Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2016, 05:43 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2016 05:26 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Forgot to include this:
Once you accurately state the age of the universe from Event A to B, that age will never change. If you tell me it's definitely 13.799±0.021 years old from Event A to event B then it will not change once the parameters don't change. If we change the event state then we cannot argue the old age any more. It automatically becomes a new debate.

T=d/v for event a to b
20 years = 100m / 5km/year

T=d/v for event a1 to a9
10 years a1 to a9 = 50m / 5km/ year
Or maybe
20 years a1 to a9 = 60m / 3km/ year

The velocity & distance of a1 to a9 can change multiple times and it will still not affect the age of a to b. It will be compensated by (a-a1) & (a9-b)

They aren't simultaneous equations & we don't have data for "a" or "b" yet

The age of two expanding galaxies is not going to change the age of event start & event end, even if it occurred during the same age.
That's just not how we do maths.

The Topic is this:
How do we know the Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old & it cannot be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

The claim that we know the Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old is wrong. More like ± infinity.
The claim that we know the Observable Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old is correct if based on mankind's frame of reference. It is not an objective claim.
The claim that the Universe can be 6 days old is still possible due to time dilation and the velocity of inflation before CMB radiation.
Find all posts by this user
26-01-2016, 10:22 AM (This post was last modified: 26-01-2016 11:04 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Repost
Find all posts by this user
26-01-2016, 09:20 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
OK, I'm breaking this into semi-digestible chunks for sanity's sake.

Just to clarify, Shane and I are debating the possibility of the universe being created in 6 days using solely scientific principles. We aren't debating what actually happened so we won't be delving into that part of the evidence. Under these terms I would cheerfully accept the possibility of a unicorn, even a pink one. Sexual selection has brought forth stranger beasties than a pink horse with a horn on its head. I would not accept an invisible unicorn as that would be contrary to science. Neither would I accept an invisible pink unicorn as that would be contrary to logic as well as science.

Quote:How do we know the Observable Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old & it cannot be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

My answer is: "We don't know"

My answer is: The evidence indicates that it's about 13.8 billion years old.

Quote:Time = Distance/Velocity or t = d/v

Using this simple equation has sent you a long way down the wrong path. Seriously, didn't you consider that the physicists might know this one and might have dismissed it for very good reasons? It's intuitive but the universe exists on a scale that messes with our heads.

For a start, cosmologists tend to use d and v as proxies for one another, so the logic becomes circular. To make things worse, d doesn't stay the same number. Space-time is expanding, so d keeps getting bigger as time goes on.

That's how you can have an observable universe that's 46.5 billion lightyears in radius but only 13.8 billion years old. Trusty old d = vt tells us that, where v <= c, either d must be 13.8 billion lightyears or t must be 46.5 billion years. And both of those are wrong.

Here's a decent video explaining the problem. The gist of it is that you're effectively trying to run the wrong way down a moving sidewalk. Light from the beginning of the universe reaching us today may have started out just 4 billion lightyears away (NB: I'm pulling this number out of thin air). After 1 billion years it should be one 1 billion lightyears from its origin and 3 billion lightyears from us, but it isn't because the space in between grew during that 1 billion years. That 3 billion lightyears has bulked up to 3.6 billion lightyears, and it's now 1.2 billion lightyears from its origin. It's apparently travelling at 1.2 c! Or has it only covered 0.4 billion lightyears and is only doing 0.4 c? Really it's moving at c and the space in between is expanding and giving our d = vt intuition migraines.

After 13.7 billion years, the light finally completes its journey to our little rock. By this time the expansion of space-time has increased the distance to the origin of the light to 46.5 billion lightyears, the edge of the observable universe.

Quote:The average age of an event is found by determining the time taken between the start & finish of the event.

Best take the time between the start and the present. I am not debating this topic until the universe ends.

So how do we determine the age of the universe? There are a bunch of different techniques that can be used to constrain it:
  • You can measure the brightness of the dimmest, oldest white dwarfs to estimate their age (Hansen et al., 2002). This will be too young but serves as a decent lower boundary.
  • You can measure the uranium abundance in ancient stars as a stellar radiometric dating method (Cayrel et al., 2001). This age will also be young, as uranium did not form during the Big Bang and had to wait for a supernova to create it some while later.
  • You can take the Hubble "Constant" and invert it as you did to get "Hubble Time". This get's you an age of 14.4 billion years, which is a bit too old. That's because not only is space-time expanding but the expansion is accelerating. Thus the Hubble "constant" isn't constant and has been demoted to the Hubble parameter. And you thought trusty d = vt had it tough before.
  • A bunch more too esoteric for me to bother looking up. You get the idea.

It turns out that the most accurate method of finding the age of the universe is to take its temperature. As the universe expands, it cools and as a result, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) should have an energy distribution that looks like a "black body" spectrum. Given the temperature, you can calculate the age. That was the theory.

In late 1989 COBE, the Cosmic Background Explorer was launched. The data returned by the FIRAS instrument package it carried has become the textbook example of how to confirm a hypothesis through observation.
[Image: 1000px-Cmbr.svg.png]
The chart above has two exceptional features: (1) The error bars are so small that you can't see them even if you blow that up and stick it to the outside of your house. (2) The observations fit the theoretical black-body curve so perfectly that the two are indistinguishable. The subsequent Planck and WMAP probes have refined this data even further. The CMB is the thermal black body radiation curve of a body at 2.72548 +/- 0.00057 Kelvin. The age calculated from that temperature is 13.799 +/- 0.021 billion years.

Now there's an obvious objection here. All of these ages rely on various different assumptions. Let me preempt that by saying yes, there are assumptions and they have been identified and many of them tested by far better cosmologists than you or I. Regardless, this is cosmology and it is one of the edge of the envelope sciences. New breakthroughs are made every year so this age could well be overturned. In my relatively short lifetime I have seen the age of the Universe vary between 20 and 12 billion years, though much of that will have been popular media "science" reporting.

The point is not to establish the exact age of the universe. The point is that the age of the universe is on the order of tens of billions of years. And all the different methods, which all have different assumptions agree on that point. Tens of billions of years, not days.

End Part 1

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
26-01-2016, 09:45 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Part Two

Quote:I don't know how many of you realize it but when scientist actually observe the universe (the observable universe) we are only looking in one direction. Towards the center of the universe). We are looking at the past.
In fact any attempt to look for the edge of the Universe is an attempt to see the future of the universe.

No. So very, very wrong. The past is not towards the center, the future is not toward the edge. We look outward when we look into the past. We have no idea where the "center" is, if the term even has meaning. If we could look forward in time we would be looking at the same portion of the universe but seeing its future rather than its past. In fact we would be looking even further outward in the future thanks to that pesky expansion of space-time. We can't though. Something about violation causality that might be unpleasant.

Quote:We don't have any proof that we aren't already at the edge of the universe's expansion.

What edge? Both the large-scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe have been well-established by observation. One more reason they launched the Planck and WMAP probes. There's no edge anywhere nearby that we can spot.

Quote:This is the evidence I spoke about at the start of my presentation:
An observer with zero comoving velocity (i.e. zero peculiar velocity). Such an observer can be defined at every point in space. They will all see the same Universe, and the Universe will look the same in all directions ("isotropic").

Translation: No Edge



(24-01-2016 03:36 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"

The Universe CAN be less than 6 days old dependent on frame of reference.

If the universe was inflated (not created) at near the speed of light would it be possible to be 6 days old?
Yes.

No.

Quote:Let's take a look at the mathematics of special relativity! The famous equation that describes the amount of time dilation you experience is given by:
t0
T = --------------------
[ 1 - (v/c)^2 ]^1/2
where T is the time interval experienced by you at the beginning of expansion, and t0 is the time interval experienced by you presently in the universe at a relative velocity of v.

No. This is not how special relativity works at all. Relativistic time dilation occurs when you are moving at a high speed (some serious fraction of c) relative to some other frame of reference. Distant galaxies appear to be receeding rapidly because the space-time between us and them is expanding. Relative to their local space-time those galaxies have no more velocity than the usual random "peculiar" velocity picked up from gravitational attraction and such (leave it to cosmologists to refer to the one type of velocity that we understand as "peculiar"). They aren't moving any more than we are.

Quote:Lets now use the approximation formula for relativistic speeds in the limit where v = c - e where c is the speed of you and e is how close you are to the speed of light in the same velocity units.

According to my best calculations, the speed that you are looking to achieve in order to compress 13.7 billion years down into a mere 6 days is most meaningfully expressed as 7 microns/year slower than the speed of light. Those numbers may be out by a bit if I've dropped a zero or two somewhere but you get the idea.

You'd best hope that your hypothetical observer never achieves anything like this speed or the stray protons that he bumps into will start blowing significant chunks out of him. Please remember that there are an average of 6 of these little bastards per cubic meter of "empty" space and you are currently zipping through ~299,792,458 m/s. What did you say this thing's cross-sectional area was again?

Quote:If something did expand the universe at warp 25 speed which is still slower than the speed of light & you were somehow there to witness the whole thing:
How would you describe it to me?

I saw something expand the universe in 2.4 days
or
I saw something expand the universe in 13.799 billion years?

One of these statements will be a lie and one will not.

The first statement would be the lie. It's the universe that's expanding. Your far-flung observer on "the edge" is effectively stationary relative to his local space-time. He experiences no more relativistic time dilation than you or I do. To him, the universe looks 13.8 billion years old. It's our little smudge of it that only looks six days old. So if he can see us, what he sees is seething plasma that the light can't even get out of yet. And because there IS a relativistic time dilation between us and him, we're going to look like that for a very long time. From his perspective, we're going to take ~320 quadrillion years to form neutral atoms. I hope that he brought popcorn because the stars will burn out and the universe will die of heat death long before our solar system ever forms.

End Part Two. Third pays for all except the crime of this trilogy.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
26-01-2016, 10:24 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Part 3: The Last

Let's get right down to basics.

Quote:The question was "Can the Universe be created in 6 days?"

What's a day? It's the amount of time that our planet takes to spin around its axis once. Give or take however much inaccuracy is inherent in the timekeeping practices of nomadic tribesmen. Regardless, it's still about a day. Using special relativity to make a "day" some bendy measure won't change that in the least.

Now let's assume that for reasons unknown some observer looks out from some remote outpost at extreme time dilation relative to us and can both see what's going on and communicate with us. We have a couple of options to explain this:

- His planet takes ~2 billion years to go around its axis and the universe is six of his local days old.
- The time dilation makes it look like our planet takes ~ 2 billion years to go around its axis.
- He's looking at six day old plasma that will become us and describing events thus far.

This entity is apparently bright enough to communicate with us via some FTL medium, compensate for redshift and time dilation so that it's intelligible and has somehow taught itslef a language that we understand. It is not going to make the abysmally stupid mistake of using the wrong time unit. We wouldn't be that stupid and we can't conceive of doing what you are suggesting that it must. He's either to incompetent too communicate with us or too intelligent to tell us "six days".

And finally, let's speak of the elephant in the room. "Created" was the word you used and that requires a Creator, not merely an Observer. And six days? That isn't just coincidentally the span of time used in the Creation Myth common to all the Abrahamic religions. So let's all stop pretending we aren't talking about chapter 1 of Genesis.

Why bother? It's easy enough to envision a God-o-the-Gaps and leave him to wind up the universe and let it go. No need for any of this sanity-destroying relativistic time dilation that fails to achieve the desired effect. The only reason for that nonsense is to try and warp 13.7 billion years into the six days required by biblical literalists. These are the Bible-knuckling savages who have yet to emerge into the twentieth century. No, I haven't forgotten what the date is. Incidentally, has anybody mentioned to you just how intensely they hate Einstein? They associate special relativity with moral relativity and attack anything with the word relativity in the same sentence.

It's hard to play the part of the sensible middleman when you're obviously taking up cause with anybody that far to any fringe. I should know, two of my class-mates were devout Catholics. They wouldn't touch that bullshit with a cattle prod. One was studying the atmospheric composition of the early Earth and the other was into the composition of the pre-solar nebula. Creationism got more scorn from them than it did from any of the rest of us because it made them look bad by association.

Given that moderate theists have no trouble at all accepting that the Bible isn't a historical document I have to wonder where you're coming from. Let me sum this whole thing up in one letter:

Y?

The End.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
27-01-2016, 03:40 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(26-01-2016 09:20 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  OK, I'm breaking this into semi-digestible chunks for sanity's sake.

Just to clarify, Shane and I are debating the possibility of the universe being created in 6 days using solely scientific principles. We aren't debating what actually happened so we won't be delving into that part of the evidence. Under these terms I would cheerfully accept the possibility of a unicorn, even a pink one. Sexual selection has brought forth stranger beasties than a pink horse with a horn on its head. I would not accept an invisible unicorn as that would be contrary to science. Neither would I accept an invisible pink unicorn as that would be contrary to logic as well as science.

Quote:How do we know the Observable Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old & it cannot be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

My answer is: "We don't know"

My answer is: The evidence indicates that it's about 13.8 billion years old.

Quote:Time = Distance/Velocity or t = d/v

Using this simple equation has sent you a long way down the wrong path. Seriously, didn't you consider that the physicists might know this one and might have dismissed it for very good reasons? It's intuitive but the universe exists on a scale that messes with our heads.

For a start, cosmologists tend to use d and v as proxies for one another, so the logic becomes circular. To make things worse, d doesn't stay the same number. Space-time is expanding, so d keeps getting bigger as time goes on.

That's how you can have an observable universe that's 46.5 billion lightyears in radius but only 13.8 billion years old. Trusty old d = vt tells us that, where v <= c, either d must be 13.8 billion lightyears or t must be 46.5 billion years. And both of those are wrong.

Here's a decent video explaining the problem. The gist of it is that you're effectively trying to run the wrong way down a moving sidewalk. Light from the beginning of the universe reaching us today may have started out just 4 billion lightyears away (NB: I'm pulling this number out of thin air). After 1 billion years it should be one 1 billion lightyears from its origin and 3 billion lightyears from us, but it isn't because the space in between grew during that 1 billion years. That 3 billion lightyears has bulked up to 3.6 billion lightyears, and it's now 1.2 billion lightyears from its origin. It's apparently travelling at 1.2 c! Or has it only covered 0.4 billion lightyears and is only doing 0.4 c? Really it's moving at c and the space in between is expanding and giving our d = vt intuition migraines.

After 13.7 billion years, the light finally completes its journey to our little rock. By this time the expansion of space-time has increased the distance to the origin of the light to 46.5 billion lightyears, the edge of the observable universe.

Quote:The average age of an event is found by determining the time taken between the start & finish of the event.

Best take the time between the start and the present. I am not debating this topic until the universe ends.

So how do we determine the age of the universe? There are a bunch of different techniques that can be used to constrain it:
  • You can measure the brightness of the dimmest, oldest white dwarfs to estimate their age (Hansen et al., 2002). This will be too young but serves as a decent lower boundary.
  • You can measure the uranium abundance in ancient stars as a stellar radiometric dating method (Cayrel et al., 2001). This age will also be young, as uranium did not form during the Big Bang and had to wait for a supernova to create it some while later.
  • You can take the Hubble "Constant" and invert it as you did to get "Hubble Time". This get's you an age of 14.4 billion years, which is a bit too old. That's because not only is space-time expanding but the expansion is accelerating. Thus the Hubble "constant" isn't constant and has been demoted to the Hubble parameter. And you thought trusty d = vt had it tough before.
  • A bunch more too esoteric for me to bother looking up. You get the idea.

It turns out that the most accurate method of finding the age of the universe is to take its temperature. As the universe expands, it cools and as a result, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) should have an energy distribution that looks like a "black body" spectrum. Given the temperature, you can calculate the age. That was the theory.

In late 1989 COBE, the Cosmic Background Explorer was launched. The data returned by the FIRAS instrument package it carried has become the textbook example of how to confirm a hypothesis through observation.
[Image: 1000px-Cmbr.svg.png]
The chart above has two exceptional features: (1) The error bars are so small that you can't see them even if you blow that up and stick it to the outside of your house. (2) The observations fit the theoretical black-body curve so perfectly that the two are indistinguishable. The subsequent Planck and WMAP probes have refined this data even further. The CMB is the thermal black body radiation curve of a body at 2.72548 +/- 0.00057 Kelvin. The age calculated from that temperature is 13.799 +/- 0.021 billion years.

Now there's an obvious objection here. All of these ages rely on various different assumptions. Let me preempt that by saying yes, there are assumptions and they have been identified and many of them tested by far better cosmologists than you or I. Regardless, this is cosmology and it is one of the edge of the envelope sciences. New breakthroughs are made every year so this age could well be overturned. In my relatively short lifetime I have seen the age of the Universe vary between 20 and 12 billion years, though much of that will have been popular media "science" reporting.

The point is not to establish the exact age of the universe. The point is that the age of the universe is on the order of tens of billions of years. And all the different methods, which all have different assumptions agree on that point. Tens of billions of years, not days.

End Part 1
The posts that say reply in progress are not my replies.
Please remove any quotations & replies you have you have used from that post as they are not my views.
It is littered with errors, both logical and scientific, & I am unable to delete it.
The post with part 1, 2 & 3 is my reply along with the follow up post.

Please edit your reply so that it honestly answers the reply I have given and not the posts before it.
Mods please delete the "do not reply" section for me so these mistakes don't happen again.

It would be unfair of me to reply to you if you are reading the wrong post.

I will wait for you to correct the mistakes before I continue.
Find all posts by this user
27-01-2016, 04:32 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
[Image: sigh.gif]
Working again tonight. May be able to get a reply off later but no bets.

ProTip: Working drafts can be saved and formatted in your TTA PM inbox and transferred to the forum only after they are finalized.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
27-01-2016, 04:37 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2016 04:59 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(27-01-2016 04:32 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  [Image: sigh.gif]
Working again tonight. May be able to get a reply off later but no bets.

ProTip: Working drafts can be saved and formatted in your TTA PM inbox and transferred to the forum only after they are finalized.
Thanks Paleophyte. I'm certainly new to these forums.
Find all posts by this user
27-01-2016, 10:36 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:Time = Distance/Velocity or t = d/v

Therefore we need to know the distance and relative velocity of the universe to know the age of the universe.

Dealt with in Part 1 of yesterday's reply. t =/= dv if d is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating over the duration of t. Cosmologists do not use this formula for very, very good reasons.

Quote:Assumptions are used to determine velocity of the universe, but it is also stated that they "know that v = H0 x D.".
Why make a claim of certainty when there are unknown variables in the equation?

They made no claim of certainty. They are scientists speaking of scientific knowledge, which implicitly includes the possibility that it is wrong and in this case has very explicitly stated its assumptions, as you so very carefully highlighted.

Quote:Part 2: CAN the Universe be 46 billion years old?

No. If it were there would be a bunch of wonderfully exotic phenomena that we don't expect to see for another 30 billion years or so. For example, there would be a lot more white dwarf stellar remnants and they would be a lot cooler (Kilic et al., 2012).

Quote:The Universe CAN be less than 6 days old if inflated at near the speed of light dependent on who the observer is due to the effects of time dilation.

The early universe inflated at well in excess of the speed of light. This can happen because matter is not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying the matter along for the ride.

Quote:Does the expansion of the observable universe cause time dilation?

Not locally, no. Nothing with ~134 Million light-years is receding at more than 0.01 c courtesy of the expansion of space-time so the relativistic time dilation is negligible. If I technomagically teleport to some distant portion of the universe, the story is the same. It will appear more or less stationary relative to its local neighborhood, no time dilation, and an age of 13.8 billion years.

And it won't help you anyway.

Quote:A non-co-moving observer measures a smaller time interval. So whereas all co-moving observers agree that the observable universe is about 13.8 billion years old, a non-co-moving observer measures the age of the observable universe to be younger, how young depending on how fast he moves with respect to the co-moving observers.

Yes and no. That's the beauty of relativity.

Expansion of space-time causes distant galaxies to recede because they are being carried along by the expansion. They are moving with space-time, not travelling through it.

We look around and see a universe that appears to be 13.8 billion years old. If we look way out, we see galaxies that are very red-shifted and do show time dilation because they are moving rapidly away from us.

Now let's pop out there in our teleporter. We look around and see that the galaxy we're in is more or less stationary relative to its surroundings and the universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old. If we look way back the way we came we see a very young Milky Way, highly red-shifted and apparently time dilated, moving rapidly away from us.

The only young, time dilated universe is the very distant universe, as Edwin Hubble could have told you nearly a century ago.

Quote:Lets take a look at the mathematics of special relativity!

Yes. Let's do that.

The speed that you need to obtain to compress 13.7 billion years into 6 days via relativistic time dilation is 0.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,2914 c. Normally you don't use commas to the right of the decimal, but it makes it easier to read. And it turns out that I did drop a few zeros last night because that speed is 77.6 microns per billion years slower than the speed of light. At that speed, if your observer originated at the exact center of the Earth then he's only in the observable universe by a bit more than a millimeter. Possibly a meter or two now allowing for the expansion of space-time. Except the Earth moves, so *pop*, he's gone.

So there's your answer. No, you can't create the universe in six days.

Fun fact: At this speed each collision with a proton packs the same amount of energy as ~30 milligrams of TNT detonating. That's about 100 million times the top operating power of the LHC, so with the right equipment you could take an image of your corpse using Higgs Bosons.

And what does all that get you? Looking back you see the Ear... The Milky W...

You see the universe when it was six days old. Courtesy of relativistic time dilation, your observer sees time for the hydrogen plasma fog that will some day become the Earth slowed down to one day every 2.28 Billion years. Where the Milky Way will some day form there is now an opaque swath of intensely hot plasma. It won't cool enough for the light to decouple from it and start letting your observer see anything for another 380,000 years. That's 320 quadrillion years by his frame of reference.

Quote:The claim that we know the Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old is wrong.

No. The claim that the universe is 13.8 billion years old is scientific. It's based on the best evidence to date but open to revision and re-evaluation. Science does not deal in certainties.

Quote:The claim that the Universe can be 6 days old is still possible due to time dilation and the velocity of inflation before CMB radiation.

Not according to the math or the reasoning.

Now in parting, let me leave you with part 3 from last night. It stands regardless of the other changes:

Y?

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like Paleophyte's post
28-01-2016, 01:11 AM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2016 01:29 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Before I reply to your answers we need common ground on understanding of the question. I don't know if you agreed with my explanation of what we are debating here so I will state it again.
"For the purpose of this debate I will use the singularity as the the event start state & the limit of the expansion as the event end state."
It's based on the question "Can the universe be created in 6 days".
When I speak about creation here I am speaking about "the singularity as the event start state & the limit of the expansion as the event end state"
Each time I refer to the "age of the universe" I am speaking about it's creation as described above. I thought it would be understood, seeing that I did put ""For the purpose of this debate I will use the singularity as the the event start state & the limit of the expansion as the event end state." I need to know if you are willing to accept the above explanation of the creation of the universe as the topic of discussion.
Without establishing parameters for the discussion we may both be discussing two very different topics.

Create: BRING (something) into existence.
Bring: take or go with (someone or something) to a place.
Bring: cause (someone or something) to be in a particular state or condition.
Existence: the fact or STATE of living or having objective reality.

Quote:
Quote:Time = Distance/Velocity or t = d/v

Therefore we need to know the distance and relative velocity of the universe to know the age of the universe.

Dealt with in Part 1 of yesterday's reply. t =/= dv if d is not only expanding but the expansion is accelerating over the duration of t. Cosmologists do not use this formula for very, very good reasons.

Quote:
Quote:Assumptions are used to determine velocity of the universe, but it is also stated that they "know that v = H0 x D.".
Why make a claim of certainty when there are unknown variables in the equation?

They made no claim of certainty. They are scientists speaking of scientific knowledge, which implicitly includes the possibility that it is wrong and in this case has very explicitly stated its assumptions, as you so very carefully highlighted.

Quote:
Quote:Part 2: CAN the Universe be 46 billion years old?

No. If it were there would be a bunch of wonderfully exotic phenomena that we don't expect to see for another 30 billion years or so. For example, there would be a lot more white dwarf stellar remnants and they would be a lot cooler (Kilic et al., 2012).

Quote:The Universe CAN be less than 6 days old if inflated at near the speed of light dependent on who the observer is due to the effects of time dilation.

The early universe inflated at well in excess of the speed of light. This can happen because matter is not moving through space, space is expanding and carrying the matter along for the ride.

Quote:
Quote:Does the expansion of the observable universe cause time dilation?

Not locally, no. Nothing with ~134 Million light-years is receding at more than 0.01 c courtesy of the expansion of space-time so the relativistic time dilation is negligible. If I technomagically teleport to some distant portion of the universe, the story is the same. It will appear more or less stationary relative to its local neighborhood, no time dilation, and an age of 13.8 billion years.

And it won't help you anyway.

Quote:A non-co-moving observer measures a smaller time interval. So whereas all co-moving observers agree that the observable universe is about 13.8 billion years old, a non-co-moving observer measures the age of the observable universe to be younger, how young depending on how fast he moves with respect to the co-moving observers.

Yes and no. That's the beauty of relativity.

Expansion of space-time causes distant galaxies to recede because they are being carried along by the expansion. They are moving with space-time, not travelling through it.

We look around and see a universe that appears to be 13.8 billion years old. If we look way out, we see galaxies that are very red-shifted and do show time dilation because they are moving rapidly away from us.

Now let's pop out there in our teleporter. We look around and see that the galaxy we're in is more or less stationary relative to its surroundings and the universe appears to be 13.8 billion years old. If we look way back the way we came we see a very young Milky Way, highly red-shifted and apparently time dilated, moving rapidly away from us.

The only young, time dilated universe is the very distant universe, as Edwin Hubble could have told you nearly a century ago.

Quote:
Quote:Lets take a look at the mathematics of special relativity!

Yes. Let's do that.

The speed that you need to obtain to compress 13.7 billion years into 6 days via relativistic time dilation is 0.999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999,2914 c. Normally you don't use commas to the right of the decimal, but it makes it easier to read. And it turns out that I did drop a few zeros last night because that speed is 77.6 microns per billion years slower than the speed of light. At that speed, if your observer originated at the exact center of the Earth then he's only in the observable universe by a bit more than a millimeter. Possibly a meter or two now allowing for the expansion of space-time. Except the Earth moves, so *pop*, he's gone.

So there's your answer. No, you can't create the universe in six days.

Fun fact: At this speed each collision with a proton packs the same amount of energy as ~30 milligrams of TNT detonating. That's about 100 million times the top operating power of the LHC, so with the right equipment you could take an image of your corpse using Higgs Bosons.

And what does all that get you? Looking back you see the Ear... The Milky W...

You see the universe when it was six days old. Courtesy of relativistic time dilation, your observer sees time for the hydrogen plasma fog that will some day become the Earth slowed down to one day every 2.28 Billion years. Where the Milky Way will some day form there is now an opaque swath of intensely hot plasma. It won't cool enough for the light to decouple from it and start letting your observer see anything for another 380,000 years. That's 320 quadrillion years by his frame of reference.

Quote:
Quote:The claim that we know the Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old is wrong.

No. The claim that the universe is 13.8 billion years old is scientific. It's based on the best evidence to date but open to revision and re-evaluation. Science does not deal in certainties.

Quote:
Quote:The claim that the Universe can be 6 days old is still possible due to time dilation and the velocity of inflation before CMB radiation.

Not according to the math or the reasoning.

Now in parting, let me leave you with part 3 from last night. It stands regardless of the other changes:

Y?
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: