True knowledge?

[EverettInterpretation]

Ok. Thanks for the exchange E.I. Good discussion.

Late news, Joshua!

I just knew I'd read something significant about the Tired Light hypothesis, but it took me some time over the weekend to track it down.

This book, 'Alpha & Omega: The Search for the beginning and End of the Universe'... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_&_Omega_(book) ...by Charles Seife has a section entitled, "Appendix A:Tired Light Retired".

The author briefly mentions two phenomena - relativistic aberration and relativistic dimming. He writes that stationary, tired-light emitting galaxies in a static universe would not be subject to them, whereas moving, red-shifted galaxies in an expanding universe would.

As detailed in the following papers, a batch of samples did display these two effects.

Here are links to the relevant papers, submitted by Lori M. Lubin and Allan Sandage in 2001.

[astro-ph/0102213] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. I. Calibration of the Necessary Local Parameters
[astro-ph/0102214] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. II. The Effect of the Point-Spread Function and Galaxy Ellipticity on the Derived Photometric Parameters
[astro-ph/0106563] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. III. HST Profile and Surface Brightness Data for Early-Type Galaxies in Three High-Redshift Clusters
[astro-ph/0106566] The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0905.3199

I hope this is both relevant and of interest to you.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello dhh712!

Thanks for your reply.

Well, it seems his answer (or non-answer) confirms that he was mistaken and didn't want to admit it. Personally, I feel this sort of thing comes about from Christians who view the scientific world as a threat to God, or something which they see as opposing their view and which they see has the possibility or even probability of over-coming their view so that their view is no longer tenable.

Yes, what you say is entirely possible... he may have felt under threat from the data I showed him.

Personally, I feel that science can tell us many great and wonderful things about the world all to the glory of God its Creator. Yet we must understand that the tools which we utilize to work with nature in the realm of science are skewed, corrupted by the entrance of sin into the world; therefore it is impossible to see nature through science (or through any of our physical senses) in the way which God has intended it, in the way He has created it in it's perfect way, in a way which we can know Truth by it.

Well, we may not agree on the fallen nature of the universe, but we do agree that science offers us a range of tools, with which we can understand reality.

Science tells us about the world within the confines of science. It has its scientific truth. Whether you believe that is the Absolute Truth I suppose depends on what you place your trust in. If you believe this world is all there is, well then I suppose scientific truth would be all that matters to you since there is nothing else according to your perspective. We who believe in the existence of another world, the spiritual one, the only one which has any lasting value, see Truth in a different way.

And I have no problem with that, dhh.

Since joining this forum I've noticed that there's a wide spectrum of ideas among the Christian members as to just what constitutes... "the Truth". I've also found an equally diverse spread of reactions to scientific knowledge. Some Christians embrace all of science with no qualms whatsoever. Others practice a qualified acceptance of it and some feel the need to reject and deny much or all of it.

This diversity intrigues and puzzles me.
The responses I've received in this thread have been, by turns... illuminating and baffling, coherent and illogical, amiable and combative. Please understand that I mean no ill by this summary and I point no accusatory fingers in anyone's direction - I'm simply describing what I've encountered so far.

Hopefully the above answered your question.

Thank you dhh. Yes it has.

E.I.

 

[Joshua260]

Late news, Joshua!

I just knew I'd read something significant about the Tired Light hypothesis, but it took me some time over the weekend to track it down.

I hope this is both relevant and of interest to you.

Awesome! Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

 

[MarkT]

Hello again Joshua!

First, a bit of background info about me.

I'm no scientist, but I'm an avid amateur astronomer.
Unlike you, I've had no formal training in the sciences, so I suppose you could call be an enthusiastic amateur. I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge about things cosmological and this leads me to read and read and read and read and read and... you get the picture?

--------------------------------------------

Anyway, about points #1 and #2.

Am I right in thinking that you hold to the notion that our universe has two ages? A true one, as described by scripture and an 'embedded' one, which is the one we observe? If so, may I ask how you read Romans 1 : 18 - 32? Especially verse 20.

20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Would you agree that Paul is saying everyone has knowledge of God, derived from observing what God has made - that is, the physical universe? If so, then this knowledge must be derived from the 'embedded' age of the universe and not it's true age.

God judges those who knew Him, but these people chose to reject their knowledge and turned to false gods. Therefore, the basis of his judgement rests on the 'truth' about Him being able to be seen in what He has made - the world around us and the universe.

If they cannot know God via His creation, then Paul's line of argument is invalid, wouldn't you agree? This knowledge must come from the physical world. Now, since Romans refers to Gentiles and Jews, Paul's writing about the former - people with no previous access to the Hebrew scriptures. So these Gentiles cannot know the true, scriptural age of reality - only the 'embedded' age, as displayed by created world.

Joshua, would you please critique my argument and see if it holds water? Thanks.

(Oh btw. If I'm barking up the wrong tree and I've erred about you holding to a true/embedded age dichotomy, please correct me. Thanks.)

--------------------------------------------------

Now, moving on to possible ways of testing the age of the universe, how about this?

Physicists Eagerly Await Neutrinos from the Next Nearby Supernova [Excerpt] - Scientific American

nature physics portal - looking back - Neutrinos and neutrino mass from a supernova

In 1987, John Bahcall was able to make a stunning prediction about the behavior of neutrinos. He calculated the number of them that should be detected from supernova sn1987a (on the order of several dozen) and also the three-hour difference between their arrival and that of the photons of light from the supernova itself. The Scientific American article tells the tale nicely. Enjoy!

My inexpert understanding of his calculations runs like this.
Bahcall factored in two important details that enabled him to make such an accurate set of predictions. A constant and unchanging speed of light and a distance of 160,000 light years to the Large Magellanic Cloud, where the supernova exploded.

I therefore conclude (rightly or wrongly) from this that the universe must therefore be at least 160,000 years old. Otherwise Bahcall's math wouldn't have been right on the money!

What do you think?

-----------------------------------------------------

Lastly, while I'm somewhat familiar with the basic concepts of Einsteinian physics (curved space-time and time dilation, for instance) I don't know of any of the writings you mention. Is this the 'Tired Light' theory or does it have to do with the behavior of radiation passing thru a gravity well?

Gravity well - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks,

E.I.

Is that 24 neutrinos on top of the billions that are already passing through us? They detected 24 new ones? And this occurred before the supernova was seen. It must have been before the flash was seen, because according to the theory, neutrinos should arrive first. And I suppose the detectors were aimed at the star, set to detect neutrinos when it went supernova, before the supernova event. This is puzzling. But I suppose they have detectors running all the time, aimed at every star, and 24 neutrinos would show up on their recording devices.

Some things I don't understand. How long does it take for a star to explode? What happens after it explodes? Do the lights go out so to speak? So what did they see? A flash of light? And then what?

24 neutrinos/supernova - relatively close at D=1

Therefore fewer from more distant, more ancient supernovae.

Assume 2X the distance, maybe 1/2 or 12 neutrinos. Given the size of the universe, maybe less than 1/supernova.

Theories are usually based on observations. What were the observations they based the theory on? Of course one would expect consistent results, consistent with prior observations. I don't understand the significance of all this. It's like saying explosions will go boom. An explosion goes boom. See I predicted it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Yes it can. Newtonian Mechanics has made very accurate predictions, and it continues to do so; it even got men to the moon. But the fact remains that we do not live in a Newtonian universe.

Having said which, the "science-denying" Christian you mention is clearly an idiot - probably living in the Bible Belt of the United States. The Bible is the only source of true knowledge about God, but it does not tell you how to build a nuclear reactor.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Hello Mark.

Is that 24 neutrinos on top of the billions that are already passing through us?

This question will be answered best if you read the Scientific American article I linked to. That link is midway down that post of mine, which you quoted.

They detected 24 new ones? And this occurred before the supernova was seen. It must have been before the flash was seen, because according to the theory, neutrinos should arrive first. And I suppose the detectors were aimed at the star, set to detect neutrinos when it went supernova, before the supernova event. This is puzzling. But I suppose they have detectors running all the time, aimed at every star, and 24 neutrinos would show up on their recording devices.

As will these.

Some things I don't understand. How long does it take for a star to explode?

There isn't just one type of star that explodes (goes supernova) and there isn't just one type of explosion. Therefore, there isn't just one, simple answer to your question, Mark.

If you are serious about understanding supernovae, I'd recommend this...
Supernovae

What happens after it explodes? Do the lights go out so to speak? So what did they see? A flash of light? And then what?

24 neutrinos/supernova - relatively close at D=1

Therefore fewer from more distant, more ancient supernovae.

Assume 2X the distance, maybe 1/2 or 12 neutrinos. Given the size of the universe, maybe less than 1/supernova.

Theories are usually based on observations. What were the observations they based the theory on? Of course one would expect consistent results, consistent with prior observations.

I don't understand the significance of all this.

Then read the Scientific American article, bearing this in mind. If a scientist makes a successful prediction about something that happened where no human has ever been and about an event that happened long ago, that prediction indicates they understand what happened. It indicates their calculations are true knowledge about reality.

It's like saying explosions will go boom.

No. That's not correct.

An explosion goes boom. See I predicted it.

These last sentences cause me to doubt the sincerity of your questions, Mark.
If you are sincere you'll put in the time to read and understand the material I've linked to earlier in this thread.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Yes it can. Newtonian Mechanics has made very accurate predictions, and it continues to do so; it even got men to the moon. But the fact remains that we do not live in a Newtonian universe.

Having said which, the "science-denying" Christian you mention is clearly an idiot - probably living in the Bible Belt of the United States. The Bible is the only source of true knowledge about God, but it does not tell you how to build a nuclear reactor.

Hello Leslie.

I'm sorry, but what you've written isn't correct.

Newtonian mechanics is not a false theory about reality, nor is it false knowledge about reality. It is an incomplete theory and is a body of incomplete knowledge about reality.

Einstein demonstrated the incomplete nature of Newtonian physics with his theories of Special and General Relativity. They have a greater explanatory power than Newtonian physics, accounting for observed phenomenon that Newton's work cannot. A textbook example being the precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury.

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is an important difference between something that is false and something that is incomplete. Please don't confuse the two.

Cosmological science gives us extremely accurate (but still incomplete) knowledge about the universe. The fact that scientists don't have all the answers doesn't render the science false or untrue. Science never claims to have or be seeking ABSOLUTE truth. However, science can provide us with true knowledge about reality.

We know this is so because science can make and has made many, supremely accurate predictions about the natural universe - predictions which have been subsequently verified and confirmed by the observations. This constitutes a growing body of true knowledge about reality.

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Radagast]

I have a question that springs from a recent discussion with a science-denying Christian. He said that science constitutes false knowledge about nature and reality.

That would not be a mainstream Christian position, and (as a scientist) I would strongly disagree with it.

Can a false (i.e., incorrect and therefore untrue) theory about the natural world ever yield a true (correct and accurate, in the secular sense defined above) prediction about it?

Well, yes. For example, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system (below) correctly predicted eclipses and other astronomical phenomena, in spite of being wrong. Similarly, some correct predictions in early chemistry were made using the concept of phlogiston, which does not exist.

To take a mathematical example, my friend Barney thinks that all odd numbers are prime. And indeed 3 is prime, 5 is prime, and 7 is prime -- three correct predictions. I also generated two odd random numbers with this (61 and 83) and they were prime too. So far Barney's theory holds up pretty well... but it's still wrong.

 

[lesliedellow]

Hello Leslie.

I'm sorry, but what you've written isn't correct.

Newtonian mechanics is not a false theory about reality, nor is it false knowledge about reality. It is an incomplete theory and is a body of incomplete knowledge about reality.

Einstein demonstrated the incomplete nature of Newtonian physics with his theories of Special and General Relativity. They have a greater explanatory power than Newtonian physics, accounting for observed phenomenon that Newton's work cannot. A textbook example being the precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury.

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is an important difference between something that is false and something that is incomplete. Please don't confuse the true.

Yes, well I keep hearing that from the true worshippers of science, but the fact is that we do not live in a Newtonian universe, and therefore, as a dscription of that unviverse it is false. It is quite likely that we don' live in an Einsteinian one either In fact we certainly don't which why the search is on for a replacement theory.

In technology a theory is defensible if it gives useful results, and enables us to build bridges, but in pure science it either has to be true (absolutely), or it is nothing - or at least it is nothing except for a way in which theoretical physicists can spend their time and our money.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

That would not be a mainstream Christian position, and (as a scientist) I would strongly disagree with it.



Well, yes. For example, the Ptolemaic model of the solar system (below) correctly predicted eclipses and other astronomical phenomena, in spite of being wrong. Similarly, some correct predictions in early chemistry were made using the concept of phlogiston, which does not exist.

Then I stand corrected, Radagast.

Thank you for your input. I value the truth and so, if I'm in error about something, I appreciate being shown my mistakes.
.
.
.
So what are your criteria for accepting something as being true knowledge about the natural world?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Radagast]

So what are your criteria for accepting something as being true knowledge about the natural world?

That's the question in the philosophy of science. Popper famously thought you could never declare a theory true (only declare one false).

My personal opinion is that when enough independent chains of evidence come in, then I'll believe something to be true. This is especially so for theories used by various forms of engineering, since they are tested with each new product. For example, I believe in quantum theory.

Conversely, if something is inconsistent with what I do believe, than I would tend to reject it (unless the evidence was overwhelming). I don't believe in perpetual-motion machines, for example.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

That's the question in the philosophy of science. Popper famously thought you could never declare a theory true (only declare one false).

My personal opinion is that when enough independent chains of evidence come in, then I'll believe something to be true. This is especially so for theories used by various forms of engineering, since they are tested with each new product. For example, I believe in quantum theory.

Conversely, if something is inconsistent with what I do believe, than I would tend to reject it (unless the evidence was overwhelming). I don't believe in perpetual-motion machines, for example.

Thank you Radagast!

So would you take Genesis as being 'true knowledge' about the origin of the universe?
Would you reject a literal reading of that book, because it's inconsistent with the evidence?


Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Radagast]

So would you take Genesis as being 'true knowledge' about the origin of the universe?

Yes, insofar as it tells us that the universe was created by God.

Would you reject a literal reading of that book, because it's inconsistent with the evidence?

That depends on what you mean by "literal."

And, as far as "evidence" is concerned, data supporting a "big bang" is also consistent with creation by God, so I don't see Genesis as "inconsistent with the evidence."

 

[EverettInterpretation]

Yes, insofar as it tells us that the universe was created by God.



That depends on what you mean by "literal."

And, as far as "evidence" is concerned, data supporting a "big bang" is also consistent with creation by God, so I don't see Genesis as "inconsistent with the evidence."

Ok, my bad for not being specific enough.

Some people read Genesis literally, taking the 6-day creation narrative to mean 144 hours. As a scientist, do you consider that conclusion to be consistent with the scientific evidence? Specifically, the cosmological evidence for the universe being 13.82 billion years old.

Some people also use the information recorded in the various Biblical genealogies to work backwards in time and calculate a date for Creation. As a scientist, do you consider this method as reliable in producing true knowledge about the age of the world? Is it consistent with geological evidence for the Earth being 4.5 billion years old?

Lastly, if I may be so bold... what branch of science do you work in?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Radagast]

Some people read Genesis literally, taking the 6-day creation narrative to mean 144 hours.

We seem to have strayed from the original topic, but no, I do not accept 144-hour creation.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

We seem to have strayed from the original topic, but no, I do not accept 144-hour creation.

This topic is about false and true knowledge about the natural world, Radagast.

So you don't accept a 144-hour creation?

Since I've gone to the trouble of making my posts more specific, could you please do the same and tell me exactly why it is that you, as a scientist cannot accept a 144-hour creation?

I would also appreciate an equally-exact reply from you concerning the scriptural and cosmological ages of the universe. Are they consistent? If not, why not? Which one represents true knowledge about the natural world? What evidence persuades you, one way or another?



Thanks,

E.I.

 

[lesliedellow]

Thank you Radagast!

So would you take Genesis as being 'true knowledge' about the origin of the universe?
Would you reject a literal reading of that book, because it's inconsistent with the evidence?

True in what sense? True when it attributes the origin of the universe to God's creative power?

Yes.


True as a description of the physical course of events?

Well, it doesn't even try to give that. It wasn't the interest of the author, who didn't even have science in the modern sense as part of his mental universe.

Anybody who wants to interpret the Bible as a failed attempt at science is stuck with the first two chapters of Genesis, because thereafter there is nothing in the Bible which can be forced into that mould. The Bible contains a lot of things, such as poetry, letters, legislation, and so on, but primarily it is a theological interpretation of history.

 

[EverettInterpretation]

True in what sense? True when it attributes the origin of the universe to God's creative power?

Yes.


True as a description of the physical course of events?

Well, it doesn't even try to give that. It wasn't the interest of the author, who didn't even have science in the modern sense as part of his mental universe.

Anybody who wants to interpret the Bible as a failed attempt at science is stuck with the first two chapters of Genesis, because thereafter there is nothing in the Bible which can be forced into that mould. The Bible contains a lot of things, such as poetry, letters, legislation, and so on, but primarily it is a theological interpretation of history.

I happen to agree with what you say about Genesis not being a true description of the physical course of events, Leslie. You'll note that Radagast wrote that (as a scientist) he strongly disagreed with that too. So we three are of one mind on that.

I was hoping that Radagast would have given some specifics (worked examples or evidence, perhaps?), detailing exactly why he cannot accept Genesis as true knowledge about the natural world. Maybe he'll do so when he has the time?

Thanks,

E.I.

 

[Harry3142]

E. I.-

The creation stories of Genesis (there are 2 of them) were intended as a rebuttal and demythologization of a much earlier creation epic, which the Hebrews had been taught to accept during their stay in Egypt:

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

In this earlier story all that the people saw around them were to be seen as deities or their representations. The surface of the earth was a deity, the atmosphere was a deity, the celestial objects were deities, and the various species of animals around the people were all representations of deities. Also man (the correct translation of the Hebrew word 'adam') had been created on the last day as merely one of the species of animals, all of whom were created on that same day.

Genesis 1:1-2:3 (the first creation story) methodically 'stripped' all that the Hebrews had been taught to see as divine of their divinity. The sun, moon and stars were merely objects in the heavens which gave the people light; the surface of the earth and its atmosphere were merely two parts of this planet; the other species of animals that the people saw around them were merely other species of animals. The only deity that they were to recognize as truly divine was both invisible and over-and-above all that he had created, so no painting of him could ever be put on a tomb wall, and no sculpture of him could ever be placed in a temple.

Genesis 2:4-25 (the second creation story) set mankind apart from the other species of animals. Only man could converse with God and have God converse with him. Man was given the authority to name the other species of animals, a symbol of power over them in that era. Man had a definite place (The Garden of Eden) where he could live comfortably, naturally and innocently. Man even had a helpmate (woman) created for him in a unique manner.

Man also had the ability to gain the knowledge of good and evil, and thereby lose the innocence which he shared with the other species of animals. This describes the point in prehistory when mankind evolved to the level at which he knew certain actions to be good, and other actions to be evil. This truly set him apart from all other species of animals, who maintain their innocence of good and evil yet today.

So why use a serpent in the parable which described that point in time? It's due to the people's already being familiar with that story in its original form, as well. In fact, it was one of the most famous stories in Egypt, since it originally involved the hand-to-hand combat between Ra, the sun god, and Sebau, the serpent-fiend. The Egyptian Book of the Dead mentions it in the first paragraph under the section The Hymn to Ra, located about 6 paragraphs from the book's beginning:

Papyrus of Ani; Egyptian Book of the Dead [Budge]

Would the Hebrews have realized what the author of Genesis was doing? Yes, they would have, since the egyptian creation epic and all stories which included Ra, the sun god, were 'required learning' in Egypt. It's we, 3,500 years later, who became entangled in such arguments as 24-hour days; they would have understood the real purpose for those stories as soon as they heard them.

BTW: There are some denominations on the radical fringe who insist that unless we accept all of the stories of Genesis as having literally taken place, we can't be Christians. This is not enlightenment; it's a manipulative device. Its purpose is to weed out those of us who refuse to turn off our intellect, and keep only those who are willing to accept blindly whatever the hierarchy of that particular denomination tells them. IOW: Its purpose is to instill the mindset in their rank-and-file members that they must accept and obey whatever the leaders of that church tell them that they are to accept and obey, without reservation and without questioning what they have been told. I have personally seen the tactic used for everything from the attaining of wealth and power by the hierarchy of a church, to at least one denomination's attempting to convince their members to accept the philosophy and tactics of the Ku Klux Klan as divinely inspired.

 

[Radagast]

You'll note that Radagast wrote that (as a scientist) he strongly disagreed with that too.

No, that is not what Radagast wrote.