Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[Wandering Monk]

Cosmology presumes the existence of the singularity, an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

God is, at the start, defined as non-material which means he is not even potentially falsifiable.

The singularity is a hypothesis based on observation, data, and mathematics and is potentially falsifiable given the right tools.

 

[Audie]

Cosmology presumes the existence of the singularity, an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Come now. First, you could just admit that "god' is
unfalsifiable rather than doing a yeahbutwhatabout.

Then you could note that cosmology involves a whole
lot more than BB, and hardly is entirely dependent on BB.

Also, just how do you know BB is unfalsifiable?

 

[PruePhillip]

Could you give us an example of creation science?

1 - God created the heavens
2 - and then God created the earth (an oceanic cloud planet)
3 - and God opened the skies to sunshine
4 - and God caused the continents to rise above the waves
5 - and God commanded the earth (technically fresh water) to create life
6 - and God commanded the seas to bring forth life
7 - finally, God made man.

 

[shmogie]

Come now. First, you could just admit that "god' is
unfalsifiable rather than doing a yeahbutwhatabout.

Then you could note that cosmology involves a whole
lot more than BB, and hardly is entirely dependent on BB.

Also, just how do you know BB is unfalsifiable?

It is so obvious that God is not falsifiable that I didn´t think I had to say so.

The theory of the creation of the universe held by the overwhelming majority of cosmologists is the BB.

The BB is falsifiable. Anything before the BB is not. Therefore the alleged singularity, a point of infinite density that allegedly exploded as the BB is just a story, an idea.

In retrograde mathematics can explain up to about one Planck time what went on.

After that, all rules of physics break down, There is no way to ¨see΅ the bang itself or what existed before it.

The singularity is unfalsifiable.

 

[Audie]

It is so obvious that God is not falsifiable that I didn´t think I had to say so.

The theory of the creation of the universe held by the overwhelming majority of cosmologists is the BB.

The BB is falsifiable. Anything before the BB is not. Therefore the alleged singularity, a point of infinite density that allegedly exploded as the BB is just a story, an idea.

In retrograde mathematics can explain up to about one Planck time what went on.

After that, all rules of physics break down, There is no way to ¨see΅ the bang itself or what existed before it.

The singularity is unfalsifiable.

Just saying that BB is not essential to cosmology.
And you agree, so, we is cool on that.

I think ye singularity is more than "just" an idea.

We are neither of us experts, I guess I could
investigate this, but to me it seems possible
that if math got us to the concept of "singularity"
is is a lot more than a story; and, that if math
got is there, it might also disprove it.

Anyway, we are both out of our depth. Here
is my first search result-
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_Popperian_falsifiability_be_applied_to_cosmology_science

 

[Wandering Monk]

It is so obvious that God is not falsifiable that I didn´t think I had to say so.

The theory of the creation of the universe held by the overwhelming majority of cosmologists is the BB.

The BB is falsifiable. Anything before the BB is not. Therefore the alleged singularity, a point of infinite density that allegedly exploded as the BB is just a story, an idea.

In retrograde mathematics can explain up to about one Planck time what went on.

After that, all rules of physics break down, There is no way to ¨see΅ the bang itself or what existed before it.

The singularity is unfalsifiable.

That is the point where mathematics takes over. M-Theory.

 

[shmogie]

That is the point where mathematics takes over. M-Theory.

Nope. Mathematics cannot apply if nothing is contained within the laws that define mathematics.

This is the point where the laws of the universe have not yet been created.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Nope. Mathematics cannot apply if nothing is contained within the laws that define mathematics.

This is the point where the laws of the universe have not yet been created.

Potentially falsifiable.

Stephen Hawking's Final Theory About Our Universe Has Just Been Published, And It Will Melt Your Brain

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I disagree. The principles of science can be applied in some circumstances to identify Gods actions in creation

There is a cascade of scientifically identified events in the creation of the universe that make it perfectly suited for life.

The statisticians and mathematicians say that the odds of this occurring naturally are astronomically against that universe. All scientific.

Religion and deities, including God are unfalsifiable and cannot be used to explain anything, since they cannot be shown to exist.

The principles of science are applied to God's creations, but this application, called science, has nothing to say and cannot say whether God or any god exists or does not exist or has an influence on physical reality.

You simply do not understand the statistics and how they are being manipulated to provide that false claim that life is against the odds unless there is an intelligent agent involved.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Religion and deities, including God are unfalsifiable and cannot be used to explain anything, since they cannot be shown to exist.

The principles of science are applied to God's creations, but this application, called science, has nothing to say and cannot say whether God or any god exists or does not exist or has an influence on physical reality.

You simply do not understand the statistics and how they are being manipulated to provide that false claim that life is against the odds unless there is an intelligent agent involved.

It could be said that, given the laws of physics and chemistry in the universe, life was inevitable.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It could be said that, given the laws of physics and chemistry in the universe, life was inevitable.

People have said that, but I do not know if it is true.

 

[Wandering Monk]

People have said that, but I do not know if it is true.

Given the extremes at which life has been found here on earth, I suspect it will be found elsewhere also.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Given the extremes at which life has been found here on earth, I suspect it will be found elsewhere also.

It is certainly possible and there is no reason to think it is unique to this planet.

 

[We Never Know]

Also, there is no 'outer edge' to the universe in the Big Bang model.

What is it known by, the leading edge or does it even have a name?

 

[Shad]

What is it known by, the leading edge or does it even have a name?

It is just called a boundary for layman. The term has no real meaning in astrophysics as the universe contains everything by defination thus there is no edge of reality. More so we can only observe 5% of the universe so we have no evidence for or against.

Hawking put forward the universe is like a sphere. You can move in any direction without hitting an edge or boundary. You could eventually come back to your starting position provided you are moving fast enough. Toss in expansion of the universe this sphere is growing larger and larger.

 

[Milton Platt]

Young earth creationists believe that the earth is between 6000 and 12,000 year old typically, but we can observe the light from stars that are more than 6000 to 12,000 light years away. That means these stars existed before God created the universe.

One YEC attempt at resolving this issue is to suggest that the speed of light was dramatically faster in the past than it is today. There is a problem with this though as I posted in another thread:

If the speed of light was significantly higher in the past than today, there would have been a corresponding increase in energy released by matter (E=M*C squared.) All stars require the reaction of matter in order for there to be the fusion that makes them work. If the universe was as young as they suggest and we apply Einstein's equation to our sun, then 6000 years ago our sun would have put out about 800 billion times the energy it does today. Too toasty for life.

It’s magic.......

 

[Dell]

Young earth creationists believe that the earth is between 6000 and 12,000 year old typically, but we can observe the light from stars that are more than 6000 to 12,000 light years away. That means these stars existed before God created the universe.

One YEC attempt at resolving this issue is to suggest that the speed of light was dramatically faster in the past than it is today. There is a problem with this though as I posted in another thread:

If the speed of light was significantly higher in the past than today, there would have been a corresponding increase in energy released by matter (E=M*C squared.) All stars require the reaction of matter in order for there to be the fusion that makes them work. If the universe was as young as they suggest and we apply Einstein's equation to our sun, then 6000 years ago our sun would have put out about 800 billion times the energy it does today. Too toasty for life.

YEC have an arrogant self inflicted ignorance due their faith that the Bible is the Word of God and infallible. A world of miracles an fantasy where physics have no boundaries, ultimately the biggest virtual reality game ever.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1 - God created the heavens
2 - and then God created the earth (an oceanic cloud planet)
3 - and God opened the skies to sunshine
4 - and God caused the continents to rise above the waves
5 - and God commanded the earth (technically fresh water) to create life
6 - and God commanded the seas to bring forth life
7 - finally, God made man.

I see. "Creation science" is synonymous with "fairy tales".

Real science is falsifiable. If one cannot think of a reasonable test that could possible refute one's claims then what one has is not science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why do YEC's think that time dilation would help them? The Earth is 4.55 billion years old. If we experience time dilation then the age of the Earth would be even greater in another frame of reference. It would never be less. Time dilation would make the universe even older.

 

[PruePhillip]

I see. "Creation science" is synonymous with "fairy tales".

Real science is falsifiable. If one cannot think of a reasonable test that could possible refute one's claims then what one has is not science.

Well okay. Was the early earth dark and oceanic?
NASA looks at Saturn's moon Titan as an "early Earth analogue"
as it has seas, cloud cover and pre-biotic chemistry - just like
the early Earth.
Did life come from the land or the oceans? Science is now
convinced it came from fresh water.