Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2016, 04:25 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2016 04:40 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(21-02-2016 05:02 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  CricketsPopcornCrickets Another busy week? CricketsPopcornCrickets
Yes. Sorry about that.

So you agree we are discussing the assumption that time taken for expansion from start to present.
We also agree to the assumption that time passes during the course of expansion.
During my research on how we dated the expansion of the universe I came across the topic of quasars.
By use of luminosity we are able to determine both the distance and age of what we are seeing right?
However quasars don't undergo time dilation, as it pulses at the same rate every single time coming from the same source.
It is as if expansion does affect the light coming from a quasar.
If the majority of information used to determine the age of the universe is based on the speed of light being constant then why is it that the speed of light from a quasar seems to be correlated only to it's distance from the time of it's release and remains constant regardless of how the universe expands?
In fact if the luminosity of a quasar was used to date the universe then it would show the the universe isn't expanding.
The dating of the universe's age has been admittedly based on a numerous amount of assumptions. This I am sure we both agree to based on this debate.
We aren't arguing over which answer is more accurate here.
We are arguing over who has the better guess in a series of infinite choices.
My side claims "we don't know" and your side seems to think you have narrowed it down to a distinct age bracket based on a lot of assumptions.
Unfortunately your answer will still boil down to a "we don't know" because you cannot deny the use of assumptions in your presentation.
If our best guess is an assumption then what gives us the right to say "we know?"
You will probably argue that at the very least we know the universe is older than we are so it couldnt possibly be 6 days old. I would have to agree with you here if I were using your own clock to date the universe. I'm only interested in the clock at event start frame of reference however.
If this clock measures 13.8 billion years based on start to finish then I will concede defeat.
For now I am happy to meet you halfway and claim 6 days of creation "is impossible" based on our own relative time.
Can you now prove without the use of assumptions that 13.8 billion years +- 50% "is accurate"?
Find all posts by this user
23-02-2016, 08:22 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Quote:
(21-02-2016 05:02 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  CricketsPopcornCrickets Another busy week? CricketsPopcornCrickets
Yes. Sorry about that.

No worries. Arguing on the interweb isn't my day job either.

Quote:So you agree we are discussing the assumption that time taken for expansion from start to present.
We also agree to the assumption that time passes during the course of expansion.

Those are the definitions we've agreed to.

Quote:By use of luminosity we are able to determine both the distance and age of what we are seeing right?
However quasars don't undergo time dilation, as it pulses at the same rate every single time coming from the same source.

No. Quasars are one type of standard candle that may be used to approximate distances in the very distant universe. Quasars were originally thought to be unhelpful in that respect because they don't shine with a standard luminosity. That's one of the keys to being a good standard candle but quasars are all over the map. Bright but erratic.

It turns out that there are a couple of ways to use quasars to measure cosmological distances. One involves graitatinal lensing and parallax measurements. The other involves measuring changes in their luminosity. The latter technique makes them useful as "standard clocks", which lets you measure the redshift directly. This technique is relatively new (2012) and is still a work in progress.

Quote:It is as if expansion does affect the light coming from a quasar.

That's the whole point.

Quote:If the majority of information used to determine the age of the universe is based on the speed of light being constant then why is it that the speed of light from a quasar seems to be correlated only to it's distance from the time of it's release and remains constant regardless of how the universe expands?

No. The speed of light is constant for all observers in all reference frames. What we observe is that the light from the quasar is redder (redshift) and pulses more slowly (time dilation) the more distant it is. This is very handy as it lets you cross-check the redshift with the time dilation to check your assumptions.

Quote:In fact if the luminosity of a quasar was used to date the universe then it would show the the universe isn't expanding.

No. The redshift and time dilation are what they're measuring. It shows hat the universe is expanding.

Quote:The dating of the universe's age has been admittedly based on a numerous amount of assumptions. This I am sure we both agree to based on this debate.
We aren't arguing over which answer is more accurate here.
We are arguing over who has the better guess in a series of infinite choices.
My side claims "we don't know" and your side seems to think you have narrowed it down to a distinct age bracket based on a lot of assumptions.
Unfortunately your answer will still boil down to a "we don't know" because you cannot deny the use of assumptions in your presentation.

Yes there are assumptions. These have been checked by better cosmologists than either of us. People whose day job this really is.

Your argument appears to be that we don't know anything about the age of the universe becaue of these assumptions. Any old value is possible. A trillion years or six days, they're all equally valid. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument is that we don't know the age for a certainty but that the assumptions have been checked thoroughly enough and have a solid enough basis that we can give it some reasonable bounds. Ten billion years, give or take an order of magnitude. Six days is not equally valid. It has been excluded from probable outcomes to such a ridiculously high degree of certainty that to maintain that position is just plain ridiculous.

Quote:If our best guess is an assumption then what gives us the right to say "we know?"

The Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot know, exactly, both the location and momentum of an object. Given an impending head-on collision at highway speeds you physically cannot be certain of both the oncoming vehicles precise location and speed.

You're going to swerve. You aren't going to sit there and ponder whether that car will arrive in seconds or months. At least not for many seconds. You're going to swerve based on an assumption that is extremely well-founded, and that's that the vaunted Uncertainty Principle doesn't matter worth a damn when you're about to become a hood ornament. The Uncertainty Principle functions on the scale of fractions of nanometers and vanishes when taking into account human perception and reflex time.

This is how you can say that you know. You may not be certain of the exact speed of the oncoming vehicle, human perception will be poor on this at the best of times, but you will know for a cold, hard certainty that it is not taking months to get here. That result is sufficiently improbable as to be given the description "ridiculous" by any rational individual.

Quote:You will probably argue that at the very least we know the universe is older than we are so it couldnt possibly be 6 days old. I would have to agree with you here if I were using your own clock to date the universe. I'm only interested in the clock at event start frame of reference however.

This discussion is more than 6 days old. Please stop trying to define a frame of reference for the universe. The event start is the singularity and all frames of reference lie within.

13.8 billion times write out, "I will not try and define frames of reference outside of space and time."

Quote:If this clock measures 13.8 billion years based on start to finish then I will concede defeat.

Will you meet me halfway at 13.799 billion? I'm spotting you a million years here.

You're inordinately focused on victory/defeat. Such absolutes out of a professed agnostic. Have you considered that you cannot win or lose a discussion? Consider how far you have come from your 'bubble universe expanding at the speed of light with bits falling off.'

Win, lose or draw I finally understand how you get a 46 billion light-year universe that's only 13.8 billion years old. And you have to admit, it's pretty damned cool that we can see galaxies that are receding from us at greater than the speed of light.

Quote:For now I am happy to meet you halfway and claim 6 days of creation "is impossible" based on our own relative time.

We are making progress then.

Quote:Can you now prove without the use of assumptions that 13.8 billion years +- 50% "is accurate"?

Proof?!? Without assumptions?!? Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics. Assumptions of some form are implicit to any system of knowledge.

I can check and cross-check my assumptions until belief that they are wrong is pernicious skepticism at best and self-contradicting solipsism at worst.

Tell me, how many times do you need a similar result produced by entirely different sets of assumptions before you acccept them as accurate?

---
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
28-02-2016, 07:05 AM (This post was last modified: 28-02-2016 08:05 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(23-02-2016 08:22 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
Quote:Yes. Sorry about that.

No worries. Arguing on the interweb isn't my day job either.

Quote:So you agree we are discussing the assumption that time taken for expansion from start to present.
We also agree to the assumption that time passes during the course of expansion.

Those are the definitions we've agreed to.

Quote:By use of luminosity we are able to determine both the distance and age of what we are seeing right?
However quasars don't undergo time dilation, as it pulses at the same rate every single time coming from the same source.

No. Quasars are one type of standard candle that may be used to approximate distances in the very distant universe. Quasars were originally thought to be unhelpful in that respect because they don't shine with a standard luminosity. That's one of the keys to being a good standard candle but quasars are all over the map. Bright but erratic.

It turns out that there are a couple of ways to use quasars to measure cosmological distances. One involves graitatinal lensing and parallax measurements. The other involves measuring changes in their luminosity. The latter technique makes them useful as "standard clocks", which lets you measure the redshift directly. This technique is relatively new (2012) and is still a work in progress.

Quote:It is as if expansion does affect the light coming from a quasar.

That's the whole point.

Quote:If the majority of information used to determine the age of the universe is based on the speed of light being constant then why is it that the speed of light from a quasar seems to be correlated only to it's distance from the time of it's release and remains constant regardless of how the universe expands?

No. The speed of light is constant for all observers in all reference frames. What we observe is that the light from the quasar is redder (redshift) and pulses more slowly (time dilation) the more distant it is. This is very handy as it lets you cross-check the redshift with the time dilation to check your assumptions.

Quote:In fact if the luminosity of a quasar was used to date the universe then it would show the the universe isn't expanding.

No. The redshift and time dilation are what they're measuring. It shows hat the universe is expanding.

Quote:The dating of the universe's age has been admittedly based on a numerous amount of assumptions. This I am sure we both agree to based on this debate.
We aren't arguing over which answer is more accurate here.
We are arguing over who has the better guess in a series of infinite choices.
My side claims "we don't know" and your side seems to think you have narrowed it down to a distinct age bracket based on a lot of assumptions.
Unfortunately your answer will still boil down to a "we don't know" because you cannot deny the use of assumptions in your presentation.

Yes there are assumptions. These have been checked by better cosmologists than either of us. People whose day job this really is.

Your argument appears to be that we don't know anything about the age of the universe becaue of these assumptions. Any old value is possible. A trillion years or six days, they're all equally valid. Correct me if I'm wrong.

My argument is that we don't know the age for a certainty but that the assumptions have been checked thoroughly enough and have a solid enough basis that we can give it some reasonable bounds. Ten billion years, give or take an order of magnitude. Six days is not equally valid. It has been excluded from probable outcomes to such a ridiculously high degree of certainty that to maintain that position is just plain ridiculous.

Quote:If our best guess is an assumption then what gives us the right to say "we know?"

The Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot know, exactly, both the location and momentum of an object. Given an impending head-on collision at highway speeds you physically cannot be certain of both the oncoming vehicles precise location and speed.

You're going to swerve. You aren't going to sit there and ponder whether that car will arrive in seconds or months. At least not for many seconds. You're going to swerve based on an assumption that is extremely well-founded, and that's that the vaunted Uncertainty Principle doesn't matter worth a damn when you're about to become a hood ornament. The Uncertainty Principle functions on the scale of fractions of nanometers and vanishes when taking into account human perception and reflex time.

This is how you can say that you know. You may not be certain of the exact speed of the oncoming vehicle, human perception will be poor on this at the best of times, but you will know for a cold, hard certainty that it is not taking months to get here. That result is sufficiently improbable as to be given the description "ridiculous" by any rational individual.

Quote:You will probably argue that at the very least we know the universe is older than we are so it couldnt possibly be 6 days old. I would have to agree with you here if I were using your own clock to date the universe. I'm only interested in the clock at event start frame of reference however.

This discussion is more than 6 days old. Please stop trying to define a frame of reference for the universe. The event start is the singularity and all frames of reference lie within.

13.8 billion times write out, "I will not try and define frames of reference outside of space and time."

Quote:If this clock measures 13.8 billion years based on start to finish then I will concede defeat.

Will you meet me halfway at 13.799 billion? I'm spotting you a million years here.

You're inordinately focused on victory/defeat. Such absolutes out of a professed agnostic. Have you considered that you cannot win or lose a discussion? Consider how far you have come from your 'bubble universe expanding at the speed of light with bits falling off.'

Win, lose or draw I finally understand how you get a 46 billion light-year universe that's only 13.8 billion years old. And you have to admit, it's pretty damned cool that we can see galaxies that are receding from us at greater than the speed of light.

Quote:For now I am happy to meet you halfway and claim 6 days of creation "is impossible" based on our own relative time.

We are making progress then.

Quote:Can you now prove without the use of assumptions that 13.8 billion years +- 50% "is accurate"?

Proof?!? Without assumptions?!? Proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics. Assumptions of some form are implicit to any system of knowledge.

I can check and cross-check my assumptions until belief that they are wrong is pernicious skepticism at best and self-contradicting solipsism at worst.

Tell me, how many times do you need a similar result produced by entirely different sets of assumptions before you acccept them as accurate?
Tried to respond a few days ago but kept getting an error messages for the website. Couldn't even log in.
It's all cleared up now.
Just to clear things up a bit:
My first 2 posts on this thread was simply a copy of my notes (a scrap paper) when developing my argument. It was clearly asked that you do not reply to it and although you accidentally did you respectfully edited it after, realizing it to be a draft and gave me some advice on how to use the draft function.
There are some users posting negative comments in my rep about plagerism after reading through my "scrap paper". You would observe i asked the mods to remove it because I am unable to edit it myself. What strikes me as even more dishonest is that these users make a commentary thread about this debate and even after seeing that we both agree the first 2 replies are not my "actual responses" these trolls still continue to make dishonest comments about plagiarism. Where I come from libel & slander is punishable by law & I dare them to prove these claims of plagiarism if they have any ounce of morality.
Also thanks to all users who messaged me & pointed out the dishonest practices of these posters. I only hope that other users of these forums will also see them for what they really are. Dishonest Forum Trolls.
In light of this i would like to ask you if there has been any point in my actual replies that i have plagerised the work of others without giving reference or links to the original authors.
I copy & paste the definitions, from google & Wikipedia webpage itself, here to clarify the meanings of words and google/wiki does not have laws against copying these definitions direct from them.
Another point to note is that I claim "we don't know" the age of the universe.
People seem to think there is no point in arguing that "we don't know" something in order to win a debate.
The problem here is that I am not the one making the claim here I am only the one expressing doubt as to it's accuracy.
If people on these forums prefer only "is" claims for a debate to be valid then you might as well ban all skeptics from debates and all agnostics from debates about God.
Some users here also quote my sarcasm as a claim in an effort to negative rep me even when I show them it was sarcasm & they cannot even deny it. I am thankful you do not fall in the same category as these trolls and I applaude your politeness thus far throughout this debate.

Back on topic:
Quasars do not undergo time dilation:
http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-q...ifies.html
The frequency of the waves do not change due to expansion.
I think it means that the light emitted by a quasar can travel faster than c with reference to it's starting frame of reference as per the distance covered when you consider the implications.
The alternative explanation being expansion is a myth.
Either way it shows that using light as a standard of measurement for determining age/distance is not always consistent.
It questions the very methodology used to determine the age of the universe and therefore further adds to my stance that "we do not know"
Find all posts by this user
28-02-2016, 09:22 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(28-02-2016 07:05 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What strikes me as even more dishonest is that these users make a commentary thread about this debate and even after seeing that we both agree the first 2 replies are not my "actual responses" these trolls still continue to make dishonest comments about plagiarism.

Commentary threads on matches in The Boxing Ring are common. Scroll down a bit and you'll find a whole bunch of them. All in all it's simplest not to get embroiled in them at the same time you're in a discussion here. You can get into nasty cross-thread snarls that way.

Your initial "draft" posts were confusing to many, largely because it was an extremely unusal use of the forum's functions. I'd never seen anybody post that way and suspect that few others had either. I'd chalk their comments up to the confusion produced before you made it obvious that your rough drafts were just scribble paper.

Quote:In light of this i would like to ask you if there has been any point in my actual replies that i have plagerised the work of others without giving reference or links to the original authors.

If I had thought that you were that dishonest I'd have called you on it.

The worst I can say is that you haven't been as thorough as you could have been in citing your sources but we aren't exactly working on a peer-reviewed article here and that's a long way from plaigiarism.

As a general rule, tossing in a citation for a signficant point lends it more weight. Easy to do too with TTA's linking code. It's the difference between making a statement that I might attribute to you and making a statement that you've backed up by somebody who knows what they're talking about.

It also helps the debate flow. Last week you introduced quasars and a link would have been handy. Instead I had to go look it up and hope that I was looking at what you were talking about and not talking at complete cross-purposes. That can make for a very muddled conversation. Just the one link you provided today is a great help as I now know what we're discussing.

Quote:Back on topic:
Quasars do not undergo time dilation:
http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-q...ifies.html
The frequency of the waves do not change due to expansion.

Except obviously they do. Let's break this one down:

(1) The Phys.org article is pop science and shouldn't be relied upon. It has some glaring flaws including using an SR explanation for cosmological redshift. As a general rule of thumb, any pop science article purporting to overturn the fundamentals of physics should be viewed with extreme skepticism and a review of the source(s) is neceesary at a minimum.

(2) The article is based on Hawkins (2010), which is bad journalism since that's just a quick-N-dirty version of the actual paper, Hawkins (2001) [abstract][PDF].

(3) The Hawkins (2001) paper shows that something very odd is going on. You see, I say that quasars obviously do exhibit time dilation because redshift is time dilation. Redshift is produced by time dilation causing the waves of light to arrive at the observer less frequently. Lower frequency, longer wavelength, redder. So saying that redshift doesn't correlate with time dilation is like saying that temperature doesn't correlate with heat. This relationship between redshift and time dilation is true for all forms of relativity, special and general, and anything looking even vaguely like relativity.

You won't get that from the pop science article even though Hawkins is obviously aware of the problem since he says right in his abstract:
Hawkins (2001) Wrote:We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift, as required by time dilation.

And any time your science appears to overturn the basis of our understanding of the universe you really need to check it very thoroughly because either you've done something brilliant or foolish and the smart money is on the latter. We wouldn't have cold fusion or FTL neutrinos to giggle at if a couple of people had checked their work a bit more thoroughly.

Working with quasars means that you really, really have to check your work very thoroughly because (1) We aren't sure what makes them tick so there are a whole lot of assumptions that need careful checking, but we're pretty sure that they are powered by super-massive black holes so (2) there are at least three potential sources of relativistic effects that you have to separate:
  1. Cosmological redshift. We want to measure this.
  2. Gravitational redshift resulting from sitting way down the gravity well of a black hole.
  3. Redshift resulting from orbitting the black hole at a significant fraction of c so that you don't simply fall in.

This is why cosmologists haven't embraced quasars as comsic candles or clocks. They'd love to, there are millions of them and they're bright and visible a long way out, but they are tricky and poorly understood.

To keep a long story from getting longer, it looks like Hawkins likely introduced a selection bias in his sampling. Rourke [PDF] provides one explanation.

Quote:It questions the very methodology used to determine the age of the universe and therefore further adds to my stance that "we do not know"

OK, let's stop fiddling about with the picky details and get down to epistemology and ontology. That's where this argument is really at. I'd like you to take a moment and examine your skepticism. Don't get me wrong, skepticism is a wonderful thing. It keeps us from voting for the politician with the best promises, buying the car with the flashiest ad or sending our banking info to that nice fellow in Nigeria.

However, when you attempt to use skepticism in a systematic manner it is necessary to check that you are using it on a level playing field with as few biases as possible. I submit for your consideration the possibility that you have not done this.

On the one hand, you reject the possibility that we can know anything about the age of the universe because there are some necessary assumptions. This despite relatively rigorous checking of those assumptions by people who know what they are doing and will gain fame for themselves and their country if the managed to discover a flaw. For you, the combined KOBE/WMAP/Planck data, in which the later emission peaks can now be resolved, are insufficient to say that we know anything.

[Image: Temperature-Fluctuations-in-the-Cosmic-M...Planck.jpg]

On the other hand, you will accept a pop science article based on a single piece of research on extremely theoretical phenomena as sufficient to refute the age of the universe without doing the critical evaluation that would have shown you the flaws in the research.

This is the very definition of a confirmation bias.

I maintain that "We do not know precisely" is distinctly different from "We do not know at all." The former can be bound and constrained, so that while we may not know 13.8 billion years precisely, we can know it to within a few billion years or so. We may not know the exact date, but we do know the scale.

This is the heart of this discussion. To convince me, you would need to cast serious doubt on the science behind the Lambda-CDM model. I suggest that any successful attempt to do so would (1) earn you a very shiny Nobel Prize and (2) sail clean over the top of my very meager understanding of cosmology.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, it's simply that people who have a lot of credentials have put this together and even more have tried to crack it. Can't you just imagine the Russians swaggering off with a Nobel for the demolition of "Western" cosmology? Or the Chinese? Or pretty much anybody and everybody?

Unless you have a novel line of thought, I suggest that this conversation should be brought to a close. And unless I've made a particularly persuasive last post I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree. By the Rules of the Ring you now get a final post before the Mods lock this thread, so let me leave you with this final question.

How can you be so certain of your uncertainty?

PS: Congratulations on being the first person that I've had a debate with in The Boxing Ring to get to the end before they got themselves banned. You Win! Thumbsup

---
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
[+] 6 users Like Paleophyte's post
09-03-2016, 12:31 PM (This post was last modified: 09-03-2016 01:33 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(28-02-2016 09:22 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(28-02-2016 07:05 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What strikes me as even more dishonest is that these users make a commentary thread about this debate and even after seeing that we both agree the first 2 replies are not my "actual responses" these trolls still continue to make dishonest comments about plagiarism.

Commentary threads on matches in The Boxing Ring are common. Scroll down a bit and you'll find a whole bunch of them. All in all it's simplest not to get embroiled in them at the same time you're in a discussion here. You can get into nasty cross-thread snarls that way.

Your initial "draft" posts were confusing to many, largely because it was an extremely unusal use of the forum's functions. I'd never seen anybody post that way and suspect that few others had either. I'd chalk their comments up to the confusion produced before you made it obvious that your rough drafts were just scribble paper.

Quote:In light of this i would like to ask you if there has been any point in my actual replies that i have plagerised the work of others without giving reference or links to the original authors.

If I had thought that you were that dishonest I'd have called you on it.

The worst I can say is that you haven't been as thorough as you could have been in citing your sources but we aren't exactly working on a peer-reviewed article here and that's a long way from plaigiarism.

As a general rule, tossing in a citation for a signficant point lends it more weight. Easy to do too with TTA's linking code. It's the difference between making a statement that I might attribute to you and making a statement that you've backed up by somebody who knows what they're talking about.

It also helps the debate flow. Last week you introduced quasars and a link would have been handy. Instead I had to go look it up and hope that I was looking at what you were talking about and not talking at complete cross-purposes. That can make for a very muddled conversation. Just the one link you provided today is a great help as I now know what we're discussing.

Quote:Back on topic:
Quasars do not undergo time dilation:
http://phys.org/news/2010-04-discovery-q...ifies.html
The frequency of the waves do not change due to expansion.

Except obviously they do. Let's break this one down:

(1) The Phys.org article is pop science and shouldn't be relied upon. It has some glaring flaws including using an SR explanation for cosmological redshift. As a general rule of thumb, any pop science article purporting to overturn the fundamentals of physics should be viewed with extreme skepticism and a review of the source(s) is neceesary at a minimum.

(2) The article is based on Hawkins (2010), which is bad journalism since that's just a quick-N-dirty version of the actual paper, Hawkins (2001) [abstract][PDF].

(3) The Hawkins (2001) paper shows that something very odd is going on. You see, I say that quasars obviously do exhibit time dilation because redshift is time dilation. Redshift is produced by time dilation causing the waves of light to arrive at the observer less frequently. Lower frequency, longer wavelength, redder. So saying that redshift doesn't correlate with time dilation is like saying that temperature doesn't correlate with heat. This relationship between redshift and time dilation is true for all forms of relativity, special and general, and anything looking even vaguely like relativity.

You won't get that from the pop science article even though Hawkins is obviously aware of the problem since he says right in his abstract:
Hawkins (2001) Wrote:We find that the timescale of quasar variation does not increase with redshift, as required by time dilation.

And any time your science appears to overturn the basis of our understanding of the universe you really need to check it very thoroughly because either you've done something brilliant or foolish and the smart money is on the latter. We wouldn't have cold fusion or FTL neutrinos to giggle at if a couple of people had checked their work a bit more thoroughly.

Working with quasars means that you really, really have to check your work very thoroughly because (1) We aren't sure what makes them tick so there are a whole lot of assumptions that need careful checking, but we're pretty sure that they are powered by super-massive black holes so (2) there are at least three potential sources of relativistic effects that you have to separate:
  1. Cosmological redshift. We want to measure this.
  2. Gravitational redshift resulting from sitting way down the gravity well of a black hole.
  3. Redshift resulting from orbitting the black hole at a significant fraction of c so that you don't simply fall in.

This is why cosmologists haven't embraced quasars as comsic candles or clocks. They'd love to, there are millions of them and they're bright and visible a long way out, but they are tricky and poorly understood.

To keep a long story from getting longer, it looks like Hawkins likely introduced a selection bias in his sampling. Rourke [PDF] provides one explanation.

Quote:It questions the very methodology used to determine the age of the universe and therefore further adds to my stance that "we do not know"

OK, let's stop fiddling about with the picky details and get down to epistemology and ontology. That's where this argument is really at. I'd like you to take a moment and examine your skepticism. Don't get me wrong, skepticism is a wonderful thing. It keeps us from voting for the politician with the best promises, buying the car with the flashiest ad or sending our banking info to that nice fellow in Nigeria.

However, when you attempt to use skepticism in a systematic manner it is necessary to check that you are using it on a level playing field with as few biases as possible. I submit for your consideration the possibility that you have not done this.

On the one hand, you reject the possibility that we can know anything about the age of the universe because there are some necessary assumptions. This despite relatively rigorous checking of those assumptions by people who know what they are doing and will gain fame for themselves and their country if the managed to discover a flaw. For you, the combined KOBE/WMAP/Planck data, in which the later emission peaks can now be resolved, are insufficient to say that we know anything.

[Image: Temperature-Fluctuations-in-the-Cosmic-M...Planck.jpg]

On the other hand, you will accept a pop science article based on a single piece of research on extremely theoretical phenomena as sufficient to refute the age of the universe without doing the critical evaluation that would have shown you the flaws in the research.

This is the very definition of a confirmation bias.

I maintain that "We do not know precisely" is distinctly different from "We do not know at all." The former can be bound and constrained, so that while we may not know 13.8 billion years precisely, we can know it to within a few billion years or so. We may not know the exact date, but we do know the scale.

This is the heart of this discussion. To convince me, you would need to cast serious doubt on the science behind the Lambda-CDM model. I suggest that any successful attempt to do so would (1) earn you a very shiny Nobel Prize and (2) sail clean over the top of my very meager understanding of cosmology.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, it's simply that people who have a lot of credentials have put this together and even more have tried to crack it. Can't you just imagine the Russians swaggering off with a Nobel for the demolition of "Western" cosmology? Or the Chinese? Or pretty much anybody and everybody?

Unless you have a novel line of thought, I suggest that this conversation should be brought to a close. And unless I've made a particularly persuasive last post I suspect that we will have to agree to disagree. By the Rules of the Ring you now get a final post before the Mods lock this thread, so let me leave you with this final question.

How can you be so certain of your uncertainty?

PS: Congratulations on being the first person that I've had a debate with in The Boxing Ring to get to the end before they got themselves banned. You Win! Thumbsup
You mistake my level of certainty to be on the highest end of the spectrum. It isn't & you can refer to my signature as a form of confirmation.
Seeing that we both conceded we aren't attempting to prove an "is" I would just like to throw this in before the mods close the thread.
I think, based on the article, Quasars don't redshift as in "they don't go from one density to another over time."
Different quasars have different redshifts.
The point is they aren't subject to c absent expansion velocity.

I noticed some misconceptions about the topic that you have posted.
I never once attempted to refute the possibility that the universe "Can be 13.8 billion years old"
My aim is simply to show that the possibility exists that it can be something quite different if there is reason to doubt.
aka "we don't know"
In essence you have aided my purpose when you stated you don't believe that it "is" 13.8 billion years +- 21 mill years either.

Being a skeptic I am eternally skeptical about everything.

What I am about to say may annoy you a bit, so I will apologize for any inconvenience caused:

My main purpose of this thread was never really to prove what is or isn't the age of the universe. It's something quite different and only very few forumers have realized it. The topic of a 6 day old universe seems hardly defendable even if I were a caveman yet look how far logic and science has taken the debate. In the end the age is still relative to something and not stated as a form of objective reality.

My aim is to discuss the word "know" and it's intended meaning when used in everyday speech. This thread was just a tool I used to achieve my purpose & I humbly apologize if you feel used in this regard.

The word "know" is the Arch Nemisis of skepticism. The word "know" is used by both Atheists & Theists when defending their world view, yet I all I observe are individuals discussIng who knows less about the others claims rather than who knows more about their own claims. Even then I still can't say that I'm right, because it's only an observation that is subject to change as are all things we think we "know". This does not stop me from communicating my observation and giving my best guess on the matter.

I think the best way to find the best answer is to find the best question first. I actually wrote a 10 page article on another forum about this, which someday soon I will bring to the forum.

To better explain my point I am going to ask a very interesting question:

Do you think you would ever "know" you were God even if you were God?

I think if you take the scientific approach to this question you will realize that all the evidence suggests:

We were born not knowing the truth about everything & will cease to exist in the same way.

After meditating on these things I have come to my own personal realization that what should occupy my very existence is not the things that i believe "I already know" but rather the things that "I don't know". Hence I am eternally skeptical & openly doubtful of everything.

Which brings us full circle to the topic of discussion. You would be justified in stating I have no point engaging in these types of debates considering my eternal skepticism and you would be right to a certain degree.
The problem is how then can a skeptic explain his world view (if he so desires) without engaging in some form of logical debate? It's no easy task I can assure you, but I am not one to back down from a challenge.
Find all posts by this user
16-03-2016, 07:09 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2016 07:22 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
In this universe there exists things that have existed since the beginning of creation and are still no more than 1 second old. Such as photons emitted since the CMB radiation epoch.

In essence dating the age of the universe as an entire thing is not objectively possible because everything in the universe measures time by a different ruler.
Not everything in the universe carries the same universal age even tho it has been here since the beginning. Eg. Photons from CMB epoch.

How old is a photon belonging to this universe that existed since the CMB epoch? Some are less than a second
How old is the earth? Over 4 billion years.
The photon existed (as a photon) long before the earth existed (as the earth)

So which of these things gets the privilege of assigning a ruler to the age of the universe? Are you going to tell me we don't use different rulers to measure objects when speeds near c?

If I use the photon to date the universe it can be considered less than a scond old.
If I use the oldest known galaxy it can be 13.8 billion years old.

Who got to choose which object or thing gets the privilege to be used in dating the universe and why was the other one thrown out? What if someone decides he preferred the other ruler and gives valid reasons why?

These are questions that I am concerned about when discussing such things. It may be trivial to you simply because we are accustomed to dating things by the oldest known part of that thing. The problem I think lies in the way we describe an object or thing.

I will delve further in my next reponse as I am sure you are tempted to say the oldest known thing is the best ruler to measure the age of the universe regardless of whether or not it existed long after something that is much younger than it.

Why is the guy who said the universe is 6 days old wrong if he decided to give a 6 day old object which existed since the beginning the privilege of being the ruler by which he measured time?
What makes his ruler less accurate than yours?
If the answer is because we (the human race) choose to ignore the age of objects at c from the singularity to now then it becomes a subjective age.

I am not here to discuss a subjective age of the universe or this debate would never end until we interview everyone in the world.
So how then do we determine an objective age of the universe, if we don't use some form of subjectivity? We can't now can we?

Therefore I conclude as far as objective reality and time is concerned the universe can still be 6 days old just as much as it can be 13.8 billion years old.

Neither answers are fully wrong or fully right because age itself is an illusion or at least it appears that way to me.
Find all posts by this user
16-03-2016, 09:37 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
I had thought that we were done here.

Note to the mods. This is my last post in this debate. Kindly close this thread after Shane has made his reply.

(16-03-2016 07:09 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  In this universe there exists things that have existed since the beginning of creation and are still no more than 1 second old. Such as photons emitted since the CMB radiation epoch.

No. From our point of view those photons are 13.8 billion years old. Photons don't have a point of view because they don't experience time. It's a consequence of moving at the speed of light. If you could ask a photon how old the universe is it would stare at you blankly wondering what "old" means.

Quote:How old is a photon belonging to this universe that existed since the CMB epoch? Some are less than a second

The only photons that are less than a second old by any measure are inside of lunar orbit. If that's where the CMB is coming from then something has gone dreadfully wrong with your cosmology.

Quote:So which of these things gets the privilege of assigning a ruler to the age of the universe?

The one at rest with respect to the CMB. It's a simple enough measurement and calculation that allows all possible observers to arrive at the same conclusions by normalizing all distances, times, masses, etc. to v=0 rather than some arbitrary speed.

We should know, we did it back in the '70s [History of the CMB Dipole]. Incidentally, the correction for our peculiar velocity comes out to about 24,000 years or about the total length of human civilization. It's also vanishingly small even compared to the 21 million year uncertainty on the age of the universe.

Quote:If I use the photon to date the universe it can be considered less than a scond old.
If I use the oldest known galaxy it can be 13.8 billion years old.

Who got to choose which object or thing gets the privilege to be used in dating the universe and why was the other one thrown out?

By logical necessity the universe must be as old or older than its oldest part.

Quote:Why is the guy who said the universe is 6 days old wrong if he decided to give a 6 day old object which existed since the beginning the privilege of being the ruler by which he measured time?

Because he hasn't made the obvious and necessary adjustment for his peculiar velocity. If everybody does a minor correction that was discovered over a century ago by a guy named Al then everybody gets the same answer. It's that simple.

Quote:Therefore I conclude as far as objective reality and time is concerned the universe can still be 6 days old just as much as it can be 13.8 billion years old.

That's hardly objective then is it? Measuring everything according to the distortion applied by the velocity that you just happen to be wandering about at is the very definition of subjective. That's why it's called relativity.

If everybody makes the same correction to adjust their measurements to v=0 with respect to the CMB then they all arrive at the same objective age.

Quote:Neither answers are fully wrong or fully right because age itself is an illusion or at least it appears that way to me.

A fitting epitaph.

---
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
16-03-2016, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2016 11:07 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
(16-03-2016 09:37 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  I had thought that we were done here.

Note to the mods. This is my last post in this debate. Kindly close this thread after Shane has made his reply.

(16-03-2016 07:09 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  In this universe there exists things that have existed since the beginning of creation and are still no more than 1 second old. Such as photons emitted since the CMB radiation epoch.

No. From our point of view those photons are 13.8 billion years old. Photons don't have a point of view because they don't experience time. It's a consequence of moving at the speed of light. If you could ask a photon how old the universe is it would stare at you blankly wondering what "old" means.

Quote:How old is a photon belonging to this universe that existed since the CMB epoch? Some are less than a second

The only photons that are less than a second old by any measure are inside of lunar orbit. If that's where the CMB is coming from then something has gone dreadfully wrong with your cosmology.

Quote:So which of these things gets the privilege of assigning a ruler to the age of the universe?

The one at rest with respect to the CMB. It's a simple enough measurement and calculation that allows all possible observers to arrive at the same conclusions by normalizing all distances, times, masses, etc. to v=0 rather than some arbitrary speed.

We should know, we did it back in the '70s [History of the CMB Dipole]. Incidentally, the correction for our peculiar velocity comes out to about 24,000 years or about the total length of human civilization. It's also vanishingly small even compared to the 21 million year uncertainty on the age of the universe.

Quote:If I use the photon to date the universe it can be considered less than a scond old.
If I use the oldest known galaxy it can be 13.8 billion years old.

Who got to choose which object or thing gets the privilege to be used in dating the universe and why was the other one thrown out?

By logical necessity the universe must be as old or older than its oldest part.

Quote:Why is the guy who said the universe is 6 days old wrong if he decided to give a 6 day old object which existed since the beginning the privilege of being the ruler by which he measured time?

Because he hasn't made the obvious and necessary adjustment for his peculiar velocity. If everybody does a minor correction that was discovered over a century ago by a guy named Al then everybody gets the same answer. It's that simple.

Quote:Therefore I conclude as far as objective reality and time is concerned the universe can still be 6 days old just as much as it can be 13.8 billion years old.

That's hardly objective then is it? Measuring everything according to the distortion applied by the velocity that you just happen to be wandering about at is the very definition of subjective. That's why it's called relativity.

If everybody makes the same correction to adjust their measurements to v=0 with respect to the CMB then they all arrive at the same objective age.

Quote:Neither answers are fully wrong or fully right because age itself is an illusion or at least it appears that way to me.

A fitting epitaph.
If they close the thread now then we end up in a draw. Are you certain you want that?

Not all photons age the same Paleophyte.
Some are slowed down due to passing through non vacuums.
So you would be incorrect in saying that they would wonder what "old" means. Some do age.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news...180953949/
Also we assume that the speed of light is c outside of our solar system.
Has this been tested? Please provide some scientific backing. What if it is much faster/slower out there and slows down when it hits our solar system? Wouldn't that increase/decrease the age of the universe to even more drastic measurements?
How did you by pass these assumptions to arrive at facts? Where is the supporting evidence?

Questions:
Are you stating that cmb ceases to be cmb if it is moved too fast therefore for cmb to have ever existed the universe must have been at close to rest at that particular point in time?
If this is true do you have any research on the matter?

You said
"By logical necessity the universe must be as old or older than its oldest part"
Why is this a logical necessity?

How can you date something as large as the universe when it's components from start to finish don't all carry the same age?
If you see a wall painted in 10 different colors and I asked you what color is the wall how would you answer that? Wouldn't your answer be subjective and therefore quite possibly wrong?

You said we view the photons from our perspective thus making them 13.8 billion years old, but the story in the boxing ring wasn't based on our perspective when the 6 day creation period was referenced. It was assumed to be referenced by the very same thing that was the catalyst for creation.
If the age of the universe was referenced to by something that is assumed to exist millions of years before us why do we get the privilege of telling that thing what we think it should have said based on our relative time rather than it's? Isn't that a bit unfair if such a story teller could possibly exist?

You said that age is relative and I agree but it'seems relative only to the object in question and not relative to an outside observer.
How can you claim a proton is 13.8 billion years old if it really isn't 13.8 billion years old? It's relative existence is dependent on the proton's frame of reference.
I never knew science uses subjective information when calibrating GPS satellites. Isn't the time referenced by the GPS satellite different to ours? They don't compensate for it by ignoring their own time and using we what think it should be based on our own velocity. It's relative time matters to us enough to use what it says. So why doesn't the same concept not apply when referring to the story teller? Is science prejudiced?

I won't get the same answer as Al because I don't consider the oldest thing in the universe as a perfect representation of the age of the entire universe. It's a biased age & I don't see the reason for such biases in science.

You do realize what you call my epitaph is also my opening statement.
"We don't know."
So I guess you agreed in the end.

Thanks brother.
Find all posts by this user
22-03-2016, 09:38 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 09:42 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Paleophyte has left the debate without replying to my last point.
This was stated in his last post: "Note to the mods. This is my last post in this debate. Kindly close this thread after Shane has made his reply."

The point I made is extremely relevant to the topic of discussion.
"How can you date the age of something as large as the universe if it's components don't all carry the same age?"

Please note it is not my intention to close the debate at this time.
Is there any rule that says admittedly leaving the debate hanging automatically forfeits the debate?
I am not firmiliar with the rules here.

If the debate is over by default I would like to re open the debate for any new opponent that wishes to challenge me.
Find all posts by this user
22-03-2016, 08:08 PM
RE: Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane Explore Creation
Debate has concluded.
Thread closed

If you wish Shane to continue the debate with someone else feel free to challenge them.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: