KingEbukasBlog:


If you dodging my questions is a way of straightening things out with me ...

aaronson:
The burden of your imaginary friend existence lies on christians,it would be illogical for a proud atheist like me to tell why you have that figment of imagination but what I can only do is to make you think out loud for yourself!

So tell me , apart from the 'validity' of God's existence what made you an atheist

Do you have proof there is no God?

KingEbukasBlog:

aaronson:
I was born atheist and atheist I remain because I never let the religious indoctrination changed my clean slated tabalaraza mind!

KingEbukasBlog:


I laugh ...

so the answer to the second question ?

davien:
Eddycolo you are wrong in that,the age of the universe is established from astronomy to be 13.8 billion years(ranges to 14) and there is no name attributed to the people that hold this view because it's a scientific proposition...

It's creationists that invented the word "evolutionist" to compound anything they don't agree with(ranging from biology, to geology, to astronomy) ..

Plus the scientific method used to determine that age isn't about how far light bounced off things(although it's part of it) because the visible universe is close to 46 billion light years in radius I.e the radius we can see stuff in the universe...compared to a 13.8 billion year age.

aaronson:
Common sense should tell you the third question answers the first question quoted to me,I literally chose the second question because its logically the odd question to be answered,that's how intelligent/smart people think.

KingEbukasBlog:


I dont have time for this ...Aaron the guy who "was born atheist"

eddycolo:


Sure, 13.8- 20 billion years. 20 billion is the maximum I have ever heard. For convenience I used 20 billion.
You are right about the radius of the universe to be 46 billion years. Multiplying 46 by 2, you get about 96 billion years for the diameter of the know universe. Have you ever ask yourself why the universe is 13.8 billion years, and the diameter is 96 billion years?

About how the age of the universe was determined, I said they calculated the time it takes light from the furthest galaxies at the edge the universe to reach earth. I didnt mention any bouncing off anything.

I will like to know how you think they came about this age.

Thanks

KingEbukasBlog:
Before I start you 're saying...
→ The sun , moon , earth are not billions of years old ?
→ That it took God six thousand years to create ?
→ The creation story may not be taken as literal
→ I support evolutionists ?
→ Elucidate this

→In point six , vegetation can't be part of the pre-adamic age?

davien:
It's quite simple...the answer is relativity...space between objects can expand faster than the speed of light(no law is broken here as space is not an object, merely a gap between objects)......So objects within the universe could be billions of times apart and yet be younger than the distance...

And 20 billion used to be the figure till more data was accumulated that drew into account more variables like dark matter/energy etc...

It's sill the same thing basically, light has to bounce off whatever you see then hit your photosensitive cells...

Hmmmm...I'd like to point out that my thoughts on the process itself is highly irrelevant(seeing that I'm not an authority on the subject)...but from what I've read it's derived from many things like;

The propagation of hydrogen and helium which are the cornerstones for other elements...I.e by fusion reactions and daughter decay processes...

The rate at which the universe is expanding....this is known by the doppler effect...when waves are sent towards a body the closer it gets the more compact it appears and the further it is the less compact it is....since light is a wave and the frequency of light red-shifts when receding,then galaxies red-shifting are moving away from us...

I can only remember these two....right now I can hardly remember them....and the lack of light to charge here sure doesn't help...so make with these till I can hopefully recharge tomorrow...

eddycolo:


I have question for you regarding your comment above.

If objects in space can move faster than light as a result of relativity, how is it we could still see the lights from such objects?

davien:
read my post again... I didn't say objects move faster than light(that is impossible)..
I said space itself expands faster than light so by the time you see the light from any object,it's much further than the distance the light comes towards you....

eddycolo:


I understood what you meant by object moving faster than light, thats why I said as a result of relativity. Which means expanding space carries objects along with it as it expands faster than light.

My question now is, if space expands faster than light and carries a light source with it. How is it that we are able to see the light from billions of light years away. It is just like running on a treadmill with someone standing in front of it. You will run on it but never gets to the person in front of your treadmill.

Hope you understand the question.

davien:
Again, no object travels faster than light....
And it's like this....light travels at a finite speed...so nobody or nothing is stationary...light or the light that was once closest to you will meet you...
Or if you're a physics junkie d=s(or c)/t ,
For a certain distance(d), lights speed(c) can travel to you at some future certain time(t)...and since space is linked with time...an object that is let's say spaced by two galaxies is moving 2x as fast away from you...so it can only be seen at a point in time when it was closer and by the time you've seen it....it's moved much further away....

eddycolo:


You seem not to know when someone agrees with you. Regarding object traveling faster than light because of the expansion of space, how is want I said earlier different from yours.

Regarding your comment about galaxies two times the distance, moving 2x as fast away from us. My question is, if nothing is stationary in the unverse. If everything is moving at a speed close or faster than light, then how do you tell if the thing 2x the distance and moving 2x the speed is moving away from us and not us moving two time away from the thing?

Another question is;
What is the effects of light wave when you moving away from the light source? Red or blue shift, or nothing at all? Note this is not a random question. It relates to the points raised above.

davien:
I just wanted to clarify that we were saying the same thing...so it's best to always ee specific..
It's practically the same thing to each observer....when you're in a car and you're accelerating, people you pass look like they're moving away from you and to them you'd be moving away from them...that's why speed is RELATIVE to each observer...

It's still a redshift

If a source of the light is moving away from an observer, then redshift (z > 0) occurs; if the source moves towards the observer, then blueshift (z < 0) occurs. This is true for all electromagnetic waves and is explained by the Doppler effect.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift


I could point you to a simplified childrens annotation if you're interested...

eddycolo:


I honestly think you are not paying attention to what my questions askes you.

On the speeding car example you used above. you said the people you sped pass look like they are moving away from you (the one in the car). Now talk facts, not what it looks like. Are the people actaully moving? Or it looks like they are moving but in actaulity not moving. Which one is it?

I said, what is the effects of light wave when you (the observer) are moving away from the light source? Not the light source moving away from you. Is it blue or redshift or no effects at all. Of course you said redshift. But you got me confused of your answer by posting an article from wiki telling me the effects of light wave when the light source is moving away from the obsever. Thats not what I want to know. I want to know the effects when the observer is moving away from the light source.

If your answer is still redshift, my question is how can you tell that the observer isnt the one moving away?

Or the observer and the light source moving away from each other at the same time. Why are now so sure that a light sources 2x the distance is moving 2x fast?

davien:
consequently yes...in your perspective in the car(at a constant speed) you are stationary while they moving away from you...and in their perspective the same applies...it's RELATIVE to each observer's perspective...

In the classical sense or mundane reasoning,the people are stationary, this is very fallacious...you can't put one observer's perspective over another...

It's RELATIVE it doesn't make a difference who moves away from what....the increase in distance away from the any light source would still bear the same result...hence the above explanation I gave you

This just shows you weren't ever paying attention...
Here's a recap...;
Space expands and it can expand faster than light at sufficient distances...
Expansion of space pulls galaxies away from each other...
Galaxies relative to each other which are moving away are redshifting in either observation...
Galaxies spaced twice relative to you are 2x moving away and so are you to any observer there...

Do you have problems comprehending this?!

eddycolo:


Forgive me for I am not able to segregate your response and give my response on each point you have made. I dont know how to. So am going to address all points below.

Of course, I don't have a problem comprehending the above points.

Rather, I have been trying to make you think outside the box but you are strongly bonded to it.

On the moving car example that we are using. You said we cant impose one observer's perspective over another. Which might be true, but thats not the point.

The point we want to establish is whether both objects are actually moving not based on what a moving or stationary observer thinks or feel about another moving or stationary observer. Ok.

Let's throw in a third observer. Lets assume this third observer is outside our experiment. Looking at two galaxies this observer will be able to tell that they are both receding from each other.

And if the light wave can shift to the red side of the spectrum from an observer's point of view when the observer is "moving away" from the light source. Could you tell me why I should not conclude that the observer is the one moving away from a literally stationary light source.

davien:
Hmmmm
Are you sure? :-

davien:
There's no outside the box here unless you're not accustomed to physics..

davien:
It is a point....that is the problem with you...you want to impose mundane reasoning to physics which is the worst thing one could do in the study...

davien:
How can you know something is moving without a perspective? In all forms of motion I.e ;
Oscillatory motion
Linear motion...etc
A perspective is always established otherwise you're talking nonsense...

davien:
How can the "observer" be outside the "experiment"(which is the universe)....
Trying to throw in your favorite character are you?
Because it's akin to looking at the sun, moon, and stars then concluding from mundane reasoning that the earth is stationary and everything moves around the earth...
This is why I keep asking if you have comprehension problems........

eddycolo:


Am very sure mate. Am incline to think you are actually the one equivocating in an effort to avoid answering the question. Hope you noticed you didnt answer any of the questions.

Actually it is people like you that read one or two physics article that dont think outside the box regarding any information you'd get from the articles. Great discoveries are made by scientist that dont think like everyone else. Infact, science is about thinking outside the box, thats how new and exciting things get discovered. So dont tell me physicists or scientist dont think outside the box.

davien:
How can the "observer" be outside the "experiment"(which is the universe)....

You always use the word mundane. Could you please explain to me the sense in which you use this word?

that is the problem with you...you want to impose mundane reasoning to physics which is the worst thing one could do in the study...

Remember that I said earlier that you are always equivocating to avoid answering my simple question. How does motion and point of reference fall into the question you were trying to answer.

Your answers are so beside the point. Even in this question you trying to answer I said "both objects" that means two things. Did I say something is moving without a perspective?

That is called reasoning. What you fail to understand is that thats just an assumption. I wish I can continue this conversation in am open minded atmosphere, and with reasons that can lead to logical conclusions. I have to end here.

eddycolo:


I believe God created the universe 6-7 thousand years ago.

davien:
Sure I didn't, just like I didn't explain all over today what relativity is....again, poor comprehension skills....



[quote author=davien post=33715532] look who's accusing me of equivocating....when did I tell you scientists don't think outside the box?

davien:
There's no outside the box here unless you're not accustomed to physics...

davien:
Grab a dictionary...maybe you'll learn something new. .I'm referring to the dull and ordinary reasoning you're using when it comes to physics,I even went in detail(quoted below)
^^^^

davien:
Perspective....again I am shocked at your comprehension skills and would strongly recommend that childrens book for you to read up on....
And mind you,analogies aren't equivocations....apparently you also lack that comprehension...
Back to the answer...I used your own line of logic.

davien:
You can say forty objects and it still would be a nonsensical question, because you are talking about motion and more specifically relativity but you want to ignore the perspective of each observer....

davien:
when making an assumption it has to be an educated one, not one that doesn't follow or is based on faulty reasoning..

Rather, I have been trying to make you think outside the box but you are strongly bonded to it.

There's no outside the box here unless you're not accustomed to physics

Actually it is people like you that read one or two physics article that dont think outside the box regarding any information you'd get from the articles. Great discoveries are made by scientist that dont think like everyone else. Infact, science is about thinking outside the box, thats how new and exciting things get discovered. So dont tell me physicists or scientist dont think outside the box.

davien:
Now when did I claim "scientists don't think outside the box" as compared to "There's no outside the box here"?
You built a straw man out of my response.

davien:
There's no outside the box here unless you're not accustomed to physics

davien:
And concerning the multiverse as your tongue in cheek explanation,you've not given sufficient ways how one could peer into another supposed universe nor if the configurations of that universe would allow you to peek into it if there's any atall...hence another nonsensical question.

Your question lies on assumptions that aren't even close to be proven...

#1 multiverse with same configurations...
#2 Other universe would house an observer..
#3 Observer could peer into our universe

Without answers to those questions you have a null question.......