Scientific results here and now apply to there and then

[Quackduck]

I would much sooner put my faith in science rather than religion.

 

[Sam91]

Minute changes in the accuracy of measurements does not help YEC. Do we know the EXACT measurements for all constants? No. Does that mean errors of orders of magnitude are still on the table? NO. As technology improves, so does accuracy. So what? The vast majority of the time, the measurements which have been improved fall within the previous error tolerances.

In order for YEC to be true, constants need to have changed by orders of magnitude, sometimes MANY orders. And we KNOW, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they have not. Because multiple INDEPENDENT lines of measurement, with vastly different mechanisms, would have all had to be different in JUST such a way, that they all come to the same wrong answer.

And you post, what? A 6%-ish difference for the size of protons? Do you have any idea how hard it is to measure a FEMTOMETER? MUCH MUCH harder than it is to measure the constants that creationists need to be ridiculously different, and are holding out hope for. It's like hoping to win a lottery that stopped drawing numbers decades ago. And the ironic thing is, nobody should want to win that lottery, cause it would vaporize the earth.

I do not know what YEC is. I object to the idea that people speak with certainty over things which are far from certain. The idea that people think it is certain that background radiation is from so many billions of years ago, even though there are suppositions that it the universe is of an age 2 billion years different to what was previously thought. That is an error margin of a 7th. 2 billion is a large figure

Look at the changes to the Hubble constant. Magnify that across large numbers and the difference is huge . My estimation of scientists (I doubt many in here are from what I see) has gone down hill after reading this thread. However, I am aware that the people who choose to post here are not representative, nor generalisable to the whole. That in itself is a relief.

THEORY... scientists should know they have no proof as to accuracy yet. The shape of the universes is still undetermined too.

 

[Sam91]

Minute changes in the accuracy of measurements does not help YEC. Do we know the EXACT measurements for all constants? No. Does that mean errors of orders of magnitude are still on the table? NO. As technology improves, so does accuracy. So what? The vast majority of the time, the measurements which have been improved fall within the previous error tolerances.

In order for YEC to be true, constants need to have changed by orders of magnitude, sometimes MANY orders. And we KNOW, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they have not. Because multiple INDEPENDENT lines of measurement, with vastly different mechanisms, would have all had to be different in JUST such a way, that they all come to the same wrong answer.

And you post, what? A 6%-ish difference for the size of protons? Do you have any idea how hard it is to measure a FEMTOMETER? MUCH MUCH harder than it is to measure the constants that creationists need to be ridiculously different, and are holding out hope for. It's like hoping to win a lottery that stopped drawing numbers decades ago. And the ironic thing is, nobody should want to win that lottery, cause it would vaporize the earth.

After a google I discovered you are referring to young earth creationism. Why would this thread be talking about that. The OP was about constants and whether they'd be the same for all of history.

My opinion is that we can not know. There were huge differences back at the big bang. Matter hadn't coalesced to for stars, planets, galaxies. In my opinion gravitational forces would have been so different that light/energy would have been less hampered. My opinion is that when recording radiation from so far back we can't measure it's precise location, nor its age due to the vast distances involved. We can't be sure of the uniformity of space and how that affects harmonics. We can't be sure data isn't being lost and that radiation received is the same as when it originated. It has supposed to have travelled over billions of light years through space and time. Can we even be sure that it hasn't slowed over billions of years? Conditions were different, laws of physics could have been different.

My suspicion is that things could easily be further away than assumed. Another suspicion is that the background radiation is also misunderstood.

 

[Quackduck]

I do not know what YEC is. I object to the idea that people speak with certainty over things which are far from certain. The idea that people think it is certain that background radiation is from so many billions of years ago, even though there are suppositions that it the universe is of an age 2 billion years different to what was previously thought. That is an error margin of a 7th. 2 billion is a large figure

Look at the changes to the Hubble constant. Magnify that across large numbers and the difference is huge . My estimation of scientists (I doubt many in here are from what I see) has gone down hill after reading this thread. However, I am aware that the people who choose to post here are not representative, nor generalisable to the whole. That in itself is a relief.

THEORY... scientists should know they have no proof as to accuracy yet. The shape of the universes is still undetermined too.

YEC stands for young earth creationists who believe the world is a maximum of 10,000 years old, which is crazy as there is more than enough evidence to suggest it is millions of years old.

 

[durangodawood]

...It amazes me how scientists can have so much faith in what they can't prove, yet some atheist scientists (yes, some are Christians) scoff at the idea that other types of faith.

Proof is overrated.

Think about it in terms of reasonableness applied to observation, with the flexibility to adapt to new evidence.

 

[46AND2]

After a google I discovered you are referring to young earth creationism. Why would this thread be talking about that. The OP was about constants and whether they'd be the same for all of history.

All threads in this area talk about YEC, because there are so many of them in here. It is so frequently discussed that it is exceedingly rare that people who posit constants being different in the past are not YEC. As such, my post that you had responded to was in reference to them.

And, in fact, the original post of this thread is primarily in reference to YEC arguments. And indeed by post 4 of the thread, we already have young earth creationists replying.

My opinion is that we can not know. There were huge differences back at the big bang. Matter hadn't coalesced to for stars, planets, galaxies. In my opinion gravitational forces would have been so different that light/energy would have been less hampered.

Gravity does not affect the speed of light. It can bend it, and change its energy, but its speed is unencumbered.

My opinion is that when recording radiation from so far back we can't measure it's precise location, nor its age due to the vast distances involved. We can't be sure of the uniformity of space and how that affects harmonics. We can't be sure data isn't being lost and that radiation received is the same as when it originated. It has supposed to have travelled over billions of light years through space and time. Can we even be sure that it hasn't slowed over billions of years? Conditions were different, laws of physics could have been different.

My suspicion is that things could easily be further away than assumed. Another suspicion is that the background radiation is also misunderstood.

And as has been repeated several times in this thread, it is not simply assumed that things (specifically the topic under discussion: the speed of light) throughout the universe and past have been uniform, we have a great deal of evidence that it was.

 

[Sam91]

All threads in this area talk about YEC, because there are so many of them in here. It is so frequently discussed that it is exceedingly rare that people who posit constants being different in the past are not YEC. As such, my post that you had responded to was in reference to them.

And, in fact, the original post of this thread is primarily in reference to YEC arguments. And indeed by post 4 of the thread, we already have young earth creationists replying.



Gravity does not affect the speed of light. It can bend it, and change its energy, but its speed is unencumbered.



And as has been repeated several times in this thread, it is not simply assumed that things (specifically the topic under discussion: the speed of light) throughout the universe and past have been uniform, we have a great deal of evidence that it was.

You only mentioned creationists in your post. I am a creationist (not a YEC though) and have always maintained that the Genesis version of creation does sound pretty much like the big bang.

I'm not too sure that gravity can't affect the speed of light if it approaches a strong enough gravitational force. I'd imagine it can pull them along, I am aware that it can bend light. It must distort the photons in order to do that? In general, light travels straight unless refracted. I'd like to understand the process of it bending actually. Of course, I haven't looked into it, so I think I will. Not that I expect any certainty in the topic. Real science doesn't portray things as definite in areas it can't 'prove'. It can only speak of the laws of physics that it can test. It can't be definitive on what can not be accurately, and objectively measured. From our paltry presence in a tiny location of the milky way, we can not say that we know all that much of space and its mysteries.

Any to get back on track, light travelling on a route that is bent would travel a longer distance and that would take more time to arrive than we think. Now across 4 billion parsecs, radiation would surely have come across multiple phenomena before it hits our equipment. I have no idea why people would assume the calculations are anything more that a best guess/estimation.

That is what I object too. Posters stating as fact that which any critically aware person can reason as work in progress.

 

[sjastro]

You only mentioned creationists in your post. I am a creationist (not a YEC though) and have always maintained that the Genesis version of creation does sound pretty much like the big bang.

I'd say it's more a case of a rampant imagination.

I'm not too sure that gravity can't affect the speed of light if it approaches a strong enough gravitational force. I'd imagine it can pull them along, I am aware that it can bend light. It must distort the photons in order to do that? In general, light travels straight unless refracted. I'd like to understand the process of it bending actually. Of course, I haven't looked into it, so I think I will. Not that I expect any certainty in the topic.

Gravitational bending of light has nothing to do with refraction.
It is the property of light travelling along null geodesics in spacetime.
To understand this requires a knowledge of Special and General Relativity something I strongly suspect is way beyond the scope of a creationist.

Real science doesn't portray things as definite in areas it can't 'prove'. It can only speak of the laws of physics that it can test. It can't be definitive on what can not be accurately, and objectively measured. From our paltry presence in a tiny location of the milky way, we can not say that we know all that much of space and its mysteries.

I note you either ignored or didn't read the comments made in this thread regarding the incompatibility of science with proof.

Any to get back on track, light travelling on a route that is bent would travel a longer distance and that would take more time to arrive than we think. Now across 4 billion parsecs, radiation would surely have come across multiple phenomena before it hits our equipment. I have no idea why people would assume the calculations are anything more that a best guess/estimation.

Since light travels in null geodesics there is a time time delay difference between light travelling in flat and curved spacetime.
This is known as the Shapiro time delay.
General Relativity also predicts the time delay between light and gravitational waves is the same.
Using this information the Shapiro time delay of GW150914 which was over a billion light years away was only 1800 days which is negligible.

That is what I object too. Posters stating as fact that which any critically aware person can reason as work in progress.

Anyone reading this thread objectively would note otherwise.
What is painfully obvious in this thread are the comments of individuals who criticise the science and maths without having the knowledge or comprehension of doing so.

 

[Sam91]

I'd say it's more a case of a rampant imagination.



Gravitational bending of light has nothing to do with refraction.
It is the property of light travelling along null geodesics in spacetime.
To understand this requires a knowledge of Special and General Relativity something I strongly suspect is way beyond the scope of a creationist.




I note you either ignored or didn't read the comments made in this thread regarding the incompatibility of science with proof.



Since light travels in null geodesics there is a time time delay difference between light travelling in flat and curved spacetime.
This is known as the Shapiro time delay.
General Relativity also predicts the time delay between light and gravitational waves is the same.
Using this information the Shapiro time delay of GW150914 which was over a billion light years away was only 1800 days which is negligible.


Anyone reading this thread objectively would note otherwise.
What is painfully obvious in this thread are the comments of individuals who criticise the science and maths without having the knowledge or comprehension of doing so.

I did not say gravity refracted light!

At the age of 5, I deduced that light was a spectrum without being taught, I saw a rainbow on the carpet. In nursery, age 4, I astonished my nursery teacher by having a theory about density... only I did not know the word density. It was pretty much spot on so she told me what it was called. (I taught myself to read at the age of two. My dad says it was funny because I barely spoke as a baby. One day I just turned around and said 'Hello Daddy, how are you?' I also started reading at the same age. He says he thinks I didn't want to make a mistake. Lol)

I also guessed about Turgor pressure at the age of 11 and asked biology teacher about it. So no, I'm not a scientist but even as an adult a lot of my suppositions are spot on. I wouldn't be so quick to judge if I were you.

I had also figured out Archimedes principle for myself too. I told my dad that as a child so he taught it me. He also had me reciting the laws of motion as an 8 year old, given my interest in science in general. Infact, my astronomy books were adult ones and had relativity in it. I confess I used to look more at the pictures but I remember relativity being in there due to a train picture and me wrapping my head around it. Don't put limitations on people. I am fully capable at grasping concepts very easily without needing to know the finer points of the maths involved. I was one point away from qualifying for the maths Olympics as a teenager, despite sitting the test whole stressed as my friend was being rushed to the hospital. So no, I haven't had the opportunity to continue in science but there is no reason to mock. I am fully capable of learning it... if I chose too.

I'm not saying this to boast. Hopefully to make you a little wiser. True wisdom is the acceptance of realising how much you don't know. Personal growth is not caring about it or having a need to be correct. Intelligence isn't really that important and neither is knowledge. I enjoy knowledge because I'm inquisitive and my brain likes pondering theory. However, it is not a quality to desire as far as I'm concerned.

I like humility and kindness in those I meet. It is far better to have that and happiness than to go around putting others down. A little politeness goes a long way, and it feels nicer to care about other people. To disparage others to inflate ones own ego shows a lacking of true acceptance of oneself. As does a need to be correct.

 

[Sam91]

I'd say it's more a case of a rampant imagination.



Gravitational bending of light has nothing to do with refraction.
It is the property of light travelling along null geodesics in spacetime.
To understand this requires a knowledge of Special and General Relativity something I strongly suspect is way beyond the scope of a creationist.




I note you either ignored or didn't read the comments made in this thread regarding the incompatibility of science with proof.



Since light travels in null geodesics there is a time time delay difference between light travelling in flat and curved spacetime.
This is known as the Shapiro time delay.
General Relativity also predicts the time delay between light and gravitational waves is the same.
Using this information the Shapiro time delay of GW150914 which was over a billion light years away was only 1800 days which is negligible.


Anyone reading this thread objectively would note otherwise.
What is painfully obvious in this thread are the comments of individuals who criticise the science and maths without having the knowledge or comprehension of doing so.

And thank you for your kindness in supplying the links. Working my way through them now I have reread your post. They are interesting. I appreciate them. (I would prefer a more credible source than wiki though).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... (I would prefer a more credible source than wiki though).

Wikipedia is as accurate an encyclopedia as you're likely to find online, particularly on science topics. See How Accurate is Wikipedia?

 

[sjastro]

I did not say gravity refracted light!

At the age of 5, I deduced that light was a spectrum without being taught, I saw a rainbow on the carpet. In nursery, age 4, I astonished my nursery teacher by having a theory about density... only I did not know the word density. It was pretty much spot on so she told me what it was called. (I taught myself to read at the age of two. My dad says it was funny because I barely spoke as a baby. One day I just turned around and said 'Hello Daddy, how are you?' I also started reading at the same age. He says he thinks I didn't want to make a mistake. Lol)

I also guessed about Turgor pressure at the age of 11 and asked biology teacher about it. So no, I'm not a scientist but even as an adult a lot of my suppositions are spot on. I wouldn't be so quick to judge if I were you.

I had also figured out Archimedes principle for myself too. I told my dad that as a child so he taught it me. He also had me reciting the laws of motion as an 8 year old, given my interest in science in general. Infact, my astronomy books were adult ones and had relativity in it. I confess I used to look more at the pictures but I remember relativity being in there due to a train picture and me wrapping my head around it. Don't put limitations on people. I am fully capable at grasping concepts very easily without needing to know the finer points of the maths involved. I was one point away from qualifying for the maths Olympics as a teenager, despite sitting the test whole stressed as my friend was being rushed to the hospital. So no, I haven't had the opportunity to continue in science but there is no reason to mock. I am fully capable of learning it... if I chose too.

I'm not saying this to boast. Hopefully to make you a little wiser. True wisdom is the acceptance of realising how much you don't know. Personal growth is not caring about it or having a need to be correct. Intelligence isn't really that important and neither is knowledge. I enjoy knowledge because I'm inquisitive and my brain likes pondering theory. However, it is not a quality to desire as far as I'm concerned.

I like humility and kindness in those I meet. It is far better to have that and happiness than to go around putting others down. A little politeness goes a long way, and it feels nicer to care about other people. To disparage others to inflate ones own ego shows a lacking of true acceptance of oneself. As does a need to be correct.

What a profoundly condescending and patronizing post.
Despite your boasts of implying of being a child prodigy or an undiscovered Einstein (and yes you are boasting despite your denials), I know enough of the subject matter in this thread to recognize ignorance and lack of comprehension irrespective of how gifted you supposedly are.

I also have had the advantage of dealing with an actual teenage prodigy who won the junior Physics Olympiad bronze medal as a fifteen year old about 10 years ago.
To cut a long story short I was familiar with the girl’s mother who suggested I provided maths books to her daughter to gain a deeper understanding into the mathematics of Special and General Relativity.
Special Relativity was a piece of cake but she hit a road block when it came to General Relativity; not because she wasn’t smart enough but GR requires a large amount of prerequisite knowledge that no 15 yr old could obtain in a short period of time.
I have no doubt that if she went on to a physics career her depth of knowledge and understanding of GR would greatly exceed mine.
The moral of the story is it doesn’t matter how smart you are if you are unfamiliar with the subject you are just as ignorant as any hack.

Pointing out your lack of knowledge and understanding is not meant to be an insult; the backhanders instead have come from you plus the negative attitude expressed against scientists and those posters who happen to disagree with you.

 

[Sam91]

What a profoundly condescending and patronizing post.
Despite your boasts of implying of being a child prodigy or an undiscovered Einstein (and yes you are boasting despite your denials), I know enough of the subject matter in this thread to recognize ignorance and lack of comprehension irrespective of how gifted you supposedly are.

I also have had the advantage of dealing with an actual teenage prodigy who won the junior Physics Olympiad bronze medal as a fifteen year old about 10 years ago.
To cut a long story short I was familiar with the girl’s mother who suggested I provided maths books to her daughter to gain a deeper understanding into the mathematics of Special and General Relativity.
Special Relativity was a piece of cake but she hit a road block when it came to General Relativity; not because she wasn’t smart enough but GR requires a large amount of prerequisite knowledge that no 15 yr old could obtain in a short period of time.
I have no doubt that if she went on to a physics career her depth of knowledge and understanding of GR would greatly exceed mine.
The moral of the story is it doesn’t matter how smart you are if you are unfamiliar with the subject you are just as ignorant as any hack.

Pointing out your lack of knowledge and understanding is not meant to be an insult; the backhanders instead have come from you plus the negative attitude expressed against scientists and those posters who happen to disagree with you.

I was no prodigy nor undiscovered Einstein, just smart enough as a small child to plainly be able to see what others have to be taught.

You said ' What is painfully obvious in this thread are the comments of individuals who criticise the science and maths without having the knowledge or comprehension of doing so.' Your other reply to me (if it was you... it's 1:30am here and I'm too tired to check) before that was also very condescending

I am not criticising physicists and astronomers... science articles have the good sense to point out the uncertainties. People on this thread do not. I am criticising the OP.

I note that Shapiro backs up and explains another of my uneducated suppositions. I also note that you completely ignored my second reply to you where I thanked you for your kind link.

 

[Sam91]

Wikipedia is as accurate an encyclopedia as you're likely to find online, particularly on science topics. See How Accurate is Wikipedia?

An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility | Chesney | First Monday

It has been found to be quite accurate yes. However, 13% of pages were found to have mistakes.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

Also, if I use it for an assessment I would receive an automatic fail as it is not an academic source. I also made a mistake in a presentation I had to give to a class of 40 a couple of weeks ago due to it... or another source I used. For the point of this post I am blaming the Wikipedia one. Thankfully, it wasn't an assessment and my lecturer didn't say anything. I noticed my error a few days later when I realised homo sapiens hadn't been around that long and the person who wrote the information I included had put human instead of hominid. My lecturer shrugged when I told him my error.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

An empirical examination of Wikipedia's credibility | Chesney | First Monday

It has been found to be quite accurate yes. However, 13% of pages were found to have mistakes.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source - Wikipedia

Also, if I use it for an assessment I would receive an automatic fail as it is not an academic source. I also made a mistake in a presentation I had to give to a class of 40 a couple of weeks ago due to it... or another source I used. For the point of this post I am blaming the Wikipedia one. Thankfully, it wasn't an assessment and my lecturer didn't say anything. I noticed my error a few days later when I realised homo sapiens hadn't been around that long and the person who wrote the information I included had put human instead of hominid. My lecturer shrugged when I told him my error.

You're welcome to check for more reliable sources where you feel it's important. Where specific research is relevant, I try to find the published papers, as the media and PR releases can be misleading.

 

[sjastro]

I was no prodigy nor undiscovered Einstein, just smart enough as a small child to plainly be able to see what others have to be taught.

You said ' What is painfully obvious in this thread are the comments of individuals who criticise the science and maths without having the knowledge or comprehension of doing so.' Your other reply to me (if it was you... it's 1:30am here and I'm too tired to check) before that was also very condescending

Once again it is not a personal attack.
If posters want to make up definitions for infinity or infinite sets as compensation for a lack of knowledge and understanding then it should be called out for what it is.
Science forums should be educational not a platform for personal opinion devoid of knowledge and understanding.

I am not criticising physicists and astronomers... science articles have the good sense to point out the uncertainties. People on this thread do not. I am criticising the OP.

Not criticising astronomers???
Post #46 8) Astronomers get funding for making things sound exciting and true.
Post #64 I wouldn't trust an astronomer who spoke in terms of fact. Over confidence is often incompetence.

Then there is the straw man broadside against people on this thread not having good sense; or is it against the OP; not sure who you are attacking here.

I note that Shapiro backs up and explains another of my uneducated suppositions. I also note that you completely ignored my second reply to you where I thanked you for your kind link.

No your uneducated suppositions are not backed up by Shapiro.
You have ignored the Shapiro effect is negligible even over large distances, nor is it an explanation for the speed of light being different in the past which was your original premise.
I ignored your second reply because I was responding to your previous post.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Certain people here have asserted that things we learn in our labs here on earth today have no application to phenomena in outer space or in the distant past.

This is, at best, an unsupported assertion, but really, everything we know suggests it is false, as I and others have forcefully argued.

I bring it up, because the current Scientific American has an article about time crystals that addresses the topic quite clearly. Although it's brought up in a totally different context, it's certainly relevant to whether scientific knowledge can be applied to data derived from times and places remote from our own.

Without space and time translation symmetry, experiments carried out in different places and at different times would not be reproducible. In their everyday work, scientists take those symmetries for granted. Indeed, science as we know it would be impossible without them. But it is important to emphasize that we can test space and time translation symmetry empirically. Specifically, we can observe behavior in distant astronomical objects. Such objects are situated, obviously, in different places, and thanks to the finite speed of light we can observe in the present how they behaved in the past. Astronomers have determined, in great detail and with high accuracy, that the same laws do in fact apply.

I don't know anyone that asserts lab results are not applicable to outer space of the past. Are there a lot of people that do? I might be inclined to say that lab results are applicable to anything and everything in the present universe's physical reality which includes outer space and the past of this universe ( I still have trouble with the idea that the word universe is no longer defined as "everything that exists" but only as that physical reality that has proceeded from the Big Bang. As that is now how people define it thought I cannot speak coherently to others if I don't define it the same way.) . However, it is possible that such results might not be applicable to a completely different physical universe or to non physical reality.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Science forums should be educational not a platform for personal opinion devoid of knowledge and understanding.

I don't see why. If one is interested in being educated a forum is not the best place to go IMO ( sorry but I don't see why I ought not give it) . Opinion ought always be welcomed in a forum as long as it is not being put forward as fact. BTW isn't what you said in the sentence above an opinion of yours that, as far as I can tell, is not based upon knowledge and understanding as much as it is on personal preference.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I don't know anyone that asserts lab results are not applicable to outer space of the past. Are there a lot of people that do?

This thread and the science forums here have quite a number. While Young Earth Creationism is a minority opinion in the US, it's a sizable bunch. And whether people realize it or not, YEC largely implies either 'last thursdayism' or that physics was different in the past. (Or both, I suppose.)

 

[sjastro]

I don't see why. If one is interested in being educated a forum is not the best place to go IMO ( sorry but I don't see why I ought not give it) . Opinion ought always be welcomed in a forum as long as it is not being put forward as fact. BTW isn't what you said in the sentence above an opinion of yours that, as far as I can tell, is not based upon knowledge and understanding as much as it is on personal preference.

Indeed I made an opinion based comment with the important proviso however it wasn't based on any specific science content.
Although my education background is Applied Mathematics with a strong emphasis on Cosmology and Quantum Mechanics I frequently refer to the Physics Stack Exchange forums to brush up on my knowledge knowing the strong moderation results in the information presented as knowledge not opinions based on personal agendas which unfortunately is all too prevalent here.