The idea that light goes at infinite (or near infinite) speed when going towards an observer requires that either 1) the light knows that there is an observer at its destination before it gets there or 2) it goes slower when in one direction compared to the opposite direction and it knows which direction it is going. I can't figure how the light beam would know this at the beginning of its journey and how it could modify its behavior based on this knowledge. Can you explain?
The Mandelbrot set is a pretty fractal, nothing more. It is a picture created by a fromula which is calculated an infinite number of times getting smaller each time i.e. pretty pictures getting smaller connecting to each other. It is relatively simple maths that has no real relevance or other function other than producing the pretty picture. And you should note that the maths it is based on was created by a Hindu (the "0" fundamental to all maths was created by a hindu) so, the fact is, if the Mandelbrot set is a hidden code from a god, that god was the Hindu god Shiva, not yours.
Why couldn't you measure the one way speed of light with 2 light sources? The light first goes from the first source to the second source where upon receiving that signal sends another light source right back? You can measure the time of the relay light switch in the middle, subtract that out, then divide by 2! You have your 1 way speed of light!
The first thing you should understand is that Dr Lisle knows he's delivering "smoke and mirrors". The speed of light has no relevance to the calculation of the age of the universe it is merely the measurement chosen to represent the distance. The scientists calculate the distance to the furthest observable galaxy is 80,535,447,492,900M and then they divide that distance by the distance light would travel in one year. Answer = 13.5 billion years. Add 200 million years for the first galaxy to form = 13.7 billion years. What I can't understand is how easily creationists can be fooled. Here is the ONLY way we can measure the age of the universe using light years and, if you have even the tiniest amount of logic, you will realise it's true: 1. Create a ship capable of light speed. 2. Create a reflector the size of our galaxy. 3. Take 13.7 billion years to tow the reflector to the end of the universe. 4. Create a laser that produces as much light as our galaxy and shine it at the reflector. 5. Wait 27.4 billion years for your measurement. Have we done that? No? Then we haven't calculated the age of the universe using light. And Dr Lisle knows it. Don't believe me? Ask Dr Lisle: 1. How do you measure the distance to the end of the universe using light? During his university course what was the method he was taught to calculated the age of the universe? Why can't he prove the method he was taught wrong? You use the luminosity of the closest and measurable galaxy or supernova (using geometry). You know that luminosity is 1/4 at twice the distance. That means by comparing the luminosity of the distance galaxy to the known galaxy and the 1/4 X luminosity = 2 X distance you can measure all the way out to the furthest object you can see. If you use a telescope you you know it's magnification i.e. the telescope makes it 2,000 times as bright reduce the luminosity to its actual luminosity without the telescope. That is what Dr Lisle was taught and that's what Dr Lisle can't dispute so he uses his light speed smoke and mirrors.
It’s the old - wow, it’s complex and I don’t understand it - it must be god!!!! Yet here is no explanation as to how a supernatural being that no one can see or hear or find can just “entire universe into existence.
David ~ Why should God tell you more than HE did? He said that ''He spoke it into existence''. Does He owe you an explanation on how He does miracles? You wouldn't understand it .....or believe it anyway.
@@davidsteer1941 ~ _''The fool says in his heart ''there is no God'' for ALL of creation testifies to My existence''_ ~ Psalm 14:1 You dont want evidence David. You want ''Signs and wonders''. God wont do that, because ...you probably wouldn't believe that EITHER! Just like the unbelievers in Jesus's day who denied His miracles by attributing them to Satan. You dont WANT to believe!
Dr. Lisle, every time I write a crushing response to one of your videos it gets deleted. Why is that? I am not going to listen to this but, I offer a challenge, I can crush every argument you produce. You comment on being an astrophysicist, a subject which explores the cause of the natural universe 13.7 billion years ago. Stars and planets billions of years old. During a degree that would take about 7 years of devoted studies you would learn all there is to know about dating the universe, stars and galaxies using geometry and luminosity and age of planets like earth using isotope dating such as uranium 238 taking 4.468 billion years to turn to lead i.e. how all those figures were derived by real astrophysicists. So, you chose something that is totally in opposition to your beliefs as a career choice of study? Why? Can you tell other creationists why they should believe you now when you spent over 7 years in what must have been a life of total deception? Why should they assume you are telling the truth now when I believe it could be claimed, for 7 years you were a liar to your own beliefs. Dr Lisle, in your opinion, what would be the easiest way to earn a living: Competing with other astrophysicists for limited research funding or gathering failed arguments on creationism from the Internet, re-hashing them and selling them to fools? You can guess my view? Now let us look at Dr Lisle the astrophysicist. First of all, don't tell everyone your comments are coming from a "scientist". Not only do you obviously have no knowledge or understanding of such as evolution (unless you are lying), your comments on the age of the universe are so diametrically opposed to scientific understanding of astrophysics, you are not talking as an astrophysicist either. It's like a priest turning atheist and claiming to say "there is no god" as a priest. Here's another question Dr. Lisle: If someone could prove the universe wasn't 13.7 billion years old and planets weren't 5 billion years old, they would gain a Nobel prize for physics. So Dr Lisle, you are peddling a young universe to creationists and you claim you can provide them with proof in your "Ultimate proof of creation" (absurd and unsustainable proof that is). How come you didn't go for your Nobel Prize by proving a young universe and earth as your doctorate thesis? Let me put this to you Dr Lisle: After 7 years of intense study you couldn't come up with anything whatsoever that would indicate the universe wasn't 13.7 billion years old or that the earth wasn't pushing about 5 billion years old. 7 years dedicated to the subject and you can't even remotely prove science got the natural creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago false. You know as well as I do, if you attempted to sell the young universe concept whilst you were doing your degree you would have been laughed off campus. Yet you are selling books to creationists claiming that it's a young universe/earth and making a living on it. I believe I could say, making a living on deceiving the gullible about something you know is false. Tell us Dr Lisle, you’re the one boasting about being an astrophysicist. Why doesn't geometrical distance measurements of close objects and their average luminosity not translate into measurements of distant objects using their comparative luminosity? How does a 6,000 year old planet get lead when we know, using an ionizing chamber measurement of isotopes, that lead takes 4.468 billion years to make? Finally Dr Lisle, given there is incontrovertible scientific proof to a level of meeting the requirements of "the scientific method" (or 1: 2 X 10^138) that man and chimpanzee are cousins and had a common ancestor (and if you are anything beyond a rank amateur on the subject you would know about that proof [which was rebutted on Answers In Genesis and the scientists confirmed and proved Answers In Genesis was wrong ]) how do you claim, without wilful deception, man was created by your god when it has already been prove he wasn’t? And, as I always throw in as proof your god doesn’t exist: There is no scenario where Adam and Eve could disobey your god where your god would gain a justifiable reason to punish them i.e. mans suffering on earth cannot be linked to disobeying your god.
@@theresa42213 Yes, thanks for that Theresa. Now how about you prove me wrong in anything I said. Oh dear, the old Isaac Newton was a Christian argument. For one thing I couldn't care less if Newton was a Christian or not. There are two main distinctions between you and Newton: 1. Newton wasn't a liar, science wasn't advanced enough to refute the bible in his time, but it is now and that means he wasn't a liar but you are. 2. If Newton was alive today and knew what we know now, he would undoubtedly be an atheist. Quoting scientists who lived before the proof of a natural universe existed as proof of Christianity is, well, pathetically pointless and proves nothing whatsoever. HINT: In my world view, if you want to know if a claim about the bible is false and unsustainable, all you have to do is go to Answers In Genesis. I believe Answers In Genesis is the best collection of unsustainable nonsense the world has ever seen. Hence the reason they do not allow rebuttal on their site, it's only there for the gullible.
Luang Gung your whole comment is nonsense . You make a lot of false accusations about Jason Lisle. We creationist know Macro evolution and the Big Bang is debunked. Jason gives actual facts why logically none of these things you list as testable to the scientific method are not true. Make one point at a time also luang Gung. In a public forum you could not list ten questions you have all at once and then expect anyone to give quick response and remember your babble. Your a waste of time Luang . You state fallacies as fact and that is the premise of all of your arguments. You sir are a secular scientist of relativism and Uniformitarianism. . Nonsensical worldview.
Ah, the scientific explanation- it’s beautiful. Works for me
Shawn secular science is all myth no scientific facts.
@@mikebrunet54 Thanks fir that, I needed a good laugh
The idea that light goes at infinite (or near infinite) speed when going towards an observer requires that either 1) the light knows that there is an observer at its destination before it gets there or 2) it goes slower when in one direction compared to the opposite direction and it knows which direction it is going. I can't figure how the light beam would know this at the beginning of its journey and how it could modify its behavior based on this knowledge. Can you explain?
I believe somewhere in the mandelbrot set is the formula for gravity and the precise motion of stellar orbits.
The Mandelbrot set is a pretty fractal, nothing more. It is a picture created by a fromula which is calculated an infinite number of times getting smaller each time i.e. pretty pictures getting smaller connecting to each other. It is relatively simple maths that has no real relevance or other function other than producing the pretty picture.
And you should note that the maths it is based on was created by a Hindu (the "0" fundamental to all maths was created by a hindu) so, the fact is, if the Mandelbrot set is a hidden code from a god, that god was the Hindu god Shiva, not yours.
Why couldn't you measure the one way speed of light with 2 light sources?
The light first goes from the first source to the second source where upon receiving that signal sends another light source right back?
You can measure the time of the relay light switch in the middle, subtract that out, then divide by 2! You have your 1 way speed of light!
The first thing you should understand is that Dr Lisle knows he's delivering "smoke and mirrors". The speed of light has no relevance to the calculation of the age of the universe it is merely the measurement chosen to represent the distance. The scientists calculate the distance to the furthest observable galaxy is 80,535,447,492,900M and then they divide that distance by the distance light would travel in one year. Answer = 13.5 billion years. Add 200 million years for the first galaxy to form = 13.7 billion years.
What I can't understand is how easily creationists can be fooled. Here is the ONLY way we can measure the age of the universe using light years and, if you have even the tiniest amount of logic, you will realise it's true:
1. Create a ship capable of light speed.
2. Create a reflector the size of our galaxy.
3. Take 13.7 billion years to tow the reflector to the end of the universe.
4. Create a laser that produces as much light as our galaxy and shine it at the reflector.
5. Wait 27.4 billion years for your measurement.
Have we done that? No? Then we haven't calculated the age of the universe using light. And Dr Lisle knows it. Don't believe me? Ask Dr Lisle: 1. How do you measure the distance to the end of the universe using light? During his university course what was the method he was taught to calculated the age of the universe? Why can't he prove the method he was taught wrong?
You use the luminosity of the closest and measurable galaxy or supernova (using geometry). You know that luminosity is 1/4 at twice the distance. That means by comparing the luminosity of the distance galaxy to the known galaxy and the 1/4 X luminosity = 2 X distance you can measure all the way out to the furthest object you can see. If you use a telescope you you know it's magnification i.e. the telescope makes it 2,000 times as bright reduce the luminosity to its actual luminosity without the telescope. That is what Dr Lisle was taught and that's what Dr Lisle can't dispute so he uses his light speed smoke and mirrors.
Hi DR Lisle, Is it possible that the universe is spinning? The atom spins, the planet spins
The galaxy spins? Just a thought
Thanks
No
It’s the old - wow, it’s complex and I don’t understand it - it must be god!!!! Yet here is no explanation as to how a supernatural being that no one can see or hear or find can just “entire universe into existence.
did you watch this video? You comment doesn't seem to indicate that.
@@kevinpinball yes I watched the entire video.
David ~ Why should God tell you more than HE did? He said that ''He spoke it into existence''. Does He owe you an explanation on how He does miracles? You wouldn't understand it .....or believe it anyway.
I don’t believe anything without evidence, couldn’t god just provide some?
@@davidsteer1941 ~ _''The fool says in his heart ''there is no God'' for ALL of creation testifies to My existence''_ ~ Psalm 14:1 You dont want evidence David. You want ''Signs and wonders''. God wont do that, because ...you probably wouldn't believe that EITHER! Just like the unbelievers in Jesus's day who denied His miracles by attributing them to Satan. You dont WANT to believe!
Dr. Lisle, every time I write a crushing response to one of your videos it gets deleted. Why is that?
I am not going to listen to this but, I offer a challenge, I can crush every argument you produce.
You comment on being an astrophysicist, a subject which explores the cause of the natural universe 13.7 billion years ago. Stars and planets billions of years old.
During a degree that would take about 7 years of devoted studies you would learn all there is to know about dating the universe, stars and galaxies using geometry and luminosity and age of planets like earth using isotope dating such as uranium 238 taking 4.468 billion years to turn to lead i.e. how all those figures were derived by real astrophysicists.
So, you chose something that is totally in opposition to your beliefs as a career choice of study? Why?
Can you tell other creationists why they should believe you now when you spent over 7 years in what must have been a life of total deception? Why should they assume you are telling the truth now when I believe it could be claimed, for 7 years you were a liar to your own beliefs.
Dr Lisle, in your opinion, what would be the easiest way to earn a living: Competing with other astrophysicists for limited research funding or gathering failed arguments on creationism from the Internet, re-hashing them and selling them to fools? You can guess my view?
Now let us look at Dr Lisle the astrophysicist.
First of all, don't tell everyone your comments are coming from a "scientist". Not only do you obviously have no knowledge or understanding of such as evolution (unless you are lying), your comments on the age of the universe are so diametrically opposed to scientific understanding of astrophysics, you are not talking as an astrophysicist either. It's like a priest turning atheist and claiming to say "there is no god" as a priest.
Here's another question Dr. Lisle: If someone could prove the universe wasn't 13.7 billion years old and planets weren't 5 billion years old, they would gain a Nobel prize for physics. So Dr Lisle, you are peddling a young universe to creationists and you claim you can provide them with proof in your "Ultimate proof of creation" (absurd and unsustainable proof that is). How come you didn't go for your Nobel Prize by proving a young universe and earth as your doctorate thesis?
Let me put this to you Dr Lisle: After 7 years of intense study you couldn't come up with anything whatsoever that would indicate the universe wasn't 13.7 billion years old or that the earth wasn't pushing about 5 billion years old. 7 years dedicated to the subject and you can't even remotely prove science got the natural creation of the universe 13.7 billion years ago false.
You know as well as I do, if you attempted to sell the young universe concept whilst you were doing your degree you would have been laughed off campus.
Yet you are selling books to creationists claiming that it's a young universe/earth and making a living on it. I believe I could say, making a living on deceiving the gullible about something you know is false.
Tell us Dr Lisle, you’re the one boasting about being an astrophysicist. Why doesn't geometrical distance measurements of close objects and their average luminosity not translate into measurements of distant objects using their comparative luminosity? How does a 6,000 year old planet get lead when we know, using an ionizing chamber measurement of isotopes, that lead takes 4.468 billion years to make?
Finally Dr Lisle, given there is incontrovertible scientific proof to a level of meeting the requirements of "the scientific method" (or 1: 2 X 10^138) that man and chimpanzee are cousins and had a common ancestor (and if you are anything beyond a rank amateur on the subject you would know about that proof [which was rebutted on Answers In Genesis and the scientists confirmed and proved Answers In Genesis was wrong ]) how do you claim, without wilful deception, man was created by your god when it has already been prove he wasn’t?
And, as I always throw in as proof your god doesn’t exist: There is no scenario where Adam and Eve could disobey your god where your god would gain a justifiable reason to punish them i.e. mans suffering on earth cannot be linked to disobeying your god.
Kuan ~ WOW! _''Professing to be wise, they became fools''_ ~ Romans 1:22 ls lssac Newton a liar too?
@@theresa42213 Yes, thanks for that Theresa. Now how about you prove me wrong in anything I said. Oh dear, the old Isaac Newton was a Christian argument. For one thing I couldn't care less if Newton was a Christian or not. There are two main distinctions between you and Newton: 1. Newton wasn't a liar, science wasn't advanced enough to refute the bible in his time, but it is now and that means he wasn't a liar but you are. 2. If Newton was alive today and knew what we know now, he would undoubtedly be an atheist. Quoting scientists who lived before the proof of a natural universe existed as proof of Christianity is, well, pathetically pointless and proves nothing whatsoever.
HINT: In my world view, if you want to know if a claim about the bible is false and unsustainable, all you have to do is go to Answers In Genesis. I believe Answers In Genesis is the best collection of unsustainable nonsense the world has ever seen. Hence the reason they do not allow rebuttal on their site, it's only there for the gullible.
Luang Gung your whole comment is nonsense . You make a lot of false accusations about Jason Lisle. We creationist know Macro evolution and the Big Bang is debunked. Jason gives actual facts why logically none of these things you list as testable to the scientific method are not true. Make one point at a time also luang Gung. In a public forum you could not list ten questions you have all at once and then expect anyone to give quick response and remember your babble. Your a waste of time Luang . You state fallacies as fact and that is the premise of all of your arguments. You sir are a secular scientist of relativism and Uniformitarianism. . Nonsensical worldview.
Tells us luang about your isotope Mumbo jumbo analysis is peer reviewed by creationist and they find your theory as fact. Nonsense.
Tells us luang about your isotope Mumbo jumbo analysis is peer reviewed by creationist and they find your theory as fact. Nonsense.