I'll give this a try.
quote:
Nice try but if you know the least little thing about physics then you will know that the instant of change from one frame to another would leave a telltale signature in the emissions from the star. We would have noticed this by now and guess what. We haven't.
Actually, you are wrong. The change does not apply when the spiritual element is removed! The only measurements we have are from this time. WE can't see the merged past, all we see is the physical only temporary universe. If a change happened in that, we could detect it, but that is not the case. The PO IS the change, and you cannot tell us about how the spiritual, or merged worked, and that some other type of change would be expected. Since it was not a PO universe change, but the PO is the change we were left with and it hasn't changed since what you say IN NO WAY APPLIES! It applies strictly in the fishbowl.
quote:
Light effectively changed speed in this scenario.
No, it was a DIFFERENT light. The light we see never changed speeds, it is what was left after the split. It was a light change not a speed change. It is a bit like the merged light was, say. 97% spiritual, and 3% physical. We were left with the 3% and it was in a new state, and new universe state at that. Like if an old computer got destroyed, even the hard drive. Yet, some experts go in, and save some of the information in there, transfer it to a disc, and store it. Years later, the disc is copied to a new computer hard drive, on board the space station. Then the information is beamed via sattelite to earth, where some make a macromedia presentation of it. Someone sees it, and decides to speak about it on the radio. The information is spoken, and travels over the radio waves. We could say it is the same information, but not the same form, or computer, etc. The split process was like this to the 1000th power, multiplied by ten trillion times a sextillion.
quote:
That makes for a pretty hefty dopler shift.
That light tells us very specific things about the physics of that star at the point of the creation of the light. If the light had come from a non physical "spiritual" version of a star then the signature would have absolutely no reason to conform to the known laws of physics today
It was explained it didn't come from a spiritual star. It had become physical in the process before the merged light and space in between there and here. This meant the picture was captured in a cosmic poloroid moment, and brought toward earth in the still merged light.
quote:
So the star was both physical and spiritual? Is that what you are saying? yet you seem to be claiming that light transmission was almost instantaneous in those days.
Merged matter is eternal, as we see in heaven. Jesus had a merged body after rising from the dead. Both physical and spiritual. God lives in the city that comes to earth with us, it is also both. The sun and stars in the future new heavens will also not be in decay, but last forever. If the creation was like this originally, then, yes, the star would be both physical and spiritual. -Merged. Light did get here almost right away, yes. Not our light, but the light in the merged universe, that was a spiritual light. After the split the stars were just matter, in the natural universe, decaying, and etc. Light was just what we have now, no change in it's speed. As pointed out, the still merged light must have reached earth, or got on it's way here, recording the now already seperated, physical only star.
quote:
No it didn't. All I can put this down to is an unfamiliarity with physics making him think it did. I'm sorry but physics just doesn't work that way.
Physics has nothing to do with it. That has to do only with the PO universe. Not the merged light that then got here fast.
quote:
I can and did back it up with science. Besides which this is a science forum and the bible is inadmissable as evidence here.
But some evidence is required if you call your claim science. You have to support the past is as the present, so far it is just assumptions it was. That is not admissible either, since it is just belief.
quote:
Anyway the bible doesn't even suggest such a strange theory so I don't even know where the idea was originated.
Of course it does. This universe is temporary. The bible says it will pass away and a new ones appear. They will not decay away, but last forever. You shouldn't make claims you can't back up.
quote:
Let's look at the scenario in a bit more detail.
Simple claims that light before the change was near instantaineous. note it could not have been fully instantaneous otherwise after the change there would be no light in transit so we would not see distant stars at all.
Right, Adam saw the far stars.
quote:
From this we can infer that at the moment of change, the space between us and a star contained light that had previously been generated by the star, spread (very thinly) across a great distance.
Why very thinly?
Because as you and Simple both admit, the physical conditions in the star were the same as they are now so we can very easily calculate the rate of generation of photons of light per second.
No, you can't! Because the picture was a merged light tranfered event. You know nothing about the former light. All you could do is theorize IF it was our light, and it originated way out there, then ...blah blah.. Not applicable, and again, just imagining what if it always were the same. Why was it the same is the question? Not concluding everything using the unfoundable premise it was and will be! See what I mean, that isn't real science at all.
quote:
If this were to change then the signature would change and as it hasn't then we know this is true.
Already explained. Our light never changed since IT came to be. It was the cahnge.
quote:
At the moment of change, light speed slows down so all the widely spaced photons continue their travel at a much slower speed. new photons generated in the star are now sent out into space much more densely (by the same mechanism as before and at the same rate of production as before. they are just moving slower)
No, light speed as we know it comes to exist. I don't think we can even say the former light had photons. can we? If so, how would oyu know? How about spiritons? Point is you do not know a thing about eternal light. Everything you say applies only to the light that was left in the PO universe, our light.
quote:
So what would we expect to see from this scenario? In other words what does your theory predict?
If you are right then the light from distant stars should be many many orders of magnitude dimmer than that from closer stars since we are seeing a very many fewer photons (regardless of their signiture). At a point where the light that was generated since the change, reaches us, the star should suddenly get a whole lot brighter as we get a much denser bunch of photons getting here.
Already covered. How the picture was carried by the former light you have no predictive power whatsoever.
quote:
The luminosity of incredibly distant stars can be predicted based on their emission signiture and the theory of relativity. When measured, the luminosity is a pretty darn close match for the predicted value.
Your thoery predicts otherwise so it is well and truly busted.
Hope you have the wherewithal to realize now it is you that is busted.
™ Version 4.2