Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Issues of light
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 90 (37370)
04-19-2003 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by John
04-19-2003 7:52 PM


No I love it! When it goes this way. I don't think she's always been a Christian actually I think that is fairly recent. YAY for God!!!
hehehehehehehe. Just bugging you John I know it makes no real difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by John, posted 04-19-2003 7:52 PM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 90 (37390)
04-20-2003 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by THEONE
04-19-2003 8:44 PM


quote:
Can you, please, elaborate on this? What is meant by "unbounded"?
"Unbounded" meaning "no edges", like the surface of a sphere-- finite but there are no edges.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by THEONE, posted 04-19-2003 8:44 PM THEONE has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 90 (37398)
04-20-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by THEONE
04-19-2003 8:44 PM


"Unbounded" meaning "no edges", like the surface of a sphere-- finite but there are no edges.
To be fair (but probably confusing) it should be said that a sphere has an edge only in the third dimension. Within two dimensions it's unbounded. Imagine if you were a paper man who couldn't see into the third dimension and you lived on a sphere. Better yet you lived IN the surface of the sphere, so that the light you saw had to travel within that surface, too. You'd never see an edge to your universe, yet you'd know that it was finite because you could travel in any direction and return to your starting position. Furthemore there would be no place you could consider a "center" because there'd be no way to determine your absolute position on the sphere. (On earth, we solve this problem by setting up an arbitrary system of latitude and longitude that we all agree to use.)
By analogy, our universe could be a kind of fourth-dimensional hypersphere, with no boundaries that we are able to percieve. It would still be finite in volume, but you could never leave it by three-dimensional travel. There would be no center of the universe - or rather, such a center would not be within the universe we could travel to. Like the center of a sphere is not found on its center but within its volume, the center of the universe could only be found in its fourth-dimensional hypervolume.
Something like that. It's pretty confusing to try to think about higher spacial dimensions. But that's the long and the short of it. The universe can be unbounded but finite to us if the edge is not located within three dimensions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by THEONE, posted 04-19-2003 8:44 PM THEONE has not replied

  
Maestro
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 90 (37534)
04-22-2003 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Percy
04-19-2003 9:28 AM


This is completely incorrect. Humphries use of GR also explains an expanding universe and the background radiation with his starting assumption. (Actually the background temperature of the universe was predicted long before Penzias and Wilson came along. In fact, their first measurements based on a BB cosmology gave to high of a background radiation and they later "fixed" the prediction to fit the data.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Percy, posted 04-19-2003 9:28 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 04-22-2003 11:02 AM Maestro has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 35 of 90 (37550)
04-22-2003 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Maestro
04-22-2003 8:43 AM


Maestro writes:
This is completely incorrect. Humphries use of GR also explains an expanding universe and the background radiation with his starting assumption.
This is just a restatement of your initial assertion. Perhaps you could describe for us the observational evidence supporting Humphreys' views. I'm also curious how long you'll continue misspelling his name.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Maestro, posted 04-22-2003 8:43 AM Maestro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Maestro, posted 04-23-2003 8:36 AM Percy has replied

  
Maestro
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 90 (37666)
04-23-2003 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Percy
04-22-2003 11:02 AM


Percy said, "This is just a restatement of your initial assertion."
This is also incorrect, your previous post stated that, "Hubble's discovery of the expanding universe and Wilson and Penzias's discovery of the BB background radiation tells us that white-hole
cosmology doesn't match the observational evidence." Implying that Humphrey's (are you happy?) cosmology doesn't and can't deal with these observed phenomena. Perhaps if you had read his papers (have you?) you would know that one of the chief things he stated was that any cosmology that doesn't deal with observed phenomena cannot be considered as a viable alternative. His cosmology does deal with these observed phenomena and provide explanations for them within his white-hole cosmology framework. Your assertion that background radiation and universal expansion somehow prove his cosmology wrong is at best uninformed and at worst an outright lie. For more info on observational evidence that agrees with Humphrey's cosmology see the following:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Astronomy | Answers in Genesis

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 04-22-2003 11:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Mike Holland, posted 04-23-2003 9:33 AM Maestro has not replied
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 04-23-2003 3:53 PM Maestro has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 37 of 90 (37667)
04-23-2003 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Maestro
04-23-2003 8:36 AM


Hello Maestro, I have just read the two articles, and have some comments.
A quick scan of the Web provided many hits on Nodland and Ralston. There are many criticisms about their statistics and the observations they used. More recent observations using much more accurate instruments do not reveal the polarization effect. This site summarized the position, and it is several years old.
Home – Physics World
Most of the Web references date to 1997. It is a pity my scanner (Copernic) cannot tell me when each hit was published. Would save a lot of time.
Humphreys' second article, about quantized redshifts, is another distortion. They do not prove that the Earth is near the centre of the universe. Both Halton Arp, the author of the reference work on unusual galaxies and author of 'Seeing Red', and Hoyle, Burbridge and Narlikar ('A Different Approach to Cosmology') have proposed cosmological theories to account for quantization, which do not require a special position for earth.
NB. Some evidence for quantized redshifts has been invalidated - see 'No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data' by Hawkins, Maddox and Merrifield (August 2002).
These cosmological controversies are fun, but one needs to check the statistics, the alternative views and the latest observations once in a while to bring them down to earth (!!!).
Mike.
[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 04-23-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Maestro, posted 04-23-2003 8:36 AM Maestro has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 38 of 90 (37704)
04-23-2003 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Maestro
04-23-2003 8:36 AM


Hi Maestro,
Maestro writes:
Implying that Humphrey's (are you happy?)...
Sure, I was already happy, but the apostrophe belongs after the "y".
Thanks for the links, but I'm debating you, not webpages. Could you please summarize here for discussion how the observational evidence supports Humphreys' cosmology? You can provide the links as references.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Maestro, posted 04-23-2003 8:36 AM Maestro has not replied

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 90 (39428)
05-08-2003 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Mike Holland
03-28-2003 3:48 AM


Light and Time
Thanks for simplifying Humphries hypotheses so someone like me can understand. Do you concur with the hypothesis that Dr. Gerald Schroeder advances regarding an understanding of how men and God could look at 20 Billion years and 6 days (respectively) AND HAVE BOTH OBSERVERS BE COMPLETELY CORRECT? I think Schroeder proposes and refines his hypothesis in two different books - one is Genesis and the Big Bang.
More simply, I ask what hour is it at the North Pole, and what day is it at the Solar Pole? Does the question extend to some central axis around which our Solar system revolves? Are there any scientists left who believe time is not relative to the Einsteinian observer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Mike Holland, posted 03-28-2003 3:48 AM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2003 5:01 PM manwhonu2little has replied
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2003 6:41 PM manwhonu2little has not replied
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2003 5:36 AM manwhonu2little has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 40 of 90 (39429)
05-08-2003 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by manwhonu2little
05-08-2003 4:51 PM


Re: Light and Time
The thing is, as I understand the theory, that simple time dialation wouldn't advance radiometric and biomolecular "clocks" without doing the same thing to human perception.
That is, even if a bazillion earth years are made to fly by in the space of six days (relative to god, or some other off-world observer), that still means that, on earth, any record of time - even perception - would still report bazillions of years, and the earth, relative to us who live on it, would still be 4 billion years old.
I mean, if you're on the proverbial rocket ship, and somehow you're moving so fast as to alter your time, it's not like you observe clock hands spinning like table fans. Clocks still tick at the rate of once a second, by your perception. But if I look in the window of your ship right as it passes by, the clocks look different (slower? faster?) to me.
Does that make sense? Relative time doesn't solve any problems for young earth creationists. No matter what kind of time dialation we're under, a million years still looks like a million years to us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-08-2003 4:51 PM manwhonu2little has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 9:18 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 41 of 90 (39455)
05-08-2003 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by manwhonu2little
05-08-2003 4:51 PM


Re: Light and Time
For God to experience 6 days while twenty billion years passed in our frame of reference God would have to be moving at VERY close to the speed of light relative to the Earth - or near the event horizon of a Black Hole. What is more, God would have to be decelerating relative to the Earth (or moving slowly away from the Black Hole) if you want to reduce the ratio - which you would need if you want to try to match up the six days of Genesis to the scientific reconstruction of the distant past.
Perhaps this makes sense to you, but most monotheists don't assign a spatial location to God (Mormons are an exception - but I don't think that Schreoder's view fits with theirs) - their God is either outside of space or occupying all of it. But without being able to give God a spatial location neither Special nor General Relativity are of any help.
Neither the North Pole, nor the surface of the sun would be anywhere near that different from time on Earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-08-2003 4:51 PM manwhonu2little has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Mike Holland, posted 05-08-2003 7:26 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 42 of 90 (39459)
05-08-2003 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by PaulK
05-08-2003 6:41 PM


Re: Light and Time
Just typed up a long reply, and hit a wrong button and the whole lot disappeared. Hate computers! Anyway, here I go again.
Time dilatation due to relativistic speeds is RELATIVE - each observer sees the other one's clocks slow down. If one observer changes speed to match velocities, then he experiences a 'real' slowdown, and he will see the other observer's clock speed up. This is how the famous twin paradox works. While the space travelling twin is moving at a steady speed, either approaching or receding, each sees the other slowed down. When the traveller changes speed to return to earth, he sees the earthbound twin's clock speed up, and this is what makes the difference when he gets home. The difference depends on the total velocity change (acceleration = gravity) and the distance between them (equal to a difference in gravitational potential in the artificial gravitational field experienced by the traveller as he changes speed).
So if God was zooming around the universe at relativistic speed, he would see it slow down, but Adam would see God's wrist watch running slow. But when God stopped, he would find that He was still young while the universe had aged.
But black holes are another story. Enough for now. Breakfast calls!
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2003 6:41 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 9:31 AM Mike Holland has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 43 of 90 (39493)
05-09-2003 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by manwhonu2little
05-08-2003 4:51 PM


Re: Light and Time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-08-2003 4:51 PM manwhonu2little has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 9:03 AM PaulK has replied

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 90 (39505)
05-09-2003 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by PaulK
05-09-2003 5:36 AM


Re: Light and Time
Mark Perakh's critique of Schroeder seems rather shallow to me. On the most critical point of Schroeder's hypothesis, Perakh errs by stating Schroeder has based everything on an absolute time. I've read both of Schroeder's books, and I did not reach the same conclusion.
Rather, Schroeder argues (as Einstein established) that no frame of reference is any more valid than another. Both are correct.
I've also read Stephen Hawking's treatments on time, most notably the concept of event horizons. I'm fascinated by the simple explanation that time had a "beginning", which cooincides exactly with the advent of light (the formation of the first photons).
Combining Schroeder, Hawking, and the currently accepted scientific view of the universe evolving from a "Big Bang" some 15-20 Billion years ago (by our frame of reference), there seems to be no remaining contradiction between science and the first chapter of Genesis. I'm interested only in answers that deal with the scientific validity (or non-validity) of Schroeder's hypothesis. I'd like to leave the theological questions raised for another forum.
Using Occam's razor, can anyone propose a simpler explanation of relative time & space that refutes Schroeder's hypothesis? For true scientists reading this, please forgive the technical jargon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2003 5:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2003 9:31 AM manwhonu2little has not replied

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 90 (39507)
05-09-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
05-08-2003 5:01 PM


Re: Light and Time
I agree that Schroeder's ideas do not benefit scientists debating the merits of either creationism or evolution. In fact, it seemed to me that this was exactly Schroeder's point: his hypothesis to me seemed to be a thought experiment to test whether or not 15 Billion years could be feasibly be reconciled to six days (24-hour periods of time, as we know them). I think he succeeded, but I'm no scientist.
I'm not looking for a theological discussion; I'm interested in learning if this hypothesis violates known scientific theory or fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 05-08-2003 5:01 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024