RE: Earth Basics

RE: Earth Basics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

[Poll]

Earth Basics

The Earth is round, and gravitational attraction is in force

34% (36)

The Earth is flat. You can fall off the edge.

1% (2)

The Earth does not rotate on an axis. It stands still

1% (2)

The Earth rotates around the Sun

31% (33)

Science is a tool of Satan, as is education in general

1% (2)

Science is neither moral nor immoral.

28% (30)

Total Votes : 105

(last vote on : 8/14/2008 10:02:09 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 8:04:49 PM)
quote: For instance: God tells Adam and Eve that the day, they eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they will surely die. Now, a purely plain-sense interpretation of this Scripture would say that when Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge, within 24 hours, they will keel over and start pushing up daisies. Nice try, Kristin, but you've discussed the meanings of yom enough times on these threads to know that Genesis 2:17 has a specific grammatical construction different from the use of yom in Genesis 1. quote: And yes, being historical narrative does not mean that we can't misunderstand the meaning of a term. 24 hour day is not the only literal interpretation of yom So why did Moses misunderstand the interpretation of six days of creation when writing Exodus 20:11? God was confused? Right. [8\|] quote: Really? And where does Scripture describe this process? Genesis 2:7 quote: Actually, it was his side. Rib is a translation error. No, it is a translation decision based on common sense when combining the word "one" with "side" in 2:21. Does Genesis 2:21-22 support evolution from primates? quote: I get what you are saying, I just don't happen to agree with it. There is a difference. Kristin, you did not "just happen" to disagree; you have made a conscious choice to interpret Genesis 1-11 through the lens of man's fallible science. I'm truly sorry that you appear unable to accept this fact. quote: Jesus is the Word made man who was with God in the beginning (John 1). And exactly what does this fact have to do with the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27?

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 8:39:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: For instance: God tells Adam and Eve that the day, they eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they will surely die. Now, a purely plain-sense interpretation of this Scripture would say that when Adam and Eve eat of the tree of knowledge, within 24 hours, they will keel over and start pushing up daisies. Nice try, Kristin, but you've discussed the meanings of yom enough times on these threads to know that Genesis 2:17 has a specific grammatical construction different from the use of yom in Genesis 1. So what? We're talking the "plain" interpretation which you think is the ONLY way to interpret an historical account. A plain sense of interpretation would say that Adam and Eve should have been pushing up daisies the exact day they ate of the fruit. The fact is - you have to dig to come up with the true meaning of what God told Adam and Eve. It wasn't a simple translation. Why can it be that way in Genesis 2 and not Genesis 1? You can't have it both ways: say that a historical narrative must only be read plainly but if there is ever a problem with that, you can interpret it differently. I am showing you that a simple interpretation is not always the only way to read a historical account. I'll keep pulling up examples if you want, but that's silly. quote: quote: And yes, being historical narrative does not mean that we can't misunderstand the meaning of a term. 24 hour day is not the only literal interpretation of yom So why did Moses misunderstand the interpretation of six days of creation when writing Exodus 20:11? God was confused? Right. [8\|] Moses didn't misunderstand it. The concept of the Sabbath is not a 24 hour concept. For instance, the land is given a "sabbath" every seventh years. For man, a sabbath is every seventh day. For God, well, he's not on "earth time" because he's God and Scripture says a day to Him is but a thousand years, so seven days to Him is not 24 hours x 7. God is not man. Man is not land. Land is not God. quote: quote: Really? And where does Scripture describe this process? Genesis 2:7 Hmmm... My Bible says "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed life into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being". Maybe you can picture what you did from that, but all I can picture is that God formed man from the earth and gave him life. That really doesn't tell me what it looked like. quote: quote: Actually, it was his side. Rib is a translation error. No, it is a translation decision based on common sense when combining the word "one" with "side" in 2:21. Does Genesis 2:21-22 support evolution from primates? A translation decision? That's a new one. And Genesis 2:21-22 doesn't support any theory of the exact way God created man or woman. I'm certainly not reading anything that would enable me to make a movie showing exactly how it all worked based on those verses. Which of course is the point. Scripture isn't a science manual. Science isn't a Life manual. quote: quote: quote]I get what you are saying, I just don't happen to agree with it. There is a difference. Kristin, you did not "just happen" to disagree; you have made a conscious choice to interpret Genesis 1-11 through the lens of man's fallible science. I'm truly sorry that you appear unable to accept this fact. Funny, I'd say that you have made a conscious decision to read more into Genesis 1-11 than is there and call it Scripture. I really don't care how people think God created all of this: YEC, OEC, whatever. These theories are interesting but they are not Scripture. quote: quote: Jesus is the Word made man who was with God in the beginning (John 1). And exactly what does this fact have to do with the correct interpretation of Genesis 1:26-27? I was responding to your comment: quote: So are you suggesting Jesus of Nazareth was a "digital image" of God?

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/17/2008 9:34:55 PM)
quote: Funny, I'd say that you have made a conscious decision to read more into Genesis 1-11 than is there and call it Scripture. I really don't care how people think God created all of this: YEC, OEC, whatever. These theories are interesting but they are not Scripture. No, there's nothing "funny" about proper hermeneutics. There is something sad about those who mishandle the Bible by failing to understand literary genre, original intent, and simple grammatical constructions. So what do you care about, Kristin? That people are able to grasp the meaning of salvation from God's Word? Me too, so I'm glad we can agree on that. Now, I believe that creation in God's Image, Original Sin, the Curse, and God's Judgement by the Flood are all crucial aspects of salvation theology. Thus, their Scriptural basis must be upheld for correct doctrine and that is extremely difficult when one reads zillions of years of evolution into the very same text from which these crucial events are recorded. If you do not believe these events are crucial to salvation, then I can certainly see why you would read Genesis 1-11 any way you so desire. One last time, it's between you and God to determine your theology and I pray that your understanding is pleasing to Him!

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/21/2008 9:36:40 PM)
Sorry I've been MIA. It's been a rough week so I've been hiding in lighter threads. This is why it doesn't matter to me how God created all this: I know that Jesus rose from the dead. It's interesting to think about how God did that, but we really don't know. Scripture only tells us that He did. So, what did it look like? Was His body rotting one second, then, flash of light, alive the next? Was it a slow transformation kind of like what you see on sci-fi TV? Did God cause life from the cellular level which led the heart to start beating again? Or did He cause the heart to start beating again and the body "regenerated"? I don't know. It doesn't matter. However God chose to do it, doesn't change what happened: Jesus rose from the dead. However God chose to do it, doesn't change the fact that it was miraculous. However God chose to do it, doesn't change what this meant for us. God did it. The End. I see Creation as no different. It really doesn't mean a hill of beans to me how God did it. No theory changes what happened: God created the earth and everything in it. No theory changes the fact that it was miraculous. Now theory changes what this meant for us. God did it. The End. The Creation story is not a scientific description of what happened. It was never intended to be. That isn't the point of the Creation story. The point of the Creation story is to tell us that God created all of this, it was good, man screwed it up. We can have different ideas regarding what the point of refence for yom is (earth or God or man or the universe or whatever) and it doesn't change the fact that God did it, it was God and man screwed it up. If God chose to take millions of years, how does that diminish what He did? If it took 24 hours, how does that diminish what He did? If there was a flash of light and everything appeared, how does that diminish what He did? If God slowly sculpted and transformed life to create all we see, how does that diminish what He did? The fact is, no matter how God did it, no matter how long a day is for Creation, no matter what it looked like, our faith shouldn't rest on man's imagination of what we think Scripture is saying, but should rest on God - Our Creator, Our Lord and Our Savior.

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/22/2008 9:33:09 AM)
quote: I know that Jesus rose from the dead. It's interesting to think about how God did that, but we really don't know. Scripture only tells us that He did. Scripture also tells us that God created the world and all its life in six days, but you do not seem to know that. What's the difference since you're basing one miracle on Scriptural record but denying the factual accuracy of the other? quote: The Creation story is not a scientific description of what happened. It was never intended to be. That isn't the point of the Creation story. How do you know this, Kristin? You've certainly not discussed it with Moses! What other rational explanation is there for all the details of six specific serial days involving a carefully orchestrated series of events and the wording "according to their own kinds" not once, but six times in three separate verses? I fail to see how Moses could have been more scientifically accurate in his descriptions as a 2nd millenial BC shepherd. Please enlighten me as to some other way he could have written such a historical narrative account. I'm more than happy to show you lots of ways he could have written Genesis 1 as poetry, epic mythology, symbolic symbolism, etc. The fact is that Moses wrote 1-11 in the genre of historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis 12-50! quote: If God chose to take millions of years, how does that diminish what He did? If it took 24 hours, how does that diminish what He did? Come on, Kristin, only one of these is true and you know it! The real question is - who are you going to believe? quote: our faith shouldn't rest on man's imagination of what we think Scripture is saying, but should rest on God - Our Creator, Our Lord and Our Savior. Ephesians 4:13 links faith and knowledge together. The only people imagining what Scripture says are those who read zillions of years of evolution into the plain text of God's historical account of origins. Why have faith in God if He cannot even explain His role as Creator correctly?

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/22/2008 10:37:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: I know that Jesus rose from the dead. It's interesting to think about how God did that, but we really don't know. Scripture only tells us that He did. Scripture also tells us that God created the world and all its life in six days, but you do not seem to know that. What's the difference since you're basing one miracle on Scriptural record but denying the factual accuracy of the other? You keep forgetting that yom does not only mean 24 hours. You and I can debate what length of time a day is forever, but the fact of the matter is, I can take Genesis literally and believe the universe is billions of years old. You can disagree with my definition of day in that passage, but you cannot say I am denying the "factual accuracy" simply because you disagree with which definition of yom I believe is being used. quote: quote: The Creation story is not a scientific description of what happened. It was never intended to be. That isn't the point of the Creation story. How do you know this, Kristin? You've certainly not discussed it with Moses! What other rational explanation is there for all the details of six specific serial days involving a carefully orchestrated series of events and the wording "according to their own kinds" not once, but six times in three separate verses? I fail to see how Moses could have been more scientifically accurate in his descriptions as a 2nd millenial BC shepherd. Please enlighten me as to some other way he could have written such a historical narrative account. I'm more than happy to show you lots of ways he could have written Genesis 1 as poetry, epic mythology, symbolic symbolism, etc. The fact is that Moses wrote 1-11 in the genre of historical narrative, just like the rest of Genesis 12-50! I guess you and I have different definitions of scientific descriptions. If someone gave me a "scientific" explanation of anything like Genesis 1, I would laugh in their face even if they were 100% in their facts. It is not a scientific explanation. It is an historical summary. quote: quote: If God chose to take millions of years, how does that diminish what He did? If it took 24 hours, how does that diminish what He did? Come on, Kristin, only one of these is true and you know it! The real question is - who are you going to believe? Yep, only one is true and NEITHER is ruled out by Scripture so NEITHER is a Scriptural position. quote: quote: our faith shouldn't rest on man's imagination of what we think Scripture is saying, but should rest on God - Our Creator, Our Lord and Our Savior. Ephesians 4:13 links faith and knowledge together. The only people imagining what Scripture says are those who read zillions of years of evolution into the plain text of God's historical account of origins. Why have faith in God if He cannot even explain His role as Creator correctly? Again, you are assuming that Gen 1 is a scientific explanation of what God did. It's not. It is a summary of the fact that God created all of this. I'm not reading "zillions of years of evolution" into Genesis 1. I don't read anything into Genesis 1, because Genesis 1 does not tell us the mechanism God used to create all this. Science cannot contradict what Scripture doesn't tell us. And if your faith rests on man's fallible interpretations and extrapolations of Genesis 1, I would humbly suggest that your faith is resting in the wrong thing (or Person as it were).

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/22/2008 6:54:34 PM)
quote: I can take Genesis literally and believe the universe is billions of years old. No, you can mistake Genesis literally and claim the universe is billions of years old! Do you know of any reputable Bible scholar who claims that a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 is consistent with billions of years? Please provide a source if possible and I will examine it with an open mind.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/22/2008 7:30:44 PM)
There are many that believed yom in Genesis one was not a 24 hour period of time - even from long ago. Here are a few of the older ones: Philo (20BC-AD45) Justin Martyr (AD100-166) Irenaeus (AD130-200) Hippolytus (AD170-236) Clement of Alexandria (AD150-200) Origen (AD185-254) Augustine (AD354-430) In 1977, the "International Council on Biblical Inerrancy" met to promote biblical inerrancy as essential to the church. In 1982, this summit discussed the Genesis creation days and concluded almost unanimously that "adherence to six consecutive twenty-four-hour creation days is nonessential to belief in biblical inerrancy". There are a couple books that I would recommend on this subject as well by folks much more studied than I: Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald L Schroeder, PhD Creation & Time by Hugh Ross, PhD Now, I'm sure because they don't agree with you, you will say they are not reputable, but I guess at this point, we will just have to agree to disagree.

drmark -> RE: Earth Basics (3/22/2008 8:35:26 PM)
quote: There are many that believed yom in Genesis one was not a 24 hour period of time - even from long ago. Here are a few of the older ones: According to this scholarly article on The Early Church and the Age of the Earth, Philo, Clement, Origen and Augustine are the only ECFs to have clearly indicated their belief in a "figurative" Genesis 1 day. Most importantly, the latter three knew little, if any, Hebrew and all three of them claimed the earth was well under 10,000 years old! How can you possibly cite these theologians as support for billions of years?! quote: In 1982, this summit discussed the Genesis creation days and concluded almost unanimously that "adherence to six consecutive twenty-four-hour creation days is nonessential to belief in biblical inerrancy". Why don't we also quote Article XV from group's statement on Biblical hermeneutics: quote: Article XV WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed. The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV). quote: Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald L Schroeder, PhD Dr Schroeder is a physicist who mistranslates Hebrew quite readily. quote: Creation & Time by Hugh Ross, PhD Dr Ross is an astronomer who is even more loose with his understanding of Hebrew! I'm sorry if this is the best you can do, Kristin. Perhaps you would enjoy reading a somewhat technical, yet very well researched, paper which critiques the Framework Hypothesis and its handling of Genesis 1 "days" as "literal" indefinite periods of time. If not, then may we disagree on some other future thread. [;)]

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/22/2008 9:18:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: drmark quote: There are many that believed yom in Genesis one was not a 24 hour period of time - even from long ago. Here are a few of the older ones: According to this scholarly article on The Early Church and the Age of the Earth, Philo, Clement, Origen and Augustine are the only ECFs to have clearly indicated their belief in a "figurative" Genesis 1 day. Most importantly, the latter three knew little, if any, Hebrew and all three of them claimed the earth was well under 10,000 years old! How can you possibly cite these theologians as support for billions of years?! I was citing them as theologians who did not believe the creation days were 24 hour periods of time which you have argued repeatedly is the ONLY way to interpret Genesis 1. quote: quote: In 1982, this summit discussed the Genesis creation days and concluded almost unanimously that "adherence to six consecutive twenty-four-hour creation days is nonessential to belief in biblical inerrancy". Why don't we also quote Article XV from group's statement on Biblical hermeneutics: quote: Article XV WE AFFIRM the necessity of interpreting the Bible according to its literal, or normal, sense. The literal sense is the grammatical-historical sense, that is, the meaning which the writer expressed. Interpretation according to the literal sense will take account of all figures of speech and literary forms found in the text. WE DENY the legitimacy of any approach to Scripture that attributes to it meaning which the literal sense does not support. The literal sense of Scripture is strongly affirmed here. To be sure the English word literal carries some problematic connotations with it. Hence the words normal and grammatical-historical are used to explain what is meant. The literal sense is also designated by the more descriptive title grammatical-historical sense. This means the correct interpretation is the one which discovers the meaning of the text in its grammatical forms and in the historical, cultural context in which the text is expressed. The Denial warns against attributing to Scripture any meaning not based in a literal understanding, such as mythological or allegorical interpretations. This should not be understood as eliminating typology or designated allegory or other literary forms which include figures of speech (see Articles X, XIII, and XIV). Nice try and nice dodge, but they concluded (all but ONE), after having posted what you posted, that you could believe in the inerrancy of Scripture AND believe that yom in Genesis 1 does not mean 24 hours. quote: quote: Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald L Schroeder, PhD Dr Schroeder is a physicist who mistranslates Hebrew quite readily. Funny. He's an Orthodox Jew. I'd imagine he knows Hebrew better than most of us...And having his actual book in front of me, I can tell you that your AIG source is either completely incompetent regarding what he has actually said or they are lying about it because so much of that article is complete baloney and twisted. Either way, your article is "bearing false witness" and I will not abide by that. quote: quote: Creation & Time by Hugh Ross, PhD Dr Ross is an astronomer who is even more loose with his understanding of Hebrew! And since you are quoting the same source for demonizing Dr Ross, I will say that baloney lives again. Whether you agree with him or not, Dr. Ross is highly respected by scientists, theologians and mainline pastors. And any group who has to bear false witness against another to defend their "theory" is showing they don't have a good argument. quote: I'm sorry if this is the best you can do, Kristin. Perhaps you would enjoy reading a somewhat technical, yet very well researched, paper which critiques the Framework Hypothesis and its handling of Genesis 1 "days" as "literal" indefinite periods of time. If not, then may we disagree on some other future thread. [;)] I'm sorry that you've had to stoop to articles that misrepresent, misquote and malign others to try and prove a point that is not provable.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 1:56:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes It depends how many laws of physics you're willing to break. For instance, the nearest stars (other than the sun) are several light years away. If they go around the earth every day, then they travel many light years per day, faster than the speed of light. This is considered a no-no in physics. It's only considered a no - no when convenient. quote: We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310808v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 Special relativity says that things can't go faster than the speed of light on a local scale, but many scientists now argue that this does not apply on a global scale.

unclemonkey -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 4:45:53 AM)
ORIGINAL:Bettawrekonize quote: Special relativity says that things can't go faster than the speed of light on a local scale, but many scientists now argue that this does not apply on a global scale. Many are also accepting the idea that while nothing can travel faster than light in space, space itself has no speed limit.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 10:19:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey Many are also accepting the idea that while nothing can travel faster than light in space, space itself has no speed limit. You basically just repeated what I said. The notion that the speed of light is an upper limit only applies when convenient.

essentialsaltes -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 10:46:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes It depends how many laws of physics you're willing to break. For instance, the nearest stars (other than the sun) are several light years away. If they go around the earth every day, then they travel many light years per day, faster than the speed of light. This is considered a no-no in physics. It's only considered a no - no when convenient. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310808v2.pdf http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 quote: Special relativity says that things can't go faster than the speed of light on a local scale, but many scientists now argue that this does not apply on a global scale. The nearest stars are local. My objection stands, though the paper was interesting.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 10:49:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes The nearest stars are local. My objection stands, though the paper was interesting. The point is that there are exceptions to C as an upper limit, so not everything is necessarily bound by the speed of light. So the notion that, "If they go around the earth every day, then they travel many light years per day, faster than the speed of light. This is considered a no-no in physics." is not necessarily correct (though on a local scale it maybe correct based on our current understanding of physics. But Einstein wasn't aware of galaxy recession rates at the time that he came up with his model and our understanding of the universe has changed since then. Our understanding of the universe is subject to change). BTW, I am not arguing that the universe revolves around the earth (I'm not arguing it doesn't), just pointing out that C may not always be an upper limit.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 11:13:50 AM)
Before some of you get all excited, the variations in C would have to be enormous to account for a universe that is only thousands of years old vs. billions of years old. In addition, it doesn't explain explain what we observe NOW in regards to supernovas and such and when/what we are observing. Here is an article about what the theory is regarding the changing speed of light. As far as objects exceeding the speed of light, You are confusing expansion exceeding the speed of light and objects exceeding the speed of light. Check out this article that does a good job of explaining the difference.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 11:21:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud As far as objects exceeding the speed of light, You are confusing expansion exceeding the speed of light and objects exceeding the speed of light. Check out this article that does a good job of explaining the difference. I am not confusing the two, I understand the assumed difference. My point is that the speed of light as an upper limit is not necessarily true. If space is not bound by the speed of light, then there are things (space) that are not bound by the speed of light. One could argue (and this is not what I'm arguing since such a claim has falsifiability issues) that space itself (and hence the universe) may revolve around the earth and this would not violate our current understanding of the laws of physics with respect to the speed of light being an upper limit.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 11:28:59 AM)
What was being discussed is the impossibility of everything revolving around the earth because the stars and such would have to go faster than the speed of light. You said that this objection was only a no-no when it's convenient and shared your articles. The problem is, those articles do not disprove that objects cannot go faster than the speed of light which is what would be required for stars and such to be revolving around the earth. Expansion is not an object. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 11:32:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud What was being discussed is the impossibility of everything revolving around the earth because the stars and such would have to go faster than the speed of light. You said that this objection was only a no-no when it's convenient and shared your articles. The problem is, those articles do not disprove that objects cannot go faster than the speed of light which is what would be required for stars and such to be revolving around the earth. Expansion is not an object. You are comparing apples and oranges. The galaxies are already receding faster than the speed of light. Galaxies consist of stars, which are objects. So these objects are receding faster than the speed of light (though it's assumed to be due to spacial expansion, the point is that the speed of light is not a limit as to how fast they recede. The distance between certain stars is getting greater faster than the speed of light which means that objects can travel faster than the speed of light with respect to each other even though you may attribute this to spacial expansion. So if space itself is not bound by the speed of light, it's possible that space itself may revolve around something faster than the speed of light. I am not arguing this is the case, since such an argument has falsifiability issues, just that it would not violate our current understanding of the laws of physics with regard to the speed of light). Spacial expansion has its own set of problems though. We know that objects are moving away from each other and we assume space itself is expanding. Also, as a hypothetical, lets assume a star is moving away from us faster than the speed of light and it changes colors from red to blue. How would we ever notice the change in color since the distance between us and the star is getting greater faster than the speed of light? How could light from a star ever reach us in the first place if the distance between us and that star increases faster than the speed of light? I guess one could assume the light also expands as space expands.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 11:33:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud What was being discussed is the impossibility of everything revolving around the earth because the stars and such would have to go faster than the speed of light. You said that this objection was only a no-no when it's convenient and shared your articles. The problem is, those articles do not disprove that objects cannot go faster than the speed of light which is what would be required for stars and such to be revolving around the earth. Expansion is not an object. You are comparing apples and oranges. The galaxies are already receding faster than the speed of light. ????

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 11:35:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud ???? See my edit.

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 12:57:17 PM)
OK, maybe a better way to put what you are saying is that galaxies are receding from each other. And, what you posted is not correct. The galaxies are not moving at or faster than the speed of light. Space is expanding. Think of it this way: You and are are standing in a road and begin to walk away from each other. The speed the space expands between us is not the speed that each of us is walking. Again, there is no evidence that objects move faster than the speed of light - only that distances can increase faster than the speed of light: expansion. As far as being able to see these galaxies if the distance between us is expanding faster than the speed of light: we are not looking at them speeding away from us. We are looking at their light at a specific time in history.

Bettawrekonize -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 1:06:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: phosadaud OK, maybe a better way to put what you are saying is that galaxies are receding from each other. That's what I said (or at least what I meant, which I did state). I understand what you are saying. quote: And, what you posted is not correct. The galaxies are not moving at or faster than the speed of light. Space is expanding. I understand the spacial expansion assumption. The point is that the distance between them is increasing faster than the speed of light which shows that they can travel at a faster speed with respect to each other (even if that traveling is attributed to spacial expansion). quote: Think of it this way: You and are are standing in a road and begin to walk away from each other. The speed the space expands between us is not the speed that each of us is walking. Again, there is no evidence that objects move faster than the speed of light - only that distances can increase faster than the speed of light: expansion. Again, I understand the spacial expansion assumption, but the point is that objects can move relative to each other faster than the speed of light, even if that movement is attributed to spacial expansion. Even if space expands between two objects, the objects move relative to each other because the distance between them changes, even if that movement is attributed to spacial expansion. So it's possible for objects to move relative to each other faster than the speed of light. A change in distance relative to two objects is movement, if you see an object getting further from you, you see it moving away from you. You can assume that the space between you and the object is increasing (or you can simply assume it is moving moving away from you on its own), the point is that it is moving relative to you. quote: As far as being able to see these galaxies if the distance between us is expanding faster than the speed of light: we are not looking at them speeding away from us. We are looking at their light at a specific time in history. But if the distance between the light and us is expanding faster than the speed of light, how would light ever catch up to the increasing distance? Unless light expands with the distance.

DanJames -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 1:15:06 PM)
Are you two married or something? I could swear you two are arguing, but not really because you're not disagreeing. Objects can appear to "move" faster than light if they're traveling along with and parallel to the plane of spacial expansion when the point of reference is along the opposite side of the plane of spacial expansion (moving in the opposite direction).

phosadaud -> RE: Earth Basics (3/29/2008 1:23:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize quote: And, what you posted is not correct. The galaxies are not moving at or faster than the speed of light. Space is expanding. I understand the spacial expansion assumption. The point is that the distance between them is increasing faster than the speed of light which shows that they can travel at a faster speed with respect to each other (even if that traveling is attributed to spacial expansion). But that's just it: they (the object) do not have to move faster than the speed of light for the distance to increase faster than the speed of light. For the earth to be the center of the universe, they (the stars and such) would have to physically move faster than the speed of light which is not supported by science. quote: quote: As far as being able to see these galaxies if the distance between us is expanding faster than the speed of light: we are not looking at them speeding away from us. We are looking at their light at a specific time in history. But if the distance between the light and us is expanding faster than the speed of light, how would light ever catch up to the increasing distance? We aren't seeing the light from where the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. The theory is that only the most distant galaxies are expanding away from us faster than the speed of light (the raisins in a loaf of bread that's rising idea - the raisins at the opposite edges of the loaf are moving away from each other the faster than the raisins at the center). So, if the universe is expanding, what we see is the light from those galaxies that are now moving away from us faster than the speed of light before they were moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Basically, we can only see history. As the universe expands we will see galaxies fade away as the distance expansion approaches the speed of light.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>