
This theory doesn't solve the speed of light problem for me. If light travels instantly in one direction, and takes it's own time traveling in the opposite direction, why is there not a big difference between how the stars looks like from the east and the west? For instance one side should have many dead stars because light travels instantly from them and the other side should have new stars appearing as their light is still reaching us in a young universe. This is not the case thus light travels the same speed into all directions. I am a Christian but this can't be explained like this.
What do you mean 'the other side'? I would recommend watching longer versions of Dr. Lisle presentation on distance starlight even if you disagree with it.
You missed something: re. distant starlight,
1. they're SO far away, that every spot on Earth is effectively in the same direction
2. Regardless of #1 above, all the light leaving the distant object, would be travelling OUTWARD at the same speed (eg. instantaneously).
Even secular physicists recognize this issue:
* Veritasium's YT channel has a video on this
* in said video, they discuss that Einstein STATED that the speed of light is inherently unmeasurable and must be ASSUMED by convention.
Light is on the quantum level, and there are already "confirmed" instantaneous things in quantum physics.
Speed of light in “one direction” doesn’t mean like traveling from your left side to you vs from your right side to you. It means from a source to you vs you back to the source, regardless of “where” that source is
So, either the speed of light depends on whether it is coming to us on earth or going away from us, or the Bible is a storybook...I know where my money!
I am not sure how this presentation, relates to the topic, at hand......
I hate to burst everyone's bubble. The theory presented that speed of light has different rates is totally bogus! Why? Science measured Electrons through a single and double slit apparatus. Meaning that the time measured was 1 way and not the 2 way assumption of the guest. What was the result? The speed of light was within .0114 of the mean standard. Thus, Speed of light is what it is. The guest made the same mistake as he decried others in making. He simply misunderstood the scripture and made assumptions which is why he made a major mistake!
So, what does the bible say? First must understand Genesis 1:1. Then go through the mystery of Genesis 1:2 which the bible completely explains in another book of the Bible! Then you get to what everyone understand beginning with Genesis 1:3.
Genesis 1:1 says " In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Lets look at this clearly! What God creates he creates it to be perfect and good! So, in Genesis 1:1 God created all the Heavens from where God's throne is located to space and the stars to the atmosphere of the earth. God also created a perfect Earth! That was in the Beginning! Science says the Earth is 4.5 Billion Years old. That is absolutely True. The bible does not contradict this age! How long ago was the beginning? 4.5 billion years ago!
Verse 2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. The perfect earth from Verse 1 is now broken and not perfect. Additionally, darkness was upon the face of the deep! This is kind of important because Star light had not yet reached earth and that there was fluid waters about in the heavens. Interesting when you consider this. Why was there fluid waters in space above earth? Something to ponder but I know the truth. I can teach the mystery of verse 2. The short version is that God was severely angry with the people on earth long ago. So angry he destroyed them. The scripture states that the cities and the fruitful places were made a wilderness. Here is the most important items, There was no man as in Adam in the Beginning. There were also no birds as we have today. Guess what people, birds that we have today are not in the fossil record. There are animals with feathers. However, none are like the modern birds which appeared very recently in the geologic record.
So, the problem people are running into is that there is a fossil record of the 1st creation of the Earth. I wonder how many people when reading Genesis especially when you read chapter 1 then the detailed chapter 2. Verse 26 has God creating every creature but stops and says "Let us make man in Our own image" That is a curious statement given. It also suggests things which makes many ponder concerning humanoid and Man. Man may be a very specific species verses a large number of hominoids that are similar but not the same. That really needs further looking into and a read of Enoch sort of explains how the fallen Angels messed with Man and Hominoids which was a great sin.
Anyway, the bible does not contradict the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years of age. That the creation we all learned as kids and assumed they understood as adults is really a second creation event. God Created a perfect earth in Genesis 1:1. That perfect earth was destroyed and made without form and void. Even Genesis 1:2 tells you that there was life on earth in 1:1 that was made void in 1:2! Just saying. I could teach much more but length of posting prevents it.
paul M That’s the gap theory. You are trying to force millions of years between the first two verses in Genesis. You are making an assumption that the heavens and the earth were finished and perfect in verse 1. It does not say that.
Can he explain why light slows down or speeds up? Mathmatically that makes no sense. We do know why the speed of light is the same in all directions. Light has no mass, because of thatblight travels at the maximum speed limit, that being the speed of causality, everythung else is slower because as objects with mass reaches that speed the mass increases and time dialates it prevents them from reaching that speed. If you are still struggling to understand it, picture the speed of light/causality as the processing speed and mass as data, if you have a lot of data at the maximun processing speed to process the data it has to slow down time. So we do know the speed of light in both directions is the same, as it can't be faster. Also speed can not be altered without something interacting with it.
We know that radio is the speed of light because radio is a form of light, the fact that he doesn't know this shows how little he understands of the topic.
Shows someone is ignorant. YOU.
@@Jamie-Russell-CME in what way am I ignorant?
So do you have a PhD in astrophysics? You gave no citations in your claims b
Also you need to listen more carefully, Dr. Lisle is well aware of what radio waves are.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 my citation is any field of physics that deals with the speed of light, gravity, relativity, causality and various other areas of science that would be completely broken if the speed of light changes.
You've asked me a lot of questions, yet I've still not had the basic question of what causes light to change speed answered or how such a thing can be proven and demonstrated, all that has been offered in both the video and any response is pure speculation.
This is pathetically bad. What direction is it that light travels instantaneously? Towards earth? Towards an observer? How does it know? What causes it to change speeds? When we look farther into the universe why do we see more primitive galaxy formation? If that’s happening currently then the universe looks younger the farther away it is. Why? This would also mean we get data back from Mars rovers instantly. Satellites that communicate with each other around the earth would have major problems. Some communicate with each other instantly and others extremely slowly? Which direction is preferred? All this to protect a belief in a young earth and universe which is demonstrably false.
Think about this, we are the mirror as far as light from distance stars is concerned. I agree with you, his explanation is pathetic. Until these kind of arguments came about, I would use the age of star light to prove that the elements have never evolved, and I was actually astonished to hear the atheist use the age of star light to flummox Ken Ham.
The different speed theory is something called special pleading in debate. That is when an idea is made up without good proof. The speed of light has been measured many times on earth which I presume the speaker accepts is a rotating ball. Measurements on such a ball are never in exactly the same direction with respect to outer space yet the speed measured is still the same. So now you must be saying it is the same in all directions on earth but different in space in all directions with respect to the earth. You would have to claim God chose to sent all the light from all the distant galaxies 2 billion light years away.that was heading toward us and sped it up.That might get pretty bright as 2,000,000,000/ 6000 is ~330,000 fold increase in light waves coming in.
Then the light would have to be slowed to the earth incoming light speed limit at some point far enough away so we would not notice this special "Earth effects the light from the universe "effect
If Lisle's argument is so compelling why doesn't he present it for peer review and publication in a respected journal. He did that when he was working in Solar dynamics before dumping his career.. Some of the remarks below, while I'm sure they are honest, show an astonishing ignorance of even the most basic model of the cosmos. Dr Lisle ought to teach some fundamentals to such an audience rather than the rather esoteric "Starlight problem" which I am sure he knows is not a problem at all. One could look back to Maxwell's astonishing work in which he (or his equations) effectively predict the speed of light is a constant. Dr Lisle now has a further problem since the success of LIGO. Gravitational waves also travel at the speed of light, theoretically and now we have the evidence to support the theory because light was observed from the event (neutron stars spiralling into each other) at the same time and in the same place. Since the observed objects (there have been several since the first) were billions of light years away now Dr Lisle, and creationists in general, also have a "Distant Gravitational Wave" problem if they still want to keep to their 6000 year old universe view. I wonder how he will research that problem.
Anthiets and scientists are close minded. See the Sphynx true age, Bigfoot, etc.
See electric universe theory.
@@MrJoebrooklyn1969 What the Heck is an "Anthiet". I am in the position of "I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to believe in any god. See "Russell's Teapot" ". Am I close minded? No I don't think so. The "Christian church" kept the Western World in the dark for 1500 years, with help from the "Muslim religion". Real science discounts Bigfoot because there isn't a shred of evidence. The Templeton Foundation (a Christian outfit) did real double blind scientific research on the power of prayer. They and others found that prayer has no effect. Poor but dreadfully sick people haul themselves off to Lourdes in France hoping for a miracle because "in 1858 Lourdes rose to prominence in France and abroad due to the Marian apparitions claimed to have been seen by the peasant girl Bernadette Soubirous," and the Catholics are idolatrously worshipful of Mary. Millions and millions have gone to Lourdes but there have only been 69 so called cures. Not a single amputated limb replaced so the biblical God has no power if he exists. That's not being close minded. it is being sensible.
@@556user Indeed. Laughably nonsensical.
@@barlart keep doing your research and keep an open. Mind. Dont confuse the "church" with the Bible.
God created the stars to give light on the Earth, and IT WAS SO. In other words, on day 4, the Bible clearly says that the reason for the creation of the stars -- to give light on the earth -- WAS SO. The light was seen on the earth the instant they were created. Remember, folks, if you throw a ball against a wall, is it going the same speed the entire trip? Like...duh!
It's not about Distant Starlight..it's about underestimating God's might.