Evidence for an ancient earth

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I say, "since the singularity was infinite or near-infinite in mass in one concentrated "spot",

STOP! You are wrong about ANOTHER point: "in one spot"

You make the classic mistake to presume a viewpoint outside of the universe-- and that it would be meaningful to say, "the singularity was in a specific spot".

It was not-- there was no space, no time for this thing to exist within. It is meaningless to say it "was in a spot". That assumes an external view that simply isn't possible.

Until the singularity began to expand? There was no space or location to accomidate your "spot".

As the universe expanded? Space was created as a result.

Once there was sufficient space as a result of the expansion? Mass could begin to happen-- space could be curved into mass/matter.

Prior to that? Not possible.

Ooops! That kinda destroys your god right there-- not possible for it to exist until the universe itself existed...


Sorry about that chief.

 

[Rockstar Matt]

Huh? Take a look at the actual historical (best estimate) records of world population for as far back as we can than extrapolate. Doubles approximately every 125 years. I can't help that 8 people 5,000 years ago doesn't fit your worldview but fits mine to a T.

That's just flat out false. Humans have been around for 180,000 thousand years. We have the skeletal remians to prove it. We have evidence of ancient civilizations that pre-date 3,000 BC. By that fact alone, you can easily prove there were more than 8 humans on this planet 5,000 years ago.

 

[sayak83]

And I never said "changes rates of decay". Those rates are constant, but things like sunspots can significantly throw off dates, so mass spectrometrists spend six years learning how to "adjust" anomalies until everything fits uniformitarian assumptions regarding dates.

This is a complete and utter LIE. Back it up or retract. You are accusing my profession, so its time for you to back up such atrocious accusations.

 

[ratiocinator]

Which is why i stated opposite direction

When you shifted point of view to point (c) then points (b) and (a) are travelling in the same direction away from you - is that not what you meant?

Point of view of (b):
(c)<--0.75c---(b)---0.75c-->(a)

Point of view of (c):
(c)---0.75c-->(b)---0.75c-->(a)

Which actually results in:
(c)---0.75c-->(b)---0.75c-->(a)
(c)----------0.96c--------->(a)

Anyway, it is actually impossible (in special relativity) to have a relative velocity greater than light. Velocity addition is a low speed approximation. To 'add' two velocities u and v, you need this formula:

w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c²)

Where c is the speed of light. If u and v are very much smaller than c, then uv/c² is very small and (u + v) is a good approximation. At the other extreme, if we are talking about two photons departing from some point, both travelling at c in opposite directions, then the speed of one, as seen from the other, is still only c.

w = (c + c)/(1 + c²/c²) = 2c/(1 + 1) = 2c/2 = c

 

[Tenzin Javid]

Do not be blinded or silenced by the word 'science'. Science comes from the Latin word scientia. A thousand year old term for knowledge. What was known two thousand years ago to apply that term to? A flat earth, dragons, centaurs, Caesar being a God? What we know now will look like cave daubings two thousand years from today. We search for something we are unable to comprehend.

 

[ChristineM]

When you shifted point of view to point (c) then points (b) and (a) are travelling in the same direction away from you - is that not what you meant?

Point of view of (b):
(c)<--0.75c---(b)---0.75c-->(a)

Point of view of (c):
(c)---0.75c-->(b)---0.75c-->(a)

Which actually results in:
(c)---0.75c-->(b)---0.75c-->(a)
(c)----------0.96c--------->(a)

Anyway, it is actually impossible (in special relativity) to have a relative velocity greater than light. Velocity addition is a low speed approximation. To 'add' two velocities u and v, you need this formula:

w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c²)

Where c is the speed of light. If u and v are very much smaller than c, then uv/c² is very small and (u + v) is a good approximation. At the other extreme, if we are talking about two photons departing from some point, both travelling at c in opposite directions, then the speed of one, as seen from the other, is still only c.

w = (c + c)/(1 + c²/c²) = 2c/(1 + 1) = 2c/2 = c

If point a is travelling from point b at 0.75c and point c is travelling in the opposite direction away from point b at 0.75c then a and c are receding at 1.5c. The speeds don't change because the point of observation has changed, or by mathematical wizardry, they are both travelling at 0/75c. However from the observer on point c, point a cannot be seen because relatively it is receding faster than the light travelling back to point c. Not in reality of course.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

If point a is travelling from point b at 0.75c and point c is travelling in the opposite direction away from point b at 0.75c then a and c are receding at 1.5c. The speeds don't change because the point of observation has changed, or by mathematical wizardry, they are both travelling at 0/75c. However from the observer on point c, point a cannot be seen because relatively it is receding faster than the light travelling back to point c. Not in reality of course.

Yes, the "aggregate" speed appears to be 1.50c. But that is a misnomer, and impossible in a Relativistic Universe (which, apparently, ours is).

To an observer at either traveling point? Time will have slowed such, that the perceived or relative speed of the opposite point is still below lightspeed.

At least, that's how I understand it, with my limited grasp of Einstein maths.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, the "aggregate" speed appears to be 1.50c. But that is a misnomer, and impossible in a Relativistic Universe (which, apparently, ours is).

To an observer at either traveling point? Time will have slowed such, that the perceived or relative speed of the opposite point is still below lightspeed.

At least, that's how I understand it, with my limited grasp of Einstein maths.

I understood it as i told it, which is the point (or part of the point) of relativity.

Here is a piece that explains the phenomenon.
Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

And [astro-ph/0310808] Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

 

[ratiocinator]

If point a is travelling from point b at 0.75c and point c is travelling in the opposite direction away from point b at 0.75c then a and c are receding at 1.5c. The speeds don't change because the point of observation has changed, or by mathematical wizardry, they are both travelling at 0/75c. However from the observer on point c, point a cannot be seen because relatively it is receding faster than the light travelling back to point c. Not in reality of course.

No, if you are in a flat region of space-time and the objects are 'close' (see below), then special relativity applies and velocities don't add - you need the formula I gave.

See: Relativistic Velocities

I understood it as i told it, which is the point (or part of the point) of relativity.

Here is a piece that explains the phenomenon.
Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

And [astro-ph/0310808] Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

The expansion of the universe is a different matter because it's an expansion of space - not a velocity in space. It is possible for two galaxies that are far enough apart (4,200 megaparsecs according to your linked article) to be travelling apart at greater than the speed of light.

 

[Polymath257]

And [astro-ph/0310808] Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe

Thanks for this link. It explains the common mistakes very well.

 

[Polymath257]

No, if you are in a flat region of space-time and the objects are 'close' (see below), then special relativity applies and velocities don't add - you need the formula I gave.

See: Relativistic Velocities

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

Yes, in a flat *space-time*. But we are not talking baout a flat spacetime. We are talking about a flat *space*. There is still curvature in the spacetime due to gravity, etc. In fact, the expansion is a great demonstration of exactly that curvature.

In a *curved* spacetime, even with a flat space, it is crucial (as the article explains) to use GR and NOT SR.

 

[ChristineM]

No, if you are in a flat region of space-time and the objects are 'close' (see below), then special relativity applies and velocities don't add - you need the formula I gave.

See: Relativistic Velocities


The expansion of the universe is a different matter because it's an expansion of space - not a velocity in space. It is possible for two galaxies that are far enough apart (4,200 megaparsecs according to your linked article) to be travelling apart at greater than the speed of light.

See my links.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Nothing. Zero. Nada. I do not have beliefs-- because beliefs are irrational.

That is, beliefs are things one accepts as "true" only without any evidence; I don't do that.

So I have no beliefs-- most especially not how you mean the word.

Again. There is no such thing as "atheist beliefs".

So I was right the first time

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

So I was right the first time

Sorry? Been too many days, and I am clueless about what you are right about..... that's okay. I'm nearly 60 this year, and my grey matter is clogged with too much experience.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There isn't a 'balloon theory'. There is a 'balloon analogy'. it is supposed to be an aide to your understanding the ideas involved. Clearly, in your case, it hasn't helped. If you want to details, go look up the Friedman-Lemaitre-Walker description of the 4-dimensional metric involved. If you wish to learn enough calculus, vector space, differential equations and differential geometry to understand this, just ask. I can directy you to a sequence of good books. If you don't want to learn about this, take the analogy as an analogy and let it go.

I think you're missing my point. The balloon analogy isn't proven as conclusive.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You're going to have to provide a citation. Hopefully you'll do better than the last time I asked you for one.

First listing I found: Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, your information is incorrect. Please show what are these special studies that scientists allegedly use to learn to fudge the data. Anybody can allege any thing. Back them up.

Note, I am a chemist who use mass spectrometry on a weekly basis.

You perform spectrometry readings or you rely on others' readings? I'm not sure how to read your post.

And I didn't say "fudge data". I said "account for anomalies". Are you saying there are no adjustments ever made to initial readings?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Observations have debunked this. Despite what you claim, one can very easily detect if Milky Way is near a center or is just another galaxy in a homogeneous universe. Your understanding of Einstein's theory is wrong. Please link the derivation from which you are making such a claim.

I have yet to see a mathematical theory which puts Milky Way at the center and still reproduces the cosmological observations about the universe. So I would like to see one.

There have been several books entered into this field.

My understanding that we cannot take local measurements per relativity or spacetime motion is accurate.

You are conflating the current interpretations of background radiation, galactic movement and background temperatures (no center is a sure fact!) with your insistence that no alternative theory is satisfactory or possibly plausible. I find that troubling, coming from a scientist. You are as dogmatic as I expect scientists making explorations to not be.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

First listing I found: Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Noah's Flood?

From that website: "We have a Biblical viewpoint on the world." About

That automatically makes anything they say suspect and in desperate need of outside verification.

There "About" statement is actual admission, that they will deliberately and with forethought, "adjust" any and all "findings" to match with this pre-concieved "conclusion".

The entire site can therefore, be simply dismissed as being 100% devoid of facts.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no centre. General relativity tells us that space itself is expanding. Imagining stuff racing away from a central point into space is simply wrong.

Relativity means we cannot measure immediate local motion or the lack of it.