Jump to content
IGNORED

The Speed of Light


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  405
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   98
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/27/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 
Hall7 - I see us and everything as a giant computer program and all God has to do is press keys (in a metaphorical sense), or rather "speak", kind of like a voice recognition program. Can you see it?
 
Here is a previous response that addresses the computer program model:
 

The problem with the simulation argument is that it kills time and history. You see, there's no reason to think there's such a thing as a past, since the Simulator may have programmed the simulation to APPEAR to have a history. The simulation MAY have started moments ago; it may reboot EVERY morning, and we are just looping through the same experiences ad infinitum. There is no TIME, only the appearance of such. This is all covered ground even in science fiction writing. We've heard this stuff before.

My gripe is that this "theory" of simulation is considered scientific. Carl Sagan, I recall, went apoplectic at "Young Earth" claims made by certain creationists. His bemusement turned to near exasperation, as he addressed the "Creator's" viciousness in making everything "look" eons old. But this problem has NOT gone away in the simulation argument; in fact, it is expanded. There is no reason to believe that even the last two minutes were not part of a simulation; nor is there any reason to believe a past actually exists in a "REAL" world that we can call "this morning."

 

1. The simulation argument is presumed reasonable and even open to scientific inquiry, despite its obvious parallel to intelligent design arguments, which have been (a priori) deemed to be outside science's purview. That scientists have seriously averred that we could test whether this is all a simulation is curiously naive, as it assumes that the test itself is NOT part of the simulation. Of course, ALL tests would NECESSARILY be part of the simulation; and the APPEARANCE of a REAL WORLD outside the simulation would, by necessity, also be part of the simulation. This is a Kantian problem, it appears, though spruced up in basic programming terms. It all must lead to an infinite regress of futility.

2. The simulation argument reveals that the future is not apparently resolved, as the simulation includes good v. evil, death and suffering, mayhem and chaos, disease and disaster, tyrants and serial killers; and variant and conflicting religious ideas. Note that the programmer, for example, allows at least the ILLUSION of a Christian resurrection. One might counter that this sort of craziness is NECESSARY for a human to be happy, engaged; in fact, this is what is posited in "The Matrix." I should think it shows that the FUTURE MAN responsible for this world is a sadistic and masochistic creep still in search of meaning, redemption and place.

3. If we assume that the programmer has written code that allows us to create our own threads and codes within the system, then that merely introduces the problem of free will: if I can act in such a way that I introduce NEW code, then the Simulator is not sovereign and may be bested (I could introduce, for instance, a Savior) and the whole simulation could become mine (another idea from "The Matrix"); or we only have the illusion of creating our own code, and thus have no free will at all. And then, of course, if we are "programmed" to be free to introduce our own code but that code is destructive to the simulation, we are then clearly dealing with a form of original sin.

4. The simulation argument inadvertently posits that FAITH is the basis of all knowledge: there is no certainty.

Lastly, I reject this:

"Mathematical knowledge is unlike any other knowledge. Its truths are objective, necessary and timeless."

Why? Because that statement itself is not "mathematical" and yet it is absolute and timeless. The fact is ALL MATHEMATICAL statements are linguistic statements: 2+2=4 is IDENTICAL to eleven subtracted from three times five plus zero. But I also reject the statement for the obvious reason: ALL MATHEMATICAL truths are PART of the simulation, as is our knowing this, so even the statement that such "truths" are "objective and necessary" is, paradoxically, FAITH-BASED. (And so we have paradox, just like, well, Christianity.)

Christianity has already posited that the world was built with language: God "spoke" creation into existence. All science has ever attempted to do is acquire that language. It can't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

 

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” 

 

My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are.

No, that is not how math works.  No matter how well you describe how well you understand  2+2=5, it doesn't.  If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.  This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims.

 

Actually, YOU are the one doing the attacking.  YOU are the one that claimed that Christianity is detrimental to science.  No one is attacking physics, science or math.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  88
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   31
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  03/29/2014
  • Status:  Offline

The speed of light is considerably slower than money is deducted from your credit card at the checkout and  billions of times faster than a credit to it from the bank.

Edited by Chris.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  153
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/04/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/05/1997

One of the toughest arguments a creationist usually has to debate is the vast distances of stars and the time it takes for light to approach earth.

 

But what we have done is made assumptions about time by thinking the rate at which time moves is the same everywhere, but that is not true.  Time is different based upon gravity.

 

This is considered Gravitational Time Dilation. 

 

It is very possible that the universe has aged millions/billions of years while only 6,000 has elapsed on earth.  Time could tick much more rapidly in different parts of the universe than it does here on earth.  We have only one concept of time and have tested the speed of light here on earth.

 

The physics behind it is general relativity.  The rate at which time passes is related to the gravitational potential.  Clocks tick more slowly when they are in a gravitational well.

 

For example, time will tick slower the closer to the center of the earth you are (like in an area near the ocean) versus a city like Denver which is a mile above sea level.

 

And if you consider that God could've created the universe 6-10,000 years ago, the universe would've been much smaller than it is now, needing less time for starlight to get here.

 

Thoughts?

 

The gravity of the earth is waaaaaaaaay to small to slow time for a big amount. Because of the earth we only have some microseconds more a day, wich cannot make those about 10 billion years :)

Even if you come very very close to a black hole you cannot slow time that much. Only inside the black hole itself time might have stopped, but this is still theoretical. Also the gravity of some stars or other stuff won't slow the fotons (not even a little) on their way to us. Gravity is the weakest force you know. You can hold a pen high with one finger while the hole mass of the earth pulls at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  18
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  588
  • Content Per Day:  0.16
  • Reputation:   82
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  11/22/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/12/1969

 

 

 

I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.  I appreciate the time you took to type all that out, but your assumptions and God of the gaps assertions don't hold water.

 

 

 

 

Hi Jerry, you said, “I was actually just looking for a verifiable formula to back up the Gravitational Time Dilation anthonyjmcgirr used to refute the currently accepted science of the age of the universe.” 

 

My point is that understanding how the figures are derived is far more important than what the figures actually are.

No, that is not how math works.  No matter how well you describe how well you understand  2+2=5, it doesn't.  If one wants to say that the age of the universe is impacted by time dilation, one must provide the math, not just explain how it "could have" worked.  This is a chance for Creationism to stop attacking current physics, sicience and math and provide actual mathmatical proof of our claims.

 

Actually, YOU are the one doing the attacking.  YOU are the one that claimed that Christianity is detrimental to science.  No one is attacking physics, science or math.

 

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  9
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  2,326
  • Content Per Day:  0.63
  • Reputation:   1,303
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  01/26/2014
  • Status:  Offline

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  28
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,046
  • Content Per Day:  0.27
  • Reputation:   194
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  09/25/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  09/30/1960

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." -Albert Einstein

I know this quote digresses from the subject but I thought it is kind of neat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  2
  • Topic Count:  75
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  1,385
  • Content Per Day:  0.32
  • Reputation:   491
  • Days Won:  5
  • Joined:  04/25/2012
  • Status:  Offline

Hall7 - I see us and everything as a giant computer program and all God has to do is press keys (in a metaphorical sense), or rather "speak", kind of like a voice recognition program. Can you see it?

 

Here is a previous response that addresses the computer program model:

 

The problem with the simulation argument is that it kills time and history. You see, there's no reason to think there's such a thing as a past, since the Simulator may have programmed the simulation to APPEAR to have a history. The simulation MAY have started moments ago; it may reboot EVERY morning, and we are just looping through the same experiences ad infinitum. There is no TIME, only the appearance of such. This is all covered ground even in science fiction writing. We've heard this stuff before.

My gripe is that this "theory" of simulation is considered scientific. Carl Sagan, I recall, went apoplectic at "Young Earth" claims made by certain creationists. His bemusement turned to near exasperation, as he addressed the "Creator's" viciousness in making everything "look" eons old. But this problem has NOT gone away in the simulation argument; in fact, it is expanded. There is no reason to believe that even the last two minutes were not part of a simulation; nor is there any reason to believe a past actually exists in a "REAL" world that we can call "this morning."

 

1. The simulation argument is presumed reasonable and even open to scientific inquiry, despite its obvious parallel to intelligent design arguments, which have been (a priori) deemed to be outside science's purview. That scientists have seriously averred that we could test whether this is all a simulation is curiously naive, as it assumes that the test itself is NOT part of the simulation. Of course, ALL tests would NECESSARILY be part of the simulation; and the APPEARANCE of a REAL WORLD outside the simulation would, by necessity, also be part of the simulation. This is a Kantian problem, it appears, though spruced up in basic programming terms. It all must lead to an infinite regress of futility.

2. The simulation argument reveals that the future is not apparently resolved, as the simulation includes good v. evil, death and suffering, mayhem and chaos, disease and disaster, tyrants and serial killers; and variant and conflicting religious ideas. Note that the programmer, for example, allows at least the ILLUSION of a Christian resurrection. One might counter that this sort of craziness is NECESSARY for a human to be happy, engaged; in fact, this is what is posited in "The Matrix." I should think it shows that the FUTURE MAN responsible for this world is a sadistic and masochistic creep still in search of meaning, redemption and place.

3. If we assume that the programmer has written code that allows us to create our own threads and codes within the system, then that merely introduces the problem of free will: if I can act in such a way that I introduce NEW code, then the Simulator is not sovereign and may be bested (I could introduce, for instance, a Savior) and the whole simulation could become mine (another idea from "The Matrix"); or we only have the illusion of creating our own code, and thus have no free will at all. And then, of course, if we are "programmed" to be free to introduce our own code but that code is destructive to the simulation, we are then clearly dealing with a form of original sin.

4. The simulation argument inadvertently posits that FAITH is the basis of all knowledge: there is no certainty.

Lastly, I reject this:

"Mathematical knowledge is unlike any other knowledge. Its truths are objective, necessary and timeless."

Why? Because that statement itself is not "mathematical" and yet it is absolute and timeless. The fact is ALL MATHEMATICAL statements are linguistic statements: 2+2=4 is IDENTICAL to eleven subtracted from three times five plus zero. But I also reject the statement for the obvious reason: ALL MATHEMATICAL truths are PART of the simulation, as is our knowing this, so even the statement that such "truths" are "objective and necessary" is, paradoxically, FAITH-BASED. (And so we have paradox, just like, well, Christianity.)

Christianity has already posited that the world was built with language: God "spoke" creation into existence. All science has ever attempted to do is acquire that language. It can't.

That's a human's point of view that makes sense to a human, I find this debatable depends on the way you look at it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  405
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   98
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/27/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Hall7 - That's a human's point of view that makes sense to a human, I find this debatable depends on the way you look at it.

 

How is it in any way a "human" point of view?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Nonbeliever
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  7
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  153
  • Content Per Day:  0.04
  • Reputation:   44
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/04/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/05/1997

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." -Albert Einstein

I know this quote digresses from the subject but I thought it is kind of neat.

i like those quotes :) here are some more

 

“Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” 

― Werner Heisenberg

“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow. The important thing is to not stop questioning.” 

― Albert Einstein

“Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it.” 

― Niels Bohr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...