Old Earth
#51
Put it this way.  If, in order to keep your theory alive, you have to say "nothing is expanding", then your theory has SERIOUS problems.  "Nothing" can't expand.  It's already there. 

After the global warming fiasco, which show INCREDIBLE problems in the scientific community, I am very skeptical of science (which, by the way, IS the scientific method) outside of applied sciences.  On global warming, just study upside-down Tiljander.  A bunch of hobbyist have completely destroyed the global warming theory.  And they post all their data, code, and methods, unlike the "scientists".

I have always intended to look into relativity.  What strikes me up front is that Einstein got it wrong when he said the speed of light is a constant.  I believe it is more correct to call it a "maximum".  It is very similar to sound, which even "red shifts".  So why would we treat light any different then sound?  We don't come up with strange "time slowing down" theories to explain the properties of sound, so why light, which behaves just like sound?  Doesn't pass the smell test.

But I have no time to look into that.  Maybe in twenty years if the asteroid hasn't hit by then.

Reply
#52
(01-25-2011, 04:24 PM)James02 Wrote: I have always intended to look into relativity.  What strikes me up front is that Einstein got it wrong when he said the speed of light is a constant.  I believe it is more correct to call it a "maximum".  It is very similar to sound, which even "red shifts".  So why would we treat light any different then sound?  We don't come up with strange "time slowing down" theories to explain the properties of sound, so why light, which behaves just like sound?  Doesn't pass the smell test.

The quick answer is that the speed of light is always measured to be the same no matter from what position it is being measured.  For example, if a photon of light is traveling at 186000 miles per second and you are sitting on something that is traveling right behind it at 100000 miles per second, then your measurement of the speed of that photon should be 86000 miles per second, right?  Well, when they run the experiments it always turns out to be 186000 miles per second, no matter how fast the measurer is going.  That just plain plum doesn't make sense, unless time changes based on speed and that change is relative to the speed of light, which would therefore make the speed of light constant no matter from which relative position it is being measured.

The speed of light is not only constant but also, as you point out, a maximum for other reasons that have to do with the relationship of mass to speed.  Basically, in order to accelerate past the speed of light you'd need to have an infinite amount of energy, which is of course impossible.

We don't treat light like sound because light is quite different from sound.  Sound is only a vibration (a wave) traveling through a medium.  Light, however, requires no medium and has those funky wave/particle properties -- both a wave and a particle at the same time (but we don't need to get into quantum mechanics here).  So comparing light to sound is like comparing apples to oranges.  Since they both have wave properties they both have a doppler effect (the red or blue shift of light), but that has to do with the frequency of the wave being affected by the speed of the source (or the observer), not the actual speed of light (or sound) itself.  So light red-shifts when its source is moving away from the observer, but that's because the frequency of the wave is being stretched out, so to speak, as the source moves.  The speed of red (or blue) shifting light still remains a constant 186000 miles per second, no matter how much its frequency shifts.

An excellent book for the lay reader on contemporary physics is "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" by Brian Greene, published in 2005 I think.  It covers relativistic physics, quantum physics, and the attempts to combine the two (like string theory).  It's a good read.

Pax,
Jesse


Reply
#53
Quote: The quick answer is that the speed of light is always measured to be the same no matter from what position it is being measured.  For example, if a photon of light is traveling at 186000 miles per second and you are sitting on something that is traveling right behind it at 100000 miles per second, then your measurement of the speed of that photon should be 86000 miles per second, right?  Well, when they run the experiments it always turns out to be 186000 miles per second, no matter how fast the measurer is going.  That just plain plum doesn't make sense, unless time changes based on speed and that change is relative to the speed of light, which would therefore make the speed of light constant no matter from which relative position it is being measured.

I really don't intend to delve into this.  BUT, this is just like sound.  If someone sends a sound signal at you, and you travel at the signal, or if the source is travelling at you, the speed is constant.  The energy of the traveler is taken up in wave compression, thus the higher pitched sound.  Surprise, surprise, if a source is traveling at you, and shines a light, the light will become "bluer" as the energy of the traveler is converted into wave compression.  So you can't push sound over the speed of sound, nor can you slow it down.  You can only impact the frequency, which is EXACTLY how light behaves.
Reply
#54
(01-25-2011, 05:06 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: The quick answer is that the speed of light is always measured to be the same no matter from what position it is being measured.  For example, if a photon of light is traveling at 186000 miles per second and you are sitting on something that is traveling right behind it at 100000 miles per second, then your measurement of the speed of that photon should be 86000 miles per second, right?  Well, when they run the experiments it always turns out to be 186000 miles per second, no matter how fast the measurer is going.  That just plain plum doesn't make sense, unless time changes based on speed and that change is relative to the speed of light, which would therefore make the speed of light constant no matter from which relative position it is being measured.

I really don't intend to delve into this.  BUT, this is just like sound.  If someone sends a sound signal at you, and you travel at the signal, or if the source is travelling at you, the speed is constant.  The energy of the traveler is taken up in wave compression, thus the higher pitched sound.  Surprise, surprise, if a source is traveling at you, and shines a light, the light will become "bluer" as the energy of the traveler is converted into wave compression.  So you can't push sound over the speed of sound, nor can you slow it down.  You can only impact the frequency, which is EXACTLY how light behaves.

The problem is that light is not just a wave, but a particle, too.  Imagine two cars (particles).  The lead car is going 100 miles an hour and the 2nd is going 80 miles an hour.  If the second car measures the speed of the first, the answer will be 20, not 100.  Now, make the lead car a photon of light and the 2nd car some sort of measuring device.  Instead of the 20 that you'd expect if it was a car, instead you get 100.  Always 100, no matter how fast or slow the measuring device goes.  That does not make any sense unless time changes and the ratio is related to the speed of light.  This has been born out in literally thousands of experiments.

Sound is never a particle, always a wave.  Light is sometimes one, sometimes another.
Reply
#55
Quote: That does not make any sense unless time changes and the ratio is related to the speed of light.

It does not make sense with your premise.  Is your premise correct?  Are you making a statement, then finding a problem in nature, then trying to change nature to keep your premise?  Since sound will do the same thing with two moving cars, and time doesn't change from its normal behaviour.

If a car is going 80 up front, with a car going 100 in the back, if the back car honks the horn, the sound will not go "speed of sound + 20" to the lead car.  It will go the speed of sound only, though it will be compressed.

Point being, make the observation first, then draw your conclusion.  With your observation, I conclude light is acting just like a sound wave.  And we haven't even gotten into expanding "nothing".  I don't buy it, it shows a contradiction and an incorrect premise.

Anyhow, I'm about done posting for awhile on this forum, and I have zero time to read about all of this or anything else for that matter.  Those are my objections.  Thanks for the debate.
Reply
#56
(01-25-2011, 09:27 PM)James02 Wrote: Point being, make the observation first, then draw your conclusion.  With your observation, I conclude light is acting just like a sound wave.

No, waves are acting like waves, but the comparison breaks down there.  These are not the same types of waves.  Sound waves are mechanical waves, and only the energy is propagating.  No matter is being moved anywhere, except being displaced in a direction perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation.  It's like a wave in a pond when you drop a rock in.  The wave spreads out, but none of the substance of the water is actually moving in the direction of the wave.  It's just going up and down as the wave goes through it.  Light, on the other hand, is an electromagnetic wave.  It's not propagating though a medium and displacing matter as it goes.  Rather, it IS matter that is itself moving, but also contains wave-like properties.  And that's what we're talking about - matter moving.  If you throw a baseball 50 miles an hour, and I'm watching you from the side, it looks to me like it's moving at 50 miles an hour.  If you then do it again when standing on a truck that is moving past me at 60 miles per hour, you will still see the ball as moving at 50 miles per hour, but I will see it as moving at 110 miles per hour.  So the velocity measured is relative to the observer.  That's basic observation.

Except it turns out that that doesn't hold up at high speeds.  The faster something is moving, the LESS relative that measurement is.  So if instead of throwing a baseball, you turn on a flashlight, it's not relative at all.  You measure the light as moving at 186000 miles per second on the truck, and so do I, standing on the side.  I do NOT measure it at that plus an additional 60 miles per hour.  But it doesn't even have to be light or anything with obvious wave properties.  If you had a heck of an arm and threw that baseball at 99.99% the of speed light, you would measure it at 99.99% the speed of light, but I still would not measure it at 99.99% plus 60 miles an hour.  I would measure it as moving faster than you would, but not by 60 miles an hour - somewhat less than that.  In fact, if we measure things with extreme precision, we would find that even in the original example of throwing the baseball at 50 miles an hour, I do not measure it as moving 110 miles per hour - it is very slightly less than that, but so slightly it is never noticeable.

So if we are measuring things at different speeds, that can mean only one thing - either we are measuring time or distance differently.  In fact it is both - the difference in the time measurements is not quite enough to account for the difference in speed measurements - the distance is also being measured differently.  So for objects moving relative to one another, each sees time moving slower for the other AND each sees length contracted for the other.  This is Special Relativity, and the math for this is relatively simple.

The math for General Relativity, on the other hand, is not so simple.  General Relativity solves the same problem for non-inertial frames.  In other words, when objects are not moving at a constant velocity, but accelerating.  Which it turns out applies to objects being affected by gravity.  Being closer to or further from a heavy object exerting a gravitational influence also affects the measurement of time and distance.
Reply
#57
young earthers can't argue with plate tectonics
Reply
#58
(02-01-2011, 11:13 PM)someguy Wrote: young earthers can't argue with plate tectonics

The Bible framework for earth history makes no statement about continental splitting due to plate tectonics, so it is unnecessary and unwise to take a "Biblical" position on the question. When God created the land and sea, the waters were "gathered together unto one place" (Genesis 1:9), which may imply one large ocean and one large land mass. The scripture which says "the earth was divided" in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) is generally thought to refer to the Tower of Babel division (Genesis 11:1-9) and some suppose this included continental separation. To believe, however, that the continents moved thousands of miles during the Tower of Babel incident without causing another global flood requires a miracle. Similarly, it is doubtful whether the long day of Joshua can be explained naturalistically by plate tectonics.

If continental separation did occur, the only place within the Bible framework where it could fit would be during Noah's Flood. The cause of Noah's Flood is described in tectonic terms: "all the fountains of the great deep broken up" (Genesis 7:11). The Hebrew word for "broken up" is baga and is used in other Old Testament passages (Zechariah 14:4; Numbers 16:31) to refer to the geologic phenomena of faulting. The mechanism for retreat of the Flood waters is also associated with tectonics. Psalm 104:6,7 describes the abating of the waters which stood above the mountains; the eighth verse properly translated says, "The mountains rose up; the valleys sank down." It is interesting to note that the "mountains of Ararat" (Genesis 8:4), the resting place of the Ark after the 150th day of the Flood, are in a tectonically active region at the junction of three lithospheric plates.11

If continental separation occurred during Noah's Flood, a host of problems in the tectonic dilemma can be solved. Rapid mid-ocean rifting can explain the large quantity of volcanic rocks on the sea floor. The presence of low density crustal rock down to a depth of 700 kilometers within the mantle below trenches can be attributed to rapid underthrusting. The cause for the ancient breaking up of continents can be explained easily by the enormous catastrophic forces of Noah's Flood which broke the lithosphere into moving plates which for a short time overcame the viscous drag of the earth's mantle. The amazing similarity of sedimentary Flood layers in the northeastern United States to those of Britain (i.e., Carboniferous coal strata and Devonian red sandstones) and the absence of these in the North Atlantic ocean basin suggests that continental separation occurred toward the end of the Flood.
Reply
#59
(01-25-2011, 12:25 AM)faith3faith Wrote:
(01-24-2011, 05:51 PM)James02 Wrote: I reject that time changes or that space is expanding.

The expansion of space is already accepted by most scientists. Also, it has already been proven in scientific tests using Atomic clocks that "TIME" itself can be different at different points in this Universe.

As far as I know the first actual proof of time changing based on the velocity of the object was when the GPS satellites were first launched.  There was great debate in the scientific community as to whether the clocks on the satellites would be affected.  So the scientists programmed in 2 cases - the first was that there would be no effect according to the theory of relativity.  The second was that the clocks needed to be compensated for relativity.  When the satellites were first launched the GPS signals were all screwed up.  They flicked the switch to compensate for relativity and it suddenly worked perfectly.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pog...5/gps.html
Reply
#60
Hmmm.  It says the clocks ran FASTER, so they had to slow them down.  But Einstein says time SLOWS DOWN when you go fast.

And what is the clock?  It is a vibrating atom.  So what happens in outer space is that the atom vibrates at a higher frequency.  Is there any other explanation besides "time" changing, of why an atom would vibrate faster in space?

I personally believe in some sort of aether, which also would explain gravity.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)