Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2016, 08:54 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:
Paleophyte Wrote: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?

It is not absurd because it is unatainable. It is absurd for your purpose.

Quote: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?

If the equation, the values that you assign the variables and the logic behind it are valid then you will have succeeded in demonstrating that a hypohetical observer could have seen the universe form over a period of six days. As I have said before, you still have a long way to go from that to six day Creation. But it will be a start.

---
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
30-01-2016, 09:35 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(30-01-2016 08:54 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
Quote: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?

It is not absurd because it is unatainable. It is absurd for your purpose.

Quote: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?

If the equation, the values that you assign the variables and the logic behind it are valid then you will have succeeded in demonstrating that a hypohetical observer could have seen the universe form over a period of six days. As I have said before, you still have a long way to go from that to six day Creation. But it will be a start.
Sorry I was editing when you wrote this.
Please check back my last post.
Find all posts by this user
01-02-2016, 12:27 AM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote: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.

1. The inflationary epoch runs from ~10^-36 s to ~10^-32 s, but who's counting.

2. There's no slowing down. The inflationary epoch is a period of extreme acceleration. Any part of the universe that makes it to c or faster, relative to us, vanishes over our cosmological horizon. It's gone. The observable universe is everything that never made it up to c. After the inflationary epoch we pretty much just coast with some very gradual acceleration.

Also, use c, not SOL. I'm not trying to nitpick here, it's just that Sol means something entirely different in astronomy.

Quote:3a It can go from SOL to the oldest known speed & then we start observing significant time from there

Oldest known speed? Significant time?

Quote: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

Insignificant time?

OK, important notes: Don't take anything that you want to keep in the observable universe to c. There are no brakes on this thing and no deceleration.

The inflationary period is acceleration. When the acceleration cuts out you maintain whatever velocity you have.

Quote: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.

OK, so to paraphrase, we're going to have two different portios of the universe. Call one "here" and let's say it's +/- stationary. Call the other one "way out there" and let's say it's moving at v=c-77microns/billion years. Does that look about right?

Quote: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.

Well, put the math up so we can look at it but I think that if you check the logic you'll find that 3b gets an age of 13.8 billion years too.

---
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
[+] 4 users Like Paleophyte's post
01-02-2016, 07:51 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2016 04:47 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote: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.

1. The inflationary epoch runs from ~10^-36 s to ~10^-32 s, but who's counting.

2. There's no slowing down. The inflationary epoch is a period of extreme acceleration. Any part of the universe that makes it to c or faster, relative to us, vanishes over our cosmological horizon. It's gone. The observable universe is everything that never made it up to c. After the inflationary epoch we pretty much just coast with some very gradual acceleration.

Also, use c, not SOL. I'm not trying to nitpick here, it's just that Sol means something entirely different in astronomy.
After this post you may want to use c and the speed of light as two seperate terms.
How do you know we aren't still close to c?
Where is the evidence that the universe isn't still inflating close to c?
Is this an assumption based on our own frame of reference?

Also there seems to be some confusion between us.
Can you confirm if you agree with the following:
1. We know expansion/inflation is not limited by c.
2. Any Galaxy 4700 mpc away is moving away from us faster than c? (I have some concerns here)
3. We assume the Big Bang exploded faster than c.
4. We know c is the speed limit for everything minus expansion/inflation velocity, particle spin spookiness at a distance & a few other things.
5. We measured 14.26gpc from the big bang to where we are now. (I have some concerns here as well)
6. Hubble Constant is used to determine the age of the universe but expansion/Inflation faster than c was factored in when measuring the age of the universe.

If we share the same understanding then it would be easier for me to explain my point of view

"~10^-36 s to ~10^-32 s" is a factor of time. Do you think this is faster than c or slower than c? If it is faster then we both agree time exists at speeds faster than c?
I'm not being difficult here, it's just my nature to question the logic in everything. My apologies for asking you so many questions in my quest to see your logic.

I also have some questions that I am unable to find the answers for. It may be unrelated to the topic but I would gladly like to hear your views on them.

Are speeds faster than c used to calculate age of the universe. (I think they were used)
Why would we use the hubble constant to date the universe for distances over 4700 mpc away from us? (Isn't it logical to think the light should never have reached us after 1.4 redshifted?)
Why are we still able to see light from galaxies over 13 gpc away like EGS8p7? (Isn't it logical to think the light should never have reached us from a redshift of 8.68? After the light crossed 4740 mpc it should never be able to catch up with any other galaxy outside of it's own gravity due to the hubble constant reaching a velocity faster than c. Or would you have me believe we are <4740 mpc away from what we are seeing?)
Why is it in a universe with so many galaxies have we never been able to see just one go past the event horizon? (Is it possible that the speed of light is correlated to the speed of expansion & not always c?)
Did we ever once consider that the universe is still inflating at close to c?
Did we ever once consider that c isn't always the speed of light in a vacuum & that it might only be the speed of current universal expansion?
Did we ever once consider that light speed was faster in the past than it is now? Yes we did, see research paper linked below.
If light speed in a vacuum always keeps up with the speed of inflation at the time of release & inflation is decelerating could that explain why we are still able to see galaxies that are observed to be moving away faster than the present c limit?
If the universe is currently inflating at c & light in a vacuum was faster for the older universe would this in any way contradict Einstein or Hubble? (I think Einstein would still be right but Hubble would be wrong)
Everything I just asked above can be so easily dismissed by showing me one instance of a permanently faded galaxy. I have not found any such evidence & I'm wondering if anyone here has the evidence? Don't mind if they post it in this thread & I don't mind if you're not a Cosmologist.

I know these questions aren't the common view of cosmologists. I am also not a cosmologist but I believe these questions deserved to be asked given the amount of controversy we have about c being the speed limit of the universe.
If you know the answers please feel free to answer them. Hopefully we may both learn a few things here, assuming that you don't already know everything.
Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:3a It can go from SOL to the oldest known speed & then we start observing significant time from there

Oldest known speed? Significant time?
Need to know your view on c first before I can reply to this.

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote: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

Insignificant time?

OK, important notes: Don't take anything that you want to keep in the observable universe to c. There are no brakes on this thing and no deceleration.

The inflationary period is acceleration. When the acceleration cuts out you maintain whatever velocity you have.
Need to know your view on c first before I can reply to this.

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote: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.

OK, so to paraphrase, we're going to have two different portios of the universe. Call one "here" and let's say it's +/- stationary. Call the other one "way out there" and let's say it's moving at v=c-77microns/billion years. Does that look about right?
Need to know your view on c first before I can reply to this.

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote: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.

Well, put the math up so we can look at it but I think that if you check the logic you'll find that 3b gets an age of 13.8 billion years too.
Before we even begin to look at the math we need to understand the logic behind the math or you will probably call it absurd again.

I think the controversy lies with Hubble's use of the doppler effect, redshift and c being the constant speed of light from the beginning of the universe.

Redshift:
When an object moves away from us, its light waves are stretched into lower frequencies or longer wavelengths, and we say that the light is redshifted. In the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, blue light has the highest frequency and red light has the lowest. In short, the point of origin is moving away from us faster if we see red light waves coming at us faster from the point of origin.
The Doppler Effect:
The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who proposed it in 1842 in Prague.

Hubble predicts:
If light always travels at c then Hubble would see a redshift between expanding galaxies indicating acceleration.
I predict:
If light travels at the same speed as expansion when released & expansion is decelerating then Hubble would also see a redshift between expanding galaxies even if they were decelerating.

Look at the logic before you throw it out as pseudoscience:
Assuming:
Light always travels at a constant speed once it is released (if in a vacuum) regardless of reference frame.
Light always travels at the relative speed of the universe's current inflation. New Theory that has yet to be tested.
The universe is decelerating. (Contrary to Hubble's law but i'm about to show why hubble's law could be wrong so bare with me please)
Older light will travel faster than newer light because the universe is decelerating. (based on the above assumptions)
Test:
Wave A is released at Point A is traveling at 10km/h toward us
Wave B is released after Wave A at Point B & is traveling at < 10km/h towards us
Point A is between Point B & us.
The velocity of Wave B from Point B to A is decelerating towards A (the waves are getting further apart over time) & will cause a redshift even though the velocity from Point B towards us is decelerating (the velocity between B & us slows down over time)
Therefore a decelerating inflation will cause an increase in redshift if the speed of light is the speed of current inflation.

Hubble assumes that the speed of light is constant whereas I assume it gets slower over time.
Here is some evidence that my assumption may be possible:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...pular.html
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einste...2004_3.pdf

This is the only logical explanation I can come up with why we can see galaxies that are over 1.4 redshifted (4740 mpc or further) & also explains why we have no evidence of disappearing galaxies as yet (in a universe with over 400 billion galaxies). If you have a more plausible solution please let me know.
Ofcourse this could all be proven wrong the instant a cosmologist shows me a galaxy that "suddenly" disappeared.
Find all posts by this user
02-02-2016, 04:59 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Good, you didn't bother calculating any Lorentz transformations. Don't bother, they don't work.

Here's the punchline: Special Relativity Does Not Apply to These Circumstances.
Abstract Here ... PDF Here

Coles Notes Version:
  • Special Relativity (SR) does not apply to velocities produced by the expansion of space-time.
  • Time dilations do occur, you want General Relativity (GR).
  • Objects with redshifts >1.46 are now and always have been moving away from us at >c. We can see them because SR doesn't apply. Neither of us is actually moving, space-time in between is expanding.
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier but as I said, this isn't my day job. Rocks do not typically require relativistic corrections and this is widely viewed as a Good Thing.

Quote:How do you know we aren't still close to c?

We measured. The Milky Way's "peculiar" velocity relative to the CMB is 627 km/s. [1]

Quote:Where is the evidence that the universe isn't still inflating close to c?

We measured. Current acceleration rates are somewhat model dependent but not more than an increase of 10 or 15% every few billion years.[2]
Also, acceleration is not velocity. Inflation is acceleration, not velocity.

Quote:"~10^-36 s to ~10^-32 s" is a factor of time. Do you think this is faster than c or slower than c?

Neither. It is a time. Measured in seconds. Velocities are measured in distance per time, e.g.: 100 km/hr

Quote:Are speeds faster than c used to calculate age of the universe.

A number of different methods have been employed. Speed is not an effective one as I mentioned several posts back. Try temperature instead. Kelvins won't excede c on you.

Quote:Did we ever once consider that c isn't just the speed of light in a vacuum & that it could also be the speed of just the milky way's expansion?

Yes. A funny little Jewish fellow who worked as a patent clerk had a few things to say about the matter. c is the same for everybody, everwhere. That is the entire point of relativity.

Quote:Did we ever once consider that c was faster in the past than it is now?

Talk to the chap filing the patents. Trying to muck with constants like c is an incredibly bad idea. They are the underpinning for everything from mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2) to the stability of your constituent atoms. Changing c by just a smidge could case horrifying violations in causality, reduce you to a pile of radioactive goo and explode every star in the universe. From there it's all down hill.

Quote:The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who proposed it in 1842 in Prague.

Just FYI, when you use somebody else' work like this it is considered polite to give them credit [3]. People can misinterpret this sort of behavior as academic dishonesty and the wrong sort can get very tichy about that.

Quote:The universe is decelerating.

Not according to the guys they gave the Nobel prizes to for demonstrating the acceleration. See my second source above.

I didn't address the rest of your questions because they're either answered better in the paper that I linked to or rendered irrelevant. I expect that it will generate a whole bunch of new questions though.

---
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
02-02-2016, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2016 05:51 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(02-02-2016 04:59 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Good, you didn't bother calculating any Lorentz transformations. Don't bother, they don't work.

Here's the punchline: Special Relativity Does Not Apply to These Circumstances.
Abstract Here ... PDF Here

Coles Notes Version:
  • Special Relativity (SR) does not apply to velocities produced by the expansion of space-time.
  • Time dilations do occur, you want General Relativity (GR).
  • Objects with redshifts >1.46 are now and always have been moving away from us at >c. We can see them because SR doesn't apply. Neither of us is actually moving, space-time in between is expanding.
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier but as I said, this isn't my day job. Rocks do not typically require relativistic corrections and this is widely viewed as a Good Thing.

Quote:How do you know we aren't still close to c?

We measured. The Milky Way's "peculiar" velocity relative to the CMB is 627 km/s. [1]

Quote:Where is the evidence that the universe isn't still inflating close to c?

We measured. Current acceleration rates are somewhat model dependent but not more than an increase of 10 or 15% every few billion years.[2]
Also, acceleration is not velocity. Inflation is acceleration, not velocity.

Quote:"~10^-36 s to ~10^-32 s" is a factor of time. Do you think this is faster than c or slower than c?

Neither. It is a time. Measured in seconds. Velocities are measured in distance per time, e.g.: 100 km/hr

Quote:Are speeds faster than c used to calculate age of the universe.

A number of different methods have been employed. Speed is not an effective one as I mentioned several posts back. Try temperature instead. Kelvins won't excede c on you.

Quote:Did we ever once consider that c isn't just the speed of light in a vacuum & that it could also be the speed of just the milky way's expansion?

Yes. A funny little Jewish fellow who worked as a patent clerk had a few things to say about the matter. c is the same for everybody, everwhere. That is the entire point of relativity.

Quote:Did we ever once consider that c was faster in the past than it is now?

Talk to the chap filing the patents. Trying to muck with constants like c is an incredibly bad idea. They are the underpinning for everything from mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2) to the stability of your constituent atoms. Changing c by just a smidge could case horrifying violations in causality, reduce you to a pile of radioactive goo and explode every star in the universe. From there it's all down hill.

Quote:The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who proposed it in 1842 in Prague.

Just FYI, when you use somebody else' work like this it is considered polite to give them credit [3]. People can misinterpret this sort of behavior as academic dishonesty and the wrong sort can get very tichy about that.

Quote:The universe is decelerating.

Not according to the guys they gave the Nobel prizes to for demonstrating the acceleration. See my second source above.

I didn't address the rest of your questions because they're either answered better in the paper that I linked to or rendered irrelevant. I expect that it will generate a whole bunch of new questions though.
Didnt see you confirm the first set of points I made. They are probably too well established I guess, but i would still like comfirmation before proceeding.
I will still address one point you just made however.

"Coles Notes Version:
Special Relativity (SR) does not apply to velocities produced by the expansion of space-time.
Time dilations do occur, you want General Relativity (GR).
Objects with redshifts >1.46 are now and always have been moving away from us at >c. We can see them because SR doesn't apply. Neither of us is actually moving, space-time in between is expanding.
Sorry I didn't catch this earlier but as I said, this isn't my day job. Rocks do not typically require relativistic corrections and this is widely viewed as a Good Thing."

Cosmology isn't my day job either but I believe we both have the academic prowess to understand the logic behind it. I build houses & commercial buildings for a living. Three kids and a wife. Oldest is 14.

Back on topic:
I already factored in the expansion of space time for light emitted 4740 mpc away and still don't see how it could reach us.
The speed of light is assumed to be constant regardless of expansion. I have issues with this but you don't.
If the Galaxy moves faster or slower away from or even towards us it will not affect the speed of light coming our way. Will it?
If space time stretches light doesn't surf the expansion while continuing to move at c relative to the surf. Does it?
Light is expected to always move at c.
Have a look at metric expansion again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_e...n_of_space
The reason why light takes longer to reach us is because it has to travel a bit further due to expansion.
Read the metric expansion wiki. It says "the light had to "run against the treadmill" and therefore went farther than the initial separation"
This is why we arent supposed to see galaxies beyond the event horizon:
Once a galaxy is more than 4740 mpc away from us the rate of expansion is supposed to outrun the speed of light.
So again I ask why are we seeing light from galaxies further than 4740 mpc?

Can you confirm the points I raised about c in the last post so I can respond to your other points properly?
I may edit this post after I finish reading your pdf link. I don't want you to feel i'm ignoring the evidence you are providing me.
Edit:

In the pdf you linked they state:
"all observers measure light locally to be travelling at c"
"the galaxies and photons are both receding from us at recession velocities greater than the speed of light"

In the metric expansion they state:
"the light had to "run against the treadmill" and therefore went farther than the initial separation"
Looks like light is surfing the expansion in one definition while the other one light barely keeps up.
Why the two different meanings and how are they not contradicting each other?

I understand how light density light waves can be seen further than 1.46 redshifted based on that model. It's still based on an assumption centered on c being constant however.
We have never tested the speed of light outside of our galaxy. Where is the evidence of c being the same outside of the Milky Way?
I get the same results when I make c = universe current velocity which is constantly decelerating.
Galaxies can still disappear in the pdf's model so i'm still not sure why if this model is true we haven't observed a galaxy that instantly drops from high density light waves to low level density light waves.
Find all posts by this user
03-02-2016, 06:53 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:Didnt see you confirm the first set of points I made. They are probably too well established I guess, but i would still like comfirmation before proceeding.

I figured that throwing special relativity out the window made a lot of the previous discussion meaningless. Feel free to repost any that aren't adressed after this. Since the waters have gotten muddied by the whole SR debacle I'm going to try and clear a few things up, to the best of my abilities.

Definitions:

Expansion: The fact that space-time is getting bigger. The rate of expansion is measured by the Hubble constant (H0). While often referred to by analogy as a velocity, it is not. H0 is measured in km/s/Mpc but the two distance variables can be cancelled out leaving you with units of just per second.

Inflation: The rate at which expansion is increasing. Neither velocity nor acceleration, though analogous to the latter in some ways. It is the change in the Hubble parameter (H) over time. During the inflationary epoch, the expansion rate went from next to nothing to just a bit slower than present in about a billionth of a yoctasecond (10^-33 s). Following that the expansion rate plateaued and has been increasing at a much more sedate rate for the last 13.8 billion years.

Recessional Velocity: vrec is the speed with which two otherwise stationary objects are receeding from one another courtesy of the expansion of the universe. vrec =H0D, where H0 is the Hubble constant and D is the proper distance between the two objects.

Hubble Sphere: The volume of space within a radius of 13.8 billion light-years from us. This is where the infamous 13.8 billion light-year universe comes from. Derived by setting vrec = c, c/H0 = 13.8 billion light-years. Anything within the Hubble Sphere has a vrec < c, anything outside has vrec > c.

Particle Horizon: The distance that light can travel from t= 0 to t. Where t = 13.8 billion years, the particle horizon is 46.9 billion light-years, the limit of the observable universe. This is the distance to the furthest observable point once the expansion of space-time is factored in.

Cosmological Event Horizon: The distance at which light that is emitted now will never be able to reach us even given infinite time. Currently about 16 billion light-years (5 Gpc) away, galaxies with a redshift of z>1.6 are passing this point now. We won't see that for a long while though. We are incapable of observing or being affected in any way by any event that occurs beyond the event horizon.

The Surface of Last Scattering:A practical rather than mathematical boundary, the surface of last scattering marks the point some 380,000 years after the Big Bang when matter finally cooled sufficiently for protons and electrons to form neutral atoms allowing light to travel frely throughout the universe. Prior to this the universe was filled by a seething "plasma fog" somewhat warmer than the boiling point of iron. This is the first light that we can observe and is the origin of the CMB.

More here on Wikipedia's List-O-Cosmological Horizons but that should do for now.

Quote:I already factored in the expansion of space time for light emitted 4740 mpc away and still don't see how it could reach us.

OK, this gets a little fun to follow. The bit about light running against the treadmill is part of the story, but it is an important part. Light takes longer than 1 billion years to cross 1 billion light years because that 1 billion light-years keeps on expanding. From the point of view of the observer, that light has been running against the treadmill, taking its precious time getting here. From the point of view of the emitter, the light has been running with the treadmill, covering more than a billion light-years in a billion years. Both happen to be correct as the poor photons are contending with literally moving goalposts at both ends of the field.

Now, let's make things stranger. Let's say that a billion years after the Big Bang a star 1.5 billion light-years away goes supernova. Since our Hubble Sphere at that time was only 1 billion light-years in radius, that star was moving away from us at vrec > c. I think that vrec = 1.5 c but am too lazy to figure out the exact numbers. In that case, the light is actually receding from us at 0.5 c!

Wait! Light always moves at c! No, light always moves at c relative to the local observers. We will see that light moving at c when it gets here. Right here at the start we don't see a blessed thing. The very-very-very-soon-to-be-immolated civilization orbitting the bouncing baby supernova will confirm this. We are receding at vrec = 1.5 c and the light is receding at c, so we are receding from the light at 0.5 c.

Now let's twiddle our thumbs for a billion years or so. Popcorn Popcorn

After a billion years, the light has receded 500 million light-years to a distance of 1.5 billion light-years. Adding a bit of expansion stretches that out to 2.25 billon light-years. Looks bad until you remember that our Hubble Sphere is expanding toward that happless photon at c. The hubble sphere is now out at 2 billion light-years, so the light is only receding from us at 0.125 c.

Popcorn Popcorn Popcorn

A few hunded million years later, the Hubble Sphere overtakes the light from the supernova. Now it can start moving toward us. It has a long trip running against the treadmill of expanding space-time but at least it's no longer losing ground.

And that is how we can see objects that are now and always have been receeding from us at faster than the speed of light.

Quote:The speed of light is assumed to be constant regardless of expansion. I have issues with this but you don't.

If c isn't constant then very, very bad things happen. And we have reasonably good evidence that c is constant. Spectral lines have been measured out to ridiculous redshifts in galaxies where vrec > c. The position of those spectral lines is governed by c, amonst other variables.

Quote:If the Galaxy moves faster or slower away from or even towards us it will not affect the speed of light coming our way. Will it?

No. c is constant, space and time must bend to accomadate that, hence special and general relativity.

Quote:If space time stretches light doesn't surf the expansion while continuing to move at c relative to the surf. Does it?

If you are the emitter and the light is travelling away from you then it might appear that light is getting a boost from expansion. That's deceptive though. Light is moving at c, the distance that it covered is expanding behind it. Looks impressive unless you're the observer, in which case the distance that it has yet to travel has expanded in front of it, making it look like it's moving <c. Both are a matter of perspective that fails to accurately account for the expansion of space-time.

Quote:Light is expected to always move at c.

Failure to do so could well lead to the next Big Bang. It would be inconceivably catastrophic at the very least.

Quote:The reason why light takes longer to reach us is because it has to travel a bit further due to expansion.

Read the metric expansion wiki. It says "the light had to "run against the treadmill" and therefore went farther than the initial separation"

Yup.

Quote:This is why we arent supposed to see galaxies beyond the event horizon:
Once a galaxy is more than 4740 mpc away from us the rate of expansion is supposed to outrun the speed of light.

Nope. The cosmological event horizon is at about 4740 Mpc *now*. Light emitted from that distance *now* will never reach us. Light that was emitted in the past and travelled through 46 billion light-years of expanding space-time can make it here.

Quote:Can you confirm the points I raised about c in the last post so I can respond to your other points properly?

Can you repost them? I've rather lost track of what's been adressed and what's been dumped.

Quote:I may edit this post after I finish reading your pdf link. I don't want you to feel i'm ignoring the evidence you are providing me.

It's much simpler and less annoying for all involved if you just make a second post. They aren't expensive. Some species of troll have the exceptionally bad habit of editting inconvenient contradictions out of past posts, so editting is typically reserved for minor corrections or excedingly good reasons. Simpler to just add to the conversation.

Quote:In the pdf you linked they state:
"all observers measure light locally to be travelling at c"
"the galaxies and photons are both receding from us at recession velocities greater than the speed of light"

In the metric expansion they state:
"the light had to "run against the treadmill" and therefore went farther than the initial separation"
Looks like light is surfing the expansion in one definition while the other one light barely keeps up.
Why the two different meanings and how are they not contradicting each other?

One meaning, no contradiction. The first is just saying that the "treadmill" is running faster than c. If vrec > c, the light is receding from us.

Quote:We have never tested the speed of light outside of our galaxy. Where is the evidence of c being the same outside of the Milky Way?

It didn't all explode. E=mc2 is the mass-energy equivalence that governs the nuclear fusion powering stars. Tweak it just a little and they all collapse, blow up, or both. Same thing for the size of black holes and a whole host of other phenomena. c is an inherent part of so many equations in physics that you simply can't vary it without catastrophic consequences.

Quote:Galaxies can still disappear in the pdf's model so i'm still not sure why if this model is true we haven't observed a galaxy that instantly drops from high density light waves to low level density light waves.

Galaxies don't just pop out of our universe when they cross the event horizon. Check the link that I provided above to see how they work. Same notion as a black hole's event horizon but bigger and we're on the inside. No, we aren't living on the inside of a black hole, despite that one superficial similarity.

From our point of view, as an object approaches the event horizon it gets slower, more time dilated and more redshifted. Slower, fainter and redder. Harder and harder to observe, though we could still see it if we really tried. The last few photons struggling just a hair's breadth from the event horizon trickle in to us over the millenia. The object is long gone but the relativistic distortion captures its fading image.

That and we really just can't see out that far yet. You should be impressed. Until the last few decades we couldn't see out far enough to know that special relativity was the wrong correction to apply because the difference between it and general relativity was too small.

---
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
03-02-2016, 08:55 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2016 03:08 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(03-02-2016 06:53 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
Quote:Didnt see you confirm the first set of points I made. They are probably too well established I guess, but i would still like comfirmation before proceeding.

I figured that throwing special relativity out the window made a lot of the previous discussion meaningless. Feel free to repost any that aren't adressed after this. Since the waters have gotten muddied by the whole SR debacle I'm going to try and clear a few things up, to the best of my abilities.

Definitions:

Expansion: The fact that space-time is getting bigger. The rate of expansion is measured by the Hubble constant (H0). While often referred to by analogy as a velocity, it is not. H0 is measured in km/s/Mpc but the two distance variables can be cancelled out leaving you with units of just per second.

Inflation: The rate at which expansion is increasing. Neither velocity nor acceleration, though analogous to the latter in some ways. It is the change in the Hubble parameter (H) over time. During the inflationary epoch, the expansion rate went from next to nothing to just a bit slower than present in about a billionth of a yoctasecond (10^-33 s). Following that the expansion rate plateaued and has been increasing at a much more sedate rate for the last 13.8 billion years.

Recessional Velocity: vrec is the speed with which two otherwise stationary objects are receeding from one another courtesy of the expansion of the universe. vrec =H0D, where H0 is the Hubble constant and D is the proper distance between the two objects.

Hubble Sphere: The volume of space within a radius of 13.8 billion light-years from us. This is where the infamous 13.8 billion light-year universe comes from. Derived by setting vrec = c, c/H0 = 13.8 billion light-years. Anything within the Hubble Sphere has a vrec < c, anything outside has vrec > c.

Particle Horizon: The distance that light can travel from t= 0 to t. Where t = 13.8 billion years, the particle horizon is 46.9 billion light-years, the limit of the observable universe. This is the distance to the furthest observable point once the expansion of space-time is factored in.

Cosmological Event Horizon: The distance at which light that is emitted now will never be able to reach us even given infinite time. Currently about 16 billion light-years (5 Gpc) away, galaxies with a redshift of z>1.6 are passing this point now. We won't see that for a long while though. We are incapable of observing or being affected in any way by any event that occurs beyond the event horizon.

The Surface of Last Scattering:A practical rather than mathematical boundary, the surface of last scattering marks the point some 380,000 years after the Big Bang when matter finally cooled sufficiently for protons and electrons to form neutral atoms allowing light to travel frely throughout the universe. Prior to this the universe was filled by a seething "plasma fog" somewhat warmer than the boiling point of iron. This is the first light that we can observe and is the origin of the CMB.

More here on Wikipedia's List-O-Cosmological Horizons but that should do for now.

Quote:I already factored in the expansion of space time for light emitted 4740 mpc away and still don't see how it could reach us.

OK, this gets a little fun to follow. The bit about light running against the treadmill is part of the story, but it is an important part. Light takes longer than 1 billion years to cross 1 billion light years because that 1 billion light-years keeps on expanding. From the point of view of the observer, that light has been running against the treadmill, taking its precious time getting here. From the point of view of the emitter, the light has been running with the treadmill, covering more than a billion light-years in a billion years. Both happen to be correct as the poor photons are contending with literally moving goalposts at both ends of the field.

Now, let's make things stranger. Let's say that a billion years after the Big Bang a star 1.5 billion light-years away goes supernova. Since our Hubble Sphere at that time was only 1 billion light-years in radius, that star was moving away from us at vrec > c. I think that vrec = 1.5 c but am too lazy to figure out the exact numbers. In that case, the light is actually receding from us at 0.5 c!

Wait! Light always moves at c! No, light always moves at c relative to the local observers. We will see that light moving at c when it gets here. Right here at the start we don't see a blessed thing. The very-very-very-soon-to-be-immolated civilization orbitting the bouncing baby supernova will confirm this. We are receding at vrec = 1.5 c and the light is receding at c, so we are receding from the light at 0.5 c.

Now let's twiddle our thumbs for a billion years or so. Popcorn Popcorn 

After a billion years, the light has receded 500 million light-years to a distance of 1.5 billion light-years. Adding a bit of expansion stretches that out to 2.25 billon light-years. Looks bad until you remember that our Hubble Sphere is expanding toward that happless photon at c. The hubble sphere is now out at 2 billion light-years, so the light is only receding from us at 0.125 c. 

Popcorn Popcorn Popcorn

A few hunded million years later, the Hubble Sphere overtakes the light from the supernova. Now it can start moving toward us. It has a long trip running against the treadmill of expanding space-time but at least it's no longer losing ground.

And that is how we can see objects that are now and always have been receeding from us at faster than the speed of light.

Quote:The speed of light is assumed to be constant regardless of expansion. I have issues with this but you don't.

If c isn't constant then very, very bad things happen. And we have reasonably good evidence that c is constant. Spectral lines have been measured out to ridiculous redshifts in galaxies where vrec > c. The position of those spectral lines is governed by c, amonst other variables.

Quote:If the Galaxy moves faster or slower away from or even towards us it will not affect the speed of light coming our way. Will it?

No. c is constant, space and time must bend to accomadate that, hence special and general relativity.

Quote:If space time stretches light doesn't surf the expansion while continuing to move at c relative to the surf. Does it?

If you are the emitter and the light is travelling away from you then it might appear that light is getting a boost from expansion. That's deceptive though. Light is moving at c, the distance that it covered is expanding behind it. Looks impressive unless you're the observer, in which case the distance that it has yet to travel has expanded in front of it, making it look like it's moving <c. Both are a matter of perspective that fails to accurately account for the expansion of space-time.

Quote:Light is expected to always move at c.

Failure to do so could well lead to the next Big Bang. It would be inconceivably catastrophic at the very least.

Quote:The reason why light takes longer to reach us is because it has to travel a bit further due to expansion.

Read the metric expansion wiki. It says "the light had to "run against the treadmill" and therefore went farther than the initial separation"

Yup.

Quote:This is why we arent supposed to see galaxies beyond the event horizon:
Once a galaxy is more than 4740 mpc away from us the rate of expansion is supposed to outrun the speed of light.

Nope. The cosmological event horizon is at about 4740 Mpc *now*. Light emitted from that distance *now* will never reach us. Light that was emitted in the past and travelled through 46 billion light-years of expanding space-time can make it here.

Quote:Can you confirm the points I raised about c in the last post so I can respond to your other points properly?

Can you repost them? I've rather lost track of what's been adressed and what's been dumped.

Quote:I may edit this post after I finish reading your pdf link. I don't want you to feel i'm ignoring the evidence you are providing me.

It's much simpler and less annoying for all involved if you just make a second post. They aren't expensive. Some species of troll have the exceptionally bad habit of editting inconvenient contradictions out of past posts, so editting is typically reserved for minor corrections or excedingly good reasons. Simpler to just add to the conversation.

Quote:In the pdf you linked they state:
"all observers measure light locally to be travelling at c"
"the galaxies and photons are both receding from us at recession velocities greater than the speed of light"

In the metric expansion they state:
"the light had to "run against the treadmill" and therefore went farther than the initial separation"
Looks like light is surfing the expansion in one definition while the other one light barely keeps up.
Why the two different meanings and how are they not contradicting each other?

One meaning, no contradiction. The first is just saying that the "treadmill" is running faster than c. If vrec > c, the light is receding from us.

Quote:We have never tested the speed of light outside of our galaxy. Where is the evidence of c being the same outside of the Milky Way?

It didn't all explode. E=mc2 is the mass-energy equivalence that governs the nuclear fusion powering stars. Tweak it just a little and they all collapse, blow up, or both. Same thing for the size of black holes and a whole host of other phenomena. c is an inherent part of so many equations in physics that you simply can't vary it without catastrophic consequences.

Quote:Galaxies can still disappear in the pdf's model so i'm still not sure why if this model is true we haven't observed a galaxy that instantly drops from high density light waves to low level density light waves.

Galaxies don't just pop out of our universe when they cross the event horizon. Check the link that I provided above to see how they work. Same notion as a black hole's event horizon but bigger and we're on the inside. No, we aren't living on the inside of a black hole, despite that one superficial similarity.

From our point of view, as an object approaches the event horizon it gets slower, more time dilated and more redshifted. Slower, fainter and redder. Harder and harder to observe, though we could still see it if we really tried. The last few photons struggling just a hair's breadth from the event horizon trickle in to us over the millenia. The object is long gone but the relativistic distortion captures its fading image.

That and we really just can't see out that far yet. You should be impressed. Until the last few decades we couldn't see out far enough to know that special relativity was the wrong correction to apply because the difference between it and general relativity was too small.
Most of what you have just said here I find very logical and is in keeping with the research I have done.
There is however one point that keeps bugging me and I still can't see the logic behind it.
You said:
"During the inflationary epoch, the expansion rate went from next to nothing to just a bit slower than present in about a billionth of a yoctasecond (10^-33 s). Following that the expansion rate plateaued and has been increasing at a much more sedate rate for the last 13.8 billion years."
Where is the evidence for this? How do you "know"?
Truth is we don't know. Look at the responses every time the question was asked:
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-univer...ange-speed
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questio...tionary-ep
It's a guess, an assumption, an unproven theory. Since when do we go about stating unproven theories as facts? The age of the universe is determined based on this assumption and yet people have the audacity to say they know it's a fact. Why the dishonesty? Why mislead us using the word "know" when we really don't know?

I understand the concepts of special relativity and general relativity a lot more than you may think I do, but I don't subscribe to assumptions without following the logic behind them. I try to keep the discussion simple for the sake of understanding so patronize me a bit if you don't mind. Einstein once said you don't really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother. Pretend I'm your grandmother.
Explain this to me:

It would appear you are suggesting that light waves in a vacuum are correlated to the speed of the expanding universe at the time of it's release. (it's similar to what I said earlier)
It's the speed of each wave I am concerned about here.
If a wave (w1) is released at x/y coordinate A then the speed of w1 is c relative only to A.
If the galaxy's expansion rate accelerates or decelerates after w1 was released it will not affect the velocity of w1 relative to A.
Any new waves released (let's say w2) will not be relative to A but rather to a new x/y coordinate (let's say B)

Just keeping it simple for lil old grandma here.

Let's look at the logic of the "now" light never being able to catch up with us if it is 1.4 redshifted or 1400 mpc away in the "now". I could have said 1.46 redshifted (1470 mpc) but we have to compensate for the added expansion while waiting.

In the "now":
If w1 is released at A then it MAY eventually reach B, then C, then D, E, F, etc. (please note the MAY)
Let's say an observer (call him OB)  is located at B when the wave is released from A, this is what is going to happen (assuming the observer is accelerating & is no further than 4200 mpc away at the time):
w1 will hit B but the observer will no longer be at B (probably C by then).
w1 will have a higher velocity relative to A (in the now) than OB velocity relative to A (in the now)
Here is the catch:
w1 velocity relative to A never changes
OB velocity relative to A is accelerating
What this means is that w1 has a limited distance from A (call it Position Z) to catch up with OB before he starts to outrun him. That distance is calculated to be 4740 mpc which can be plotted on a map of the universe as a cone Expanding away from A. Z is the border of the cone.

As you can see I understand fully well how "now"  light waves can reach us within the cone of Z.

The problem is I don't understand how "now" light waves still reach us from outside the cone of Z (further than 4200 mpc from the time of release)

4200 mpc is past the point of no return.

This is why I made the statement "everything we are able to see has to be within 4740 mpc from us".

When we see waves from Galaxy EGS8p7 is it not obvious that those waves must have come from a time when the distance from the galaxy to us was within the cone of GG (4740 mpc)

So the correct answer is that we cannot see light further than 4740 mpc away.

What cosmologists have done to determine the "now" distance of said galaxy is measure the "then" time from the point of release of the last wave that hit us to our "now" time & then add the Hubble constant to the time they found. They used the doppler effect to determine velocity & redshift/luminosity to determine distance.
By doing this they were able to tell the "now" age/distance/velocity of said galaxy (assuming that it still exists lol)

This now brings us back full circle to the topic of debate.
Why?
Because if the oldest thing we can see is 4740 mpc then we cannot say we "know" the observable universe is over 13 billion years.
We could say the oldest thing we can see is probably over 13 years by now.

The word "observable" deals with the "now".
We have never "observed" a 13.8 billion year old universe.
We have assumed it.

Wording is everything & evidence is crucial to a debate between "knowledge" & "assumptions". We "know" isn't the same as we "assume".

I have an apology to make as well:
I noticed while writing this reply that the waves (w1, w2, w3, etc) will hit OB slower than the ones before, anywhere within the cone of Z (except in cases of gravity & other such forces messing with the waves). When OB hits Z no more waves emitted from that particular light source will ever be able to reach OB after that.
This is probably what you call "faded".
I will admit that no light source ever really pops out of sight instantly due to speed but rather slowly fades away into the event horizon.
Yes I got that part wrong but it still doesn't change the fact that:
We should never be able to see light waves from the same source over 4200 mpc away from now based on the current laws of science unless the source decelerates after crossing 4200 mpc (which would bring it back inside the 4200 mpc cone). Is it that you are saying that the light we see from older galaxies are a result of the deceleration matching the acceleration long enough for us to get a glimpse in the now?

I also have some major concerns with the logic of dating the universe by dating the galaxies. The relative age of the universe is not correlated to the relative age of a galaxy. Time dilation & frame of reference relative to an x/y coordinate makes all the difference. The age of the universe relative to event start (position A) is not going to be correlated to the age of a galaxy relative to position B. The "now" universe can still be moving away from A at a faster velocity than the velocity of "a galaxy moving away from B". In essence the universe can be younger than it's creation because it's creation measures time by a different ruler than the universe.
What is the age of the universe to the universe? 6 days maybe?
What is the age a galaxy to the universe? 6 days (probably) relative to the universe obviously.
What's the age of the galaxy to the galaxy? Over 13 billion years (probably) relative to the galaxy.

I have more to say about the the speed of "now" which I will delve into in a subsequent post, but in the interim can we both agree that we don't KNOW the age of the OBSERVABLE universe to be 13.8 billion years. We could say we KNOW the age of the OBSERVABLE anything is less than 4200mpc/c (where c isn't really constant due to gravity & expansion fluctuations)

Emphasis on OBSERVABLE & KNOW.
Find all posts by this user
05-02-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:Most of what you have just said here I find very logical and is in keeping with the research I have done.
There is however one point that keeps bugging me and I still can't see the logic behind it.
You said:
"During the inflationary epoch, the expansion rate went from next to nothing to just a bit slower than present in about a billionth of a yoctasecond (10^-33 s). Following that the expansion rate plateaued and has been increasing at a much more sedate rate for the last 13.8 billion years."
Where is the evidence for this?

The infationary epoch is the most speculative part of modern cosmology. We're dealing with conditions when the entire universe was about the size of a beach ball.

That said, the observations that space-time is more or less flat, horizonless and isotropic are best explained by that brief burst of inflation. There are other explanations but they are less convincing, either failing to fit with all of the observations or causing new and even stranger problems.

Quote:How do you "know"?

Tell me, what part of "Lambda-CDM Concordance Model" speaks to you of certain knowledge? To me it was the part where they started using Greek. They should learn to speak English like everybody else. Incidents like this show that they just aren't assimilating.

Quote:It's a guess, an assumption, an unproven theory. Since when do we go about stating unproven theories as facts? The age of the universe is determined based on this assumption and yet people have the audacity to say they know it's a fact. Why the dishonesty? Why mislead us using the word "know" when we really don't know?

Since you are certain enough to use words a strong as "dishonesty" I will assume that you have a cosmologist who preaches the gospel truth of Lambda-CDM. I would like to see this beastie so that I can be the first of many to point and laugh.

Quote:Here is the catch:
w1 velocity relative to A never changes
OB velocity relative to A is accelerating
What this means is that w1 has a limited distance from A (call it Position Z) to catch up with OB before he starts to outrun him. That distance is calculated to be 4740 mpc which can be plotted on a map of the universe as a cone Expanding away from A. Z is the border of the cone.

Put more simply, that is the current distance to the cosmological event horizon. Nothing happening 4740 Mpc away today will ever be observed here.

Quote:The problem is I don't understand how "now" light waves still reach us from outside the cone of Z (further than 4200 mpc from the time of release)

They won't. That's the idea of event horizons.

Quote:This is why I made the statement "everything we are able to see has to be within 4740 mpc from us".

No. 4740 Mpc is the distance to the event horizon *now*. We don't observe the universe *now*. Light takes time to travel. You see the Moon as it was 1 second ago, the Sun 8 minutes ago, the Andromeda Galaxy as it was 2.5 million years ago and the CMB as it was 13.8 billion years ago.

Correcting for expansion, 4740 Mpc works out to about 61 billion light-years, 13.8 billion years ago. Have a look at the second and third panels of Figure 1 in the Davis and Lineweaver paper from my last post. They do a good job of explaining. That's outside the Hubble Sphere and the Particle Horizon so we can't see anything from that distance yet. It also means that for the next 10 billion years or so, until the Hubble Sphere overtakes the event horizon, the expanding Hubble Sphere will continue overtaking photons that are receding from us, allowing us to see more new galaxies. You need to be looking for new galaxies appearing, not old ones disappearing. At least not for another ten billion years or so. Popcorn Popcorn Popcorn

Quote:When we see waves from Galaxy EGS8p7 is it not obvious that those waves must have come from a time when the distance from the galaxy to us was within the cone of GG (4740 mpc)

Only as measured in proper distance, which is not the proper distance to measure.

Quote:The word "observable" deals with the "now".

Until you remember that we observe now what was emitted back then.

Quote:We have never "observed" a 13.8 billion year old universe.
We have assumed it.

Yes, we have. What we have never observed is the present universe, we are assuming it. For all you know the sun went supernova just now but you won't be vaporized for another 8 minutes. You can't observe the universe as it is now.

Quote:Wording is everything & evidence is crucial to a debate between "knowledge" & "assumptions". We "know" isn't the same as we "assume".

And what we observe now is not the same as what is happening now. We observe what happened back then. The further out you look, the further back it is.

Quote:I noticed while writing this reply that the waves (w1, w2, w3, etc) will hit OB slower than the ones before, anywhere within the cone of Z (except in cases of gravity & other such forces messing with the waves). When OB hits Z no more waves emitted from that particular light source will ever be able to reach OB after that.
This is probably what you call "faded".

Light attenuation is the impressive sounding term. If an object has a time dilation of 10 relative to you and is emitting 400 photons per second then you only see 40 photons per second.


Quote:I also have some major concerns with the logic of dating the universe by dating the galaxies. The relative age of the universe is not correlated to the relative age of a galaxy.

No, but the age of a galaxy can be used to put lower bounds on the age of the universe. The universe shall not contain galaxies that are older than it for good and obvious reasons.

Quote:Time dilation & frame of reference relative to an x/y coordinate makes all the difference.

Only in special relativity. Didn't we discard that?

Quote:The age of the universe relative to event start (position A) is not going to be correlated to the age of a galaxy relative to position B.

The universe contains all possible points, A through Z.

Quote: The "now" universe can still be moving away from A at a faster velocity than the velocity of "a galaxy moving away from B".

For the universe to be moving away from anything you will need to define an external reference frame. Best of luck defining a reference frame external to space-time.

Quote: In essence the universe can be younger than it's creation because it's creation measures time by a different ruler than the universe.

Only if it's using a fake ID.

Quote:I have more to say about the the speed of "now"

What did those poor words ever do to you?

Quote:but in the interim can we both agree that we don't KNOW the age of the OBSERVABLE universe to be 13.8 billion years.

I woudn't say that. I'll give you some latitude, +/1 a few billion years if you like, but as I've said before, we KNOW that it's on the order of 10 billions of years.

Quote:We could say we KNOW the age of the OBSERVABLE anything is less than 4200mpc/c (where c isn't really constant due to gravity & expansion fluctuations)

We could say that but we would be wrong. That would be using t=d/v in expanding space-time. It's an invalid use of the equation using the wrong value of d. Using the co-moving distance yields at well in excess of 13.8 billion years because the event horizon is well outside of the currently observable universe.

Quote:Emphasis on OBSERVABLE & KNOW.

If it's Dogmatic Gospel Truth that you want then you're preaching up the wrong tree. We will be using knowledge and observation in the context of the scientific principles that you said you would be using at the beginning of this discussion.

---
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
10-02-2016, 11:59 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Crickets

---
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
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: