Starlight, starbright....

[neo of the mind]

http://www.christiangeology.com/paradox_of_the_sun_and_stars.html
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/lttmetct.htm

Gap Theory has an interesting take on the problem of the stars. Please read the links, since the below will certainly not make any sense, without doing so and if anybody has any thoughts on the below.

1. The sun, being about 93 million miles away has light that reaches us in a little over 8 minutes. If the sun was destroyed and or the "light" turned off for a fraction of time, there would have been a gap in light for at least 8 minutes. Considering that nobody was around to see it, biblicaly speaking or otherwise, we don't know and will never observe this obviously.

2. The next closest stars are Alpha Centauri which is a little over 4 light years away, again nobody was here to view it.

3. So, the question is this, the article points out, there are stars that are roughly X amount of light years away that we will be able to observe when they were destroyed/ re-created or re-formed. This would roughly be the stars 12,000 light years away from us. http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/learning_center/discover_0798.html

Considering that I have a limited knowledge of stars, would there be a way to get something closer to the 12,000+- light year range stars to get a sneak peek of the event? Not certain if that makes sense, but I don't know of another way to put it.

[JoeR]

This isn't my area of expertise (hah, like I even have one), but are you asking basicly if we can watch stars be born?

[neo of the mind]

This isn't my area of expertise (hah, like I even have one), but are you asking basicly if we can watch stars be born?

hmm, not certain. Did you read the first link to get the premise of the theory?

I started thinking about it more and so far have not come up with a reason to think that when the event occurs, there would be no way for us to observe it until it happens.

I do think that Scientists have observed the "birth" of stars and have observed the death of stars. The question is, the stars that are roughly 12,000 light years away, if we make 12,000 years ago, for the sake of argument, the destruction of these stars, then there is a gap in time, before they were created or "re-activated", would we be able to observe it. The first link says we would and whether it would be very distinctive, like the article states or simply be immediately no light, IS there a way to observe this via a probe or something prior to it being observed on earth. I now tend to think we would not, in that due to the fact that if we had "signal" or something that went the speed of light to inform us, at best we would be "informed" exactly when it would be observable to us.

Sorry for the bad sentence structure.

Edit: hmmm, now I am thinking about the stars that are closer, ie. The 10,000 light year range...5,000...etc. We would have been able to observe the effects of the event on these stars? I don't know. :o Anyway, thought it was interesting to think about.

[JoeR]

Hey, you were right. It didn't make sense without reading the links.

Actually I still didn't get what you are asking at the end until you mentioned the probes.

I'm not sure if we have anything that would do that.

[steveksux]

You figured it out pretty much by the end. To recap:

If there was a gap where the stars disappeared 6000-12000 years ago, you would see stars that many light years ago disappearing now. And the light from more distant starts would disappear as their light reaches us. Essentialy there'd be a dark skin 6000 light years thick of a sphere expanding as time went by. We don't see this, so it didn't happen.

You're also correct in assuming there's no way to get a "sneak preview" of the event with a probe, there's no getting around the speed of light as the fastest a signal can travel, whether to us or to a probe, then to us. If we could put a probe 3000 light years closer to the thing we're measuring, the probe WOULD see it 3000 years before we do. But the signal from it would then take 3000 years to reach us, so we'd get the probe signal the same time we see the phenomenon ourselves.

That first link is really mangling the idea of an event horizon also, doesnt' seem very well grounded in science.

Randy

[neo of the mind]

steveksux -thanks for concurring, with my highly scientific ad hock assumption. :o

That being said, I am going to think about it more. I know you are not putting much stock in that first links website info, but I want to give the authors the benefit of the doubt in regards to the star issue. Most people don't highlight the ****** in the armor of opposing theories and then publish a "better" solution of the problem without thinking about it for a period of time.

I am going to assume, considering that I don't have a lot of knowledge on nor have studied the subject much, that the author has and I may have missed something. So, if I come up with anything new, I'll post it.

JoeR - yeah, I wasn't too concise on what my question was. I had the thought in my mind but didn't know how to pose the question without having to essentially post an essay.

[neo of the mind]

hmm. Just thought of a way for it to be correct. I made the assumption that all of the stars were "snuffed" out at the same time. What if the event occured more as a type of "shockwave" then, ie. The stars 12,000 light years away from earth, for example were affected before the stars 11,000 light years, 10,0000, 9,000 out and so forth until you get to the closet star 4 light years away.

If that was the case, we would not observe the affect on stars closer to earth, we would observe the "shock wave" affect on all the stars at one time.
Another way of putting it, the stars 11,000 light years away were affected 1,000 light years after the 12,000 light year stars..and so on. The "last" light or affected light emitted by the 12,000 light years out stars would catch up to the 11,000 light year away star's light....like a relay race.

Our Sun being a seperate issue.

what do you think?

[burntgorilla]

Seems logical to me, but then I'm no astrophysicist. Don't forget though, that stars aren't more than 6,000 years old.

[Democritus]

hmm. Just thought of a way for it to be correct. I made the assumption that all of the stars were "snuffed" out at the same time. What if the event occured more as a type of "shockwave" then, ie. The stars 12,000 light years away from earth, for example were affected before the stars 11,000 light years, 10,0000, 9,000 out and so forth until you get to the closet star 4 light years away.

If that was the case, we would not observe the affect on stars closer to earth, we would observe the "shock wave" affect on all the stars at one time.
Another way of putting it, the stars 11,000 light years away were affected 1,000 light years after the 12,000 light year stars..and so on. The "last" light or affected light emitted by the 12,000 light years out stars would catch up to the 11,000 light year away star's light....like a relay race.

Our Sun being a seperate issue.

what do you think?

I think you're actually looking for "implosion" a shockwave generally radiates outward. But, hypothetically, had God darkened the stars in a collapsing sphere (technically not a sphere but I'm too hung over to think about the 3 Dimensional geometry that a sphere centered ona rotating, revolving planet in a revolving solar system in a moving galaxy... the variables make my brain hurt).

Anyway, hypothetically, if he had done the collapsing sphere thing, the stars would all darken simultaneously. I actually liked your second source better, it sums up my views nicely in the last sentence:

"In harmonizing the revelation God has provided us in his Word, the Bible, and in his world, the universe, it seems to me that it is much preferable to spend our efforts on models that do not require us to believe that God has given us fictitious history - either in Scripture or in nature."

[FlyingGuineapig]

Well, if nothing else, claiming the earth was wiped clean and renewed 12,000-6,000 years ago makes a lot more sense than a creation at 6,000 years. You don't have to deny the speed of light, radioactive decay, fossil records, etc. And given that recorded human history only goes back about 4,000 years - that time period is relatively uncluttered with inconvientent facts. But I still haven't seen much conclusive evidence to support a "wiping clean" occurring 12,000 years ago.

[burntgorilla]

It also implies that all the animals on earth were created 6,000 years ago, since they presumably wouldn't have survived the "wiping clean".

[FlyingGuineapig]

Well, and you'd expect to find a LOT of dead stuff dated around 12,000 (or 10,000 years ago). Unless there was kind of a reverse rapture, where everything just disintegrated - if you've got floods, earthquakes, volcanos, etc all going off, you should be able to find a lot of remains all dated at the same time period.

They've also got the problem that there's at least a few archeological finds from 8,500 years ago (Kennewick Man) and 9,000 years (Cheddar Gorge man), when everyone is supposed to have been dead at least 1000 years prior to that. And DNA from those folks showing up in modern humans.

Still, it's a better start than most Creationism revisionism.

[neo of the mind]

Democritus,

"Anyway, hypothetically, if he had done the collapsing sphere thing, the stars would all darken simultaneously."

How's that? Granted my example is not refined but I did say that the "affect" on th stars is traveling the speed of light as well, so if the affect is going from a unspecified source and heading towards earth, from our perspective, at the speed of light, it didn't affect all the stars simultaneously.

I'll come up with a clearer way of explaining it and/or create a 3D model of the affect, "if possible" to show it. I say, "if possible", because I have not concluded that the "it" would be a spherical effect going out...3D space and all or if it's more lineal.

[Democritus]

Democritus,

"Anyway, hypothetically, if he had done the collapsing sphere thing, the stars would all darken simultaneously."

How's that? Granted my example is not refined but I did say that the "affect" on th stars is traveling the speed of light as well, so if the affect is going from a unspecified source and heading towards earth, from our perspective, at the speed of light, it didn't affect all the stars simultaneously.

I'll come up with a clearer way of explaining it and/or create a 3D model of the affect, "if possible" to show it. I say, "if possible", because I have not concluded that the "it" would be a spherical effect going out...3D space and all or if it's more lineal.

Sorry, I think I was actually being the one unclear there. It's not that they'd all darken simultaneously, but they'd all appear to darken simultaneously to an observer on Earth.

[neo of the mind]

Sorry, I think I was actually being the one unclear there. It's not that they'd all darken simultaneously, but they'd all appear to darken simultaneously to an observer on Earth.


Oh, sorry, exactly, I think we are on the same page. I did email the author of the webpage and brought this up to him for his feedback. I'll post his reply if he doesn't mind and if I get one.

[brainpan]

The theory is unnecessarily complicated. If you're going to work backwards starting with the assumption of literal Bible is true, then why not just say God created everything at once with a lot of creation made to appear old to test people's faith?

[neo of the mind]

The theory is unnecessarily complicated. If you're going to work backwards starting with the assumption of literal Bible is true, then why not just say God created everything at once with a lot of creation made to appear old to test people's faith?

First, I don't think I am promoting the literal interpretation of the Bible. There are plenty of places in the Bile that are not literal and there are places in the Bible that context and scope needs to be understood. I believe God's intention was to give information to people but you actually have to think about what is written and view it against everything outside of the text. In other words, you still have to think, the Bible doesn't do that for you.

Second, The description of God, his words, directions and actions do not show that he is a liar or would have to lie. He states in the Bible that the world around us is proof of his existence, so therefore the world is real and not a parlor trick. You don't convince people that you are telling the truth by holding up a lie as evidence.

[Madrigalian]

Science has already moved far beyond these types of theories, unfortunately for the church. The Big Bang has given way to the question; "Yes... but before that..?" The "string" theory, or the "M" theory, (Membrane) 11 planes of existence, or even perhaps an infinite multi-verse that we can theoretically re-create, or initiate in a lab and theories of the like are now quickly becoming widely acknowledged in the scientific community.

We are quickly moving scientifically and evidentially beyond what any of the Abrahamic religions can cope with conceptually.

Something I personally find amusing however, is that long before I ever heard the term "string theory" discussed scientifically, I had already studied much on what is essentially the same "sting theory" written at length about by many various "mystic" belief systems. :) heh Who'd a thunk?

[brainpan]

We are quickly moving scientifically and evidentially beyond what any of the Abrahamic religions can cope with conceptually.Maybe, but the apologists will simply reinterpret and retrofit their scriptures to meet any new discovery.

[brainpan]

In other words, you still have to think, the Bible doesn't do that for you.Yes Pastor neo. :rolleyes:
Second, The description of God, his words, directions and actions do not show that he is a liar or would have to lie.The great thing about dualism is you can always have the anti-god, Satan in this instance, fulfill the role of trickster. So lets just replace the three-headed Yahweh/Christ/Ghost with Satan and my challenge still stands.

[Simba]

http://www.christiangeology.com/paradox_of_the_sun_and_stars.html
http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/lttmetct.htm

Gap Theory has an interesting take on the problem of the stars. Please read the links, since the below will certainly not make any sense, without doing so and if anybody has any thoughts on the below.

1. The sun, being about 93 million miles away has light that reaches us in a little over 8 minutes. If the sun was destroyed and or the "light" turned off for a fraction of time, there would have been a gap in light for at least 8 minutes. Considering that nobody was around to see it, biblicaly speaking or otherwise, we don't know and will never observe this obviously.

2. The next closest stars are Alpha Centauri which is a little over 4 light years away, again nobody was here to view it.

3. So, the question is this, the article points out, there are stars that are roughly X amount of light years away that we will be able to observe when they were destroyed/ re-created or re-formed. This would roughly be the stars 12,000 light years away from us. http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/xte/learning_center/discover_0798.html

Considering that I have a limited knowledge of stars, would there be a way to get something closer to the 12,000+- light year range stars to get a sneak peek of the event? Not certain if that makes sense, but I don't know of another way to put it.

Yeah, there is a way to get a sneak peak of the event. But this late at night, and after a few gin and tonics, I don't feel in the frame of mind to go into that. Maybe next time I get on, in a month or two.

[steveksux]

Yes Pastor neo. :rolleyes:
The great thing about dualism is you can always have the anti-god, Satan in this instance, fulfill the role of trickster. So lets just replace the three-headed Yahweh/Christ/Ghost with Satan and my challenge still stands.Wow, you've just made an Einsteinian leap. Just like Einstein proved that the universe with 3 dimensions of space and one of time was in actuality 4 dimensional space-time. You've combined the Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Ghost) and Satan to create a 4 way supernatural entity...! !

Brilliant!

Randy

[brainpan]

Yes, a brilliant blinding light of pure enlightenment. Just remember you heard it here first! :lol:

[neo of the mind]

"Science has already moved far beyond these types of theories, unfortunately for the church. The Big Bang has given way to the question; "Yes... but before that..?"

Yeah, that's great and all, but my topic is after the "Big Bang"...if you read the link and go back and actully read what I posted, you would figure that out.

"We are quickly moving scientifically and evidentially beyond what any of the Abrahamic religions can cope with conceptually."

Pause for a moment while I laugh.



"Maybe, but the apologists will simply reinterpret and retrofit their scriptures to meet any new discovery."

"The great thing about dualism is you can always have the anti-god, Satan in this instance, fulfill the role of trickster. So lets just replace the three-headed Yahweh/Christ/Ghost with Satan and my challenge still stands."

"Wow, you've just made an Einsteinian leap. Just like Einstein proved that the universe with 3 dimensions of space and one of time was in actuality 4 dimensional space-time. You've combined the Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Ghost) and Satan to create a 4 way supernatural entity...! !"

"Yes, a brilliant blinding light of pure enlightenment. Just remember you heard it here first!"

Actually, what tends to happen, see above, is that evolutionists, will simply discount what an apologist says if it gets to close to what may be the truth, which doesn't contradict the Bible or science and discuss anything else but the topic.



"Yeah, there is a way to get a sneak peak of the event. But this late at night, and after a few gin and tonics, I don't feel in the frame of mind to go into that. Maybe next time I get on, in a month or two." -Simba

I'll wait for your input.

[brainpan]

Actually, what tends to happen, see above, is that evolutionists, will simply discount what an apologist says if it gets to close to what may be the truth, which doesn't contradict the Bible or science and discuss anything else but the topic.Post junk science nonsense, you'll be mocked. It's simple as that. :sorry:

[heel31ok]

Post junk science nonsense, you'll be mocked. It's simple as that. :sorry:
Yes mocking, the final authority and determiner of truth. :lol:
Paw, he's a mawkin me! :D

[Dangerrmouse]

Yes mocking, the final authority and determiner of truth. :lol:
Paw, he's a mawkin me! :D

How ironic. Another example of your net contribution to the debate.