age/expansion of the universe

[holdon]

Some people will say anything to avoid admitting defeat.

Defeat? What are you talking about?

 

[Mallon]

Defeat? What are you talking about?

I am talking about the fact that, in your zeal to deny deep time, you have unwittingly disavowed basic trigonometry! Why not just admit when you're wrong and get on with it? We can measure the speed of light the same way we can measure the movement of a celestial body. End of story. Playing semantics ("So, what 'looks' is not the same as reality") doesn't change anything.

 

[holdon]

I am talking about the fact that, in your zeal to deny deep time, you have unwittingly disavowed basic trigonometry!

How so?

Why not just admit when you're wrong and get on with it? We can measure the speed of light the same way we can measure the movement of a celestial body. End of story. Playing semantics ("So, what 'looks' is not the same as reality") doesn't change anything.

Is it semantics really? Maybe. What do you know? The speed of light? What is it? You friend Shenren didn't seem to know, because he said:
If light traveled slower in the past, then obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!

So, first to say that an object is so many lightyears and then to conclude that if the light were slower it wouldn't have had time to reach us is just stupid circular reasoning. That's why I posted my first post.

Now, I do recall some story in a scientific journal (don't remember which) that the speed of light is not the same in some extreme (close to 0 Kelvin) circumstances. What was once taken as an absolute (the speed of light in vacuum) then no longer is. And some theory relative to that may then not work....

 

[gluadys]

So, what "looks" is not the same as reality.

Right. It is called perspective. When things are farther away they look smaller than they really are.

We know Supernova 1987A is a long way from us, so it and the dust rings around it look a lot smaller than they really are. Ditto with a crater on Mars or a baseball still in the pitcher's hand.

The point is that there is a mathematical relationship between distance, real size and apparent size. If you know the distance and the apparent size you can work out the real size. If you know the real size and the apparent size you can work out the distance.

Well, I thought someone was arguing about the assumption of the constant speed of light, etc..

Not really. Even if there are rare circumstances in which the speed of light is not constant, you would have to demonstrate that those circumstances applied in this case. And you would have to show to what extent it affects the calculations. But the results don't help out the creationist case much. This is what shernren was getting at here:

Now if light traveled faster in the past, then the rings must be bigger than we thought they were (if something faster travels the same time, it must have traveled longer), so since they appear the same size to us, they must be even farther away than 168,000 years - and so light still doesn't have enough time to reach us. If light traveled slower in the past, then obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!

 

[busterdog]

How so? Is it semantics really? Maybe. What do you know? The speed of light? What is it? You friend Shenren didn't seem to know, because he said:
If light traveled slower in the past, then obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!

So, first to say that an object is so many lightyears and then to conclude that if the light were slower it wouldn't have had time to reach us is just stupid circular reasoning. That's why I posted my first post.

Now, I do recall some story in a scientific journal (don't remember which) that the speed of light is not the same in some extreme (close to 0 Kelvin) circumstances. What was once taken as an absolute (the speed of light in vacuum) then no longer is. And some theory relative to that may then not work....

No one here disputes that light moves at different speeds through different media.

Various experiments over the last several years have caused light to speed up and slow in a vacuum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/16/scispeed116.xml

No one disputes that either.

The dispute is whether 'all other things being equal" applies to the remote past and whether any of those demonstrable properties of light (variance in speed) applied way back when. Experimental conditions can be manipulated to alter the speed of light. Could ambient conditions in the past also have been different? Your opponents assume conditions in the remote past or infer them from a rather small sample of data.

In order that "all other things being equal" can be preserved logically, dark energy and dark matter are presumed to have and to have had certain very specific properties. That is where the dispute is.

 

[holdon]

The point is that there is a mathematical relationship between distance, real size and apparent size. If you know the distance and the apparent size you can work out the real size. If you know the real size and the apparent size you can work out the distance.

Keywords: "if you know". The problem is how do you know you know?

Not really. Even if there are rare circumstances in which the speed of light is not constant, you would have to demonstrate that those circumstances applied in this case. And you would have to show to what extent it affects the calculations. But the results don't help out the creationist case much.

Not sure what your beef with creationist is in this, but anyway. I presume that if c is not really what we think it is, then a whole lot of things that went into all kinds of calculations are no longer valid....

 

[busterdog]

Not sure what your beef with creationist is in this, but anyway. I presume that if c is not really what we think it is, then a whole lot of things that went into all kinds of calculations are no longer valid....

And if c is not really what we think it is, there are a number of other "constants" that aren't what we think they are. One proposition is that there are constant relationships between these values like c, but that c itself if not constant.

By the way, "c" depends on defining "vacuum", which eludes definition. Physics only assumes a vacuum for convenience sake.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

And if c is not really what we think it is, there are a number of other "constants" that aren't what we think they are. One proposition is that there are constant relationships between these values like c, but that c itself if not constant.

By the way, "c" depends on defining "vacuum", which eludes definition. Physics only assumes a vacuum for convenience sake.

Um, no vacuum is pretty definable... its the absence of any physical matter.

Got any evidence to suggest we are wrong about the value of C?

 

[mindlight]

That would be the point.
I'm not saying you HAVE to believe this, it's only for the sake of argument.

Would you rather just be Moses? That's fine too, it doesn't really matter.

Now this guy is not just inspired by God but he knows all the stuff modern science thinks it knows too!! I shall assume he can resolve the contradictions and still present a coherent viewpoint to his followers.

Universe?! What's that? Started with a bang? Does that mean that any bang will be a catalyst for new universes (assuming you've explained a universe)? I want you to give me exactly what you would say. Simple enough to be understood, but still the truth.

The stars are very old it all started with a flash of light. I would use the same geocentric and anthropocentric approach Moses used with the different storyline and of course since i am divinely inspired with the inside information on how God did it also since it is in Him that the origin, coherence, progression and guidance of creation events occurred.

First and foremost, I fully believe that Moses was divinely inspired. I'm not completely certain that Moses is the only writer of the Pentateuch, but that's not the topic.

Well that explains a few things.

I'm not debating the reliability of the scientific method or possible biases of said scientists.

Fine the others are.

Here's where I'm able to correct you.

The writers of the OT believed the earth was set on pillars that held the earth above the waters of the deep. They also thought that Tiamat was a resident of those waters and would eat the sun whenever it went below the earth into the waters. To them the sun actually hurried to escape the jaws of Tiamat. No poetry.

An alternate view on the comparative religious approach is that this alternate views were perversions on the actual true story which was in circulation from the time of Adam and Eve as an oral tradition, but which was never fully articulated until Moses and under divine inspiration. Similiarities occur throughout scripture to other religious positions but do not prove which was the origin of which.

 

[mindlight]

And?

I don't think this passage changes the fact that creation is given to us as revelation and scripture often directs our attention to creation well after the fall as still being a reliable revelation.

I see the matter of futility and bondage to decay as related more to human dominion over creation.

Given the context of the rest of scripture , the fall , the curse on the ground, the apparent change in the animal kingdom and the shaking of the heavens themselves - not sure I can accept this interpretation. The consequences of sin were more severe and all the more so for physical creation as they impacted on its guardian figure - mankind. As the body of the man became subject to decay so did the creation which had been given him to manage.

Creation is a limited witness to God and can only go so far. It speaks of Gods wisdom, power and the beauty/quality of his workmanship. For the more in depth portrait of Gods character one must go to scripture.

I think it noteworthy that nowhere does scripture imply that the fall rescinded human dominion over nature, nor that it erased the divine image in human nature.

It could not erase the divine image but I do believe it changed the nature of the dominion from a state of perfect innocent but effective management to one of spoiled and even tyrannical management of a failing situation.

But clearly, once humanity was alienated from God, we were also alienated from the rest of God's creation as well, yet still had dominion over it. A recipe for futility to be sure. What purpose has creation when its lord has betrayed his Lord?

Yet creation is still God-given, still sustained by God, and the earth still provides habitation and food for all its living creatures. Creation appears to work as God intended it to work.

btw, have you ever looked into the anthropic principle? What do you think of it?

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

"the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed"

Depends on how far you take this. If man is the appointed lord of Gods creation and is made in his image then the key to understanding the nature of creation is in man. Whether in Adam to understand fallen creation or in Jesus to understand the redeemed creation.

 

[mindlight]

Romans 1:20 also tells us that God's creation tells us about His qualities. How could this be possible if it were so corrupted as to alter the very constants God embedded in the fabric of His work?
I'm with gluadys. I don't think the "decay" you cited in Romans is anything less than moral or metaphysical.

Gods creation tells us of a limited range of his qualities and some are clearly indeterminable by way of the book of nature. That we can read God here is clear but that does not make nature any more reliable an account than the Koran for example - indeed a little less so.

Man is made in Gods image and was appointed over creation to be its gardener. It is in man that the key to natures fall and its redemption lie as with the First Man and as with the Incarnation of Christ.

That a mans body decays and dies has had repercussions for the whole of creation. It is in the resurrection that the future regeneration of creation lies and the new heavens and the new earth.

 

[gluadys]

Keywords: "if you know". The problem is how do you know you know?

You measure them. Shernren gave an account of how to measure the actual size of a crater on Mars. We also know what size the crater appears to be. So, given those two figures, we can figure out how far away Mars is.

He also described how the size of the dust rings around the supernova were measured. And again, we know their apparent size from observation. So we can calculate the distance. btw--if you don't like the distance being expressed in light-years, you can also use parsecs or even kilometers, although the last figure would be very large indeed.

Not sure what your beef with creationist is in this, but anyway. I presume that if c is not really what we think it is,

c really is what we think it is for that has been measured.

There is a long-standing claim that c used to be different in the long past (busterdog can give you the setterfield propositions) , but no one claims that c is not constant today except in some strictly delimited conditions.

then a whole lot of things that went into all kinds of calculations are no longer valid....

Exactly, because c figures into a lot of equations (including matter-energy conversion) and is so bound up with other constants that any change to c will affect them too.

The question then is: if all these constants were different in the past, was the earth habitable in the past i.e. before the fall? Was the universe even possible under a different set of parameters?

 

[holdon]

The question then is: if all these constants were different in the past, was the earth habitable in the past i.e. before the fall? Was the universe even possible under a different set of parameters?

Earth habitable before the Fall? Sure. Adam and Eve walked on it.
Universe possible under a different set of parameters? It wouldn't be the universe as we perceive it.

 

[Mallon]

The question then is: if all these constants were different in the past, was the earth habitable in the past i.e. before the fall? Was the universe even possible under a different set of parameters?

That's actually a really good question because implying that the Fall caused fundamental changes to the universe effectively kills the fine-tuned universe argument for God. You can't say the universe is fine-tuned for life and then argue that the Fall changed fundamental universal constants. Just one more example of anti-evolutionary creationism contradicting itself in order to deny modern science.

 

[mindlight]

Again I am forced back to the metaphor of a shopkeeper in a china shop. He is aghast because there is an invisible bull raging amongst the shelves; but us observers cannot see a single piece of broken china on the floor, or even a single item so much as quivering on the shelves; indeed, neither can the shopkeeper. And yet the shopkeeper rages: "Get that bull out of my shop, or it will be the end of all my merchandise!"

You are, in effect, trying to tell scientists to toss out a bull which has had no effects on anything that anyone can see or touch. You refuse to accept their results with certainty, but you cannot tell me how uncertainty may have crept in. When scientists publish their results, they indeed include uncertainty estimates (it is standard practice from first year onwards) which are notably attributable to their measurement procedures - this percent from this instrument, that percent from that instrument, some amount because the chemicals may have degraded, this and that because the points don't fall on the line. You, however, would have the scientists in error by millions of percents for no appreciable physical reason.

If the assumptions are wrong we are not talking about a fraction of a percent in error - the whole calculation is in error. I do not buy the analogy with a bull in a china shop. Scientists have built a shop I might not even be shopping in when it comes to questions about the remote areas of time and space about which they seem too overly confident to me. I by contrast assume that there are distortions in the evidence and that indeed some evidence is missing and some has decayed to point of uselessness. You are assuming that the evidence is readable about the distant stars and beginnings of time.

Take for example Supernova 1987A. How do we know how far away it is? You'd be surprised. The progenitor star had emitted debris which was still orbiting around the star; as the star went supernova, light from the supernova flashed through the debris and it began lighting up ring by ring, each ring lighting up as the supernova light hit it. We on Earth could accurately track each ring lighting up, and that gave us a good measurement of how wide across the rings were - and since we know how large they appear to us, we know how far away they actually are (by basic trigonometry). By the same trigonometry, the star is about 168,000 light years away - meaning that light should take 168,000 years to get from it to us, far longer than the universe has existed according to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A

I read the article and understand the way in which the light speed calculations were made in this context. One could believe that light travelled at a similar speed in the solar system(s) of this star(s) if all things were equal and there was no distortion. Even if these calculations were true however they would still not conclusively suggest that light travelled in deep space at the same speed or compensate for the effects of innumerable variables between there and here nor necessarily give iron clad evidence that light travelled at that speed in other solar systems also.

Now if light traveled faster in the past, then the rings must be bigger than we thought they were (if something faster travels the same time, it must have traveled longer), so since they appear the same size to us, they must be even farther away than 168,000 years - and so light still doesn't have enough time to reach us. If light traveled slower in the past, then obviously light hasn't had enough time to get to us from anywhere!

If the image is distorted it could be either further or nearer depending on the nature of the distortion. The rings could be wider or not so wide also. We do not know because we have no way of saying if what we see is a reliable picture of what is actually out there.
Also none of this explains how light travels in deep space , or deals with other potential influences whether these are called dark matter or whatever. If light travels faster in deep space for instance then the star may be closer and not so old.

Or take the varves, and their cousins, the ice core records from the poles. Not only do they show yearly variations, they show patterns that spread across multiple years, including Milankovitch cycles on the order of 11,000 years. What catastrophic processes could cause those?

Patterns spread across thousands of layers make it more rather than less likely that catastrophic and rapid processes were at work because they indicate differentiations between the individual layers united by patterns across multiple levels. This may simply indicate that the single layers were part of accelerated processes and that the true seasonal pattern can be determined on the macro rather the micro level in the whole of these patterns rather than in the micro level detail of the layers. If so the layers may merely reveal daily or weekly variations in a time of major meterological instability.

Nobody is denying that the universe might have behaved differently in the past; but where is the evidence that it did? We are certainly open to the possibility of an invisible bull in your china shop. But what can we do about it, and what difference does it make at all anyway, if not a single item is so much as quivering on the shelves?

The evidence is probably staring us in the face and merely being misinterpreted en masse because the momentum of scientific discussion has pushed so far towards the old universe, macro evolutionary model.

 

[gluadys]

Given the context of the rest of scripture , the fall , the curse on the ground, the apparent change in the animal kingdom and the shaking of the heavens themselves - not sure I can accept this interpretation.

Change in the animal kingdom? Shaking of the heavens? That is not in the story of the fall. What are you talking about?

The consequences of sin were more severe and all the more so for physical creation as they impacted on its guardian figure - mankind. As the body of the man became subject to decay so did the creation which had been given him to manage.

The consequences for nature, I believe, came about primarily through human mismanagement of nature. Not through fundamental changes in nature.

Creation is a limited witness to God and can only go so far. It speaks of Gods wisdom, power and the beauty/quality of his workmanship. For the more in depth portrait of Gods character one must go to scripture.

I agree. Go to scripture for an in depth portrait of God. Go to nature for an in depth portrait of God's handiwork. Yes, that is a limited witness to God, but not a limited witness to itself.

It could not erase the divine image but I do believe it changed the nature of the dominion from a state of perfect innocent but effective management to one of spoiled and even tyrannical management of a failing situation.

Agreed. And this is what I understand by creation being subject to futility. As long as our management of creation is based on self-centered greed instead of a faithful stewardship of love and care, creation is truly in a situation of futility and bondage to decay.

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

"the anthropic principle states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers imposes on the sort of universe that could be observed"

Depends on how far you take this. If man is the appointed lord of Gods creation and is made in his image then the key to understanding the nature of creation is in man. Whether in Adam to understand fallen creation or in Jesus to understand the redeemed creation.

That's not bad from a perspective of faith. But the anthropic principle also has scientific applications.

The weak form of the anthropic principle notes that if the universe were not constituted to be friendly to observers, there would be no observers. Since we are observers of the universe, the universe, for some reason, (even chance) is friendly to observers.

The strong form asserts that the universe was designed to be friendly to observers.

But let us consider the weak form in which it is alleged that we could have just struck it lucky to be in a universe in which it is possible for observers like us to exist.

How lucky would we have to be?

Lee Smolin in The Life of the Cosmos provides an estimate. It is in the first chapter called "The Miracle of the Stars".

Although he is speaking of what sort of universe makes stars possible, it is applicable to us as well, for we could not exist in a universe which has no stars. No stars=no planets, no light, no elements more complex than hydrogen or helium IOW no life.

Here are some excerpts:

In spite of the fact that [the standard model of particle physics] represents our deepest knowledge about what the world is made of, it leaves open many questions about the properties of the elementary particles. These open questions have to do with the values of certain numbers that characterize the particles. These numbers measure things like the masses of different particles and the strengths of their electric charge. According to our best present understanding, these numbers are free to vary within wide ranges. They are then parameters whose values may be set arbitrarily. Physicists set the values of the parameters so as to make the theory agree with observation. By doing do, we make the electron, proton, neutron and neutrino all have the right masses. But as far as we can tell, the universe might have been created so that exactly the same laws are satisfied except that the values of these parameters are set to different numbers.

The question of why the universe has stars can then be posed in the following way: We may imagine that God has a control panel on which there is a dial for each parameter (there are about 20) One dial sets the mass of the proton, another the electron's charge and so on. God closes his eyes and turns the dials randomly. The result is a world governed by the laws we know, but with random values of these parameters. What is the probability that a world so created would contain stars?​

He then goes on to describe in fair detail (7 pages) more about the particles and fundamental forces like gravity and electromagnetism and the strong & weak nuclear forces and how they interrelate.

Finally he answers the question.

Perhaps before going further we should ask just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing parameters will contain stars? Given what we have already said it is simple to estimate this probability. For those readers who are interested, the arithmetic is in the notes. The answer in round numbers comes to about one chance in 10^229.

To illustrate how truly ridiculous this number is, we might note that the part of the universe we can see from earth contains 10^22 stars which together contain about 10^80 protons and neutrons. These numbers are gigantic, but they are infinitesimal compared to 10^229. In my opinion, a probability this tiny is not something we can let go unexplained. Luck will certainly not do here, we need some rational explanation of how something this unlikely turned out to be the case.​

The rest of the book is his own theory on a rational explanation.

Now here is where I am going with this. As Christians, we believe in a Creator and we probably do not believe he closed his eyes and set dials randomly. So we can go with the strong anthropic principle that God wanted this universe to have stars and habitable planets (at least one) and life.

So that is the sort of universe he made.

Now comes the fall. Yes, some things change because of the fall. But how deep, how fundamental, can those changes be?

What this scenario tells us is that at the fundamental level of physics (which includes e.g. the speed of light), they can't be changed in any significant way, because then the stars would no longer exist and all life would be destroyed.

And in spite of the fall, it is not God's will that his creation be destroyed or the life in it be destroyed.

Conclusion: in terms of nature and natural processes, the world before the fall is not that much different from the world after the fall.

Morally, there is a huge difference. In terms of our relation with God, with God's creation, with each other, even with ourselves, creation is broken. We are alienated from all we are meant to be and to relate to, and all our relationships are warped and distorted with terrible consequences both for ourselves and the creation given into our hands.

But in terms of such things as the speed of light, the rate of radio-active decay, the formation of shale, the movement of tectonic plates, etc. etc. etc. virtually no change, probably no change at all. Because any significant change, given the interrelationships of these fundamental forces, would effectively uncreate creation and that was not how God chose to deal with the fall. Hence on these things nature was and is still a reliable source of information about itself present and past.

 

[gluadys]

Earth habitable before the Fall? Sure. Adam and Eve walked on it.
Universe possible under a different set of parameters? It wouldn't be the universe as we perceive it.

It sure wouldn't. See my reply to mindlight re: the anthropic principle.

 

[gluadys]

If light travels faster in deep space for instance then the star may be closer and not so old.

I think that some people are assuming that because we describe the location of stars in terms of "lightyears" from earth, that the calculation of the distance is related to the speed of light.

This is not the case. The distance of the star is obtained by geometric triangulation, using the diameter of the earth's orbit as the base of the triangle.

Describing the distance in lightyears simply means that distance, determined geometrically, can be related to the distance light as we know it travels in a year.

If light traveled faster, it wouldn't make the star any closer, but it would change the number in the measurement: just as when one converts from imperial to metric measurements and counts distance in kilometers instead of miles.

If light traveled faster, it would cover more distance in a year, so a lightyear would be a longer distance. And the distance to the star would be a smaller number of lightyears.

True, the star would not be as old, but not because the star is closer. Only because the light is covering the distance in less time.

However, this does not deal with shernren's argument concerning the visibility of the dust rings around the supernova.

 

[Scotishfury09]

The stars are very old it all started with a flash of light. I would use the same geocentric and anthropocentric approach Moses used with the different storyline and of course since i am divinely inspired with the inside information on how God did it also since it is in Him that the origin, coherence, progression and guidance of creation events occurred.

The stars are old and it started with a flash of light? C'mon, that doesn't explain much. As far as I can tell from your vague description, your account wouldn't be much different from what the Bible says. If it is explain how it's different and why.

An alternate view on the comparative religious approach is that this alternate views were perversions on the actual true story which was in circulation from the time of Adam and Eve as an oral tradition, but which was never fully articulated until Moses and under divine inspiration. Similiarities occur throughout scripture to other religious positions but do not prove which was the origin of which.

Unfortunately, we weren't there and aren't able to know whether or not they are perversions of the "true story". All we can do is look at what we've found, and what we've found is that a significant amount of what was written in the Bible has a strong resemblance to something that was written by the Sumerians, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. before it was written in the Bible. Is it really so hard to think they used something that was common to them and used it to further God's glory? Think about how 50 years ago most rock music was considered "Devil" music, but now a lot of Christian music is rock music. Humans use what they are accustomed to, it's, well, human nature.

 

[busterdog]

Um, no vacuum is pretty definable... its the absence of any physical matter.

So, if the vacuum is nothing, how does light move through it?

Does the photon have any aspects of a particle?

What is the relationship between your answers to the above?

Is it still clear?

Of course it isn't.

You just don't know what it is.

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0012062