Nanoseconds after the Big Bang

[~enigma~]

Enigma- Nah, he's a first class fundament.

Is it time* for recipes or kittens?

Kittens...

or drunk squirrels...

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure why you would consider measuring time today then using it to calculate speeds and distances in the past

Because you don't understand cosmology (which you can't understand without relativity), and what time means in the context of the evolution of the universe.

yet honestly I'm not interested.

That much is evident.

 

[Ben Tilly]

Ben,

Your analogy is faulty. If the blast furnace was all that existed, it would make more sense.

If my watch was the only time measuring device, perhaps. But we have others. For instance we can base on on the speet of light.

The very atomic motion we use to clock time in the beginning was slower than now. We are using fast paced clocks (relative to their speed at their origin) to measure the expansion of the universe. An actual atomic clock at the beginning of that expansion wouldn't appear to move more slowly from our perspective; it would actually be running slower. The difference wouldn't be accounted for as a result of perspective.

You keep on asserting this. And you keep on failing to notice that I've said that physics measures time according to elapsed time according to an observer that is still relative to the distant universe. And you've positively striven to avoid noticing that I've pointed out that we use this definition because we know of no external observer that we can compare that one to.

So you continue to say "slow relative to us" without noticing that this claim is one that we cannot make heads or tails of from within our best scientific theories. (A fact that you might notice more easily if you were interested enough in science to notice what our best scientific theories actually say...)

I'm sure there did. According to current theory, that time was about 3 minutes after the Big Bang.

Cheers,
Ben

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
The second point is more significant. You might ask ‘when did mankind come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding?’ Recently we've figured out that expansion is accelerating. Man's understanding evolves.

The biblical perspective is there is a God that is the cause of creation. When you look at the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account.

Gene

This was referred to I believe in another thread as

AgingYoung does this continuously. For example, just look at his "sources" for creationist lies in other threads.

AG challenged Q to cite the post in question.

Since a reply to AG's post doesn't fit in the other thread, I have no better place to address this than here. I apologize if it is OT. But it deserves being revealed as a false claim of yet another something in the Bible that supposedly really does match the science. No, it doesn't. You merely have the meaning of Biblical verses stretched like a Nostradamus Quatrain to fit something it really doesn't fit.

Here is the whole passage from Isaiah:

40:18 To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?
40:19 The workman melteth a graven image, and the goldsmith spreadeth it over with gold, and casteth silver chain
40:20 He that is so impoverished that he hath no oblation chooseth a tree that will not rot; he seeketh unto him a cunning workman to prepare a graven image, that shall not be moved.
40:21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

40:22 It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: "He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth"

40:23 That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.
40:24 Yea, they shall not be planted; yea, they shall not be sown: yea, their stock shall not take root in the earth: and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble.

The earth is a flat disc that God looks down upon from his throne in heaven.
Index of Creationist Claims

I have heard the claim the circle referred to is a "sphere" but it isn't. And the claim is passed on without context so yet another person then repeats that the Bible described the Earth as a sphere. A circle is not a sphere!

And neither does anything in this passage remotely resemble AG's version of it, "the verse from Isaiah it describes God stretching out the heavens or creation. The expansion of the universe could have been known for some time if that were considered. We know it now empirically but we could have known it before if we accepted the biblical account."

So unless you have a different verse in mind, AG, this one has nothing to do with the expanding Universe we observe from our vantage point on Earth.

 

[AgingYoung]

sceptic pie​

Ingredients

• 3 medium sized sceptics, quartered.
• one crusty bit of logic
• various seasonings
• some eye of newt+
• onions and carrots

Process:

Gently fold sceptics with seasonings along with eye of newt and onions and carrots together. Place in crust and watch the rapidly expanding explosion. Wear goggles. Stand back. Enjoy.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

Because you don't understand cosmology (which you can't understand without relativity), and what time means in the context of the evolution of the universe.

In the Theory of Relativity time is an imaginary quantity that can not be observed; it is a multiplication of a number that indicates duration of material change and number i that is an imaginary number.

Comparing yesterday's time with how matter moves today is an absurd concept. It's self referencing.

Gene

 

[AgingYoung]

If my watch was the only time measuring device, perhaps. But we have others. For instance we can base on on the speet[sic] of light.

No doubt. We don't measure time with the speed of light. Could you cite an example? Otherwise irrelevant.

Friggin' Cheers,
Gene

 

[Roboramma]

Gene, do you know what imaginary numbers are?

Do you have anything to say about skeptigirl's post?

When you say that "We don't measure time with the speed of light."* what's your point? So long as we can do so, which obviously we can, it's a valid clock.

*and I don't know if that statement is true or not.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I guess it's a compliment to be frequently ignored in this forum.

Much preferable to the ad hom replies I get from some people who can't seem to find the words to reply with.

 

[Ziggurat]

Comparing yesterday's time with how matter moves today is an absurd concept. It's self referencing.

So what's the problem with that? We make an assumption that the laws of physics are constant, observe the world, and see how it compares, and we find that it's consistent. Assuming that the laws of physics changed requires that they change in rather specific ways in order to maintain consistency with observation, and ala Occam's Razor, that's not a very productive path to follow in the absence of any evidence to that effect (of which there is none).

 

[Ziggurat]

We don't measure time with the speed of light.

We can. For time to alter, the speed of light must alter as well, and conversely if the speed of light changes, then time changes too. If you don't understand why relativity requires this, then you don't know enough to be able to say whether relativity is correct or not.

 

[Ben Tilly]

No doubt. We don't measure time with the speed of light. Could you cite an example? Otherwise irrelevant.

We do measure time with the speed of light. For example look at the Shapiro delay test of general relativity.

Do you have any more red herrings to throw out to cover your ignorance?

Regards,
Ben

 

[~enigma~]

We do measure time with the speed of light. For example look at the Shapiro delay test of general relativity.

Do you have any more red herrings to throw out to cover your ignorance?

Regards,
Ben

Shouldn't he be building a PPM?