Quantum physics deals with how the universe behaves at very small scales – on the level of atoms and smaller. And it’s weird: very weird. Particles that are smaller than atoms do not behave in exactly the same way as the much larger objects to which we are accustomed. This makes quantum physics one of the most intriguing areas of research, and one which declares the glory and majesty of the Lord.
Previously, we examined some unusual claims made by Troy, who asserted that the days before the global flood were four to six hours shorter than days today. We found that Troy gave no biblical or quantitative scientific evidence to support his claim….
Today we will examine Troy’s claims that asteroid impacts and/or lunar recession have reduced earth’s rotation period by 4-6 hours per day since creation.
We here examine some assertions made by Troy, a young earth creationist who has made some very unorthodox claims about conditions before the Genesis flood. He believes that the length of a day was much shorter before the flood, only 18 to 20 hours per day, and that the flood somehow changed this. As errors go, this is a fairly mild one, and there is nothing heretical or theologically damaging about such a speculation. But the way in which Troy attempted to defend his conjectures involved serious errors in reasoning, in science, and in biblical interpretation.
We will here investigate common objections to the conventionality thesis[1] – the principle that the one-way speed of light cannot be measured but is instead stipulated.
We previously introduced this distant starlight issue and then examined potential solutions and their difficulties. We now move toward a solution to the issue. This solution is surprisingly straightforward, but will require some discussion of the nature of space and time as we now understand them. To that end, we will here investigate the concept of simultaneity and how this concept has developed over time.
Someone recently sent me an internet post of a critic who thinks he has disproved the ASC solution to the distant starlight issue. Peter offered thirteen propositions in an attempt to support his conclusion. Amazingly, not even one of them is correct. We will examine his errors here. Actually, if Peter had posed his claims as questions instead, they would have been good questions. So, hopefully my response here will help people get up to speed on this fascinating area of physics.