(February 20, 2014 at 7:20 am)Alex K Wrote:

(February 20, 2014 at 5:26 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Hmmm, let me try this another way.

Light speed in not instantaneous.

Are we agreed on that point?

I honestly don't do this to annoy you
But I'm going to be anal retentive now - It's really important to clarify concepts here, or our discussion will be meaningless.
So I don't know what you mean by instantaneous, please elaborate.

It's not what I mean by instantaneous, it's what the cretinists mean.
And as far as I can tell they are claiming that light travelling towards earth does so at infinite velocity.

(February 20, 2014 at 7:33 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(February 20, 2014 at 7:20 am)Alex K Wrote: I honestly don't do this to annoy you
But I'm going to be anal retentive now - It's really important to clarify concepts here, or our discussion will be meaningless.
So I don't know what you mean by instantaneous, please elaborate.

It's not what I mean by instantaneous, it's what the cretinists mean.

Well what do they mean?

Quote:And as far as I can tell they are claiming that light travelling towards earth does so at infinite velocity.

I know, and higher up in this thread I elaborated upon how one has to change conventions away from the usual Einsteinian synchronization prescription of distant clocks in order for this statement to be true, and how measuring travel time from A to B relies on specifying which prescription you use to synchronize clocks at different places. The Einsteinian one surely is the simplest one (the Lorentz transformations assume a particularly simple position and direction independent form) and also the one closest to the classical picture of rigid universal time, but it is not the only one.

I'm guessing that's a yes then?

(February 20, 2014 at 8:14 am)Zen Badger Wrote: I'm guessing that's a yes then?

Yes what? to what question precisely?

(February 20, 2014 at 1:04 am)snowtracks Wrote: the yec attempt to misuse the genesis genealogies as a time-keeping, age dating device to establish adam and eve appearance and arrive at 6000 years and their hyper-literalism scripture interpretation of the six days of creation prevents them from harmonizing the biblical account with unequivocal proven scientific data putting the earth's age around 4.6 billion years.

Misuse the genealogies how? The Bible does not teach that the Earth is billions of years old, trying to force it to do so is inappropriate. Moreover, science does not deal with proof.

(February 20, 2014 at 1:13 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: What university? Brigham Young?

As my profile indicates, I am not a Mormon.

(February 20, 2014 at 4:49 am)Alex K Wrote: Can you in the meantime propose a topic? It's not obvious to me what the topic of a debate would be. "Is the universe less than 10000 years old"?

I am not sure a debate at the Universe level is possible because we’d run into time synchrony issues. I’d be willing to do something like, “How old is the Earth?” An interrogative such as this is a good idea though so we do not end up with burden of proof disputes. It’s an intriguing idea but I’d want to learn more about the rules and format first.

(February 20, 2014 at 5:47 am)Alex K Wrote: Hand waiving? That's a new debate tactic I was not aware of. I wash my hands of it, though.

You’ve never seen that before? People do it all the time on here, it’s where a person is purposefully vague or overly confident in an attempt to get the other person to back down.

Quote: Anyhow, don't try to accuse me of shying away from specifics if your argument relies on me actually doing so.

How does my argument rely on you shying away from specifics? I much prefer specifics.

Quote: In an expanding universe a la FLRW, the temperature of the cosmic microwave background ist inversely proportional to the scale factor due to redshift by expansion. At the same time, the redshift we observe from distant objects is the difference between the scale factor now and at the time and place of light emission.

Sure.

Quote: So, if we would find a way to measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background as seen by the distant galaxy at the time the observed light left there, we can compare it to the temperature we see now locally. The relative cooling between the CMB we observe now locally and the CMB as seen by this galaxy when it gave off the observed light should be proportional to the redshift of the light emitted from this Galaxy on the way to us.

Sure.

Quote: This is an important consistency check. Silly creation models make no prediction concerning this whatsoever.

Well I am not familiar with the “silly” creation models but all of the actual creation cosmologies I am familiar with are consistent with this same prediction. I had hoped you were above using question-begging epithets but alas.

Quote: How do you measure the CMB temperature as seen by Galaxies far away? You compare occupations of different energy levels of molecules and emission lines. It's an extremely ingenious method, because it basically uses the molecules of far away galaxies as a measurement apparatus.

Ok, sure. I still do not see how this necessarily supports a Big Bang cosmology.

Quote: I'm sure if you phantasize long enough about it, you'll find a convincing answer, like god did it or so

Or I could be like you and just invoke dark matter.

Quote: As a little inspirational aside: every dot on this picture is an observed galaxy. I'm sure it was all made just for us. The bubble structure which you can see at scales of hundreds of millions of light years nicely fits a simultaneously cooling thermal bath collapsing under its own gravity with a dark matter component of 70% or so.

There’s that dark matter! I knew it’d creep its way in there sooner or later.

It was not made for us, it was made for the glorification of God, and it achieves that rather nicely.

Quote:There’s that dark matter! I knew it’d creep its way in there sooner or later.

You think invoking dark matter is somehow terribly controversial, ad hoc, or somehow a huge failing?
There's enough evidence,It's nothing magical, probably just one more particle to the list we already have... Neutrinos make dark matter e.g., we just need more of it and a bit cooler to explain observations...

Btw: The claim that creation models explain or predict this relation is rather doubtful. They usually can accomodate anything, because it's easy to say "sure, God did that as well". They are therefore worthless

(February 21, 2014 at 6:47 pm)Alex K Wrote: You think invoking dark matter is somehow terribly controversial, ad hoc, or somehow a huge failing?

Doors numbers 2 and 3. It was ad hoc when they invoked it to explain the anomalous advance of Mercury’s perihelion prior to General Relativity and it’s no less ad hoc now.

Quote: There's enough evidence,It's nothing magical, probably just one more particle to the list we already have... Neutrinos make dark matter e.g., we just need more of it and a bit cooler to explain observations...

What evidence? Keep in mind that saying that it must exist in order to make your cosmology fit what we observe is not actual evidence.

Quote: Btw: The claim that creation models explain or predict this relation is rather doubtful. They usually can accomodate anything, because it's easy to say "sure, God did that as well". They are therefore worthless

Do you have any examples? It’s difficult to tell which creation cosmologies you are even referring to.

Why I haz so much purrden of proof, while U can claim whatevers you want? Oh what the hellz, I'll write the leading arguments up shortly.

As far as creation cosmologies go, they by definition are worthless because God can predict everything and nothing.

Film of light moving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSqFWcb4rE

(February 21, 2014 at 9:23 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:

(February 21, 2014 at 6:47 pm)Alex K Wrote: You think invoking dark matter is somehow terribly controversial, ad hoc, or somehow a huge failing? :D

Doors numbers 2 and 3. It was ad hoc when they invoked it to explain the anomalous advance of Mercury’s perihelion prior to General Relativity and it’s no less ad hoc now.

Quote: There's enough evidence,It's nothing magical, probably just one more particle to the list we already have... Neutrinos make dark matter e.g., we just need more of it and a bit cooler to explain observations...

What evidence? Keep in mind that saying that it must exist in order to make your cosmology fit what we observe is not actual evidence.

Try applying this to your own delusions.