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

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

while others believe it is 10,000 years old.

Names?

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.

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.

None of which have withstood scientific scrutiny. Next.

Baseless assertion, next.

That WOULD be stupid, but that isn't how it works.

I know, I am not the one who made an appeal to consensus.

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. 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.

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.

---

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.

---

[Emphasis added by SW]

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.

Actually, nearly every physicist makes that argument.

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

[quote]

[quote] The problem with that argument is that it assumes that the origin and destination are in different reference frames.

No, they’d be in the same one relative to the observer.

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.

Nearly every physicist on the planet and 100 years of experimentation and observation says that you are wrong.

Fallacious appeal to popularity again. What experiments and observations are you referring to?

I’ll save you the time…

“Experiments that attempted to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so.”- Wikipedia

“If you wanted to measure the speed of light in one beam going from A to B you'd need two clocks that are perfectly synchronized. This is, however, impossible because of issues with even defining time in the context of relativity.”- RationalWiki

“Basically, all any conceivable experiment can do is provide you with the round-trip speed of light between two points. If you think that an experiment measures the one-way speed of light, it is because you are making assumptions about what 'synchronized clocks' mean.”- RationalWiki

“"It is only possible to verify experimentally that the two-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a mirror and back again) is frame-independent, because it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a distant detector) without some convention as to how clocks at the source and at the detector should be synchronized.”- Wikipedia

See above.

Yes, see above.

There is no reason to assume otherwise.

There is no reason to assume that it does either.

Moreover, the fact that in every experiment to measure the speed of light, there has been no measureable shift in frequency is strong evidence of the isotropic nature of light.

No it’s not. Everything we observe would be identical using either convention.

Non-sequitur. The velocity of light is measured in m/s or light years.

No, that’s the speed of light. Velocity requires a directional component as well.

Solving for m gives you distance, dude. This is 6th grade math.

Nobody is disputing the distance…dude.

Indeed I do. And my statement stands. I have yet to see you demonstrate how you get a 10,000 year old universe out of evidence for a 13.7 billion year old universe. I know why you haven't, but I want to hear it from you.

What evidence are you even referring to? You have provided nothing suggesting the Universe is that old. Things are far away in the Universe, so what?

There are several problems with Lisle's explanation.

This ought to be good…

first, NASA and many others have conducted experiments in time dilation and have found in all instances that the clocks were off be equal but opposite amounts, indicating that the velocity of light is, indeed, isotropic.

These experiments (that you conveniently do not link to) assume the speed of light is isotropic it does not demonstrate that it in fact is.

Secondly, he conveniently ignore the fact that no frequency shift has ever been detected in any measurement of the speed of light.

This would not be expected because a coordinate transformation cannot introduce any real forces by definition.

And finally:

his explanation for how distant starlight is compatible with a 6 day creation only a few thousand years ago is very, very weak.

Opinion.

It essentially consists of immediately throwing out the conventional science just because it conflicts with scripture and then proposing that "creation was supernatural, therefore cannot be understood scientifically".[7] Most of Lisle's points just begin with the claim that the Bible must be true, cannot change and so can explain everything[8] and he's no stranger to wall-bangingly circular logic.[9] It shouldn't need to be stated that this is the opposite of what a good scientist should do. So, while he may be a published and qualified scientist, the remarks he makes regarding creationism aren't actually very scientific - indeed, for AiG to use him as a leading scientist is practically a sham, as it leads their audiences to think that his ideas - which aren't really his ideas, just the same old tired arguments - automatically have credibility due to his real PhD. Although he has done research with genuine merit into the sun's heliosphere, Lisle has yet to perform, let alone publish, credible work into starlight or creationism.

The link did not work so I cannot figure out who you are quoting here. However, the fact that it is all merely some poster’s opinion means it does not prove anything anyways.