Posts: 1571
Threads: 179
Joined: October 14, 2010
Reputation:
35
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 15, 2014 at 11:31 pm
(February 15, 2014 at 6:36 pm)Zen Badger Wrote: And Waldorks instantaneous light propagation is disproven by the phenomonen of red shift.( the discovery that showed the universe was expanding)
Because if it were instantaneous then red shift couldn't occur.
No doubt, he thinks that Hubble's discovery was a communist conspiracy. Damned pinko fags. 
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 16, 2014 at 3:35 am
I'm a bit late to the game, Statler Waldorf claims what exactly wrt light propagation? It's hard to infer from the discussion...
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 16, 2014 at 5:32 am
(February 16, 2014 at 3:35 am)Alex K Wrote: I'm a bit late to the game, Statler Waldorf claims what exactly wrt light propagation? It's hard to infer from the discussion...
Waldorf likes to throw around a steaming pile of dog turds called anisotropic light propagation. It is the brain fart of a disingenuous liar for Jesus called Jason Lisle.
His claim being that light travelling towards earth has infinite velocity but light travelling away only has half c, therefore the universe could be only a few thousand years old as per the bible and not billions of years old as per reality.
While we have repeatedly pointed out the faults with this hypothesis, this has not stopped Waldorf from claiming its validity.
![[Image: mybannerglitter06eee094.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i118.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fo112%2Fpussinboots_photos%2FBikes%2Fmybannerglitter06eee094.gif)
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 16, 2014 at 5:46 am
Heh, funny. So there are the RMS extension of special relativity and the Standard Model extension, which can be used to parameterize deviations from simple Lorentz invariance - but the relevant parameters are measured by different experiments and are typically to one part in a billionth within the parameters of special relativity. The ludicrous scenario which you mention is not in that range of course  . Accomodating instant light travel requires special pleading (it does so only where we can't measure, and the universe/God conspires to make all the thousands of observations look exactly as if the universe were billions of years old). It is, in other words, a lia that science accomodates this scenario.
(February 16, 2014 at 5:32 am)Zen Badger Wrote: (February 16, 2014 at 3:35 am)Alex K Wrote: I'm a bit late to the game, Statler Waldorf claims what exactly wrt light propagation? It's hard to infer from the discussion...
Waldorf likes to throw around a steaming pile of dog turds called anisotropic light propagation. It is the brain fart of a disingenuous liar for Jesus called Jason Lisle.
His claim being that light travelling towards earth has infinite velocity but light travelling away only has half c, therefore the universe could be only a few thousand years old as per the bible and not billions of years old as per reality.
While we have repeatedly pointed out the faults with this hypothesis, this has not stopped Waldorf from claiming its validity.
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 16, 2014 at 6:18 am
If you wish to engage in some serious face palming here is a link to what we will laughingly call Lisles theory......
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j...c0AuGfD3lw
Prepare to lose a few IQ points.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 16, 2014 at 10:57 am
(This post was last modified: February 16, 2014 at 12:41 pm by Alex K.)
(February 16, 2014 at 6:18 am)Zen Badger Wrote: If you wish to engage in some serious face palming here is a link to what we will laughingly call Lisles theory......
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j...c0AuGfD3lw
Prepare to lose a few IQ points.
Wow I didn't know the Answers Research Journal, it is a mix of normal looking stuff and absolute hilarity!
As for the Lisle idea, it is not his original idea, but it is a very nice intellectual puzzle. It is not entirely based on nonsense, there is such a thing as synchrony conventions, and you can go to a convention in special relativity where formally the speed of light is infinite in one direction, or towards an arbitrary observer. (It's a bit like putting coordinates in general relativity such that the earth is the resting centre of the universe. You can do it!)
This is not as absurd as you would maybe think, it is basically a sophisticated and mathematically consistent way to re-parametrize the time coordinate throughout the universe such that you can get away with light of all stars coming to earth instantaneously in this position-dependent time frame. Think of it the following way: the light which arrives at earth now, you simply shift the definition of time backwards when you go away from us such that all light arriving here now has left the source at the same numerical time value in your new position dependent time definition. This is an entirely artificial construct.
Via this redefinition of how you define time throughout the universe, you have simply traded this problem for a different one: at his artificial point in time 6000 years ago (and keep in mind, the notion of what is 6000 years ago is now a very weird thing which depends on where in space you are) , you have to put Stars with the appropriate apparent ages everywhere to simulate the light travel time. So in a nutshell, you simply call the time at which the light which we observe now has left the source, as being the same as the one on your clock. That this is possible mathematically has been debated by some, but has been shown by Sarkar and Stachel to work.
Lisle's claim that the universe indeed looks the same age even far away, in order to get around putting artificially aged stars and galaxies everywhere, is of course completely absurd.
And here we haven't even started talking about real cosmology, which is a completely different beast than dreaming about initial conditions for a static universe, which is wrong anyways. I am almost afraid to give a wrong impression of the wealth of observations which contradict this claim by mentioning just one example. We can for example indirectly measure the temperature of the cosmic microwave background as seen by gas millions - billions of lightyears away, and can directly see that the universe is warmer by the expected amount. And so on and so forth. There is no way around the big bang
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 18, 2014 at 6:04 am
Even if you wish to tout it as a convention it doesn't change the fact that it still takes light a finite time to travel a given distance. Despit all of staplers protestations to the contrary.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
Posts: 647
Threads: 24
Joined: July 28, 2013
Reputation:
14
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 18, 2014 at 8:24 am
I might be missing the point, but how would the light "know" which direction to go at infinite speed and which to go at half C?
Posts: 18510
Threads: 129
Joined: January 19, 2014
Reputation:
91
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2014 at 10:06 am by Alex K.)
(February 18, 2014 at 8:24 am)StuW Wrote: I might be missing the point, but how would the light "know" which direction to go at infinite speed and which to go at half C?
The geometry of space itself is set up anisotropically if you will.
Zen Badger Wrote:Even if you wish to tout it as a convention it doesn't change the fact that it still takes light a finite time to travel a given distance. Despit all of staplers protestations to the contrary.
I think I disagree. How do you measure the time it takes light to travel from A to B, and how do you define the time interval delta T which it took? You will implicitly use the "isotropic" synchronization convention to do it. The point is not that this is a deep physical difference, it's just that light travel times for one-way trips are a convention dependent quantity.
Posts: 5389
Threads: 52
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
48
RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 19, 2014 at 6:20 am
(February 18, 2014 at 9:54 am)Alex K Wrote: Zen Badger Wrote:Even if you wish to tout it as a convention it doesn't change the fact that it still takes light a finite time to travel a given distance. Despit all of staplers protestations to the contrary.
I think I disagree. How do you measure the time it takes light to travel from A to B, and how do you define the time interval delta T which it took? You will implicitly use the "isotropic" synchronization convention to do it. The point is not that this is a deep physical difference, it's just that light travel times for one-way trips are a convention dependent quantity.
But that's not my point.
Regardless of what convention you might wish to use.
Independent of any measurement, it still takes light time to traverse distance.
It is never instantaneous.
If you're not supposed to ride faster than your guardian angel can fly then mine had better get a bloody SR-71.
|
