YEC explanation for traveling light.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:34 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:28 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  It just cracks me up when they use this as a criticism. "We haven't learned anything new in 2000 years, and we're proud of it! How dare you actually change your minds!"

Pasteur was a Creationist. So were a lot of those other early scientific founders. See also William Buckland, Isaac Newton, etc.

And they were quite wrong.

Of course, they didn't have access to modern data proving them wrong, so it certainly can't be held against them.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
17-07-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:40 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:37 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Since you want to source WP, see Cosmological Redshift

In particular, observe Acceleration of the expansion

You only continue to demonstrate that you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Our best estimates for the precise rates of expansion have been revised accordingly as our data improve.

End of story. Whatever phantasmal nonsense you think this is supposed to show, it doesn't.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:46 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:28 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  My understanding is that the speed of the cosmological redshift used to measure the expansion rate of the universe is too fast, given that the predicted expansion of the universe was wrong. Redshift shows readings not predicted by Big Bang theory, so they've had to claim the universe is accelerating.

Redshift in and of itself is unambiguous. A given redshift indicates a given speed of recession, and that correlates nicely with distance. None of that has changed at all. The change has to do with the rate of change of the speed of expansion (which is the definition of acceleration), and that has to do with uncertainties about how much matter there is in the universe. None of this changes how far away the distant stars or galaxies are, or how old they are. Cosmologists can and do argue about the ultimate fate of the universe, and even about its age, but they are pretty much all on the same page. The age is measured in billions of years, not thousands, and recent discoveries haven't changed that.

The way I've always heard it explained in classes is that the universe is like a bubble expanding outward. However, now that we know the so-called bubble's been expanding outward faster than expected, that has to throw a kink in the calculations on how far away parts of said bubble/universe are. Either the light started closer than we were expecting to begin with, or was travelling faster than we expected and we're wrong that it's accelerating when it was always faster than we predicted. Either way, accelerating expansion of the universe creates some unpleasant implications for the cosmological redshift used to determine the age of the universe, that's all I'm pointing out.

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:48 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:46 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  The way I've always heard it explained in classes is that the universe is like a bubble expanding outward. However, now that we know the so-called bubble's been expanding outward faster than expected, that has to throw a kink in the calculations on how far away parts of said bubble/universe are. Either the light started closer than we were expecting to begin with, or was travelling faster than we expected and we're wrong that it's accelerating when it was always faster than we predicted. Either way, expansion of the universe creates some unpleasant implications for the cosmological redshift used to determine the age of the universe, that's all I'm pointing out.

No, it does not. Observation of redshift is what led to the conclusion of an expanding universe. That's literally exactly what Hubble did.

In the 90 years since then our data have improved. Our models have improved accordingly.

The speed of light has not changed. Fact. Period. If it did, it would have numerous observable consequences. None of which are observed. Period.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:48 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:46 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  The way I've always heard it explained in classes is that the universe is like a bubble expanding outward. However, now that we know the so-called bubble's been expanding outward faster than expected, that has to throw a kink in the calculations on how far away parts of said bubble/universe are. Either the light started closer than we were expecting to begin with, or was travelling faster than we expected and we're wrong that it's accelerating when it was always faster than we predicted. Either way, expansion of the universe creates some unpleasant implications for the cosmological redshift used to determine the age of the universe, that's all I'm pointing out.

No, it does not. Observation of redshift is what led to the conclusion of an expanding universe. That's literally exactly what Hubble did.

In the 90 years since then our data have improved. Our models have improved accordingly.

The speed of light has not changed. Fact. Period. If it did, it would have numerous observable consequences. None of which are observed. Period.

Again, observations from the Hubble Telescope in 1998 are what led to the conclusion of an accelerating expansion rate of the universe, so it was less than 20 years ago that we realized Big Bang predictions about the expansion rate of the universe were completely wrong. That the universe's expansion is accelerating has been verified through a number of other methods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

And there actually are observations inconsistent with the speed of light but they are just discounted.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

"When z is larger than 1 then cz is faster than the speed of light and, while recession velocities faster than light are allowed, this approximation using cz as the recession velocity of an object is no longer valid. Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light."

My website refuting alleged contradictions will be at BereaWiki.com.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2014 02:15 PM by cjlr.)
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:55 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  Again, observations from the Hubble Telescope in 1998 are what led to the conclusion of an accelerating expansion rate of the universe, so it was less than 20 years ago that we realized Big Bang predictions about the expansion rate of the universe were completely wrong. That the universe's expansion is accelerating has been verified through a number of other methods.

No. You clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

"Big Bang predictions" is an utterly incoherent phrase. The big bang is a conclusion and does not in itself "predict" anything. We have known that the universe is expanding for 90 years. The precise rate at which it has done so is a calculation based on data. New data mean revised calculations. That you lack any knowledge of genuine cosmology is one thing; you appear also to lack any knowledge of the scientific method whatsoever.

The Hubble observations in 1998 introduced additional data which provoked a revision of existing models. Protip: we call that science.

(17-07-2014 01:55 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  And there actually are observations inconsistent with the speed of light but they are just discounted.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm

"When z is larger than 1 then cz is faster than the speed of light and, while recession velocities faster than light are allowed, this approximation using cz as the recession velocity of an object is no longer valid. Thus for the largest known redshift of z=6.3, the recession velocity is not 6.3*c = 1,890,000 km/sec. It is also not the 285,254 km/sec given by the special relativistic Doppler formula 1+z = sqrt((1+v/c)/(1-v/c)). The actual recession velocity for this object depends on the cosmological parameters, but for an OmegaM=0.3 vacuum-dominated flat model the velocity is 585,611 km/sec. This is faster than light."

That is in no way what that excerpt suggests. You do not understand what you're talking about.

The fabric of the universe itself is expanding. Thus it is trivially possible for objects to appear to "move" faster than light would in a fixed spacetime. Spacetime is not fixed.

There is no problem here. There is no anomaly. Nothing is being discounted. All observed data are exactly commensurate with each other and with our best current models. If new data contradict the models, the models will be refined.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2014, 02:06 PM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 01:46 PM)Jzyehoshua Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 01:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Redshift in and of itself is unambiguous. A given redshift indicates a given speed of recession, and that correlates nicely with distance. None of that has changed at all. The change has to do with the rate of change of the speed of expansion (which is the definition of acceleration), and that has to do with uncertainties about how much matter there is in the universe. None of this changes how far away the distant stars or galaxies are, or how old they are. Cosmologists can and do argue about the ultimate fate of the universe, and even about its age, but they are pretty much all on the same page. The age is measured in billions of years, not thousands, and recent discoveries haven't changed that.

The way I've always heard it explained in classes is that the universe is like a bubble expanding outward. However, now that we know the so-called bubble's been expanding outward faster than expected, that has to throw a kink in the calculations on how far away parts of said bubble/universe are. Either the light started closer than we were expecting to begin with, or was travelling faster than we expected and we're wrong that it's accelerating when it was always faster than we predicted. Either way, accelerating expansion of the universe creates some unpleasant implications for the cosmological redshift used to determine the age of the universe, that's all I'm pointing out.

You are confusing speed with acceleration (the rate of change of the speed). There is no dispute about what the speed of recession is now, or has been at any time since we've been able to measure it. Redshift doesn't lie. What is in dispute is the rate of change of the speed. This has implications for cosmological models and the ultimate fate of the universe. But it does not change the present speed of recession or the distances (or ages) calculated therefrom. You misunderstand how these things are calculated.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 10:09 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(17-07-2014 11:52 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Are you kidding me? Despite a mountain of geologic evidence, along with dendochronology, biology, varve chronology, even archeological evidence that refutes the Genesis myth, it presents "no scientific difficulties".

In order to correctly interpret this evidence you need to know the correct answer to two historical questions: did God create the earth and was there ever a worldwide flood? Most scientists simply assume that the answer to both questions is "no". The problem is they are relying exclusively on scientific data to answer what is really a historical question. I suggest that you read this:

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/07...t-science/

Quote:I like this, basically I can ignore inconvenient facts, pretend they don't exist.

If you check the link above you will find that there is scientific evidence that shows the earth must be younger than most people think it is. Too many people ignore these facts and pretend that they don't exist.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 10:15 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(18-07-2014 10:09 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 11:52 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Are you kidding me? Despite a mountain of geologic evidence, along with dendochronology, biology, varve chronology, even archeological evidence that refutes the Genesis myth, it presents "no scientific difficulties".

In order to correctly interpret this evidence you need to know the correct answer to two historical questions: did God create the earth and was there ever a worldwide flood? Most scientists simply assume that the answer to both questions is "no". The problem is they are relying exclusively on scientific data to answer what is really a historical question. I suggest that you read this:

http://clydeherrin.wordpress.com/2014/07...t-science/

Quote:I like this, basically I can ignore inconvenient facts, pretend they don't exist.

If you check the link above you will find that there is scientific evidence that shows the earth must be younger than most people think it is. Too many people ignore these facts and pretend that they don't exist.


You are a fuckwit. Of course there was no flood there is tons of empirical data that proves this. The flood is nothing but a myth and to try and pretend it is anything else just shows a lack of knowledge or an intent to defraud. So are you ignorant or a conman?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 10:25 AM
RE: YEC explanation for traveling light.
(18-07-2014 10:15 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Of course there was no flood there is tons of empirical data that proves this.

The flood left tons of fossils that prove it actually happened. Of course scientists who don't believe in the flood have come up with other explanations for these fossils.

There is also historical evidence outside of the Bible. People all over the world have legends of a worldwide flood in which a few people survived because they were warned by God or by gods. How could so many different people believe the same thing unless it actually happened?

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: