The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2016, 09:47 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-03-2016 09:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 11:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They're talking about the oldest structures.


Multicolored. Easy. Tongue
I'm talking about the entire thing while they are talking about the oldest structures belonging to the entire thing.
Should I move my goal post at this point or rephrase the question?

Is multi colored "a color"?

Is it possible the problem doesn't lie with the answers? Is it the question that is at fault?

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
21-03-2016, 09:52 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-03-2016 09:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What color is a wall that has 10 different colors when you examine the color of every distinct section?

Ten different colors.

Quote:What age is an object that has 10 different ages when you examine the age of every distinct component?

The length of time that the various components have spent as a single unit.

Quote:Why should I accept your answer?

Because it is correct, and the only meaningful answer that can be given.

If a wall is painted in multiple colors, it is multiple colors when examined as a whole. Asking what single color you would describe multiple colors as is a nonsense question.

A given entity is generally considered to have an age equal to the amount of time that its components have been grouped together. My grandfather is eighty, despite the fact that the matter that he consists of has existed since the beginning of the universe.

Any other answer is either pointless pedantry ("but you could technically average out the wavelengths of light from X distance away and produce a uniform result" - technically true but rather beside the point as it does not alter the fact that the wall is painted in multiple colors), attempting to change the question ("but the atoms are much older" - you didn't ask about the atoms, you asked about my grandfather), or just plain wrong ("the wall has no color and your grandfather has no age").

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 09:52 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-03-2016 09:47 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm talking about the entire thing while they are talking about the oldest structures belonging to the entire thing.
Should I move my goal post at this point or rephrase the question?

Is multi colored "a color"?

Is it possible the problem doesn't lie with the answers? Is it the question that is at fault?

Yes
I miss the old you. Can you go back to disagreeing with me? It's getting boring now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 09:55 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-03-2016 09:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:34 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What color is a wall that has 10 different colors when you examine the color of every distinct section?

Ten different colors.

Quote:What age is an object that has 10 different ages when you examine the age of every distinct component?

The length of time that the various components have spent as a single unit.

Quote:Why should I accept your answer?

Because it is correct, and the only meaningful answer that can be given.

If a wall is painted in multiple colors, it is multiple colors when examined as a whole. Asking what single color you would describe multiple colors as is a nonsense question.

A given entity is generally considered to have an age equal to the amount of time that its components have been grouped together. My grandfather is eighty, despite the fact that the matter that he consists of has existed since the beginning of the universe.

Any other answer is either pointless pedantry ("but you could technically average out the wavelengths of light from X distance away and produce a uniform result" - technically true but rather beside the point as it does not alter the fact that the wall is painted in multiple colors), attempting to change the question ("but the atoms are much older" - you didn't ask about the atoms, you asked about my grandfather), or just plain wrong ("the wall has no color and your grandfather has no age").
I lost interest again. The communication barrier is too strong right now.
Best of wishes my friend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 10:03 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-03-2016 09:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is it possible the problem doesn't lie with the answers? Is it the question that is at fault?

Yes.

This is the case in almost every discussion you take part in. For all that I have been short with you before, this is not insult. It is simple fact.

You ask incoherent questions.

You do this because you do not understand the terms in play. This is why you cannot comprehend the answers given to you, and why nearly every reply to you must begin with mu - "un-ask the question". Nearly every question you put forward is so disconnected from reality, logic, and basic semantics that it cannot be meaningfully answered, and so those responding to you must do their best to tease it into some sort of coherent form before even attempting an answer. This results in the ridiculous run-arounds that conversations with you tend to devolve into; responders are answering questions other than what you have asked, because what you asked was incoherent. Because this is not explicitly stated, all parties get more and more confused and infinite time is wasted.

But when someone comes along who actually recognizes the incoherence and points it out, you do not understand the explanation put forth because of the same lack of knowledge which led to you formulating the question in the first place. The slew of posters pointing out how your understanding of color and definition is lacking is only the most recent example.

You need to slow down and learn the actual meanings of the terms you use. Until you do, answering your questions will continue to be an exercise in futility.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Unbeliever's post
21-03-2016, 10:07 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-03-2016 10:03 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 09:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Is it possible the problem doesn't lie with the answers? Is it the question that is at fault?

Yes.

This is the case in almost every discussion you take part in. For all that I have been short with you before, this is not insult. It is simple fact.

You ask incoherent questions.

You do this because you do not understand the terms in play. This is why you cannot comprehend the answers given to you, and why nearly every reply to you must begin with mu - "un-ask the question". Nearly every question you put forward is so disconnected from reality, logic, and basic semantics that it cannot be meaningfully answered, and so those responding to you must do their best to tease it into some sort of coherent form before even attempting an answer. This results in the ridiculous run-arounds that conversations with you tend to devolve into; responders are answering questions other than what you have asked, because what you asked was incoherent. Because this is not explicitly stated, all parties get more and more confused and infinite time is wasted.

But when someone comes along who actually recognizes the incoherence and points it out, you do not understand the explanation put forth because of the same lack of knowledge which led to you formulating the question in the first place. The slew of posters pointing out how your understanding of color and definition is lacking is only the most recent example.

You need to slow down and learn the actual meanings of the terms you use. Until you do, answering your questions will continue to be an exercise in futility.
Hi. How are you?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:29 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 05:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The water flows by current and energy forces. "Brings" in this case is a ''euphemism". The word "brings" assumes intention.


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


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

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.

Is it still just six days old? That seems to be what you are saying, instead of the standard myth that it was created in six days. So this being Tuesday do you believe that last Tuesday never existed? Have you heard of last Thursdayism? Makes just a bit more sense than your ramblings, not much, but a little.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:54 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 05:57 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 05:29 AM)DerFish Wrote:  
(16-03-2016 07:07 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Is it still just six days old? That seems to be what you are saying, instead of the standard myth that it was created in six days. So this being Tuesday do you believe that last Tuesday never existed? Have you heard of last Thursdayism? Makes just a bit more sense than your ramblings, not much, but a little.
No my friend.

I specifically said:
It "can be" 6 days old.
And not
It "is" 6 days old.

I never denied that last Thursday existed. I questioned the definition of a day as it relates to the age of the entire universe.

My whole debate is based on the fact that the thing in question is comprised of distinct parts that carry different ages even though they were all assumed to begin it's existence at the exact same time.

Anyone giving the universe a distinct age bracket of 13.8 billion years (+- 21 million years) is going to have to ignore certain parts of the universe and thus there answer isn't fulfilling the requirements of the question.

If I change the question at this point just to suit the answer that was given it means we are shifting the goal post and the debate is over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 06:06 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 05:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 05:29 AM)DerFish Wrote:  Is it still just six days old? That seems to be what you are saying, instead of the standard myth that it was created in six days. So this being Tuesday do you believe that last Tuesday never existed? Have you heard of last Thursdayism? Makes just a bit more sense than your ramblings, not much, but a little.
No my friend.

I specifically said:
It "can be" 6 days old.
And not
It "is" 6 days old.

I never denied that last Thursday existed. I questioned the definition of a day as it relates to the age of the entire universe.

My whole debate is based on the fact that the thing in question is comprised of distinct parts that carry different ages even though they were all assumed to begin it's existence at the exact same time.

Anyone giving the universe a distinct age bracket of 13.8 billion years (+- 21 million years) is going to have to ignore certain parts of the universe and thus there answer isn't fulfilling the requirements of the question.

If I change the question at this point just to suit the answer that was given it means we are shifting the goal post and the debate is over.
I'll give you my address and you can send me a part of the Universe that has existed since the beginning and is now only six days old. OK?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
22-03-2016, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 09:01 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 06:06 AM)DerFish Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 05:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  No my friend.

I specifically said:
It "can be" 6 days old.
And not
It "is" 6 days old.

I never denied that last Thursday existed. I questioned the definition of a day as it relates to the age of the entire universe.

My whole debate is based on the fact that the thing in question is comprised of distinct parts that carry different ages even though they were all assumed to begin it's existence at the exact same time.

Anyone giving the universe a distinct age bracket of 13.8 billion years (+- 21 million years) is going to have to ignore certain parts of the universe and thus there answer isn't fulfilling the requirements of the question.

If I change the question at this point just to suit the answer that was given it means we are shifting the goal post and the debate is over.
I'll give you my address and you can send me a part of the Universe that has existed since the beginning and is now only six days old. OK?
I'll do better than that.
Any photon that existed since the epoch end of CMB radiation can be less than 1 second old based on the formula for time dilation.
The epoch of CMB radiation is believed to have existed at the beginning of the universe as per the overall scheme of things.

The formula for time dilation uses a scientifically recognized method for dating the age of an object based on the object's own frame of reference.

Here is an example of two things that existed at the same time from since the beginning of the universe
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015...rse-egs8p7
The time taken for the photons we now see to reach us from the Galaxy is believed to be around 13.2 billion years but the scienitific age of the photon itself can be less than 1 second due to the effects of time dilation.

Hence the galaxy in it's present state (if it still exists) is believed to be 13.2 billion years old but the light it emitted 13.2 billion years ago can be less than 1 second old today based on the frame of reference used to date the photon.

Age varies based on frame of reference, thus the photon can be both 13.2 billion years old while it can still be less than 1 second old.
There isn't an objective age for a photon & by extension the universe.

It's not the first time this topic has been discussed:
https://www.quora.com/How-old-is-the-pho...n-universe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: