Universal Laws of Heavenly Bodies

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#61
Speed of light = 186,282 miles per second
Time a form of describing a distance between today and tomorrow or passage of time which is only relevant in this plane of etherial existence anyway I.E. 1 day = 1 revolution of the planet on its axis 1 year = how long it takes for the earth to orbit the Sun
The day is divided into 24 equal parts each = 1 hour and so on
Since we have calculated the speed of light and because we can observe Solar flares through telescopes etc. and can corroberate our observations with unmanned craft sent towards the sun in recent years we can ascertain an exact distance within 4 parts per billion of accuracy by calculating the moment of the flare and how long it takes for the disturbance of that flare to reach the earth from the sun
The mean distance of our planet from our sun if we use miles instead of kilometers is 92,955,807.3 miles
divide that sum by the time it takes for a beam of light to come from the sun to earth (Aprrox. 8 minutes) and you get the above stated figure of the speed of light.
Knowing this you can calculate the distance of any cellestial body with the very same formula
LOLZ!

Solar flares? Corroboration with unmanned spacecraft?

Sorry but I completely reject your methods for measuring the distance of the sun.

And speed of light is dodgy too.

you will have to do better.
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#62
I've been thinking about this for a couple weeks now and haven't been able to figure out either way, how to definitely know for sure which view is correct. In either view you must make assumptions. In either view your measurements are relative to your assumptions. If you assume nothing, or neither view, what do you measure? What can you measure? How can you measure momentum or velocity of something when you are accelerating at the same speed as the object you are trying to measure? It would appear motionless. It looks like you have to assume something is motionless in order to measure how fast the things are moving around it. Or "relatively" motionless in comparison with what you think is moving.

Do you see what I'm saying? We can measure acceleration. But velocity can only be measured by assuming what you are measuring from is not moving. (relative to what is being measured)

So my view is... It'll be one of the questions I ask God when I see Him if He lets me ask questions. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if God made foolish the wisdom of people and the Earth doesn't move at all.
I know what you mean Gramps.

At the moment I'm gonna go with observation and senses.

I observe everything revolving around the Earth. I feel the Earth is still. The bible also seems to teach a stationary Earth.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
#63
Well scientists say the speed of light is constant. I was wondering, if they were truly measuring it, how come it is not appearing slightly faster when Earth is travelling towards it and slightly slower when Earth is travelling away from it. You know, if Earth is moving around.

I suppose the sun is a fixed distance from the Earth so they probably did some sort of calculation from that and then assumed the light from everything travels that same speed?
Good question Grandpa!
For the most part the speed of light is a constant but it can be altered with gravity if the gravitational force is strong enough I.E. black holes etc.
Distance measurement
Radar systems measure the distance to a target by the time it takes a radio-wave pulse to return to the radar antenna after being reflected by the target: the distance to the target is half the round-trip transit time multiplied by the speed of light. A Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver measures its distance to GPS satellites based on how long it takes for a radio signal to arrive from each satellite, and from these distances calculates the receiver's position. Because light travels about 300,000 kilometres (186,000 miles) in one second, these measurements of small fractions of a second must be very precise. The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, radar astronomy and the Deep Space Network determine distances to the Moon,[73] planets[74] and spacecraft,[75] respectively, by measuring round-trip transit times
Astronomy

The finite speed of light is important in astronomy. Due to the vast distances involved, it can take a very long time for light to travel from its source to Earth. For example, it has taken 13 billion (13×109) years for light to travel to Earth from the faraway galaxies viewed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images.[76][77] Those photographs, taken today, capture images of the galaxies as they appeared 13 billion years ago, when the universe was less than a billion years old.[76] The fact that more distant objects appear to be younger, due to the finite speed of light, allows astronomers to infer the evolution of stars, of galaxies, and of the universe itself.
Astronomical distances are sometimes expressed in light-years, especially in popular science publications and media.[78] A light-year is the distance light travels in one year, around 9461 billion kilometres, 5879 billion miles, or 0.3066 parsecs. Proxima Centauri, the closest star to Earth after the Sun, is around 4.2 light-years away.[79]
Measurement

There are different ways to determine the value of c. One way is to measure the actual speed at which light waves propagate, which can be done in various astronomical and earth-based setups. However, it is also possible to determine c from other physical laws where it appears, for example, by determining the values of the electromagnetic constants ε0 and μ0 and using their relation to c. Historically, the most accurate results have been obtained by separately determining the frequency and wavelength of a light beam, with their product equaling c.
In 1983 the metre was defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299,792,458 of a second",[80] fixing the value of the speed of light at 299,792,458 m/s by definition, as described below. Consequently, accurate measurements of the speed of light yield an accurate realization of the metre rather than an accurate value of c.
Astronomical measurements

Outer space is a natural setting for measuring the speed of light because of its large scale and nearly perfect vacuum. Typically, one measures the time needed for light to traverse some reference distance in the solar system, such as the radius of the Earth's orbit. Historically, such measurements could be made fairly accurately, compared to how accurately the length of the reference distance is known in Earth-based units. It is customary to express the results in astronomical units (AU) per day. An astronomical unit is approximately the average distance between the Earth and Sun; it is not based on the International System of Units.[Note 7] Because the AU determines an actual length, and is not based upon time-of-flight like the SI units, modern measurements of the speed of light in astronomical units per day can be compared with the defined value of c in the International System of Units.
Ole Christensen Rømer used an astronomical measurement to make the first quantitative estimate of the speed of light.[83][84] When measured from Earth, the periods of moons orbiting a distant planet are shorter when the Earth is approaching the planet than when the Earth is receding from it. The distance travelled by light from the planet (or its moon) to Earth is shorter when the Earth is at the point in its orbit that is closest to its planet than when the Earth is at the farthest point in its orbit, the difference in distance being the diameter of the Earth's orbit around the Sun. The observed change in the moon's orbital period is actually the difference in the time it takes light to traverse the shorter or longer distance. Rømer observed this effect for Jupiter's innermost moon Io and deduced that light takes 22 minutes to cross the diameter of the Earth's orbit.

Aberration of light: light from a distant source appears to be from a different location for a moving telescope due to the finite speed of light.


Another method is to use the aberration of light, discovered and explained by James Bradley in the 18th century.[85] This effect results from the vector addition of the velocity of light arriving from a distant source (such as a star) and the velocity of its observer (see diagram on the right). A moving observer thus sees the light coming from a slightly different direction and consequently sees the source at a position shifted from its original position. Since the direction of the Earth's velocity changes continuously as the Earth orbits the Sun, this effect causes the apparent position of stars to move around. From the angular difference in the position of stars (maximally 20.5 arcseconds)[86] it is possible to express the speed of light in terms of the Earth's velocity around the Sun, which with the known length of a year can be easily converted to the time needed to travel from the Sun to the Earth. In 1729, Bradley used this method to derive that light travelled 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the modern figure is 10,066 times faster) or, equivalently, that it would take light 8 minutes 12 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth.[85]
Nowadays, the "light time for unit distance"—the inverse of c, expressed in seconds per astronomical unit—is measured by comparing the time for radio signals to reach different spacecraft in the Solar System, with their position calculated from the gravitational effects of the Sun and various planets. By combining many such measurements, a best fit value for the light time per unit distance is obtained. As of 2009[update], the best estimate, as approved by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), is:[87][88]
light time for unit distance: 499.004783836(10) sc = 0.00200398880410(4) AU/s = 173.144632674(3) AU/day.The relative uncertainty in these measurements is 0.02 parts per billion (2×10−11), equivalent to the uncertainty in Earth-based measurements of length by interferometry.[89][Note 8] Since the metre is defined to be the length travelled by light in a certain time interval, the measurement of the light time for unit distance can also be interpreted as measuring the length of an AU in metres.
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#64
Yeah I know but sometimes our hearts are misguided in matters that we lack understanding in and we refuse to hear the truth, rather we would rely on something we can understand. Remember high school and calculus?
Couldn't figure out why basic math wasn't good enough back then but I do today.
When we were children we thought as children and drank milk.
Now as adults we drink wine and no longer rely on milk same goes for understanding of certain aspects of science which are hard to wrap our head around.
I still love him though regardless if we don't agree on everything and he has proven my beliefs wrong on other topics so I have to have patience and forgiveness on this one. I know God will open up his mind concerning this matter even if it takes a while.

He is still my brother in faith under God
Lolz. Maybe your drinkin' too much wine. I'll stick to smeat.

Give it time and open your mind Muskateer. You may be wrong on this one too.
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#65
I think I understand your position Grandpa and God bless you.
Much of any kind of problem solving has direct relation to ones perspective and if it were still 1918 I might even be persuaded to take up the Geocentric theory but with satellites and vast improvements in understanding in the field of astrophysics and Astronomy unrefuteable corroberation of certain theories is here.
It's not hyperbole either repeatable experiments to prove heliocenticity are everywhere today
and with the advent of the space age we can no longer stick our heads in the perverbial sand!
This in no way refutes any of the scriptures in fact it corroberates them. Unfortunately making those unbelievers believe is as hard today as it was 2000 years ago on the cross.
I for one believe it just brings more glory to God when you begin to understand the complexities of the universe and how infinitely great our creator truly is
For Jesus said in heaven there are many rooms if it were not so I would not have told you
The universe is immense and I personally believe this is what he was talking about.
I would like to start a thread on dimensions but if folks can't get past geocentricity then understanding multiple dimensions is out of the question.
Thanks for your post grandpa I always love your comments your wisdom of years shows very plainly in your words.
May God bless you always

Selah
You may start bringing forward all your experiments and satellites and unrefutable corroborations forward whenever your ready.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
#66
Lolz. Maybe your drinkin' too much wine. I'll stick to smeat.

Give it time and open your mind Muskateer. You may be wrong on this one too.
Sorry Doc. not on this one bud but you can try and refute it if you like.
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#67
But relativity allows us to choose. For the purposes of many scientific calculations, it is much easier to make calculations based on heliocentric view. The numbers work out more elegantly. For the 3 year old, who watches the sun rise and set, a geocentric view may be preferred.

Also, I'm kind of confused Grandpa. In the example provided for how scientists measure the speed of light, what do you think the assumptions are?


On another note, I'm just waiting for s-love to start claiming the world is flat. The Bible never seems to mention it being round. He could go grab a straight-edge and see how flat it is. Although he should be careful where to do this or he might think that the world actually folds in on itself, oh my!
The bible and real science teach a sperical earth.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
#68
I know what you mean Gramps.

At the moment I'm gonna go with observation and senses.

I observe everything revolving around the Earth. I feel the Earth is still. The bible also seems to teach a stationary Earth.
The bible and real science teach a sperical earth.
Sure they do ..............I thought it was flat .....oooooooooogggggggggggggg
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
#69
I've been looking on the internet for how astronomers calculate distances and it seems like they all assume at least one thing and then take that assumption and apply it to the rest of the solar system and universe.

I don't really understand exactly how they go about it but somehow they figure when Venus is tangential to the Earth and the sun that gives them a proportion for how much farther away the sun is from the earth than from Venus. They state Venus is 70% as far from the sun as Earth. And apparently some guy named Arius or something did the same thing except with the moon.

In geometry you have to know a distance before you use a sin or tangent. So someone is guessing at something it seems to me. Unless you really did run out there with your tape measure...

I don't know. I still say they assume too much.
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#70
You believe your five senses eh?
hmmm........well how do you believe in God Doc.? You can't see him if you can I am sending a str8 jacket to your place stat.
You can't smell him
You can't hear him if you do revert to you can't see him for next course of action
You can't taste him
You can't touch him therefore you can't truly feel him with any of your 5 senses
Before you go into a semantical or philosophical argument of what I said really ponder the preceding words.
Think about this you believe in a books teachings that have been written, amalgamated, translated through many languages,disassembled, reassembled,printed in various forms and you still argue vehemently with those of like faith over doctrine of said book that you personally cannot corroberate.
Yet you absolutely deny heliocentricism on the basis of your own eyes convictions!

Now really really think about my words they are not meant to dissuade any who read this away from faith in God, rather to open ones mind to rational thinking rather than blind faith in an ideology you cannot possibly corroberate with your 5 senses for you were not there at anytime when the bible was being written or its amalgamation or the reformation years when it was being translated yet again.Therefore you cannot truthfully corroberate any of it!
The bible is Gods Word.

Heliocentrism is the unscientific musings of sun worshippers and witches.

I can choose to believe in one and not the other quite easily thank you.

Feeling or believing in God is a spiritual matter.
Understanding the mechanics of the Universe is an earthly matter and never the twain shall meet in life!
The evidence I have put forth in supposition of my position is well founded and documented if you chose to deny it that's your bag man!
Gods book contains enough info to understand the mechanics of the universe. I'll go with Gods Word.

The earth revolves around the sun not the other way around and the only way to prove it to you is to take you personally into space. since I do not have the financial means to accomplish this we are left with 1 option and that is accept the empiracal data of the last 500 years of research that man has put forth through divine inspiration from God and research of the laws of the universe that he put in place.
Your understanding of the laws pertaining to universal mechanics is seriously flawed and needs to be corrected before you continue spewing false doctrine of the nature of the universe.
You dont have any empiical data. You have hypatheics.

In actual fact I have 4 experiments that prove the Earth is stationary.

Before I show them to you, tell me....is space made up of something or nothing?
 
A

AgeofKnowledge

Guest
#71
ROFL!!! What a troll this alt character is that rejects heliocentric theory for geocentrism... says the sun and planets revolve around the earth and the speed of light is off... haha.

People make up alternative characters and use them as trolls all the time. This is obviously one of them... lol. It's the only logical explanation. Isn't that right Desert Joe? HAHA!!!

I know what you mean Gramps.

At the moment I'm gonna go with observation and senses.

I observe everything revolving around the Earth. I feel the Earth is still. The bible also seems to teach a stationary Earth.
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
#72
I've been looking on the internet for how astronomers calculate distances and it seems like they all assume at least one thing and then take that assumption and apply it to the rest of the solar system and universe.

I don't really understand exactly how they go about it but somehow they figure when Venus is tangential to the Earth and the sun that gives them a proportion for how much farther away the sun is from the earth than from Venus. They state Venus is 70% as far from the sun as Earth. And apparently some guy named Arius or something did the same thing except with the moon.

In geometry you have to know a distance before you use a sin or tangent. So someone is guessing at something it seems to me. Unless you really did run out there with your tape measure...

I don't know. I still say they assume too much.
Grandpa they have more proven tests and repeatable exercises to prove the speed of light than I have hairs on my head if it weren't so I wouldn't have told you
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#73
Musky...are you cutting and pasting off wiki and trying to pass it off as your own work now?
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
#74
Heres one of them gramps.
Time of flight techniques

A method of measuring the speed of light is to measure the time needed for light to travel to a mirror at a known distance and back. This is the working principle behind the Fizeau–Foucault apparatus developed by Hippolyte Fizeau and Léon Foucault.

Diagram of the Fizeau apparatus


The setup as used by Fizeau consists of a beam of light directed at a mirror 8 kilometres (5 mi) away. On the way from the source to the mirror, the beam passes through a rotating cogwheel. At a certain rate of rotation, the beam passes through one gap on the way out and another on the way back, but at slightly higher or lower rates, the beam strikes a tooth and does not pass through the wheel. Knowing the distance between the wheel and the mirror, the number of teeth on the wheel, and the rate of rotation, the speed of light can be calculated.[90]
The method of Foucault replaces the cogwheel by a rotating mirror. Because the mirror keeps rotating while the light travels to the distant mirror and back, the light is reflected from the rotating mirror at a different angle on its way out than it is on its way back. From this difference in angle, the known speed of rotation and the distance to the distant mirror the speed of light may be calculated.[91]
Nowadays, using oscilloscopes with time resolutions of less than one nanosecond, the speed of light can be directly measured by timing the delay of a light pulse from a laser or an LED reflected from a mirror. This method is less precise (with errors of the order of 1%) than other modern techniques, but it is sometimes used as a laboratory experiment in college physics classes.[92][93][94
 
Aug 18, 2011
971
7
0
#76
I don't claim it as my own work either doc.
The bible isn't your work yet you cut and paste it every day!
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#77
So you multiply the speed of light with time of WHAT to get the distance of the sun?
 
Aug 12, 2010
2,819
12
0
#78
You did the same to prove your noahide laws and Talmud conspiracy theory doc.
I don't claim it as my own work either doc.
The bible isn't your work yet you cut and paste it every day!
I always credit my sources. I suggest you do to. Plagerism is not good.
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
#79
Grandpa they have more proven tests and repeatable exercises to prove the speed of light than I have hairs on my head if it weren't so I wouldn't have told you
Ok, I believe you. I was just wondering how they figured its a constant if everything is supposedly moving around. You know because they should get different results based on measuring if we are getting closer or farther away. I guess they can take an average?