Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[shmogie]

Read the article

"So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe."

Your point being what? The issue is the singularity, or not. It is not whether the singularity existed prior and separate from the universe, or whether the singularity is the universe.

 

[Polymath257]

How means causality, but if the singularity is unknown, and the physical laws of the universe break down, how do you know that causality requires time ? Not knowing what conditions or laws that apply, one cannot state anything as factual. Deductions based on logic are only logical based upon how we know things work, without that knowledge, logic is powerless.

Because causality, in general, requires time. To the extent that causality even exists at the quantum level, it happens in the forward time cone.

 

[Shad]

Your point being what? The issue is the singularity, or not. It is not whether the singularity existed prior and separate from the universe, or whether the singularity is the universe.

You are cherry picking then only taking part you agree with not the rest.

 

[dad]

No, actually, it does not. It proposes using General Relativity and thermodynamics to model the development of the universe. It finds, using those laws, that the universe is expanding and was once hot and dense enough to cause nuclear fusion.

So let' say the universe was created more or less as we know it. Let's say that what we see as expansion started at creation (of the universe already as is). So we would have had a already existing universe that was expanding. Not a universe 'created' by expansion. How would science tell?


By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of a singularity. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.

 

[ecco]

So let' say the universe was created more or less as we know it. Let's say that what we see as expansion started at creation (of the universe already as is). So we would have had a already existing universe that was expanding. Not a universe 'created' by expansion. How would science tell?

We couldn't. That is why Last Thursdayism is just as valid as Genesis

By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of a singularity. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.

1510 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of germs. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1710 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of other galaxies. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1810 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of atoms. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1940 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of quarks. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.

 

[Darkforbid]

We couldn't. That is why Last Thursdayism is just as valid as Genesis




1510 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of germs. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1710 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of other galaxies. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1810 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of atoms. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1940 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of quarks. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.

In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability.

Singularity (mathematics) - Wikipedia

Oh, and other galaxies confirmed in 1926 less than a hundred years ago

 

[dad]

We couldn't.

I see. So you admit not knowing where to stop or start. OK.

1510 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of germs. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1710 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of other galaxies. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1810 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of atoms. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.
1940 AD By the way it is funny seeing all this talk of quarks. Anyone have one? Seen one? Visited one? No.

I assume you were trying to lead up to some point....get to it.

 

[Polymath257]

So let' say the universe was created more or less as we know it. Let's say that what we see as expansion started at creation (of the universe already as is). So we would have had a already existing universe that was expanding. Not a universe 'created' by expansion. How would science tell?

So, Last Thursdayism? I don't take that position seriously at all.

 

[Polymath257]

In mathematics, a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined, or a point of an exceptional set where it fails to be well-behaved in some particular way, such as differentiability.

Singularity (mathematics) - Wikipedia

Oh, and other galaxies confirmed in 1926 less than a hundred years ago

Exactly. Which means we see singularities all the time: they happen whenever our mathematical models go wrong or when we divide by zero.

So, for example, there is a quantity that relates how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of something by a degree. But, when ice is melting or water is boiling, the energy you put in doesn't go into raising the temperature, but instead into melting the ice or boiling the water. So the quantity E/T has a zero on the bottom (no temperature change) and something non-zero on top (energy in).

In other words, melting and boiling can be regarded as singularities in the specific heat of something.

 

[dad]

So, Last Thursdayism? I don't take that position seriously at all.

The issue is not whether you take creation seriously. The issue is whether your observations could tell you. You admitted you would not know either way.

Much ado about nothing then.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The issue is not whether you take creation seriously. The issue is whether your observations could tell you. You admitted you would not know either way.

Much ado about nothing then.

No, you do not seem to understand. Neither atheists nor theists seem to take your claim that God lied seriously.

 

[Darkforbid]

Exactly. Which means we see singularities all the time: they happen whenever our mathematical models go wrong or when we divide by zero.

So, for example, there is a quantity that relates how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of something by a degree. But, when ice is melting or water is boiling, the energy you put in doesn't go into raising the temperature, but instead into melting the ice or boiling the water. So the quantity E/T has a zero on the bottom (no temperature change) and something non-zero on top (energy in).

In other words, melting and boiling can be regarded as singularities in the specific heat of something.

Yep, but it's only ever used for fundamental singularity, n expressions of concentration these days

 

[Polymath257]

The issue is not whether you take creation seriously. The issue is whether your observations could tell you. You admitted you would not know either way.

Much ado about nothing then.

No, I don't take *any* viewpoint seriously that relies on the Omphalos argument. It is, in and of itself, a reductio ad absurdum.

Observations alone are not the only criterion for a position. It is also important to take the observations seriously and to require prediction and testability.

The problem with the Omphalos position is that it remove predictability based on observations. So, If I use the laws of physics that I derive here and now, I can apply them other places and other times. That greatly simplifies modeling and testability of the position. To invoke Last Thursdayism simply removes all that testability.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I don't take *any* viewpoint seriously that relies on the Omphalos argument. It is, in and of itself, a reductio ad absurdum.

Observations alone are not the only criterion for a position. It is also important to take the observations seriously and to require prediction and testability.

The problem with the Omphalos position is that it remove predictability based on observations. So, If I use the laws of physics that I derive here and now, I can apply them other places and other times. That greatly simplifies modeling and testability of the position. To invoke Last Thursdayism simply removes all that testability.

There are also huge theological problems with Last Thursdayism as well. It proposes a lying God that planted false evidence. If one cannot trust God when it comes to physical evidence then how can one trust God when it comes to an afterlife?

 

[Polymath257]

There are also huge theological problems with Last Thursdayism as well. It proposes a lying God that planted false evidence. If one cannot trust God when it comes to physical evidence then how can one trust God when it comes to an afterlife?

Yes.

Consider a light that carries information about a supernova. That light would have been created *en route*, complete with information about a 'star' that never existed (spectral type, information about composition, etc) and then a huge increase in intensity (which we would interpret as a supernova) and a decay following the radioactive decay curves *but* that star would have never existed at all! All that light giving information about composition was a complete and utter falsehood. The supernova was a falsehood. The star never existed, only the remaining nebula!

I'm sorry, this is simply not a proposition that I can take seriously. The information encoded in the light is too perfectly interpreted as a star going through an explosion. the *only* reasonable position is that there really was star there millions of years ago (oh, did I mention it was that far away but only the light signal from the last 10,000 years actually existed---light that was never even close to where the star 'was') and that, therefore, the universe is at least that old.

And, to top it off, we have supernovas that are far enough away that we 'interpret' them as being 10 billion light years away. But under this scenario, they never actually existed.

 

[shunyadragon]

Would not the rate of expansion of the universe effect time dilation as well ? At the BB the expansion was incredibly fast at the point of the BB, doubling, tripling etc. in Planck time increments. Would this not effect time measurement from the outer edge of the universe back to itś beginning point , or virtually anywhere else ? What took ten seconds then, could be measured now as a million years, correct ?

According to contemporary physics of the early history of our universe No. Beyond the first seconds of expansion the later expansion of the universe is falsified and demonstrated as greater than 13 billion years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to contemporary physics of the early history of our universe No. Beyond the first seconds of expansion the later expansion of the universe is falsified and demonstrated as greater than 13 billion years.

He also has his time contraction backwards. Since our universe was part of that event the universe could be far older to an outside observer. It could not be any younger than what we see.

 

[shunyadragon]

He also has his time contraction backwards. Since our universe was part of that event the universe could be far older to an outside observer. It could not be any younger than what we see.

Bazzzaro!

 

[dad]

No, you do not seem to understand. Neither atheists nor theists seem to take your claim that God lied seriously.

Believers don't take your claims that the universe was not created seriously. Your opinion on the unknown is of limited import.

 

[dad]

If I use the laws of physics that I derive here and now, I can apply them other places and other times. That greatly simplifies modeling and testability of the position. To invoke Last Thursdayism simply removes all that testability.

In your mind you can apply them to other times. In your mind you can test that. I look for tests out here in the real world. Got any?