The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 07:43 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 06:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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

This is wrong.

You do not understand relativity.

(22-03-2016 06:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?"

This has also been answered.

You do not understand relativity.

(22-03-2016 06:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The question would then become which frame of reference is more valid as to the age of said object.

Called it.

You do not understand relativity.

(22-03-2016 06:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

That is a very, very silly objective, considering that you do not understand relativity.

"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
22-03-2016, 07:56 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 03:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:38 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  "I know you are, but what am I"?

What, are you ten years old? Oh, wait, you can't be older than six days. That explains everything.
Why can't I be older than 6 days old?
Did someone say the universe "IS" 6 days old?

Counter the argument of correlating my age to be less than 6 days old using the claim that the universe "can be" & not "is" 6 days old.

Let's see how good your debating skills are. I dare you not to evade this point and tackle the claim you just made.

I'm not in the habit of casting pearls before swine; I see no need to change that simply to humor you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
22-03-2016, 08:08 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 07:56 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 03:39 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why can't I be older than 6 days old?
Did someone say the universe "IS" 6 days old?

Counter the argument of correlating my age to be less than 6 days old using the claim that the universe "can be" & not "is" 6 days old.

Let's see how good your debating skills are. I dare you not to evade this point and tackle the claim you just made.

I'm not in the habit of casting pearls before swine; I see no need to change that simply to humor you.
So let me get this right.
I never said the universe is 6 days old or is less than 6 days old
You try to ridicule me by saying that I believe I am no more than 6 days old.

No where have I ever said I am no more than 6 days old or that the universe is 6 days old or Is less than 6 days old.
So how exactly does this count as a ridicule to me?

How about you go and ridicule the person that said the universe is 6 days old instead of insinuating lies about the person that said it "can be"?

Is making up a lie about someone's belief some form of entertainment to you?
Is this all I can expect from you Thump? A person that misrepresents another persons belief in an effort to ridicule them?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:17 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 06:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 05:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

Do you even read responses? I just showed why you are wrong.

Quote: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.

I anm done with that. Apparently you can not understand the answer.

Quote: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?"

Incoherent nonsense and alredy countered with fact.

Quote: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.

The universe is as old as the oldest objects, not the youngest.

Quote:If what you just wrote is a counter argument to my claim I would like to know which point did it counter?

The entire argument.

Quote: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.

There is no privileged frame of reference. The universe is as old as the oldest object regardless of frame of reference.

Quote: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.

No, nothing goes slower. You clearly misunderstand relativity and particularly frames of reference.

Quote: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.

No frame of reference is more valid. It's relative.

Quote: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.

We have mountains of objective evidence that you choose to ignore or, worse, misunderstand and misinterpret.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
22-03-2016, 08:41 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 08:56 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 06:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.

Do you even read responses? I just showed why you are wrong.

Quote: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.

I anm done with that. Apparently you can not understand the answer.

Quote: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?"

Incoherent nonsense and alredy countered with fact.

Quote: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.

The universe is as old as the oldest objects, not the youngest.

Quote:If what you just wrote is a counter argument to my claim I would like to know which point did it counter?

The entire argument.

Quote: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.

There is no privileged frame of reference. The universe is as old as the oldest object regardless of frame of reference.

Quote: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.

No, nothing goes slower. You clearly misunderstand relativity and particularly frames of reference.

Quote: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.

No frame of reference is more valid. It's relative.

Quote: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.

We have mountains of objective evidence that you choose to ignore or, worse, misunderstand and misinterpret.
Finally:
"The universe is as old as the oldest objects, not the youngest."

I am not one to deny when a logic has flaws.
You just need the right explanation to get the job done. Claiming you are right means nothing to me, but showing me you are right is priceless.
Well done Chas, for finally giving the correct explanation to the question that was asked over a month ago.
I value your explanation & not just your answer.

What is the Age of the Universe? It's relative.
How young is the Universe? Less than one second old.

How old is the Universe? 13.8 billion years old.
Thank you Chas. = )
Congratulations.

Mods you may now close this thread.
My job here is done & I have nothing more to add on this subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:48 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Finally:
"The universe is as old as the oldest objects, not the youngest."

I am not one to deny when a logic has flaws.
You just need the right answer to get the job done. Claiming you are right means nothing to me, but showing me you are right is priceless.
Well done Chas, for finally giving the correct answer to the question that was asked over a month ago.

Oh, sweet lord, you are an idiot.

This was said before. Likely more than once, but I can't be bothered to dig for other examples at the moment, particularly when you clearly either don't understand them or don't care.

And besides that, you have spent the past five pages minimum going off on irrelevant tangents and asking incoherent questions about completely unrelated topics, such as what color a multicolored wall is, and failing to understand the answers given to you.

You've spent this entire thread making a tremendous ass out of yourself and exposing your complete and utter ignorance of every topic you've brought up. Trying to act now as though it has all been some sort of test fools no one, and, in fact, only serves to make you look like an even bigger idiot even accepting that it is true, because this is the most incompetent "test" ever administered.

Even Call_of_the_Wild isn't dumb enough to try this sort of stupidity.

(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What is the Age of the Universe? It's relative.

No, it's 13.8 billion years.

(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How young is the Universe? Less than one second old.

No. You don't understand relativity.

(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  My job here is done & I have nothing more to add on this subject.

You never had anything to add in the first place.

"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
22-03-2016, 08:50 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 08:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Do you even read responses? I just showed why you are wrong.


I anm done with that. Apparently you can not understand the answer.


Incoherent nonsense and alredy countered with fact.


The universe is as old as the oldest objects, not the youngest.


The entire argument.


There is no privileged frame of reference. The universe is as old as the oldest object regardless of frame of reference.


No, nothing goes slower. You clearly misunderstand relativity and particularly frames of reference.


No frame of reference is more valid. It's relative.


We have mountains of objective evidence that you choose to ignore or, worse, misunderstand and misinterpret.
Finally:
"The universe is as old as the oldest objects, not the youngest."

I am not one to deny when a logic has flaws.
You just need the right explanation to get the job done. Claiming you are right means nothing to me, but showing me you are right is priceless.
Well done Chas, for finally giving the correct explanation to the question that was asked over a month ago.
I value your explanation & not just your answer.

What is the Age of the Universe? It's relative.
How young is the Universe? Less than one second old.

How old is the Universe? 13.8 billion years old.
Thank you Chas. = )
Congratulations.

Mods you may now close this thread.
My job here is done & I have nothing more to add on this subject.

Your reading comprehension is abominable. I'm done here.

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, 08:52 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 09:00 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 08:48 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Finally:
"The universe is as old as the oldest objects, not the youngest."

I am not one to deny when a logic has flaws.
You just need the right answer to get the job done. Claiming you are right means nothing to me, but showing me you are right is priceless.
Well done Chas, for finally giving the correct answer to the question that was asked over a month ago.

Oh, sweet lord, you are an idiot.

This was said before. Likely more than once, but I can't be bothered to dig for other examples at the moment, particularly when you clearly either don't understand them or don't care.

And besides that, you have spent the past five pages minimum going off on irrelevant tangents and asking incoherent questions about completely unrelated topics, such as what color a multicolored wall is, and failing to understand the answers given to you.

You've spent this entire thread making a tremendous ass out of yourself and exposing your complete and utter ignorance of every topic you've brought up. Trying to act now as though it has all been some sort of test fools no one, and, in fact, only serves to make you look like an even bigger idiot even accepting that it is true, because this is the most incompetent "test" ever administered.

Even Call_of_the_Wild isn't dumb enough to try this sort of stupidity.

(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What is the Age of the Universe? It's relative.

No, it's 13.8 billion years.

(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How young is the Universe? Less than one second old.

No. You don't understand relativity.

(22-03-2016 08:41 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  My job here is done & I have nothing more to add on this subject.

You never had anything to add in the first place.
Your just mad you didn't win the debate yourself.
Check the thread Chas is the only person to explain the answer in a way that cannot be refuted.

http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/2011/1...ive-thing/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_age_effect
http://www.ask.com/science/difference-be...583a8d82bd
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:57 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 06:43 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The question would then become which frame of reference is more valid as to the age of said object.

^^^^ That right there, AG. Right there.
That's the proof you don't get what Relativity is all about.

http://physics.bu.edu/py106/notes/Relativity.html

Hint: there is no "more valid" anything.

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
22-03-2016, 09:01 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-03-2016 08:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Your just mad you didn't win the debate yourself.
Check the thread Chas is the only person to explain the answer in a way that cannot be refuted.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-...ffect.html
http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/2011/1...ive-thing/

So. Either a troll or someone with legitimate mental issues.

Either way, I think this thread is done.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: