06 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOkay, I get what is meant by 'fake' light now. So do you think the fact that time is a variable (and not a constant) might be something this god could have also done to fake some of us out?
One problem with the young Earthers is the idea there might be intelligent life around planets in all the galaxies we can see in telescopes. If some insane god wanted to create a universe where it fools us by creating fake light, some other astronomer on a galaxy a billion light years away will see something different and would be able to make a guess about ...[text shortened]... treat humans with such deference to totally fool just us.
Massive, world shaking arrogance.
In other words, if time now relative to time in the distant past don't quite match up, it could appear the universe is even much older (or much younger) than we are able to discern from our vantage point on the 'timeline'. Maybe it's not so much a question of a god who is fooling us, but a question of how much we are able to discover about this universe.
Or how about the speed of light being the same constant speed, no matter where you are or what direction you are moving in? It almost seems as though the light is observing YOU as it passes by, to make sure you see it traveling at that one constant speed. Isn't that counterintuitive as well?
It seems we never stop discovering truths that don't make any sense because they violate our personal viewpoint of reality. Einstein discovered what he called a "a spooky influence from a distance" and then rejected the idea because it violated his personal viewpoint. But today no one argues about quantum entanglement... after all, it would be foolish to argue against something everyone knows to be true, right?
I can recognise high minded arrogance when I see it. I don't need any help with that... but thanks anyway.
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat scientists do is they find multiple independent ways to measure things. If the measurements match then we can be reasonably sure we are correct. Also we can do the physics and see if what we observe matches theory. So for example physicists work out how different sizes of star should evolve over time, and what sort of light they should emit. Then they compare this with what they observe. Sometimes what we observe and what we expected do not match up, hence things like 'dark matter' and 'dark energy', both of which are cases of us measuring what is there and then realising it doesn't match another measurement. So we conclude that there is something else there that we haven't yet identified.
In other words, if time now relative to time in the distant past don't quite match up, it could appear the universe is even much older (or much younger) than we are able to discern from our vantage point on the 'timeline'.
But there is no conceivable way that the universe could be a mere 6000 years old. There are just so many lines of evidence that point to a far greater age.
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseDistant Starlight - Creationist Solutions
One problem with the young Earthers is the idea there might be intelligent life around planets in all the galaxies we can see in telescopes. If some insane god wanted to create a universe where it fools us by creating fake light, some other astronomer on a galaxy a billion light years away will see something different and would be able to make a guess about ...[text shortened]... treat humans with such deference to totally fool just us.
Massive, world shaking arrogance.
Starlight and Time Revisited - Dr. Russell Humphreys
Quantized Red Shift - Dr. Russell Humphreys
Black Holes and White Holes - Dr. Russell Humphreys
The Instructor
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeWhat do you mean when you say time is a variable? I mean, time doesnt have speed or mass and isnt energy so what does this statement really mean?
Okay, I get what is meant by 'fake' light now. So do you think the fact that time is a variable (and not a constant) might be something this god could have also done to fake some of us out?
In other words, if time now relative to time in the distant past don't quite match up, it could appear the universe is even much older (or much younger) than we are ...[text shortened]... minded arrogance when I see it. I don't need any help with that... but thanks anyway.
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by tomtom232Look at the videos I linked. It is explained there, since time is variable according to Einstein's theory of relativity.
What do you mean when you say time is a variable? I mean, time doesnt have speed or mass and isnt energy so what does this statement really mean?
The Instructor
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsBasic physics wouldnt work if time was variable.
Look at the videos I linked. It is explained there, since time is variable according to Einstein's theory of relativity.
The Instructor
Time doesnt cause decay, decay takes time to occur. While time is not abstract and definitely exists the concept you think of when you see or hear the word time is just a byproduct of cause and effect and cant be variable as it doesnt even have value since there is no such thing as zero time to gauge value from... No matter how much you slow down any given movement it moves smooth, there is no stutter to indicate a time value of zero so we give abitrary moments zero to define the start of a specific cause and then assign arbitrary values based on arbitrary events. If every human lived exactly 80 orbits of the earth then we could assign one human life as a value of time.
So, if time was variable then each roatation of the earth would not be guaranteed to be 24 hours and this is obviously not so based on our ability to use the rotation of the earth to predict other things.
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by tomtom232They say an atomic clock in space ticks at a different rate than on earth. Did you look at the videos?
Basic physics wouldnt work if time was variable.
Time doesnt cause decay, decay takes time to occur. While time is not abstract and definitely exists the concept you think of when you see or hear the word time is just a byproduct of cause and effect and cant be variable as it doesnt even have value since there is no such thing as zero time to gauge valu ...[text shortened]... obviously not so based on our ability to use the rotation of the earth to predict other things.
The Instructor
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by tomtom232We think of time as a constant because the variable changes here on the surface of the earth are so small we can't perceive them. Those GPS satellites orbiting the earth need to make small adjustments in data before telling you where something is, because time is different up there than it is for us here on the surface of the earth... it's like clocks moving at different speeds, but still ticking off the same units of measurement.
What do you mean when you say time is a variable? I mean, time doesnt have speed or mass and isnt energy so what does this statement really mean?
In regard to the formation and development of the universe, if we compare how fast things were happening at various points in the past to where we are now, it's possible for the universe to be much younger than it appears to be. If we assume time has always moved at the same rate it appears to be moving (all clocks along the way moving at the same constant speed) then it's reasonable to assume the universe is as old as scientists say it is. IMO it's not reasonable to assume this, because we know time is not a constant... Einstein has already proven this, and as far as I know it hasn't been disproven.
06 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeThis isnt variety this is relativity. When physicists talk about how "old" the universe is they are talking from our(mans) relative point of view. The way space is warped by the energy and mass in it is what causes time to go forward or more accurately the mass and energy in the universe to go forward in time, if it were warped in the opposite way by some negative mass or energy then it would go the other way and this is actually a fairly hot topic with physicists today but if we could travel to different points in time then time is a constant, like a medium, so when you say "time is moving differently up there" you are wrong. The clock up there is just moving differently through time.
We think of time as a constant because the variable changes here on the surface of the earth are so small we can't perceive them. Those GPS satellites orbiting the earth need to make small adjustments in data before telling you where something is, because time is different up there than it is for us here on the surface of the earth... it's like clocks mov ...[text shortened]... nstant... Einstein has already proven this, and as far as I know it hasn't been disproven.
06 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232Time is one of those "things" that isn't actually a thing. Time doesn't have mass or energy. Time is an abstract, but this doesn't mean it isn't real because we can perceive cause and effect occurring in one direction. We perceive motion, which is another way of saying we are perceiving time. There are a variety of ways of describing time, and they can all be true.
This isnt variety this is relativity. When physicists talk about how "old" the universe is they are talking from our(mans) relative point of view. The way space is warped by the energy and mass in it is what causes time to go forward or more accurately the mass and energy in the universe to go forward in time, if it were warped in the opposite way by some erently up there" you are wrong. The clock up there is just moving differently through time.
When we see something changing position relative to other things, then what we are seeing is motion, and we see this motion happening as a result of cause and effect happening in one direction. That's why it is said time is moving in one direction. If we could reverse cause and effect then time would be moving in the other direction.
Time is easy to understand. Relativity on the other hand, not so easy...
07 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, time is no more an abstract than any other dimension of the universe. What the human mind percieves from cause and effect is abstract because no matter how you are travelling through time you percieve cause and effect the same way. Time doesnt have direction mass and energy have direction.
Time is one of those "things" that isn't actually a thing. Time doesn't have mass or energy. Time is an abstract, but this doesn't mean it isn't real because we can perceive cause and effect occurring in one direction. We perceive motion, which is another way of saying we are perceiving time. There are a variety of ways of describing time, and they can al er direction.
Time is easy to understand. Relativity on the other hand, not so easy...
Basically, even if you were to move in the opposite direction through time cause and effect would be percieved the same way, you wouldnt get younger but still age and decay.
07 Jun 13
Originally posted by tomtom232If mass and energy have direction, and time is dependent on the activity of mass and energy, then how can it be said time is not following that direction?
No, time is no more an abstract than any other dimension of the universe. What the human mind percieves from cause and effect is abstract because no matter how you are travelling through time you percieve cause and effect the same way. Time doesnt have direction mass and energy have direction.
Basically, even if you were to move in the opposite directio ...[text shortened]... use and effect would be percieved the same way, you wouldnt get younger but still age and decay.
I don't see how you could avoid being affected by a reversal of cause and effect. There are some very real problems with time travel from a practical standpoint. Like, how does one leave the stream of cause and effect in the first place? You'll need to do that just to get started on your journey into the past. And you will need to find some other medium to travel through. I won't say swimming against the current of cause and effect is impossible... if you are Superman. When you say "traveling through time" it implies time itself is a medium or conduit, which I think we both know isn't true. But it does illustrate how difficult it is finding precisely the right words for talking about time.