Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Issues of light
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 76 of 90 (41673)
05-29-2003 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by wj
05-29-2003 2:25 AM


Re: Light and Time
What, someone out there knows more than 1% of what there is to know about light? Perhaps all the books written about light may amount to almost 1% of what there is to know?
What do you speculate? 1%, 1.5%, peradventure 2%.
Don't get me wrong, men may collectively hold perhaps even billions of speculations in the literature concerning light, optics, field theories, quantum theory, and relativity, and information concerning light in atomic, subatomic, microscopic, astronomical, and cosmogenic studies, to say the least.
Thus, this shere magnitude and quality of men's knowledge of light (miniscule as it is) nonfallaciously proves (to me) that the supernatural ID is inherent per se.
On the other hand, for me limit Christ to a mere quantum state of the so-called particle and/or wavelength nature of light would be fallacious. (Sorry if I'm perhaps a bit redundant here)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by wj, posted 05-29-2003 2:25 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Karl, posted 05-29-2003 4:46 AM Philip has replied
 Message 78 by John, posted 05-29-2003 10:01 AM Philip has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 90 (41676)
05-29-2003 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Philip
05-29-2003 4:25 AM


Re: Light and Time
Can anyone spell "God of the Gaps"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Philip, posted 05-29-2003 4:25 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Philip, posted 06-01-2003 2:11 AM Karl has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 90 (41696)
05-29-2003 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Philip
05-29-2003 4:25 AM


Re: Light and Time
quote:
What do you speculate? 1%, 1.5%, peradventure 2%.
I'd guess far higher than that-- say, 80%. Light just isn't that mysterious. I say that I'd guess, however, because there is no way to actually figure out what percentage we know right now, without knowing what constitutes 100% knowledge of light. You can't decide how many people in a room are single unless you know how many people are in the room, right?
quote:
Thus, this shere magnitude and quality of men's knowledge of light (miniscule as it is) nonfallaciously proves (to me) that the supernatural ID is inherent per se.
Why light? There are things we know a lot less about. Why not say the supernatural ID is inherent in neutrinos? Perchance because the Bible doesn't say, "I am the way, the truth, and the neutrinos."?
quote:
On the other hand, for me limit Christ to a mere quantum state of the so-called particle and/or wavelength nature of light would be fallacious.
You think Christ is literally light-- physical light?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Philip, posted 05-29-2003 4:25 AM Philip has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 90 (41844)
05-31-2003 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Philip
05-29-2003 1:49 AM


Re: Light and Time
You still haven't told me why our inability to [presently] understand light completely, necessarily means that it is in any way supernatural. Your argument just doesn't follow logically.
Would you have said the same thing of particle physics in the 19th Century?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Philip, posted 05-29-2003 1:49 AM Philip has not replied

  
Philip
Member (Idle past 4722 days)
Posts: 656
From: Albertville, AL, USA
Joined: 03-10-2002


Message 80 of 90 (41898)
06-01-2003 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Karl
05-29-2003 4:46 AM


Re: Light and Time
Gee Karl,
Haven't we circled with this G-O-G Evo-logic a thousand times before? That metaphysical accusation plagues Evo's thousands of times over YECs and you know it.
I've got ONE G-O-G fallacy (e.g., "in the beginning God") and you've got at least a billion G-O-G fallacies in the supposed stellar formation(s) of higher elements and hopeful (yet impossible) raw (e.g., chromosomal) mutations.
What compulsively histerical nonsense! It's like we don't even want to appreciate the exceedingly excellency of light in the arts and sciences. Why don't I just gouge my eyes out and be blind to light's extensive excellencies?
Instead, don't you think we false-scientists might jump the mega-ToE ship for a minute. Open my eyes in awesome-wonder (AKA mind-boggling appreciation) concerning these complex issues of light?
Scientific folks, please stop hand-waving these elusive issues of light. Retract your deluded oversimplified dogmatic speculations and hypotheses. Conclude that it's a great mystery worthy of our deepest metaphysical and scientific inquiry. Thank you?
Blessings and utmost illumination unto you all,
Philip

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Karl, posted 05-29-2003 4:46 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by zephyr, posted 06-02-2003 4:57 PM Philip has not replied
 Message 82 by Karl, posted 06-03-2003 6:18 AM Philip has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4550 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 81 of 90 (41979)
06-02-2003 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Philip
06-01-2003 2:11 AM


Re: Light and Time
quote:
Blessings and utmost illumination unto you all
I'd never wish for the illumination you seem to have. I've spent my entire life trying to convince myself that I have inherent value and my views matter, and being raised in the church did ANYTHING but help. I've had plenty of illumination at the hands of well-meaning pastors and mentors, I've suffered enough for it, and I'm ready for something new. Squeegee my third eye please, I'm ready to use my mind freely and stop crying for mercy every time I'm attracted to a girl or angry at someone who insults me. I still believe in love and honesty and most of the good things you praise, I just don't find it necessary to condemn myself and grovel to the invisible whenever I fail to achieve them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Philip, posted 06-01-2003 2:11 AM Philip has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 90 (41993)
06-03-2003 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Philip
06-01-2003 2:11 AM


Re: Light and Time
We may have been round it before, but clearly you've not taken any notice of what I've said.
The essence of the GotG fallacy is to point to a gap in scientific knowledge and say "scientists can't explain that because God did it supernaturally".
There are no gaps which I ascribe to the supernatural working of God. Clear? I do not invoke "goddidit" to explain any of the current gaps in scientific knowledge. Is that clear?
There is a difference between "I don't know" and "Goddidit". Sure Goddidit - but God did all of it. God is in the gaps, but in the same way as He's in the understood phenomena.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Philip, posted 06-01-2003 2:11 AM Philip has not replied

  
anOnion2
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 90 (42032)
06-04-2003 3:40 AM


brief reprise of Schroeder
Hey folks,
This is my first post here, so be gentle. . There were some questions concerning Schroeders work earlier in this thread, and having read some of his work a few months back, I figure I might be able to clarify a few points of minor confusion concerning how he is getting 6-1/2 days to be equivalent to 15 billion years. What he is looking at is imagining an initial inertial reference frame from which the big bang originated. One of the standard thought experiments by which one compares time in different reference frames in relativity is to send light signals to observers. This is what Schroeder is doing. He sends out an imaginary signal (say each second) and during this time, the universe is expanding, so the signal has further to travel. When one works out the mathematics (as he did in his book, and I only very briefly checked), the signal sent out on day 6 reaches us 15 billion years later. He then quite convincingly argues (though I don't think he clearly explained about waters and being separated from other waters, etc.) that the order of events, e.g., creation of light, formation of stars, earth, types of life, and so on, match the current understanding of the formation of the universe and evolution.
So, as for the poster who wondered if this matches physics, I would say yes, it does. Of course, this does not give us any new physics either, and, imo, does not really prove ancient mythology conclusively. We simply don't know what the original writers of Genesis were thinking, but I'm quite sure they were not thinking about the expansion of the universe. It is possible, if a god exists, that he/she "inspired" this account to be found consistent later, but who knows? Improbable coincidences do happen now and then.
From then on, of course, Schroeder goes into metaphysical speculation about the human soul and wisdom...and well...that's beyond me .
cheers,
anOnion2

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by John, posted 06-04-2003 10:38 AM anOnion2 has not replied
 Message 85 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2003 12:26 PM anOnion2 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 90 (42070)
06-04-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by anOnion2
06-04-2003 3:40 AM


Re: brief reprise of Schroeder
quote:
This is what Schroeder is doing. He sends out an imaginary signal (say each second) and during this time, the universe is expanding, so the signal has further to travel.
This looks squirrelly ( hmmm... ispell says that is spelled correctly. ) to me. What you are actually talking about is 6½ days equalling 15 billion minus 6000 years, yes? In other words, this expansion stopped a few thousand years ago.
Ok. Problems:
1) This rapid expansion stopped a few thousand years ago-- our perspective. There is no mechanism other than divine intervention. Why did it stop, and what drove the expansion to start with?
2) The 6½ days is God's time, yes? For us this looks like 15 billion years? Well, you have...
Genesis: 11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
... on the third day. Relatively speaking, this would put complex life on Earth a couple of billion years before the Earth formed. The third day God's time would be about six or seven billion years ago from our perspective; and from our perspective the Earth is only about five billion years old. Life didn't pop up for another couple of billion, and complex plant life didn't arrive until 500 million years ago or so.
3) Expansion at this rate would overtake gravity. Things like stars and planets wouldn't form-- the molecules would be pulled apart faster than they could coalesce.
4) As I understand it, expansion doesn't alter the speed of light, it stretches the wavelength. We couldn't miss that effect. It would not look like a slow expansion.
That's my off-the-top-of-my head list. I'm sure others have better things to contribute.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by anOnion2, posted 06-04-2003 3:40 AM anOnion2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 90 (42081)
06-04-2003 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by anOnion2
06-04-2003 3:40 AM


Re: brief reprise of Schroeder
Well, I am afraid that what you write doesn't really clarify anything.
One of the important questions is how Schroeder manages to vary the time on Earth associated with each day, and this doesn't answer it at all
Another is why use another frame of reference when all of the events appear to involve the Earth and when the audience for well over 2000 years had no concept of time dilation.
And unless my understanding of Relativity is flawed we cannot find an inertial frame of reference from which the Big Bang "originated" - there is and can be no such thing.
(And another bit of Genesis 1, I bet Schroeder does not explain is how day and night are created in the first day.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by anOnion2, posted 06-04-2003 3:40 AM anOnion2 has not replied

  
anOnion2
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 90 (42083)
06-04-2003 12:45 PM


always problems
Hi John,
A quickie reply as I've got to get running to work here...I'll try to get to more detailed analysis as time allows. First, although I understand and can explain what Schroeder was doing, I'm probably not the right guy to be his advocate. It is actually of little benefit to me if he's right or wrong, as I think there are severe problems with the rest of the Bible and tie in to contemporary myths with Jesus are to evident to ignore. But that's topic for a different forum . He actually does have a website with an email contact, through which I have communicated with him before concerning how his calculations stacked up with inflation. He argued (and I didn't take the time to confirm) that they still work.
In any case...in his tie-in "model", the expansion continues, and whether or not it will continue, or is closed, or whatever, is irrelevant. The "god-frame-of-reference" can be thought of as simply the initial frame of reference before the quantum fluctation or whatever it was that caused the big bang and subsequent expansion. He argues that the big bang was actually the only real act of creation and that the Hebrew words for everything made afterwards implies a making of something out of existing materials.
The numbers which match time periods do seem to match, more or less. What he uses in his calculation is the rate of expansion to determine how long this thought-experiment signal takes to reach us. In the original frame of reference only 6-1/2 days have passed, and we haven't hit day 7 yet. But probably the quickest thing for me would be to dig up his book which is buried around here somewhere , and just give you those numbers, which I'll try to do this evening...
take care,
anOnion

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2003 12:55 PM anOnion2 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 87 of 90 (42085)
06-04-2003 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by anOnion2
06-04-2003 12:45 PM


Re: always problems
What he uses in his calculation is the rate of expansion to determine how long this thought-experiment signal takes to reach us. In the original frame of reference only 6-1/2 days have passed, and we haven't hit day 7 yet.
Light travels at the same speed to all observers, as John said. therefore an expanding universe wouldn't change the time inbetween the signals. It would red-shift, but that's about it... John said all this but you apparently missed it.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by anOnion2, posted 06-04-2003 12:45 PM anOnion2 has not replied

  
anOnion2
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 90 (42132)
06-05-2003 1:12 AM


of course
Yes, of course light travels at the same speed in a vacuum. That is because this is a constant appearing in Maxwell's equations which turns out to be the wave speed when you convert them into wave equations for electromagnetic waves. The fact that this is the only speed to be a constant (I am aware of anyway), is, in fact, at the heart of relativity.
However, neither I nor Schroeder ever said that the speed of light changed. The thing we all agree changed was the size of the universe as it expanded. Hence, the imaginary light signal had to cover a greater distance, and since, as you accurately noted, the speed is constant, it required a greater time. This little thought experiment is the only thing Schroeder is doing to get the match.
I had promised to reproduce his numbers, but not having taken the work too seriously, I'm afraid I left the book in another residence . However they seem to have been reproduced (vaguely familiar anyway ) at http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Briefs/genesis.html (not sure if somebody gave this link earlier). This link makes some excellent points critical of Schroeder's work. I don't quite remember Schroeder using quark confinement to begin his initial clock, but I'll take their word for it. It is a bit arbitrary. Exclusion of old galaxies is, of course, very problematic as well. The writer of the afore-mentioned link thinks it significant that he ignores the flood and ends with Day 6. Since Schroeder's position seems to have been only to justify the creation account and no amount of evidence of which I am aware can justify a world-wide flood account, this position seems a reasonable start to me.
But, as I implied earlier...I have no real stake in Schroeder's theory and am certainly not the best person for arguing his points for him. I simply thought, for the sake of argument, it should be clarified how he was getting his match, and that it was not by having god sit around on an arbitrarily moving reference frame. We can make anything match anything that way (almost ). But if you want more information about the guy and his ideas, his web site is at: http://www.geraldschroeder.com/sog.html . He does respond to email (like I mentioned..I questioned him how better information on inflation affected his calculations). Scrolling down his web site, he does seem to have something to say about the flood as well, but I guess I either skipped that part or found it forgettable . Unfortunately the site seems to exist soley to promote his books and is quite a dearth on real information and the actual numbers. That alone makes me a bit suspicious...
cheers,
anOnion

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by crashfrog, posted 06-05-2003 1:25 AM anOnion2 has not replied
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2003 4:17 AM anOnion2 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 90 (42134)
06-05-2003 1:25 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by anOnion2
06-05-2003 1:12 AM


Re: of course
However, neither I nor Schroeder ever said that the speed of light changed. The thing we all agree changed was the size of the universe as it expanded. Hence, the imaginary light signal had to cover a greater distance, and since, as you accurately noted, the speed is constant, it required a greater time. This little thought experiment is the only thing Schroeder is doing to get the match.
I don't think that's right. Firstly, with no inertial frame of reference, an expanding universe is no different than observers travelling away from each other.
I find it hard to break this down, mentally - maybe you can help me out. Let's pretend we're on trains, heading away from each other at some significant speed. You send me pulses from your light clock, one a second. We're accellerating away from each other (to mimic the effects of an expanding universe.)
In that situation, do I observe the pulses slowing down, falling behind my own timer? It's too complicated for me to puzzle out on my own. I'm hoping you can help me with this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by anOnion2, posted 06-05-2003 1:12 AM anOnion2 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 90 of 90 (42143)
06-05-2003 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by anOnion2
06-05-2003 1:12 AM


Re: of course
I notice that the Stenger article points out the varying "day" lengths and adds that they are not justified by the actual science. So it appears that Schroeders ideas are not compatible with the physics, he is supposedly using to justify them. Stenger also gets in a couple of digs at points where Schreoder's timescale makes no sense (such as putting fruit trees in day 3 which - according to Schroeder - ended 1.75 billion years ago). I note that there's a link to a fuller version of the review at :
Vic Stenger Schrev » Internet Infidels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by anOnion2, posted 06-05-2003 1:12 AM anOnion2 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