Jump to content


Photo

It's A Matter Of Time - The Philosophy Of It All


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 30 November 2014 - 09:46 PM

I can see that our current understanding of light is a problem for the young universe view, but I can also see that it is just as problematic for old universe views.  

In what way is our understanding of light a problem for an old universe view? 

For me, the Horizon problem by itself is a major clue that we don't actually understand how light and radiation behaves.  Also indicative of how naive we are, are the many unsupported placeholder theories like dark matter, dark energy, Cosmological principle, etc.  Bottom line, I'm not convinced that we have light and time properly understood, specially in the bigger scale.

Let's see.....
The Galactic center, about 25,000 ly.  Problem for YEC?  Yes, it's about 4x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No. 
Sn1987a distance 167,000+ly (measured by trigonometry.)  Problem for YEC?  Yes, it's about 28x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No.
Andromeda distance 2.4 million ly.  Problem for YEC?  Yes.  It's about 400x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No.
Centaurus A distance 12 million ly.  Problem for YEC?  Yes.  It's about 2000x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No.
How about a supernova measured by standard candle techniques at 6 billion light years from Earth.  Is that a problem for YEC?  Yes, it's a 1,000,000x farther than we should be able to see.  Is it a problem for an old universe?  No.
 
You consider this "just as problematic?"   Hmmmmm.......
 
All of the things you mention are problems for the Big Bang; expansion of space; formation of galaxies ..... but none of them are issues for an old universe out to billions of light years.... hundreds of thousands of times farther than we should be able to see.
 
I see no equivalence at all in the scale of the problem..... YEC is refuted a million times over before an old universe even begins to have issues.
 

So should I trust modern day priests who think they "got it down", or the "great high-priest" who has ascended into heaven?

It is not my place to tell you what to believe or why.
 

Since you trust what you understand best,  are you saying that you understand light and the old universe better, than what Christ has clearly said about the "beginning"?

 

Edit:  Accidentally posted prematurely.....

 

I'm saying I understand the physics a lot better than I do ancient Hebrew.   Our ability to see distant objects and the time it takes light to reach Earth from those objects is much more simple direct evidence far less subject to errors of human interpretation than the Bible.

 

For example, when I pointed out a discrepancy with regard to Adam and Eve dying on the "very day" they ate the forbidden fruit, I was treated to a lecture on hair splitting semantics, ancient Hebrew verb tenses, and a bunch of apologetics from the very people who demand I should read the text literally.  When I used "kinds" as stated in Leviticus, I was told the list of kinds in that reference was "conjured up" (yes, those are the exact words) by the translators.  Yet, these were the dietary laws the Jews were expected to obey.

 

 


  • Goku likes this

#62 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 December 2014 - 04:31 AM

Do try to keep up with the context. 
 
...


You keep up; I've denied the proposition of "space" being "stretched" for the reason I stated. Period.

#63 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 December 2014 - 06:45 AM

Do try to keep up with the context. 

 

You keep up; I've denied the proposition of "space" being "stretched" for the reason I stated. Period.

OK... I see context is a problem for you.  You left out the portion of my comment that established the context.  Here it is:

 

Calypsis proposed the stretching of space as an answer to the light travel time problem of YEC.  Such stretching, if it occurred would leave a visible signature in the light from distant objects.  That signature is absent.... at least on the scale needed by YEC.  In other words, the observational evidence eliminates that as a solution within the laws of physics.

Space stretches.  That is established by measurement..... whether you deny it or not.



#64 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 December 2014 - 01:10 PM

OK... I see context is a problem for you.  You left out the portion of my comment that established the context.  Here it is:
 
Space stretches.  That is established by measurement..... whether you deny it or not.


Yes, I deny it; no context problem. I repeat: no context problem. You have a problem with my disbelief in your treatment of "space". I don't have a context problem.

#65 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 December 2014 - 03:05 PM

There is no reason the believe that there is any thing to Space--it is not a thing for which there is any plausible description.

 

Space is definitely something as per Einstein's general relativity. We see space curving and twisting, whatever space is mass/gravity can and does geometrically distort space itself. For direct evidence of this you can look into the 1919 solar eclipse experiment for general relativity, the orbit of Mercury, Gravity Probe B (GP-B ), and the phenomena known as gravitational lensing. 



#66 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 December 2014 - 03:47 PM

Space is definitely something as per Einstein's general relativity. We see space curving and twisting, whatever space is mass/gravity can and does geometrically distort space itself. For direct evidence of this you can look into the 1919 solar eclipse experiment for general relativity, the orbit of Mercury, Gravity Probe B (GP-B ), and the phenomena known as gravitational lensing.


Are these not evidence of light phenomena and gravity? "Whatever space is..." (your words), I'm taking the position that there is no "thing" there, until I am presented with something persuasive.

#67 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 December 2014 - 04:52 PM

The solar eclipse and gravitational lensing deals with light, but Mercury's orbit and the GP-B deals with objects moving that cannot be explained without the idea that space itself is being warped. 



#68 Zaccarias

Zaccarias

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 147 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • PH

Posted 01 December 2014 - 05:39 PM

Let's see.....
The Galactic center, about 25,000 ly.  Problem for YEC?  Yes, it's about 4x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No. 
Sn1987a distance 167,000+ly (measured by trigonometry.)  Problem for YEC?  Yes, it's about 28x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No.
Andromeda distance 2.4 million ly.  Problem for YEC?  Yes.  It's about 400x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No.
Centaurus A distance 12 million ly.  Problem for YEC?  Yes.  It's about 2000x farther than we should be able to see.  Problem for old universe?  No.
How about a supernova measured by standard candle techniques at 6 billion light years from Earth.  Is that a problem for YEC?  Yes, it's a 1,000,000x farther than we should be able to see.  Is it a problem for an old universe?  No.
 
You consider this "just as problematic?"   Hmmmmm.......
 
All of the things you mention are problems for the Big Bang; expansion of space; formation of galaxies ..... but none of them are issues for an old universe out to billions of light years.... hundreds of thousands of times farther than we should be able to see.
 
I see no equivalence at all in the scale of the problem..... YEC is refuted a million times over before an old universe even begins to have issues.
 

It is not my place to tell you what to believe or why.
 

 

Edit:  Accidentally posted prematurely.....

 

I'm saying I understand the physics a lot better than I do ancient Hebrew.   Our ability to see distant objects and the time it takes light to reach Earth from those objects is much more simple direct evidence far less subject to errors of human interpretation than the Bible.

 

For example, when I pointed out a discrepancy with regard to Adam and Eve dying on the "very day" they ate the forbidden fruit, I was treated to a lecture on hair splitting semantics, ancient Hebrew verb tenses, and a bunch of apologetics from the very people who demand I should read the text literally.  When I used "kinds" as stated in Leviticus, I was told the list of kinds in that reference was "conjured up" (yes, those are the exact words) by the translators.  Yet, these were the dietary laws the Jews were expected to obey.

 

 

The problems I mentioned are not "just" for the Big Bang, for example, the horizon problem is a "problem" because of our current understanding of light.  

Because of this, stating that an object is X light years away with our current understanding of light and time is not convincing.  It's the same as how the rocks date the fossils while the fossils date the rocks.  There are so many assumptions to make it even remotely conclusive.  

 

As for YEC being refuted by an old universe, isn't it possible for us to have a young earth and an old universe both created at the same time?  So lightyears do not necessarily equate to YEC being refuted.  I can also list down evidences for a young earth, but I didn't want to go down that route... I wanted to deal with the issue of who to trust. The most trustworthy for me is still what Jesus said, whom if I recall correctly you call Logos.  And if we base it on what He says, the point is settled for YEC before we even begin with the usual Star Wars style story telling.

 

Telling someone "What to believe" is not my point, the more important question is "WHO to believe" - do we pick the "experts" (modern priests) or the great high priest?  There's a reason why Jesus usually starts with "Truly, truly, I say to you" - because He wants to emphasize that He can be trusted to tell us the truth.
 

You said that you understand physics better than Hebrew and provided some examples, but aren't you simply saying that you trust your expertise more and you find Christ to be not trustworthy?  Bottomline - Aren't you implying that "You know better", better than Logos Himself?



#69 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,373 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 01 December 2014 - 06:47 PM

The solar eclipse and gravitational lensing deals with light, but Mercury's orbit and the GP-B deals with objects moving that cannot be explained without the idea that space itself is being warped.


I'll stick with, "that cannot be explained" for now. Thanks.

#70 Goku

Goku

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,114 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 01 December 2014 - 07:22 PM

I'll stick with, "that cannot be explained" for now. Thanks.

 

The point is that it is explainable in a very precise, mathematical way through general relativity which posits space as something which twists and curves. 



#71 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 02 December 2014 - 12:24 AM

Quote: "Recently some scientists have re-proposed the idea that the speed of light, usually indicated as c, might change over time. If this were the case, it would have tremendous implications. One mayor implication would be that the age of the universe and the distances between galaxies might turn out to be wrong, because they are all based on the hypothesis that c is constant."
 
http://www.en.global...owing-Down.html
 
This is exactly what I have been saying on this matter. Those implications would destroy the evolutionist time frame for the age of the universe.

Here are the very next words from Calypsis' link:
"Of course, we must say that the hypothesis that c varies over time is at the moment highly speculative. However, it has been recently shown that it might be a starting point to answer various outstanding scientific questions."
 
The reader can decide if that is a quote mine or not.  What is really noteworthy is that only a few days ago, Calypsis was very clear that a scientist saying the data "suggests" something was less than convincing.  Now, he presents an article that clearly says the "Highly speculative" "hypothesis" that c "might" have changed as if the highly speculative hypothetical is an established fact and we should be quaking in our boots.
 
Sorry, Calypsis .... a highly speculative hypothesis is interesting, but hardly conclusive. 
 
Farther down in the article, we find this:
"Now the new question arises. What if the speed of light is slowing down over time? Of course, given the high-accuracy with which the speed of light has been measured any possible variation over time should be extremely small and it would have probably no consequences on our daily life. The possible slowing down of c would be about 0.02-0.03 m/s per year. This is extremely small compared with the actual value of c: it would be like having 1 billion in a bank account and losing a few cents per year.

However, “the constancy of the speed of light is one of the fundamental pillars of contemporary physics,” explains Yves-Henri Sanejouand, a physicist from the University of Nantes in France who has recently re-proposed the hypothesis that the speed of light might be slowing down, “so the possibility that it may instead vary (even at a slow rate) has far reaching consequences (although mostly on the theoretical side).”
 
Pi resumes ---
OK... let's do a quick "back of the envelope."  At 0.03 m/s per year, light from Sn1987a (167,000 ly) would have slowed by about 5000 m/s out of 300,000,000 m/sec.  Some change, but not much.  Looking a bit farther, at Andromeda (2.4 million light years) light has now slowed by 72,000 m/s .... about 0.024%.  How about a billion light years?  Well, that would be about 30,000,000 m/s or 10% the speed of light.  At a billion light years, this would be a difference of 50 million years as the average error over that time would be half the total change.  Of course, all of this assumes the highly speculative hypothesis checks out.  It is also worth pointing out that YEC would need light to be more than 2 million times it's present value.... ten percent isn't exactly significant.
 
Lest I be accused of simply "dissing" this source, let it be noted I have done "due diligence" by reading the article and calculating the maximum impact of the proposed change in c.  In fact, that is exactly what I've done every time.
 

And that is exactly what we have now....an optical effect. The measurements of the present might be correct (but probably are not depending on the reliability of the red shift and other dating methods) but in time it will be universally known that time is slowing and has been througout history and everything else has slowed with it. Nothing escapes the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and light is no exception to the degenerative effects of entropy.

I'm not so sure I saw Calypsis say that.  If time has been slowing down throughout history and everything has slowed with it, the effect of it slowing cancels out and a billion years is still a billion years.
 

Then there is this:

A simple varying-speed-of-light hypothesis is enough for explaining high-redshift supernovae data
 by Yves-Henri Sanejouand

That's the very paper the first article cited by Calypsis was referencing.  This isn't some separate finding. Nor is it the first time Calypsis has presented two articles about the same paper as if they are multiple sources.
 
BTW, the original paper is at:
https://archive.org/...astro-ph0509582

 

I did notice the method of distance measurement to the supernovae used in the paper was standard candles, not red shift.  The paper also examines the hypothesized variation at more than 150 (supernovae) data points.  The proposed variation is, in fact, linear.  There is no "what if" as Calypsis goes on to suggest.  The paper goes on to point out the hypothesized model will require experimental verification.

 

That's all I have time for now ......

 

Edit:

Oh yeah.... the paper reports the actual value to be 0.022 m/sec per year.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users