Creationist Mathematics question: If light was slowing down exponentially and now it travels at 186,000mps and it started coming toward us 6000 years ago from the farthest star, and the farthest star is 7.6X 10^19 miles away, how fast was light going

OUTSTANDING.

• Report

by AbsolutValu on August 3rd, 2009

I did a chart about 1 year ago and plotted everyones information on speed of light over the last almost 300 years and by their calculations it was all over the place (relative to now) some were faster and some were slower most were close to what we plot today,and im sure that its because supercomputers werent their and they didn't take it out to the nth decimal place. but it is well (previous and presently) noted and thanks for the recap. however this is only the first part of my theory in creationism...
(below)

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

In another Book of the Bible their are star constelations that we know the approximate date of that book (Book of Job)and since we perceive we know the date of the book and the distance to these star constelations we can see if the plotted light line (parabela) would have reached our planet by that time (approximately 5000years ago and if so then their is simple argument that the theory still works) if not,then the theory is most likely dismissed.
thus why the plotting of this decay curve (with begining point) is so neccessary.
I strongly believe Good science is done in the open with an open mind,(bias will always be their) but we can try our best to limit it.

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

the theories are not hidden or the way in which we got the answers are not hidden or our data is not hidden but if someone wants to challenge they can so that the science (and math)... can be purified.
thanks again for all your help and I will try to find some other pages you did to give some more points, I have been working on understanding how to get this answer for a long time.

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

You are right about the calculations being all over the place. I chose 1728 as the first one which was reasonably accurate. But if you plot more recent evaluations of the speed of light, up until the point at which it became defined as a constant, you will see that we knew the speed of light so accurately that the value of k is extremely limited. k could be non-zero, and some scientists believe the speed of light was about 30% faster at the moment of creation, but to fit the known facts, k needs to be truely tiny, and certainly the speed of light has not changed by as much as one percent in the last million years.

• Report

by Quirkie on August 4th, 2009

thanks for helping.
I heard this hypothesis when people were trying to stump creationists. and creationists (6 day) decided to claim many different things,but as usual nothing but theories that were almost empty calories (just because they had no strong evidence just large theories). but I am a creationist who wants evidence not "I believe..." and so I had heard that some thought the speed of light was "warbling" in the near past via past numbers,but more that I looked at the data it seemed that the techniques for finding the speed was more accurate.

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

others have said that God produced the light then the stars, but by that the light would be from a past that never existed and that seemed to make GOD out to be a liar or swindler, and I DO NOT believe HE is. others said that he quickly stretched it out, but that doesnt make sense because stars are more than 6000 or even 1,000,000 present light years away. (at present speed).
Then I heard of a theory that was passed around that said that when GOD created the earth (6000 yrs ago ,my belief) that it was going faster.

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

so I looked at it and light seemed not to be decreasing quickly (or measurably) and the only way I knew that could happen without light traveling billions of miles per second was for exponential decay. thus my situation, however I knew that if it was true their would be a couple things that would have to come into play.
1)farthest star would be hitting us right now (if universe is bigger than what we can see.
2)knowing that the parabala would almost be flatlining horizontal.
3)stars talked about in other passages would have to be seen at that time and must match the parabala.
thus my kunundrum.

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

again this is still in the beggining stages of theory and proving the theory (i know you seem to be a evolutionist) but luckily science is all about solving the problems no matter how strange it seems.

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

I think you need to take a course on cosmology. That way you can find out what is known and how that is known, and find out what is not known, so you can make a theory that fits the facts. Light did come before stars. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is the remnant of the light from the surface of last scattering, when the universe became transparent when it was about 300,000 years old, the first stars were formed millions of years later.

• Report

by Quirkie on August 4th, 2009

ok
thanks for the math help.

• Report

by guardian on August 4th, 2009

Guardian, I admire your persistence to use science to justify your hypothesis (it seems the central one is that the universe was created 6000 years ago), however, you should know that there exists conclusive evidence that it did not. I hope you keep an open mind as to whether your hypothesis could be wrong. I don't think anyone is making God out to be a liar. The bible was written by men (who have often been wrong and are often liars), but even more likely, the dates and times in the bible, much like many other things in it, simply were not meant to be taken literally.

• Report

by AbsolutValu on August 5th, 2009

For the sake of science, I will say this about your hypothesis. You use the furthest star in your estimates, and 1 - we know the distance to that star based on our scientific measures, one of which, is the speed of light. If you think the speed of light has changed, that star may not be as far as we think it is. Mind you, I absolutely think you are wrong, but you mind find that argument useful (albeit wrong).

• Report

by AbsolutValu on August 5th, 2009

thanks for your openmindness, and ask my Girlfriend I am wrong quite a bit...hahahhah
thanks again all and may we one day understand truth whatever it is...

• Report

by guardian on August 5th, 2009

uuummmm sure just like they dont believe in Cooking...
thanks.

• Report

by guardian on August 3rd, 2009