[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[Guest]

It's as wild as saying that light traveled instantaneously!

I didn't say that. I said it got here in creation week. And that is the only reasoned deduction, if we saw them.

In essence you are saying that light traveled almost instantaneously, just say it, don't beat around the bush! Actually you said it before, so unless you are trying to contradict your own statements, then go ahead and maintain your new story!

You really don't realize what you're claiming, if you're claiming that light traveled instantaneously you don't realize the amount of electromagnetic radiation we would be receiving from everywhere in the Universe,

Wrong. It was not that, that is present light, and it is limited.

[quote:4791d] the trees would be hit by so much radiation that they will SURELY die because of the high frequency of light.

Not if it was the former light.

The frequency would be so high that the light will act like an extremely powerful laser and it will incinerate pretty much everything in it's path... now that's PRETTY WILD!

Nonsense, that is what iffing about our own light.[/quote:4791d]
Do you even know what light is? What you are talking about makes NO sense! If light is not electromagnetic radiation, if it's not comprised of photons, if it's wavelength is not the same as it is today, then it is neither visible nor is it useful to people or trees. Humans can only see a very narrow band of light with a certain frequency wavelength, anything above or below that wavelength is not visible (thus you have infrared, ultraviolet light, etc.). If you increase the speed of light in anyway you will change the wavelength therefore it will go into the invisible, so Adam wouldn't have seen the light if that is your biggest concern!

Again, IF the plants needed the sun, that's a BIG IF and according to your statement of "past state universe" it probably isn't necessary for the trees to get direct sun light because it was a different state universe.

We are talking about your claims here, not mine. Do you claim a different universe now??!

Nope, you claim a different Universe, but it contradicts you assumption that trees were the same in your different universe. If you claim that trees were the same as today, then you claim same past state. Don't contradict yourself .

The stars were made for Adam and he DID see some because it was millions of years after the first day was created, millions of years after the first stars were created, etc.

So the plants hung out for millions of years with no sun. Ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if you assume same past state and the trees are the same as today!

LOL, we could say a lot of things, but the Bible says nothing about God hovering in an orbital pattern and providing the light, that's absurd!

Let's look at what He was doing, then, shall we?
The second verse of the bible says God moved over the earth! That word means this, from the hebrew.
1. (Qal) to grow soft, relax
2. (Piel) to hover

Hover is FAR from orbiting the earth and acting like the sun! WOW, YOU are starting to amaze me now! You have a REALLY wild imagination! With every moment your claims get more and more absurd! But this contradicts your previous statement that light came from the sun/stars almost instantaneously to provide light, because now you claim God provided the light by orbiting around the Earth! You are seriously loosing yourself in your own inadequacy!

Nope, he called it day because it was light, it didn't say anything about time... it just says that the light was called day and the darkness was called night. That's as literal as the bible is about that, and if you want to take the bible literally then don't put your own interpretations in it!

It does not say there were no days before that, it says that our first day was called day!!! Elementary.

Day, according to the Bible, is the separation of Light and Darkness! If you notice the first thing that God created was Light! If you don't have light, then you don't have a separation between lightness and darkness, therefore YOU DON'T HAVE DAYS! No light = no day: ELEMENTARY!

Did you not read what I said? I said: prior to that... you must realize that time doesn't exist period, it's just a concept that humans use to mark the length of our existence. There is no concept of time in eternity, it's an infinite idea that doesn't matter!

False! There are gates in heaven that shall not be shut by day. There are still days. Just as I showed the witness of the creation week, and before, had days.

I told you no light = no day, are you dimwitted? How much simpler can the Bible and I say it? I told you, eternity does not need to account for time AT ALL, why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? Why is everything so hard for you to understand?

You showed that they are as well what? Anyway, God is eternal, He doesn't need to count time because he doesn't age, he doesn't die, he doesn't care about time because he is ETERNAL! Do you understand the concept of eternal? It means continuing forever or indefinitely, so God could care less about time! Time is a ticker for our existence, not for God's!

I am eternal as well!

WOW! OK Now I know you are CRAZY!

I count days, and so do millions, no billions of others. Even when we pass from this temporal universe into the forever state, there are, as I have shown, days.

If you are talking about your spirit, it may be eternal, but why does your spirit need to count time when it's eternal and it will NEVER WASTE!?? If something is eternal that means that it will last FOREVER, therefore it makes no sense why it needs to account of something irrelevant to it!

This says and proves nothing about the speed of light. COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!

It says something about what it was meant to, however, that would be days. The speed of light in creation week was such that we saw far stars.

I told you why your claim of a faster speed of light makes no sense, you still keep trying to push it through! It doesn't work! It makes NO sense in ANY universe: past, present or future! You seriously need to rethink what you're saying, no you need to THINK first!

It doesn't matter how long he lived because the days before he was created were millions of years, therefore there was plenty of time for light to get to him... how many times do I have to explain this to you?

So now you pencil in millions of years as a day where you feel like it!!! Hang the plants, they hibernated, and needed no sun for millions of years, say you!! I think you are about done on this topic, you have no case at all.

And you pencil in that speed of light was almost instantaneous where you feel like it!!! LOL, your case is that the plants were in the same state as now, therefore you contradict your own claim of "same past state" not being existent. I used your methodology to make a case which uses your proof and your reasoning, it is as valid as your for as long as your case is valid. If you're saying that I have no case then YOU have no case! Simple!

I quote you: "Nonsense, that is what iffing about our own light."
And you are "iffing" about our own trees! Dad, quit trying to use present state things in your past state claims! If you assume that the most basic of things, such as light, were different, then I have no clue how can you even consider that trees were NOT different?!?! YOU are utterly out of your mind!

 

[dad]

In essence you are saying that light traveled almost instantaneously, just say it, don't beat around the bush!

Almost is not instantaneous. But it sure beats today's universe light speed.

Do you even know what light is?

How would that matter, unless we were discussing present light? The real question is do you know what former light was?

What you are talking about makes NO sense! If light is not electromagnetic radiation, if it's not comprised of photons, if it's wavelength is not the same as it is today, then it is neither visible nor is it useful to people or trees.

In a present universe. Change the fundamental forces of the universe, by separating the spiritual element, and the atomic level is affected, as well as the rest. It is not, remember, a change in our light, which is what you are looking for. Our light is what was left by the change. To comprehend the former light, you need to know something about it. Science does not!

Humans can only see a very narrow band of light with a certain frequency wavelength, anything above or below that wavelength is not visible (thus you have infrared, ultraviolet light, etc.). If you increase the speed of light in anyway you will change the wavelength therefore it will go into the invisible, so Adam wouldn't have seen the light if that is your biggest concern!

False! Adam, in the fantasy same state universe would not see present light, if if if...yada yada.

Nope, you claim a different Universe, but it contradicts you assumption that trees were the same in your different universe. If you claim that trees were the same as today, then you claim same past state. Don't contradict yourself .

I never said trees were the same, did I? The tree of life grows fruit every month, and I think I pointed out trees used to be able to grow a lot faster. Superficially, they may look a lot the same. But it was how they grew in a different state, and light that was different, among possibly other things, like the life process at the cellular and molecular, and atomic levels.

It's only ridiculous if you assume same past state and the trees are the same as today!

Prove it.

Hover is FAR from orbiting the earth and acting like the sun! WOW, YOU are starting to amaze me now! You have a REALLY wild imagination! With every moment your claims get more and more absurd! But this contradicts your previous statement that light came from the sun/stars almost instantaneously to provide light, because now you claim God provided the light by orbiting around the Earth! You are seriously loosing yourself in your own inadequacy!

I didn't "claim". I raised the question. The sun and star light was not here when He was hovering, and moving over earth, at first, now was it!? When the sun and stars were created, they were in that created universe state. That means the light that they then had was former state light! That is how it got here fast. The created state, is eternal, and we won't find radioactive decay there as we now see. It is a different universe. A new heavens. Likewise, the sun will never burn out in that state,m as it would now, if this state were to go on long enough, says science.

Day, according to the Bible, is the separation of Light and Darkness! If you notice the first thing that God created was Light! If you don't have light, then you don't have a separation between lightness and darkness, therefore YOU DON'T HAVE DAYS! No light = no day: ELEMENTARY!

He created it here, in this created universe. No reason to assume there also was not light and days before that. You almost make it sound as if God created Himself 6000 years ago as well.

I told you no light = no day, are you dimwitted? How much simpler can the Bible and I say it? I told you, eternity does not need to account for time AT ALL, why is this concept so hard for you to grasp? Why is everything so hard for you to understand?

It is a false concept, I already demonstrated there are days before creation, and in heaven. Try and deal with the facts on the table. Time will not be a limiting factor, as it now is to us, but some form of time does exist. Our space time continuum will be no more.

WOW! OK Now I know you are CRAZY!
[/b][/size]

Everyone that has eternal life, given to us by Jesus is now eternal. This is news???

If you are talking about your spirit, it may be eternal, but why does your spirit need to count time when it's eternal and it will NEVER WASTE!?? If something is eternal that means that it will last FOREVER, therefore it makes no sense why it needs to account of something irrelevant to it!

Need is a funny word. We won't need to eat to live, but we will be able to eat. We will not die, but we will know what a day is. What if there was say, and Elvis concert, and several other big names, set in a heavenly park for a certain day??? How would you know to remember to go, if you liked music??
How about the people outside new Jerusalem, there are still nations of men there, after it lands. It says they will bring gifts to it. They will still need the light of the sun, because they grow food! We in the city do not need it, but it will still be there. Since the walls are transparent gold, we can watch a sunrise, or sunsrt, and it will be nice. It is just that we won't need it for light then.

I told you why your claim of a faster speed of light makes no sense, you still keep trying to push it through! It doesn't work! It makes NO sense in ANY universe: past, present or future! You seriously need to rethink what you're saying, no you need to THINK first!

It is not, repeat NOT a faster speed of light. There was no light as we know it, it was a former light, different. It is not able to be held to the puny properties of present slow light. get over it.

And you pencil in that speed of light was almost instantaneous where you feel like it!!!

Compared to today, it was. But, since I don't know if it took days to get here, or even weeks, in some cases of real far stars, or just hours, or minutes, I won't pretend we can know that. But we can certainly rule out anything slower than got here for Adam to see. No millions of years possible.

LOL, your case is that the plants were in the same state as now, therefore you contradict your own claim of "same past state" not being existent.

No, that is appealing to your case, to science of today. Unless you accept a different universe, you have to be bound by it!!! I say that God's light hovering was plenty of light for the first few days for plants. -Especially if He made the seeds in His starcraft, (Eze 1) and then later simply planted them!!??? He DID plant the garden, you know! really.

I quote you: "Nonsense, that is what iffing about our own light."
And you are "iffing" about our own trees! Dad,

No, the trees in Eden were not our trees! You are dreaming. Prove it.

quit trying to use present state things in your past state claims! If you assume that the most basic of things, such as light, were different, then I have no clue how can you even consider that trees were NOT different?!?! YOU are utterly out of your mind!

Of course life processes were different, as I outlined, for example the growth rates. So were our lifespans, we would have lived forever!!! That can't happen in this physical universe, the evidence mounts!

 

[Guest]

quit trying to use present state things in your past state claims! If you assume that the most basic of things, such as light, were different, then I have no clue how can you even consider that trees were NOT different?!?! YOU are utterly out of your mind! [/b][/size]

Of course life processes were different, as I outlined, for example the growth rates. So were our lifespans, we would have lived forever!!! That can't happen in this physical universe, the evidence mounts!

I'll summarize because you make no sense most of the time so there is no good reason to repeat your nonsense.
So since the trees were different, they didn't need light right away, because they were magical, so was the day (which length was billions of years), and so was the unicorn (which I just threw in for fun) . You can't prove any of it wrong, there fore it must be true!

You claim a magical light but you have NO PROOF of anything of such sort ever existing or being mentioned anywhere. Besides a really WILD imagination you have nothing to base your claims on. Face it, accept it, you're done!
If you don't believe that a day could be of different length,then look at a day on the North/South Pole where each day lasts 6 months, and then try to tell me that a day could not be of a different length.

 

[dad]

I'll summarize because you make no sense most of the time so there is no good reason to repeat your nonsense.
So since the trees were different, they didn't need light right away, because they were magical, so was the day (which length was billions of years), and so was the unicorn (which I just threw in for fun) . You can't prove any of it wrong, there fore it must be true!

No more than your same past state. Some things are not able to be covered by natural science. Trees were different in many ways, true. They were the nature of the day, only magical if they could exist here, in this universe, but they can't.

You claim a magical light but you have NO PROOF of anything of such sort ever existing or being mentioned anywhere. Besides a really WILD imagination you have nothing to base your claims on. Face it, accept it, you're done!

No, I claim you have no proof for this state universe and light in the far past. Focus.

If you don't believe that a day could be of different length,then look at a day on the North/South Pole where each day lasts 6 months, and then try to tell me that a day could not be of a different length.

That is present state stuff. A day is atill a day, whether earth poles are light or dark.

 

[Guest]

I'll summarize because you make no sense most of the time so there is no good reason to repeat your nonsense.
So since the trees were different, they didn't need light right away, because they were magical, so was the day (which length was billions of years), and so was the unicorn (which I just threw in for fun) . You can't prove any of it wrong, there fore it must be true!

No more than your same past state. Some things are not able to be covered by natural science. Trees were different in many ways, true. They were the nature of the day, only magical if they could exist here, in this universe, but they can't.

And you have no proof that they existed anyway, but I have more proof than you do. Not only do I have Biblical references, but we even see it in the "present state" that days could be longer depending on the seasons or the poles in which you are at. They can be as long as 6 months, now that's more evidence than you have ever came up with in any of your arguments!

You claim a magical light but you have NO PROOF of anything of such sort ever existing or being mentioned anywhere. Besides a really WILD imagination you have nothing to base your claims on. Face it, accept it, you're done!

No, I claim you have no proof for this state universe and light in the far past. Focus.

I don't need to, I assume it is true unless you provide evidence . I also assume that the day was different and I have provided evidence and you have no evidence against it. For the most things I have assumed I have had evidence both biblical and current observations, you on the other hand don't even have biblical evidence for your claims. Your claims are completely baseless, just a thought in the air, the product of a wild imagination! You have NO EVIDENCE !

If you don't believe that a day could be of different length,then look at a day on the North/South Pole where each day lasts 6 months, and then try to tell me that a day could not be of a different length.

That is present state stuff. A day is atill a day, whether earth poles are light or dark.

So is the need of trees to have light in the "past state universe", and your creatively imagined magical light! A day is not still a day, as I pointed out earlier, no matter what state you are looking at, present or past. A day can be as short as 9 hours and as long as 6 months, that is not the same, yet you try to argue that in the "past state universe" a day was a certain fixed length. It's all good if you argue a point, but you lack evidence and I have provided plenty of it to prove you wrong: both biblical and observed evidence! Beat, and DONE!

I don't need to hear anymore of your wild imagination creations, unless you have some proof don't even bother posting!

 

[dad]

And you have no proof that they existed anyway, but I have more proof than you do. Not only do I have Biblical references, but we even see it in the "present state" that days could be longer depending on the seasons or the poles in which you are at. They can be as long as 6 months, now that's more evidence than you have ever came up with in any of your arguments!

Not for Adam in the garden they can't. I have made my case on that already.

I don't need to, I assume it is true unless you provide evidence .

And I'll assume that this is a temporary universe, until you have some science to show otherwise.

So is the need of trees to have light in the "past state universe", and your creatively imagined magical light!

There is no reason to assume that trees do not need light in the forever state.

A day is not still a day, as I pointed out earlier, no matter what state you are looking at, present or past. A day can be as short as 9 hours and as long as 6 months, that is not the same,...

You can't argue a day was not a day for Adam, regardless of some areas of the earth now. Now, you see, there are billions of men on earth, so we can't have a day of equal time with night in many places. That means nothing. Look on a calendar, and see what a day is! Use a flashlight, if it it night, to read it, and learn something.

 

[Guest]

And you have no proof that they existed anyway, but I have more proof than you do. Not only do I have Biblical references, but we even see it in the "present state" that days could be longer depending on the seasons or the poles in which you are at. They can be as long as 6 months, now that's more evidence than you have ever came up with in any of your arguments!

Not for Adam in the garden they can't. I have made my case on that already.

You made a case of fabrication that's all!

I don't need to, I assume it is true unless you provide evidence .

And I'll assume that this is a temporary universe, until you have some science to show otherwise.

I don't have to even bring up science, your theories crumble under their own weight. All I did is showed you that even your ideas need the "same past state", because your of "past state universe" try to explain "current state" phenomenons, thus you need certain "current state" things to be true in the past (such as the length of day).

So is the need of trees to have light in the "past state universe", and your creatively imagined magical light!

There is no reason to assume that trees do not need light in the forever state.

There is no reason to assume that light was magical in the forever state, there is no reason to assume that days weren't different in the forever state, there is no reason for any of your arguments period!

A day is not still a day, as I pointed out earlier, no matter what state you are looking at, present or past. A day can be as short as 9 hours and as long as 6 months, that is not the same,...

You can't argue a day was not a day for Adam, regardless of some areas of the earth now. Now, you see, there are billions of men on earth, so we can't have a day of equal time with night in many places. That means nothing. Look on a calendar, and see what a day is! Use a flashlight, if it it night, to read it, and learn something.

I can argue anything I want to argue, it's up to you to prove it wrong and you can't

 

[dad]

I can argue anything I want to argue, it's up to you to prove it wrong and you can't

No, you can't. This thread is closed. It seems the serious debate has ended.


I'll leave on thread, the physics laws one open for a bit, no sense having three open, since the issues are more or less the same.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

I can argue anything I want to argue, it's up to you to prove it wrong and you can't

No, you can't. This thread is closed. It seems the serious debate has ended.


I'll leave on thread, the physics laws one open for a bit, no sense having three open, since the issues are more or less the same.

Was there ever a serious debate? I must have missed it. All I thought I saw was a hodgepodge of unsupported ideas about up being down and down being up. Never anything being brought to your side of the argument, except making the statement that we weren't in the past, therefore we can't say anything about it.

Guess what, you weren't around when your great grandfather gave birth to your grandfather, yet you can say you are here, and he existed.

 

[Guest]

I can argue anything I want to argue, it's up to you to prove it wrong and you can't

No, you can't. This thread is closed. It seems the serious debate has ended.


I'll leave on thread, the physics laws one open for a bit, no sense having three open, since the issues are more or less the same.

Do whatever you want to do LOL, You don't think its serious debate because I'm using your logic and your "evidence", I'm merely reflecting your ideology back at you, it seems as if you don't find it serious . I'm sorry you feel that way . LOL

 

[TanNinety]

Is space actually even really expanding?

As I understand this concept, the answer is 'no'. Space "actually/really" isn't expanding in the same sense that you use the term "expand" in every day usage. It is an unfortunate verbalization of the mathematical geometry describing the behavior of unbound objects in space.

There is no mysterious space forming in the middle and pushing galaxies away. It is actually the "distances" that are "increasing". The distances are increasing because the stationary (w.r.t the frame of reference) galaxies are moving away from each other. The expanding space(increasing distance) is the result of the receding galaxies, not the other way around.

(I say aside from redshift, and the CMB, because it is my opinion they are remnants of a major change in the universe in the past, rather than the theories generally accepted presently.)

AFAIK there has been research invested to see if the major "physical constants" have changed since the past. Current evidence shows that they have been constant. You might be right, but the evidence gathered so far does not necessitate considering change in the physical constants of the universe.

 

[dad]

Is space actually even really expanding?

As I understand this concept, the answer is 'no'. Space "actually/really" isn't expanding in the same sense that you use the term "expand" in every day usage. It is an unfortunate verbalization of the mathematical geometry describing the behavior of unbound objects in space.

There is no mysterious space forming in the middle and pushing galaxies away. It is actually the "distances" that are "increasing". The distances are increasing because the stationary (w.r.t the frame of reference) galaxies are moving away from each other. The expanding space(increasing distance) is the result of the receding galaxies, not the other way around.

And how could you prove that?

AFAIK there has been research invested to see if the major "physical constants" have changed since the past. Current evidence shows that they have been constant. You might be right, but the evidence gathered so far does not necessitate considering change in the physical constants of the universe.

I foresaw NO change in the constants. I would suspect the universe changed, leaving us with the present constants. No change in them since then.

 

[TanNinety]

Can we prove it? I am not sure we can, not with our current technology.

But can we interpret the data as such? Yes, since the model can make predictions and explain the current evidence sufficiently.

Based on the topic of this thread, I thought this would peek your interest.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213v8

The Faulty Assumptions of the Expanding-Universe Model vs. the Simple and Consistent Principles of a Flat-Universe Model -- with Moving Pisa Tower Experiment which Tests General Relativity
Authors: Jin He
(Submitted on 9 May 2006 (v1), last revised 17 Oct 2007 (this version, v8))

Abstract: The standard model of expanding universe is based on the theory of general relativity (GR) which assumes that spacetime is curved. The reason of curved spacetime was given by Einstein that locally there is common acceleration for all test particles so that gravity is canceled. This is called the equivalence principle. The present paper shows that it is not true for Schwarzschild solution (static gravity of pure spatial inhomogeneity). The paper also presents isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravity. Freely falling particles locally have accelerations of any magnitude and any direction, which also indicates that the gravity can not be locally cancelled too. Realistic gravity is non-static which is the case in between. This indicates that the assumption of curved spacetime is a fundamental mistake. Therefore, a correct gravitational theory or a model of the universe must be based on the absolute flat background spacetime. The existence of such absolute spacetime is shown to be true from the following three basic principles about the universe: (1) the density of large-scale mass distribution of the universe varies with time (corresponding to an isotropic but temporally inhomogeneous gravitational field); (2) the gravity is described by a Lagrangian which is the generalization to the proper distance of special relativity (the metric form of GR); (3) Hubble law is approximately true. These lead to varying light speed and give account of `accelerating expansion`. Therefore, the assumption of big bang and expansion is incorrect.

 

[dad]

Can we prove it? I am not sure we can, not with our current technology.

Bingo. No, in other words.

But can we interpret the data as such? Yes, since the model can make predictions and explain the current evidence sufficiently.

So can I. Predictions science makes fail. Like the missing black hole or neutron star in SN 1987a, that were predicted to be there. In a universe change, redshift and CMB are to be expected. You have no monopoly on them.

Based on the topic of this thread, I thought this would peek your interest.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605213v8

Amusing, but it it still laden with assumptions.

It tries to explain things based on the assumption that the present universe is all there is, or was. If we include the spiritual, and different state past, we can have a lot more leeway.