PDA

View Full Version : Nanoseconds after the Big Bang


RandomElement
27th February 2007, 11:52 PM
In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

~enigma~
28th February 2007, 12:05 AM
In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotley as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.If you want to talk bible there is a religion and philosophy forum here and they would correct you and let you know god created everything in 6 days and there is a definition as to what a day was. Now as to cosmic events, time started at the big bang and didn't exist before.Time has not changed, not time as the fourth dimension. The way it is measured changes as technology advances but that in no way means time itself changes. Now can you answer one question for me please. It seems to me your posts are better suited for the religion and philosophy forum. Why exactly are you in this forum? Are you here to learn or to spin a philosophy?

RandomElement
28th February 2007, 12:26 AM
Talking religion? Where do you get that? I am talking about measurements.

How do you define a second?

~enigma~
28th February 2007, 12:32 AM
Talking religion? Where do you get that?You wrote...

In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days.

Tell me how that has anything to do with science and how the 7 should be 6.

I am talking about measurements.Not after that opening statement.

How do you define a second?Quite presumptuous of you to ask a question of me without answering the question I asked you.

Mashuna
28th February 2007, 12:52 AM
Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

I'm by no means a scientist (end disclaimer).

The vibrations of a cesium atom, or the portion of an earth rotation are just methods of dividing up and calibrating time. You don't need those things to have been in existance to be able to extrapolate back and use the same calibrations, do you?

The only problem, as I see it, would arise if the second part of your statement were true, that time was not even remotely as it is today. I've no idea what your reasoning is behind this is. Is it a circular argument, time was different as there was no cesium to describe it, or did you have something else in mind?

AgingYoung
28th February 2007, 01:09 AM
The idea of questioning how 'science' arrives at conclusions is no doubt a philosophical question. There are similarities between the biblical account and cosmological explanation of the big bang...

I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, even my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded.

When one considers the universe being a singularity with a beginning you have to wonder what the effects mass would have on time when all matter was so close together. One popular theory states the speed of light is a constant and time and distance are what change. Well speed is the ratio of distance to time. How could you consider speed to be constant in terms of the two variables of distance and time? How is that not self referential?

It is a fascinating thing to consider how 'science' develops the character of concepts and terms to propose hypotheses leading to arguments and conclusions but it's probably a philosophical question. It can draw the ire of people when their faith is questioned.

Gene

AgingYoung
28th February 2007, 01:37 AM
...The vibrations of a cesium atom, or the portion of an earth rotation are just methods of dividing up and calibrating time. You don't need those things to have been in existance to be able to extrapolate back and use the same calibrations, do you?...

When you look at the extremes of a range the rate of change is greater than it is away from the extreme. One question that might be very hard to answer is how would the intense gravity at the beginning of the big bang effect the standard we now use to mark time (cesium).

Consider this example. We are measuring an absolute hour of time but we are using a clock with a synchronous motor. Our clock operates at 50 Hertz. During the first half hour (of absolute time) the line frequency is actually 100 Hertz so the clock should be running at twice the speed it presently is running.

The first half hour would be 1/2 as long as the second 1/2 hour. If we tried to extrapolate back in time using the present standard we would be at a place in time before time began.

What do you think?

Gene

Lothian
28th February 2007, 06:15 AM
In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.What was the largest island before Australia was discovered ?

Bob Klase
28th February 2007, 07:44 AM
does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.

So what measure of time would you use to talk about such cosmic events?

How about "IPBBS" (Immediate Post Big Bang Second)? Other than the fact that nobody would know what you're talking about I think that would work.

Fnord
28th February 2007, 07:54 AM
In my physics book it says the entire universe was created in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As this allegedly occurred “billyuns and billyuns” of years ago, is it really relevant to even mention it in a culture that is more concerned with where Anna Nicole Smith will be buried, why Brittney Spears shaved her head, and whether or not they still have retirement funds after the “adjustment” of 07.02.27?

Verily, I thinketh not.

~enigma~
28th February 2007, 08:18 AM
When you look at the extremes of a range the rate of change is greater than it is away from the extreme. One question that might be very hard to answer is how would the intense gravity at the beginning of the big bang effect the standard we now use to mark time (cesium).

Consider this example. We are measuring an absolute hour of time but we are using a clock with a synchronous motor. Our clock operates at 50 Hertz. During the first half hour (of absolute time) the line frequency is actually 100 Hertz so the clock should be running at twice the speed it presently is running.

The first half hour would be 1/2 as long as the second 1/2 hour. If we tried to extrapolate back in time using the present standard we would be at a place in time before time began.

What do you think?

GeneIt seems that your thoughts are backwards. Intense gravity SLOWS time and that has been proven time and again by experiment. Then again, that is relative to the observer.

Dancing David
28th February 2007, 09:08 AM
I think that the question might be reframed as this (minus the bible stuff), how can you determine time during the phase transitions of the early universe post the BBE when conventional methods normaly used to define time are absent? Such as one can not use c and the distance travelled by a photon because the phot0ns have not decoupled.

Fnord
28th February 2007, 09:28 AM
... how can you determine time during the phase transitions of the early universe post the BBE when conventional methods normaly used to define time are absent? Such as one can not use c and the distance travelled by a photon because the photons have not decoupled.

I see a bright light ... an hourglass ... and a naked dwarf in a bowler hat ... the is-ness that was will never be ... do wakka do ... ugga-booga and nani-nani-noo...

That'll be $750, cash!

;)

baron
28th February 2007, 09:33 AM
Talking religion? Where do you get that? I am talking about measurements.

How do you define a second?

Under the International System of Units, the second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom.[1] This definition refers to a caesium atom at rest at a temperature of 0 K (absolute zero). The ground state is defined at zero magnetic field.[1] The second thus defined is equivalent to the ephemeris second.

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

Dancing David
28th February 2007, 09:38 AM
I see a bright light ... an hourglass ... and a naked dwarf in a bowler hat ... the is-ness that was will never be ... do wakka do ... ugga-booga and nani-nani-noo...

That'll be $750, cash!

;)


All hail Eris!
All hail Discordia!

Does the person's name start with an "L", I'd like to buy a vowel Pat....

RandomElement
28th February 2007, 11:01 AM
I think that the question might be reframed as this (minus the bible stuff), how can you determine time during the phase transitions of the early universe post the BBE when conventional methods normaly used to define time are absent? Such as one can not use c and the distance travelled by a photon because the phot0ns have not decoupled.

Exactly! Measuring early time using a second seems as wrong-headed as using a yardstick to measure the width of the universe shortly after the BBE. It just doesn't make sense.

Ben Tilly
28th February 2007, 11:27 AM
In the Bible it says that God created the heavens and earth in seven days. As a day is the time it takes for the earth to revolve once in reference to the sun, then this seems to be mere metaphor as the earth wasn't created first.

Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.
Our theories of physics include a factor called time. In our current environment we can identify how to measure time. But within our theories this concept makes sense (when defined very precisely) up until the Big Bang. (It does not make sense "at" the Big Bang, and it is highly uncertain whether there was any meaningful "before" either.)

It is true that directly measuring time using our current techniques would have been impossible in the very early universe. A point which is rendered moot by the fact that we weren't there to try to measure it. But as far back as our physical theories hold, the concept of time remains meaningful.

Which raises the question of how back our physical theories hold. This we do not directly know. Our method of testing it is to try to fit our theories to the observable universe and address any anomolies that turn up.

The result is that while we do not absolutely know that it is meaningful to talk about time in the early Universe, our only useful research path is to try to do so and see whether the results we get make sense. As our results and theories fit ever better, we gain more and more confidence that it is meaningful, even though absolute proof will forever escape us.

Cheers,
Ben

Tricky
28th February 2007, 11:29 AM
What was the largest island before Australia was discovered ?
Greenland. It still is. (At least, it's the largest on Earth.)
Australia is a continent.

Ben Tilly
28th February 2007, 11:32 AM
When you look at the extremes of a range the rate of change is greater than it is away from the extreme. One question that might be very hard to answer is how would the intense gravity at the beginning of the big bang effect the standard we now use to mark time (cesium).

Consider this example. We are measuring an absolute hour of time but we are using a clock with a synchronous motor. Our clock operates at 50 Hertz. During the first half hour (of absolute time) the line frequency is actually 100 Hertz so the clock should be running at twice the speed it presently is running.

The first half hour would be 1/2 as long as the second 1/2 hour. If we tried to extrapolate back in time using the present standard we would be at a place in time before time began.

What do you think?

I think that you do not understand general relativity very well.

When we talk about time in the early universe, we mean time as measured in a local reference frame that is still with respect to most of the local matter. It makes no sense to ask how this time correlates with "real" time outside of the extreme conditions then prevailing in the universe since there is no "outside of the universe" that we're aware of to compare it to.

The measurement of time that I describe makes perfect sense within the universe to within whatever limits the theory of general relativity proves to have. (We do not, of course, currently know what the limits of that theory are.)

Cheers,
Ben

RandomElement
28th February 2007, 11:47 AM
Our theories of physics include a factor called time. In our current environment we can identify how to measure time. But within our theories this concept makes sense (when defined very precisely) up until the Big Bang. (It does not make sense "at" the Big Bang, and it is highly uncertain whether there was any meaningful "before" either.)

It is true that directly measuring time using our current techniques would have been impossible in the very early universe. A point which is rendered moot by the fact that we weren't there to try to measure it. But as far back as our physical theories hold, the concept of time remains meaningful.

Which raises the question of how back our physical theories hold. This we do not directly know. Our method of testing it is to try to fit our theories to the observable universe and address any anomolies that turn up.

The result is that while we do not absolutely know that it is meaningful to talk about time in the early Universe, our only useful research path is to try to do so and see whether the results we get make sense. As our results and theories fit ever better, we gain more and more confidence that it is meaningful, even though absolute proof will forever escape us.

Cheers,
Ben

Best response yet!

Tangent: As a researcher in AI, interpolation based on known data usually gives a reasonable approximation while extrapolation yields highly uncertain results - and that is what it seems we are dealing with when going so far outside our current state.

Dancing David
28th February 2007, 12:08 PM
Exactly! Measuring early time using a second seems as wrong-headed as using a yardstick to measure the width of the universe shortly after the BBE. It just doesn't make sense.

That is not a question i could answer, I would think there would be analogous actions that could be used to determine a concept of time. Even though cesium atoms may not have occured, I would think there are measurable interactions to compare to.

Soapy Sam
28th February 2007, 03:50 PM
The largest island I'm aware of, would be Pangaea, which included much of what is now Australia. That said, prior to being discovered, Australia was much the size it is now. When discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines, it may even have been accessible on foot from Africa, though probably not quite.

Isn't the whole "n gazillionths of a potrzebie after the BANG" thing just a figure of speech? There comes a point in spacetime where/when it becomes possible to use the present laws of physics. Before/under/inside that , the terms make less and less sense. Refining the "position" of that point is what all the navel gazing is about, surely?

Ben Tilly
28th February 2007, 04:42 PM
The largest island I'm aware of, would be Pangaea, which included much of what is now Australia. That said, prior to being discovered, Australia was much the size it is now. When discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines, it may even have been accessible on foot from Africa, though probably not quite.

Sorry, no.

If Australia was ever accessible on foot, then the native marsupial population would have been overrun by placentals very quickly. And with a small number of exceptions (several species of bat in prehistory, humans and dogs relatively recently), that did not happen until Europeans introduced placentals in historical times. Furthermore the marine geography combined with historical sealevel records confirms that Australia could not have been connected with any other continent in recent geological time. Geological evidence says that Australia has not been connected to any other continents in tens of millions of years. (It was last connected to Antarctica about 40 million years ago.)

According to research quoted in Guns, Germs and Steel, Australia was probably colonized intentionally by boat. And furthermore when Australia was discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines about 40,000 years ago, it was significantly larger than it is today. In particular lowered sea levels connected Australia and New Guinea.

Isn't the whole "n gazillionths of a potrzebie after the BANG" thing just a figure of speech? There comes a point in spacetime where/when it becomes possible to use the present laws of physics. Before/under/inside that , the terms make less and less sense. Refining the "position" of that point is what all the navel gazing is about, surely?

Yes and no. At some point it becomes a figure of speech. But the time periods after the Big Bang that scientists seriously discuss are amazingly short. For instance it is believed that matter came to dominate antimatter within the first nanosecond, so the processes that may have happened in that nanosecond are of tremendous interest. (For anyone who is curious a nanosecond is a billionth of a second. In which time light will travel a bit less than a foot.)

Cheers,
Ben

~enigma~
28th February 2007, 09:54 PM
Here are some values...

10-43 seconds - Planck era begins
10-35 seconds - Inflation begins
10-32 seconds - Inflation ends
10-6 seconds - Plasma (Quark - Gluon) condenses
5 seconds - Nucleosynthesis begins
3 minutes - Nucleosynthesis ends
4 x 10 6 years - Recombination (closest we can see to the big bang)
109 years - Reionization

AgingYoung
1st March 2007, 05:20 AM
I think that you do not understand general relativity very well.

When we talk about time in the early universe, we mean time as measured in a local reference frame that is still with respect to most of the local matter. It makes no sense to ask how this time correlates with "real" time outside of the extreme conditions then prevailing in the universe since there is no "outside of the universe" that we're aware of to compare it to.

The measurement of time that I describe makes perfect sense within the universe to within whatever limits the theory of general relativity proves to have. (We do not, of course, currently know what the limits of that theory are.)

Cheers,
Ben

Ben,

I would say that you don't understand the inherent problems of taking the inflated values of time and space from the present moment then extrapolating back in time to arrive any meaningful point. Not only are the present values inflated yet they are accelerating in their inflation.

An understanding of the history of the universe using today's standards for time and distance is meaningless. No one suggested looking at time and space before they existed; the point was that if you use today's inflated values you will overshoot the beginning putting yourself at a point before the beginning.

Now if you would like to recalibrate your standard moment by moment as you regress in time your model will suffer inaccuracies due to an inability to deal with significant places and rounding errors to the point of meaninglessness. Reality isn't an approximation. Either way relativity be damned.

Gene

Dancing David
1st March 2007, 05:54 AM
The largest island I'm aware of, would be Pangaea, which included much of what is now Australia. That said, prior to being discovered, Australia was much the size it is now. When discovered by the ancestors of the Aborigines, it may even have been accessible on foot from Africa, though probably not quite.

I hope you mean accesabile across a number of forty miles straights from indonesia?

AgingYoung
1st March 2007, 05:58 AM
Sometimes I wish that as God is stretching out time and space creating our physical universe as He does moment by moment that He wouldn't stretch it so rapidly. Time really flies as the universe expands. Or maybe He could remake me to move a little more quickly....

The Randi clock is ticking...

Gene

Ben Tilly
1st March 2007, 10:39 AM
Ben,

I would say that you don't understand the inherent problems of taking the inflated values of time and space from the present moment then extrapolating back in time to arrive any meaningful point. Not only are the present values inflated yet they are accelerating in their inflation.

An understanding of the history of the universe using today's standards for time and distance is meaningless. No one suggested looking at time and space before they existed; the point was that if you use today's inflated values you will overshoot the beginning putting yourself at a point before the beginning.

Now if you would like to recalibrate your standard moment by moment as you regress in time your model will suffer inaccuracies due to an inability to deal with significant places and rounding errors to the point of meaninglessness. Reality isn't an approximation. Either way relativity be damned.

Gene

What you're saying makes no sense. Furthermore the way that you're saying it indicates that you have no desire to learn enough to understand why your statement is nonsense. I therefore won't waste my time or yours attempting to explain anything about this topic to you.

Regards,
Ben

AgingYoung
1st March 2007, 12:55 PM
What you're saying makes no sense. Furthermore the way that you're saying it indicates that you have no desire to learn enough to understand why your statement is nonsense. I therefore won't waste my time or yours attempting to explain anything about this topic to you.

Regards,
Ben

What I've said makes perfect sense. Additionally if you had an ounce of sincerity you wouldn't have wasted your time to tell me you won't waste your time.

Cheers,
Gene

Crazycowbob
1st March 2007, 01:09 PM
What was the largest island before Australia was discovered ?

As long as you are counting Australia as an island and not a continent, then the largest island prior to it's discovery would be Australia. Just because it hadn't been discovered doesn't mean it didn't exist... :)

Schneibster
1st March 2007, 02:31 PM
Seems the same way when physicists talk about something happening in the first few nanoseconds after the Big Bang. As a second is a portion of an earth rotation or so many vibrations of a Cesium atom; neither of which existed; nor was time even remotely as it is today, does it REALLY make any sense to talk of such cosmic events using modern day measuring tools?

Me thinks not.Four things worthy of note:

1. Why should the rate of the passage of time vary from now to the beginning of the universe?

2. Why should the speed with which an electron in orbit around a cesium atom makes the transition between the hyperfine levels of its ground state vary from now to the beginning of the universe?

3. Even supposing there were no cesium atoms, what makes you think there were no events of similar time stability, which could be calibrated to the cesium atom, and serve in its place if it were absent?

4. Finally, if the rate of the passage of time varies, why would this measure not vary right along with it, rendering such variation undetectable?

I think you forgot to consider the full implications of what you were asking.

It's also worth noting that the use of the cesium atom's hyperfine transitions in the ground state is not because this is a particularly accurate method; similar transitions happen with identical accuracies in many atoms, and many other regular physical events take place with identical or even greater accuracies. It's just that it happens to be particularly easy to measure this characteristic of this particular element. Don't get hung up on it; you'll turn into a woo.

ChristineR
1st March 2007, 02:44 PM
Time and space depend on the reference frame of the observer. The fundamental constant is the speed of light. Before the big bang, there was no moving light, so space and time were not defined.

You can talk about time as the amount of space covered by the light from the big bang as measured by an imaginary observer with a measuring stick. Never mind that there were no observers, or measuring sticks, and that the light may not have been traveling through a vacuum...

Lothian
2nd March 2007, 01:31 AM
As long as you are counting Australia as an island and not a continent, then the largest island prior to it's discovery would be Australia. Just because it hadn't been discovered doesn't mean it didn't exist... :).....and before Mr Fahrenheit was born water still boiled at 212 degrees. The same applies to a nanosecond. There is nothing wrong with us using modern day measurement to describe old events.

Alan Heap
2nd March 2007, 01:59 AM
i found the bible a dull read with predictable endings. this work of fiction by an unknown author featuring several stories which quickly reached number one on the best sellers chart, lacks believability in the characters, events and much of the philosophical morality is very questionable.

the main characters are portrayed as 'good guys' essentially, through the use of this unseen character, "god". noah, a semi-main character in the book, makes no attempt in warning or saving others about the disaster which will strike the entire earth, horrifying. romans were also portrayed in a bad light even after many being killed by moses with his supernatural powers.

through out all this, one character is kept shrouded in mystery; god, i was left frustrated by the amount revealed about god, the lack of development from this character and how this character was used as a gimmick to drag the story along. what did god look like? why did he favour certain people over others? if god made life and the universe, who made god? through out all the stories, god makes these outrageous claims, the lack of expansion on these claims in particular is very disappointing, not to mention the lack of depth and imagery of this character.

this book is certainly not for children, with it's extreme depiction of violence, is not for the faint hearted -in more ways than one. if you want a good popular fun read, stick to harry potter.
1 out 5 stars.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 02:10 AM
...
this book is certainly not for children, with it's extreme depiction of violence, is not for the faint hearted, in more ways than one. 1 out 5 stars.

Alan,

Tell Uriah I said hello. You could say the same for reality. A little while ago I watched Hotel Rwanda. The way life can be is not for children or adults at times. I guess there's nothing we can do. It's been like that for some time.

Gene

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 02:32 AM
4. Finally, if the rate of the passage of time varies, why would this measure not vary right along with it, rendering such variation undetectable?

Schneibster,

If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.

It might not be a good analogy but inflation of currency is something that comes to mind. If you measure the economy of 1900 with today's unadjusted dollars you won't get a good picture of the economy of 1900.

What do you think?

Gene

Alan Heap
2nd March 2007, 02:36 AM
Alan,

Tell Uriah I said hello. You could say the same for reality. A little while ago I watched Hotel Rwanda. The way life can be is not for children or adults at times. I guess there's nothing we can do. It's been like that for some time.

Gene


uh oh

don't know a uriah, only a eugene.

no idea what your on about. it's a badly written/translated and boring fictional book.

edit-
god wouldn't save his followers, IF they WERE saved it would be by people, that is real yet that doesn't matter apparently, paradox.

this argument is stupid.

'oh but hotel rwanda had violence and was super duper good, and bible does too so bible must be super duper good too and just as real as rwanda'

oh please

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 02:39 AM
... romans were also portrayed in a bad light even after many being killed by moses with his supernatural powers.
...

Did you read the bible or did someone tell you about it? lol.

Gene

eta: I think you meant the Egyptians.

Alan Heap
2nd March 2007, 02:45 AM
Did you read the bible or did someone tell you about it? lol.

Gene

please elaborate.

edit-
ok egyptians, i don't care. its a fictional book and nothing more. don't even try making more out of it than it is.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 03:16 AM
Uriah Heep is a band.

I've listened to a lot of discussion about the bible. The two major disagreements I have with people that have done in depth study are the trinity and the tithe. I think when a pastor teaches on the tithe there is a conflict of interest. I don't care to debate it but I've considered it enough that I could.

The second disagreement is with the trinity. If someone has spent 8 years in seminary and has come to the conclusion the trinity isn't true and they also want a job they have to keep their views to themselves. Not many churches would hire their heretical butt if they deny the divinity of Jesus. Newton did and I think Einstein thought it was bogus. I agree.

But when it comes to biblical opinion I'd expect that someone would at least know that Moses didn't encounter too many Romans. Nothing personal but I don't think you have a qualified opinion.

Gene

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 03:25 AM
its a fictional book and nothing more. don't even try making more out of it than it is.

I would disagree on two points, Alan. On the first point, people are entitled to think in what ever manner they choose.

The second point is more significant. You might ask ‘when did mankind come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding?’ Recently we've figured out that expansion is accelerating. Man's understanding evolves.

The biblical perspective is there is a God that is the cause of creation. When you look at the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account.

Gene

Alan Heap
2nd March 2007, 05:00 AM
qualified? are you *********** serious? you're asking if god meant nanoseconds instead of days in the bible, do i really need to be qualified to answer any questions like that, related to the bible or not? i don't know harry potters friends names, i'm not a physics professor, but that doesn't mean that when i say 'people can't use ordinary broom sticks to fly' that i'm wrong.

i really don't care what people personally believe, just don't expect to mix religion or any fixed philosophy into scientific fact or theory. scientific evidence has been gathered and is still being done on the start of the universe, none for the support god or for god creating the universe.

philosophically it's flawed, let alone scientifically. if you want a biblical view on the big bang, this forum seems a silly place to ask.

an unbelievable joke

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 05:22 AM
qualified? are you *********** serious? you're asking if god meant nanoseconds instead of days in the bible,


I never asked that question, Alan. Not only don't you have a qualified opinion on biblical matters you aren't a qualified observer. I think there's a relationship between the two.

Gene

Alan Heap
2nd March 2007, 05:42 AM
I never asked that question, Alan. Not only don't you have a qualified opinion on biblical matters you aren't a qualified observer. I think there's a relationship between the two.

Gene

saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong, is pathetic.

so, elaborate...AGAIN?

Lothian
2nd March 2007, 05:55 AM
saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong, is pathetic.

so, elaborate...AGAIN?I could be wrong but I suspect that the fact that you don’t accept the Bible (as an inerrant account of everything and a guide to life) means that you don’t understand it and therefore are not qualified to comment on it.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 05:58 AM
saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong, is pathetic.

so, elaborate...AGAIN?

There you go again, Alan, attributing to me conclusions....

saying i'm not qualified so my argument must be wrong

...that I haven't arrived at. You're putting words in my mouth. Worse you're attempting to decide for me what my perspective should be with your demands to exclude a biblical perspective from science. You are way beyond any reasonable expectation when you imagine you can dictate how people think and express themselves.

I'd suggest you quit while you're ahead but that wouldn't be accurate. You should quit while you're not too far behind.

Gene

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 06:13 AM
I could be wrong but I suspect that the fact that you don’t accept the Bible (as an inerrant account of everything and a guide to life) means that you don’t understand it and therefore are not qualified to comment on it.

Lothian,

That's not really the case. Alan described a biblical account between Moses and the Romans. The point isn't one of accepting any biblical account; the point is actually recalling what the details are. Alan has an Archie Bunker understanding of the bible and also of what has been said as recent as this thread.

The only point from the bible I've made wrt this thread is a comparison between the expanding universe that we somewhat empirically know to be true and the biblical account of a creative God stretching out the heavens.

Gene

Lothian
2nd March 2007, 07:15 AM
Lothian,

That's not really the case. Alan described a biblical account between Moses and the Romans. The point isn't one of accepting any biblical account; the point is actually recalling what the details are. Alan has an Archie Bunker understanding of the bible and also of what has been said as recent as this thread.[quote]So you are crucifying him because he got one fact wrong. Is forgiveness not in the bible somewhere ?

[quote]The only point from the bible I've made wrt this thread is a comparison between the expanding universe that we somewhat empirically know to be true and the biblical account of a creative God stretching out the heavens.
GeneThe bible has so many different interpretations, all claiming to be correct. I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another. In fact an argument that in saying Egyptians the bible means Romans would not be the strangest interpretation I have heard.

Each new interpretation just makes the whole thing a less credible source.

Rather than looking at an old book for support in what we now know I am more interested in what we don’t know and in that regard the Bible doesn’t really help.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 08:05 AM
Lothian,

It wasn't just one fact
So you are crucifying him because he got one fact wrong. Is forgiveness not in the bible somewhere ?....
:) Alan, I forgive you. Now stop trying to tell me how to think or how to express myself.

This point...
...
The bible has so many different interpretations, all claiming to be correct. I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another. ....
...is interesting in light of your quote


When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lay exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

So no matter how many different interpretations there are, it is reasonable to think one is more accurate than the others.

There are two points in this derail. One is the idea of the validity of the bible and/or its usefulness. Well above that point is the idea of a person's right to have a biblical perspective. Whether you would agree or not I find a biblical perspective useful.

To that second point I would have no problem with anyone deciding for me how to think or how to term things if they could be so kind as to explain what gives them the right to do that. I would want to in turn use that same right to determine how they think and express themselves. The obvious absurdity in that is we are swapping our minds; I'm controlling yours and you are controlling mine. It gets ridiculous.

Gene

~enigma~
2nd March 2007, 08:24 AM
I would disagree on two points, Alan. On the first point, people are entitled to think in what ever manner they choose.

The second point is more significant. You might ask ‘when did mankind come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding?’ Recently we've figured out that expansion is accelerating. Man's understanding evolves.

The biblical perspective is there is a God that is the cause of creation. When you look at the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account.

GeneHas this forum been changed to religion and philosophy while I was asleep?

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 08:48 AM
Has this forum been changed to religion and philosophy while I was asleep?

Usually when someone asks a question you'd imagine they're interested in a response. Now I know at times people ask questions to make a point. Some examples might be...


... and just who in the world do you think you are?
... did someone wake up on the wrong side of the cave?


There is an intersection between philosophy and science so a discussion of either can be pertinent. No change is necessary.

Gene

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 08:53 AM
.....bump

Schneibster,

If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.

It might not be a good analogy but inflation of currency is something that comes to mind. If you measure the economy of 1900 with today's unadjusted dollars you won't get a good picture of the economy of 1900.

What do you think?

Gene

~enigma~
2nd March 2007, 08:54 AM
Usually when someone asks a question you'd imagine they're interested in a response. Now I know at times people ask questions to make a point. Some examples might be...

... and just who in the world do you think you are?
... did someone wake up on the wrong side of the cave?
There is an intersection between philosophy and science so a discussion of either can be pertinent. No change is necessary.

GeneBible is not and never has been nor never will be science. It belongs in a different forum.

Lothian
2nd March 2007, 08:56 AM
So no matter how many different interpretations there are, it is reasonable to think one is more accurate than the others.Indeed, and in the case of the bible it is always the latest interpretation that is seen as the most accurate. So we no longer stone unruly children to death and shell fish are not the abomination that they once were.

If over time we are to come to more and more accurate ‘understanding’ of this book, all without divine intervention in that understanding, the question is; “Do we really need the book in the first place ?”

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 09:04 AM
enema,

People are entitled to their perspective. For instance Jonathan Kepler said...
I had the intention of becoming a theologian...but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for 'the heavens declare the glory of God.Kepler was inspired by the bible.

or there's Robert Boyle...
From a knowledge of His work, we shall know Himor Newton...
About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the Prophecies, and insist upon their literal interpretation, in the midst of much clamor and opposition.or Sir William Herschel...
All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more the Truths contained in the Sacred Scriptures.But more to the point, people are entitled to think what ever they want to. You're no exception nor am I.

Gene


Keep it civil; do not insult other members, please.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 09:11 AM
Lothian,

What is seen as the most accurate and what actually is could be two different things. The point of yours I responded to was...

I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another.

...and now you're making the point the latest interpretation is seen as more accurate and want to draw conclusions based on that? :)

Gene

Indeed, and in the case of the bible it is always the latest interpretation that is seen as the most accurate. ...

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 09:12 AM
Schneibster,
4. Finally, if the rate of the passage of time varies, why would this measure not vary right along with it, rendering such variation undetectable?
If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.

It might not be a good analogy but inflation of currency is something that comes to mind. If you measure the economy of 1900 with today's unadjusted dollars you won't get a good picture of the economy of 1900.

What do you think?

Gene

Gene

Lothian
2nd March 2007, 09:13 AM
enema,

People are entitled to their perspective. For instance Jonathan Kepler said...

Kepler was inspired by the bible.

or there's Robert Boyle...


or Newton...


or Sir William Herschel...


But more to the point, people are entitled to think what ever they want to. You're no exception nor am I.

GeneNot forgetting Leonhard Euler who declared : a+b to the power n over n = x therefore God exists.
....but that was bollocks as well.

Lothian
2nd March 2007, 09:20 AM
Lothian,

What is seen as the most accurate and what actually is could be two different things. The point of yours I responded to was...

I don’t think any one interpretation is any more valid than another.

...and now you're making the point the latest interpretation is seen as more accurate and want to draw conclusions based on that? :)

GeneWhen it comes to the bible I see all interpretations as equally meaningless. However believers tend to think their latest interpretation is the correct one and those interpretations believed previously are wrong.

However as you say accuracy and interpretations of the bible are not the same thing. Enough of the bible in a science and maths forum.

~enigma~
2nd March 2007, 09:24 AM
enema,

People are entitled to their perspective. For instance Jonathan Kepler said...

Kepler was inspired by the bible.

or there's Robert Boyle...


or Newton...


or Sir William Herschel...


But more to the point, people are entitled to think what ever they want to. You're no exception nor am I.

GeneYou can think whatever you want. That in no way means science is compatible with the bible nor does it mean the bible belongs in a science forum. Also, everybody that has the displeasure of reading the idiocy you posted can see how defenders of the bible lash out with immature attacks that pretend to be cute by playing on words. You want to argue bible, go to another forum and argue all you want, invite me and i promise to make you look foolish. This isn't the forum however so you should consider yourself lucky.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 09:24 AM
or the point that Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic) made...


For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."


Gene

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 09:39 AM
However as you say accuracy and interpretations of the bible are not the same thing. Enough of the bible in a science and maths forum.

Lothian,

The single point I've made from the bible is the idea there is a similarity between the ideas of a creative God stretching out the heavens and the expanding universe we imagine we see. Everything else has been an attack on my right to have a biblical perspective.

I've twice bumped a question to Schneibster if you'd care to field it.

Gene

eta:

I'd like to add there's a slight difference between

However as you say accuracy and interpretations of the bible are not the same thing.
What is seen as the most accurate and what actually is could be two different things.

The first point you attributed to me wasn't something I said. I was speaking to your point concerning various biblical interpretations not a difference between accuracy and all biblical interpretations. I'm not sure if you noticed the difference but it's there.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 10:24 AM
Schneibster,

4. Finally, if the rate of the passage of time varies, why would this measure not vary right along with it, rendering such variation undetectable?

If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.

It might not be a good analogy but inflation of currency is something that comes to mind. If you measure the economy of 1900 with today's unadjusted dollars you won't get a good picture of the economy of 1900.

What do you think?

Gene

Gene

Folly
2nd March 2007, 11:36 AM
What do you think?

I'm not psychic, so this is only a guess, but I'm guessing that if someone decides not to answer you after you ask a few times, they're either busy or don't feel like answering you. In either case, I'm sure quoting yourself a few more times won't help get an answer more quickly.

If I was feeling particularly willing to take a risk, I'd make a further guess that Schneibster has decided answering you is a waste of time.

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 12:37 PM
Folly,

Those are probably good guesses. I know when I look at a thread I look at the end first and decide whether to read up or not. I didn't repost the quote several times imploring an answer, only to put it at the end of several ranters insisting on forcing their philosophies on me.

I do know that from time to time people ignore others. For instance I have you on ignore. I noticed your comment because I can see it when I'm not logged on.

I'm sure I could ignore the arrogance of someone that imagines they can dictate my expression and thought but for some reason I just can't resist defending my right to think for myself.

Incidently I do recall why I have you on ignore.

Gene

AgingYoung
2nd March 2007, 12:51 PM
If I was feeling particularly willing to take a risk, I'd make a further guess that Schneibster has decided answering you is a waste of time.
I think you're projecting. What makes me think that is this recent post...
I knew this was goin there. OK, I'll post on this shortly; not tonight, too busy, and maybe not until the weekend, but I'll post on it.
...from Schneibster on another thread. I frankly don't think he's read this derail yet.

Gene

Schneibster
2nd March 2007, 06:06 PM
Schneibster,

If the universe were moving backward toward the big bang with of course you in it your measuring method would vary with the regression. The variation would be undetectable. That isn't something that could happen though. What we do is take a standard that we either don't calibrate and superimpose it on the past or we attempt to recalibrate it periodically as we regress and there are the inherent inaccuracies in that.The timing of events of the types used as yardsticks for the passage of time is a matter of physical law, dependent upon underlying constants whose variation would have the direst imaginable consequences, consequences that would have effects that would last until the present. These consequences are not observed; therefore, these constants have not varied; therefore, the yardstick events took as long back then as they do now. These things don't epistemologically dangle by themselves; they are interdependent upon one another. You can't vary one without consequence.

YECs, for example, go around claiming the speed of light varied in the past, without considering the accompanying variations in the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum that a variation in the speed of light would imply, which would in turn affect the strength of the electric force, which would in its turn affect not only the arrangements of orbitals and shells in atoms and therefore their resonant frequencies, but also the operation of the weak nuclear force and the fine structure constant, and change interactions in such a fundamental manner that it could not fail to be noticed even on astronomical scales. We can, therefore, literally look and see it's not true. (I'm not accusing you of YECism; merely noting that the same argument is fundamental to one of their positions, which fails for the same reason.)

Ben Tilly
2nd March 2007, 09:07 PM
The timing of events of the types used as yardsticks for the passage of time is a matter of physical law, dependent upon underlying constants whose variation would have the direst imaginable consequences, consequences that would have effects that would last until the present. These consequences are not observed; therefore, these constants have not varied; therefore, the yardstick events took as long back then as they do now. These things don't epistemologically dangle by themselves; they are interdependent upon one another. You can't vary one without consequence.

You have, I think, overstated your case that constants do not change. See http://cerncourier.com/main/article/43/2/13 for a serious discussion of how some fundamental constants may have changed in the past. For instance there is reason to suspect that our official definition of a second may have measured a different length of time in the distant past.

However while constants may have changed, there is very good reason to believe that they have not changed dramatically. Certainly not dramatically enough to throw off our current cosmological estimates.

YECs, for example, go around claiming the speed of light varied in the past, without considering the accompanying variations in the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum that a variation in the speed of light would imply, which would in turn affect the strength of the electric force, which would in its turn affect not only the arrangements of orbitals and shells in atoms and therefore their resonant frequencies, but also the operation of the weak nuclear force and the fine structure constant, and change interactions in such a fundamental manner that it could not fail to be noticed even on astronomical scales. We can, therefore, literally look and see it's not true. (I'm not accusing you of YECism; merely noting that the same argument is fundamental to one of their positions, which fails for the same reason.)

Note that YECs are posulating massive changes within the last few thousand years. This would have consequences that are so absurd that we can easily rule it out. However ruling out such extreme changes doesn't mean that there might not have been miniscule changes. (But, I admit, the miniscule ones that we think there might have been are far too small for AgingYoung's rhetoric to make much sense.)

Cheers,
Ben

Folly
2nd March 2007, 10:06 PM
I think you're projecting. What makes me think that is this recent post...

...from Schneibster on another thread. I frankly don't think he's read this derail yet.

You appear to be right in this case that my opinion was not shared, which is nice. I would still say that posting your question four times in one day, three times on one page, is unnecessary. [/derail]

Schneibster
2nd March 2007, 10:09 PM
Well, pardon me, I assumed that large changes were being discussed. At a distance of thirteen billion years, a part in a million makes very little difference at our current level of understanding.

That sounds snide, Ben, and I didn't mean it that way. I can't think how else to say it, though. Please accept my assurance that snide was not my intent.

Ben Tilly
2nd March 2007, 10:28 PM
Well, pardon me, I assumed that large changes were being discussed. At a distance of thirteen billion years, a part in a million makes very little difference at our current level of understanding.

That sounds snide, Ben, and I didn't mean it that way. I can't think how else to say it, though. Please accept my assurance that snide was not my intent.

No apologies, I understand completely. And you'll note that my post was peppered with comments indicating that the differences I was raising were unimportant on the scale of events being discussed.

I responded mainly because you had stated something in a categorical way that we think is wrong. I hate seeing misstatements like that. Particularly when they touch on things I find interesting. And it is doubly hard to resist when it allows me to introduce some neat science to a thread that had been badly derailed into sophmore religious philosophy.

But with that said, it was irrelevant to the main thread of this discussion. Please ignore me and carry on with your futile attempts to inform AgingYoung about a topic that he isn't really trying to understand.

Cheers,
Ben

AgingYoung
4th March 2007, 02:46 AM
...Please ignore me and carry on with your futile attempts to inform AgingYoung about a topic that he isn't really trying to understand.

Cheers,
Ben

I find this wooish and manipulative attempt to play the psychic insulting. You have no idea what I am or am not trying to understand, Ben Tilly. Stop pretending to be psychic.

Gene

Schneibster
4th March 2007, 02:54 AM
I'm not psychic, so this is only a guess, but I'm guessing that if someone decides not to answer you after you ask a few times, they're either busy or don't feel like answering you. In either case, I'm sure quoting yourself a few more times won't help get an answer more quickly.

If I was feeling particularly willing to take a risk, I'd make a further guess that Schneibster has decided answering you is a waste of time.Actually, I hadn't noticed it- I've been busy a lot, only really have time on the weekends any more. Sorry to gainsay you.

I'm still deciding whether it's a waste of time or not. I'll await further information before I make that decision, I think. In general, it usually is when they've taken that tone; but you never know, and there was a nice opportunity to inject, as Ben notes, some science into a thread sorely lacking it. Not that Ben didn't jump in and immediately smack me upside the head for overgeneralizing. ;)

AgingYoung
4th March 2007, 02:58 AM
Schneibster,

Thank you for responding. When I read your posts I have to do it slowly. I usually read them several times. There is no doubt you have a qualified opinion. Again, thanks for the response.

Gene

Roboramma
4th March 2007, 07:22 AM
I find this wooish and manipulative attempt to play the psychic insulting. You have no idea what I am or am not trying to understand, Ben Tilly. Stop pretending to be psychic.

I find this rather silly. A person doesn't have to be psychic to have an informed opinion of your motives based on what you post. That opinion may be wrong, but it's based on an interpretation of your posting history in this thread. No one is pretending to be psychic.

That said, people have misinterpretted my posts before. I try (and sometimes fail) to give other posters the benefit of the doubt, and I'm not trying to suggest that Ben's comments are true. But to suggest that it's impossible to know anything about you from your posts is, again, silly.

Roboramma
4th March 2007, 07:25 AM
or the point that Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic) made...

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." Gene, I don't really understand your point here - or Mr. Jastrow's. What reason do we have to believe that what he says is true?

You mention that the bible says that God stretched out the heavens with his hand, and you compare this to the expanding universe. That comparision doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how the two relate to each other at all.

Could you clarify the connection?

Ben Tilly
5th March 2007, 04:03 PM
...Please ignore me and carry on with your futile attempts to inform AgingYoung about a topic that he isn't really trying to understand.

Cheers,
Ben
I find this wooish and manipulative attempt to play the psychic insulting. You have no idea what I am or am not trying to understand, Ben Tilly. Stop pretending to be psychic.

Gene
How psychic do I need to be to interpret a statement like, "Either way relativity be damned"?

That was your response to me at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2389132#post2389132 to the point that physics in general, and general relativity in particular, has to be concerned with how things are measured from within the universe because we do not have any knowledge of any reality external to the universe which we could compare the universe to. Given this response to the best theories that science has been able to muster, it is safe to say that you don't have much interest in learning about what science has to say about the history of the universe.

This impression is doubly confirmed by your repeated insistance that everything that science thinks it knows is wrong because the physical standards that it has to measure against - measurements of elapsed time and distance according to the local reference frame of the matter in the universe - are all off because of physical constants inflating. This conclusion that you offer is offered with no reference to any evidence that might back it up, is maintained in the face of several people (me, Scheibster, Dr. Kitten, ~enigma~, etc) pointing out that it has no support, and is accompanied by plenty of references to your religious beliefs.

None of this presents a picture of a person who has any interest in trying to learn. You have an axe to grind and you haven't even tried to conceal that fact.

Regards,
Ben

Ben Tilly
8th March 2007, 12:00 PM
Bump.
..Please ignore me and carry on with your futile attempts to inform AgingYoung about a topic that he isn't really trying to understand.

Cheers,
Ben
I find this wooish and manipulative attempt to play the psychic insulting. You have no idea what I am or am not trying to understand, Ben Tilly. Stop pretending to be psychic.

Gene
How psychic do I need to be to interpret a statement like, "Either way relativity be damned"?

That was your response to me at http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2389132#post2389132 to the point that physics in general, and general relativity in particular, has to be concerned with how things are measured from within the universe because we do not have any knowledge of any reality external to the universe which we could compare the universe to. Given this response to the best theories that science has been able to muster, it is safe to say that you don't have much interest in learning about what science has to say about the history of the universe.

This impression is doubly confirmed by your repeated insistance that everything that science thinks it knows is wrong because the physical standards that it has to measure against - measurements of elapsed time and distance according to the local reference frame of the matter in the universe - are all off because of physical constants inflating. This conclusion that you offer is offered with no reference to any evidence that might back it up, is maintained in the face of several people (me, Scheibster, Dr. Kitten, ~enigma~, etc) pointing out that it has no support, and is accompanied by plenty of references to your religious beliefs.

None of this presents a picture of a person who has any interest in trying to learn. You have an axe to grind and you haven't even tried to conceal that fact.

Regards,
Ben
I'm somewhat disappointed that you haven't responded to this at all. So I thought I'd bump the thread as a reminder.

Regards,
Ben

AgingYoung
8th March 2007, 12:27 PM
I don't need a reminder, Ben Tilly. It was amusing to see you quote yourself. I think I might have started something.

Gene

AgingYoung
8th March 2007, 12:30 PM
... This conclusion that you offer is offered with no reference to any evidence that might back it up, is maintained in the face of several people (me, Scheibster, Dr. Kitten, ~enigma~, etc) pointing out that it has no support, and is accompanied by plenty of references to your religious beliefs...

Since I'm looking at this Ben Tilly, could you kindly bump any mention Dr. Kitten has made. I'd like to review her comments.

Gene

Ben Tilly
8th March 2007, 06:20 PM
Since I'm looking at this Ben Tilly, could you kindly bump any mention Dr. Kitten has made. I'd like to review her comments.

Gene

I can't find it right now. But she made a comment that a moderator then edited. I thought it was in this thread, but I can't find it. So I don't know whether I misremembered or whether it was deleted. Probably misremembered.

Ben

AgingYoung
9th March 2007, 07:37 AM
Thank you Ben. Could you post any thoughts of ~enigma~'s that relate to the idea of using the standard we presently use to measure time into the past of an expanding universe? I can't find any.

Gene

Ben Tilly
9th March 2007, 04:01 PM
Thank you Ben. Could you post any thoughts of ~enigma~'s that relate to the idea of using the standard we presently use to measure time into the past of an expanding universe? I can't find any.

Gene
See http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2386036#post2386036 where he showed that you got yourr reasoning about the effects of heavy mass in the distant past backwards.

Regards,
Ben

AgingYoung
10th March 2007, 06:05 AM
Ben,

Out of the 156 words that enig has posted in response only 29 pertain to the idea I presented. That's a scant 18%. Here is the response:

It seems that your thoughts are backwards. Intense gravity SLOWS time and that has been proven time and again by experiment. Then again, that is relative to the observer.

A consideration of the idea of time and the observer in or out of an intense gravitational field shows the idea of relativity breaks down. An observer needs a clock. An atomic clock within the effects of a Bose-Einstein condensate isn’t going to operate more slowly solely as a function of the observation point; atomic motion is actually going to slow as a function of all atoms reaching the same energy state, or quantum state, and they coalesce into a blob of material called a "super atom." Your clock will run slower. That is assuming of course that a black hole (where there is intense gravity) is similar to what is called a super atom (contrived in a lab) and also the big bang began with the rapid expansion or inflation (or could be considered a super atom) as has been proposed.

So of that scant 18% of content 27% of it demonstrates a poor understanding of relativity. The idea of a clock running more slowly is a function of perspective in relativity not a function of the clock actually running more slowly.

My point was: When we take a clock running at the speed it is running in the present moment and use it to measure a time that is actually slower there are going to be some inaccuracies. I suppose that's how they find stars in the universe that appear to be older than the universe itself. But all of this isn't what is open for discussion at the moment; at least not from my perspective.

If you were to want me to take what you say seriously I would need to take a serious look at what you've said. Forgive the tautology. Looking at just a small part of what you’ve said…

... This conclusion that you offer is offered with no reference to any evidence that might back it up, is maintained in the face of several people (me, Scheibster, Dr. Kitten, ~enigma~, etc) pointing out that it has no support, and is accompanied by plenty of references to your religious beliefs...


made no comment about the subject
barely said anything pertinent and of that demonstrated an inaccurate understanding
I presented an idea and really wanted to know what Scheibster's thoughts on it were
You attribute to me a conclusion something that is only an idea I've presented; I frame no hypothesis.
What I find inspiring is not relevant to the topic; you are impertinent
nonexistant face


To summarize (having taken a serious look at a small part of what you've said) I see an attempt to call an idea that I presented as a conclusion. It isn't. Then you claim I'm maintaining this 'conclusion' in the face of several people that have countered it. These people don't exist. You admit one hasn't even weighed in. A quick look at what you've said shows a clear case of manipulation. I would say you are overstating your case but that would imply you are loading up the table with facts. When you make things up they can't be considered facts. If you would like to overstate your case to keep me busy you need to stick with facts.

Cheers,
Gene

Ben Tilly
12th March 2007, 08:11 PM
Ben,

Out of the 156 words that enig has posted in response only 29 pertain to the idea I presented. That's a scant 18%. Here is the response:

Are you ignoring his point because he made it in very few words?

It seems that your thoughts are backwards. Intense gravity SLOWS time and that has been proven time and again by experiment. Then again, that is relative to the observer.

A consideration of the idea of time and the observer in or out of an intense gravitational field shows the idea of relativity breaks down.

It shows no such thing. As you would understand if you understood relativity.

The key point of relativity is that it only makes sense to talk about observations made relative to an observer. Different observers are equivalent in that one observer's observations can be used to figure out what another observer would observe. It isn't that one observer is right and the other is wrong. Both are right and represent internally consistent pictures of what happened.

An observer needs a clock. An atomic clock within the effects of a Bose-Einstein condensate isn’t going to operate more slowly solely as a function of the observation point; atomic motion is actually going to slow as a function of all atoms reaching the same energy state, or quantum state, and they coalesce into a blob of material called a "super atom." Your clock will run slower. That is assuming of course that a black hole (where there is intense gravity) is similar to what is called a super atom (contrived in a lab) and also the big bang began with the rapid expansion or inflation (or could be considered a super atom) as has been proposed.

My wristwatch will have trouble operating within a blast furnace. That doesn't mean that time flows differently within a blast furnace. It just means that my wrist watch is not a good way to measure time within a blast furnace..

The difficulties that an environment poses to a specific measuring device has nothing to do with how fast time flows. A Bose-Einstein condensate may be hard for my clock to work in, but time still flows the same way there. Time does flow differently within a black hole, but the reasons why have nothing to do with it being a "super atom".

I note that you've confirmed your ignorance by indicating that we should take that bad analogy of yours with any seriousness whatsoever.

So of that scant 18% of content 27% of it demonstrates a poor understanding of relativity. The idea of a clock running more slowly is a function of perspective in relativity not a function of the clock actually running more slowly.

Again, the number of words used to make a point has no correlation with the validity of that point.

Furthermore I've been trying to figure out what you mean by your comment about clocks running slowly. It probably indicates further confusion on your part, but it is possible that you are just stating a correct point in an odd way. Given that everything else that you've said indicates that you think there is a "real" time and all other measures are wrong. Which view, of course, completely misses what the theory of relativity tells us. Which is that different observers measure different things, yet still agree on a consistent view of the universe.

My point was: When we take a clock running at the speed it is running in the present moment and use it to measure a time that is actually slower there are going to be some inaccuracies. I suppose that's how they find stars in the universe that appear to be older than the universe itself. But all of this isn't what is open for discussion at the moment; at least not from my perspective.

And here is an example of your misunderstanding. It makes no sense to talk about a time that is faster and a time that is slower. It only makes sense to talk about elapsed time according to a given observer. (Normally it is most convenient to think about elapsed time according to an observer in space who is fixed relative to the distant stars.)

About the stars/universe discrepancies, you've thrown in a red herring that you again completely misunderstand. Everyone knew all along that the problem was almost certainly measurement error. The problem was sorting out whose measurements were wrong, and by how much.

The problem there is that there are two different ways of trying to find and measure very old things. The first one is that we try to measure the Hubble Constant (ie the rate at which the universe is expanding) and then we look at the red shifts of very far away objects and figure out their age. The second one is that we develop theories about how stars evolve over time, and use that to try to date very old stars and clusters that we can observe near us.

Back in the mid-90s the first method was giving ages of 8-12 billion years, and the second of 15-18 billion years. Both methods were based on long chains of measurements and assumptions, and it was clear that somewhere in the chain of reasoning errors had crept into one or probably both of these chains. (That's one reason that we try to find independent ways of measuring the same thing. Because it pushes us to discover and fix mistakes like this.)

Today (thanks in large part to the Hubble Space Telescope) we've made substantial improvements in the reasoning behind both methods of measuring. The first method, as you can see from http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map_discovery_030211.html, now gives us an age of 13.7 billion years, +- 200 million years. And the first stars are believed to have been formed about 200 million years after the Big Bang. The second method now says (see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_age_040817.html) that the Milky Way is 13.6 billion years old, +- 800 million years.

Those are consistent estimates, and we no longer have discrepancies between the two methods of measurement.

If you were to want me to take what you say seriously I would need to take a serious look at what you've said. Forgive the tautology. Looking at just a small part of what you’ve said…

... This conclusion that you offer is offered with no reference to any evidence that might back it up, is maintained in the face of several people (me, Scheibster, Dr. Kitten, ~enigma~, etc) pointing out that it has no support, and is accompanied by plenty of references to your religious beliefs...
made no comment about the subject
barely said anything pertinent and of that demonstrated an inaccurate understanding
I presented an idea and really wanted to know what Scheibster's thoughts on it were
You attribute to me a conclusion something that is only an idea I've presented; I frame no hypothesis.
What I find inspiring is not relevant to the topic; you are impertinent
nonexistant face
Let me see. I've acknowledged my mistake involving dr kitten. Contrary to what you say, what ~enigma~ said was very pertinent, and the misunderstanding was all yours. About Scheibster, I would be more inclined to agree with your interpretation if you hadn't said the exact same thing to me and made it not a question, and also hadn't seen fit to keep on repeating your post to try to make Scheibster respond. As it is, it really looks like you thought you'd shot him down. Which brings me to http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2389132#post2389132 where you definitely did frame a hypothesis. And finally, what you find inspiring became relevant to the topic when you chose to derail have the thread into a discussion about it.

Doubly so when you have posts like http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2392810#post2392810 that indicate that you think that your religious philosophy is right, and science is only now in the process of figuring that out.

To summarize (having taken a serious look at a small part of what you've said) I see an attempt to call an idea that I presented as a conclusion. It isn't. Then you claim I'm maintaining this 'conclusion' in the face of several people that have countered it. These people don't exist. You admit one hasn't even weighed in. A quick look at what you've said shows a clear case of manipulation. I would say you are overstating your case but that would imply you are loading up the table with facts. When you make things up they can't be considered facts. If you would like to overstate your case to keep me busy you need to stick with facts.

Cheers,
Gene

I invite anyone to review your posting history in this thread and compare our descriptions of it. They can make their own conclusions.

Regards,
Ben

Cuddles
13th March 2007, 05:40 AM
I invite anyone to review your posting history in this thread and compare our descriptions of it. They can make their own conclusions.

Regards,
Ben

Game, set and match, Ben.

AgingYoung
16th March 2007, 02:27 PM
Ben,

Your analogy is faulty. If the blast furnace was all that existed, it would make more sense.

The very atomic motion we use to clock time in the beginning was slower than now. We are using fast paced clocks (relative to their speed at their origin) to measure the expansion of the universe. An actual atomic clock at the beginning of that expansion wouldn't appear to move more slowly from our perspective; it would actually be running slower. The difference wouldn't be accounted for as a result of perspective.

That is considering atoms existed; to be sure there came a point in time where they ‘formed’.

Gene

My wristwatch will have trouble operating within a blast furnace. That doesn't mean that time flows differently within a blast furnace. It just means that my wrist watch is not a good way to measure time within a blast furnace.....

Ziggurat
16th March 2007, 03:30 PM
A consideration of the idea of time and the observer in or out of an intense gravitational field shows the idea of relativity breaks down. An observer needs a clock. An atomic clock within the effects of a Bose-Einstein condensate isn’t going to operate more slowly solely as a function of the observation point; atomic motion is actually going to slow as a function of all atoms reaching the same energy state, or quantum state, and they coalesce into a blob of material called a "super atom." Your clock will run slower.

Uh, NO.

If you cool down steam, the atoms slow down and it condenses into water. If you put an accurate clock in the steam while it is being cooled, will the clock slow down like the water molecules? No, it will not. A clock stuck in a bose condensate will likewise not slow down. How do we know? Because we've stuck clocks in condensates, in the form of light: the frequency of the light acts as a clock, and it does NOT get shifted by passing through the condensate. How can you tell? Easy: the absorbtion spectra for the gas atoms don't change when they condense.

That is assuming of course that a black hole (where there is intense gravity) is similar to what is called a super atom (contrived in a lab)

I have no idea where you got that assumption, but it's wrong. One example: light WILL shift in frequency as it enters or exits a strong gravity well.

So of that scant 18% of content 27% of it demonstrates a poor understanding of relativity. The idea of a clock running more slowly is a function of perspective in relativity not a function of the clock actually running more slowly.

Wrong. Gravity wells slow down time. That's a fact, it is not a function of persepective.

My point was: When we take a clock running at the speed it is running in the present moment and use it to measure a time that is actually slower there are going to be some inaccuracies. I suppose that's how they find stars in the universe that appear to be older than the universe itself.

Uh, no. That's not how it happens. First off, it's not individual stars which they calculate to be older than the universe, it's globular clusters. And they calculate that using models for how we think stars evolve, how far away they are, and how bright the stars in them are. That we get an answer which doesn't make sense doesn't mean anything at all about clocks, or the age of the universe: ALL it means is that there's some combination of errors in those three things (each of which is easy to make an error in) which add up to calculating a wrong age. It's not like looking at tree rings.

AgingYoung
16th March 2007, 03:36 PM
Ziggurat,

You're so quick to disagree you restate what I've said then disagree with it. We are actually saying the same thing.

Gene


...
Wrong. Gravity wells slow down time. That's a fact, it is not a function of persepective.
....

Ziggurat
16th March 2007, 03:46 PM
You're so quick to disagree you restate what I've said then disagree with it. We are actually saying the same thing.

No, we aren't. The early universe was not a gravity well. Gravity wells mean that there's a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential between two locations. The universe being denser does not create any such difference between spatial locations. Your statement concerning the resemblance of bose-einstein condensates (BEC) and black holes is also nonsensical, and the idea that time slows down inside a BEC is counter-factual.

~enigma~
16th March 2007, 03:49 PM
Uh, NO.

If you cool down steam, the atoms slow down and it condenses into water. If you put an accurate clock in the steam while it is being cooled, will the clock slow down like the water molecules? No, it will not. A clock stuck in a bose condensate will likewise not slow down. How do we know? Because we've stuck clocks in condensates, in the form of light: the frequency of the light acts as a clock, and it does NOT get shifted by passing through the condensate. How can you tell? Easy: the absorbtion spectra for the gas atoms don't change when they condense.



I have no idea where you got that assumption, but it's wrong. One example: light WILL shift in frequency as it enters or exits a strong gravity well.



Wrong. Gravity wells slow down time. That's a fact, it is not a function of persepective.



Uh, no. That's not how it happens. First off, it's not individual stars which they calculate to be older than the universe, it's globular clusters. And they calculate that using models for how we think stars evolve, how far away they are, and how bright the stars in them are. That we get an answer which doesn't make sense doesn't mean anything at all about clocks, or the age of the universe: ALL it means is that there's some combination of errors in those three things (each of which is easy to make an error in) which add up to calculating a wrong age. It's not like looking at tree rings.Ziggurat, don't take this wrong but you do realize that you are wasting your time don't you?

Ziggurat
16th March 2007, 03:55 PM
Ziggurat, don't take this wrong but you do realize that you are wasting your time don't you?

Yes, but I figured I'd have a quick go at it anyways.

~enigma~
16th March 2007, 04:05 PM
Yes, but I figured I'd have a quick go at it anyways.
No harm trying...just don't let this clown's bozone layer envelop you :)

AgingYoung
16th March 2007, 04:09 PM
Ziggurat,

Finally I think I understand what you're saying. Your point is there is no difference gravitational potential between a present location and a past location in a universe that is being stretched out (or is inflating). Personally I think there is a difference but I'll consider your point.

Thanks.

Gene

... Gravity wells mean that there's a DIFFERENCE in gravitational potential between two locations. ...

Ziggurat
16th March 2007, 04:29 PM
Ziggurat,

Finally I think I understand what you're saying. Your point is there is no difference gravitational potential between a present location and a past location in a universe that is being stretched out (or is inflating). Personally I think there is a difference but I'll consider your point.

Thanks.

Gene

No, that's not what I mean. It only makes sense to talk about time slowing down in relation to something. Time deep in a gravity well is slow compared to time outside that gravity well: what we're comparing is different locations at the same time. But the universe itself is not a gravity well. If the universe is basically isotropic (which we assume it is on a large scale because 1. it looks that way and 2. if it isn't then we'd have to be at a very special location in the universe, which is unlikely), then no matter how dense we make it, there's no difference in the passage of time between different locations at the same time. There's no basis on which to say that time was slower or faster in the early stages of the universe, and the statement doesn't even make any sense.

~enigma~
16th March 2007, 04:39 PM
:eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle::eusa_whistle:

AgingYoung
16th March 2007, 05:39 PM
Ziggurat,

What we're comparing is different locations at the same time. ....

If it's all the same to you I'll consider the original idea I spoke to and not change the point to the degree that a relativistic view would be applicable. I'm not sure why you would consider measuring time today then using it to calculate speeds and distances in the past of a universe that is being stretched out to be 'the same time', yet honestly I'm not interested.

I'm quite done with this topic. Thanks for your time.

Gene

AgingYoung
16th March 2007, 05:48 PM
Ben Tilly,

I really should have looked at your entire post before posting a response. That's how it goes sometimes. When I look at this part of your posting...

Originally Posted by Ben Tilly

... About Scheibster, I would be more inclined to agree with your interpretation if you hadn't said the exact same thing to me and made it not a question, and also hadn't seen fit to keep on repeating your post to try to make Scheibster respond. As it is, it really looks like you thought you'd shot him down....

...made after I posted these points....

I didn't repost the quote several times imploring an answer, only to put it at the end of several ranters insisting on forcing their philosophies on me.
Thank you (Scheibster) for responding. When I read your posts I have to do it slowly. I usually read them several times. There is no doubt you have a qualified opinion. Again, thanks for the response.

...seems you're mistaken. Again.

Cheers bloke,
Gene

~enigma~
16th March 2007, 06:44 PM
Ziggurat,



If it's all the same to you I'll consider the original idea I spoke to and not change the point to the degree that a relativistic view would be applicable. I'm not sure why you would consider measuring time today then using it to calculate speeds and distances in the past of a universe that is being stretched out to be 'the same time', yet honestly I'm not interested.

I'm quite done with this topic. Thanks for your time.

GeneTRANSLATION - I am too stubborn to change my view even in the face of an overwhelming overabundance of evidence otherwise. I am quite happy to live in my little fantasy world.

ETA - I don't get his problem. Time intervals are the same in any frame, is he jealous Einstein came up with special relativity?

trvlr2
16th March 2007, 07:26 PM
Enigma- Nah, he's a first class fundament.

Is it time* for recipes or kittens?





*sorry, couldn't resist.

~enigma~
16th March 2007, 07:36 PM
Enigma- Nah, he's a first class fundament.

Is it time* for recipes or kittens?


Kittens...

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/8250/kittengs8.jpg

or drunk squirrels...

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4272/error404zi1.jpg

Ziggurat
16th March 2007, 08:04 PM
I'm not sure why you would consider measuring time today then using it to calculate speeds and distances in the past

Because you don't understand cosmology (which you can't understand without relativity), and what time means in the context of the evolution of the universe.

yet honestly I'm not interested.

That much is evident.

Ben Tilly
16th March 2007, 09:39 PM
Ben,

Your analogy is faulty. If the blast furnace was all that existed, it would make more sense.

If my watch was the only time measuring device, perhaps. But we have others. For instance we can base on on the speet of light.

The very atomic motion we use to clock time in the beginning was slower than now. We are using fast paced clocks (relative to their speed at their origin) to measure the expansion of the universe. An actual atomic clock at the beginning of that expansion wouldn't appear to move more slowly from our perspective; it would actually be running slower. The difference wouldn't be accounted for as a result of perspective.

You keep on asserting this. And you keep on failing to notice that I've said that physics measures time according to elapsed time according to an observer that is still relative to the distant universe. And you've positively striven to avoid noticing that I've pointed out that we use this definition because we know of no external observer that we can compare that one to.

So you continue to say "slow relative to us" without noticing that this claim is one that we cannot make heads or tails of from within our best scientific theories. (A fact that you might notice more easily if you were interested enough in science to notice what our best scientific theories actually say...)

[quote=AgingYoung;2432418That is considering atoms existed; to be sure there came a point in time where they ‘formed’.

Gene[/quote]

I'm sure there did. According to current theory, that time was about 3 minutes after the Big Bang.

Cheers,
Ben

Skeptic Ginger
17th March 2007, 02:52 AM
...
The second point is more significant. You might ask ‘when did mankind come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding?’ Recently we've figured out that expansion is accelerating. Man's understanding evolves.

The biblical perspective is there is a God that is the cause of creation. When you look at the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account.

Gene

This was referred to I believe in another thread as AgingYoung does this continuously. For example, just look at his "sources" for creationist lies in other threads.AG challenged Q to cite the post in question.

Since a reply to AG's post doesn't fit in the other thread, I have no better place to address this than here. I apologize if it is OT. But it deserves being revealed as a false claim of yet another something in the Bible that supposedly really does match the science. No, it doesn't. You merely have the meaning of Biblical verses stretched like a Nostradamus Quatrain to fit something it really doesn't fit.

Here is the whole passage from Isaiah:

40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
40:19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chain
40:20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"

40:23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
40:24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.
The earth is a flat disc that God looks down upon from his throne in heaven.
Index of Creationist Claims (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH131.html)

I have heard the claim the circle referred to is a "sphere" but it isn't. And the claim is passed on without context so yet another person then repeats that the Bible described the Earth as a sphere. A circle is not a sphere!

And neither does anything in this passage remotely resemble AG's version of it, "the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account."

So unless you have a different verse in mind, AG, this one has nothing to do with the expanding Universe we observe from our vantage point on Earth.

AgingYoung
17th March 2007, 03:11 AM
sceptic pie
Ingredients

3 medium sized sceptics, quartered.
one crusty bit of logic
various seasonings
some eye of newt+
onions and carrots


Process:

Gently fold sceptics with seasonings along with eye of newt and onions and carrots together. Place in crust and watch the rapidly expanding explosion. Wear goggles. Stand back. Enjoy.

Gene

AgingYoung
17th March 2007, 03:27 AM
Because you don't understand cosmology (which you can't understand without relativity), and what time means in the context of the evolution of the universe.


In the Theory of Relativity time is an imaginary quantity that can not be observed; it is a multiplication of a number that indicates duration of material change and number i that is an imaginary number.

Comparing yesterday's time with how matter moves today is an absurd concept. It's self referencing.

Gene

AgingYoung
17th March 2007, 03:31 AM
If my watch was the only time measuring device, perhaps. But we have others. For instance we can base on on the speet[sic] of light.


No doubt. We don't measure time with the speed of light. Could you cite an example? Otherwise irrelevant.

Friggin' Cheers,
Gene

Roboramma
17th March 2007, 04:52 AM
Gene, do you know what imaginary numbers are?

Do you have anything to say about skeptigirl's post?

When you say that "We don't measure time with the speed of light."* what's your point? So long as we can do so, which obviously we can, it's a valid clock.

*and I don't know if that statement is true or not.

Skeptic Ginger
17th March 2007, 07:40 PM
I guess it's a compliment to be frequently ignored in this forum. :irule

Much preferable to the ad hom replies I get from some people who can't seem to find the words to reply with. :flamed:

Ziggurat
18th March 2007, 09:51 AM
Comparing yesterday's time with how matter moves today is an absurd concept. It's self referencing.

So what's the problem with that? We make an assumption that the laws of physics are constant, observe the world, and see how it compares, and we find that it's consistent. Assuming that the laws of physics changed requires that they change in rather specific ways in order to maintain consistency with observation, and ala Occam's Razor, that's not a very productive path to follow in the absence of any evidence to that effect (of which there is none).

Ziggurat
18th March 2007, 09:55 AM
We don't measure time with the speed of light.

We can. For time to alter, the speed of light must alter as well, and conversely if the speed of light changes, then time changes too. If you don't understand why relativity requires this, then you don't know enough to be able to say whether relativity is correct or not.

Ben Tilly
18th March 2007, 10:47 AM
No doubt. We don't measure time with the speed of light. Could you cite an example? Otherwise irrelevant.

We do measure time with the speed of light. For example look at the Shapiro delay test of general relativity.

Do you have any more red herrings to throw out to cover your ignorance?

Regards,
Ben

~enigma~
18th March 2007, 10:54 AM
We do measure time with the speed of light. For example look at the Shapiro delay test of general relativity.

Do you have any more red herrings to throw out to cover your ignorance?

Regards,
Ben
Shouldn't he be building a PPM (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68040)?