Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

[Subduction Zone]

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

Why do you claim that believers are idiots?

 

[dad]

Why do you claim that believers are idiots?

One thing for sure, the beliefs on one side or the other are idiotic. Now all you have to do is show your claims are grounded in fact and science, and defend them.

Or, conversely you could pretend you already did somewhere, but can't quite point us to it! Ha. Then you could say the reason we can't find it is because 'we don't want to learn at your feet'.

Lurkers, be aware this poster is not a serious debater.

 

[Subduction Zone]

One thing for sure, the beliefs on one side or the other are idiotic. Now all you have to do is show your claims are grounded in fact and science, and defend them.

Or, conversely you could pretend you already did somewhere, but can't quite point us to it! Ha. Then you could say the reason we can't find it is because 'we don't want to learn at your feet'.

Lurkers, be aware this poster is not a serious debater.

That is true. And it appears that the person that runs away all of the time (dad) knows that his arguments are beyond pathetic. The lurkers that you appeal to recognize cowardice when they see it.

So dad, are you going to continue to support my claims that you are afraid to have a rational discussion of are you going to run away again? Lying does not help your case.

I am betting on option number "B".

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Tests for what? The light? Sure! The neutrinos? Sure! Gravitational waves? Sure!

 

[shmogie]

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.

I have no problem with dating the universe at 14 billion years.

My point was simply the the ever increasing speed of expansion stretches time as well as space.

 

[Polymath257]

I have no problem with dating the universe at 14 billion years.

My point was simply the the ever increasing speed of expansion stretches time as well as space.

No, actually, it doesn't.

First of all, 'time stretching' isn't an absolute. It is what is observed in comparison between the data of two observers.

Second, two observers 'going with the expansion' will NOT show a time dilation between them even if they see each other 'moving away' at nearly the speed of light. This is a general relativistic effect, not a special relativistic one.

Third, the time of *very* fast expansion was very early in the universe and has no effect at all on the dating of the universe to about 14 billion years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no problem with dating the universe at 14 billion years.

My point was simply the the ever increasing speed of expansion stretches time as well as space.

So you are saying that the universe is even older than we measure it to be.

Such a pity to be on ignore when a person uses his own foot for a target.

 

[shmogie]

No, actually, it doesn't.

First of all, 'time stretching' isn't an absolute. It is what is observed in comparison between the data of two observers.

Second, two observers 'going with the expansion' will NOT show a time dilation between them even if they see each other 'moving away' at nearly the speed of light. This is a general relativistic effect, not a special relativistic one.

Third, the time of *very* fast expansion was very early in the universe and has no effect at all on the dating of the universe to about 14 billion years.

I never said it did effect the dating of the universe. So, are you saying time dilation doesn´t exist, is that your point ?

 

[Polymath257]

I never said it did effect the dating of the universe. So, are you saying time dilation doesn´t exist, is that your point ?

Time dilation exists, but it is not an effect of the expansion.

 

[ecco]

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

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

I was stating that, if one wanted to play make-believe with an "already existing universe that was expanding" then one had to accept that Last Thursdayism is just as valid as Genesis

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

I was stating that, if one wanted to play make-believe with seeing and visiting a singularity then one must also consider:


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.

 

[ecco]

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

I don't take any Creation Story seriously. However, Last Thursdayism is just as valid as any other Creation Story.

 

[ecco]

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.

In exactly the same way that the Judeo/Christianity Genesis does.
In exactly the same way that the Cherokee Creation Story does.
In exactly the same way that any of thousands of Creation Storys do.

 

[ecco]

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?

You use to word "lying". However, when you use the Capital G God, you are referring to a god that most believers feel is Omni-All. You cannot know the mind of such a god. What you refer to as "lying" may just be His way of testing us or some other concept we cannot even begin to imagine.

 

[ecco]

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

An Omni-All god could have done this for one star or for trillions of stars with less effort than it took you to mock it.

 

[ecco]

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

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?

Any tests that you can apply to Genesis can be equally applied to Last Thursdayism, with the exact same results.

 

[ecco]

One thing for sure, the beliefs on one side or the other are idiotic. Now all you have to do is show your claims are grounded in fact and science, and defend them.

Or, conversely you could pretend you already did somewhere, but can't quite point us to it! Ha. Then you could say the reason we can't find it is because 'we don't want to learn at your feet'.

Lurkers, be aware this poster is not a serious debater.

You are aware that when you use the phrase "this poster" you are referring to yourself.

 

[Polymath257]

An Omni-All god could have done this for one star or for trillions of stars with less effort than it took you to mock it.

Of course. But it is still a silly position to take.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You use to word "lying". However, when you use the Capital G God, you are referring to a god that most believers feel is Omni-All. You cannot know the mind of such a god. What you refer to as "lying" may just be His way of testing us or some other concept we cannot even begin to imagine.

Even if it is a test it would still be lying. Which brings that same problem back again for believers in Last Thursdayism. It could be such a test, but how would we know? How could we trust such a god rationally?

 

[shunyadragon]

I have no problem with dating the universe at 14 billion years.

My point was simply the the ever increasing speed of expansion stretches time as well as space.

I consider this statement incomplete. I may comment further.

 

[shunyadragon]

In exactly the same way that the Judeo/Christianity Genesis does.
In exactly the same way that the Cherokee Creation Story does.
In exactly the same way that any of thousands of Creation Storys do.

I disagree they are the 'same,' yes there are similarities, but beyond that it is highly interpretive.