The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 03:50 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 03:42 PM)Chas Wrote:  The running clocks on GPS satellites are corrected for time dilation. The clocks are the observers.
Chas where is your evidence that only an observer can undergo time dilation.

I didn't say that. Consider

In the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference of elapsed time between two events as measured by observers either moving relative to each other or differently situated from a gravitational mass or masses.

Quote:The theory of time dilation says only an observer can "measure" time dilation.
That would be any of us.
It does not say only an observer can/cannot "undergo" time dilation.

Look at the wiki article
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

No where in the article does it say only an observer can/cannot undergo time dilation.

It speaks about Clocks and other inanimate objects.

Are you telling me that if the clock in question stopped working properly it will not undergo time dilation.
This is not mentioned anywhere in science
Where did you get this information?

Since I said nothing of the kind, your rant is your own.

Quote:Look at the article where it says:
"For instance, two rocket ships (A and B) speeding past one another in space would experience time dilation"
Are you going to tell me rocket ships are observers now?

Chas where is your evidence?

Observers observe time dilation, nothing undergoes time dilation.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 04:34 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 04:21 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 04:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Do you seriously not even understand what the term "observer" means in the context of physics?

Get out. Come back when you've passed a high school physics course.
How is this relevant?

Your lack of understanding of basic terms is always relevant, because you insist on trying to use them.

Of course, it is a bit tangential to the fact that Chas said nothing about only observers being capable of undergoing time dilation, and that was just you spouting incoherent idiocy as per usual, but I figure he can handle that half of the discussion on his own.

"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
22-03-2016, 04:36 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 04:21 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 04:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Do you seriously not even understand what the term "observer" means in the context of physics?

Get out. Come back when you've passed a high school physics course.
How is this relevant?
I am not arguing about what an observer is. Whatever you think an observer is according to physics is not up for debate. No one is debating what an observer is.

Can you seriously not recognize what we are debating?

We are discussing what are the things that can undergo time dilation. Chas claims ONLY an observer can undergo time dilation. If I misinterpreted what you are saying, now would be a good time to correct me Chas.

No, I am not. Your reading comprehension sucks.

Quote:I claim that the definition of time dilation shows there are things other than an observer that can undergo time dilation.
One such example that has been given by the wiki page are rockets.
This is what the wiki article says:
"For instance, two rocket ships (A and B) speeding past one another in space would experience time dilation"

Time dilation is only meaningful to the observer.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:00 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 05:03 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
What is this supposed to mean then Chas?
(22-03-2016 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 08:52 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  "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.
No, it can't, not in any meaningful way. It is billions of years old to any observer.
Pro tip: The photon is not an observer.
What was your objection to my claim that the photon can be less than 1 second old?

You said "no, it can't", which shows objection. If it's not an objection to the quote you posted then what is it?
You immediately follow it with " It is billions of years old to any observer". I am guessing this is the start of your counter argument to my "less than 1 second old" argument. If it isn't a counter argument why did you put it there right after you said "no, it can't",
You then list "Pro tip: The photon is not an observer". For what purpose did you give me this "pro tip" so soon after? I automatically assumed you excluded photons from observers so that I won't argue that a "photon is an observer".

If this is not your counter argument to my claim that "the photon can be less than 1 second old" then where is the counter argument?
I'm willing to admit fault, but how can I do it without a counter argument my friend?
That's all I'm asking for at this point Chas.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:00 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 10:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 09:04 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No.

Again, you do not actually understand relativity or how the age of the universe is determined. Do some basic research before posting.
It's the philosophy behind the claim that concerns me.
I asked a question in an effort to understand the philosophy of which relativity is he most valid to use when determining the age of the universe.
What a crock, you did not post it in an effort to understand. You are not looking to understand anything at all, just to spout your shit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DerFish's post
22-03-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
Pot meet Kettle.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:23 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 05:00 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What is this supposed to mean then Chas?
(22-03-2016 12:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it can't, not in any meaningful way. It is billions of years old to any observer.
Pro tip: The photon is not an observer.
What was your objection to my claim that the photon can be less than 1 second old?

You said "no, it can't", which shows objection. If it's not an objection to the quote you posted then what is it?
You immediately follow it with " It is billions of years old to any observer". I am guessing this is the start of your counter argument to my "less than 1 second old" argument. If it isn't a counter argument why did you put it there right after you said "no, it can't",
You then list "Pro tip: The photon is not an observer". For what purpose did you give me this "pro tip" so soon after? I automatically assumed you excluded photons from observers so that I won't argue that a "photon is an observer".

If this is not your counter argument to my claim that "the photon can be less than 1 second old" then where is the counter argument?
I'm willing to admit fault, but how can I do it without a counter argument my friend?
That's all I'm asking for at this point Chas.

Let's skip past your odd misapprehension of relativity and go straight to the heart of your argument.

Do you what the CMB is? It is high energy electromagnetic radiation that came from a source that is moving away at such a high velocity that it has been red-shifted into the microwave region. That is, it has a wavelength in the range of 1mm to 1m - that is extremely long.

To have come from a source moving at that velocity, the source must be very, very distant.

The time it took for those photons to get here is considerably longer than six days.

The photon is older than six days.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-03-2016, 05:31 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  The photon is older than six days.

"But from the point of view of the photon, no time has passed at all, and it is zero seconds old. What makes the point of view of the photon any less valid of a measurement?"

...Or something to that effect.

"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
22-03-2016, 06:22 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 07:13 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 05:00 PM)DerFish Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 10:04 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's the philosophy behind the claim that concerns me.
I asked a question in an effort to understand the philosophy of which relativity is he most valid to use when determining the age of the universe.
What a crock, you did not post it in an effort to understand. You are not looking to understand anything at all, just to spout your shit.
I would have no reason to doubt you if you could show me how you came to the conclusion that " I didn't post it in an effort to understand."

Can you post which part of my responses has led you to believe that I did not post the question concerning "which age is more valid" in an effort to understand the topic of the age of the universe?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 06:43 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 07:12 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 05:00 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What is this supposed to mean then Chas?
What was your objection to my claim that the photon can be less than 1 second old?

You said "no, it can't", which shows objection. If it's not an objection to the quote you posted then what is it?
You immediately follow it with " It is billions of years old to any observer". I am guessing this is the start of your counter argument to my "less than 1 second old" argument. If it isn't a counter argument why did you put it there right after you said "no, it can't",
You then list "Pro tip: The photon is not an observer". For what purpose did you give me this "pro tip" so soon after? I automatically assumed you excluded photons from observers so that I won't argue that a "photon is an observer".

If this is not your counter argument to my claim that "the photon can be less than 1 second old" then where is the counter argument?
I'm willing to admit fault, but how can I do it without a counter argument my friend?
That's all I'm asking for at this point Chas.

Let's skip past your odd misapprehension of relativity and go straight to the heart of your argument.

Do you what the CMB is? It is high energy electromagnetic radiation that came from a source that is moving away at such a high velocity that it has been red-shifted into the microwave region. That is, it has a wavelength in the range of 1mm to 1m - that is extremely long.

To have come from a source moving at that velocity, the source must be very, very distant.

The time it took for those photons to get here is considerably longer than six days.

The photon is older than six days.
I take it you are no longer arguing that time dilation excludes inanimate objects then. I hope you will eventually return to that topic because we haven't finished our discussion.
For now I am going to assume that it is possible for a photon to be less than 1 second old from the beginning of time to now, since you haven't countered my argument and shifted the topic in spite of the evidence I provided.
If you still disagree with the claim I made I invite you to return to the above subject and give your counter argument before allowing our new discussion to fully develop.

Now to discuss your new arguments:
You spoke about CMB radiation and it's distance from us.
You then tried to show that due to it's distance from us and the constant speed of light (I assume this is what you were saying) that the time taken for light to travel from the CMB epoch to where we are now would result in a duration of considerably more than 6 days.

Is this your counter argument to my question/objection of:
"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?"

In my argument I am speaking sbout time dilation as a method of determining the age of an object from the beginning of time to present which can result in varying ages for objects that existed at the same point in the early universes history.

If what you just wrote is a counter argument to my claim I would like to know which point did it counter?
If you are going to claim that the time taken is objectively known to be within a certain range and considerably more than 6 days old then you will have to contend with my argument that time is subjective to frame of reference as is the age of any object.

The faster something goes the slower everything else ages around it when compared to it's speed at rest. This is the essence of time dilation. This is why an ancient photon can be less than 1 second old based on the photon's frame of reference even if it took 13.8 billion average human years to get here.

The question would then become which frame of reference is more valid as to the age of said object. If for some reason we were able to agree on a more valid frame of reference and finally give the universe a proper age, it would be purely subjective based on the method we used to define the age.

My objective for this debate has always been to prove that we have no objective age of the universe and to prove this I took one of the most preposterous ages I can think about and used it as my flagship for the debate.
So far all that has been proven is that the age of 13.8 billion years old & 6 days old are both subjective ages for the universe (as far as science is concerned). Therefore any age we chose can still be subject to error as far as objective realities are concerned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: