tehmackdaddy said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

oldarmy1 said:

---

It can absolutely be a constant; it just had its origins through God's design and I understand that those who desire to study the instant moment will never be able to do so.

However, those who use the measured constants in an attempt to extrapolate baxkwards are going to be guesses

---

If it's a guess it isn't a measured constant.

---

If God created a star twelve thousand light years away, he could also create the photons of light already on their way to earth to be measured, all with the overlying laws of the universe that we measure with reliability.

---

So we're in the Truman Show?

tehmackdaddy said:

---

If God created a star twelve thousand light years away, he could also create the photons of light already on their way to earth to be measured, all with the overlying laws of the universe that we measure with reliability.

---

I don't see any problem in assuming that a God that could create existence could also do this. But, if you insist on purpose to existence and illusion of age, it's fair to ask the purpose to creating a universe that appears old.

Consider a telescope image of a nebula or exploded star that is more than 6k light years away. What is that? Did God create an exploded star's guts of a star that never existed? And for what? What should be made of increasing red shift from further and further galaxies? God left evidence of billions of years of expansion in the universe that never occurred? The Cosmic Microwave Background is an echo of a ghost? Something that never happened?

Suppose you are right, I am certainly not one to say I can prove otherwise. What purpose is the illusion of this reality if not to deceive? It serves no purpose in informing our macroscopic level existence - only in informing our cosmological place in the universe.

Young Earth Creationism is analogous to turning one's head toward a pool and observing a 10' wide circular ripple in the surface and assuming that it was created as a 9.9' ripple a fraction of a second ago with the normal outward movement from a ripple that we'd expect from one that starts at a point. It requires, in light of modern science, an abandonment of reason. It is emotional. And I don't say that to belittle or to judge you . . . But let's call a spade a spade. YEC is abandonment of reason and logic in favor of an idea that pleases a view of reality that you don't want to give up.

And if your theory is true , I think it's fair to ask why a God would expect or hope for us to abandon reason in favor of an answer that is where reason goes to die.

No it doesn't, actually address the argument above. If the real star was still sending light then a dead supernova would relight in the night sky. Also as the actual star moves relative to the fake light it would appear to jump in the sky.

Buck O Five said:

---

Are quantum fields the product of the big bang, or is there a chance they existed prior?

---

You're not alone in asking that question! The idea that the universe is emergent from the underlying quantum fields has been around for a while. The first paper that I'm aware of that proposed it was published in 1973 by a guy named Tyron. The paper was titled "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation." I used to have access to a pdf for it, but can't find it anymore. I've been told by some of the more senior physicists that the idea had been around for quite a bit before that, but I can't validate that claim.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

If God created a star twelve thousand light years away, he could also create the photons of light already on their way to earth to be measured, all with the overlying laws of the universe that we measure with reliability.

---

I don't see any problem in assuming that a God that could create existence could also do this. But, if you insist on purpose to existence and illusion of age, it's fair to ask the purpose to creating a universe that appears old.

Consider a telescope image of a nebula or exploded star that is more than 6k light years away. What is that? Did God create an exploded star's guts of a star that never existed? And for what? What should be made of increasing red shift from further and further galaxies? God left evidence of billions of years of expansion in the universe that never occurred? The Cosmic Microwave Background is an echo of a ghost? Something that never happened?

Suppose you are right, I am certainly not one to say I can prove otherwise. What purpose is the illusion of this reality if not to deceive? It serves no purpose in informing our macroscopic level existence - only in informing our cosmological place in the universe.

Young Earth Creationism is analogous to turning one's head toward a pool and observing a 10' wide circular ripple in the surface and assuming that it was created as a 9.9' ripple a fraction of a second ago with the normal outward movement from a ripple that we'd expect from one that starts at a point. It requires, in light of modern science, an abandonment of reason. It is emotional. And I don't say that to belittle or to judge you . . . But let's call a spade a spade. YEC is abandonment of reason and logic in favor of an idea that pleases a view of reality that you don't want to give up.

And if your theory is true , I think it's fair to ask why a God would expect or hope for us to abandon reason in favor of an answer that is where reason goes to die.

---

It isn't my theory. I'm only pointing out that the entire universe doesn't have to be a mirage for the theory to be correct.

Thanks.

Aggrad08 said:

---

No it doesn't, actually address the argument above. If the real star was still sending light then a dead supernova would relight in the night sky. Also as the actual star moves relative to the fake light it would appear to jump in the sky.

---

Any actual argument? this is literally the result of what you are arguing with your light show plus real star assertion.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Any actual argument? this is literally the result of what you are arguing with your light show plus real star assertion.

---

Yes, by it is the same argument and you aren't understanding it. Hence the frontal cortex massage.

No its not, you aren't thinking through what sort of evidence your assertion would leave. Evidence that we don't see. So why don't we see that evidence?

TexAgs91 said:

---

oldarmy1 said:

---

It can absolutely be a constant; it just had its origins through God's design

---

Actually, it can be derived. I've been trying to find a text book I have that shows how. It's not the simple method you'll find online using Maxwell's equations. It's more fundamental than that. From what I remember it stemmed from our universe's particular configuration of spacetime. Dang it... where is it?

---

I wonder if you're talking about this, where the speed of light is derived from the electromagnetic properties of the quantum vacuum: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf

Aggrad08 said:

---

No its not, you aren't thinking through what sort of evidence your assertion would leave. Evidence that we don't see. So why don't we see that evidence?

---

Because we only see what God allows us to see.

So not only does god put on a light show, he blocks the real light from the stars from getting to earth to further hide evidence of himself? It's even more trickery than the original problem.

That isn't what I'm saying, but He certainly could.

Sure he can commit deception. And that is necessarily what you are saying when you say he "only allows us to see" the fake light and not the real light. You are arguing for an extremely complex deception. An active miracle that has been going on the whole history of the earth and continues to this day that serves no other purpose than to hide himself.

So yes no one is saying god couldn't do these things. Only that it's a ridiculous thing to do. YEC cannot be rationally believed. You have to ignore reason and evidence as useful tools and look to faith alone

Aggrad08 said:

---

Sure he can commit deception. And that is necessarily what you are saying when you say he "only allows us to see" the fake light and not the real light. You are arguing for an extremely complex deception.

---

Except that isn't what I'm arguing at all.

Then what are your arguing because it sure sounds like it. How does god keep us from seeing the light from the real stars that we would see separately if the mirage were a representation of reality?

Thanks for posting. You got any scalar energy for dummies videos, particularly those not prone to believing I conspiracy theories?

I know what scalar means and I know what energy means (or at least I think I do) but I've never heard those two terms used in conjunction like that, so you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean.

Vibrations fields, torsional physics, etc. Something not too whack, though.

I searched these terms on Google, and they seem to be outside mainstream physics, so I'm not going to know much about them.

Thanks. They deal a lot with Tesla's work. I know some people who are really into his work and I cannot speak their language. Some of them are the tin foil hat types, though. I figured there might be something from proven and commonly understood science which could bridge the gap.

dargscisyhp said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

oldarmy1 said:

---

It can absolutely be a constant; it just had its origins through God's design

---

Actually, it can be derived. I've been trying to find a text book I have that shows how. It's not the simple method you'll find online using Maxwell's equations. It's more fundamental than that. From what I remember it stemmed from our universe's particular configuration of spacetime. Dang it... where is it?

---

I wonder if you're talking about this, where the speed of light is derived from the electromagnetic properties of the quantum vacuum: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165.pdf

---

Thanks, I'll have to read through that, but no. That's from 2013. I read the textbook around 2004-2005.

If you find it, let me know. I'd be interested in reading it.

dargscisyhp said:

---

If you find it, let me know. I'd be interested in reading it.

---

http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_Home&page=1&sublevel=0
http://www.tokenrock.com/explain-scalar-wave-technology-77.html

Quote:

---

I don't see any problem in assuming that a God that could create existence could also do this. But, if you insist on purpose to existence and illusion of age, it's fair to ask the purpose to creating a universe that appears old.

---

Why did Henry Ford created his first truck the way did? One could argue scientifically about the details of an internal combustion engine but that would only be half of the puzzle. He also chose do make things the way he did out of personal preference.

Why did God create a universe with the appearance of age? One will not know without a conversation in which that information is revealed by God. What I can deduce from the text in Genesis 1 is that the only thing that God said in scripture was 'very good' was mankind (male and female) and His relationship/interaction with humanity fills all of the pages as follow. My deduction is that God made the earth the way He did with the appearance of age so that it would be prepared for humanity in the very moment of His choosing.

One reason I don't think one can conclude that God is deceptive or up to trickery is because God gave us many details in the creation story in which a mature creation was made. It doesn't say God created the seeds, eggs, etc.

Side note: Thanks for posting the video. The complexity of the universe blows my mind and actually increases my view of the Creator. Not sure this was the intended consequence. I also not a die hard YEC unless believing that it's true makes one a die hard. I have a few reasons why I believe it's true however have many friends who love Jesus who hold to the old Earth view.

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

I don't see any problem in assuming that a God that could create existence could also do this. But, if you insist on purpose to existence and illusion of age, it's fair to ask the purpose to creating a universe that appears old.

---

Thanks for posting the video. The complexity of the universe blows my mind and actually increases my view of the Creator. Not sure this was the intended consequence. I also not a die hard YEC unless believing that it's true makes one a die hard. I have a few reasons why I believe it's true however have many friends who love Jesus who hold to the old Earth view.

---

I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I posted it hoping that this would be informative to others and maybe that other's would share my amazement at the universe. However you choose to share that amazement with me, I am glad you do.

Kool said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

If you find it, let me know. I'd be interested in reading it.

---

http://www.meyl.eu/go/index.php?dir=10_Home&page=1&sublevel=0
http://www.tokenrock.com/explain-scalar-wave-technology-77.html

---

This is pretty far outside the scientific mainstream. I looked him up, and it was difficult to find much about his scientific work. The front couple pages of Google mostly consist of his own website and mentions in blogs. The only website which I personally consider credible that I found that mentioned him was retractionwatch, where it was pointed out that a couple of his papers had been retracted. The commenter on that site described Mey'ls paper as reminiscent of a Sokal sort of hoax. I glanced at one of his papers very briefly where in the introduction (in the first three sentences even) he posited that scalar waves, a concept that is his and his alone as far as I'm aware, would break the speed of light, allow free energy, and violate Gauss' law. None of this is scientifically credible. He only cites himself in this paper, and papers written over a century ago. If you're asking for my opinion on this, this is pseudoscience. I don't know what else to tell you.

Well, that's what I wanted to know. Thanks.