Right. so the question remains, "relative to what'? If you can't accelerate to that speed relative to spacetime, but an object going the other direction can't either, does that mean that neither can accelerate past half the speed of light? Or are we going to start again with the, "spacetime has no directions" bit? (Lol, I was told that concerning the BB. My logic assumes, even though spacetime itself was expanding, and therefore it did not begin in a point in space, once it began, there were effects moving at an extreme rate in opposite directions (within the newly formed space). We are confident with the 13.8 billion mark because of the doppler shift, but that doesn't account for the rate of expansion of 'reality' (i.e. spacetime), or does it? I have been told my words cancel out when I say rate of expansion -- since that rate is relative only to concurrent space. But that is my point! If, looking back, we see reason to conclude 13.8 billion years, what would that have been, let's say, from the POV of immediately upon that moment of initial rapid expansion? I don't think anybody knows.The problem recognised by theoretical physicists is that you can’t accelerate objects from below, to above the speed of light, with finite energy/momentum. In GR, multiple spacetimes are created by specifying stress/energy and mass distributions which may, or may not, be possible in practice.
No .. Sub luminal speeds are no problem, and the speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum, is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer (which has been abundantly verified via measurements).Right. so the question remains, "relative to what'? If you can't accelerate to that speed relative to spacetime, but an object going the other direction can't either, does that mean that neither can accelerate past half the speed of light?
I am unclear what that has to do with your above question??Mark Quayle said:Or are we going to start again with the, "spacetime has no directions" bit?
'Doppler shift' is not an explanation for the concluded age of the universe(??)Mark Quayle said:(Lol, I was told that concerning the BB. My logic assumes, even though spacetime itself was expanding, and therefore it did not begin in a point in space, once it began, there were effects moving at an extreme rate in opposite directions (within the newly formed space). We are confident with the 13.8 billion mark because of the doppler shift,
Expansion is inferred from the observed recession of distant objects.Mark Quayle said:.. but that doesn't account for the rate of expansion of 'reality' (i.e. spacetime), or does it?
I can't see how 'the rate of expansion' somehow acts to cancel out your words(?) I mean, the rate also appears to have changed over the period of time to the present.Mark Quayle said:I have been told my words cancel out when I say rate of expansion -- since that rate is relative only to concurrent space.
I don't understand where you're coming from on this.Mark Quayle said:But that is my point! If, looking back, we see reason to conclude 13.8 billion years, what would that have been, let's say, from the POV of immediately upon that moment of initial rapid expansion? I don't think anybody knows.
The universe was created in 144 hours, starting on 23 October 4004 BC, according to Ussher.
It was created 27 April 4977 BC, according to one of your founders of modern science, Johannes Kepler.
I prefer Ussher's date.
I like the Jewish date: October 7, 3761 BC. After all, it's their book--they ought to know.The universe was created in 144 hours, starting on 23 October 4004 BC, according to Ussher.
It was created 27 April 4977 BC, according to one of your founders of modern science, Johannes Kepler.
I prefer Ussher's date.
Good question in many ways but my understanding which is not sufficient to give you a complete answer is for starters, you are conflating the expansion of space ie the big bang with relativistic effects. You are also approaching from a Newtonian frame. The expansion of space is not specifically relevant to calculations of relative time/speed effects. what I believe is relevant is time dilation and how clocks are perceived by different "persons".Right. so the question remains, "relative to what'? If you can't accelerate to that speed relative to spacetime, but an object going the other direction can't either, does that mean that neither can accelerate past half the speed of light? Or are we going to start again with the, "spacetime has no directions" bit? (Lol, I was told that concerning the BB. My logic assumes, even though spacetime itself was expanding, and therefore it did not begin in a point in space, once it began, there were effects moving at an extreme rate in opposite directions (within the newly formed space). We are confident with the 13.8 billion mark because of the doppler shift, but that doesn't account for the rate of expansion of 'reality' (i.e. spacetime), or does it? I have been told my words cancel out when I say rate of expansion -- since that rate is relative only to concurrent space. But that is my point! If, looking back, we see reason to conclude 13.8 billion years, what would that have been, let's say, from the POV of immediately upon that moment of initial rapid expansion? I don't think anybody knows.
I started a reply earlier but could not carry it as far as you since I am not good at relativity, but I see Mark's confusion in that he is confusing the expansion of space due to the BB as relevant to the speed of light within space. He is also stuck in Newtonian thinking re speed addition vs relativistic time dilation which relates to time as seen by the observers of the oncoming things as seen by each. Your turn.No .. Sub luminal speeds are no problem, and the speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum, is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer (which has been abundantly verified via measurements).
IOW the speed of light in a vacuum, is a universal physical constant.
I am unclear what that has to do with your above question??
'Doppler shift' is not an explanation for the concluded age of the universe(??)
Expansion is inferred from the observed recession of distant objects.
I can't see how 'the rate of expansion' somehow acts to cancel out your words(?) I mean, the rate also appears to have changed over the period of time to the present.
I do not have a clue what you're talking about here .. you seem to be very confused on this topic(?)
I don't understand where you're coming from on this.
Others may care to explain further but until you get the basics clearly nailed in your mind, you should refrain from making accusations about others' understanding and how they have arrived at it.
I totally agree with you.I prefer experts in the field. Though I see you don't care for that or education according to the little blurb under your avatar, one thing very wrong with many sectors of evangelicalism. The thing is there is no proof for the age of the universe nor earth in the Bible as it was not concerned about those things. Even Answers in Genesis admits we all have the same things to look to and nothing different. No one was there so no one knows the real age and know one knows what earth year everything happened
If it disagrees with science, I'm generally for it.I like the Jewish date: October 7, 3761 BC. After all, it's their book--they ought to know.
The universe was created in 144 hours, starting on 23 October 4004 BC, according to Ussher.
It was created 27 April 4977 BC, according to one of your founders of modern science, Johannes Kepler.
I prefer Ussher's date.
I think there are fundamental misconceptions which go way deeper than the physics of what he's trying to grapple with there. For example the concept of 'object' in Physics, goes beyond the common concept which pops up at CFs all the time of: 'materialistic'. Eg: there are 'objects' in physics, which have no mass, for starters!I started a reply earlier but could not carry it as far as you since I am not good at relativity, but I see Mark's confusion in that he is confusing the expansion of space due to the BB as relevant to the speed of light within space. He is also stuck in Newtonian thinking re speed addition vs relativistic time dilation which relates to time as seen by the observers of the oncoming things as seen by each.
Its age is one thing ... how long it has been in existence is another.
..
The universe may be 13.8 billion years old; but it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.
I prefer experts in the field. Though I see you don't care for that or education according to the little blurb under your avatar, one thing very wrong with many sectors of evangelicalism. The thing is there is no proof for the age of the universe nor earth in the Bible as it was not concerned about those things. Even Answers in Genesis admits we all have the same things to look to and nothing different. No one was there so no one knows the real age and know one knows what earth year everything happened
One should at least make the attempt of understanding something, before outright dismissing it.If it disagrees with science, I'm generally for it.
But if it disagrees with the Bible, I'm totally against it.
For the record, I took a calculator and figured it up myself.Which is just one reason I do not trust Ussher. Apart from other doctrine he held that I disagre with this type of prediction smacks far too closely to Matthew 24:36 for me.
"But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
And yes this is about Christ's return, but likewise no one can know an exact date for creation, it's pure arrogance.
The universe may be 13.8 billion years old; but it has only been in existence since 4004 BC.
These are more great examples of how such a method produces exclusion of concepts, rather than (the attempt) of actually trying to understand them.AIG and DI look at the evidence but interpret under the umbrella of a literal and infallible reading of genesis. To come up with their religious interpretation of the evidence they need, at a minimum, to deny the consilience of evidence of geology, isotopic analyses and radioactive decay. Their usual culprit is "no one was their to see it."
Someone once said something like, "I don't need to know botany to appreciate the smell of a flower."One should at least make the attempt of understanding something, before outright dismissing it.
AIG and DI look at the evidence but interpret under the umbrella of a literal and infallible reading of genesis. To come up with their religious interpretation of the evidence they need, at a minimum, to deny the consilience of evidence of geology, isotopic analyses and radioactive decay. Their usual culprit is "no one was their to see it."
Pretty coincidental then that he came within about 100 years from what a cheap calculator came up with.4004 BC is an arbitrary date that was plucked out of the sky and no real education was or is behind it.
Pretty coincidental then that he came within about 100 years from what a cheap calculator came up with.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?