The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2016, 05:59 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The ocean's currents brings water from one ocean to another. Does the ocean have consciousness?

The water flows by current and energy forces. "Brings" in this case is a ''euphemism". The word "brings" assumes intention.

(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why does a bringer have to be some divine being? Why do you rule out the possibility of randomness and a non conscious being which initiated the "Big Bang" and thus caused the process of creation to be what it is today?

All irrelevant. There is no evidence for that fiction. ANYTHING is possible. I don't waste my time with fairy stories.

(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think you assume it requires a creator. It does not say so in the definition. Who or what caused it is not described in the definition as far as I can tell. I have a plausible explanation for how this universe can exist outside of time and it does not require a God as described by theism. I will propose the theory in another thread.

Lovely. The use of the word "outside" in the absence of space is meaningless. There is no "outside" without space.

(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The fact remains we know our reality exists regardless of how it exists or what brought it into being.
The fact remains we never proved it came from nothing, but rather we assume a dense point called the singularity where all matter we know of today still existed at that point in time but in a different state.

So ? Your point is what ?

BTW, I'm interested in how you are 'telling time" in your "24 hour" periods when you say the expansion stopped. A clock ? How EXACTLY are you measuring time in these periods, and what is an "hour" defined to be, under those conditions ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-03-2016, 06:13 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 07:59 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  [quote='Agnostic Shane' pid='934810' dateline='1453501736']
It stopped inflating 7 times for 24 hour intervals

You forgot the part where the sparkly pink unicorns tap danced and sang the Hallelujah Chorus in vivace tempo 25 times during each of these intervals, and then broke into the
Anvil Chorus from Lohengrin a capella just before the next "period' began, and then changed into feather boas and pranced in a line into the worm hole, as the evil Pharoh attacked. Yes

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-03-2016, 07:07 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2016 07:32 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 05:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The ocean's currents brings water from one ocean to another. Does the ocean have consciousness?

The water flows by current and energy forces. "Brings" in this case is a ''euphemism". The word "brings" assumes intention.

(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why does a bringer have to be some divine being? Why do you rule out the possibility of randomness and a non conscious being which initiated the "Big Bang" and thus caused the process of creation to be what it is today?

All irrelevant. There is no evidence for that fiction. ANYTHING is possible. I don't waste my time with fairy stories.

(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I think you assume it requires a creator. It does not say so in the definition. Who or what caused it is not described in the definition as far as I can tell. I have a plausible explanation for how this universe can exist outside of time and it does not require a God as described by theism. I will propose the theory in another thread.

Lovely. The use of the word "outside" in the absence of space is meaningless. There is no "outside" without space.

(16-03-2016 05:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The fact remains we know our reality exists regardless of how it exists or what brought it into being.
The fact remains we never proved it came from nothing, but rather we assume a dense point called the singularity where all matter we know of today still existed at that point in time but in a different state.
So ? Your point is what ?

BTW, I'm interested in how you are 'telling time" in your "24 hour" periods when you say the expansion stopped. A clock ? How EXACTLY are you measuring time in these periods, and what is an "hour" defined to be, under those conditions ?
You said anything is possible. That's what I have been saying all along. Maybe we finally agree on something after so many months.
You said "brings" assumes intention. I don't assume such. Why do "normal" people get the luxury to assume? It's not within me to assume things and then accept them as facts. They will always fall under the realm of speculation to me. Why is it so hard for people to accept that absent clear emperical evidence skepticism is the only valid choice? Is my autism that bad that I cannot see the value in assuming an implied meaning in the things normal people accept as fact more often than not?

24 hours! An Hour? It's called standard candles I think. We don't need planetary bodies in motion to calibrate time. Cosmology has come a long way since then.
The same way you measure 10 billion years before the creation of the earth.
A year is no longer defined by the orbit of the earth around the sun.
Neither is a day 1 rotation of the earth on it's axis.
6 days of co moving time will not be the same as a non co moving 6 days. They will be using two different rulers.

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?

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?

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
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 07:24 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 05:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't share your belief. So I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone.

[Image: ed49b6851933f5b3a73b28eac036f2e2.jpg]

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
16-03-2016, 07:38 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2016 07:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why do "normal" people get the luxury to assume? It's not within me to assume things and then accept them as facts.

You might want to stop using your disability to get attention and as a crutch. It's really old.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  24 hours! An Hour? It's called standard candles I think.
No. They didn't exist then.
"A standard candle is a class of astrophysical objects, such as supernovae or variable stars, which have known luminosity due to some characteristic quality possessed by the entire class of objects."

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We don't need planetary bodies in motion to calibrate time. Cosmology has come a long way since then.

True but you need SOMETHING. There were no "hours" to do the measuring then. Your whole premise is built on a meaningless assumption.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The same way you measure 10 billion years before the creation of the earth.
A year is no longer defined by the orbit of the earth around the sun.
Neither is a day 1 rotation of the earth on it's axis.
6 days of co moving time will not be the same as a non co moving 6 days. They will be using two different rulers.

Irrelevant. We're talking about from OUR point of view.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  So which of these things gets the privilege of assigning a ruler to the age of the universe?

That's NOT the question AT HAND. YOU asserting a time period of 24 hours. I want to know how you measured that, and why you said that..EXACTLY.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

No one is holding their breath. You were trounced SO badly in the debate, I doubt ANYONE takes ANYTHING you claim, seriously.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
16-03-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 07:24 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 05:54 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I don't share your belief. So I don't think you speak on behalf of everyone.

[Image: ed49b6851933f5b3a73b28eac036f2e2.jpg]
I agree here. My Aspergers (if that's what it really is) does not open up my eyes to the world of assumptions without explicit terminology.
I guess I am to be considered part of the tta slow crowd for lacking this common ability to assume implied meanings as facts in some cases.
Maybe this is why I have no absolutely certain beliefs and an eternal skepticism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 08:01 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2016 08:08 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 07:38 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why do "normal" people get the luxury to assume? It's not within me to assume things and then accept them as facts.

You might want to stop using you disability to get attention and as a crutch. It's really old.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  24 hours! An Hour? It's called standard candles I think.
No. They didn't exist then.
"A standard candle is a class of astrophysical objects, such as supernovae or variable stars, which have known luminosity due to some characteristic quality possessed by the entire class of objects."

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  We don't need planetary bodies in motion to calibrate time. Cosmology has come a long way since then.

True but you need SOMETHING. There were no "hours" to do the measuring then. Your whole premise is built on a meaningless assumption.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The same way you measure 10 billion years before the creation of the earth.
A year is no longer defined by the orbit of the earth around the sun.
Neither is a day 1 rotation of the earth on it's axis.
6 days of co moving time will not be the same as a non co moving 6 days. They will be using two different rulers.

Irrelevant. We're talking about from OUR point of view.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  So which of these things gets the privilege of assigning a ruler to the age of the universe?

That's NOT the question AT HAND. YOU asserting a time period of 24 hours. I want to know how you measured that, and why you said that..EXACTLY.

(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

No one is holding their breath. You were trounced SO badly in the debate, I doubt ANYONE takes ANYTHING you claim, seriously.
It's the same concept we use to measure years before the earth was created. Is it not?
Are you not claiming we cannot measure days before the earth was created?
Then how were we able to measure years too?

If I don't get to use days to measure time before the earth was created then how do we get to use years to measure time before the earth was created?
When/if you answer that you would have refuted your own point I think.

Time is no longer measured though astronomy. At least I don't think it is.

I am not using my disorder to gain attention. I am pointing out that I am unable to understand your logic when you use assumptions that I haven't agreed to. It's an appeal to you and everyone else to please use another approach when communicating with me because I don't have this ability.

Why do you make fun of someone with such a disability? It's like asking a blind man why can't you see instead of just describing the object to me.

You want to know why would someone say 24 hours = 1 day if they don't know what a day is?
The answer is simple I think

I am describing what a day is like for me using the way a day feels like for you.

If day for me at near c passes as years for you then I would be wrong to tell you it took me years to do something that only took me a few seconds, even if that same time would have taken you years to do t your present speed. It's your clock I am using as the ruler to describe how time passes for me.
If the roles were reversed and you were trying to describe what a 100 years would feel like for me you wouldn't say a few seconds even though it only took a few seconds for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 07:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I agree here. My Aspergers (if that's what it really is) does not open up my eyes to the world of assumptions without explicit terminology.

There is a HUGE difference between assumptions and scientific knowledge.

You, my friend, make the assumptions.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
16-03-2016, 08:12 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 08:01 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's the same concept we use to measure years before the earth was created. Is it not?
Are you not claiming we cannot measure days before the earth was created?

You tell me. YOU said there were 24 hours. What did you mean by that ?
How did you measure those. EXACTLY, in that context.
I have a feeling you're just bullshitting about everything.
You say a photon existing since the Big Bang can be one second old. If that is true, what do you mean EXACTLY, saying there were 24 hours separating the intervals ?

There's a difference between HAVING a disability, and throwing it around as an excuse.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
16-03-2016, 08:13 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 08:06 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 07:42 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I agree here. My Aspergers (if that's what it really is) does not open up my eyes to the world of assumptions without explicit terminology.

There is a HUGE difference between assumptions and scientific knowledge.

You, my friend, make the assumptions.
Let's try to stop making unrelated arguments which will eventually lead to you calling me evasive because I ignored it to answer the actual subject we were discussing.
He made the statement "brings" assumes intent.
How am I supposed to know that? I don't possess this super human quality of assumption to determine a fact.

Now for unrelated argument:
Of course I make assumptions. Everything I say is an assumption. I am a skeptic.
I don't accept my assumptions as fact. Just because I say something based on the logic behind it doesn't mean I believe it to be a fact. I point out possibilities. This is all a skeptic can ever hope to achieve as far as absolute truth is concerned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: