The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-03-2016, 06:25 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-03-2016 06:10 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Debate with you? More like chess with a pigeon.
That would make you one of the pieces.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 06:37 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
Actually it makes you the one knocking over the pieces and shitting on the board.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 10:51 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-03-2016 06:37 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Actually it makes you the one knocking over the pieces and shitting on the board.
Why didn't you object to being one of the pieces knowing you were going to state I shit on the board and knocked over the pieces?
You aren't very good at this are you?
Don't worry neither am I.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-03-2016, 11:49 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-03-2016 05:59 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Ok. I understand then. I will just stop responding to it from now on.

Well that lasted about 30 min, to the surprise of absolutely no one, at least he came back to act like a cunt so he's consistent.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 06:21 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 06:29 AM by Popeye's Pappy.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(23-03-2016 10:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 06:37 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  Actually it makes you the one knocking over the pieces and shitting on the board.
Why didn't you object to being one of the pieces knowing you were going to state I shit on the board and knocked over the pieces?
You aren't very good at this are you?
Don't worry neither am I.

I don't claim to be a particularly good debater, and for all I know you are. You haven't demonstrated such skills in this thread though. All you have managed to demonstrate is that you don't really understand the things you are arguing about. You started with some crackpot hypothesis about pauses in expansion being able to account for a six day creation. It was pointed out to you that there is no evidence for any pauses. You ignored that problem with your thesis and continued on your merry way. That isn't how you win a point in a debate. That's how you lose one.

At some point later in the thread you switched to the proton perspective argument. You were told that wasn't how it worked. They don't slow down so there isn't one traveling through the universe that has experienced a six day creation from any perspective. They move at C from the instant they are created until the instant they are absorbed by something they contact. Once again instead of defending your argument you just repeat it then proclaimed victory. Once again that isn't how debates are won. It is however exactly like the Internet meme of playing chess with pigeons. You've knocked over all the pieces, shit on the board, and now you are strutting around like you've won.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
24-03-2016, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 24-03-2016 03:56 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(24-03-2016 06:21 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(23-03-2016 10:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Why didn't you object to being one of the pieces knowing you were going to state I shit on the board and knocked over the pieces?
You aren't very good at this are you?
Don't worry neither am I.

I don't claim to be a particularly good debater, and for all I know you are. You haven't demonstrated such skills in this thread though. All you have managed to demonstrate is that you don't really understand the things you are arguing about. You started with some crackpot hypothesis about pauses in expansion being able to account for a six day creation. It was pointed out to you that there is no evidence for any pauses. You ignored that problem with your thesis and continued on your merry way. That isn't how you win a point in a debate. That's how you lose one.

At some point later in the thread you switched to the proton perspective argument. You were told that wasn't how it worked. They don't slow down so there isn't one traveling through the universe that has experienced a six day creation from any perspective. They move at C from the instant they are created until the instant they are absorbed by something they contact. Once again instead of defending your argument you just repeat it then proclaimed victory. Once again that isn't how debates are won. It is however exactly like the Internet meme of playing chess with pigeons. You've knocked over all the pieces, shit on the board, and now you are strutting around like you've won.
As far as I know protons don't travel at c. I think you meant to say photon. I won't make it an issue though because typos happen.
I don't think I am a very good debater & I have never made that claim nor am I accusing you of saying that I did. Thus your first two sentences are quite obvious.
I never made the claim that I fully understand the things I am arguing about nor am I accusing you of saying that I did. Thus your third sentence is quite obvious.

Why is pointing out that "there is no evidence for any pauses" a problem to my discussion? Where lies the problem?
The bubble story was just a story. I said so before I wrote it.
When stating a possibility (a hypothesis) you aren't required to give evidence.
When examining a hypothesis for the purpose of creating a theory evidence is required.
When a theory becomes proven it becomes a law.
When laws are applied they become fact.

I asked the community to examine the hypothesis and determine if any scientific laws have been broken.
The community is claiming that they are not going to examine any scientific laws within the hypothesis if I cannot first prove the story.

As far as I know a hypothesis does not require a true story.
Example:
You propose a hypothesis:

Eating greasy food causes pimples.
Next you need to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. Let's say you decide to eat greasy food every day for a week and record the effect on your face. Then, as a control, for the next week you'll avoid greasy food and see what happens.
Now, this is not a very good experiment because it does not take into account other factors, such as hormone levels, stress, sun exposure, exercise or any number of other variables which might conceivably affect your skin. The problem is that you cannot assign cause to your effect. If you eat french fries for a week and suffer a breakout, can you definitely say it was the grease in the food that caused it? Maybe it was the salt. Maybe it was the potato. Maybe it was unrelated to diet.You can't prove your hypothesis. It's much easier to disprove a hypothesis. So, let's restate the hypothesis to make it easy to evaluate the data.
Getting pimples is unaffected by eating greasy food.
So, if you eat fatty food every day for a week and suffer breakouts and then don't breakout the week that you avoid greasy food, you can be pretty sure something is up. Can you disprove the hypothesis? Probably not, since it is so hard to assign cause and effect. However, you can make a strong case that there is some relationship between diet and acne.
If your skin stays clear for the entire test, you may decide to accept your hypothesis. Again, you didn't prove or disprove anything, which is fine.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/scientific...thesis.htm

Concerning your point that photons don't experience time because they always travel at c. This is not true. Scientists have observed photons which do not travel at c.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_388852_en.html
The photons in the experiment when sent through the exact same medium as other photons do not travel at the same speed. They are both still photons and if you renamed them I would simply use the slower photon to prove my possibility of a 6 day old photon from the beginning of time.
So No. Photons do not all travel at c. Therefore the possibility exists a photon from the beginning of time can age if it were to undergo the same condition.
If you are going to ask me to prove that a slow photon existed from the beginning of time I will say that I cannot & then ask you to prove that a photon at c existed from the beginning of time? Failure for either of us to prove such photons exist will simply show that neither of us have evidence but it will not disprove/prove the possibility that there might be things that can be 6 days old from the supposed beginning of the universe.

When dealing with speed I would like you to note the two points:
1. As far as science can tell, the fastest speed achieved by a photon in a vacuum is c
2. As far as science can tell, the fastest speed anything has ever achieved is c
3. As far as science can tell, all photons do not travel at the same speed, all things being constant, as regards the medium it passes through.

Since I have just demonstrated that the theory that light always travels at c (all things being constant, as regards the medium it passes through) has been proven false.
My next question would be how can you claim that the light emitted from the oldest known visible objects were always traveling at c?
What if there exists the same condition that slowed down light in the above example just outside our solar system & voyager 1's last known position.
What of this same condition exists outside every known solar system and galaxy.

If you ask me how do I know the light we are a serving did not pass through a field absent this condition I will say I don't know.
I will then ask you how do you know it passed through a field without this condition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-03-2016, 11:08 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(24-03-2016 08:36 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 06:21 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  I don't claim to be a particularly good debater, and for all I know you are. You haven't demonstrated such skills in this thread though. All you have managed to demonstrate is that you don't really understand the things you are arguing about. You started with some crackpot hypothesis about pauses in expansion being able to account for a six day creation. It was pointed out to you that there is no evidence for any pauses. You ignored that problem with your thesis and continued on your merry way. That isn't how you win a point in a debate. That's how you lose one.

At some point later in the thread you switched to the proton perspective argument. You were told that wasn't how it worked. They don't slow down so there isn't one traveling through the universe that has experienced a six day creation from any perspective. They move at C from the instant they are created until the instant they are absorbed by something they contact. Once again instead of defending your argument you just repeat it then proclaimed victory. Once again that isn't how debates are won. It is however exactly like the Internet meme of playing chess with pigeons. You've knocked over all the pieces, shit on the board, and now you are strutting around like you've won.
As far as I know protons don't travel at c. I think you meant to say photon. I won't make it an issue though because typos happen.
I don't think I am a very good debater & I have never made that claim nor am I accusing you of saying that I did. Thus your first two sentences are quite obvious.
I never made the claim that I fully understand the things I am arguing about nor am I accusing you of saying that I did. Thus your third sentence is quite obvious.

Why is pointing out that "there is no evidence for any pauses" a problem to my discussion? Where lies the problem?
The bubble story was just a story. I said so before I wrote it.
When stating a possibility (a hypothesis) you aren't required to give evidence.
When examining a hypothesis for the purpose of creating a theory evidence is required.
When a theory becomes proven it becomes a law.
When laws are applied they become fact.

I asked the community to examine the hypothesis and determine if any scientific laws have been broken.
The community is claiming that they are not going to examine any scientific laws within the hypothesis if I cannot first prove the story.

As far as I know a hypothesis does not require a true story.
Example:
You propose a hypothesis:

Eating greasy food causes pimples.
Next you need to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. Let's say you decide to eat greasy food every day for a week and record the effect on your face. Then, as a control, for the next week you'll avoid greasy food and see what happens.
Now, this is not a very good experiment because it does not take into account other factors, such as hormone levels, stress, sun exposure, exercise or any number of other variables which might conceivably affect your skin. The problem is that you cannot assign cause to your effect. If you eat french fries for a week and suffer a breakout, can you definitely say it was the grease in the food that caused it? Maybe it was the salt. Maybe it was the potato. Maybe it was unrelated to diet.You can't prove your hypothesis. It's much easier to disprove a hypothesis. So, let's restate the hypothesis to make it easy to evaluate the data.
Getting pimples is unaffected by eating greasy food.
So, if you eat fatty food every day for a week and suffer breakouts and then don't breakout the week that you avoid greasy food, you can be pretty sure something is up. Can you disprove the hypothesis? Probably not, since it is so hard to assign cause and effect. However, you can make a strong case that there is some relationship between diet and acne.
If your skin stays clear for the entire test, you may decide to accept your hypothesis. Again, you didn't prove or disprove anything, which is fine.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/scientific...thesis.htm

Concerning your point that photons don't experience time because they always travel at c. This is not true. Scientists have observed photons which do not travel at c.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_388852_en.html
The photons in the experiment when sent through the exact same medium as other photons do not travel at the same speed. They are both still photons and if you renamed them I would simply use the slower photon to prove my possibility of a 6 day old photon from the beginning of time.
So No. Photons do not all travel at c. Therefore the possibility exists a photon from the beginning of time can age if it were to undergo the same condition.
If you are going to ask me to prove that a slow photon existed from the beginning of time I will say that I cannot & then ask you to prove that a photon at c existed from the beginning of time? Failure for either of us to prove such photons exist will simply show that neither of us have evidence but it will not disprove/prove the possibility that there might be things that can be 6 days old from the supposed beginning of the universe.

Yes I meant photon. I was still working on my first cup of coffee when I composed my post.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for phenomenon based on limited evidence. In order to be confirmed it needs to be tested, and your explanation keeps failing the tests. You started with a conclusion with its roots in Bronze Age mythology and are attempting to justify it using a flawed understanding physics. That wouldn’t be so bad if you could grasp the concept that your argument hasn’t stood up to testing, but you either can’t or won’t see the problem. It is probably conformation bias related. You think you are right, and you only accept data that fits your conclusion. Unfortunately you are the only one that sees it that way.

The basic premise of your argument is that from some time relativistic perspective a six day creation is possible. You have attempted to defend your argument with special relativity. When flaws in your argument are exposed you either ignore them, simply restate them or go off on another tangent. That’s not how you win an argument. It is however how you convince an observer that you don’t know what you are talking about, and are either incapable or at least unwilling to learn from your mistakes.


As for your slow photons…

Quote:One Sentence Summary: We show that even spatially structured photons travel at the speed of light and the measurement of D. Giovannini et al. only provided the projection of this velocity onto the axis of beam propagation.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06059.pdf

Quote:In their experiment, the slowing of light is due to dispersion in free space.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.01971.pdf

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
24-03-2016, 04:11 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 04:39 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(24-03-2016 11:08 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(24-03-2016 08:36 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  As far as I know protons don't travel at c. I think you meant to say photon. I won't make it an issue though because typos happen.
I don't think I am a very good debater & I have never made that claim nor am I accusing you of saying that I did. Thus your first two sentences are quite obvious.
I never made the claim that I fully understand the things I am arguing about nor am I accusing you of saying that I did. Thus your third sentence is quite obvious.

Why is pointing out that "there is no evidence for any pauses" a problem to my discussion? Where lies the problem?
The bubble story was just a story. I said so before I wrote it.
When stating a possibility (a hypothesis) you aren't required to give evidence.
When examining a hypothesis for the purpose of creating a theory evidence is required.
When a theory becomes proven it becomes a law.
When laws are applied they become fact.

I asked the community to examine the hypothesis and determine if any scientific laws have been broken.
The community is claiming that they are not going to examine any scientific laws within the hypothesis if I cannot first prove the story.

As far as I know a hypothesis does not require a true story.
Example:
You propose a hypothesis:

Eating greasy food causes pimples.
Next you need to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. Let's say you decide to eat greasy food every day for a week and record the effect on your face. Then, as a control, for the next week you'll avoid greasy food and see what happens.
Now, this is not a very good experiment because it does not take into account other factors, such as hormone levels, stress, sun exposure, exercise or any number of other variables which might conceivably affect your skin. The problem is that you cannot assign cause to your effect. If you eat french fries for a week and suffer a breakout, can you definitely say it was the grease in the food that caused it? Maybe it was the salt. Maybe it was the potato. Maybe it was unrelated to diet.You can't prove your hypothesis. It's much easier to disprove a hypothesis. So, let's restate the hypothesis to make it easy to evaluate the data.
Getting pimples is unaffected by eating greasy food.
So, if you eat fatty food every day for a week and suffer breakouts and then don't breakout the week that you avoid greasy food, you can be pretty sure something is up. Can you disprove the hypothesis? Probably not, since it is so hard to assign cause and effect. However, you can make a strong case that there is some relationship between diet and acne.
If your skin stays clear for the entire test, you may decide to accept your hypothesis. Again, you didn't prove or disprove anything, which is fine.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/scientific...thesis.htm

Concerning your point that photons don't experience time because they always travel at c. This is not true. Scientists have observed photons which do not travel at c.
http://www.gla.ac.uk/news/headline_388852_en.html
The photons in the experiment when sent through the exact same medium as other photons do not travel at the same speed. They are both still photons and if you renamed them I would simply use the slower photon to prove my possibility of a 6 day old photon from the beginning of time.
So No. Photons do not all travel at c. Therefore the possibility exists a photon from the beginning of time can age if it were to undergo the same condition.
If you are going to ask me to prove that a slow photon existed from the beginning of time I will say that I cannot & then ask you to prove that a photon at c existed from the beginning of time? Failure for either of us to prove such photons exist will simply show that neither of us have evidence but it will not disprove/prove the possibility that there might be things that can be 6 days old from the supposed beginning of the universe.

Yes I meant photon. I was still working on my first cup of coffee when I composed my post.

A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for phenomenon based on limited evidence. In order to be confirmed it needs to be tested, and your explanation keeps failing the tests. You started with a conclusion with its roots in Bronze Age mythology and are attempting to justify it using a flawed understanding physics. That wouldn’t be so bad if you could grasp the concept that your argument hasn’t stood up to testing, but you either can’t or won’t see the problem. It is probably conformation bias related. You think you are right, and you only accept data that fits your conclusion. Unfortunately you are the only one that sees it that way.

The basic premise of your argument is that from some time relativistic perspective a six day creation is possible. You have attempted to defend your argument with special relativity. When flaws in your argument are exposed you either ignore them, simply restate them or go off on another tangent. That’s not how you win an argument. It is however how you convince an observer that you don’t know what you are talking about, and are either incapable or at least unwilling to learn from your mistakes.


As for your slow photons…

Quote:One Sentence Summary: We show that even spatially structured photons travel at the speed of light and the measurement of D. Giovannini et al. only provided the projection of this velocity onto the axis of beam propagation.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06059.pdf

Quote:In their experiment, the slowing of light is due to dispersion in free space.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1512.01971.pdf
Ok. I am willing to concede that all photons we have tested thus far do not age based on the the above logic. I am not seeing how it can be relevant to the point that the universe is closer to an age of 13.8 billion years than it is to an age of 6 days.
It only proves that a photon that existed since the beginning of time would carry an age of zero which when compared to the oldest known things aged 13.8 billion years it would be closer to 6 days than 13.8 billion years.

Do you accept (believe) that light emitted & observed from 46 billion light years aways always passed through a vacuum (or even close vacuum) and always shared the same state (or even close state) as Dr. Giovani's non time wasting photons?
If yes, where is the evidence?

If no evidence for such a belief exists why should we believe the universe is 13.8 billion years old if the measurement uses an unknown speed of light between the oldest known object to calculate it's age? We have no evidence for the speed of light outside the reflective position of returning light waves emitted from just outside our solar system. How/when were we able to test the speed of light coming from a neighboring galaxy?

Shouldn't the 13.8 billion years old claim then be an "if" claim?

As in:
"If the photons emitted from the oldest known objects always passed through a vacuum and never underwent a condition similar to Dr. Giovanni's time wasting photons then the Universe could be 13.8 billion years old"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 02:02 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(21-01-2016 09:52 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hello all.
Some Theists claim the world was created in 6 days.
Most Atheists claim this is not possible based on Emperical Evidence.

I would like to debate the possibility that the current world can be created in 6 days.
I believe it can be.

I challenge anyone on these forums.

Lastly I personally don't know if God exists.

I do not see a Six day creation. I see a day (yom) in Hebrew being a day (24 hours) a year or a "set period of time". I used the WMAP/NASA project that mapped out the universe, to create my theory which I will post fully only if someone is interested. here is a partial post.

If the Universe is 13.7 billion years old and the Earth only 4.5 billion years old, why would anyone assume the First Day was 24 Hours ? My belief is below, I am not stating it is a fact, just my deductive reasoning.

Looking to the WMAP, (NASA Program) the way the Universe is Mapped by the Microwaves, then reading the Creation Story, it could fit, but not in six days. Anyone that thinks of Earth Rotations (Days) seems off kilter, the Earth was not even around until the Universe was 9.2 billion years old !! The WMAP map shows how the "Darkness was on the face of the Deep."

Causation came about with the Creation of our universe. My "TIME THEORY of Creation" is based on study not just guess work. Since the Universe was created, and Earth was Formed 9.2 billion years latter, then the first day had to be 9.2 billion years Old:

Notice it says there was darkness on the face of the deep ? Well the WMAP/NASA Project, which has mapped out the Universe with Microwaves, says there was darkness on the face of the deep. (Big Bang, followed by Inflation, followed by Cosmic Microwave background where after 380,000 years loose electrons cool enough to combine with protons. The Universe becomes Transparent to Light. The Microwave background begins to shine. Then the dark ages/clouds of dark hydrogen gas cool and coalesce. 400 Million years of "Dark Ages".

The first stars appear....Gas Clouds collapse, the fusion of Stars begin, the first of which appears at about 400 million years after the Big Bang. The Evening and the Morning being the first day had nothing to do with the earth, the Evening was 400 million years of Darkness, followed by the Light, making the first day 9.2 billion years, until the Sun and Earth started the Second day at 4.5 billion years. etc.

Yea, I get laughed at by both sides. But that's life, I am a big boy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2016, 07:26 AM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
The "deep" was the way the Babylonians said "oceans" / "sea". There is no "creation of the universe" in the Bible. The "deep" already exists. They could not imagine a world without it. Why are you even trying to reconcile ancient goat herder's literature with what is known about cosmology ? The goat herders didn't even know about galaxies.

"Creation" is an incoherent concept. Where did Causality come from ? How was causality caused ? Actions require time. Spacetime had to already be in place.

Find something better to waste your time with.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: