Only if you lie about the content of that article, just as your buddies at ICR consistently do in the rare moments they reference factual information.
Charles Darwin said:
Knowledge and subjectivity. Origin of life
- Thread starter mjs
- Start date
Only if you lie about the content of that article, just as your buddies at ICR consistently do in the rare moments they reference factual information.
One problem, common to science, is one hand of science, does not often know what the other hand of science is doing, because of specialization. Specialization narrow one's vision of science to a small percent of the big picture. Einstein theory of relativity, which is not taught by evolution, can be used to give credence to Creation.
Einstein created the theory of relativity, which states, among other things, that not all observational references are the same. He said that references (POV) are relative and there is no universal or preferred reference. The earth reference used by evolution, is a relative reference, and is not absolute. From a different reference one would see evolution, differently.
According to Einstein and special relativity, as we move closer to the speed of light (God is light by tradition) time slows down. The clocks on earth would appear to run faster than clocks near the speed of light. What could appear to take thousands of years in an earth reference, from year 1014 until 2014, may only take a few minutes in a reference very close to the speed of light. The very fast steps of Creation, could be valid, if they were being witnessed from a reference that is very close to the speed of light.
At very very close to the speed of light, billions of years in the universe, as witness by the earth reference, can pass in one day. Because so much action would appear to happen in one day, the details would be a blur and the theory a summary.
A good home experiment is to record a ten minute home movie and then play it back in fast forward so it is done in a one minute playback. This is what the action on the earth will look like in a reference where time is moving much slower; near speed of light. The action is so fast it is not easy to give all the details of that 10 minutes. In fact, all one saw was one minute not ten minutes. We will witnesses an abbreviated version.
Even though Einstein proved relative reference and no preferred reference, evolutionists will ignore him in favor of an earth centric mythology, that does not allow any other reference. The Bible has light speed created right at the beginning to establish the reference of observation. Evolution will appear so fast, the theory will summarize.
Einstein created the theory of relativity, which states, among other things, that not all observational references are the same. He said that references (POV) are relative and there is no universal or preferred reference. The earth reference used by evolution, is a relative reference, and is not absolute. From a different reference one would see evolution, differently.
According to Einstein and special relativity, as we move closer to the speed of light (God is light by tradition) time slows down. The clocks on earth would appear to run faster than clocks near the speed of light. What could appear to take thousands of years in an earth reference, from year 1014 until 2014, may only take a few minutes in a reference very close to the speed of light. The very fast steps of Creation, could be valid, if they were being witnessed from a reference that is very close to the speed of light.
At very very close to the speed of light, billions of years in the universe, as witness by the earth reference, can pass in one day. Because so much action would appear to happen in one day, the details would be a blur and the theory a summary.
A good home experiment is to record a ten minute home movie and then play it back in fast forward so it is done in a one minute playback. This is what the action on the earth will look like in a reference where time is moving much slower; near speed of light. The action is so fast it is not easy to give all the details of that 10 minutes. In fact, all one saw was one minute not ten minutes. We will witnesses an abbreviated version.
Even though Einstein proved relative reference and no preferred reference, evolutionists will ignore him in favor of an earth centric mythology, that does not allow any other reference. The Bible has light speed created right at the beginning to establish the reference of observation. Evolution will appear so fast, the theory will summarize.
All you're doing here is displaying your gross ignorance of science, especially relativity.
This is equally flawed.
Go back and read what the Bible actually says.
Light speed is not, and cannot be, a "reference of observation".
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Light is a very important reference to the electron and nucleus according to photovoltaics and light absorption. It only stands to reason anything going at light speed would become closer to witnessing creation via a black hole and simultaneously further in time via space time curvature.
What?
Presumably English isn't your first language. This makes no sense.
Reason seems to be absent from your post (and the vast majority of Wellwisher's).
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
Black holes are the largest and most massive objects, the information stored within them has witnessed more time than any other object.
that would be Portuguese.
Well nobody can keep up with Wellwisher when it comes to chemistry so why should we discount some of his more extrapolative insights?
Information is possibly preserved in a black holes.
What you wrote was "witnessing creation via a black hole". Whether that information is preserved or not we can't see it. Regardless of speed.
(It's also unlikely that BHs were present AT "creation").
That doesn't help me parse your sentence.
Wellwisher talks nonsense on many subjects, not just chemistry.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
It can be inferred thought entropy what was there transformed into black holes before any of the matter in our galaxy began to circulate.
Ah, you're attempting to copy Wellwisher's style of posting inane nonsense.
And you've managed it.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
You still haven't backed up your statement on why light does not observe the moment of creation.
I see you're confused.
The original claim was yours: which means that it's up to you to support it.
What you ACTUALLY claimed was "witnessing creation via a black hole" - note: black holes, not light.
IF light was what you meant you'd have to show that we could in fact retrieve that information.
If you're talking about light IN a black hole then, as stated, it's possibly true that information retained - but it also means that retrieving that information is orders of magnitude more difficult (e.g. not something we can do, or have any idea of how to do).
(And, of course, light [and black holes] didn't exist at the very start: photons didn't arrive until about a second afterwards).
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
That was an example not a response to the negative.
Yet to continue. Retrieval could be possible by shining light around a black hole and studying the spectrum upon its return.
What?
Are you claiming that your vague unsupported claim doesn't require support simply because it's a "an example" but that my objections (for which I have provided support) do require "backing up"?
That which is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
No.
1) Any light "in" a BH will be so diffused - and mixed up with all the other light that's gone in since -as to provide zero discernible information. (That's even assuming that information is preserved).
2) Light doesn't come back from, or out of, a BH. That's one reason they're called black.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
logical.
There still exists a possibility of getting a photon to orbit a black hole and return to earth with different information than it left with.
That's yet another unevidenced assertion.
It's not even close to "logical" for the reasons I have already given.
Really?
Is that something you just made up?
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
If you want to say your being illogical then you have won. otherwise I said you made a logical assertion.
Well yes and no. There is something called a Photon Sphere
That backs up my assertion. Basically It says there is a point in a black hole where photons travel in orbits (one and a half times the swartzchild radius) because they are too far to fly inward yet too close to completely escape.
So it stands to reason that if we hit this point with a photon of our own at a couple tangent intersections we can elongate the orbit of our photon and gather information extremely close to a black hole.
So YOUR assertion (sorry, example) was illogical?
And again... wrong.
Any light "in" a BH will be so diffused - and mixed up with all the other light that's gone in since -as to provide zero discernible information.
Light [and black holes] didn't exist at the very start.
Beaconator
Valued Senior Member
The light is in orbit not "in" a black hole.
And now you're having to resort to quibbling.
Do you think that any light in the photon sphere would be less coherent or diffused?
To any useful degree?
If it's been "collecting light" since sometime AFTER (a point you persist in ignoring) the BB how would you distinguish and separate the information (if it truly is available) that you actually want?