New or Grew?

[Taodeching]

Proof of what? that science says it grew that old?

Just get you a $275.00 King James McGraw-Hill science textbook from your local college bookstore and see for yourself.

No proof of your assertions, so far which are none

 

[AV1611VET]

No proof of your assertions,

That's because science is myopic.

 

[Taodeching]

That's because science is myopic.

From where I and many others sit you seem quite myopic. You see your assumptions have taken on a myopic stance, you assume people who require proof from you are science and therefore evil at the onset. You don't even want to show proof and I am pretty certain you have none.

Your just some electrons on the internet and no one in their right mind would blindly believe what you say on your word alone. If you want to engage then your going to need answers and proofs. The biggest problem I see with you is you eschew education as bad and thankfully your ideas are dying out. It go along way if you could outline things in order instead of just saying "this is what I believe."

In the last few days I have seen Christians such as yourself having no real answers but just keep saying the same thing over and over again. It would be nice if you guys tried harder

 

[AV1611VET]

In the last few days I have seen Christians such as yourself having no real answers but just keep saying the same thing over and over again. It would be nice if you guys tried harder

Usually when someone wants proof, the conversation is over.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

 

[sjastro]

Are you familiar with my Boolean Standards?

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own
Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

What a load of Bool.

 

[Mark Quayle]

As a dumb mathematician in the company of equally incompetent cosmologists we were always under the impression space-time could be modelled as Lorentz manifold using the locally flat space-time.
To the layman this means globally the Universe is expanding (and could be curved), locally it behaves like a flat static universe.
Hence for our POV as you put it (technically the term is local frame of reference) it is meaningless to refer to accelerating speeds relative to expanding space-time as our measurements are in a local frame of reference.
For the same reason we can't devise an experiment locally that shows the Universe is expanding.

I think that is what I have been saying. Not sure. We 'know' that the strong source of light that was shining 14 billion years ago from 'over that way' where we can see it through a strong telescope, was in fact shining as we see it, 14 billion years ago. But that is only from our local reference. Expanding spacetime implies that there is an infinite number of other localities.

As @SelfSim has pointed out the speed of light is more of a universal constant than simply a velocity.

Maybe it is as one of you has pointed out, that I am too firmly grounded in z Newtonian frame., but when the result of Maxwell's calculations yields a meters per second result for the speed of light, it seems to me it must be in relation to Something. If it is as I was told, in relation to spacetime, which is expanding, then it is still in relation to any particular locality. Now if, as that light moves it is changing locality --is that what you are saying?-- my thinking remains the same. We see a distance and related time from our locality. Your counterpart in a different locality sees something different.

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".

I started a reply earlier but could not carry it as far as you [insertion by Mark Quayle here for clarity: this is spoken to Self Sim --not to me= 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.

Interesting the answer I didn't post turned up anyway, deal with it as you will

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.

So, the 'medium' through which light travels analogous to air through which sound waves travel? Thus if an object approaching the speed of light begins to bunch its waves closer together, in relation to itself? Doppler?

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(?)

Lol, agreed. I'm just trying to make some sense out this, and to see why I am wrong to suppose that Creation could be both actually old and actually young but from different POV's.

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.

Fair enough. Yet, I can't understand where I am wrong in my main speculation if it is not well enough explained to me where I can get it. But thanks for trying (this to all of you who tried --not just SelfSim). I honestly do appreciate it. Meanwhile, the explanations I have gotten seem to me to support my ideas, not refute them, in spite of my ignorance.

 

[SelfSim]

I think that is what I have been saying. Not sure. We 'know' that the strong source of light that was shining 14 billion years ago from 'over that way' where we can see it through a strong telescope, was in fact shining as we see it, 14 billion years ago. But that is only from our local reference. Expanding spacetime implies that there is an infinite number of other localities.

I don't think you are synched up yet, with what @sjastro was pointing out(?)
The speed of light is measured (by necessity) in our 'local reference frame'. Light emitted by very distant objects however, (by definition), cannot be considered as being viewed from a 'local reference frame' (with respect to those distant objects).

Maybe it is as one of you has pointed out, that I am too firmly grounded in z Newtonian frame., but when the result of Maxwell's calculations yields a meters per second result for the speed of light, it seems to me it must be in relation to Something. If it is as I was told, in relation to spacetime, which is expanding, then it is still in relation to any particular locality.

The spacetime within our local reference frame, cannot be considered expanding the same as the spacetime over the span to very distant objects because .. as @sjastro said: 'to the layman, .. locally it behaves like a flat static universe', whereas 'globally, the universe is expanding and could be curved'.

Now if, as that light moves it is changing locality --is that what you are saying?-- my thinking remains the same.

The light is traversing acceleratingly expanding spacetime the further out, (and back in time), we look.

So, the 'medium' through which light travels analogous to air through which sound waves travel? Thus if an object approaching the speed of light begins to bunch its waves closer together, in relation to itself? Doppler?

Bad analogy. Light travelling through space is considered as travelling through a vacuum (to the layman) .. Ie: there is no 'medium' (like air is, in the sound propagation case).
We do observe blue and red (doppler) shifting in light observed from local objects (ie: in the local reference frame). We conclude galaxies (etc) are moving towards us (doppler blueshift) and away from us, (doppler redshift) as they move through local spacetime. This is not the same as the cosmological redshift phenomenon where everything at greater distances is accelerating away from us.

Lol, agreed. I'm just trying to make some sense out this, and to see why I am wrong to suppose that Creation could be both actually old and actually young but from different POV's.

I think we're on the right track in distinguishing the conceptual differences between doppler shift (caused by objects moving with different velocities relative to our local position), and cosmological redshift (caused by spacetime expansion over cosmological scales).

Fair enough. Yet, I can't understand where I am wrong in my main speculation if it is not well enough explained to me where I can get it. But thanks for trying (this to all of you who tried --not just SelfSim). I honestly do appreciate it. Meanwhile, the explanations I have gotten seem to me to support my ideas, not refute them, in spite of my ignorance.

Just hold your horses for a bit .. we're trying to unravel a whole bunch of conflated misconceptions about the fundamentals here. I, for one am not saying anyone's 'wrong' until I fully understand where you're coming from ..

 

[sjastro]

I think that is what I have been saying. Not sure. We 'know' that the strong source of light that was shining 14 billion years ago from 'over that way' where we can see it through a strong telescope, was in fact shining as we see it, 14 billion years ago. But that is only from our local reference.

The light source you are referring to is the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) around 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
We are not observing it in a local frame of reference.
In a local frame of reference which is the CMB's rest frame it has a peak blackbody temperature of around 3,000 K and emits photons in the infrared range.
In our frame of reference which is the observers' frame the blackbody temperature is 2.7 K and photons are in the microwave range.

Expanding spacetime implies that there is an infinite number of other localities.

No it doesn't.
Our observable universe is finite.
Local frames of reference do not need to be infinitesimally small, only small enough to be approximated as flat inertial frames.
For example the Earth's surface is curved but surveyors don't use spherical trigonometry to calculate distances; they use triangulation where the angles add up to 180 degrees which is a property of Euclidean space.

Maybe it is as one of you has pointed out, that I am too firmly grounded in z Newtonian frame., but when the result of Maxwell's calculations yields a meters per second result for the speed of light, it seems to me it must be in relation to Something. If it is as I was told, in relation to spacetime, which is expanding, then it is still in relation to any particular locality. Now if, as that light moves it is changing locality --is that what you are saying?-- my thinking remains the same. We see a distance and related time from our locality. Your counterpart in a different locality sees something different.

Now going over to special relativity; the speed of light is the same in all frames of references.
When you say relative to something you need to define what is special about this frame(s)?
The facts are there are no special frames for the speed of light.
For objects travelling at speeds less than light we can arbitrarily assign special frames.
The CMB mentioned previously is a case in point; we can define its rest frame as a special frame.
Our galaxy is moving at a velocity of around 600 km/s relative to this rest frame.

Meanwhile, the explanations I have gotten seem to me to support my ideas, not refute them, in spite of my ignorance.

A psychologist would analyze it as an example of confirmation bias.

 

[Frank Robert]

Agreed. I believe many literalist must do the same, yet at the same time we all have to admit that none of were there.

Which does not mean that something didn't happen if no one seen it happen. It is apparent though that many creationists believe that their deity made the world appear old with geometric strata filled with fossils all in places where we would expect that they would be found.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Now going over to special relativity; the speed of light is the same in all frames of references.

Yes, of course, as per each frame of reference. But the speed of light started over there at precisely 'the speed of light' relative to that local frame, seen from over here --does it not show a shift?

When you say relative to something you need to define what is special about this frame(s)?

It is special only in that it is THIS one and not THAT one, and THAT one is not THIS one. Spacetime expanding implies that THAT one over there, let's call that east, is more compressed and moving faster relative to THIS, than the OTHER, west of THIS, moving slower relative to this THIS in its more expanded spacetime. Yet in each Spacetime, the light travels the same speed relative to that spacetime, no? Seen from the local frame, light from OTHER travels at the speed of light, as does light from THIS travel in this frame at t

he speed of light within this frame. Thus, the shift observed from any one frame observing light proceeding from another frame is a result of the expansion, or simply, motion. Yet, I expect you would tell me that expansion is not a function of motion, but I don't know why not. Spacetime is caused (defined(?)) by bodies/forces in motion, and not the other way around, no? If so, does spacetime expand because the bodies are in motion having begun at a single locality? (Not that 'locality' has much meaning at the BB, since spacetime was infinitesimally small).

The facts are there are no special frames for the speed of light. For objects travelling at speeds less than light we can arbitrarily assign special frames. The CMB mentioned previously is a case in point; we can define its rest frame as a special frame.
Our galaxy is moving at a velocity of around 600 km/s relative to this rest frame.

Moving away from it, or are you saying it is pervasive and static; it is within expanding spacetime, but has no expansion itself? That would seem to me contradictory, so I will assume it was only 'back then'

Lol, this reminds me of a story I heard, (for all I know the story originally was not about Theologians), about a comment Theologian 'A' made concerning Theologian 'B' who had no real concept of what Theologian 'A' had been saying, yet wrote a whole book to refute it. When 'A' was asked by someone else if 'B' was right, he said, "No, he's not right --he's not even WRONG!!!" I see I need to make an appointment to go to Cosmic Radiology.

 

[SelfSim]

Yes, of course, as per each frame of reference. But the speed of light started over there at precisely 'the speed of light' relative to that local frame, seen from over here --does it not show a shift?

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.
The observed shift in the light from far away, (very distant), sources, is explained by a non-inertial frame being introduced, ie: in this case, one which is accelerating. Because this explains most observations with consistency, the intervening spacetime is visualised as acceleratingly expanding and is regarded as being a real phenomenon.

It is special only in that it is THIS one and not THAT one, and THAT one is not THIS one. Spacetime expanding implies that THAT one over there, let's call that east, is more compressed and moving faster relative to THIS, than the OTHER, west of THIS, moving slower relative to this THIS in its more expanded spacetime.

The intervening spacetime expanding, (acceleratingly so), is what distinguishes the frame as 'special' or more formally, 'non-inertial' (another special frame is a 'rest frame') .. and not that it is simply 'over there' vs 'here'.

Yet in each Spacetime, the light travels the same speed relative to that spacetime, no?

The speed of light is the same, but the space its traversing is expanding (acceleratingly so), so we see a cosmological redshift from our Earth based viewpoint/frame.

Seen from the local frame, light from OTHER travels at the speed of light, as does light from THIS travel in this frame at the speed of light within this frame. Thus, the shift observed from any one frame observing light proceeding from another frame is a result of the expansion, or simply, motion. Yet, I expect you would tell me that expansion is not a function of motion, but I don't know why not.

The expansion is an accelerating (non-inertial) expansion.

Spacetime is caused (defined(?)) by bodies/forces in motion, and not the other way around, no?

Spacetime is fundamental concept conceived as a basis for explaining observations made from telescopes pointed at the cosmos .. That's its 'cause', right there.

If so, does spacetime expand because the bodies are in motion having begun at a single locality? (Not that 'locality' has much meaning at the BB, since spacetime was infinitesimally small).

The cause of the expansion is another matter yet again .. which is under investigation (and is a separable discussion topic).

Moving away from it, or are you saying it is pervasive and static; it is within expanding spacetime, but has no expansion itself? That would seem to me contradictory, so I will assume it was only 'back then'.

See my response on the principle for distinguishing different Frames of Reference.
You really need to 'get' this principle to understand Relativity.

 

[sjastro]

Yes, of course, as per each frame of reference. But the speed of light started over there at precisely 'the speed of light' relative to that local frame, seen from over here --does it not show a shift?

You are confusing a local frame of reference with an inertial frame of reference.
Each observer is these different regions of space-time are either stationary in which case there is one inertial frame, or each observer is moving at a constant velocity in which case each observer is in a separate inertial frame.
A local frame by definition is where inertial frames of reference exist within a region of space-time.

It is special only in that it is THIS one and not THAT one, and THAT one is not THIS one. Spacetime expanding implies that THAT one over there, let's call that east, is more compressed and moving faster relative to THIS, than the OTHER, west of THIS, moving slower relative to this THIS in its more expanded spacetime. Yet in each Spacetime, the light travels the same speed relative to that spacetime, no? Seen from the local frame, light from OTHER travels at the speed of light, as does light from THIS travel in this frame at the speed of light within this frame. Thus, the shift observed from any one frame observing light proceeding from another frame is a result of the expansion, or simply, motion.

This is not how space-time expansion works.
Space-time expansion only becomes significant at cosmological scales.
For example the Hubble constant (depending on which method is used) is around 72 km/s/mparsec.
Suppose our local frame of reference is the size of the Earth’s radius (= 6,371 km).
The rate of expansion over this distance is 72 x 6371 x 3.24 x 10⁻²⁰ = 1.49 X 10⁻¹⁴ km/s ≈ 0.
Hence the rate of expansion is for all intents and purposes zero even without talking gravity into account.
Taking gravity into account and applying to the local cluster of galaxies (radius = 5 million light years) expansion doesn’t even occur over such vast distances where there is a concentration of matter.

The speed of light is not affected by expansion; in fact the speed of light is affected in regions of high gravity where there is zero expansion such as in the vicinity of black holes.
Under these conditions the coordinate velocity of light at the event horizon as measured by an observer is zero even though its proper velocity which is in the photon’s frame of reference is c.

Yet, I expect you would tell me that expansion is not a function of motion, but I don't know why not. Spacetime is caused (defined(?)) by bodies/forces in motion, and not the other way around, no? If so, does spacetime expand because the bodies are in motion having begun at a single locality? (Not that 'locality' has much meaning at the BB, since spacetime was infinitesimally small).

Space-time expansion is not defined by bodies/forces in motion.
Bodies can be stationary in space-time but are carried by the expansion.
When cosmological redshifts are measured astronomers need to take into account the possible motions of galaxies moving in space-time.

With regards to the BB, 99% of the population which includes yourself are unaware there a two Big Bang models.
Cosmologists are more interested in the other BB model; the Hot Big Bang which occurred at the end of the inflation era.

This Hot Big Bang occurred when the universe was not infinitesimally small; it is consistent with the BB theory being a theory about the evolution of the universe not a creation theory as most individuals seem to think.

The original BB theory may regain traction when a quantum theory of gravity is developed and agrees with observation.

Moving away from it, or are you saying it is pervasive and static; it is within expanding spacetime, but has no expansion itself? That would seem to me contradictory, so I will assume it was only 'back then'

Either you failed to comprehend the explanation given or I was not clear enough.
Hopefully this post has clarified the issue.

Lol, this reminds me of a story I heard, (for all I know the story originally was not about Theologians), about a comment Theologian 'A' made concerning Theologian 'B' who had no real concept of what Theologian 'A' had been saying, yet wrote a whole book to refute it. When 'A' was asked by someone else if 'B' was right, he said, "No, he's not right --he's not even WRONG!!!" I see I need to make an appointment to go to Cosmic Radiology.

The not even wrong remark is attributed to the Nobel Prize winner Wolfgang Pauli.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The speed of light is the same, but the space its traversing is expanding (acceleratingly so), so we see a cosmological redshift from our Earth based viewpoint/frame.

If I'm following you here at all, your repeated mentioning 'expanding (acceleratingly so)' the red/ blue shift would not be there, but for the fact that the spacetime / universe is accelerating (or at least it was when the light we see now was begun.) It sounds like you are saying the fact that we see light from objects departing from us as shifting BECAUSE they are accelerating compared to us --not because they are moving away from us faster than we are moving in their direction. So, suppsoing the BB was an explosion, it would be a very strange one in that the explosion did not burn all the propellant, but rather pushed it out where it continues to propel the rest of it. The reason the objects departing us on one side (let's say, to the west) are seen shifted is not because they are moving faster than us, but because they are picking up speed. Same shift is observed from the east, because we are picking up speed compared to the objects from that direction, (which are actually moving toward us, but we can't tell it because of our motion away from them.) Does this therefore mean we see (generally) redshift whether we look east or west, and not redshift looking 'out' and blueshift looking 'in'? The amount of shift is relative to the acceleration difference, not the speed difference. Yet we would not see redshift at all if there was not acceleration.

I'm thinking this means that the BB began very slowly, compared to the speed that objects are now departing it. Would that have any bearing on why Hawking said Time (spacetime(?) began there?

Treebeard: "Doesn't make sense to me, but then, you are very small."

 

[Taodeching]

Usually when someone wants proof, the conversation is over.

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

Let's say it's not, it is over when you are scared of giving proof. You can give no proof and I never said scientific proof, I said proof. Your position without proof is shall we say a lie from hell. For instance @Mark Quayle is very good at give proof in his post and explains his positions and he is not squeamish about it so why can't or won't you.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can give no proof and I never said scientific proof, I said proof. Your position without proof is shall we say a lie from hell.

And what "proof" do you have of your position? what "proof" convinced you to be what you are today?

 

[sjastro]

If I'm following you here at all, your repeated mentioning 'expanding (acceleratingly so)' the red/ blue shift would not be there, but for the fact that the spacetime / universe is accelerating (or at least it was when the light we see now was begun.) It sounds like you are saying the fact that we see light from objects departing from us as shifting BECAUSE they are accelerating compared to us --not because they are moving away from us faster than we are moving in their direction. So, suppsoing the BB was an explosion, it would be a very strange one in that the explosion did not burn all the propellant, but rather pushed it out where it continues to propel the rest of it. The reason the objects departing us on one side (let's say, to the west) are seen shifted is not because they are moving faster than us, but because they are picking up speed. Same shift is observed from the east, because we are picking up speed compared to the objects from that direction, (which are actually moving toward us, but we can't tell it because of our motion away from them.) Does this therefore mean we see (generally) redshift whether we look east or west, and not redshift looking 'out' and blueshift looking 'in'? The amount of shift is relative to the acceleration difference, not the speed difference. Yet we would not see redshift at all if there was not acceleration.

Let me put my 2 cents worth in here.
There are two issues concerning acceleration; acceleration of objects in space-time and the acceleration of space-time itself.
For acceleration of objects in space-time we can consider the simplest case of non relativistic velocities and constant acceleration.
We can use Newton’s laws of motion to find the relationship between recession velocity and distance.

v² = u² +2ax

v is the recession velocity, u the initial velocity, a is the constant acceleration and x is the distance.
For a Big Bang scenario u = 0 hence;

v = ±√(2ax)

Note there is no linear relationship between v and x since there is a √x term in the equation.
If we look at more complicated examples such as acceleration not being constant the equations are considerably more complicated but definitely not linear.

What astronomers found was there is a linear relationship between recession velocity and distance from the observer according to Hubble’s law based on redshift measurements.

This can only be explained by metric or expansion of space-time itself.

Even before the discovery that space-time itself was accelerating, from the observers’ frame of reference galaxies were still accelerating away as recession velocities were increasing with distance.
Redshift is observed irrespective if expansion is accelerating or not.
An accelerating universe simply changes the slope of linear relationship between velocity and distance.

In metric or spacetime expansion the observer anywhere in the universe is at the “centre” and observes galaxies are receding due to redshift.

I'm thinking this means that the BB began very slowly, compared to the speed that objects are now departing it. Would that have any bearing on why Hawking said Time (spacetime(?) began there?

Treebeard: "Doesn't make sense to me, but then, you are very small."

If the universe began very slowly causality is violated.

For example if the universe began by spherically expanding at the speed of light c, the radius r of the universe at some cosmological time t is simply r = ct.
Here lies the problem for two points diametrically opposite in the universe they are separated by a distance d = 2ct at some given time t.
Information can only travel at the speed of light and there has not been enough time for information to pass between the diametrically opposite points.
In other words the points are not casually connected.
This is contradicted by observation such as the universe uniformly cooling down and appearing to be isotropic.

The universe can only be casually connected if it in its early history it expanded at orders of magnitude many times greater than the speed of light.
This forms the basis for inflation in the early history of the universe.

 

[Shemjaza]

My answer depends on readers who can do math. My theory is that the creation of energy will effect time. So my math quiz is - can we solve this equation for time?

If so then this could explain that increasing energy would create time. Or as AV says, Creation was old when it was created. Maths wizards, what ya say?

E = mc^2

c^2 = E/m

c = sq root (E/m)

c^-1 = (sq root (E/m))^-1

t/x = (sq root (E/m))^-1

t = x / (sq root (E/m))


c is a velocity so it can be broken down to displacement (x) over time (t)

I'm not sure what you get out of this formula. Given that c is a constant x and t are just a ratio based on that.

 

[Taodeching]

And what "proof" do you have of your position? what "proof" convinced you to be what you are today?

I have no position, I await proof to be convinced. Logical sequential proof, if the Apostles can do it so can you. If others in this thread can give logical sequential proof so can you. It says in Sacred Scripture be ready at all times to answer anyone to the hope that is in you, so if this position of yours is part of your hope than nothing should stop you from having proof, logical sequential proof. Without such than you really have no position and the ideas you express or not a part of the hope in you but mere conjecture and opinion.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no position, I await proof to be convinced. Logical sequential proof, if the Apostles can do it so can you. If others in this thread can give logical sequential proof so can you. It says in Sacred Scripture be ready at all times to answer anyone to the hope that is in you, so if this position of yours is part of your hope than nothing should stop you from having proof, logical sequential proof. Without such than you really have no position and the ideas you express or not a part of the hope in you but mere conjecture and opinion.

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

 

[Taodeching]

The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

So you really can't lay out our position logically and sequentially, understood.