Taodeching
Well-Known Member
- Oct 29, 2020
- 1,540
- 1,110
- 52
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
That's because science is myopic.No proof of your assertions,
That's because science is myopic.
Usually when someone wants proof, the conversation is over.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
What a load of Bool.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.
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.
As @SelfSim has pointed out the speed of light is more of a universal constant than simply a velocity.
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.
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 don't think you are synched up yet, with what @sjastro was pointing out(?)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.
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'.Mark Quayle said: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 light is traversing acceleratingly expanding spacetime the further out, (and back in time), we look.Mark Quayle said:Now if, as that light moves it is changing locality --is that what you are saying?-- my thinking remains the same.
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).Mark Quayle said: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 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).Mark Quayle said: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.
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 ..Mark Quayle said: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.
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.
Now going over to special relativity; the speed of light is the same in all frames of references.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.
Meanwhile, the explanations I have gotten seem to me to support my ideas, not refute them, in spite of my ignorance.
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.Agreed. I believe many literalist must do the same, yet at the same time we all have to admit that none of were there.
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.
The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source or observer.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 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'.Mark Quayle said: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 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.Mark Quayle said:Yet in each Spacetime, the light travels the same speed relative to that spacetime, no?
The expansion is an accelerating (non-inertial) expansion.Mark Quayle said: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.
Spacetime is fundamental concept conceived as a basis for explaining observations made from telescopes pointed at the cosmos .. That's its 'cause', right there.Mark Quayle said:Spacetime is caused (defined(?)) by bodies/forces in motion, and not the other way around, no?
The cause of the expansion is another matter yet again .. which is under investigation (and is a separable discussion topic).Mark Quayle said: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).
See my response on the principle for distinguishing different Frames of Reference.Mark Quayle said: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'.
You are confusing a local frame of reference with an inertial frame of reference.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?
This is not how space-time expansion works.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.
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).
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.
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.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.
And what "proof" do you have of your position? what "proof" convinced you to be what you are today?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.
Let me put my 2 cents worth in here.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."
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?
And what "proof" do you have of your position? what "proof" convinced you to be what you are today?
The proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.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.
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?