Creation science article

[anomaly]

I am having a series of debates with a creationist at school, and he recently sent me an email to 'show his side' of an argument.

The argument concerned: how can the universe be 6,000 years old (as creationists claim) is we see the light from stars billions of light years away. I used this latter fact as my proof that his 'young earth' hypothesis is wrong.

But, to completely refute the article he sent me, I have decided to give you it, so that all of you can destroy it as you desire. Scientific refutations would be best, not just "the authors must have been on crack" or something (though, from the looks of the article, they may have been :lol: ).

Here you go: http://answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp#f1

Let's tear it to shreds.


He also believes evolution is some sort of hoax. So, if anyone knows of any good evolution articles, feel free to post them. I'll print them, and give them to the creationist.

Thanks all.

[ComradeRed]

It's late where I am, and I am tired, so I will make this quick and to the point:
1. the universe is 6000 years old, or 31,556,926 seconds.
2. The speed of light is 3*10^9 meters per second.
3. The size of the universe is therefore 9.4670778 *10^16 meters in radius, since nothing is faster than light ignoring the influence of gravity.

A light year is, from what I recall, about 10^15 meters. This means that the universe is roughly a light year in size.

In a PM I recently showed that the size of a universe without any mass is about half this (I think). That means we don't exist :) Afterall, it would be in a massless universe.

[Ice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 04:15 AM
The argument concerned: how can the universe be 6,000 years old (as creationists claim) is we see the light from stars billions of light years away. I used this latter fact as my proof that his 'young earth' hypothesis is wrong.


I have this same problem in my college. When ever I try to start the topic regarding the age of the earth the creationists just say that the time is relative.

[ComradeRed]

I have this same problem in my college. When ever I try to start the topic regarding the age of the earth the creationists just say that the time is relative. Ask them what does this mean. Most likely they'll point to Einstein's theory of relativity, but this is a gross misunderstanding of it.

Time "is" relative, but we can calculate "true" time thanks to the lorentz factor (1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)). Thus we can figure out when the universe was created.

That is one of the major consequences of the background radiation observable from the South Pole. The way it looks as of now is that it is over several billion years old.

In summary:
1. Time is relative to the observer's clock, but the proper time can be deduced from it.
2. Time from two different clocks can be "synchronized" to proper time due to the Lorent factor in time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation).
3. The approximate age of the universe can be estimated thanks to these factors.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Don Batten (editor)@ Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland
Only God possesses infinite knowledge. By basing our scientific research on the assumption that His Word is true (instead of the assumption that it is wrong or irrelevant) our scientific theories are much more likely, in the long run, to come to accurately represent reality.

Science is largely indifferent to your starting assumptions until they lead to absurd conclusions.

Why should the Jewish creation myth be assumed to be true?

Why isn't it equally valid to assume one of the hundreds of other creation myths to "be true"?

If there was such a thing as a "god", why didn't it tell the truth to everyone all at once?

That simply makes no sense.

And if, for some unfathomable reason, the "god" wanted to choose a portion of its creation for "special treatment", then how is one to explain the fact that its "chosen people" don't openly rule the world?

By now, we should all be Jewish!

If one were to argue that "Jewish sin" has kept them from their "rightful place" as "top dog", then how is it that this hypothetical "god" made such a bad choice?

Why didn't it choose a people who "would keep its commandments"?

There ain't no such animal???

Then we're talking serious design flaw here. Evidently this "god" was simply unable to create humans that could successfully avoid "sin".

In other words, if you assume the "literal truth" of the Old Testament, you land in a morass of absurdities!

Even in the total absence of scientific evidence, it's plainly obvious that "Yahweh" cannot possibly exist...because its existence would generate insurmountable logical contradictions.

There is an alternative hypothesis: "Yahweh" exists but is not only incompetent but clinically insane.

For some reason, that hypothesis has evidently not appealed to either Jewish or Christian theologians...inspite of the fact that it would serve to alleviate all manner of knotty theological difficulties.

But then one would have to assume that a "mad god" would lie at random...and thus there'd be no grounds at all for assuming that Genesis had a single word of truth in it.

And there goes your "starting assumption" down the toilet. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[ComradeRed]

I finally got around to the site, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at these philistines posing as physicists.

Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority. :lol:


One explanation [CR: it's called 'General Relativity'] used in the past involved light travelling along [CR: it's actually pseudo]Riemannian surfaces (a mathematical description of curved space). Such a model cannot be valid because if space were sufficiently curved to explain light travel, then our universe would be impossibly dense and small, which observations contradict.This "criticism" is flawed for a number of reasons.

One, it is not the Riemannian surface that's important or even relevant. It's the Ricci curvature, that is when we are accelerating it is distance per time squared. Ricci curvature can calculate this out precisely and relativistically.

Two, the alternate model -- Newtonian Gravity -- has serious problems that are irreconcilable with reality. For example, using a four dimensional manifold for spacetime, the time component of the Ricci Tensor (that is, the gravitational static field) is 4*pi*G*p for some density p, Grav constant G. However, the rest of the components are zero, meaning that there is no curvature (remember Newton's "absolute spacetime"). This leads to a contradiction: there is and is not curvature in space?

As a corollary, this criticism is unscientific since there is no alternative proposed. It's just a nuisance based on misunderstanding fact.


It would mean that whenever we look at the behavior of a very distant object, what we see happening never happened at all. For instance, say we see an object a million light-years away which appears to be rotating; that is, the light we receive in our telescopes carries this information ‘recording’ this behavior. However, according to this explanation, the light we are now receiving did not come from the star, but was created ‘en route,’ so to speak. This is a gross misunderstanding of Relativity.

First of all, suppose light is exhibited uniformly from a star. It would not be 'created' by the information travelling but rather it would travel on the light. Information is dependent on light, not vice versa.

Now, this criticism is true IF there aren't any stars in the universe! Last time I checked the night sky, there was at least one.

Second, supposing this were true that information creates light, that does not equate to the event not occurring at all! That's like saying if I see you eat toast, you never really did eat toast because I saw you!


This would mean that for a 10,000-year-old universe, that anything we see happening beyond about 10,000 light-years away is actually part of a gigantic picture show of things that have not actually happened, showing us objects which may not even exist. No, that would mean that the universe is an object that one could literally walk outside of and observe.

The problem is that the universe contains everything by definition, how could something be both in and out of the universe?

"But what if we walk to the rim of the universe and continue walking?"

It would be like a fish in a bag full of water swimming to the edge. The bag, however, would change shape to make it appear to the fish that it was not quite at the edge. The same holds for us, if we continue to the edge of the universe, it would always seem slightly out of reach.

And it would be black, black as my "soul". :lol: There would be no pictures, paintings, images, or any of this "gigantic picture" the creationists are trying to create.


If the speed of light © has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself. In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant. This is another gross misunderstanding of the Theory of Relativity, perhaps it is time for these creationists to read a fucking book.

Time is not this subjective, unknowable entity. Instead time is rather straightforward and simple yet hard to discuss without diagrams. Think of it like this: space is composed of discrete lengths (about 10^-33 centimeters long).

This of these in terms of areas for our diagram. Think of them now as meter by meter pieces of cardboard. Gravity takes these pieces of cardboard and places them on top of each other (by the equation r=2 G/(v^2) p for some radius of gravity r that has an escape velocity of v, that is it takes something moving a v to escape the gravitational pull, thus there is that much space placed on each other).

Time, in turn, is "emitted" a unit at a time (also in discrete units of about 10^-44 seconds). Now we have a problem: how is time emitted at the parts where space is placed on each other? That is Einstein's relativity. It dictates that time is not superpositioned (that is, put on top of each other) as space is.

Time, from the perspective of an observer, is some odd element! It runs faster outside of a gravitational field (the ratio of time emitted to spatial superpositioning is near 1) whereas in the grav field it is slower (the ratio is closer to 0).

Time is thus a more understandable element if I had explained it clearly enough.

Time "is" a knowable element, contrary to the wishes of "God" :lol:


Dr Humphreys’ new creationist cosmology literally ‘falls out’ of the equations of GR, so long as one assumes that the universe has a boundary. In other words, that it has a center and an edge—that if you were to travel off into space, you would eventually come to a place beyond which there was no more matter. In this cosmology, the earth is near the center, as it appears to be as we look out into space. The problem is that this is Newtonian mechanics, and it is damn wrong! I have already pointed out its contradiction, there is really no more justification for the nonexistence of "God" than this.

Ironic that Creationists sought to "prove" the existence of "God" but all they really did was prove the impossibility of "His" existence!

The article is nothing more than a semi-coherent rant riddled with factual errors.

[anomaly]

Here is another creationist article. It deals with the 'origin of the universe'.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/universe.asp

[ComradeRed]

If any dumb ass is stupid enough to use the arguments presented in that article, "May God have mercy on his or her soul" :lol:


The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning. Not true, could you prove that time had a beginning? Please show it to me.

What existed before time? This is a nonsensical question. What can be deduced is that what happened before time is of the same class of questioning as what is further North than the North pole?

Totally irrelevant!!!


It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. Why? This is an assertion without merit.

Is it a "sin"? Why are we listening to [c]Creationists on what is "unreasonable"???[/b]


Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing.[...] But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Actually, according to the genius David Bohm, that is a correct application of Quantum Theory.

There would be a new sort of causality of quantum relationships. There "would" and "would not" be a cause from an event.

The classical causality is dead, however.

This is just nonsense. No idiot should be stupid enough to argue the same thing the webpage did.

[Jesusfreak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:57 PM
Time "is" relative, but we can calculate "true" time thanks to the lorentz factor (1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)). Thus we can figure out when the universe was created.

That is one of the major consequences of the background radiation observable from the South Pole. The way it looks as of now is that it is over several billion years old.

1. Time is relative to the observer's clock, but the proper time can be deduced from it.
2. Time from two different clocks can be "synchronized" to proper time due to the Lorent factor in time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation).
3. The approximate age of the universe can be estimated thanks to these factors.
I'm obviously a creationist, old-earth though. If you wanna know what I mean browse this website (http://godandscience.org).

Now what you referred to as "true" time (the quotes are yours!), is just what the special thory of relativity renders meaningless. However there is a "proper" time (as you have mentioned) between any two events. That is the time measured by a clock in an inertial reference frame that passes through both events (which of course is possible only if they are time-like connected).

The point here is that there is no universal (or "true") time. The earth may have a "proper" age of around 4.7 billion years but no universal age.

Concerning the age of the universe, it has been calculated to be around 13.6 billion years but it has nothing to do with relativity let alone the Lorentz trasformation. It was calculated using the observed rate of expansion of the universe and Hubble's relation. But even this number is not for certain because stars have been observed by other methods that are older than 14.2 billion years. Anyway this "age of the universe" is just a mathematical constant and is trivialized in the context of special relativity and much more in the context of general relativity.

Two clocks moving with respect to each other CANNOT be "synchronized" using the Lorentz transformation because in that case one of the clocks has to be running wrong--which contradicts the very definition of a clock.

I don't quite understand what you call as "consequence" of the background microwave radiation.

The fact that there is no "universal" time for any event let alone the formation of the earth is what I would like to place in defense of my argument that "time is relative" and hence the Creation days mentioned in the Bible are not literal. If time can depend so much on velocity and gravity (general relativity) inside space-time do you not agree that it is trivialized before a God who CREATED time and space?

[Ice]

Jesus freak is my classmate and he was the guy, whom I was referring to, in my previous post in this thread. I think all of us will gain lots of information while discussing with him. :D

[Publius]

I think ComradeRed is going to destroy him.

And I think it's going to be entertaining.

[Ice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:25 PM
I think ComradeRed is going to destroy him.

And I think it's going to be entertaining.
Yah, I know and that's the reason why I brought him here.

[BlueEagle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 02:25 PM
I think ComradeRed is going to destroy him.

And I think it's going to be entertaining.
You wish! This Ice guy may be one of your favorites but in our class he's nothing. He even skips classes 'cause he's afraid of the teachers. And if you think your ComradeRed is someone big, ask him to face us. I too was told about these useless discussions by Ice, but I'm not so nice like that Jesusfreak psycho! But of course I'm here to back him up. Seems like your soviet "hero" Comrade Red is still searching for a reply to our freak's science stuff!!
Hail America!!!

[KC]

Seems like your soviet "hero" Comrade Red

The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.


still searching for a reply to our freak's science stuff!!

Or he hasn't gotten around to it as he's a very busy person. Patience, you will get your ass handed to you soon enough.


Hail America!!!

Are you some kind of crazy American Nazi or something?

How in the hell can anyone believe in creationism nowadays? You really would have to be either a complete moron or an ignorant fool. Does anyone even take creationists seriously anymore?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BlueEagle
Hail America!!!

Ever wonder what would happen if people had to pass some sort of basic intelligence test before they could post on this board? :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Dyst]

Haha can't help but not go off-topic as I saw the signature of Publius.


Heroin is the opiate of the masses.
:lol:

[BlueEagle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 11:26 AM
Ever wonder what would happen if people had to pass some sort of basic intelligence test before they could post on this board?
Aren't you an administrator or president or whatever nonsense? Why are you wasting time replying to me? Have you got nothing else to do than get bothered about someone's opinion on America? I came here to read some discussions abut creation science and back my friend Jesusfreak. If you've got any stuff on that post it. Else call your guru Red Comrade and ask him to face up to it. Looks like he's fallen just like the Soviets!

[KC]

I came here to read some discussions abut creation science and back my friend Jesusfreak.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[BlueEagle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:05 AM
The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

That's exactly why I wrote that. The Soviets made so many boasts like you. They even banned prayer, and exiled Christian missionaries to Siberia. Where are they now? Same thing for you morons!

[Publius]

You wish! This Ice guy may be one of your favorites but in our class he's nothing.

I really have no idea who he is.



He even skips classes 'cause he's afraid of the teachers. And if you think your ComradeRed is someone big, ask him to face us.

I don't 'think he's someone big' whatever that means, but he obviously knows physics.



I too was told about these useless discussions by Ice, but I'm not so nice like that Jesusfreak psycho! But of course I'm here to back him up. Seems like your soviet "hero" Comrade Red is still searching for a reply to our freak's science stuff!!
Hail America!!!

Well, I'm not a communist, I'm a capitalist, but whatever.

I consider myself a rationalist, primarily.

[BlueEagle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 07:05 AM
How in the hell can anyone believe in creationism nowadays? You really would have to be either a complete moron or an ignorant fool. Does anyone even take creationists seriously anymore?
You're right. Idiots like you who don't see the purpose of our existence all throgh their life do end up in hell. I may be a moron when it comes to posting on useless forums. I am ignorant when it comes to details of the universe. But I know the mind of God. Something a fool called Einstein wanted to know but wasn't even willing to pray.
I suppose this website and its members are all that you know. But there's a world full of people out there who believe in something, some nonsense or the true God! Even your "very busy ass grabber" (hey, you called him that!) Red Comrade has said that the universe was "created"!!!

[Sentinel]

Lol this must be the funniest thread I've seen so far! I'm virtually laughing my ass off. :lol:


You're right. Idiots like you who don't see the purpose of our existence all throgh their life do end up in hell.

Was it Mark Twain that said: "I choose heaven for the environment, but hell for the company". If the christians were right about the nature of things, I'd go to hell without a second thought. :D


But I know the mind of God

How is it? What is he thinking these days? Any chance to get some inside information?
:lol: :lol:


Haha can't help but not go off-topic as I saw the signature of Publius.

Publius is my favorite cappie, too. :)

[bezdomni]

But I know the mind of God.
You claim to know the mind of God. However, so do millions of other christians, muslims and cult leaders.


Something a fool called Einstein wanted to know but wasn't even willing to pray.
He figured out quite a bit without praying, didn't he? You must pray, and you even admit that you are "ignorant on the details of the universe".

Explain to me how Einstein was a fool. Most people with a functioning brain would consider him a genius. What effect does the "will to pray" have to do with intelligence and the ability to understand things? I don't need to pray to figure out how to open a door. Maybe you do, since your brain seems incapable of most tasks, such as spatial reasoning and non-circular logic.


Even your "very busy ass grabber" (hey, you called him that!) Red Comrade has said that the universe was "created"!!!

I don't belive the words "ass grabber" were ever used...but you obviously have problems in your cabeza. Which brings me to the point that Comrade Red never said that the universe was "created" (everything I've read by him seems to say quite the contrary), and to the point that the universe cannot have been created.

In order for something to be created, there has to be a beginning. There also has to be a creator. By its definition, the universe (which encompasses all things at all times) cannot have possibly been created, since it has always existed. What existed before the universe? God? How can something exist outside of existence? There was no real "beginning" to the universe, it has always existed and it always will exist by its definition.

To say that something existed outside of the realm of existence, or that something existed before time is entirely absurd. As has been said before, "it's like asking what's north of the north pole?"

[KC]

You're right.

I know. You're wrong.


Idiots like you who don't see the purpose of our existence all throgh their life do end up in hell.

There is not "purpose of our existence".


I may be a moron when it comes to posting on useless forums.

At least you're starting to get the picture :lol:


I am ignorant when it comes to details of the universe.

Why?


But I know the mind of God.

Oh yeah? What's god thinking? What are its intentions? Oh, and also, how would you know? Can you even prove god exists? Why would you believe in something that doesn't exist?


Something a fool called Einstein wanted to know but wasn't even willing to pray.

Einstein was religious.


I suppose this website and its members are all that you know.

No. I know a lot more. A lot more than you.


But there's a world full of people out there who believe in something, some nonsense or the true God!

There's no such thing as a "true god". There isn't even such thing as god. It doesn't exist. Since you are making the claim the burden of proof is on you to prove that it exists. Once you fail to do so you must accept the fact that it doesn't.

So I demand of you the same demand that I demand of every religious person. Prove it. The burden of proof is on you (if you don't believe so, then I suggest that you check out this thread (https://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45457)). Prove that any god at all exists.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by BlueEagle+Feb 12 2006, 05:47 PM--> (BlueEagle @ Feb 12 2006, 05:47 PM)
[email protected] 12 2006, 07:05 AM
The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

That's exactly why I wrote that. The Soviets made so many boasts like you. They even banned prayer, and exiled Christian missionaries to Siberia. Where are they now? Same thing for you morons! [/b]
Psst... General rule of debate, I'm going to help you out a little bit, as much as I hate "Godsuckers" such as yourself.

1) Don't make baseless accusations.

2) Don't throw out propaganda with no resources.

3) Don't make assumptions. I'm an American, young enough so that I have no memory of the Soviet Union intact. What exactly about me did it 'create,' and where exactly am I now?

You are going to get your ass handed to you. Something about a near-complete lack of logic (and fallacious logic when it is present), the substandard and pedestrian nature of your posts, and the simple fact that you have no argument, based on lies in it of itself, makes your existance on this board doomed from the start.

[ComradeRed]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I had not known someone had actually bothered to reply to my criticisms.

Well, time to do math and chew bubble gum....and I'm all out of bubble gum.


Originally posted by "Freak"+--> ("Freak")The point here is that there is no universal (or "true") time. The earth may have a "proper" age of around 4.7 billion years but no universal age.[/b] This unfortunately has the misconception on what the nature of time actually "is".

According to some of the work I helped with, in "Loop Quantum Gravity", time is effectively emitted from quantized space; time dilation thus occurs because of gravity's influence on spacetime. You see, a gravitational field is the distortion (or "curvature" or what have you) of spacetime; this is treated, within four dimensions, as the superpositioning of quantized space.

Quantized time is "emitted" at a constant rate regardless of the magnitude of the superpositioned spacetime.

So time is "relative to the observer", and we can synchronize different observers' clocks to a proper time, but we can also manipulate this relation the other way round: we "can" deduce a "proper" time for an event to occur (or a duration therein, relative to the reference frame's velocity and/or acceleration).

Here's the problem: we have a proper time estimate (give or take a few hundred years) of the age of the Earth. It is inconsistent with "God's" time of the Earth's creation. On the one hand we have proof of proper time, on the other we have nothing to justify the mere existence of "God" much less that "He" created it 6000 years ago.

So which should science go for: math and empiricism or "God"? Damn, that's a hard choice, I'd have to say...hmmm...empiricism and math.


Concerning the age of the universe, it has been calculated to be around 13.6 billion years but it has nothing to do with relativity let alone the Lorentz trasformation. It was calculated using the observed rate of expansion of the universe and Hubble's relation. But even this number is not for certain because stars have been observed by other methods that are older than 14.2 billion years. Anyway this "age of the universe" is just a mathematical constant and is trivialized in the context of special relativity and much more in the context of general relativity.
Sorry chief, but the math checks out (with sound premises too). Dismissing the consequences of tautaulogeous manipulations of empirical quantities as "nonsense" is nonsense!

Further, this agrees with the aforementioned Loop Quantum Gravity Theory; the "ratio" of quantized time "emitted" per density of quantized space is a concern. However, the "amount" of quantized spacetime "emitted" is finite and countable provided the universe really did begin with a bang. Otherwise it is conceivably infinite.

An aside on the possibility of the universe being infinite in time, this is increasingly appealing based on its mathematical form derived from empirical observables (viz. in the context of quantized spacetime). An "oscillating universe" is consistent with quantum theory and general relativity, and can make some fascinating predictions. This is where I would bet the rent money for future research.


Two clocks moving with respect to each other CANNOT be "synchronized" using the Lorentz transformation because in that case one of the clocks has to be running wrong--which contradicts the very definition of a clock. This is assuming that the two clocks are at unequal distances from a given gravitational field which is not the case. I assume no gravitational field.

Coincidentally, if you Creationists are correct about how old the universe is, and nothing can move faster than the speed of light, then the cosmological constant tells us that the universe is 1. too small to even incorporate the Milky Way, and 2. cannot even contain any matter. Perhaps you can justify our material existence (afterall, the last time I checked, we are made of matter, atoms, etc.)?

One of the problems here is that I am referencing to general relativity whereas you are referring to special relativity. Mind you the equivalence principle justifies the dominance of the general theory over the special one; the special theory being only a heuristic crutch to the general theory. In this light, it is obvious that two clocks can be synchronized provided that we are dealing with a classical approximation and two observers that are (in effect) omnipotent.

===========================
A Mathematical Footnote:

The cosmological constant is L (it's actually capital lambda, but I don't have that key) which is L= 1/r^2 = kappa*P*c^2 for the radius of the universe r, and the density of a vacuum P, and the proportional constant kappa=8*pi*G/c^4 for the speed of light c and the grav constant G. By setting r to 6000 years*(1 light year/ year) = 6000*(9.4605284 * 10^15 meters) = 5676317040000000000 meters. We get for the cosmo constant L = 3.0993142063303640821174807103904*10^-42 m^-2. The average density is 1.6656346252173533084628180771503 * 10^-18 kg/m^3, and the mass of the universe is 12.78055503 * 10^45 kg.

This means that the Earth (mass of 5.977 * 10^24 kg) and the sun (mass of 1.98892*10^30) take up well over two thirds of the universe. Egads! Could empiricism be wrong and "God" be right?! :lol:


I don't quite understand what you call as "consequence" of the background microwave radiation.
Given the background radiation from the big bang, provided it did occur, we can deduce as a consequence of that radiation the time the universe "began". Based on the magnitude and quantity of observable background radiation, we can deduce the time it has existed.


The fact that there is no "universal" time for any event let alone the formation of the earth is what I would like to place in defense of my argument that "time is relative" and hence the Creation days mentioned in the Bible are not literal. If time can depend so much on velocity and gravity (general relativity) inside space-time do you not agree that it is trivialized before a God who CREATED time and space? The problem is that this is an unwarranted assertion of the existence of "God" as a scientific fact.

Just as easily I could assert that there is a unified field theory, it is the "fact" that the Flying Speghetti Monster controls everything. My proof of this is taht I know it, ipso facto.

There is absolutely no material proof for "God" or the Flying Speghetti Monster. It thus cannot be asserted.

Suppose "God" did exist for a moment. We surely can agree that, definitionally, everything that exists is within the universe (how could something be outside of everything?). Supposing that "God" created the universe, where was "He" when this happened? "He" couldn't have been outside the universe, for it didn't exist (in addition to it being nonsensical). "He" couldn't have been inside of it because it didn't exist. Could it therefore logically be that "God" does not exist? Or is math and science wrong? (Hint: it's not the latter).


"BlueEagle"
If you've got any stuff on that post it. Else call your guru Red Comrade and ask him to face up to it.A Gangsta Rap dedicated to "BlueEagle"

This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass *****es,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass *****es say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them *****es be scientists then cap me in the head.

[Dyst]

This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Fuck the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass *****es,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Fuck the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass *****es say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them *****es be scientists then cap me in the head.


Cachy. :)

[Publius]

Cachy. :)

MC Hawking.

www.mchawking.com

And nice Duke Nukem reference, Comrade.

I wonder how it must feel to be in the receiving end of such a monumental ass-kicking.

I can scarcely comprehend it.

By the way: Are you an adherent of loop quatum gravity? What's your take on string theory?

I'd recently heard that within a few years string would be testable.

[ComradeRed]

And nice Duke Nukem reference, Comrade. It's actually from Nada, a movie from 1988.



By the way: Are you an adherent of loop quatum gravity? What's your take on string theory?

I'd recently heard that within a few years string would be testable. I have been trained by an electrical engineer in "analytical thinking" as far as physics is concerned, and the philosophy that was taught to me was "If it works, don't mess with it!"

As you might expect, I am very cautious in theoretical physics as a consequence of such a training. This is the reason why I am in favor of loop quantum gravity, although I would not consider myself an "adherent" of it. I think that it assumed too much, e.g. the existence of the graviton (which is thus far fiction).

I am working on an alternate approach to quantum gravity that relies heavily on the general relativists' side. You see, General Relativity has been generalized such that it may be conceivable to force it into quantum field theory. I think it has to bend both ways, quantum theory and general relativity has to make concessions, but if it has to be "only one" it should be quantum theory.

From this much information, you may expect me to be opposed to String Theory. It assumes too much as beginning premises (e.g. the existence of more than four dimensions, even if these extra dimensions did exist, it's at such a small scale that it is irrelevant).

The way I look at it is that String theory is internally contradictory. Consider this: in loop quantum gravity depending on how much quantized space is "superpositioned" (I will explain why I say this later) that affects the frequency and wavelength of the thing.

The velocity it is moving is given as v, the wavelength is equal to the superpositioned space in such a distance within one planck length (nothing can travel faster than one planck length per planck time -- the quantized scale of spacetime equal to the sqrt of Gh/(2pi*c^3) for the length and sqrt Gh/(2pi*c^5) for time).

Frequency is simply the inverse of this. What would occur is that the frequency of a string would be based on gravity and thus a graviton would not exist.

But String theory also assumes a continuous spacetime background. This I cannot agree with.

I say superpositioned quantized space because it is in my (scientifically reactionary) belief that spacetime is not continuous: within a container there is a finite amount of quantized spacetime (spacetime "atoms").

How I envision this is as a chess board with each piece having a certain "mass" -- a weight evaluated by its importance. It attracts that many spaces. A space is either superpositioned or not (thanks to quantum entanglement, there can be "30%" superpositioned and "70%" non-superpositioned). Now, each player in this bizarre game has a turn regardless of the superpositioned space.

Such is the nature of spacetime in quantum gravity :)

I do agree with Dr. Hawking that String theory may be correct, but we are examining the wrong properties of a string. However, String theory is not really my school of thought, so I don't really have much to offer there.

The recent work that I have been doing is trying to generalize Richard Feynman's Path Integral formulation of quantum theory to obtain a quantized version of Lagrangian/Hamiltonian Mechanics. In addition to this, I have been trying to incorporate the Uncertainty principle into General Relativity.

I was actually surprised that recently loop quantum gravity may be testable! :o Three geniuses from India have come up with some way to prove or disprove it. The only problem is that it requires a black hole -- something most labs don't come with :(

Something new is needed, some critical insight based on the foundational principles of General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Who knows what it may be!

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:50 PM
This means that the Earth (mass of 5.977 * 10^24 kg) and the sun (mass of 1.98892*10^30) take up well over two thirds of the universe. Egads! Could empiricism be wrong and "God" be right?! :lol:
Pwned. :lol:

[ComradeRed]

Worse, we empirically know the Milky Way is roughly 100000 light years in diameter. Well, a light year in meters is 9.4605284*10^15 meters.

But according to Creationism, the radius of the universe is 56763170400000000000 (that is 6000 light year), meters.

So I don't understand, the Milky way extends 94000 light years beyond the universe? :huh:

Dios mio! :lol:

[Publius]

It's actually from Nada, a movie from 1988.


Well, basically all the Duke quotes were stolen anyway, mostly from the Evil Dead.


I think that it assumed too much, e.g. the existence of the graviton (which is thus far fiction).

I believe the new particle accelerators that are being built should help to clarify the graviton.

We'll see how that goes.


I am working on

A physicist by trade?


You see, General Relativity has been generalized such that it may be conceivable to force it into quantum field theory. I think it has to bend both ways, quantum theory and general relativity has to make concessions, but if it has to be "only one" it should be quantum theory.

I'd thought them to be irreconcilable.



From this much information, you may expect me to be opposed to String Theory. It assumes too much as beginning premises (e.g. the existence of more than four dimensions, even if these extra dimensions did exist, it's at such a small scale that it is irrelevant).

We may soon know how many dimensions there are.


I say superpositioned quantized space because it is in my (scientifically reactionary) belief that spacetime is not continuous: within a container there is a finite amount of quantized spacetime (spacetime "atoms").

So spacetime is discrete?


I must say, most of your post was totally out of my league. I have barely a recognition knowledge of LQG.

I need to read a book on it or something.

I'm very new to the physics thing, but I find it fascinating.

[ComradeRed]

I believe the new particle accelerators that are being built should help to clarify the graviton.

We'll see how that goes. I doubt that it would be found. Provided that the graviton does not move faster than the photon (conceivably, it could move just as fast), the frequency would be the inverse of its wavelength (which is equal to the inverse of the superpositioned quantized spacetime it is experiencing). The amount of energy this would require (in the Planck scale) would be 2 planck energy -- that's enough to make a black hole.

Either gravity is mediated by dynamical black holes on the order of 10^-33 centimeters or the graviton does not exist. I put my "faith" in the observable mathematics, but again I was trained by an engineer so...



A physicist by trade? Sure, OK :D

No, seriously (this is one of the rare times I'm not being sarcastic -- no really, honestly; crap now it looks like I'm being sarcastic; no geniunely) I just write technical papers for the hell of it.

I'm still studying you see ;)



I'd thought them to be irreconcilable. Come "Hell" or highwater, that's what I am to do exactly: reconcile them.

There is this fascinating allure of gravity. What the hell is it? Why don't we know anything about it? How can we know how it works without knowing what it is? And so on.



We may soon know how many dimensions there are.
I'll bet you a calculus book that there are only four.



So spacetime is discrete? Yes, it is "quantized" as they say. Well, there is some dispute over that.

You see, the String theorists don't think so because if it is, then String theory is wrong.

I'm ecstatic to find out the results of some experiments dealing with the black hole formation and the "Naked Singularities" dilemma of a continuous spacetime. Take this (http://us.rediff.com/news/2006/feb/07tifr.htm?q=np&file=.htm) with a grain of salt, it isn't the "Experiment for a UFT" they make it out to be, but it is important nonetheless.


I must say, most of your post was totally out of my league. I have barely a recognition knowledge of LQG.

I need to read a book on it or something. I'm actually sludging my way through Kip Thorne's Gravitation; I wouldn't suggest it if you don't know a lot of math.

I would think it would be best to start slowly with Lee Smolin's Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, a fantastic book; and if you are up to one hell of a challenge, try Roger Penrose's Road to Reality.

I would highly suggest learning calculus before going any further in physics; my local library (when I first got interested) had a large quantity of advanced (graduate level) math texts. I was lucky :D

Smolin, however, doesn't use a lot of math (he's like Hawking, but better).

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by ComradeRed
By setting r to 6000 years*(1 light year/ year) = 6000*(9.4605284 * 10^15 meters) = 5676317040000000000 meters. We get for the cosmo constant L = 3.0993142063303640821174807103904*10^-42 m^-2. The average density is 1.6656346252173533084628180771503 * 10^-18 kg/m^3, and the mass of the universe is 12.78055503 * 10^45 kg. Pardon me, I calculated this out with a tenfold error against me (counted the universe as having a radius of 600 rather than 6000 light years), and hundred fold error in my favor (speed of light is 3*10^6 not 3*10^9). The mass of the universe is thus of the order of 10^44 kg.

This means that the universe is half composed of our solar system's planets (ignoring the asteroids), and the sun compromises most of the rest. That means that the stars don't really exist.

[Jesusfreak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 07:50 PM
According to some of the work I helped with, in "Loop Quantum Gravity", time is effectively emitted from quantized space;
Quantized time is "emitted" at a constant rate regardless of the magnitude of the superpositioned spacetime.

You don’t know that for sure. The theory (I hope you know) has inconsistencies in dealing with dynamics. I think you wanted to stick to “proven fact” and now you’re violating your own law!


time dilation thus occurs because of gravity's influence on spacetime. You see, a gravitational field is the distortion (or "curvature" or what have you) of spacetime;
Why would I disagree on that? But if you really know physics and about the Lorentz transformations, you should know that time dilation is also caused by relative speed and that was what we were talking about. Are you jumping to the general relativity theory wishing that I were not acquainted with it?


So time is "relative to the observer", and we can synchronize different observers' clocks to a proper time, but we can also manipulate this relation the other way round: we "can" deduce a "proper" time for an event to occur (or a duration therein, relative to the reference frame's velocity and/or acceleration).

I hope you are aware there’s nothing called a “proper time” for an isolated event but only for a “duration” (between two events).


Sorry chief, but the math checks out (with sound premises too).
Mind telling me how the Lorentz equation is involved in calculating “the age of the universe”?


tautaulogeous
A more common word please? That wasn’t in my dictionary!


An "oscillating universe" is consistent with quantum theory and general relativity, and can make some fascinating predictions. This is where I would bet the rent money for future research.
You can bet that on anything ‘cause you’re not gonna pay rent forever. Maybe till you die, which you would be well before the next “big bounce”. Besides, an “oscillating universe” would eventually end up losing all its energy according to the second law of thermodynamics.


This is assuming that the two clocks are at unequal distances from a given gravitational field which is not the case. I assume no gravitational field.

Why don’t you go see Einstein's paper (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) and learn it all from the beginning? You’ve apparently crammed your brain with new “theories” so much that you’ve forgotten the basic facts. The very core of Special relativity is that there’s no preferred inertial reference frame. I hope you’re not one of those fanatics trying to “prove Einstein wrong” saying the Aether exists!


One of the problems here is that I am referencing to general relativity whereas you are referring to special relativity. Mind you the equivalence principle justifies the dominance of the general theory over the special one; the special theory being only a heuristic crutch to the general theory.
So you skipped your classes on special relativity and went straight to the general one?!


Here's the problem: we have a proper time estimate (give or take a few hundred years) of the age of the Earth. It is inconsistent with "God's" time of the Earth's creation. On the one hand we have proof of proper time, on the other we have nothing to justify the mere existence of "God" much less that "He" created it 6000 years ago.

You see, I never claimed that and neither does the Bible. The same guy who wrote the creation account (God’s man Moses) also wrote this: “For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.” (Psalm 90 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=psalm%2090;&version=31;):14). So “day” doesn’t necessarily means “earth days”. Now I’m not saying that God sat on some cosmic ray while creating the universe so time was dilated enough that it seemed to him like 6 days. Neither am I saying that these “days” equal to 1000 years or 8000 years or whatever. I’m saying that “one day” in the creation account was just a significant part of creation (or revelation). So use this argument with people who blindly interpret the Bible too literally, not with me!


The problem is that this is an unwarranted assertion of the existence of "God" as a scientific fact.
Just as easily I could assert that there is a unified field theory, it is the "fact" that the Flying Speghetti Monster controls everything. My proof of this is taht I know it, ipso facto.
There is absolutely no material proof for "God" or the Flying Speghetti Monster. It thus cannot be asserted.
Obviously you’re applying the Occam’s razor which, in simple terms, states “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily”. You might be surprised to know that it is one of my favorite rules. But I’ll show you how it applies in a different way:

See, there are millions of chemical compounds. But someone thought that was too many entities. So they found that all of these are made of around 100 elements. Then someone found that they’re all made of the same protons, neutrons and electrons—and other fundamental particles. And there are these 4 fundamental forces. Oh how we physicists hate it! There may be “strings” but still too much variety.

Now to my point: The universe in all its variety has too many entities. How do we bring ‘em all together? Well, the same God created them all. You may ask how. For one clue, he started with light!

If I leave it here, you’re obviously gonna ask about the angels, how Jesus was God and about the validity of the Bible. We’ll go into all that later. For now let’s stick to the “existence of God”, his nature and the creation account. But I wanna tell you that God does not need any “assertion” like a “Flying Speghetti Monster”.


Suppose "God" did exist for a moment. We surely can agree that, definitionally, everything that exists is within the universe (how could something be outside of everything?). Supposing that "God" created the universe, where was "He" when this happened? "He" couldn't have been outside the universe, for it didn't exist (in addition to it being nonsensical). "He" couldn't have been inside of it because it didn't exist. Could it therefore logically be that "God" does not exist?
I hate to repeat it but God “is” beyond time and space. If he can’t be contained by the universe, how much less your or my understanding? "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."(Hebrews 11 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%2011:1-12:2):9).

“what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” (Isaiah 55 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055&version=31;):3). Now you would have to agree with this verse in that most of the matter in the universe is invisible(“dark”). And even with those that do emit (or reflect) light, only those in a very small range of wavelengths can be “seen” by us. And how does all this “visible” matter interact? Through virtual photons, mesons, gravitons and a whole lot of things which can’t even be “detected” but are “postulated” just to “explain” things! I hope you get the point.

Now, time and space also belong to this “visible” category. There’ s an underlying reality that we can’t fully understand. (We can’t even fully understand what we see!) I’ll try to explain it technically:

You know there’s something called probability. There’s some probability that you’ll die by a heart attack. There’s some probability that water you pour on the ground will splash in some particular pattern. There’s some probability that a particular molecule of a reactant will react. There’s some probability that a particular electron will get excited by accepting a photon. There’s a probability that an electron is in a particular region! There’s an uncertainty in everything. (You should know the principle!). You can “explain” a macroscopic effect with some microscopic cause. But even that cause has a probability associated with it. Take it down even to the level of strings (if they exist), you always have a probability that it vibrates in a certain way. So what actually decides how it vibrates?

Whatever does it sure can’t be confined to spacetime ‘cause anything inside spacetime is subject to probability. So it’s not a particle or a force. I’d like to define it as a “spirit”. And since it “exists” beyond spacetime (or the universe) it can’t have any dimensional attributes. So all the “spirits” which are responsible for the various events occurring across the universe act at the same “point” producing something like a “resultant force” or a “dominating Spirit”. I call this Spirit “God”. I’ll tell you more about his nature later.

Right now, I’d like to quote what God said to Moses (the same guy) when he asked God’s name: “God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "” (Exodus 3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%203;&version=31;):14). Now the verb translated AM here does not have any tense—which means that it is not in present tense. It can be interpreted as “was”, “am” or “will be”.

What it implies is that God is not confined to time. And there’s no reference to any place either. So God is not confined to space either. He just “IS”. In fact the divine name YHWH (translated “LORD”) found throughout the Old Testament is the third person of the words “I AM” found in this verse, implying the eternal infinite existence of God independent of spacetime. So your argument is refuted by the very name of God!

Kindly read these pages (http://custance.org/old/time/ch1.html) and tell me what you find wrong: custance.org/old/time/ch1.html (http://custance.org/old/time/ch1.html)

[ComradeRed]

You don’t know that for sure. The theory (I hope you know) has inconsistencies in dealing with dynamics. I think you wanted to stick to “proven fact” and now you’re violating your own law! Well, this little, pretty unknown physicist named "Richard Feynman" came up with an ingenious method for this thing called "quantum theory". He called it the "Path Integral Formulation" of quantum mechanics; maybe you have heard of it?

Applying this method with regards to loop quantum gravity, the integration changes to a summation and the dynamics remains the same. There is no "mystery" about it, except for those who cannot understand it.

By the by, I might add that if two methods can do the same thing, it really doesn't matter which you use. Regardless of my using discrete spacetime or not, the consequences are essentially the same.

It's this little thing called "math".


Why would I disagree on that? But if you really know physics and about the Lorentz transformations, you should know that time dilation is also caused by relative speed and that was what we were talking about. Are you jumping to the general relativity theory wishing that I were not acquainted with it? Well, have you heard of this minor thing in general relativity called "The Equivalence Principle"?

You know, where gravitational force and acceleration are indistinguishable?

What this translates to is quite simple, especially on the quantum scale: all force (electrodynamic, chromodynamic, flavordynamic, geometrodynamic, etc.) can be reduced to terms of gravity.

This means that velocity is reducible to a time integral of gravity.

Which means the time dilation of special relativity is superceded by general relativity. Sorry.



I hope you are aware there’s nothing called a “proper time” for an isolated event but only for a “duration” (between two events). :rolleyes: And the time for an event to reach an observer is irrelevant? There is always a "duration" when considering an event with regards to an observer; unless we forsake the theory of relativity.

Or the event, which would remain in the ignorance of the observer should it have existed.



Mind telling me how the Lorentz equation is involved in calculating “the age of the universe”? Simian, use spin foam and geometry; by simply using de Sitter space as a heuristic crutch, you can figure out the age of the universe provided gravity is the distortion of spacetime and there are only four dimensions.

Of course, this heuristic method would use 2+1 (rather than 3+1) dimensions (hence the use of de Sitter space).



A more common word please? That wasn’t in my dictionary! I'm not here to teach vocabulary, simian; only to show that such "Creationist physics" is nonsensical at best.



You can bet that on anything ‘cause you’re not gonna pay rent forever. Maybe till you die, which you would be well before the next “big bounce”. Besides, an “oscillating universe” would eventually end up losing all its energy according to the second law of thermodynamics. You fail to understand the second law, think of it in terms of molocules.

When we have something in the solid state, entropy drives it to be in the liquid and (from the liquid state) to the gaseous state.

This intuitively makes sense from the first law. Where did you think that energy went? "God" took it away? :lol:

Think now of the universe as a closed system of particles, it should make intuitive sense why you fail to understand the second law: you made it break the first one.

That contradicts both the first and the second. Sorry, freak.



Why don’t you go see Einstein's paper and learn it all from the beginning? You’ve apparently crammed your brain with new “theories” so much that you’ve forgotten the basic facts. The very core of Special relativity is that there’s no preferred inertial reference frame. I hope you’re not one of those fanatics trying to “prove Einstein wrong” saying the Aether exists! You apparently cannot comprehend the fact that special relativity was a heuristic device to arrive at general relativity.

Now, we can go back to special relativity. Just as we can go back to the stone age. Or we can go to the better theory and work with that; apparently, freak, you like sloppy and wreckless tools.

The "very core" of general relativity is the "inner workings" of space and time.

Special relativity was only a crutch to better understand it, and place Newtonian mechanics in new light. (If you don't believe me about this, take it up with Einstein, Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler.)

These "basic facts" you incessantly refer to are as dated as Aristotlean gravity.



So you skipped your classes on special relativity and went straight to the general one?! Yeah, I did it with the help of leprachauns, fairies, and "God" to magically skip a central part of general relativity. Good deduction there, Sherlock.



Obviously you’re applying the Occam’s razor which, in simple terms, states “Do not multiply entities unnecessarily”. You might be surprised to know that it is one of my favorite rules. But I’ll show you how it applies in a different way:

[...]

Now to my point: The universe in all its variety has too many entities. How do we bring ‘em all together? Well, the same God created them all. You may ask how. For one clue, he started with light!

If I leave it here, you’re obviously gonna ask about the angels, how Jesus was God and about the validity of the Bible. We’ll go into all that later. For now let’s stick to the “existence of God”, his nature and the creation account. But I wanna tell you that God does not need any “assertion” like a “Flying Speghetti Monster”. Good job, simian, you totally missed the point of Occam's Razor. A more simple version of it (via Wittgenstein) is "Provided two theories explain the same thing, that which uses fewer assumptions is preferable."

I assume no such thing as "God". Science, fact, empiricism, and math has provided a rational explanation based on observations. By Occam's Razor, science is better than "God".



I hate to repeat it but God “is” beyond time and space. If he can’t be contained by the universe, how much less your or my understanding? "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."(Hebrews 11:9). By Occam's Razor, "He" is irrelevant to reality.

I don't care what your invisible best friend tells you, he doesn't exist!

Quote the bible all you want, but you're only proving my point a fortiori.


There’s an uncertainty in everything. (You should know the principle!). Philistine, you cannot comprehend even this! I'll have to break it up into small words so you can understand it.

We have a billiard ball ("pool ball") and we place it on the table. We know where it is. If it gains momentum, it won't be where we placed it. The mystery unravelled!

It works with frequency and time too. Philistines like yourself pretend to use it to "prove" things like "God exists!", etc.

In short, don't play with things beyond your "mere mortal" comprehension :lol:


What it implies is that God is not confined to time. And there’s no reference to any place either. So God is not confined to space either. He just “IS”. In fact the divine name YHWH (translated “LORD”) found throughout the Old Testament is the third person of the words “I AM” found in this verse, implying the eternal infinite existence of God independent of spacetime. So your argument is refuted by the very name of God! Your argument is self refuting! :o Such a delicious irony!

Simian, your "God" contradicts Occam's razor, doesn't exist in spacetime, and is unprovable. Thus one concludes "God" does not exist.

Sorry, freak.

[Tormented by Treachery]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:59 PM
But I wanna tell you that God does not need any “assertion”
Can He divide by zero, also?