The Speed of Light

[Enoch2021]

 

Time = a relation between 2 motions. Can you travel "through" a Conceptual Relationship? Time can be Dilated? Please show how you can dilate a conceptual relationship?

Time "Moves", We can Travel "Through" Time, Time can be "Dilated". Hmmm, Concepts are Physical?? The Whole Nightmare is a Logical Fallacy: Reification. Professionalism in State Government is a Concept...can we "move through" it ?

Hi Enoch,

Hmmm. It's really not just a concept but a reality. Your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't make use of it.

Clocks on the Space Shuttle run slightly slower than reference clocks on Earth, while clocks on GPS and Galileo satellites run slightly faster.[1] Such time dilation has been repeatedly demonstrated (see experimental confirmation below), for instance by small disparities in atomic clocks on Earth and in space, even though both clocks work perfectly (it is not a mechanical malfunction). The laws of nature are such that time itself (i.e. spacetime) will bend due to differences in either gravity or velocity – each of which affects time in different ways

The whole article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

May the Lord bless, Pat

 

 

 

===============================================================================

 

 

Hmmm. It's really not just a concept but a reality. Your GPS wouldn't work if it didn't make use of it.

 

This is the 3rd or 4th time in a week I've gotten this "GPS working" answer.....all on different subjects. It's quite astonishing, it appears this is the answer for everything.

 

Please define time?  Point in the direction that "time" is moving.  Paint a picture of what "time" looks like?

 

I just showed you with a GRAVITATIONAL CLOCK (The Hour Glass) that the Theory is quite kaput.  Please refute my example.

 

You're extrapolating from an erroneous/arbitrary "convention".  You're conflating 2 different issues...it's one thing for Mickey's Hands/Cesium Atomic "Clocks" to run fast/slow but quite another to then extrapolate from that observation that "TIME" has been affected due to Gravity.  SEE: Gravitational Clock.

 

All they did was adjust their "Clocks" based off of the data of Gravity Probe A in 76' to figure out where to put the satellites so everything would mesh.  There's is absolutely nothing here that confirms general relativity.

 

Also be careful conflating special relativity (flat geometry) and general relativity, 2 different cans of worms.  Speaking of which, what's up with this....

 

Based on the recent Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Measurements (WMAP), "We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error", according to NASA Scientists.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

 

They're extrapolating off another fairytale..... (WMAP). See: falsifying (COBE/WMAP/Planck Satellite) here:  

 

 

Also be careful Citing "Wikipedia" as a reference other than basic definitions, anyone and their brother can add info here.

[Godspells]

 

As I mentioned this is an opportunity for creationsist to actually have proof as proof only exists in math.  If one could show that the total gravity of the universe could slow time to make it look like the stars we see are much farther away, it would go a long way toward their cause.  Otherwise they are just dealing in what-ifs and attacks on accepted math and science.  Creationists often lament that they cannot get published, well, no one can argue if their math is correct.  I am not counting on seeing anything to refute an old earth/universe...

 

 

 

 

Hey Jerry, you said “As I mentioned this is an opportunity for creationsist to actually have proof as proof only exists in math”

 

And I directed you to articles explaining the math (which you have apparently ignored) – as well as suggested authors who specifically deal in the mathematical side of the creationist models. In reality, no one ever questions the math (because no one is silly enough to publish unchecked formulas; especially not creationists who know that they will be highly scrutinized).

 

 

“If one could show that the total gravity of the universe could slow time to make it look like the stars we see are much farther away, it would go a long way toward their cause.”

 

I suspect you have misunderstood the creationist model – which doesn’t claim this.

 

But I could be equally obtuse and say – If one could show how the universe could suddenly inflate many times the speed of light, then suddenly slow, “it would go a long way toward their cause”. But that would require you being objectively sceptical of your own preferred, faith-based model.

 

 

“Otherwise they are just dealing in what-ifs and attacks on accepted math and science”

 

Once again – if you understood how the secular models are formulated, you would not be so critical of the speculation involved in the construction of all cosmology models. But since you are obviously only willing to apply your high standards to models that disagree with you, you can do little but repeat Unsupported Assertions.

 

In his 1973 book, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Stephen Hawking admitted, “we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology”.

 

In an American Scientist profile (1995 Vol. 273(4)), George Ellis, the co-author of the abovementioned book, said “People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”

 

 

“Creationists often lament that they cannot get published, well, no one can argue if their math is correct”

 

Here you employ a logical fallacy known as Non-sequitur. You don’t “argue” to get published; you submit a manuscript. Editors have an absolute right to reject any publication for any reason they see fit (regardless of the integrity of the math). Since many editors have publically admitted their confirmation bias against creationist manuscripts, your veiled Appeal to Authority renders your argument to be specious. Journals have limited publication space and generally only accept about 30% of submissions for publication anyway (even less for better known journals). So many articles, including those with correct math, are not published. There is no obligation whatsoever for a journal editor to publish a manuscript based on the correctness of the math.

 

Even so, when it comes to considering cosmology models, no one ever argues over the correctness of the math. Arguments stem from whether the particular use of math is logically justified.

 

Consider an alternative secular model found here;

[http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf]

This (2010) model revisits an older idea of an infinite universe. The math is consistent with observations (and does ot require the existence of Dark Matter) – it just operates on different set of assumptions to the Standard Model. It is not the math that is in dispute; it is the logical justifications which deviate from the Standard Model that are questioned.

 

Note that it also contains 26 pages of pure mathematical equation. And this is just the formula that deviates from the Standard Model.

 

You seem to think you have formulated an effective ‘gotcha’ by requesting a single mathematical variable for our cosmology model. But anyone who comprehends the complexity of mathematical cosmology models would be aware that such a variable in the absence of the model would be ridiculously uninformative. So either you yourself are uninformed concerning the complexity of cosmology models, or you are dishonestly trying to create the false impression of a solid argument – in the hope that none of the audience has the capacity to see through it.

 

 

Hi Tristen, I wanted to say that I appreciate your knowledge on the subject. I find that usually the most adamant proponents of creationist theory no nothing about the science of naturalist theory. 

 

That being said, what I have found that concerns me, is that many creationist scientists promote their theories behind the veil of Biblical infallibility. So for instance, they look at Genesis, determine what the theory is, then go out and look for evidence that promotes it, then say that it must be right because it is from the Bible. 

 

The reason that I think this undermines both the integrity of the scientific method and that of personal faith, is because for one, the scientific method usually requires hypothesis, observation, theory, but creationist work in reverse. They cannot arrive at a theory contrary to the original hypothesis based on observations, because to do so would constitute apostasy in their opinion. It also undermines faith in that it requires them to abandon the very principle of faith, mystery. When St. Thomas denied Christ had risen, Christ revealed Himself to him, and then said, "Blessed is he who believes without seeing." I find the faith of scientists who can approach a subject without the predisposition and still maintain faith as more inspirational than those who do so with the predisposition. And one must recognize the possibility of metaphor, otherwise we would be purporting that the Earth is flat the sun revolves around us.

 

I would say that creationists are akin to a Christian saying simply denying that people suffer because they don't understand why God allows suffering. Likewise, when we make an observation contrary to faith as a creationist understands it, they simply deny that the observation was made. I focus on reconciling my fallible understanding of the Bible with my equally fallible understanding of science, hopefully reaching a intelligent and faithful conclusion that agrees with my heart.  

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

I find that usually the most adamant proponents of creationist theory no nothing about the science of naturalist theory.

is that many creationist scientists promote their theories behind the veil of Biblical infallibility.

they look at Genesis, determine what the theory is, then go out and look for evidence

They cannot arrive at a theory contrary to the original hypothesis based on observations, because to do so would constitute apostasy in their opinion.

 

Who are "most" "many" and "they", Specifically??

 

This is an Ad Hominem (Fallacy), Strawman (Fallacy), and Baseless Sweeping Generalized Assertions (Fallacy)

 

The reason that I think this undermines both the integrity of the scientific method and that of personal faith, is because for one, the scientific method usually requires hypothesis, observation, theory, but creationist work in reverse.

I find the faith of scientists who can approach a subject without the predisposition and still maintain faith as more inspirational than those who do so with the predisposition.

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.'

Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

And it's in this order, Specifically....

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

 

when we make an observation contrary to faith as a creationist understands it, they simply deny that the observation was made.

 

Baloney.  Baseless Sweeping Generalized Assertion (Fallacy)------Show One....?

 

TIP:  Fallacies are Fallacious

[Godspells]

 

Who are "most" "many" and "they", Specifically??

 

This is an Ad Hominem (Fallacy), Strawman (Fallacy), and Baseless Sweeping Generalized Assertions (Fallacy)

 

 

 

This isn't philosophy class. As I said previously, it is MY experience, you are welcome to provide a statistical study to the contrary. In any case, I was not asserting based on that fact alone that the theory is invalidated. I was merely pointing out a hypocrisy I have observed. 

 

‘Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective “scientific method”, with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots is self-serving mythology.'

Stephen Jay Gould, 1994, Natural History103(2):14.

 

And it's in this order, Specifically....

 

The Scientific Method:

 

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon

Step 2: Lit Review

Step 3: Hypothesis

Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT

Step 5: Analyze Data

Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis

Step 7: Report Results

 

Asserting that it is impossible to be entirely objective does not give license to propagate a bias.  Even if perfect objectivity is impossible, I think you'd agree that a higher degree of objectivity on balance produces a higher degree of precision. 

 

Baloney.  Baseless Sweeping Generalized Assertion (Fallacy)------Show One....?

 

TIP:  Fallacies are Fallacious

 

 

Of course the classic examples are the disregard of radiocarbon dating and the assertion that the speed of light traveled faster in the past. While the latter is certainly possible, because there is not truly a reason to believe that it did outside of scripture, there isn't a reason to think it did scientifically. 

[Macs Son]

Why do I get the feeling that people would also tell me Heliocentric theory is wrong too and goes against the Word of God. I may even get a response on that one too Perhaps if we hadn't sent astronauts into orbit we'd be getting refutation on that too to fit their own interpretations of the Bible. That exegetical refutation certainly was plentiful back in the 16th and 17th centuries. One thing is for sure people can believe whatever they want to, even including physical evidence. There not much point in debating when the facts are being obfuscated so I'll see you all when I get back - have fun and maybe I'll catch you on the flip flop.

God Bless all, Pat

Edited August 8, 2014 by Macs Son

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

==================================================================

 

 

This isn't philosophy class.

 

Strawman (Fallacy), I never said it was.

 

 

As I said previously, it is MY experience, you are welcome to provide a statistical study to the contrary. In any case, I was not asserting based on that fact alone that the theory is invalidated. I was merely pointing out a hypocrisy I have observed.

 

So let me get this straight, you want me to provide a "Statistical Study" disproving what you haven't "Proved"?? In other words, demand people who do not believe in your imaginings to demonstrate how your imaginings are false, BEFORE you give evidence for your imaginings? 

 

 

Asserting that it is impossible to be entirely objective does not give license to propagate a bias

 

Of course it doesn't, I never said it did; Ergo....Strawman (Fallacy).  Essentially, you said Creationists propagate this bias...so the Burden of Proof is on YOU to show this.

 

 

Of course the classic examples are the disregard of radiocarbon dating 

 

You said...."they simply deny that the observation was made."  Which is Factually Incorrect.  We "disregard" it based on:

 

ALL Radiometric Dating operates under Three Assumptions....

 

1.  When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that. Extrapolation from a Guess...plain and simple.

 

This is like walking into a track meet in progress (with no signs stating how long the race is) observing the race, pulling out your watch and 50 seconds later the runner crosses the finish line.

 

Question....How long was the race? In other words.....how long is a piece of string?

 

2.  Also, after hardening the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters.

3.  Decay Rates must remain Constant

 

AND....it's been Falsified:

 

"False Positives":  Hundreds of Documented Occurrences.....For Example, Rocks of known ages (42 years old) dated @ a State of The Art Radiometric Lab @ 3.5 Million Years Old.

 

 

and the assertion that the speed of light traveled faster in the past. While the latter is certainly possible, because there is not truly a reason to believe that it did outside of scripture, there isn't a reason to think it did scientifically.

 

Even though I personally don't hold this view (Mine is the "One Way" Speed of Light), you are Factually Incorrect with your Statement.  It has been shown "Scientifically" (Setterfield/Norman)....http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25852/

[Enoch2021]

Why do I get the feeling that people would also tell me Heliocentric theory is wrong too and goes against the Word of God. I may even get a response on that one too Perhaps if we hadn't sent astronauts into orbit we'd be getting refutation on that too to fit their own interpretations of the Bible. That exegetical refutation certainly was plentiful back in the 16th and 17th centuries. One thing is for sure people can believe whatever they want to, even including physical evidence. There not much point in debating when the facts are being obfuscated so I'll see you all when I get back - have fun and maybe I'll catch you on the flip flop.

God Bless all, Pat

 

 

===================================================================================

 

 

I suppose this is somehow meant for me

 

Why do I get the feeling that people would also tell me Heliocentric theory is wrong too and goes against the Word of God.

 

Strawman (Fallacy).  How does it "go against" the WORD of GOD?

 

 

There not much point in debating when the facts are being obfuscated

 

Unsupported Assertion (Fallacy)-------How so?

 

Sir, I provided Specific Evidence to support my position in which you didn't touch on Once.

 

I refuted your "GPS working" specifically with what I thought was a very clear explanation/rebuttal.

 

I had numerous questions (my initial post to you) that you failed to address.

[Godspells]

Enoch, cut it out with the fallacies. Save that for the fundamentalists, okay? I respect science and if you point out to me some place where I've gone wrong I'll own up to it. 

 

Sticking to radiocarbon dating for the time being, I know the methods of Carbon-14 dating the best, and essentially I've heard opposing statements from creationists and naturalists about the accuracy. Since it is considered accurate by the scientific community at large, and since I am not trained in the science myself, I have to accept the general consensus. 

 

However, as I understand it, the first real evidence that the Earth was older than five or six thousand years was not radiocarbon dating, but a rock formation layered in such a way that made it impossible for the Earth to be any younger than a few million years. 

 

Since you have a good grip on the science I respect you position, even though I myself have a different one. But, I wonder, has a creationist ever rejected a scientific measurement that supported its theory? Because, certainly that would have to happen occasionally. 

[Enoch2021]

Enoch, cut it out with the fallacies. Save that for the fundamentalists, okay? I respect science and if you point out to me some place where I've gone wrong I'll own up to it. 

 

Sticking to radiocarbon dating for the time being, I know the methods of Carbon-14 dating the best, and essentially I've heard opposing statements from creationists and naturalists about the accuracy. Since it is considered accurate by the scientific community at large, and since I am not trained in the science myself, I have to accept the general consensus. 

 

However, as I understand it, the first real evidence that the Earth was older than five or six thousand years was not radiocarbon dating, but a rock formation layered in such a way that made it impossible for the Earth to be any younger than a few million years. 

 

Since you have a good grip on the science I respect you position, even though I myself have a different one. But, I wonder, has a creationist ever rejected a scientific measurement that supported its theory? Because, certainly that would have to happen occasionally. 

 

=====================================================================

 

 

Enoch, cut it out with the fallacies.

 

Listen, it's nothing personal....just stop committing them    And who are the fundamentalists?

 

 

I know the methods of Carbon-14 dating the best, and essentially I've heard opposing statements from creationists and naturalists about the accuracy.

 

C14 is not exempt from the assumptions and is somewhat worse....

 

If the earth was a ball of C14 it would have all but decayed in a Million Years.  Question:  why do we still find C14 in Diamonds Coal, Oil ?

 

 

Since it is considered accurate by the scientific community at large, and since I am not trained in the science myself, I have to accept the general consensus.

 

Huge mistake sir.  Consensus doesn't = TRUTH.  That's called "Blind Faith" and is expressly admonished against in Scripture...

 

(1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

 

 

but a rock formation layered in such a way that made it impossible for the Earth to be any younger than a few million years.

 

The Geologic Column has been falsified, scroll half way down: 

 

Since you have a good grip on the science I respect you position, even though I myself have a different one.

 

Science isn't based on "opinion" it's based on validated verifiable/supported Hypothesis', Theories, and Laws

 

has a creationist ever rejected a scientific measurement that supported its theory? Because, certainly that would have to happen occasionally.

 

Don't know.  Has a secular Scientist ever rejected one that pointed to the Almighty GOD?

[jdxp]

Enoch, enough pointing out the (fallacies), some of which are real, many of which are imaginary, all of which are unintentional. Pointing out (fallacies), real or imagined, does nothing to advance the dialogue. It does nothing to support your view. In fact, the only thing it does is show me that you've been on Wikipedia too much (ad hominem). This is not a formal logic class, pointing out (fallacies) is not the same as demonstrating that an argument is logically invalid or that one of its premises (assuming the argument is a formal syllogism) is false.

 

Guess what. We can use terms like "most", "many", "they" and so forth. Why? Because this is an internet forum, not academia (moving the goal posts). Guess what. No one has to address every point you make. It's not necessary and it's generally burdensome. Points are ignored. It happens. Welcome to the internet. Does that mean your argument is winning out over the rest? No. To be generous, it may mean that the person who doesn't reply is on his/her back foot. More likely, they see it as irrelevant or not worth wasting time over (ending a sentence in a preposition; grammar error). Again, welcome to the internet.

 

And Joe, why don't you quit calling scientists pagans (ad hominem)? Every time you call someone a pagan I ignore what you have to say. (If you respond to this, I probably won't read it.) Having been an atheist once upon a time, I can testify that, in my experience, there is no vast pagan conspiracy. Filthy atheists don't gather in dark alleys, rubbing sinful hands and performing arcane rites in order to supplant God (straw man). It doesn't happen. You often accuse them of trying to destroy God or prove God doesn't exist. They don't believe God exists, so why would they try to prove He doesn't exist? I don't believe in unicorns so why would I try to prove they don't exist? Evolution does not prove or disprove the existence of God. Even contemporary cosmology doesn't prove or disprove that God exists. The Big Bang doesn't argue that the universe created itself, sans the Creator. In fact, in A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking tries to avoid the uncomfortable metaphysical implication that if the universe had a beginning, it may well need a Creator. He uses imaginary time and other acts of mathematical legerdemain to avoid that implication. Roger Penrose has developed his own ways to escape that implication. Other scientists try to escape via the multiverse or cyclical universes, but the former at best undermines the fine-tuning argument while the latter is metaphysically absurd. In a way, the Big Bang supports the fact that the universe was created. And some theologians (sweeping generalization; who?) use it as a starting point to argue for His existence. Your opinion that those naughty pagans are trying to destroy God and make Charles Darwin the sole Creator of the Universe (straw man) is so absurd that it boggles the mind.

 

I have no problems believing that the universe is quite a bit older than 6,000 or 10,000 years old and believing that God created the universe. I find no contradiction there because in my mind Genesis 1 is theological, not scientific. It explains man's relationship to God (created to Creator) and man's special nature. I know, I know. I'm somehow a pagan who believes in One God, transcendent, uncaused, almighty, and loving (straw man). And that's okay, because I don't answer to you.