Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-01-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(28-01-2016 01:11 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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."

I will happily accept the singularity as the starting state of the universe. That's the generally accepted consensus even though it's been giving quantum mechanics fits for decades.

I will have to ask you to clarify what you mean by "the limit of the expansion".

Quote: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 its creation as described above.

When speaking of something's age it is common practice to measure from the relevant point in the past to the present. For example, if I ask you your age you would normally tell me how old you are today, give or take rounding. You will be unsurprised to learn that the card sections in the local grocery, drug and book stores have a lack of birthday cards congratulating you on turning fifty 12 years, 4 months and 22 days from now. Similarly, the number of papers wherein an author states what the age of a rock was at the end of the Cretaceous or will be 55.3 million years in the future occupies an exceedingly small space in my filing cabinet.

If you wish use any other definition of the term "age" then you had best provide a compelling reason for doing so.

---
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
28-01-2016, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 28-01-2016 08:34 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:
Quote: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."

I will happily accept the singularity as the starting state of the universe. That's the generally accepted consensus even though it's been giving quantum mechanics fits for decades.

I will have to ask you to clarify what you mean by "the limit of the expansion".

The limit of expansion:
As in the present state of the universe based on our observation

Quote:
Quote: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 its creation as described above.

When speaking of something's age it is common practice to measure from the relevant point in the past to the present. For example, if I ask you your age you would normally tell me how old you are today, give or take rounding. You will be unsurprised to learn that the card sections in the local grocery, drug and book stores have a lack of birthday cards congratulating you on turning fifty 12 years, 4 months and 22 days from now. Similarly, the number of papers wherein an author states what the age of a rock was at the end of the Cretaceous or will be 55.3 million years in the future occupies an exceedingly small space in my filing cabinet.

If you wish use any other definition of the term "age" then you had best provide a compelling reason for doing so.
Is it safe to say age is a measurement of time passed between 2 states of the same event?
My age is dependent on where I start the clock of my existence.
My age could be the age of the universe, if I start the clock of my existence as star dust state.
My age could also be from the moment of conception state.
My age could also start from the moment I was born state. (most widely accepted)
Age varies dependent on the state of existence you start the clock from.
Eg. How old is your house?
There are many elements that went into the building of your house that would have existed before the construction was completed.
This is why we need common ground as to what are the parameters we are discussing.
Hence the start & stop states of an event are the factors we use to define age.
Once we establish the parameters of the states we can establish the age in question.
The rock in your example could just as easily be 13.8 billion years if you don't specify the starting state of it's existence on your definition of it's age.
Another factor that determines age is elements that make up the thing you are discussing.
The rock may have been part of a larger rock that broke off a millennium ago and you may want to describe the age of the rock as it exists in it's present state from the point of detachment.
Luckily the Universe is everything and it's age should start at the very beginning so it makes defining the parameters easy.

You already agreed that the event start state of the singularity is going to be our starting state.
I have now stated that the present time in human history is going to be our event end state.

If we both share the same understanding I can proceed.
Please let me know.
Find all posts by this user
28-01-2016, 09:25 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(28-01-2016 06:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
Quote:I will happily accept the singularity as the starting state of the universe. That's the generally accepted consensus even though it's been giving quantum mechanics fits for decades.

I will have to ask you to clarify what you mean by "the limit of the expansion".

The limit of expansion:
As in the present state of the universe based on our observation

It was a bit of a confusing way of saying 'from the Big Bang to the present' but yes, I can agree that that is the only definition that makes any sense.

Quote:My age is dependent on where I start the clock of my existence.
My age could be the age of the universe, if I start the clock of my existence as star dust state.

That would be the age of your atoms. The collection of atoms that uses the alias "Agnostic Shane" on this forum is somewhat younger I suspect.

And strictly speaking the star dust is only about 4.6 billion years old. To get to 13.8 you'll have to go back to primordial plasma, or an unexciting mix of hydrogen and helium that dominated the early universe.

Quote:My age could also be from the moment of conception state.

That would make the most sense but we have some lingering tribal rites involving being shoved head-first through your mother's vagina. I know it sounds horrific but it can't have been all bad because roughly half our population spends the majority of its adult life sending scouting parties to similar locations.

---
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
29-01-2016, 10:26 AM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2016 06:56 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(28-01-2016 09:25 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(28-01-2016 06:27 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The limit of expansion:
As in the present state of the universe based on our observation
It was a bit of a confusing way of saying 'from the Big Bang to the present' but yes, I can agree that that is the only definition that makes any sense.
Agnostic Shane Wrote:My age is dependent on where I start the clock of my existence.
My age could be the age of the universe, if I start the clock of my existence as star dust state
.
That would be the age of your atoms. The collection of atoms that uses the alias "Agnostic Shane" on this forum is somewhat younger I suspect.
And strictly speaking the star dust is only about 4.6 billion years old. To get to 13.8 you'll have to go back to primordial plasma, or an unexciting mix of hydrogen and helium that dominated the early universe.

Agnostic Shane Wrote:My age could also be from the moment of conception state.
That would make the most sense but we have some lingering tribal rites involving being shoved head-first through your mother's vagina. I know it sounds horrific but it can't have been all bad because roughly half our population spends the majority of its adult life sending scouting parties to similar locations.
Thank you. Now that we have agreed on the parameters I will begin my rebuttal.
The age of the expansion from event start to end is what we want to determine. Agreed?
I am stating that velocity will slow down the relative age of the universe from the event start resting frame as it expands right into the present state.
You are claiming that what we have observed thus far has impacted the age of the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?
You are also claiming that no matter what velocity the universe expanded at from the very start it will not decrease the age by much based on current observation relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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.
I posted the formula. They used t = d/v. Check it again.
They simply expanded the formula to show how they got d & v.
They didn't use a different formula as far as I can tell. Can you please provide reference to the alternative formula they used which isn't an expanded form of t = d/v?
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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.
Are these not claims of scientific certainty within a certain time range as to the age of the observable universe.
know T = 13.799±0.021 billion years
know Ho = 74.2 km/sec/mpc ± 3.7 km/ sec.
If not then the debate is closed as we are both scientifically uncertain of the age of creation.
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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).
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.
If I can prove to you that velocity between event start and earliest observation can drastically slow down the relative age of the universe right into the present time would you accept defeat?
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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.
If you instantly teleported out into the universe you would have not aged because t = d/0. The formula for time & time dilation requires velocity.
So you agree that time dilation does affect the relative aging process from event start, but you don't think it will affect the relative age of the universe by that much because we already clocked 13.8 billion years inclusive of time dilation in the formula based on present observation. I won't even use time dilation to prove my point. Only velocity.
As before:
If I can prove to you that velocity between event start and earliest observation can drastically slow down the relative age of the universe right into the present time would you accept defeat?
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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.
As before:
If I can prove to you that velocity between event start and earliest observation can drastically slow down the relative age of the universe right into the present time would you accept defeat?
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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.
How is this relevant to the following scenario:
Singularity state Vi of 0.9999999999999999999999992914c & distance of 14.26 mpc right up until post observational universe. Let's say it works out to exactly 6 days. If you increase the distance I could increase the velocity until I get back 6 days.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just showing you what a lack of data can do to an equation.
Do you honestly think the distance/velocity from the FOR of any currently known event could possibly be added to increase the relative age of the expansion to 13.799 billion years if it was expanding for 14.26mpc at 0.9999999999999999999999992914c pre observation? There is currently no observable distance of expanding galaxies or CMB radiation inclusive of it's own relative time dilation that could change the age from 6 days to 13.8 billion years in the given scenario. We would need to increase the observable distance by 13.8 billion x 365 / 6 to get the age to match current estimates if we use our current FOR average velocity in the above scenario (time dilation included). Let's do the maths based on the event start FOR I just described.
t2 = event start FOR
t1 = event anywhere but start FOR
d = 14.26 mpc
v2 = 0.9999999999999999999999992914c
v1 = 0.000000000001c (you can put any figure here once it doesn't cross the SOL or Zero & feel free to add some time dilation (t= t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2), CMB velocity (0.9999983c) & a Hubble Constant (Ho D) in here as well)

t2 = d/v + t1
t2 = t0 + d/(Vi + (Vf - Vi)) = (14.26 mpc / 0.9999999999999999999999992914c) + (14.26mpc / (0.9999999999999999999999992914c + (0.000000000001c - 0.9999999999999999999999992914c))) = 6 days & a microsecond (yes all of post observation just increased the age of the universe pre observation by a microsecond when we added them)

Only if you dishonestly reverse the FOR will you be able to get 13.8 billion years.
t1 = d/v + t2 = (14.26 mpc / 0.000000000001c) + (14.26 mpc/ (0.000000000001c + (0.9999999999999999999999992914c - 0.000000000001c))) = 13.8 billion years (assuming I checked for the Hubble constant, CMB velocity and time dilation as well).
Last I checked we didn't create the universe so why are we reversing the FOR?
Get me the data for distance & velocity between event start & event end of pre-observation & then we can talk about the relative age of the universe.
What makes it worst is that most Physicists believe that the velocity of the Big Bang started at speeds faster than the SOL so my theory is very plausible.
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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.
I am not sure what you are saying.
Please quote correctly or it starts to get confusing.
Eg. "13.799±0.021 billion years old" is not the same as "13.8 billion years old"
Either way I'm still confused as to your position on the matter.
Is it wrong, right or uncertain? Is the word "scientific" used to denote a level of certainty on the spectrum of certainty? The highest being absolute certainty and the lowest being absolutely unknowable?
If so then which side of the spectrum would science be closer to & is it also your position on the matter?
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote: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?
I think we are still debating that. Until the debate is over I withhold judgment.
Find all posts by this user
29-01-2016, 06:50 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(29-01-2016 10:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thank you. Now that we have agreed on the parameters I will begin my rebuttal.
The age of the expansion from event start to end is what we want to determine. Agreed?
I am stating that velocity will slow down the relative age of the universe from the event start resting frame as it expands right into the present state.
You are claiming that what we have observed thus far has impacted the age of the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?
You are also claiming that no matter what velocity the universe expanded at from the very start it will not decrease the age by much based on current observation relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?

Agreed to all points.

Quote:
Paleophyte Wrote: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.
I posted the formula. They used t = d/v. Check it again.
They simply expanded the formula to show how they got d & v.
They didn't use a different formula as far as I can tell. Can you please provide reference to the alternative formula they used which isn't an expanded form of t = d/v?

They are using t=d/v to show why inversion of the Hubble Constant gives you the age of the universe. And as I stated earlier it doesn't, because the Hubble "Constant" turns out not to be constant.

Quote:
Paleophyte Wrote: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.
Are these not claims of scientific certainty within a certain time range as to the age of the observable universe.

Scientific certainty is an oxymoron, as I'm sure that you're aware.

Quote:know T = 13.799±0.021 billion years

Using the best currently available data, the Lambda-CDM cosmological model predicts and age of the universe of 13.799±0.021 billion years.

And "t" is time. "T" is temperature. An important distinction when you are using T to determine t.

Quote:know Ho = 74.2 km/sec/mpc ± 3.7 km/ sec.

An empirically measured "constant" that turned out to be a variable. Nice demonstration of scientific theory as opposed to certain knowledge though.

Quote:If not then the debate is closed as we are both scientifically uncertain of the age of creation.

If it isn't falsifiable it isn't science. Kindly let me know if you are conceding this debate based on the very scientific principles that you vowed to stick to. There is little point in replying to the rest of your rebuttal until you have done so.

If it helps you burning agnostic need for certainty I will meet you half way. As I stated previously, the cosmological model may change (I would go so far as to say will change) and the age of the universe is likely to do so to. There is plenty of precedent.

That said, I also stated that regardless of the change, the evidence from too many varied sources all indicate similar ages for the universe for this change to be very large. The age of the universe is on the order of 10 billion years. To be precise that means no more than 100 billion, no less than 1 billion. And I would be shocked if it went anywhere near either of those extremes.

I will even go so far as to state that, as a matter of personal belief, the age universe cannot be anything nearly as small as six days or even 6 thousand years. I will state as cold hard fact that the universe must be approximately 10 billion years old and that as the best data available yields an age of 13.799±0.021 billion years (13.8 for those who use significant figures and are lazy) I will stick to that age for the purpose of this debate.

Is that sufficient to convince you that you need not worry about me moving the goal posts?

[Image: badgers-moving-goalposts.jpg]

---
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
29-01-2016, 07:08 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2016 08:59 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(29-01-2016 06:50 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 10:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Thank you. Now that we have agreed on the parameters I will begin my rebuttal.
The age of the expansion from event start to end is what we want to determine. Agreed?
I am stating that velocity will slow down the relative age of the universe from the event start resting frame as it expands right into the present state.
You are claiming that what we have observed thus far has impacted the age of the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?
You are also claiming that no matter what velocity the universe expanded at from the very start it will not decrease the age by much based on current observation relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?

Agreed to all points.

Quote:I posted the formula. They used t = d/v. Check it again.
They simply expanded the formula to show how they got d & v.
They didn't use a different formula as far as I can tell. Can you please provide reference to the alternative formula they used which isn't an expanded form of t = d/v?

They are using t=d/v to show why inversion of the Hubble Constant gives you the age of the universe. And as I stated earlier it doesn't, because the Hubble "Constant" turns out not to be constant.

Quote:Are these not claims of scientific certainty within a certain time range as to the age of the observable universe.

Scientific certainty is an oxymoron, as I'm sure that you're aware.

Quote:know T = 13.799±0.021 billion years

Using the best currently available data, the Lambda-CDM cosmological model predicts and age of the universe of 13.799±0.021 billion years.

And "t" is time. "T" is temperature. An important distinction when you are using T to determine t.

Quote:know Ho = 74.2 km/sec/mpc ± 3.7 km/ sec.

An empirically measured "constant" that turned out to be a variable. Nice demonstration of scientific theory as opposed to certain knowledge though.

Quote:If not then the debate is closed as we are both scientifically uncertain of the age of creation.

If it isn't falsifiable it isn't science. Kindly let me know if you are conceding this debate based on the very scientific principles that you vowed to stick to. There is little point in replying to the rest of your rebuttal until you have done so.

If it helps you burning agnostic need for certainty I will meet you half way. As I stated previously, the cosmological model may change (I would go so far as to say will change) and the age of the universe is likely to do so to. There is plenty of precedent.

That said, I also stated that regardless of the change, the evidence from too many varied sources all indicate similar ages for the universe for this change to be very large. The age of the universe is on the order of 10 billion years. To be precise that means no more than 100 billion, no less than 1 billion. And I would be shocked if it went anywhere near either of those extremes.

I will even go so far as to state that, as a matter of personal belief, the age universe cannot be anything nearly as small as six days or even 6 thousand years. I will state as cold hard fact that the universe must be approximately 10 billion years old and that as the best data available yields an age of 13.799±0.021 billion years (13.8 for those who use significant figures and are lazy) I will stick to that age for the purpose of this debate.

Is that sufficient to convince you that you need not worry about me moving the goal posts?

[Image: badgers-moving-goalposts.jpg]

Paleophyte Wrote:I will even go so far as to state that, as a matter of personal belief, the age universe cannot be anything nearly as small as six days or even 6 thousand years
Your FOR & opinion is literally irrelevant to the objective age of something. We aren't debating what you think the age should be because of your own ruler of time. We are debating the ruler of time used by event start.
Are you not familiar with the twin paradox?
The twin on the rocket & the rocket as well will not have aged a single day regardless of the other twin's FOR.
Your FOR will determine your own age.
The Universes FOR will determine it's own age.
Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:You are claiming that what we have observed thus far has impacted the age of the universe to be around 13.8 billion years old relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?
You are also claiming that no matter what velocity the universe expanded at from the very start it will not decrease the age by much based on current observation relative to the event start resting frame. Agreed?

Agreed to all points.
In the post above this I pointed out that initial velocity does affect the age of the universe using only the laws of science. I showed that the universe can be 6 days old dependent on the velocity of the pre-observable universe regardless of our FOR. I also showed that our own relative velocity when added to the true velocity of post-observation only increased it by a mere micro second.
I await your rebuttal


Paleophyte Wrote:If it isn't falsifiable it isn't science. Kindly let me know if you are conceding this debate based on the very scientific principles that you vowed to stick to
I am not conceding the debate.
I am not the one expressing uncertainty here. My claim is certainly possible within the realm of science. It would appear you are the one expressing uncertainty as to your own claim.
Why are you bringing up falsifiability?
We have no data regarding the relative velocity of the Universe before post-observation.
13.8 Billion year old universe & a 6 day old universe.
Both claims would be untestable & unfalsifiable. We would only be able to test the observable universe within the framework of a subjective FOR.
Does that mean that both claims should be disregarded by science because they are both untestable at present time?
Do you really wish to end such a lovely debate on the grounds that we both have untestable claims?

Paleophyte Wrote:"Scientific certainty is an oxymoron, as I'm sure that you're aware."

"That said, I also stated that regardless of the change, the evidence from too many varied sources all indicate similar ages for the universe for this change to be very large. The age of the universe is on the order of 10 billion years. To be precise that means no more than 100 billion, no less than 1 billion. And I would be shocked if it went anywhere near either of those extremes."
What is your position on the matter then?
Are you certain or uncertain as to the average age of the observable universe being 13.799 +- 0.021 billion years old?
Also try to specify between observable universe and actual universe in your replies. It helps me know which one you are talking about.
Find all posts by this user
29-01-2016, 11:47 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:If I can prove to you that velocity between event start and earliest observation can drastically slow down the relative age of the universe right into the present time would you accept defeat?

No. You would still have a great deal of work to do. Rest assured that if you do make a valid argument that I will concede the point.

Quote:So you agree that time dilation does affect the relative aging process from event start, but you don't think it will affect the relative age of the universe by that much because we already clocked 13.8 billion years inclusive of time dilation in the formula based on present observation.

13.8 billion years. Period. Full stop. No time dilation needed, wanted or observed.

Quote:I won't even use time dilation to prove my point. Only velocity.

Yes you will.

Quote:
Paleophyte Wrote: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.
How is this relevant to the following scenario:
Singularity state Vi of 0.9999999999999999999999992914c

And how did you arrive at this velocity if not through my calculation of the absurd speed that you would need to obtain in order to make 13.8 billion years appear to be six days? Not only did you use time dilation, you neglected to cite my work properly.

Quote:I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just showing you what a lack of data can do to an equation.

Brilliantly done.

Quote:Do you honestly think the distance/velocity from the FOR of any currently known event could possibly be added to increase the relative age of the expansion to 13.799 billion years if it was expanding for 14.26mpc at 0.9999999999999999999999992914c pre observation?

No. I was arguing that you can't and demonstrating the ridiculousness of it. Since we concur I should also mention that ICPP2IA without defining them properly.

Quote:There is currently no observable distance of expanding galaxies or CMB radiation inclusive of it's own relative time dilation that could change the age from 6 days to 13.8 billion years in the given scenario.

You have reversed the relativistic dilation sense of my scenario. I was demonstrating the absurd speed that your hypothetical observer needs to obtain so that it would appear to us that only 6 days had passed for him while 13.8 billion years had passed for us. You've reversed that, producing a wonderfully absurd straw man. Amazing what lack of information can do for a calulation.

Quote:t2 = d/v + t1
t2 = t0 + d/(Vi + (Vf - Vi)) = (14.26 mpc / 0.9999999999999999999999992914c) + (14.26mpc / (0.9999999999999999999999992914c + (0.000000000001c - 0.9999999999999999999999992914c))) = 6 days & a microsecond (yes all of post observation just increased the age of the universe pre observation by a microsecond when we added them)

That's a beauty of an exquation until you realize that the vi variable cancels out of the denominator leaving you with what is effectively t = d/v. You make it look so easy once somebody else has done all the heavy lifting for you.

On another note, you can't add and subtract large fractions of c like that. 0.8c + 0.7 c <> 1.5 c.

Quote:Only if you dishonestly reverse the FOR will you be able to get 13.8 billion years.

I didn't. I got six days. Thanks for checking my work for me. I was worried that Wolfram Alpha might have dropped a zero or something.

Quote:What makes it worst is that most Physicists believe that the velocity of the Big Bang started at speeds faster than the SOL

SOL? LOL! The terms you want are either FTL or greater than c.

Quote: so my theory is very plausible.

For what value of plausible? The inflationary epoch has bugger all to do with baryonic matter and everything that receded from us at speeds greater than c is forever gone over the cosmological event horizon.

Quote:Are you not familiar with the twin paradox?

Never heard of it.

Quote:The Universes FOR will determine it's own age.

This statement has no meaning.

Quote:I showed that the universe can be 6 days old dependent on the velocity of the pre-observable universe regardless of our FOR.

Actually, I showed that based on a frame of reference. I also showed that it was absurd. Absurd <> Plausible.

Quote:I also showed that our own relative velocity

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote:when added to the true velocity

And that doesn't mean anything. "True" velocity? Isaac Newton would like to have a word.

Quote:I am not conceding the debate.

Sorry, it just looked that way when you suggested that the debate was over if I didn't agree to violate a basic principle of science.

Quote:We have no data regarding the relative velocity of the Universe before post-observation.

What in all that's unholy do you mean by "before post-observation"?

Quote:13.8 Billion year old universe & a 6 day old universe.
Both claims would be untestable & unfalsifiable.

One of these claims has been tested and is falsifiable.

Quote:We would only be able to test the observable universe within the framework of a subjective FOR.

Relative to what?

Quote:What is your position on the matter then?
Are you certain or uncertain as to the average age of the observable universe being 13.799 +- 0.021 billion years old?

Read your own signature file.

Quote:Also try to specify between observable universe and actual universe in your replies. It helps me know which one you are talking about.

Whereas any portion of the universe that lies outside of the observable universe is incapable of being observed or having a causal effect on us it is best relegated to the realm of science fiction. For the purposes of scientific discussion the term "universe" is accepted to refer only to the observable universe except where explicitly stated otherwise.

---
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
30-01-2016, 02:55 AM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2016 07:22 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(29-01-2016 11:47 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
Quote:If I can prove to you that velocity between event start and earliest observation can drastically slow down the relative age of the universe right into the present time would you accept defeat?

No. You would still have a great deal of work to do. Rest assured that if you do make a valid argument that I will concede the point.

Quote:So you agree that time dilation does affect the relative aging process from event start, but you don't think it will affect the relative age of the universe by that much because we already clocked 13.8 billion years inclusive of time dilation in the formula based on present observation.

13.8 billion years. Period. Full stop. No time dilation needed, wanted or observed.

Quote:I won't even use time dilation to prove my point. Only velocity.

Yes you will.

Quote:How is this relevant to the following scenario:
Singularity state Vi of 0.9999999999999999999999992914c

And how did you arrive at this velocity if not through my calculation of the absurd speed that you would need to obtain in order to make 13.8 billion years appear to be six days? Not only did you use time dilation, you neglected to cite my work properly.

Quote:I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just showing you what a lack of data can do to an equation.

Brilliantly done.

Quote:Do you honestly think the distance/velocity from the FOR of any currently known event could possibly be added to increase the relative age of the expansion to 13.799 billion years if it was expanding for 14.26mpc at 0.9999999999999999999999992914c pre observation?

No. I was arguing that you can't and demonstrating the ridiculousness of it. Since we concur I should also mention that ICPP2IA without defining them properly.

Quote:There is currently no observable distance of expanding galaxies or CMB radiation inclusive of it's own relative time dilation that could change the age from 6 days to 13.8 billion years in the given scenario.

You have reversed the relativistic dilation sense of my scenario. I was demonstrating the absurd speed that your hypothetical observer needs to obtain so that it would appear to us that only 6 days had passed for him while 13.8 billion years had passed for us. You've reversed that, producing a wonderfully absurd straw man. Amazing what lack of information can do for a calulation.

Quote:t2 = d/v + t1
t2 = t0 + d/(Vi + (Vf - Vi)) = (14.26 mpc / 0.9999999999999999999999992914c) + (14.26mpc / (0.9999999999999999999999992914c + (0.000000000001c - 0.9999999999999999999999992914c))) = 6 days & a microsecond (yes all of post observation just increased the age of the universe pre observation by a microsecond when we added them)

That's a beauty of an exquation until you realize that the vi variable cancels out of the denominator leaving you with what is effectively t = d/v. You make it look so easy once somebody else has done all the heavy lifting for you.

On another note, you can't add and subtract large fractions of c like that. 0.8c + 0.7 c <> 1.5 c.

Quote:Only if you dishonestly reverse the FOR will you be able to get 13.8 billion years.

I didn't. I got six days. Thanks for checking my work for me. I was worried that Wolfram Alpha might have dropped a zero or something.

Quote:What makes it worst is that most Physicists believe that the velocity of the Big Bang started at speeds faster than the SOL

SOL? LOL! The terms you want are either FTL or greater than c.

Quote: so my theory is very plausible.

For what value of plausible? The inflationary epoch has bugger all to do with baryonic matter and everything that receded from us at speeds greater than c is forever gone over the cosmological event horizon.

Quote:Are you not familiar with the twin paradox?

Never heard of it.

Quote:The Universes FOR will determine it's own age.

This statement has no meaning.

Quote:I showed that the universe can be 6 days old dependent on the velocity of the pre-observable universe regardless of our FOR.

Actually, I showed that based on a frame of reference. I also showed that it was absurd. Absurd <> Plausible.

Quote:I also showed that our own relative velocity

You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote:when added to the true velocity

And that doesn't mean anything. "True" velocity? Isaac Newton would like to have a word.

Quote:I am not conceding the debate.

Sorry, it just looked that way when you suggested that the debate was over if I didn't agree to violate a basic principle of science.

Quote:We have no data regarding the relative velocity of the Universe before post-observation.

What in all that's unholy do you mean by "before post-observation"?

Quote:13.8 Billion year old universe & a 6 day old universe.
Both claims would be untestable & unfalsifiable.

One of these claims has been tested and is falsifiable.

Quote:We would only be able to test the observable universe within the framework of a subjective FOR.

Relative to what?

Quote:What is your position on the matter then?
Are you certain or uncertain as to the average age of the observable universe being 13.799 +- 0.021 billion years old?

Read your own signature file.

Quote:Also try to specify between observable universe and actual universe in your replies. It helps me know which one you are talking about.

Whereas any portion of the universe that lies outside of the observable universe is incapable of being observed or having a causal effect on us it is best relegated to the realm of science fiction. For the purposes of scientific discussion the term "universe" is accepted to refer only to the observable universe except where explicitly stated otherwise.
There are 5 major flaws in your rebuttal.
1. You seem to think we can ignore any velocity before our earliest observations of the actual universe & still have an accurate +- age of the event. Is that not what you are saying?.
I have shown for us to arrive at this conclusion we have to assume the data about distance & velocity between event start and the observable universe. We have no such data yet. The claim that it "is" is not physically or theoretically falsifiable at present time. The claim that it "can be" is theoretically falsifiable at present time. I'm am strictly using science to test both claims at this point in time.
The age of an event is determined by it's velocity at rest inclusive of all the changes in velocity until the event is over
2. You seem to think that the age of an event does not depend on it's own frame of reference at the start of the event & that your own relative frame of reference is all that is required for you to determine the age. Is that not what you are saying?
This is not what science has thought us. Rest frames are important when determining age. I provided mathematical evidence within the laws of science to show how important it is for proving/disproving a 6 day creation & it is the main point of my argument.
Maybe this will help you understand it better:
The twin paradox:
Twin 1 watches twin 2 leave the planet at light speed on a 1 year old rocket. The rocket returns with twin 2 after 5 years.
If twin 1 is now 25 years old how old is twin 2 & the rocket when they return?
3. You seem to think that the age of any event in the universe is going to be younger than the time it took to create the universe. Is that not what you are saying?
It's an illusion caused by using a different ruler to measure time & a lack of data for Vi. If you use the correct ruler you will get the correct time. Please refer to the twin paradox I mentioned above. It's not just Math, they literally will not have aged a single molecule & look exactly the same as they were 5 years before.
4. You seem to think that adding data of d/v before the earliest observable universe will not affect the current estimates of 13.8 b years by much. Is that not what you are saying?
You won't even believe me when I show you the math behind it proves that it can drastically change the true ate of creation down to 6 days. You wont even attempt to rebut the logic behind the math. Is this some form of Atheistic religion?
Science believes that the big bang occurred at FTL speeds. This is a commonly accepted fact.
Science also does not know the rate of deceleration from the big bang to the earliest observable universe. That data has to be added to the present data to determine the age of creation. 6 day creation falls within the parameters of the results of that data dependent on the speed and distance before earliest human observation (pre-observation period).
What can I say? I gave you the Math as evidence. I'm not even sending you to look for the evidence, because I placed it right in front your very eyes.
If the evidence is fake it shouldn't be that hard to disprove.
Where do we go from here?
How about you provide an equation that shows your 13.8 billion year old universe as more probable & let me work your math.
5. You seem to think that if a theory cannot be physically tested at present time it disproves the theory. Is that not what you are saying?
Theories can be mathematically tested within the defined laws of science & therefore falsifiable & testable. Physical and theoretical testing within the boundaries of proven science are done everyday by scientists to prove & disprove claims. Also you are shifting the goal post.
Find all posts by this user
30-01-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:1. You seem to think we can ignore any velocity before our earliest observations of the actual universe & still have an accurate +- age of the event. Is that not what you are saying?

Yes.

Quote:2. You seem to think that the age of an event does not depend on it's own frame of reference at the start of the event & that your own relative frame of reference is all that is required for you to determine the age. Is that not what you are saying?

No, I'm saying that the velocities reqired for the time dilations that you claim are (1) utter absurdities and (2) useless.

Quote:Rest frames are important when determining age. I provided mathematical evidence within the laws of science to show how important it is for proving/disproving a 6 day creation & it is the main point of my argument.

Very well, you claim to have already done the math but to date all that I've seen is a badly constructed d=vt equation that failed to take into account any frames of reference. Not only have you not done the math, you have not done the reasoning.

Kindly show your work. I want to see these plausible relativistic reference frames that make the universe appear to be six days old.

---
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
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
30-01-2016, 08:16 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2016 09:34 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:1. You seem to think we can ignore any velocity before our earliest observations of the actual universe & still have an accurate +- age of the event. Is that not what you are saying?

Yes.
No.

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:2. You seem to think that the age of an event does not depend on it's own frame of reference at the start of the event & that your own relative frame of reference is all that is required for you to determine the age. Is that not what you are saying?

No, I'm saying that the velocities reqired for the time dilations that you claim are (1) utter absurdities and (2) useless.
Still think the speed of inflation is absurd?
Many cosmologist believe that inflation ended around 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang.
Is this the absurd speed you were talking about? Is this not scientific?
Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:Rest frames are important when determining age. I provided mathematical evidence within the laws of science to show how important it is for proving/disproving a 6 day creation & it is the main point of my argument.

Very well, you claim to have already done the math but to date all that I've seen is a badly constructed d=vt equation that failed to take into account any frames of reference. Not only have you not done the math, you have not done the reasoning.
Kindly show your work. I want to see these plausible relativistic reference frames that make the universe appear to be six days old.
Then I will repeat the equation for you one more time breaking it down very slowly.
Assuming this equation meets all your construction requirements & you agree that science doesn't think the velocity of inflation is absurd:
Would the equation be enough to convince you that a 6 day creation is possible given the present state of the universe?

Edit:
I will place the equation in a subsequent post but for now this is what I am attempting to show:
1. Big Bang inflation covers event start to event observable @ 10^-36 seconds
2. It has to slow down below the SOL or we wouldn't be experiencing time right now.

This is where the debate begins:
3a It can go from SOL to the oldest known speed & then we start observing significant time from there
Or
3b It can go from SOL to 6 day creation velocity over a period of 6 days & then we start observing insignicant time from there

This is what the equation will show:
3a will have an observable universe starting velocity exactly what we experience today.
3b will have an observable universe starting velocity at the "absurd" yet scientific speed of a 6 day creation.

This will be the outcomes of the test:
3a results will prove that the age is exactly as we claim it to be
3b results will prove that the age is exactly 6 days + a microsecond old.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: