The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Chas]

The level of delusion you live with is mind boggling.

[orogenicman]

Can you give us an example?

Seriously? You have never seen atheists on here say, “The Universe can’t be 6,000 years old because we can see stars that are millions of miles away!”? I have, in fact you tried to pull this argument in your last post.

Yes seriously. No sir, I made no such argument, and I've not seen others here make that argument. if they did, they are mistaken.

while others believe it is 10,000 years old.

Names?

Aren't you a creationist? I only ask because you appear to be confused as to who has said what?

The fact remains that there is no scientific evidence to back up any of these claims.

We have deductive reasons for believing it is that old and secondly the fact that you personally are unaware of the evidence does not do anything to demonstrate such evidence in fact does not exist.

We, who? Science requires more than mere deductive reasoning. It requires inductive reasoning AND empiric evidence. Got anything like that? Claiming that I am personally unaware of evidence is not evidence that your claim is true. Try again.

However, an object that is 13 billion light years away means that the light we see from that object left on its journey to us 13 billion years ago, and that means that the universe in which it was formed cannot be less than 13 billion years old.

That’s false, as we have demonstrated numerous times in this thread the light from such stars can reach observers on Earth instantaneously; so you are in fact witnessing stellar events in real time.

Again, who is "we"? No sir, what you have done is make an unsubstantiated claim that light from stars can reach observers on Earth instantaneously. There is no physical evidence AT ALL to back up that claim. If we could witness stellar events in real time, we could also communicate with the Cassini probe around Saturn in real time - except that we cannot, because electromagnetic radiation does not travel instantaneously.

None of which have withstood scientific scrutiny. Next.

Baseless assertion, next.

Point of fact.

Scientific facts determine what the consensus is. And the consensus is that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, while the Earth is at least 4.56 billion years old. That consensus is based on the scientifically determined facts.

This is fallacious yet again. You’re invoking a circular argument; it’s a scientific fact that Earth is billions of years old because the majority of scientists believe that is the case and the majority of scientists believe that is the case because it’s a scientific fact.

You really should learn how to read. And also need to learn not to present straw man arguments. I never said that the Earth is billions of years old because the majority of scientists believe it is. The majority of scientists are settled on a 4.56. billion year age for the Earth because the preponderance of the physical evidence collected via numerous independent routes of investigation on the matter to date points to it being that old. If definitive evidence is found that the age is different, that date could change. That is the nature of science, bubba.

It was not a scientific fact that the Universe was eternal in the 1920s when the consensus supported Steady State Theory. The consensus is often wrong in science, therefore merely appealing to it is fallacious.

It isn't a scientific fact today that the universe is eternal either, so I don't see a point here.

I'll assume you're talking about Galilean principle of relativity whereby the velocities transform by pure addition.

No, I am talking about the definitions of the terms velocity and speed. The two-way speed of light in a vacuum is constant, the velocity is not a constant. This is why people stop replying to you, you do not actually listen to what is being posted.

You are clearly confused, or willfully ignorant. Either way, the speed of light and the velocity of light are the exact same quantity. And actually, it is most people who have stopped talking to YOU, oh warped one. People here don't have a problem talking with me. Don't make it personal. You will lose every time.

To talk about the differences between speed and velocity, let's talk about how they are defined.
Speed can be defined as the distance traveled divided by the total time taken. So, speed = distance/time.
While velocity can be defined as the displacement divided by the total time taken. So, velocity = displacement/time.

Now, let's imagine a person who ran around a circular park and returned to the same spot that he started from. The person would have covered a certain amount of distance around the circular park in a certain amount of time. If the person ran really fast, he would have used up less time to run around the park, and thus he would have a high speed. But if he ran really slowly, he would have used up more time to run around the park, and thus he would have a low speed. This part seems rather intuitive for now.

But, let's move on to velocity. Because the person ran back to his starting position, he would have zero displacement. Displacement is the difference in distance between the starting and final position. So, since displacement is zero in this case, we can say that the running man has an average velocity of zero!

So speed depends on distance traveled, while velocity depends on the displacement.

I'd also like to point out that speed is just a number (e.g. 10m/s or 24km/hr). However, when we talk about velocity, we usually have to describe the direction as well (e.g. 10m/s northwards or 24km/hr eastwards). It's because the velocity changes when the direction changes that the velocity can average to zero even though it isn't zero at any particular time.

Word salad. Displacement and distance at the exact same thing when scalar and vector qualities of an object are identical, as shown by Lorenz transformations. Your discussion of vector directions is Galilean relativity, dude, as I said. Light doesn't obey Galilean relativity, which is why Einstein came up with special relativity, as I've already pointed out.

http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19188

The point is that velocity of light corresponds to zero Minkowski length and so light moves at a constant velocity in every inertial frame. This is the famous Einstein's postulate, which has been shown time and time again to be true.

You’re talking about speed not velocity. How has it been shown to be true? It is impossible to prove the one-way speed of light is a constant in all directions, we have provided numerous sources that support that.

Speed is a scalar property. Velocity is a vector property. Because the velocity of light has zero Minkowski length, that velocity is exactly the same as its speed IN ALL INERTIAL FRAMES.

Actually, nearly every physicist makes that argument.

Show me one who specifically says the velocity of light in a vacuum is a constant.

Did you not read the link I provided above?

Even considering the silly idea that they are in different references frames, you cannot get a 10,000 year old universe, much less, a 6,000 year old universe by ANY measure you can make.

Sure we can.

Really? I await your peer reviewed paper supporting your claim. Then we can submit it to the Nobel committee because, no doubt, it will be an Earth-shattering revelation.

Let me make it easy for YOU:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AmJPh..56..811B

On the physical reality of the isotropic speed of light

Brehme, Robert W.

American Journal of Physics, Volume 56, Issue 9, pp. 811-813 (1988).

It was suggested by Einstein and later greatly elaborated on by others that the methods used to synchronize distant clocks are a matter of convention. The standard method, in which it is assumed that the speed of light is isotropic, obviously yields an isotropic light speed when such clocks are involved in determining the speed of light. Another method, in which clocks travel symmetrically but otherwise arbitrarily in opposite directions, may also be used to synchronize distant clocks. This method establishes whether or not the clocks are synchronized in a physically significant way in the sense that it allows a distinction to be made between a contrived anisotropic light speed and an anisotropic speed that is physically significant or real. Specifically, a contrived anisotropic light speed results in laws of physics that are not symmetric, whereas a true anisotropic light speed does not affect the symmetry of physical laws. Furthermore, when invariance in the speed of light is imposed, the invariant interval may be identified with the lapse of proper time in the case in which anisotropy is contrived. But, in the case of true anisotropy, this identification is not possible. Experiment reveals that, on the basis of symmetry in physical law, any anisotropy in the speed of light is contrived and not physically significant.

And this:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1310.1171F

This paper presents the outcome of an experiment based on an improved version of Fizeau's coupled-slotted-discs that tests the fundamental postulates of Special Relativity for the one-way speed of light propagation. According to our methodology, important phenomena - a limit on and the diurnal regularity of the variation of the speed of light due to the movements of the Earth (assuming that the speed of light follows a Galilean transformation) - can be tested by the present experiment. However, these measurements do not indicate any significant diurnal variation. Consequently, the limit of the present outcome on the variation of the speed of light is insignificant. Assuming that the speed of light is not invariant and performing a rigorous statistical analysis, the limit established is approximately 1/50 of the previous Fizeau-type experiment with 95% confidence level. These outcomes are consistent with the assumptions of Einstein's Special Relativity.

[snowtracks]

The biblical word for day, 'yom' has 4 literal meanings, one is an ordinary day (now 24 hours). the 10 thousand years is based on that one meaning. if the proper biblical context is used, the 'young earth' group wouldn't need to machinate science to fit that that one ordinary day meaning.

[theyear12013]

The biblical word for day, 'yom' has 4 literal meanings, one is an ordinary day (now 24 hours). the 10 thousand years is based on that one meaning. if the proper biblical context is used, the 'young earth' group wouldn't need to machinate science to fit that that one ordinary day meaning.

Yom is day in Hebrew! It is also the same in Arabic. Always nerdy exciting to hear the same word across the Judaic-Islamic religious tradition.

[Tonus]

if the proper biblical context is used,

Good thing there's a rock-solid consensus on what the proper biblical context is.

[Zen Badger]

The biblical word for day, 'yom' has 4 literal meanings, one is an ordinary day (now 24 hours). the 10 thousand years is based on that one meaning. if the proper biblical context is used, the 'young earth' group wouldn't need to machinate science to fit that that one ordinary day meaning.

And by what criteria do you decide what is proper context?

[snowtracks]

The biblical word for day, 'yom' has 4 literal meanings, one is an ordinary day (now 24 hours). the 10 thousand years is based on that one meaning. if the proper biblical context is used, the 'young earth' group wouldn't need to machinate science to fit that that one ordinary day meaning.

And by what criteria do you decide what is proper context?

for instance, the sun doesn't appear until the 4'th day so days 1-3 aren't ordinary days. next time, don't feign intellectual curiosity.

[Statler Waldorf]

The level of delusion you live with is mind boggling.

Talking trash from the bench on the sidelines does not impress me much.

Yes seriously. No sir, I made no such argument, and I've not seen others here make that argument. if they did, they are mistaken.

Mind if I quote you next time I see it?

Aren't you a creationist? I only ask because you appear to be confused as to who has said what?

Yes I am, and that is why I want names. I am not aware of any prominent creationist who believes the Earth is 10,000 years old. That is why I called your bluff.

Science requires more than mere deductive reasoning. It requires inductive reasoning AND empiric evidence. Got anything like that?

This is absurd. Inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive proof. We have deductive proof that scripture is what it claims to be so that is all that we need. Not all truth claims are supported by science, that’s the old self-refuting position known as scientism.

Claiming that I am personally unaware of evidence is not evidence that your claim is true. Try again.

I never said that it did. I was merely pointing out that your claim that no such evidence exists was irrational.

Again, who is "we"?

OM and myself. He does not believe the Universe is young but he knows that you cannot make the argument you did above to prove it’s old.

No sir, what you have done is make an unsubstantiated claim that light from stars can reach observers on Earth instantaneously.

Conventions are not substantiated. Your claim that it takes it a finite speed to reach us was unsubstantial as well.

There is no physical evidence AT ALL to back up that claim.

We do not use physical evidence to back up conventions; that does not make any sense.

If we could witness stellar events in real time, we could also communicate with the Cassini probe around Saturn in real time

No that is incorrect. Such communications rely upon the two-way speed of light which has a testable finite speed. That is why we cannot communicate in real time in such situations.

I never said that the Earth is billions of years old because the majority of scientists believe it is. The majority of scientists are settled on a 4.56. billion year age for the Earth because the preponderance of the physical evidence collected via numerous independent routes of investigation on the matter to date points to it being that old.

[Emphasis added by SW]

How do you know this? Circular argument in 3…2…1…

It isn't a scientific fact today that the universe is eternal either, so I don't see a point here.

According to your reasoning it would have been a scientific fact in the 1920s; so was it or wasn’t it?

You are clearly confused, or willfully ignorant.

Neither.

Either way, the speed of light and the velocity of light are the exact same quantity.

I can’t believe you claim to have a scientific education. Speed is a scalar quantity, velocity is a vector quantity. If I was driving at 60MPH heading North and I make a turn and am now am heading 60MPH heading Northwest my speed remained constant but my velocity changed because I changed my direction of travel. You never took Physics did you?

And actually, it is most people who have stopped talking to YOU, oh warped one. People here don't have a problem talking with me. Don't make it personal. You will lose every time.

Read OM’s last response to you and tell me what you think it means.

Word salad. Displacement and distance at the exact same thing when scalar and vector qualities of an object are identical, as shown by Lorenz transformations.

Speed is a scalar property. Velocity is a vector property. Because the velocity of light has zero Minkowski length, that velocity is exactly the same as its speed IN ALL INERTIAL FRAMES.

Nope, velocity has a directional component that you are ignoring which means you are talking about merely speed. This is completely irrelevant to what we are talking about though because you cannot even prove that the one-way SPEED of light is the same in all directions. You keep asserting that you can, but you have provided nothing to support that assertion.

Did you not read the link I provided above?

The only link you provided was the same link I provided in my last post which completely agrees with me. The velocity of something can change even though the speed stayed the same. None of this is relevant to whether the speed of light is constant in all directions by the way.

---

Let me make it easy for YOU:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AmJPh..56..811B

On the physical reality of the isotropic speed of light

Brehme, Robert W.

American Journal of Physics, Volume 56, Issue 9, pp. 811-813 (1988).

It was suggested by Einstein and later greatly elaborated on by others that the methods used to synchronize distant clocks are a matter of convention. The standard method, in which it is assumed that the speed of light is isotropic, obviously yields an isotropic light speed when such clocks are involved in determining the speed of light. Another method, in which clocks travel symmetrically but otherwise arbitrarily in opposite directions, may also be used to synchronize distant clocks. This method establishes whether or not the clocks are synchronized in a physically significant way in the sense that it allows a distinction to be made between a contrived anisotropic light speed and an anisotropic speed that is physically significant or real. Specifically, a contrived anisotropic light speed results in laws of physics that are not symmetric, whereas a true anisotropic light speed does not affect the symmetry of physical laws. Furthermore, when invariance in the speed of light is imposed, the invariant interval may be identified with the lapse of proper time in the case in which anisotropy is contrived. But, in the case of true anisotropy, this identification is not possible. Experiment reveals that, on the basis of symmetry in physical law, any anisotropy in the speed of light is contrived and not physically significant.

And this:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1310.1171F

This paper presents the outcome of an experiment based on an improved version of Fizeau's coupled-slotted-discs that tests the fundamental postulates of Special Relativity for the one-way speed of light propagation. According to our methodology, important phenomena - a limit on and the diurnal regularity of the variation of the speed of light due to the movements of the Earth (assuming that the speed of light follows a Galilean transformation) - can be tested by the present experiment. However, these measurements do not indicate any significant diurnal variation. Consequently, the limit of the present outcome on the variation of the speed of light is insignificant. Assuming that the speed of light is not invariant and performing a rigorous statistical analysis, the limit established is approximately 1/50 of the previous Fizeau-type experiment with 95% confidence level. These outcomes are consistent with the assumptions of Einstein's Special Relativity.

---

Slow clock transport assumes what it is trying to prove because the speed of light affects time dilation. All of these results would be the same under an Anisotropic Synchrony Convention because it is a coordinate system transformation which by definition cannot introduce any real forces. I have no idea why you do not understand that. You keep trying to argue against something that nobody on here is arguing for. It’s such a waste of all of our time and will continue to be so until you can get on the same page with everyone else.

[Godlesspanther]

So the creationist does not have the intellectual skill required to determining the difference between "deductive proof" and an idiotic crock of shit. What else is new?

[snowtracks]

The seventh day makes no mention of an evening or morning unlike the first 6, therefore, still in it.