Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 46 of 90 (39509)
05-09-2003 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by manwhonu2little
05-09-2003 9:03 AM


Re: Light and Time
I notice that you haven't dealt with some of the points already raised.
Firstly can you explain what frame of reference would give the result of matching up the six days of Genesis to actual time (that is the events of all six days, not just a period of six days) ? And can you explain why such a frame of reference would be used rather than the more obvious frame used by physicists ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 9:03 AM manwhonu2little has not replied

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 90 (39510)
05-09-2003 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by Mike Holland
05-08-2003 7:26 PM


Re: Light and Time
I'm not interested in theological discussion here, but in taking Schroeder's ideas as a thought experiment (never published with such an intent, as disclaimed by the author). What scientific theories, principles, or laws are violated by considering that an observer outside of time & space (for both are inextricably linked, according to Einstein & Hawking) could view 144 hours as we view 15 Billion years? Is it valid to consider the outer fringes of the universe (if there is such a thing) to comprise an "event horizon" which devolves back to the beginnings of the universe? Would it be valid to conjecture that galaxies and stars would be "newer" at such an event horizon than most galaxies and stars near the center of such a universe?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Mike Holland, posted 05-08-2003 7:26 PM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2003 9:50 AM manwhonu2little has replied
 Message 49 by wj, posted 05-09-2003 10:12 AM manwhonu2little has replied
 Message 50 by Mike Holland, posted 05-10-2003 5:43 AM manwhonu2little has not replied

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


Message 48 of 90 (39511)
05-09-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by manwhonu2little
05-09-2003 9:31 AM


Re: Light and Time
quote:
I'm not interested in theological discussion here, but in taking Schroeder's ideas as a thought experiment (never published with such an intent, as disclaimed by the author). What scientific theories, principles, or laws are violated by considering that an observer outside of time & space (for both are inextricably linked, according to Einstein & Hawking) could view 144 hours as we view 15 Billion years?
As I stated earlier, if the observer is "outside of space and time" neither General nor Special relativity would apply and Schroeder's arguments are moot. SO we have the question of why this observer would choose a frame of reference other than the Earth's to describe the timespan of events taking place on Earth. Especially as the relationship between this arbitrary frame of reference and the Earth has to change to match Schroeder's assertions.
Note also that the original audience for the text in question had no knowledge of Relativity and therefore could not interpret it as Schroeder does, nor could anyone for more then 2500 years after it was written (more than 3000 if you insist on Mosaic authorship as Schroeder probably would).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 9:31 AM manwhonu2little has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 12:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 90 (39512)
05-09-2003 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by manwhonu2little
05-09-2003 9:31 AM


Re: Light and Time
Even if creationist come up with some mechanism for compressing 14 billion years into 6 "days", the other difficulty is that the order of events described in Genesis 1 (why ignore Genesis 2?) is contrary to the order of comparable events determined by conventional science. Do creationists propose a mechanism which differentially affects the radiometric dating of bird and land animal fossils so that birds which were created on "day 5" appear to be younger than land animals created on "day 6"?
And if you are not interested in a theological discussion, please explain where the "6 days" comes from. Why would you just happen to choose this as the desired period into which to squeeze the history of the universe? Have you derived the "6 day" from some independent source?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 9:31 AM manwhonu2little has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 12:49 PM wj has not replied

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


Message 50 of 90 (39592)
05-10-2003 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by manwhonu2little
05-09-2003 9:31 AM


Re: Light and Time
There is a much simpler way to provide the '6 days = 15 billion years' solution than trying to invoke Relativity.
Consider the planet Saturn. It is much further from the Sun than Earth, moves more slowly than Earth, and takes about 10 years to complete its orbit - WRONG. It takes exactly ONE year to orbit the Sun - ask any Saturnian. They will also tell you that Earth races around its orbit, and takes a tenth of a year to complete one lap.
So suppose that God was sitting on some planet or asteroid that rotates about its axis once every 2 billion years, and viola! the problem is resolved.
I don't know why I keep solving the Creationist's problems for them!
Getting a bit more serious regarding Event Horizons, this term is used by scientists to describe the distortion of space-time around a supermassive object. No light, or anything else, can escape through it, and so it is called a Black Hole. To use this term for the edge of the universe (if there is one) is to confuse the issue.
There is a sense in which the universe has an edge, where the stars are younger, as you describe. As we look at more distant galaxies, we are looking into the past because of the billions of years that the light has taken to get here. So the galaxies, as we see them, are much younger than our own. And the furthest we can look would be 12 billion light years, if the age of the universe is 12 billion years. We could not see further because we are looking into the past of an expanding universe (actually, the limit would be more like half this, for various other reasons).
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-09-2003 9:31 AM manwhonu2little has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Mike Holland, posted 05-10-2003 10:00 AM Mike Holland has not replied

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


Message 51 of 90 (39599)
05-10-2003 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Mike Holland
05-10-2003 5:43 AM


Re: Light and Time
About 6000 years ago God moved to another planet, one which rotates once every 1000 Earth years.
Mike.
[This message has been edited by Mike Holland, 05-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Mike Holland, posted 05-10-2003 5:43 AM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 11:58 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 90 (39600)
05-10-2003 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Mike Holland
05-10-2003 10:00 AM


Re: Light and Time
I'm more than willing to let go of the 144 hours, but I chose it because Schroeder argued it.
The arguments I've read in response are greatly appreciated, but seemed to dodge the question I posed: are any scientific laws, theories, or principles violated by Schroeder's hypothesis?
I agree that it seems kind of silly to try to imagine an observer outside of space and time, and then expect that observer to behave according to our concept of them. I guess I'm too close to the metaphysical here, and need to back off.
Still, something nags me about the Big Bang theory, and how time and space evolved. Perhaps Schroeder started me thinking this way, but I'd like to read some good articles about the formation of light: how soon was it after "singularity"? How "big" was the universe when photons first "escaped"? Do you know of any articles specific to this discussion? Thanks again for all of your replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Mike Holland, posted 05-10-2003 10:00 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 90 (39601)
05-10-2003 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
05-09-2003 9:50 AM


Re: Light and Time
I'm not troubled at all about such an observer using Earth's time frame of reference, since no other frame of reference would have any meaning to me. When I travel to France, I speak French.
Concerning why translate from another frame of reference in the first place, I can only answer by saying that this is what I'm interested in exploring, as Schroeder did. I'm not talking about just any frame of reference, but specifically that of an observer on the outside of the universe, looking in. Certainly, the Big Bang theory cannot be described except from such a perspective.
However, I may need to back off, because the question may force us into the metaphysical, in which I have no interest. I'd also like to get away from referencing Schroeder, because he clearly argues from a perspective which includes a lot of theology, also of little interest to me.
Having said all that, want to take a crack at my question: does this hypothesis violate any scientific laws, theories, or principles? Can you direct me to other discussions on this topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 05-09-2003 9:50 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 05-10-2003 3:51 PM manwhonu2little has not replied

  
manwhonu2little
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 90 (39603)
05-10-2003 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by wj
05-09-2003 10:12 AM


Re: Light and Time
Please see my replies to others on this topic.
Clearly, Schroeder incorporates a lot of theology in his books, which hold little interest for me, except as pertains to this concept of light and time.
I'm trying to determine if scientific laws, theories, or principles are violated by this kind of thinking. If I were to pursue development of a thought experiment (a la Einstein's methodology for special relativity), do I need to address this possibility? Or is it clear from other scientific observations that a clock riding on an hypothetical bubble-membrane at the very edge of the expanding universe would show the same time as one sitting at the center of that same universe?
I've heard that galaxies are moving "faster" at the edge of the universe than near the center. Some have proposed this to be analogous to planetary orbits (gravitation lower at outer regions), but could it also be that as we look out, we are "seeing" light emitted at an earlier time, when the universe was "smaller" and expanding more rapidly than today? If so, then that hypothetical clock at the outer fringe would seem to me (according to relativity) to be ticking "slower" than my own clock. But then, I don't really know how far I actually am from the fringe, do I? Is it permissable for me to use the difference in ticking to estimate difference in distance from the "center"? Sorry, that last question will take us off topic.
In any case, thanks for taking my questions seriously. I don't know too much (isn't it obvious?), but am eager to learn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by wj, posted 05-09-2003 10:12 AM wj has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2003 1:34 PM manwhonu2little has not replied

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


Message 55 of 90 (39605)
05-10-2003 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by manwhonu2little
05-10-2003 12:49 PM


Re: Light and Time
There's some thought that the universe hase no edge - is unbounded in three dimensions - so in that circumstance, "center" doesn't really have a meaning. Well, it would - but the center of the universe would not be found within its three-dimensional volume, just as the center of a sphere is not found on its surface. The reason, then, that distant galaxies recede faster is because the space between all galaxies is expanding. No matter where you view this phenomenon, in a relative universe you appear to be at the center of it because everything is moving away from you.
Or that's how I understand it. If the universe does have a three-dimensional edge then it is receding somewhere around the speed of light. What mechanism would ensure that the clock keeps pace with the edge? That seems to me to be the only situation where the clock would time-dialate. Nothing about the edge would "drag" the clock along with it, would it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 12:49 PM manwhonu2little has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Philip, posted 05-11-2003 1:45 AM crashfrog has replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 56 of 90 (39612)
05-10-2003 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Jesuslover153
03-26-2003 11:00 PM


Jesuslover, you wrote:
quote:
Without gravity none of this can be, not one experience that we experience... the only thing greater than gravity is the power which spoke it into being.. God
I thought I’d step in and correct an obvious misconception that you have about the force of gravity. Gravity is actually the WEAKEST force in the universe. The only reason that we can notice it at all, in fact, is because it acts over long distances and is always attractive. The electromagnetic force is much stronger by far! If you stop to think about the interactions you have with all objects (or if you study chemistry - the binding of atoms and molecules) you would see that interactions of electrically charged particles keeps you from falling through the earth! (If you don’t believe me, ask someone knowledgeable of how much space exists between the sub particles of atoms). The next strongest force is the weak nuclear force which is responsible for radioactive decay. And last but certainly not least is the strong nuclear force. This is the force that holds protons and neutrons together in the nucleus of an atom, and which holds the quarks together in the proton and neutron (quarks being constituents of protons and neutrons). All of this knowledge is available at your local library, the internet or if you so choose, from a physics class in high school or college. If you want to read a good book on the nature of matter and the universe read Stephen Hawkings’ A Brief History of Time, Hawking, S. W. Bantam Books, New York, 1996. (Sorry if I didn’t follow any citation standard.)
As far as the reason that the moon or any other thing absorbs light, I think you are either confused or misspoke. I am not completely clear on what you mean by absorbs light (so feel free to clarify any misconception I might have) but if you mean the reason that the moon is so hot on the side facing the sun; that has to do with the fact that you have no atmosphere on the moon (if at all of - that I am aware of) thick enough to block all the incoming solar energy or radiation from striking its surface. Gravity has nothing to do with this. The Earth I suppose could be said to absorb light but again this has nothing to do with gravity, at least directly, but does have everything to do with the fact that we have an atmosphere. You would be correct in saying that Black holes are able to absorb light gravitationally. Though they are the only objects I know of which can do so in such a way. Other celestial objects absorb the energy of light by the transference of energy from the light particle/wave striking and causing to vibrate one of the celestial objects atoms.
As far as gravity being the reason we experience things the way we do I think you are giving gravity more credit than it is worth. I am not sure if you are speaking metaphysically or what but gravity would have as much to do about our mind as magnetism has to do with curing our ills.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Jesuslover153, posted 03-26-2003 11:00 PM Jesuslover153 has not replied

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


Message 57 of 90 (39632)
05-10-2003 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by manwhonu2little
05-10-2003 12:24 PM


Re: Light and Time
I would say that the essential problem is that Schroeder uses an ad hoc and implausible hypothesis. While such a frame of refernece could exist it makes absolutley no sense to use it without a clear indication that one is doing so, The "days" represent variabel amounts of time in our frame of reference AND the only way to work out what time they do represent is to try to match the events in Genesis 1 with the actual events so far as we can scientiifcally determine them (which itself requires ad hoc and questioanable interpretations).
So, Schroeder's interpretation is not scientiifc, nor is it good hermeneutics. It is simply a rather desperate attempt to validate the text by distorting it's meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by manwhonu2little, posted 05-10-2003 12:24 PM manwhonu2little has not replied

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


Message 58 of 90 (39658)
05-11-2003 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
05-10-2003 1:34 PM


Re: Light and Time
I respond to you because you seem fairly coherent in discussing relativistic issues of light at least. You or anyone are welcome to rebut/respond-to the following. Note: To you all that profess yourselves to be wise: Realize these are wild speculations (like yours). Also, please excuse any crudeness of language. (I find every one of you crude in language, too)
(YECs like myself desperately do attempt to support the Biblical framework without violating science. Metaphysically, a YEC-God is hypothesized if only because that type of God seems to consistently answer his/her prayer(s), provide a reason for this scientific madness, and/or be consistent with prophecy, promises of redemption, etc., etc.).
The following "what-ifs" come to mind (pick one or two):
What if most (honest) YECs do indeed "desperately" try to speculate relativistic schemes to fit their 6-day hypotheses? As for myself I do desperately speculate several scenarios: e.g., that orbital clocks may be dilated to accommodate eons of radiometric clocks in days 1, 2, and possibly 3 and/or 4 of Genesis. What if this YECs speculation is (desperately) based on complex Newtonian, Relativistic, and/or Quantum theories of light?
What if I speculate that higher elements (e.g., Cesium, Argon, etc. (and their isotopes) were created by day 1 (i.e., and not later by supernovas). What if God did stretch them out in His Mind, possibly BEFORE He stated "let there be light" and/or again on the second day. (That is Day 2 is the stretching out of the firmament/heaven) Might I thus apologize for my suspicions concerning Genesis?
What if gravity and light are inextricably bound in a viable field theory as Einstein may have eluded to? In other words, what if gravity goes far beyond our Newtonian concepts, i.e., into quantum-like and/or relativistic-like concepts of light? Do we really understand and know gravity enough to handwave it out of our light theories?
What if you, Einstein, and I really have clue to what light really is? Should I profess myself to be wise (in any wise) about issues of light and time?
What if the earth's (and other planets) higher elements were captured ad-hoc by God say on the 3rd day of creation. Then their radiometric clocks could be different from the earth's orbital clock of "evening and morning".
What if the Ancient of Days spoke time into His creation? Would that make God an OEC and a YEC? Methinks, that is plausible.
What if the big bang/creation was galaxy-centric, geo-centric, and/or centered about the sun? What would be the implications (if any) on light and time as we SEEM to know it?
What if light was different on the 1st vs. 4th day of Creation as scriptures do seem to indicate? In other words, what if light was changed in its quantum, Newtonian, and/or relativistic properties once the sun moon and stars were formed? Would this not both violate and support our present theories?
What if radiometric time went on and on while as yet orbits of time were not yet formed? From God's view an evening and morning of time may account for eons, i.e., without His conceiving or creating time beyond an "evening and morning"/day.
What if most scientists coolly (in a non-desperate hypothetical manner) deal with light as a strictly materialistic phenomenon? Did these puny mortals really crack the case concerning the mystery of light? Should we trust what millions of scientists have accumulated over the years as the Gospel truth of light?
What if a Gospel truth of light eludes brilliant scientists, who while professing themselves to be wise have really become fools in this matter? Take proud old dead Einstein, for example. What relativistic revelations of his could possibly be worth a rat’s ass to anyone trying to find hope in a Gospel of redemption, that is
What if light really is Christ, even in some sort of a pantheistic manner, perhaps?
What if light were taken out of the creation: e.g., outer-darkness. What a hell of waste and void there would be, no? Where would our Newtonian and/or evolutionary concepts be then?
Many other what-ifs will always deride Evos and YECs alike, especially concerning light. Thus
What if one dogmatically speculates that we are ALL desperate fools concerning issues of light and radiometric time? Your scientific evidences and mine seem scanty, based on minimal unacceptable (black box) data. What vanity and vexation, then remains in this discourse.
Whose foremost speculations on light should I really confide in as a working hypothesis: Biblical YEC, OEC, theistic-ToE, or atheistic-ToE? Methinks, the issue of light is a profound mystery, as profound as it gets, and thus never should be dogmatically abused by Evos and Creationists in radiometric dating.
Methinks it behooves us to remove much of our radiometric dating and stellar dating from our scientific texts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 05-10-2003 1:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 05-11-2003 3:15 AM Philip has replied
 Message 60 by Gzus, posted 05-11-2003 9:43 AM Philip has replied

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


Message 59 of 90 (39663)
05-11-2003 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Philip
05-11-2003 1:45 AM


Re: Light and Time
I respond to you because you seem fairly coherent in discussing relativistic issues of light at least.
I'm, er, pleased that you think so - I don't have any kind of formal training in cosmology or physics, just a good copy of "A Brief History of Time." (The illustrated version.)
What if the earth's (and other planets) higher elements were captured ad-hoc by God say on the 3rd day of creation. Then their radiometric clocks could be different from the earth's orbital clock of "evening and morning".
Well, what if (to cite a common example) god simply made the universe and everything in it one second ago, complete with yours and my brain filled with a lifetime of fraudulent memories? Once we assume a god who can make things older than they are we have to wonder if a god of truth would mislead us so. When I believed in god, I rejected such a hypothesis. Now that I don't believe, it doesn't matter.
Methinks it behooves us to remove much of our radiometric dating and stellar dating from our scientific texts.
Why? Because of some quasi-metaphysical speculations about light? I don't even understand what light has to do with radioactive decay. I'm not saying it doesn't, just that no one's ever elucidated such a connection to me.
Suppose there is a connection. Light behaves in ways that are weird under certain circumstances - against common sense to most people. The thing is, light behaves exactly as our theories say it should, no matter how weird. When Maxwell first determined the field equations for light, they stipulated phenomena that people wouldn't accept until Einstein.
Light doesn't always make "sense", in the sense of acting like common experience suggests it could (how could the speed of anything, much less light, be the same to all observers regardless of their vector?), but it always acts in ways predicted by theory.
Since light always behaves as it should, why shouldn't radiometric dating? I don't see any reason to throw it out. No one has claimed that radiometric dating can't give bad dates in certain circumstances; however those circumstances generally leave evidence that we can use to correct the dates. I don't see any reason to discard those dating methods as yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Philip, posted 05-11-2003 1:45 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Philip, posted 05-12-2003 11:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Gzus
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 90 (39691)
05-11-2003 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by Philip
05-11-2003 1:45 AM


Re: Light and Time
How are your 'what if's any better than pure speculation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Philip, posted 05-11-2003 1:45 AM Philip has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Philip, posted 05-12-2003 11:16 PM Gzus 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