|
Author
|
Topic: These Fellows Is Crazy!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Dr Cresswell writes:
quote:
Well, evidence that the universe is 13-15 billion years old can be found in any of a vast number of scientific texts.
Yes, but nobody accepts that number simply because it's written down in a book. Instead, the evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old can be found by going outside and looking up. Anybody can do it. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-17-2003 3:24 PM | | Dr Cresswell has replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Dr Cresswell responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Instead, the evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old can be found by going outside and looking up. Anybody can do it.
I could also say "The evidence that God exists can be found by going outside at night and looking up. Anybody can do it"
Then why is it when everybody does the age-of-the-universe thing, they all come to essentially the same answer but when everybody does the does-god-exist thing, they all come to essentially different answers? You'd think that if the evidence for god were so apparent, people would agree on the characteristics of that god, but we have yet to come up with a consistent description...even between people who claim to believe in the same god. Please, everyone, let's not be disingenuous about the need for equipment and training to understand the physics involved. The point is that there is a physical process that anybody can do, even those who are skeptical, and through it, everybody pretty muh comes to the same answer. But with god, even people who go through the identical process, we find that people end up on completely different ends of the scale. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Dr Cresswell responds to me:
quote:
and there is no evidence of that ever happening in religion.
That would appear to be an existential problem for religion, then, wouldn't you say? Thousands of years and still there isn't even the slightest bit of consensus on even the most basic characteristics of god?
quote:
Now if you happen to believe that anything that can't be addressed by science is either non-existant or totally trivial then I guess that's the end of the discussion for you.
I don't recall saying or even vaguely hinting at such a thing. Why would you immediately jump to such a conclusion? I am perfectly happy to keep this at a philosophical level, but the question still remains: Why is it that no two people can seem to agree about god?
quote:
Personally I find assessing the evidence for God to be closer to describing why a particular bit of poetry is good
Ah, but whether or not we agree about the poem being "good," we both agree that the poem exists. That it has certain structural aspects. That it was written within a certain cultural framework from which it takes its metaphors. We can't even get to the question of the poem being "good" if we can't even agree that there is a poem in the first place. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Dr Cresswell responds to me:
quote:
Ultimately I do believe that "evidence for God" is only really evidence for people who have already made the step of faith that God exists
Which makes it a circular argument...no good there.
quote:
All I can do is point out evidence that is consistent with/supportive of the "God exists" axiom.
But the axiom is a self-fulfilling one. What evidence would you accept that would call that axiom into question? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Re: Verifying 14 billion year old universe
Lizard Breath responds to me...I think...he doesn't say:
quote:
quote:
Instead, the evidence that the universe is about 14 billion years old can be found by going outside and looking up. Anybody can do it.
I'm not denying that there is evidence for the age of the visible universe at or around 14 billion years, but you have to make some very broad assumptions to get there if your methodology as stated above is followed to arrive at that conclusion.
Not at all. The reason why everybody in the astronomical community has come to the same conclusion regarding the age of the universe is because they have all done the work, sometimes in mutually exclusive processes, and come to the same answer. And you can run your own experiments, too, in order to see what you come up with. You don't have to take their word for anything. The point I am making is that calculating the age of the universe does not require the universe to bestow upon you the glory of faith. It simply requires you to take the time to do the work required to find out.
quote:
Nobody can go outside at night, look up in the sky and say, "Yep, that looks like about 14 billion years alrighty" without first subscribing to some other source of information saying it's that old.
You're being disingenuous. The fact that I need to use physical instruments to make measurements does not change the fundamental concept of what it is that I am doing: I'm going outside and looking up. I'm not relying on other people to do it for me. I'm not relying upon a book to tell me what it is I'm supposed to find. I'm not relying upon some special voice in the back of my head for guidance. Instead, I am tackling the question head on by doing the work myself. The fact that I need to make some tools does not change the fact that I am the one that's doing the looking. If I want to know how old the universe is, I have to look at the universe. That's the only way to know for sure.
quote:
I'm gleaning info and knowledge from you more than activily engaging debate
No, you're playing a game of gotcha and I don't play that.
quote:
but if you really are spot on with your science, you should be able to convincingly explain it to an average intellect carbon unit like me in such a way that I easily can walk away from any notion of a young universe possibility.
Are you willing to do the work? Just how far back to the fundamentals do I need to go in order for you to follow along? Do I need to discuss the nature of light and provide you with experimental evidence that it has an upper limit on its speed? Are you willing to wait the six months required for the earth to move to the opposite side of the sun in order for you to measure the parallax generated and thus make a direct calculation of the distance of certain cosmological objects? I'm willing to do it, but there's a much better route for you to take. Go to your local college or university and take some coursework in astronomy. They will be much better equipped to answer all of your questions as well as having appropriate equipment for you to use to carry out your experiments. It's kinda hard to have you look through my telescope when you're not here to look through it.
quote:
Just looking for truth, not spin so if you choose to answer my request,
No, you're looking for a game. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Dr Cresswell writes:
quote:
But, it is a big step from "don't matter scientifically" to "don't matter at all" ... which is a step some athiests seem to want to make.
Evidence, please? I know that people like to say this about atheists, but I have yet to find a single one who seems to think that atheists don't care about anything that can't be examined "scientifically." F'rinstance, science can tell you everything about a sound wave...it's amplitude, frequency, how far it will travel in certain media, etc., etc. It cannot tell you if it is music. Every atheist I know will handily agree that there are plenty of things, important things, that cannot be examined scientifically, that are inherently subjective. Again, even if we disagree over whether or not a poem is good, we agree that the poem exists. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Dr Cresswell responds to me:
quote:
quote:
But the axiom is a self-fulfilling one. What evidence would you accept that would call that axiom into question?
Well, it isn't necessarily self-fulfilling.
With no evidence to justify the claim, how can it not be? You can make your god do anything to fit whatever outcome comes along.
quote:
If I was to say that, for example, God always answers prayer then the undeniable fact that he doesn't negates my statement.
No, it doesn't. "Do not think prayers go unanswered. Every prayer is answered. It's just that sometimes the answer is no." (Christopher Durang, Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All to You)
quote:
Now, I admit that my position is somewhat circular (though I might say more like a spiral ... in that it is constantly open to refinement where new experience can often go back and cause me to reassess parts of my position). But, ultimately, like any axiom, it would take something very significant to reject the whole axiom in favour of another one.
Like what? As soon as you allow the possibility that the results can be both positive and negative, then you're axiom is worthless.
quote:
Also, I would note, that a position of "there is no God" is equally axiomatic.
But that isn't what atheists generally claim. Instead, that's just a shorthand for the larger statement that there is no evidence for the existence of god, hasn't been for quite some time, no promise of any in the future, and such a huge quagmire of contradictions among those who claim that there is one, that the only thing left to conclude is that it appears that there isn't one. Pretty much every atheist out there, however, could come up with an event that would make them change their mind. What would it take to change a theist's mind? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by Dr Cresswell, posted 10-20-2003 2:22 PM | | Dr Cresswell has not replied |
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Re: Rrhain,
Lizard Breath responds to me...I think...he doesn't say and since he used the big reply button at the bottom of the page rather than using the little reply button beneath my message, it's only a guess:
quote:
I was looking for some info from you as far as the most convincing observational evidence that you have read / discovered that sets it in stone the acceptable age of the universe.
First, nothing in science is ever set in stone. Everything is always subject to review when new evidence comes along. Some things are so well-established that it will take extraordinary evidence in order to cause us to reconsider, but it will be reconsidered when that evidence is presented. Second, all you had to do was a simple internet search and you would have found what you were looking for. Why do you make us do your homework for you? Go to Google, type in "age of universe," and take a look for yourself. First link, from the BBC, discusses calculations from observations from the Hubble of white dwarfs, placing the age of the universe between 13 and 14 billion years:
Age of Universe confirmed The second link, from Space.com, makes calculations from the structure of space and puts it between 11.2 and 20 billion years, indicating that the Hubble result is consistent.
Age of Universe Revised, Again Third link uses data from WMAP and calculates the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years:
Age of universe refined Now, why did I have to do this for you? Why couldn't you do it for yourself? Methinks you're simply playing a game.
quote:
True, I can go to a university and study astronomy and physics and find out the answers that way,
That is the best way. They have the equipment, the time, and the expertise required to make sure you get all of your questions answered. They have a structure whereby they start at the beginning and don't skip ahead in order to make sure that you don't get left behind. Everything we discuss here will be in layman's terms.
quote:
it seems apparent that you are not going to share what you have found out with me and I can accept that.
Oh, please. Now I know you're playing a game. What's with the wounded martyr routine? I know...you see, now you can go on and on about how you tried to talk with us with an open mind, but you were met with derision and scolding. If you really cared about this subject, you would do some work. I actually asked you if you were willing, and you blew me off:
Are you willing to do the work? Just how far back to the fundamentals do I need to go in order for you to follow along? Do I need to discuss the nature of light and provide you with experimental evidence that it has an upper limit on its speed? Are you willing to wait the six months required for the earth to move to the opposite side of the sun in order for you to measure the parallax generated and thus make a direct calculation of the distance of certain cosmological objects? So are you? This is a two-way street. I cannot tell you what you want to know unless you be honest about what it is you want to know.
quote:
you seem to know your stuff in the realm of science and astronomy so I was truly interested in the set of core scientific facts that you employ and the logic tools that you use to lock the picture of the age of the universe as well as it's formation into clear focus.
Then get off your butt and do some work.
quote:
As far as the spin was concerned
You're playing games again....
quote:
That's what I was trying to avoid and what I ment by spin but I gets it's the same game on both sides of the isle.
But you're the one playing it. "Spin"? What "spin"? You've done an amazing job of making yourself look like a reasonable, innocent bystander and I just don't buy it. I've seen too many people who do the exact same thing that you do who eventually self-destruct and show their true colors. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Re: To anyone other than Rrhain,
Lizard Breath writes:
quote:
Is it possible to explain how the upper limit of the speed of light was determined - to a non scientist like myself? Probably not.
If you actually got off your butt and did some work, you'd have a better shot at it, don't you think? What you have asked is not a simple question. Here's an example of what I mean. You can calculate the speed of light in your own home, most likely. Take some marshmallows, put them on a microwave safe dish, and put them in the microwave. Make sure that your microwave does not have a turntable as we want the marshmallows to remain in one spot while you cook them. On low heat, zap the marshmallows until you can see four or five spots on the marshmallows where they are starting to melt. Take out the dish and measure the distance between the melted spots. You'll find that they're all about the same distance apart. That distance is half the wavelength of the microwaves used by your oven. Somewhere on the oven will be a label telling you the frequency of the microwave. Now, since velocity of waves is frequency x wavelength, all you have to do is multiply your wavelength measured by the frequency of the oven and you get the speed of light. Now, does that help you? Do you understand the nature of light and the wave nature of light such that the multiplication of frequency and wavelength giving velocity makes sense? There are many ways to calculate the speed of light. In 1676, Olaus Roemer noticed the time it took for the moons of Jupiter to eclipse varied according to whether the Earth was approaching or receding from Jupiter. Using the estimated distance between the two planets, he calculated c to be 214,000 km/s. More direct measurements were done by Armand Fizeau in 1849 where he took a beam of light that passed through the teeth of a cog, traveled 8 km to a mirror, and then passed back through the next gap between the teeth of the cog as it rotated. He calculated c to be 315,000 km/s. Leon Foucault used a similar method to refine the result to 298,000 km/s. For more information:
How is the speed of light measured? quote:
I have read that space appears to be spread out like a curtain instead of a speriod
Where did you read this? It isn't true. A recent study found that the universe is shaped like a dodecahedron:
A finite dodecahedral Universe quote:
Again it would seem to me that if the explosion was uniform, the universe should be just one giant super galaxy or even just a globular cluster sitting static.
You're forgetting about quantum fluctuations.
quote:
but I find it puzzling the number of Galaxies and their odd orientations to each other vs. all being aligned to a focal point somewhere in the direction of the initial instant of the Big Bang.
Why? ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
Rrhain
Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: 05-03-2003
|
Re: Rrhain,
Lizard Breath responds to me:
quote:
Correct me if I'm out there but the cooling cinders would be similiar to a smoldering camp fire where there is little visible light being emitted but you can measure the amount of heat (roughly) by how warm the remains feel as you draw your hand close to it.
No. You are taking the metaphor too far.
quote:
What you cannot know by this is how old is the fire ring (pit), and what I'm wondering is later on in this article they give a date for the age of the universe as 1 billion years older than the 13 billion year old white dwarfs.
Yes. It's called correlation. If you know that the first stars of a certain type occurred about a billion years after the Big Bang through one method and you find that the first stars of a certain type are just under 13 billion years old by another method, then you simply put the two together and you find that the universe is just under 14 billion years old. I don't understand why this is difficult for you. If one method tells you what the lower limit is and another method shows you that the actual answer is about distance X in front of the lower limit, then what is so hard about combining these two facts?
quote:
how is it determined that these white dwarfs are first generation stars.
Do some research and find out. And notice that the article also points out that multiple methods, mutually exclusive in methodology, all seem to come to the same answer. That gives us confidence that the answer we have is accurate. ------------------ Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
™ Version 4.2
