Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-02-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
For the TL;DR crowd:

(1) Special Relativity does not apply to objects moving with the expansion of space-time.

(2) Nothing slows down at the end of the inflationary epoch.

(3) Baseless supposition does not qualify as science.

Quote:As a geologist you would know how well formations are created by natural events which has no bearing on intent.

And as a geologist I would know better than to use the term "create". My editors get twitchy if I use "while" or "as" and would have an apoplectic fit if I used a term so sloppy as "create".

Quote:I think you must have assumed you are debating a theist somewhere along the way.

No, but there are some odd parallels [1,2,3].

Quote:Thus far you have thrown out the 13.8 +- 0.021 billion year old universe claim in place of a less definitive age.
I was hoping my opponent would have argued on behalf of that claim, but I will probably have to make another debate to discuss that one.

The CMB black body emission spectra measured by COBE, WMAP and Planck, age of white dwarfs, abundance of radioactive elements in stars, etc. weren't enough for you?

And you are the one making the fascinating assertion here. You get to back it up.

Quote:So all I am left with in this debate is to prove the prossibility the universe can be 6 days.

Yes. And simply stating "We can't be certain it was X so it could have been Y!" without providing even a plausible mechanism for Y is not considered evidence that something is possible. That is nothing more than unsupported supposition.

Quote:So here is my question to you.
How do you "know" the speed of expansion went from faster than light speed from the moment of event start to present day observable speeds?

It didn't.

There is no decelleration.

That would be "deflation".

During the inflationary epoch, the rate at which space-time is expanding increases. Various different parts of the universe "accelerate" away from one another at higher and higher "speeds".

At the end of inflation, these speeds are maintained. They do not go from faster than light to current speeds. The current speeds are still faster than light.

The majority of the universe accelerates away from us a much greater than the speed of light and buggers off for the rest of time. It ceased to be observable.

A small minority of the universe that happened to be nearby does not reach the speed of light (or does but our expanding Hubble Sphere catches up with its light, another story) and forms the observable universe that we know and love.

And none of that helps you one jot because all of these various different "velocities" are due to the expansion of space-time. All of the reference frames are moving with space-time, not through space-time, and thus are co-moving. Special Relativity doesn't apply as already discussed.

Quote:I am not debating that it "is" & only that it "can be" since we lack the evidence to prove otherwise.

That is the very definition of baseless supposition.

We cannot prove that there is not a teapot orbitting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. It is possible that such a thing exists and we lack the evidence to prove otherwise. To suggest that such a thing exists is simply belief and fails to even approximate science.

Quote:It's not a debate about evidence, it's about a lack of evidence.

Then you are simply waving your hands in the air and saying, "It mighta done!"

From your first post, finalized version:
Quote:I aim to prove that it is possible (using only science) that the observable universe can be 6 days old...

You have not done this.

Quote:If you tell me that just because I cannot come up with a better solution then it proves you are right, then I'm afraid you will lose this debate.

I am not asking you to come up with a better solution. I am not suggesting that you overturn the Lambda-CDM concordance model. That would be Nobel Prize worthy and is an unreasonable goal.

I am asking that you provide one plausible mechanism whereby the 13.8 billion years that have elapsed since the Big Bang could possibly be misidentified as 6 days.

Quote:A lack of evidence means the possibilities are endless in this particular debate.

No. It may mean that certain points are poorly constrained but limitted evidence on one portion of our understanding does not invalidate our understanding as a whole.

This is like saying we don't know if the murder weapon was a straight blade or a serated one, therefor the killer might have been Ghengis Khan.

Quote:Why? Because we do not have evidence of the slowing down from event start to present.

Didn't happen. See above.

Quote:It has always been an assumption based on our earliest observable reference frames.

Reference frames don't apply to objects moving due to the expansion of space-time as discussed earlier.

Quote:If you would throw out the claim that inflation did happen at faster than light speeds then it would probably help your side of the debate however I don't think science will allow it.

It would not agree well with our current understanding of the universe.

Quote:Provide me the evidence based on the frame of reference from event start velocity to the point where it slowed down and I cannot argue any further.

Frames of reference don't apply and there is no slowing down.

Quote:Without it we cannot determine the age of creation, only the age of the creation itself. There is a difference.

I'm having a hard time seeing it. *ponders sentence above whilst squintining* Nope, still not seeing it.

Quote:Science just hasn't gotten the right to make a claim about event start observations as yet and it would be dishonest of us to do so as well.

Try the following:

tTotal = the entire age of the universe
tInflation = the duration of the inflationary epoch
tPlasmaFog = the duration prior to light-matter decoupling
tAllTheRest = everything since decoupling

tAllTheRest has been measured at 13.8 billion years

tTotal = tInflation + tPlasmaFog + tAllTheRest

Thus, for all non-negative values of tInflation or tPlasmaFog, tTotal >= 13.8 billion years.

Messing about with uncertainty during the inflationary epoch is not helping you.

---
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
14-02-2016, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 05:07 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Paleophyte Wrote:For the TL;DR crowd:

(1) Special Relativity does not apply to objects moving with the expansion of space-time.

(2) Nothing slows down at the end of the inflationary epoch.

(3) Baseless supposition does not qualify as science.
If special relativity cannot be used to measure the time taken from event start to event end then how are we ever going to determine how long it took the universe to expand/inflate from event start to event end? We will end up with 0 time.
All we would be discussing is the age of the oldest known things in the universe and not the age of creation based on general relativity.
This debate is based on a topic about the creation of the universe which cannot be measured due to general relativity. Is this where we are at now?
We already agreed "creation" refers to the time taken to get from the event start position to the event end position.
We are measuring the age of expansion here.
If you are to throw out the 6 day creation period based on the fact that we cannot measure time via measuring expansion/inflation then you will also have to throw out any claim of a 13.8 billion year expansion/inflation as well.
We would both lose the debate on the grounds that neither of us are right and expansion has no age due to special relativity.
I would be willing to concede that we both lose the debate at this point, but I think we need to further look at the meaning of the word create.


If nothing slows down at end of "inflation" then am I to assume it is still expanding at the same speed?
If it came to a stop and then started to move a lot slower after that how is that not slowing down?
When you stop at a traffic light is that not evidence that you have slowed down? Have you somehow altered the meaning of the word slow to not include a drastic reduction in speed?

I agree baseless supposition does not qualify as science so why then would your claim of the universe's expansion going from faster than light to it's present expansion speed be considered a fact? Where is the evidence for either assumptions? If I am to lose this debate on a baseless assumption then you will also have to lose your side of the debate as well based on a baseless assumption.
Again I ask where is the evidence to show the change in speeds.
Of course even after we found the evidence of speed changes we still wouldnt be able to calculate the age of expansion and inflation right?
I sense some goal posts movements. Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

Isn't the following statement a contradiction of GR?
"The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds."

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:As a geologist you would know how well formations are created by natural events which has no bearing on intent.

And as a geologist I would know better than to use the term "create". My editors get twitchy if I use "while" or "as" and would have an apoplectic fit if I used a term so sloppy as "create".
If only they knew the word create does not always imply intent nor "something from nothing". Luckily your editors are not the judges of this debate & it would also be a logical fallacy if they were.
Maybe that's why so many geography text books still use the word create when describing formations? Let's stick to the proper meaning of words and not common understanding amongst your peers only please.
Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:I think you must have assumed you are debating a theist somewhere along the way.

No, but there are some odd parallels [1,2,3].
A bit irrelevant don't you think?

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:Thus far you have thrown out the 13.8 +- 0.021 billion year old universe claim in place of a less definitive age.
I was hoping my opponent would have argued on behalf of that claim, but I will probably have to make another debate to discuss that one.

The CMB black body emission spectra measured by COBE, WMAP and Planck, age of white dwarfs, abundance of radioactive elements in stars, etc. weren't enough for you?

And you are the one making the fascinating assertion here. You get to back it up.
So we are back to measuring the age of objects in the universe in an attempt to calculate the time taken from event start to event end? Which as you pointed out earlier we can't do since general relativity doesn't give us permission to measure the expansion with time right?
The goal posts just left the stadium I think.
Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:So all I am left with in this debate is to prove the prossibility the universe can be 6 days.

Yes. And simply stating "We can't be certain it was X so it could have been Y!" without providing even a plausible mechanism for Y is not considered evidence that something is possible. That is nothing more than unsupported supposition.
I agree and this is why I have no objections to conceding the debate on the grounds that you are also doing the same thing & we both lack evidence for either claims.
Why are you so adamant on me providing evidence for an "is" when i clearly stated "we have no evidence for either sides of the claims". I am not arguing an "is". At what point will you realize I am arguing an agnostic position on both claims, whilst you are still defending a gnostic position with a lack of evidence. If SR doesn't apply to dating expansion neither does GR now does it? Where does that leave us? We are going to be hounded by this for the remainder of the debate unless we either agree "creation has no age" or we find some way to date it. It's unfortunate you claim science just wont allow us to date the age of expansion/inflation.
Which reminds me:
What is this supposed to mean?
"The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds."
Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:So here is my question to you.
How do you "know" the speed of expansion went from faster than light speed from the moment of event start to present day observable speeds?

It didn't.

There is no decelleration.

That would be "deflation".

During the inflationary epoch, the rate at which space-time is expanding increases. Various different parts of the universe "accelerate" away from one another at higher and higher "speeds".

At the end of inflation, these speeds are maintained. They do not go from faster than light to current speeds. The current speeds are still faster than light.

The majority of the universe accelerates away from us a much greater than the speed of light and buggers off for the rest of time. It ceased to be observable.

A small minority of the universe that happened to be nearby does not reach the speed of light (or does but our expanding Hubble Sphere catches up with its light, another story) and forms the observable universe that we know and love.

And none of that helps you one jot because all of these various different "velocities" are due to the expansion of space-time. All of the reference frames are moving with space-time, not through space-time, and thus are co-moving. Special Relativity doesn't apply as already discussed.
Decreased speed isn't deflation, it's called deceleration.
They don't even fall in the same category.

Paleophyte Wrote:
Quote:I am not debating that it "is" & only that it "can be" since we lack the evidence to prove otherwise.

That is the very definition of baseless supposition.

We cannot prove that there is not a teapot orbitting the Sun between Mars and Jupiter. It is possible that such a thing exists and we lack the evidence to prove otherwise. To suggest that such a thing exists is simply belief and fails to even approximate science.
Your the one making an "is" claim here, I am only asking for evidence on the grounds that without it we both have no claims and your guess is as good as mine. You seem to have been plagued by debates where your opponents claim an "is" and you ask them for evidence.
In this debate you are the one claiming an "is" and I am the one asking for evidence. I am making the claim that "without evidence you claim is just as good as any other". You will in essence be debating that claim and not an "is" claim. There is no need for me to provide evidence if I do not make an "is" claim.

Quote:It's not a debate about evidence, it's about a lack of evidence.

Then you are simply waving your hands in the air and saying, "It mighta done!"

From your first post, finalized version:
Quote:I aim to prove that it is possible (using only science) that the observable universe can be 6 days old...

You have not done this.

Quote:If you tell me that just because I cannot come up with a better solution then it proves you are right, then I'm afraid you will lose this debate.

I am not asking you to come up with a better solution. I am not suggesting that you overturn the Lambda-CDM concordance model. That would be Nobel Prize worthy and is an unreasonable goal.

I am asking that you provide one plausible mechanism whereby the 13.8 billion years that have elapsed since the Big Bang could possibly be misidentified as 6 days.

Quote:A lack of evidence means the possibilities are endless in this particular debate.

No. It may mean that certain points are poorly constrained but limitted evidence on one portion of our understanding does not invalidate our understanding as a whole.

This is like saying we don't know if the murder weapon was a straight blade or a serated one, therefor the killer might have been Ghengis Khan.

Quote:Why? Because we do not have evidence of the slowing down from event start to present.

Didn't happen. See above.

Quote:It has always been an assumption based on our earliest observable reference frames.

Reference frames don't apply to objects moving due to the expansion of space-time as discussed earlier.

Quote:If you would throw out the claim that inflation did happen at faster than light speeds then it would probably help your side of the debate however I don't think science will allow it.

It would not agree well with our current understanding of the universe.

Quote:Provide me the evidence based on the frame of reference from event start velocity to the point where it slowed down and I cannot argue any further.

Frames of reference don't apply and there is no slowing down.

Quote:Without it we cannot determine the age of creation, only the age of the creation itself. There is a difference.

I'm having a hard time seeing it. *ponders sentence above whilst squintining* Nope, still not seeing it.

Quote:Science just hasn't gotten the right to make a claim about event start observations as yet and it would be dishonest of us to do so as well.

Try the following:

tTotal = the entire age of the universe
tInflation = the duration of the inflationary epoch
tPlasmaFog = the duration prior to light-matter decoupling
tAllTheRest = everything since decoupling

tAllTheRest has been measured at 13.8 billion years

tTotal = tInflation + tPlasmaFog + tAllTheRest

Thus, for all non-negative values of tInflation or tPlasmaFog, tTotal >= 13.8 billion years.

Messing about with uncertainty during the inflationary epoch is not helping you.
[/quote]
Find all posts by this user
14-02-2016, 06:05 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:If special relativity cannot be used to measure the time taken from event start to event end then how are we ever going to determine how long it took the universe to expand/inflate from event start to event end?

Quite simply by not applying the time dilations that you would if special relativity did apply. No special relativity, no Lorentz transformations, no correction needed or wanted.

Quote:We will end up with 0 time.

No. You end up with time uncorrected for SR.

Quote:All we would be discussing is the age of the oldest known things in the universe and not the age of creation based on general relativity.

(1) You've switched relativities here.

(2) And where's the problem in that? The universe can't be younger than the oldest thing that it contains, so if that is older than six days (and it is) then so is the universe.

Quote:This debate is based on a topic about the creation of the universe which cannot be measured due to general relativity. Is this where we are at now?

No.

Quote:We already agreed "creation" refers to the time taken to get from the event start position to the event end position.

Been there, done that:
(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

Quote:We are measuring the age of expansion here.

If you mean the duration of the inflationary epoch then it's about 10^-32 seconds. An indescribably insignificant length of time when the best measurements have errors of tens of millions of years.

Quote:If you are to throw out the 6 day creation period based on the fact that we cannot measure time via measuring expansion/inflation then you will also have to throw out any claim of a 13.8 billion year expansion/inflation as well.

I'm not. I'm throwing out a 6 day creation period because you can't squeeze 13.8 billion years into a six day period no matter how you try.

Quote:We would both lose the debate on the grounds that neither of us are right and expansion has no age due to special relativity.

No. You would lose, because there is no way to compress 13.8 billion years into 6 days without using SR time dilation. I need no dilation for 13.8 billion years to be 13.8 billion years.

Quote:I would be willing to concede that we both lose the debate at this point, but I think we need to further look at the meaning of the word create.

Been there done that too:
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

Quote:If nothing slows down at end of "inflation" then am I to assume it is still expanding at the same speed?

Yes. Going slightly faster actually, courtesy of some very slight increase in the rate of expansion since the inflationary epoch but that's another story.

Quote:If it came to a stop and then started to move a lot slower after that how is that not slowing down?

It didn't. No stop. No slow down. This thing has no brakes.

Quote:When you stop at a traffic light is that not evidence that you have slowed down? Have you somehow altered the meaning of the word slow to not include a drastic reduction in speed?

No, there is no reduction in speed.

Quote:I agree baseless supposition does not qualify as science so why then would your claim of the universe's expansion going from faster than light to it's present expansion speed be considered a fact?

It didn't.

Write out 100 lines: "I shall not attempt to make the universe slow down or come to a stop ever again."

Quote:Again I ask where is the evidence to show the change in speeds.

No speed change.

You are asking for evidence of something that you have invented.

Quote:Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

By your own words:
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

Quote:Isn't the following statement a contradiction of GR?
"The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds."

No. Why would it be?

Quote:
Paleophyte Wrote:And as a geologist I would know better than to use the term "create". My editors get twitchy if I use "while" or "as" and would have an apoplectic fit if I used a term so sloppy as "create".
If only they knew the word create does not always imply intent nor "something from nothing". Luckily your editors are not the judges of this debate & it would also be a logical fallacy if they were.
Maybe that's why so many geography text books still use the word create when describing formations? Let's stick to the proper meaning of words and not common understanding amongst your peers only please.

Given the massive confusion the term appears to have produced in this debate I can only agree with their objections to its use.

Quote:Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

Do I really need to quote you a third time on this? Has your definition changed?

Quote:
Paleophyte Wrote:The CMB black body emission spectra measured by COBE, WMAP and Planck, age of white dwarfs, abundance of radioactive elements in stars, etc. weren't enough for you?

And you are the one making the fascinating assertion here. You get to back it up.
So we are back to measuring the age of objects in the universe in an attempt to calculate the time taken from event start to event end?

How else would you do it?

By definition, the universe cannot be younger than the oldest object in it.

The oldest object that we've measured is the CMB, which is 13.8 billion years old.

According to the Lambda CDM concordance model, the universe is actually about 400,000 years older but that difference is smaller than the 21 million year error on the measurement.

Quote:Which as you pointed out earlier we can't do since general relativity doesn't give us permission to measure the expansion with time right?

Wrong.

Quote:The goal posts just left the stadium I think.

Since there are only two of us in this debate and I am still arguing the original agreed upon definitions, you will know who to blame.

Quote:Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

Again?

Quote:
Paleophyte Wrote:Yes. And simply stating "We can't be certain it was X so it could have been Y!" without providing even a plausible mechanism for Y is not considered evidence that something is possible. That is nothing more than unsupported supposition.
I agree and this is why I have no objections to conceding the debate on the grounds that you are also doing the same thing & we both lack evidence for either claims.

Excuse me? You can't tell the difference between your hand waving and peer-reviewed papers from people who know what the words that they are using mean? I'll give you a hint: one of these won a Nobel Prize or two.

Quote:Why are you so adamant on me providing evidence for an "is" when i clearly stated "we have no evidence for either sides of the claims".

I am not. I merely require that you provide evidence that such a thing could conceivably be. This is what you originally stated you would do:
Quote:I aim to prove that it is possible (using only science) that the observable universe can be 6 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
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
14-02-2016, 09:51 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 10:53 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(14-02-2016 06:05 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
Quote:If special relativity cannot be used to measure the time taken from event start to event end then how are we ever going to determine how long it took the universe to expand/inflate from event start to event end?

Quite simply by not applying the time dilations that you would if special relativity did apply. No special relativity, no Lorentz transformations, no correction needed or wanted.

Quote:We will end up with 0 time.

No. You end up with time uncorrected for SR.

Quote:All we would be discussing is the age of the oldest known things in the universe and not the age of creation based on general relativity.

(1) You've switched relativities here.

(2) And where's the problem in that? The universe can't be younger than the oldest thing that it contains, so if that is older than six days (and it is) then so is the universe.

Quote:This debate is based on a topic about the creation of the universe which cannot be measured due to general relativity. Is this where we are at now?

No.

Quote:We already agreed "creation" refers to the time taken to get from the event start position to the event end position.

Been there, done that:
(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

Quote:We are measuring the age of expansion here.

If you mean the duration of the inflationary epoch then it's about 10^-32 seconds. An indescribably insignificant length of time when the best measurements have errors of tens of millions of years.

Quote:If you are to throw out the 6 day creation period based on the fact that we cannot measure time via measuring expansion/inflation then you will also have to throw out any claim of a 13.8 billion year expansion/inflation as well.

I'm not. I'm throwing out a 6 day creation period because you can't squeeze 13.8 billion years into a six day period no matter how you try.

Quote:We would both lose the debate on the grounds that neither of us are right and expansion has no age due to special relativity.

No. You would lose, because there is no way to compress 13.8 billion years into 6 days without using SR time dilation. I need no dilation for 13.8 billion years to be 13.8 billion years.

Quote:I would be willing to concede that we both lose the debate at this point, but I think we need to further look at the meaning of the word create.

Been there done that too:
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

Quote:If nothing slows down at end of "inflation" then am I to assume it is still expanding at the same speed?

Yes. Going slightly faster actually, courtesy of some very slight increase in the rate of expansion since the inflationary epoch but that's another story.

Quote:If it came to a stop and then started to move a lot slower after that how is that not slowing down?

It didn't. No stop. No slow down. This thing has no brakes.

Quote:When you stop at a traffic light is that not evidence that you have slowed down? Have you somehow altered the meaning of the word slow to not include a drastic reduction in speed?

No, there is no reduction in speed.

Quote:I agree baseless supposition does not qualify as science so why then would your claim of the universe's expansion going from faster than light to it's present expansion speed be considered a fact?

It didn't.

Write out 100 lines: "I shall not attempt to make the universe slow down or come to a stop ever again."

Quote:Again I ask where is the evidence to show the change in speeds.

No speed change.

You are asking for evidence of something that you have invented.

Quote:Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

By your own words:
(13-02-2016 09:10 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The act of bringing the universe from a state of singularity to it's present state is what I call creation.

Quote:Isn't the following statement a contradiction of GR?
"The inflationary epoch lasted from 10−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds."

No. Why would it be?

Quote:If only they knew the word create does not always imply intent nor "something from nothing". Luckily your editors are not the judges of this debate & it would also be a logical fallacy if they were.
Maybe that's why so many geography text books still use the word create when describing formations? Let's stick to the proper meaning of words and not common understanding amongst your peers only please.

Given the massive confusion the term appears to have produced in this debate I can only agree with their objections to its use.

Quote:Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

Do I really need to quote you a third time on this? Has your definition changed?

Quote:So we are back to measuring the age of objects in the universe in an attempt to calculate the time taken from event start to event end?

How else would you do it?

By definition, the universe cannot be younger than the oldest object in it.

The oldest object that we've measured is the CMB, which is 13.8 billion years old.

According to the Lambda CDM concordance model, the universe is actually about 400,000 years older but that difference is smaller than the 21 million year error on the measurement.

Quote:Which as you pointed out earlier we can't do since general relativity doesn't give us permission to measure the expansion with time right?

Wrong.

Quote:The goal posts just left the stadium I think.

Since there are only two of us in this debate and I am still arguing the original agreed upon definitions, you will know who to blame.

Quote:Can you please please please define what you think creation means?

Again?

Quote:I agree and this is why I have no objections to conceding the debate on the grounds that you are also doing the same thing & we both lack evidence for either claims.

Excuse me? You can't tell the difference between your hand waving and peer-reviewed papers from people who know what the words that they are using mean? I'll give you a hint: one of these won a Nobel Prize or two.

Quote:Why are you so adamant on me providing evidence for an "is" when i clearly stated "we have no evidence for either sides of the claims".

I am not. I merely require that you provide evidence that such a thing could conceivably be. This is what you originally stated you would do:
Quote:I aim to prove that it is possible (using only science) that the observable universe can be 6 days old...
Why would you claim the relative age of creation (event start to event end with regards to expansion) possibly be dependent on the relative age of something within the creation?
They are two different topics. The relative age of creation with regards to expansion is not correlated to the relative age of a Galaxy.
I can demonstrate this to you with a simple example.
If the age of creation = the age of your father then you are claiming that you can never be older than your father. I am saying yes you can be older than your dad even if he dies after you because your own age is not correlated to his.

The child is presently 20, his dad 40
Let's say the child sent his dad on a rocket out into space at the speed of light & the journey took 40 years return trip based on the child's frame of reference.
The child will be 20 years older than his dad as an objective reality regardless of the child's perspective.

Why would the universe's relative expansion time be correlated to the relative age of it's creation? What is the correlation?
Are you going to say once you create it then it cannot be older? Refer to the child/father example above.
Are you going to say once it is inside of you then it cannot be older than you? Yes, but we aren't discussing your age, we are discussing how long it took you to get fat.
Are you going to say age of something created during the process of getting fat is directly related to the age of the fat? Yes, but we aren't discussing the age of the fat, we are discussing how long it took you to get fat.

When you want to correlate something you need to use like terms.
Duration of one flight has to be compared to duration of another flight to get time comparison before you can work any math.
Similarly age of one plane has to be compared with age of another plane to get a time comparison before you can work any math.

What you are attempting to do is compare the relative duration of a flight with the relative age of the plane, and expect me to believe they are somehow correlated.

Where is the logic in this?
Find all posts by this user
14-02-2016, 10:45 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Since this discussion has gotten bogged down, I'm going to post a review of some options and what does and doesn't work.

Shane's trying to make a 13.8 billion year old universe look like it's only six days old. Are there some viable mechanisms for this?
  • Time dilation due to Special Relativity (SR) and the expansion of space-time doesn't work. The expansion of space-time makes very distant objects appear to be receeding from us, some of them with pretty amazing velocities. SR states that fast-moving objects experience time dilation.

    This doesn't work because everything is travelling with the expansion of space-time, not through space-time. Space-time is expanding and we're all being carried along for the ride and none of us has any significant difference in actual velocity relative to any of the rest of the universe.

    This becomes pretty obvious when you consider that everything with a redshift of more an about z = 1.46 is receeding from us faster than the speed of light. To put that in context, the most distant galaxies that we've observed have redshifts of z = 6 and the CMB has a redshift of z = 1091! If you use SR and apply the Lorentz transformation to anything receding faster than the speed of light you rapidly discover that you have a negative number inside a square root sign, which is not a good thing. Space and time take on imaginary values. This obviously doesn't happen.

    -
  • Time dilation due to General Relativity (GR) and the expansion of space-time doesn't work. Time dilations due to GR and expanding space-time do occur and have been measured. The catch is that it's relativity. Both observers see the other one's clock as running slow. The time dilations are only apparent.

    We can see lots of universe that's only six days old, or could if we could see through half a million light-years of plasma fog and manage to adjust for some very extreme light attenuation and red-shift. The real challenge is looking through all of the universe betwixt and between that's a damned sight older and harder to ignore.

    Even then, if we could technomagically pop out to one of these locations we'd find nothing special. Time out there would appear to be passing at 1 second/second and the universe would look 13.8 billion years old. Off in the distance would be a very faint, red-shifted patch of six day-old plasma that would eventually become us.

    -
  • Time dilation due to SR and peculiar velocity. Leave it to cosmologists to refer to the one type of velocity that the rest of us understand as "peculiar". If an object was zipping away from us at really obscene speeds, then you could produce enough time dilation that 13.8 billion years could be shrunk down to 6 days. We've actually observed cosmic rays clipping along at these speeds, so it isn't physically impossible. There are a few minor complications.

    Since the object has to be moving away from us at very, very nearly the speed of light and has to have been doing so since the beginning of the universe it has to have had an extremely improbable coincidence of originating in just the right spot with just the right trajectory to remain in our observable universe. Start it in the wrong place and it vanishes beyond the particle horizon. Start it in the wrong direction and the time dilation works out wrong.

    On top of that, this poor thing has 6 glorious days to evolve from seething primordial quark-lepton plasma to sentient being capable of observing us (we will also be six day old plasma) and sending us a message. Less if it wants the message to actually arrive now. And that pretty much begs the question of what the heck it thinks it's communicating with.

    And speaking of observers, let's check out the night sky from this perspective because this thing is going to have good reason for messed up religion. Courtesy of extreme relativistic doppler shift, the sky is utterly black except for The Eye of God. God hates you and all living things because anything that The Eye of God stares upon dies horribly. The majority of the sky is black because all light is ridiculously redshifted so intensely that the stars would be emitting in ultra-low frequencies. The Eye of God is the thin band of visible stars forming an arc around the direction of travel where enough of the light is still visible to actually see anything, shading from sullen red at the edges to intense blue on the inner rim. Within the Eye of God, light is both blue-shifted up to the level of ionizing radiation and intensified by your time dilation and direction of travel. Relativistic star light cooks you inside your skin.

    -
  • GR and SR time dilations courtesy of orbitting a black hole. Mechanically, this is probably the simplest way to accomplish Shane's objective. The deep gravity well gives you a good start on your time dilation via GR and the near-light speed orbital velocity that you'll need to maintain takes care of the rest of the time dilation via SR. You'll need to pick a big one to avoid spaghettification (yes, that's the technical term) but Sagitarrius A, which lurks at the heart of the Milky Way should do nicely. You hardly have to go anywhere and don't even have to leave our galaxy.

    All that in-falling matter will be pesky. Getting hit would be annoying assuming you survived that long. The real problem will be the ridiculously intense radiation that the matter emits as it spirals inward. That shit's evil by anybody's standards but this poor bugger is perched beneath it and is getting a 13.8 billion years' worth dose compressed into 6 days. And blue-shifted down the gravity well just in case X-rays and gamma rays weren't ugly enough to start with. Worry less about mutation and dying and focus on photodisintegration, which is a jargon for radiation tearing you apart on a subatomic level.

    If that isn't bad enough, keep in mind that all that in-falling mass means that the black hole that you're orbitting is growing. Your near-c orbit has now become a much nearer-c event horizon-intersecting death spiral.

    -
  • Observers operating on a completely different time-scale. Physics has not been our friend, but astrobiology comes to the rescue. In recent decades astrobiology has moved on from the old carbon-centric thinking to encompass new and unusual forms of life. These range from anything as familiar as silicon-based life that shows up in the original Star Trek to self-organizing magnetic fields flickering through stellar plasma. The discovery of bacteria that chow down on arsenic right here on Earth makes this less implausible than skeptics had suggested. Some of these entities could function on completely different time-scales from us and to them the universe could have come into being some short time ago.

    -
  • Delayed post. This is the simplest way to accomplish Shane's goal by far. Light takes time to travel, so a very distant observer could have sent a message just six days after the formation of the universe that has only recently arrived. The universe is 13.8 billion years old but so is the message. Of course this requires a sentient observer to come into existence in multi-million degree proton-photon plasma, send a message through matter that is effectively opaque, and have it arrive on Earth and be understood by primitive goat herders just in time to confuse the hell out of them.

Punch Line


All of the scenarios outlined above require extreme conditions of one form or another. This necessitates a relatively intelligent observer in order for it to communicate with us and have any hope of being understood. Certainly something a damned sight brighter than we are.

In 1977, the Voyager probes were launched with golden records carrying a message to any space-faring civilization that might encounter them. Jimmy Carter was pesident of the United States, Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her silver jubilee, Star Wars hit the silver screen and Djibouti was granted independance. Three Mile Island and the Iran hostage crisis were part of the rosey future.

Even as backward as we were then we weren't dumb enough to try and communicate with another species using our own quaint local reckoning of the passage of time. The message we sent used a universal measurement of the passage of time.

No observer that has the capability of communicating with us will make the rookie mistake of telling us that the universe is a mere six days old, regardless of its own perceptions. Conversely, any observer sending that message is either flat out lying or too stoopid to find its ass with a map and compass, much less communicate with some distant and utterly alien race.

---
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
14-02-2016, 10:59 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 11:08 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(14-02-2016 10:45 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Since this discussion has gotten bogged down, I'm going to post a review of some options and what does and doesn't work.

Shane's trying to make a 13.8 billion year old universe look like it's only six days old. Are there some viable mechanisms for this?
  • Time dilation due to Special Relativity (SR) and the expansion of space-time doesn't work. The expansion of space-time makes very distant objects appear to be receeding from us, some of them with pretty amazing velocities. SR states that fast-moving objects experience time dilation.

    This doesn't work because everything is travelling with the expansion of space-time, not through space-time. Space-time is expanding and we're all being carried along for the ride and none of us has any significant difference in actual velocity relative to any of the rest of the universe.

    This becomes pretty obvious when you consider that everything with a redshift of more an about z = 1.46 is receeding from us faster than the speed of light. To put that in context, the most distant galaxies that we've observed have redshifts of z = 6 and the CMB has a redshift of z = 1091! If you use SR and apply the Lorentz transformation to anything receding faster than the speed of light you rapidly discover that you have a negative number inside a square root sign, which is not a good thing. Space and time take on imaginary values. This obviously doesn't happen.

    -
  • Time dilation due to General Relativity (GR) and the expansion of space-time doesn't work. Time dilations due to GR and expanding space-time do occur and have been measured. The catch is that it's relativity. Both observers see the other one's clock as running slow. The time dilations are only apparent.

    We can see lots of universe that's only six days old, or could if we could see through half a million light-years of plasma fog and manage to adjust for some very extreme light attenuation and red-shift. The real challenge is looking through all of the universe betwixt and between that's a damned sight older and harder to ignore.

    Even then, if we could technomagically pop out to one of these locations we'd find nothing special. Time out there would appear to be passing at 1 second/second and the universe would look 13.8 billion years old. Off in the distance would be a very faint, red-shifted patch of six day-old plasma that would eventually become us.

    -
  • Time dilation due to SR and peculiar velocity. Leave it to cosmologists to refer to the one type of velocity that the rest of us understand as "peculiar". If an object was zipping away from us at really obscene speeds, then you could produce enough time dilation that 13.8 billion years could be shrunk down to 6 days. We've actually observed cosmic rays clipping along at these speeds, so it isn't physically impossible. There are a few minor complications.

    Since the object has to be moving away from us at very, very nearly the speed of light and has to have been doing so since the beginning of the universe it has to have had an extremely improbable coincidence of originating in just the right spot with just the right trajectory to remain in our observable universe. Start it in the wrong place and it vanishes beyond the particle horizon. Start it in the wrong direction and the time dilation works out wrong.

    On top of that, this poor thing has 6 glorious days to evolve from seething primordial quark-lepton plasma to sentient being capable of observing us (we will also be six day old plasma) and sending us a message. Less if it wants the message to actually arrive now. And that pretty much begs the question of what the heck it thinks it's communicating with.

    And speaking of observers, let's check out the night sky from this perspective because this thing is going to have good reason for messed up religion. Courtesy of extreme relativistic doppler shift, the sky is utterly black except for The Eye of God. God hates you and all living things because anything that The Eye of God stares upon dies horribly. The majority of the sky is black because all light is ridiculously redshifted so intensely that the stars would be emitting in ultra-low frequencies. The Eye of God is the thin band of visible stars forming an arc around the direction of travel where enough of the light is still visible to actually see anything, shading from sullen red at the edges to intense blue on the inner rim. Within the Eye of God, light is both blue-shifted up to the level of ionizing radiation and intensified by your time dilation and direction of travel. Relativistic star light cooks you inside your skin.

    -
  • GR and SR time dilations courtesy of orbitting a black hole. Mechanically, this is probably the simplest way to accomplish Shane's objective. The deep gravity well gives you a good start on your time dilation via GR and the near-light speed orbital velocity that you'll need to maintain takes care of the rest of the time dilation via SR. You'll need to pick a big one to avoid spaghettification (yes, that's the technical term) but Sagitarrius A, which lurks at the heart of the Milky Way should do nicely. You hardly have to go anywhere and don't even have to leave our galaxy.

    All that in-falling matter will be pesky. Getting hit would be annoying assuming you survived that long. The real problem will be the ridiculously intense radiation that the matter emits as it spirals inward. That shit's evil by anybody's standards but this poor bugger is perched beneath it and is getting a 13.8 billion years' worth dose compressed into 6 days. And blue-shifted down the gravity well just in case X-rays and gamma rays weren't ugly enough to start with. Worry less about mutation and dying and focus on photodisintegration, which is a jargon for radiation tearing you apart on a subatomic level.

    If that isn't bad enough, keep in mind that all that in-falling mass means that the black hole that you're orbitting is growing. Your near-c orbit has now become a much nearer-c event horizon-intersecting death spiral.

    -
  • Observers operating on a completely different time-scale. Physics has not been our friend, but astrobiology comes to the rescue. In recent decades astrobiology has moved on from the old carbon-centric thinking to encompass new and unusual forms of life. These range from anything as familiar as silicon-based life that shows up in the original Star Trek to self-organizing magnetic fields flickering through stellar plasma. The discovery of bacteria that chow down on arsenic right here on Earth makes this less implausible than skeptics had suggested. Some of these entities could function on completely different time-scales from us and to them the universe could have come into being some short time ago.

    -
  • Delayed post. This is the simplest way to accomplish Shane's goal by far. Light takes time to travel, so a very distant observer could have sent a message just six days after the formation of the universe that has only recently arrived. The universe is 13.8 billion years old but so is the message. Of course this requires a sentient observer to come into existence in multi-million degree proton-photon plasma, send a message through matter that is effectively opaque, and have it arrive on Earth and be understood by primitive goat herders just in time to confuse the hell out of them.

Punch Line


All of the scenarios outlined above require extreme conditions of one form or another. This necessitates a relatively intelligent observer in order for it to communicate with us and have any hope of being understood. Certainly something a damned sight brighter than we are.

In 1977, the Voyager probes were launched with golden records carrying a message to any space-faring civilization that might encounter them. Jimmy Carter was pesident of the United States, Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating her silver jubilee, Star Wars hit the silver screen and Djibouti was granted independance. Three Mile Island and the Iran hostage crisis were part of the rosey future.

Even as backward as we were then we weren't dumb enough to try and communicate with another species using our own quaint local reckoning of the passage of time. The message we sent used a universal measurement of the passage of time.

No observer that has the capability of communicating with us will make the rookie mistake of telling us that the universe is a mere six days old, regardless of its own perceptions. Conversely, any observer sending that message is either flat out lying or too stoopid to find its ass with a map and compass, much less communicate with some distant and utterly alien race.
In case you missed it above:

When you want to correlate something you need to use like terms.
Duration of one flight has to be compared to duration of another flight to get time comparison before you can work any math.
Similarly age of one plane has to be compared with age of another plane to get a time comparison before you can work any math.

What you are attempting to do is compare the relative duration of a flight with the relative age of the plane, and expect me to believe they are somehow correlated.

The time taken to get from event start to event end has been agreed to by us both Paleophyte.
We have never agreed to determine the age of a specific object and use it as a means of determining the time taken from event start to finish.
The equation for time taken is a simple t=d/v
There isn't an equation for age as far as i know which is why I asked that we agree on the topic before starting.
When are you going to stop comparing apples to bananas and stick to what we agreed to?

1. The statement in question is "The universe can be created in 6 days"
2. There isn't an observer in the statement.
3. I am not a Theist.
4. We already agreed "For the purpose of this debate we will be discussing event start to finish" to determine the age of creation.
5. We already established creation simply means expansion/inflation from start to finish.
6. Everything you have posted thus far is a continuous effort for you to prove that the age of the plane can be used to determine how long the flight took. Show me the correlation.
7. If you didn't like the topic of "creation" then you shouldn't have attempted the debate & you still have yet to reconfirm what you think creation is, because you renege on your initial agreement of "time taken from event start to end".
Find all posts by this user
14-02-2016, 11:06 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(14-02-2016 09:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If the age of creation = the age of your father then you are claiming that you can never be older than your father.

This is a biological necessity.

Quote:Let's say the child sent his dad on a rocket out into space at the speed of light & the journey took 40 years return trip based on the child's frame of reference.
The child will be 20 years older than his dad as an objective reality regardless of the child's perspective.

This is special relativity, which we discarded for good reason.

Even if it were not thrown out, you can't very well load the universe onto a rocketship and go where exactly...??? All of space and time is in the cargo hold.

And now that you've stuffed the universe into the rocketship, almost as good as Noah and his Ark , what's your reference frame? It's in the universe and that's in the rocketship too.

No space, no time, no velocity, no external observer. No special relativity.

Quote:Why would the universe's relative expansion time be correlated to the relative age of it's creation? What is the correlation?

One to one.

By definition, the univere contains all frames of reference, all space, all time. The universe cannot have a velocity because there's nothing for it to be moving in, through or during.

The universe cannot have an external reference frame because that would require defining a location and time outside of space-time.

Special relativity does not apply and attempting to do so is just plain silly.

---
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
14-02-2016, 11:19 PM (This post was last modified: 14-02-2016 11:40 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(14-02-2016 11:06 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(14-02-2016 09:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If the age of creation = the age of your father then you are claiming that you can never be older than your father.

This is a biological necessity.

Quote:Let's say the child sent his dad on a rocket out into space at the speed of light & the journey took 40 years return trip based on the child's frame of reference.
The child will be 20 years older than his dad as an objective reality regardless of the child's perspective.

This is special relativity, which we discarded for good reason.

Even if it were not thrown out, you can't very well load the universe onto a rocketship and go where exactly...??? All of space and time is in the cargo hold.

And now that you've stuffed the universe into the rocketship, almost as good as Noah and his Ark , what's your reference frame? It's in the universe and that's in the rocketship too.

No space, no time, no velocity, no external observer. No special relativity.

Quote:Why would the universe's relative expansion time be correlated to the relative age of it's creation? What is the correlation?

One to one.

By definition, the univere contains all frames of reference, all space, all time. The universe cannot have a velocity because there's nothing for it to be moving in, through or during.

The universe cannot have an external reference frame because that would require defining a location and time outside of space-time.

Special relativity does not apply and attempting to do so is just plain silly.
But we have Coordinates in the Universe Paleophyte. The Big Bang singularity can be given a cordinate just like the Milky Way can be given a cordinate.
All we are interested in is the time taken for it to get from the event start cordinate to our present cordinate in the observable universe. If you think it's silly then why are you even trying to prove you know the answer to the "silly" question is 13.8 +- 50% billion years?

You keep comparing the flight time to the age of the plane & i do not see the correlation. Would you care to show me how determining the age of the plane can tell us how long the flight took?
Or
How determining the Age of the universe is going to determine how long the process of creation took?

Just because you don't want to find out how long the flight took doesn't mean that it didn't have a duration.
If you never found out the duration then you cannot make a claim as to the duration of the flight now can you?

The problem is you don't understand the meaning of the word create throughout this entire debate.
Define create based on the dictionary meaning and you will see why I said you are misinterpreting the Topic of debate.

You seem to think we are discussing the age of the Universe when I am only discussing the age of it's creation.
aka:
The time taken to bring the universe's initial state of event start (the singularity) to it's present state.

I take it you no longer wish to discuss the topic unless i change the subject we had initially agreed to, right?
Find all posts by this user
14-02-2016, 11:39 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(14-02-2016 10:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When you want to correlate something you need to use like terms.
Duration of one flight has to be compared to duration of another flight to get time comparison before you can work any math.
Similarly age of one plane has to be compared with age of another plane to get a time comparison before you can work any math.

This unexplained segue into the field of aviation had me briefly concerned that you were off onto astral projection.

Quote:The time taken to get from event start to event end has been agreed to by us both Paleophyte.

Really? 13.8 billion years?

Quote:The equation for time taken is a simple t=d/v

As stated long, long ago that is but one equation that involves time that is incredibly simplistic and ceases to be meaningful for a whole host of reasons including ones that you are trying your damnedest to invoke.

Quote:There isn't an equation for age as far as i know which is why I asked that we agree on the topic before starting.

There are several.

Quote:2. There isn't an observer in the statement.

There had best be if you want any type of relativity to work.

Quote:3. I am not a Theist.

No, you are a gnostic agnostic. So completely certain of your ignorance as to be correct in the most horrible way possible.

Quote:6. Everything you have posted thus far is a continuous effort for you to prove that the age of the plane can be used to determine how long the flight took. Show me the correlation.

By definition, the universe contains all matter and energy, all space and time, every event and object. Thus, it is a logical impossibility for the universe to contain anything that is older than the universe itself.

Quote:7. If you didn't like the topic of "creation" then you shouldn't have attempted the debate & you still have yet to reconfirm what you think creation is, because you renege on your initial agreement of "time taken from event start to end".

No, I haven't. I have repeatedly and ad nauseum agreed to the definition of "from the Big Bang to present." Kindly show where I have done 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
14-02-2016, 11:42 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(14-02-2016 11:39 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(14-02-2016 10:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When you want to correlate something you need to use like terms.
Duration of one flight has to be compared to duration of another flight to get time comparison before you can work any math.
Similarly age of one plane has to be compared with age of another plane to get a time comparison before you can work any math.

This unexplained segue into the field of aviation had me briefly concerned that you were off onto astral projection.

Quote:The time taken to get from event start to event end has been agreed to by us both Paleophyte.

Really? 13.8 billion years?

Quote:The equation for time taken is a simple t=d/v

As stated long, long ago that is but one equation that involves time that is incredibly simplistic and ceases to be meaningful for a whole host of reasons including ones that you are trying your damnedest to invoke.

Quote:There isn't an equation for age as far as i know which is why I asked that we agree on the topic before starting.

There are several.

Quote:2. There isn't an observer in the statement.

There had best be if you want any type of relativity to work.

Quote:3. I am not a Theist.

No, you are a gnostic agnostic. So completely certain of your ignorance as to be correct in the most horrible way possible.

Quote:6. Everything you have posted thus far is a continuous effort for you to prove that the age of the plane can be used to determine how long the flight took. Show me the correlation.

By definition, the universe contains all matter and energy, all space and time, every event and object. Thus, it is a logical impossibility for the universe to contain anything that is older than the universe itself.

Quote:7. If you didn't like the topic of "creation" then you shouldn't have attempted the debate & you still have yet to reconfirm what you think creation is, because you renege on your initial agreement of "time taken from event start to end".

No, I haven't. I have repeatedly and ad nauseum agreed to the definition of "from the Big Bang to present." Kindly show where I have done otherwise.
Answer me this then. Which one of these do you think you are discussing?

1. The age of the universe.
or
2. The time taken to create the universe.
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: