[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[Guest]

Same with red shift. Now, we know a certain thing causes redshift, but what also may have caused it in a different universe, and a coming into this temporary state?? All you have is a myth.

OK, let's focus!
Redshift- this is a the increase in wavelength of electromagnetic radiation (visible light). This occurs because the source of the light is moving away from the point of observation.

Let me elaborate: since the object is moving away, then the light emitted is traveling for a longer distance and the length of each wave increases, so the color of the light shifts towards the red spectrum.

Think about it this way: you have a paintball gun (if you have ever used one) and you are walking away from your target and shooting at the same time. Although the ball is still traveling at 270 ft/sec, the distance between each consecutive ball is greater because you're moving in the opposite direction. At 540 ft, your balls will hit the target 2 seconds after they're shot out of the paintball gun.
If you move towards your target, the distance between each consecutive ball gets shorter because you are moving towards the target. At 135 ft, your balls will hit the target .5 seconds after they're shot out of the paintball gun.

This is as simple as Redshift gets. There is no special thing that causes it, it's just the fact one object is emitting light, traveling away from us, the the wavelength of the light is getting longer, thus the color of the light shifts towards red.

So you ask "what also may have caused it in a different universe":
1. Nothing else may cause Redshift- there is nothing else you can do to increase or decrease the wavelength of light.
2. Please clarify what you mean by "different universe"- we don't live in a different universe, we live in this one and in this one there is Redshift which indicates that the other galaxies are moving away from us.
If you think that there is/was a different universe, then I don't know what to tell you... you're really off the charts there, and it really doesn't make sense to ask if Space is Expanding in this Universe.

 

[dad]

OK, let's focus!
Redshift- this is a the increase in wavelength of electromagnetic radiation (visible light). This occurs because the source of the light is moving away from the point of observation.

Right, and occurs....when, class?? That's right, now, in this universe we know and live in. It dod, what, in the far past, ..class? Right, very good, we do not know.

Let me elaborate: since the object is moving away, then the light emitted is traveling for a longer distance and the length of each wave increases, so the color of the light shifts towards the red spectrum.

OK, that now happens. Wonderful. So?

Think about it this way: you have a paintball gun (if you have ever used one) and you are walking away from your target and shooting at the same time. Although the ball is still traveling at 270 ft/sec, the distance between each consecutive ball is greater because you're moving in the opposite direction. At 540 ft, your balls will hit the target 2 seconds after they're shot out of the paintball gun.
If you move towards your target, the distance between each consecutive ball gets shorter because you are moving towards the target. At 135 ft, your balls will hit the target .5 seconds after they're shot out of the paintball gun.

Thanks for breaking that down for us. Light does get red shifted at the moment, yes.

This is as simple as Redshift gets. There is no special thing that causes it, it's just the fact one object is emitting light, traveling away from us, the the wavelength of the light is getting longer, thus the color of the light shifts towards red.

That happens with our light, in this state universe, of course. You obviously seem to be suggesting it also happened in creation week, and in our far past. Nice claim, too bad you have not one speck of proof for it. To apply it to the far future and past, without real observations, and testing, and hard evidence, is myth. Thanks for that.

So you ask "what also may have caused it in a different universe":
1. Nothing else may cause Redshift- there is nothing else you can do to increase or decrease the wavelength of light.

Did I hear anyone asking what else could now cause a red shifting of our light?? No. I thought you were trying to focus?? If all you are worried about is how it now happens, stop trying to apply it to infinity and beyond. Keep it real.

2. Please clarify what you mean by "different universe"- we don't live in a different universe, we live in this one and in this one there is Redshift which indicates that the other galaxies are moving away from us.

Yes, we live in this one, that is the point. Can you show us that this temporary universe as the bible describes it, that will pass away, was here as is closer to the time of Eden?? Do not just concoct stories, and proceed as if it were, UNTIL you first prove it was. You can't. You have a mere myth. Really. Can you blame me for being somewhat offended at people for so long, now, having presented that myth as some sort of science??!

If you think that there is/was a different universe, then I don't know what to tell you... you're really off the charts there, and it really doesn't make sense to ask if Space is Expanding in this Universe.

In other words, your WHOLE case rests solely on a premise you cannot support at all, or prove, but have accepted unquestioningly as a truth of science. Wake up call, it ain't any such thing.

 

[Arj]

The universe is only like it is because we are observing it.Quantum physics.

 

[dad]

The universe is only like it is because we are observing it.Quantum physics.

No, because the quantum level is, as far as we know, affecting the atomic level things. The universe at large is still understood in terms of relativity.

But the universe at large is physical only. If we look the other way, towards where the physical meets the spiritual, perhaps the quantum level is the border area, where the two meet. This would explain why the quantum is 'weird' in many ways. The fringes of the box of this physical only universe.

 

[Guest]

That happens with our light, in this state universe, of course. You obviously seem to be suggesting it also happened in creation week, and in our far past. Nice claim, too bad you have not one speck of proof for it. To apply it to the far future and past, without real observations, and testing, and hard evidence, is myth. Thanks for that.

The question of this topic is "Is Space Expanding?", it doesn't say "Is Space expanding at the moment of creation?" or "Is space expanding in 30 billion years?", it asks if space is expanding NOW! The answer is YES!

I don't suggest anything, you seem to want to put words in my mouth... I mean keyboard . I don't claim that the Space was expanding in "creation week", you said that not I! Your claim was that the Universe is not expanding right now and here is your famous quote:

I see no reason why it would be at the moment.

Dad, you don't even know what you wrote in your last post, I quote:

Same with red shift. Now, we know a certain thing causes redshift, but what also may have caused it in a different universe, and a coming into this temporary state?? All you have is a myth.

And then, oh GLORY! LOL watch this:

So you ask "what also may have caused it in a different universe":
1. Nothing else may cause Redshift- there is nothing else you can do to increase or decrease the wavelength of light.

Did I hear anyone asking what else could now cause a red shifting of our light?? No. I thought you were trying to focus?? If all you are worried about is how it now happens, stop trying to apply it to infinity and beyond. Keep it real.

Dad , how can I even have a "debate" with you? You don't even know what you said 2 posts ago. I can quote you saying things like: the universe is not expanding because there is no need to, the universe is expanding right now but not in the past, the universe is not expanding in the far future, you can't apply physics in the past because you don't know what the state of the universe is, and then you keep contradicting your own statements (like I showed above)... I don't see the end of it: You just DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

Dad, please, PLEASE, don't waste my time!

 

[Guest]

The universe is only like it is because we are observing it.Quantum physics.

No, because the quantum level is, as far as we know, affecting the atomic level things. The universe at large is still understood in terms of relativity.

But the universe at large is physical only. If we look the other way, towards where the physical meets the spiritual, perhaps the quantum level is the border area, where the two meet. This would explain why the quantum is 'weird' in many ways. The fringes of the box of this physical only universe.

WHAAAA???
Dad, PLEASE stop! You are giving me a headache... you have no clue what you're saying, you contradict your own statements all the time, and you keep saying stuff that just doesn't make sense. You need to stop wasting everybody's time, if you have something useful to say, then say it, but don't waste our time!

 

[dad]

WHAAAA???
Dad, PLEASE stop! You are giving me a headache... you have no clue what you're saying, you contradict your own statements all the time, and you keep saying stuff that just doesn't make sense. You need to stop wasting everybody's time, if you have something useful to say, then say it, but don't waste our time!

No idea what you are on about now. Perhaps being clear would be better than whining?

I mentioned the quantum level. That is an area where we see weird things, that we can't explain. At least some of it. If this is news to you, I can flesh it out for you.

For example, isn't this a bit strange??
"More recently, the idea has been investigated in a quantum context by the American researcher John Cramer. He envisages a quantum entity such as an electron that is about to be involved in an interaction (from the everyday point of view) sending out an "offer" wave into the future. The particle that the electron is about to interact with picks up the offer wave, and sends a response echoing backwards in time to the electron. The advanced and retarded waves combine to create a "handshake" between the two particles which, in a sense atemporally, determines the outcome of the interaction at the instant the electron starts to make the offer .

As Price discusses, this kind of approach solves the classic quantum puzzles, such as the electron faced with two holes in a screen, "deciding" which hole to go through. Experiments show that, even though an individual electron can only go through one hole, its behaviour is affected by whether or not the second hole is open or closed. The offer wave goes out through both holes, but the echo comes back only through one hole, the one the electron then goes through. So the handshake process does take account of the presence of both holes, even though the electron only goes through one of them.

Many physicists find such ideas abhorrent, because they run counter to "common sense". They would, for example, encourage speculations like those of Henry Stapp (see Science, XX August), that our own minds can influence things that have already happened. The power of Price's approach, though, is that it offers a framework for understanding how the world can include both forward and backward causation at a fundamental level, but appear to have a unique direction of time from a human perspective.

His argument is complex, but in words it boils down to an argument that the reason why the things we do in the present do not seem to have altered the past is that the past has already taken account of what we are doing! If we decide to do something different, the past already knows -- so "to say that if we suppose the present to be different, while the past remains the same, it will follow that the past is different . . . is untrue, of course, but simply on logical grounds. No physical asymmetry is required to explain it".

For the more mathematically inclined, Price offers a discussion of John Bell's famous inequality, in which two widely separated quantum systems seem to be connected by what Albert Einstein called a "spooky action at a distance". The action at a distance is real, on this picture, and is essentially Cramer's handshaking process. But there is no limitation on free will, according to Price. We are free to make any decisions we please, and to take any actions we choose. The past already knows what those decisions will be, but that does not affect our freedom in making them, and "we shouldn't expect to 'see' backward influence in action," which may be bad news for Stapp, after all. "It is time," says Price, "that this neglected approach [to quantum mechanics] received the attention it so richly deserves."

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Jo ... metrav.htm

 

[dad]

The question of this topic is "Is Space Expanding?", it doesn't say "Is Space expanding at the moment of creation?" or "Is space expanding in 30 billion years?", it asks if space is expanding NOW! The answer is YES!

No, it is not. Because it boils down to the same thing, you interpret all things with the same state past myth. The distant universe is interpreted to be billions of years away, in light years. The reasons that it is claimed space is expanding all have to do with same state past assumptions. 'The light red shifted billions of years ago, because it does that, we know, by physics' etc etc. If the redshift and CMB were recent things, caused as a result of the split from the created state to this state, then it is not, after all, any indication the universe is expanding, was expanding, or will expand, now is it??! You are using same past myth to interpret what all that was. Unless you prove a same past state, that is meaningless.

I don't suggest anything, you seem to want to put words in my mouth... I mean keyboard . I don't claim that the Space was expanding in "creation week", you said that not I! Your claim was that the Universe is not expanding right now and here is your famous quote:

I see no reason why it would be at the moment.

Right, I don't. neither do I see any reason that it would have been. To get at present expansion, a foundation of assumptions takes place.

Dad, you don't even know what you wrote in your last post, I quote:

Same with red shift. Now, we know a certain thing causes redshift, but what also may have caused it in a different universe, and a coming into this temporary state?? All you have is a myth.

And then, oh GLORY! LOL watch this:

So you ask "what also may have caused it in a different universe":
1. Nothing else may cause Redshift- there is nothing else you can do to increase or decrease the wavelength of light.

Nothing else now may cause redshift, is your point. That is not an issue. The red shifting we see far away happened a long time ago. What caused it then, is the issue. Since it was not our light, in our present universe, what does it matter how our temporary universe now works?? Unless, you can prove the past, at the time of the red shifting far away, this present state also was here! You can't assume.
[quote:3077f]Did I hear anyone asking what else could now cause a red shifting of our light?? No. I thought you were trying to focus?? If all you are worried about is how it now happens, stop trying to apply it to infinity and beyond. Keep it real.

Dad , how can I even have a "debate" with you? You don't even know what you said 2 posts ago. I can quote you saying things like: the universe is not expanding because there is no need to, the universe is expanding right now but not in the past, the universe is not expanding in the far future, you can't apply physics in the past because you don't know what the state of the universe is, and then you keep contradicting your own statements (like I showed above)... I don't see the end of it: You just DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!

[/quote:3077f]
You need to try and comprehend the issues, and what is being discussed. I say that you do not know by science, what the universe state was like in the past. Yet, it is by a same state past assumption, that you base claims on. 'Oh, nothing else we know can cause re shift..' --So??? Again, what caused it, then, is the issue, not what causes it. Let me know if I need to slow that down a little for you.

 

[Guest]

No, it is not. Because it boils down to the same thing, you interpret all things with the same state past myth. The distant universe is interpreted to be billions of years away, in light years. The reasons that it is claimed space is expanding all have to do with same state past assumptions. 'The light red shifted billions of years ago, because it does that, we know, by physics' etc etc.

I think I know what you're trying to say: the light has to travel millions of years to get from the far galaxies to here... so technically the light is "old" therefore we don't know what happened to it in the past... etc. What you're saying is completely illogical, and if it was true then it would discard your claim about the creation of the Universe about 6k years ago:
1. If light is millions of years old, then the Universe wasn't created some 6k years ago, because it took the light so long to reach us.
2. If light is not old, then we don't have to worry about Redshift being "inaccurate", because we have history that goes back that far and we know that the Universe hasn't changed in the past 6k years.
In either case, Redshift is a valid explanation of what's occurring in the Universe.

If the redshift and CMB were recent things, caused as a result of the split from the created state to this state, then it is not, after all, any indication the universe is expanding, was expanding, or will expand, now is it??! You are using same past myth to interpret what all that was. Unless you prove a same past state, that is meaningless.

"split from the created state to this state"? What does that mean? Please elaborate because I'm REALLY confused here... I told you, if light is not "old" then Redshift is correct because we have historical records that indicate the Universe hasn't "changed" in the past 6k years, and if it IS old, then it just throws away your theory of recent creation of the Universe/Earth. So which one is it?

You need to try and comprehend the issues, and what is being discussed. I say that you do not know by science, what the universe state was like in the past. Yet, it is by a same state past assumption, that you base claims on. 'Oh, nothing else we know can cause re shift..' --So??? Again, what caused it, then, is the issue, not what causes it. Let me know if I need to slow that down a little for you.

I'm trying to comprehend, as you can see I'm elaborating your points FOR YOU, because even you don't know what you're saying.
I think you need to slow down for yourself , I don't think you know what you're talking about...

Oh, nothing else we know can cause re shift..' --So???

So: Redshift is only caused by the light source moving away from us, that's it... that is the phenomena described by Redshift. And you ask what caused it then? When?
You tell me what "could" have caused Redshift, other than the light source moving away from us and we moving away from it. I really don't think anything else could, and even with your claims of recent Universe/Earth there is no need to think Redshift is caused by something else, we know in what State was the universe 6k years ago.

 

[dad]

I think I know what you're trying to say: the light has to travel millions of years to get from the far galaxies to here... so technically the light is "old" therefore we don't know what happened to it in the past... etc.

We don't know what the universe and it's light was like long ago. We have assumed it was the same. The light may be old, but how old is the question. I see no reason to assume the light is more than 4400 years old, as is.

What you're saying is completely illogical, and if it was true then it would discard your claim about the creation of the Universe about 6k years ago:

No, somewhere you have a crossed wire.

1. If light is millions of years old, then the Universe wasn't created some 6k years ago, because it took the light so long to reach us.

It isn't. That solves that. Not unless you can give us that same state past. As it is, I assume the created state universe light got here almost right away, and Adam saw it, at least from the visible stars, and maybe more.

2. If light is not old, then we don't have to worry about Redshift being "inaccurate", because we have history that goes back that far and we know that the Universe hasn't changed in the past 6k years.

The light is old, several thousand years old. The red shifting may be an effect of the universe state change, and it's leaving us in this state universe, where light can only exist as we now know it.

In either case, Redshift is a valid explanation of what's occurring in the Universe.

In either case, unless you prove a same past state, you have no case.

"split from the created state to this state"? What does that mean? Please elaborate because I'm REALLY confused here...

The split is just a name I use to describe the universe state change. The spiritual split from the physical, leaving man in this physical only universe. A temporary state, that will pass away fairly soon forever to exist no more.

I told you, if light is not "old" then Redshift is correct because we have historical records that indicate the Universe hasn't "changed" in the past 6k years, and if it IS old, then it just throws away your theory of recent creation of the Universe/Earth. So which one is it?

No, your error is assuming that not being 'old' in the sense of millions of years old, means that there was still present laws in effect, and present light. By the way, you don't have any such records, that I have ever heard of, that go back beyond the flood. -Except, of course, the bible. Your dating is based mostly on the same state past myth, that fantasizes that there was present state decay back then! If there was not, but if there was a different universe state, with no decay as we know it, the decay of the present cannot set the clock at all.

[quote:b8100]I'm trying to comprehend, as you can see I'm elaborating your points FOR YOU, because even you don't know what you're saying.

Hopefully, it has gotten clearer by now.

I think you need to slow down for yourself , I don't think you know what you're talking about...

That's OK. Until you get a handle on the concepts involved, it would seem that way.

So: Redshift is only caused by the light source moving away from us, that's it... that is the phenomena described by Redshift.

Right, but now is not when distant light was red shifted was it??? If the universe was different THEN, what does NOW have to do with it???

And you ask what caused it then? When?
You tell me what "could" have caused Redshift, other than the light source moving away from us and we moving away from it. I really don't think anything else could, and even with your claims of recent Universe/Earth there is no need to think Redshift is caused by something else, we know in what State was the universe 6k years ago.

[/quote:b8100]
It may have been caused by the change in the universe fabric. The question is NOT what could NOW cause it, IN this temporary state universe. The question is, what caused it in the far past??? Unless you can prove the universe was the same, you are left with a myth.
As for dating, and what was 6 thousand years ago, again, that is not known, because dating is mostly faith dependent, on that same past state myth.

 

[Guest]

]1. If light is millions of years old, then the Universe wasn't created some 6k years ago, because it took the light so long to reach us.

It isn't. That solves that. Not unless you can give us that same state past. As it is, I assume the created state universe light got here almost right away, and Adam saw it, at least from the visible stars, and maybe more.

What is the same state past? If light is no more than 4400 years old, which is impossible because the world contained civilizations going back 4400 years old... and we have reliable historical accounts going back to the ancient Chinese, Middle-east and India. Those people provided no accounts of a different "state" of the Universe.

So: Redshift is only caused by the light source moving away from us, that's it... that is the phenomena described by Redshift.

Right, but now is not when distant light was red shifted was it??? If the universe was different THEN, what does NOW have to do with it???

Actually light is "red shifted" now, as we're speaking... Light is constantly "redshifted", so even when it's several million miles away (which is VERY close) it's wavelength is still extended. But even by your "logic" we know that the Universe wasn't different 4-6k years ago because we have historical accounts from ancient civilizations which do not mention anything about a sudden change in their world.

2. If light is not old, then we don't have to worry about Redshift being "inaccurate", because we have history that goes back that far and we know that the Universe hasn't changed in the past 6k years.

The light is old, several thousand years old. The red shifting may be an effect of the universe state change, and it's leaving us in this state universe, where light can only exist as we now know it.

How would the Universe "state change" cause a redshift? Please explain the events that would lead to that... and how does this not contradict your previous statements that redshift is a phenomenon which we observe now. To make it even simpler:
If we're looking at the tail lights of a truck that's moving away, and that light gets "redshifted" how is it different from looking at the light coming from a galaxy that is "redshifted"? Moreover what you are claiming is that the "redshift" happened thousands of years ago and we're now observing its effects, implying that the light is no longer increasing in wavelength, but it still is. If that were true, then the redshift will no longer be observed, actually it will only have been observed for a brief moment in time and from then on the light would not shift anymore because the galaxies are not moving... but that is not the case, we are CONTINUOUSLY observing redshift.

It may have been caused by the change in the universe fabric. The question is NOT what could NOW cause it, IN this temporary state universe. The question is, what caused it in the far past??? Unless you can prove the universe was the same, you are left with a myth.
As for dating, and what was 6 thousand years ago, again, that is not known, because dating is mostly faith dependent, on that same past state myth.

But that is exactly the question! The exact question is "Is Space Expanding?", moreover 4-6k years ago WAS known, we have accounts from ancient civilizations which indicate that the Universe wasn't in a different state.

I told you, your argument is very childish... I repeat again:
1. There is no evidence that the Universe was different (by all historical accounts, even going back to ancient civilizations).
2. Claiming that the Universe could be different because we "just don't know" is completely illogical, it's the same as claiming "The tooth fairy was real, because we have no proof that she was not!" There are some things that are possible, and others just plain illogical.

I told you:
1. Nothing else causes Redshift.
2. Redshift is continuously occurring, so the phenomenon that we're observing is happening now.
3. If the Universe is 6k years old, then we would not be seeing ANY light from other Galaxies, because for many of them it takes more than 6k years for the light to get here. If we're seeing the light AND the universe is 6k years old, then it means that EVERY galaxy that we see right now is no more than 6k light years away... and this is NOT the case .
4. There is no historical accounts of any change in the Universe that would be so dramatic as to bend the laws of physics, and that can be confirmed by looking at the history of ancient civilizations which date more than 4k years.
5. "Same state past" is a made up thing, you just made it up because you have nothing else to say.
6. "Is Space Expanding?" YES!
I told you, we're observing Redshift which is occurring NOW, thus the Space is expanding NOW! I don't care if it was/wasn't expanding 6k years ago (which it was), or that it will/won't expand in the future (which it will). If space wasn't expanding 6k years ago, then see #3 and why that's illogical.

Dad... if you have a thoughtful argument to make, please do, but so far you have said nothing more than gibberish.

 

[Guest]

No idea what you are on about now. Perhaps being clear would be better than whining?

I mentioned the quantum level. That is an area where we see weird things, that we can't explain. At least some of it. If this is news to you, I can flesh it out for you.

For example, isn't this a bit strange??
"More recently, the idea has been investigated in a quantum context by the American researcher John Cramer. He envisages a quantum entity such as an electron that is about to be involved in an interaction (from the everyday point of view) sending out an "offer" wave into the future. The particle that the electron is about to interact with picks up the offer wave, and sends a response echoing backwards in time to the electron. The advanced and retarded waves combine to create a "handshake" between the two particles which, in a sense atemporally, determines the outcome of the interaction at the instant the electron starts to make the offer .

As Price discusses, this kind of approach solves the classic quantum puzzles, such as the electron faced with two holes in a screen, "deciding" which hole to go through. Experiments show that, even though an individual electron can only go through one hole, its behaviour is affected by whether or not the second hole is open or closed. The offer wave goes out through both holes, but the echo comes back only through one hole, the one the electron then goes through. So the handshake process does take account of the presence of both holes, even though the electron only goes through one of them.

Many physicists find such ideas abhorrent, because they run counter to "common sense". They would, for example, encourage speculations like those of Henry Stapp (see Science, XX August), that our own minds can influence things that have already happened. The power of Price's approach, though, is that it offers a framework for understanding how the world can include both forward and backward causation at a fundamental level, but appear to have a unique direction of time from a human perspective.

His argument is complex, but in words it boils down to an argument that the reason why the things we do in the present do not seem to have altered the past is that the past has already taken account of what we are doing! If we decide to do something different, the past already knows -- so "to say that if we suppose the present to be different, while the past remains the same, it will follow that the past is different . . . is untrue, of course, but simply on logical grounds. No physical asymmetry is required to explain it".

For the more mathematically inclined, Price offers a discussion of John Bell's famous inequality, in which two widely separated quantum systems seem to be connected by what Albert Einstein called a "spooky action at a distance". The action at a distance is real, on this picture, and is essentially Cramer's handshaking process. But there is no limitation on free will, according to Price. We are free to make any decisions we please, and to take any actions we choose. The past already knows what those decisions will be, but that does not affect our freedom in making them, and "we shouldn't expect to 'see' backward influence in action," which may be bad news for Stapp, after all. "It is time," says Price, "that this neglected approach [to quantum mechanics] received the attention it so richly deserves."

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Jo ... metrav.htm

And now you're talking about time travel? Dad, what does time travel have to do with Expanding Space...!??!!

 

[dad]

And now you're talking about time travel? Dad, what does time travel have to do with Expanding Space...!??!!

Unless there was a same past state universe, there is no expansion. The quantum level, some feel may involve waves traveling from the past or future. It seems there is more evidence for that, than there is for your same past state myth based expanding universe.

If the past and future are different states, then, waves coming from there ought to be weird, as we think of it. --They are. The evidence mounts.

 

[Dunzo]

Dad, have you read up on redshift from any non-creationist websites?

 

[Guest]

Unless there was a same past state universe, there is no expansion. The quantum level, some feel may involve waves traveling from the past or future. It seems there is more evidence for that, than there is for your same past state myth based expanding universe.

What evidence? What waves coming from the past and the future? OMG?! What quantum level? You're just putting "scientific" words together without knowing what they mean: "Quantum level, some feel it involve waves traveling from the past or future..." What evidence for that? You are completely whacked out! LOL HAHAHA

If the past and future are different states, then, waves coming from there ought to be weird, as we think of it. --They are. The evidence mounts.

Dad! Big underline here! READ CAREFULLY! No matter how many times you repeat it, "same state past/future" is completely irrelevant to the question of this topic. The question is "Is space expanding?", and the answer is "Yes, now it is!".
Your thoughts are completely disconnected! Time travel and "waves' from the past and the future have NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, to do with the Expansion of the Universe NOW! What are "waves" from the past or the future, what do they refer to: water, sound, magnetic, what?
THIS IS THE HIGHLIGHT:
Redshift is NOT something that happened in the past and we're just observing the effects now, on the contrary! Redshift is constantly occuring, even as we're speaking... there is no need for a "same state past" or "same state future". "State past/future" is completely irrelevant for Redshift!

]1. If light is millions of years old, then the Universe wasn't created some 6k years ago, because it took the light so long to reach us.

It isn't. That solves that. Not unless you can give us that same state past. As it is, I assume the created state universe light got here almost right away, and Adam saw it, at least from the visible stars, and maybe more.

What is the same state past? If light is no more than 4400 years old, which is impossible because the world contained civilizations going back 4400 years old... and we have reliable historical accounts going back to the ancient Chinese, Middle-east and India. Those people provided no accounts of a different "state" of the Universe.

So: Redshift is only caused by the light source moving away from us, that's it... that is the phenomena described by Redshift.

Right, but now is not when distant light was red shifted was it??? If the universe was different THEN, what does NOW have to do with it???

Actually light is "red shifted" now, as we're speaking... Light is constantly "redshifted", so even when it's several million miles away (which is VERY close) it's wavelength is still extended. But even by your "logic" we know that the Universe wasn't different 4-6k years ago because we have historical accounts from ancient civilizations which do not mention anything about a sudden change in their world.

2. If light is not old, then we don't have to worry about Redshift being "inaccurate", because we have history that goes back that far and we know that the Universe hasn't changed in the past 6k years.

The light is old, several thousand years old. The red shifting may be an effect of the universe state change, and it's leaving us in this state universe, where light can only exist as we now know it.

How would the Universe "state change" cause a redshift? Please explain the events that would lead to that... and how does this not contradict your previous statements that redshift is a phenomenon which we observe now. To make it even simpler:
If we're looking at the tail lights of a truck that's moving away, and that light gets "redshifted" how is it different from looking at the light coming from a galaxy that is "redshifted"? Moreover what you are claiming is that the "redshift" happened thousands of years ago and we're now observing its effects, implying that the light is no longer increasing in wavelength, but it still is. If that were true, then the redshift will no longer be observed, actually it will only have been observed for a brief moment in time and from then on the light would not shift anymore because the galaxies are not moving... but that is not the case, we are CONTINUOUSLY observing redshift.

It may have been caused by the change in the universe fabric. The question is NOT what could NOW cause it, IN this temporary state universe. The question is, what caused it in the far past??? Unless you can prove the universe was the same, you are left with a myth.
As for dating, and what was 6 thousand years ago, again, that is not known, because dating is mostly faith dependent, on that same past state myth.

But that is exactly the question! The exact question is "Is Space Expanding?", moreover 4-6k years ago WAS known, we have accounts from ancient civilizations which indicate that the Universe wasn't in a different state.

I told you, your argument is very childish... I repeat again:
1. There is no evidence that the Universe was different (by all historical accounts, even going back to ancient civilizations).
2. Claiming that the Universe could be different because we "just don't know" is completely illogical, it's the same as claiming "The tooth fairy was real, because we have no proof that she was not!" There are some things that are possible, and others just plain illogical.

I told you:
1. Nothing else causes Redshift.
2. Redshift is continuously occurring, so the phenomenon that we're observing is happening now.
3. If the Universe is 6k years old, then we would not be seeing ANY light from other Galaxies, because for many of them it takes more than 6k years for the light to get here. If we're seeing the light AND the universe is 6k years old, then it means that EVERY galaxy that we see right now is no more than 6k light years away... and this is NOT the case .
4. There is no historical accounts of any change in the Universe that would be so dramatic as to bend the laws of physics, and that can be confirmed by looking at the history of ancient civilizations which date more than 4k years.
5. "Same state past" is a made up thing, you just made it up because you have nothing else to say.
6. "Is Space Expanding?" YES!
I told you, we're observing Redshift which is occurring NOW, thus the Space is expanding NOW! I don't care if it was/wasn't expanding 6k years ago (which it was), or that it will/won't expand in the future (which it will). If space wasn't expanding 6k years ago, then see #3 and why that's illogical.

Dad... if you have a thoughtful argument to make, please do, but so far you have said nothing more than gibberish.

 

[dad]

What evidence? What waves coming from the past and the future? OMG?! What quantum level? You're just putting "scientific" words together without knowing what they mean: "Quantum level, some feel it involve waves traveling from the past or future..." What evidence for that? You are completely whacked out! LOL HAHAHA

If that is news to you, that many feel that the waves travel through time, then maybe you better not even mention things quantum. You are just being silly.
The evidence for the time travel that I read was that basically there was no other explanation for how the quantum reaction happened. So, why not? If light speed seems to be no obstacle in the quantum world, why would time be???

Your thoughts are completely disconnected! Time travel and "waves' from the past and the future have NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, to do with the Expansion of the Universe NOW! What are "waves" from the past or the future, what do they refer to: water, sound, magnetic, what?

No, Arj brought up[ the quantum thing on page 15, saying this,
"The universe is only like it is because we are observing it.Quantum physics."
-Not me. I simply try to be polite, and address what is brought up. There IS no expansion of the universe now, save the same past myth based claims, so why would actual things quantum, have to do with silly baseless falsely called science myth???

What is the same state past?

There is no such thing. It is a fantasy world assumed to exist by falsely called science. It is the idea that the present is the key to the past. No proof exists for the claim.

If light is no more than 4400 years old, which is impossible because the world contained civilizations going back 4400 years old... and we have reliable historical accounts going back to the ancient Chinese, Middle-east and India. Those people provided no accounts of a different "state" of the Universe.

Your dates are wrong wrong wrong, remember! They are based on the present state decay, and assume that this universe state also existed in the past.
That being said, the Sumerians and Egyptians, after the flood had light. It was just not our light, in our universe, if the past was a different state. Trees that grew in a week had light, just not our light.

Actually light is "red shifted" now, as we're speaking... Light is constantly "redshifted", so even when it's several million miles away (which is VERY close) it's wavelength is still extended. But even by your "logic" we know that the Universe wasn't different 4-6k years ago because we have historical accounts from ancient civilizations which do not mention anything about a sudden change in their world.

No you most certainly don't! Look into it, and how the dates are assigned. It is all set to the present state clock. If the universe was left in this state several thousand years ago, then the red shifting we observe not that far away is fine. It has nothing to do with the far away stuff they use for the claim that the universe is expanding.

How would the Universe "state change" cause a redshift? Please explain the events that would lead to that... and how does this not contradict your previous statements that redshift is a phenomenon which we observe now.

How would it NOT??? And, more importantly, how would present universe state science know??? The light of the created state universe from far far stars could get here lickedy split, real fast. Adam saw it. Now, if the star was made, in this state, it would take, not days to get here, but millions of years. Why would not such a change cause some shifting of light?? Think about it.

To make it even simpler:
If we're looking at the tail lights of a truck that's moving away, and that light gets "redshifted" how is it different from looking at the light coming from a galaxy that is "redshifted"? Moreover what you are claiming is that the "redshift" happened thousands of years ago and we're now observing its effects, implying that the light is no longer increasing in wavelength, but it still is. If that were true, then the redshift will no longer be observed, actually it will only have been observed for a brief moment in time and from then on the light would not shift anymore because the galaxies are not moving... but that is not the case, we are CONTINUOUSLY observing redshift.

We observe it, ..when? Now. The stars are how far away? Billions of light years. You have been observing it about how long? A century? Several decades? A few hundred years?
If the light was shifted at the split, it takes some time to get here. Within that obvious limits, redshift is no problem at all. Get it?

But that is exactly the question! The exact question is "Is Space Expanding?"

But is that really the question??? If the red shifting of light billions of light years away happened because of the split, then we wouldn't need space to expand.
That is a separate issue. If you have some non PO myth based evidence that space is expanding, give it to us.

, moreover 4-6k years ago WAS known, we have accounts from ancient civilizations which indicate that the Universe wasn't in a different state.

No you don't, that is the point. Our records, I think really begin with Sumer and Egypt. They would have to be after the flood, if my research so far is correct. Therefore, they are, except for some of the guys, maybe, at the first century after the flood, -post split. We would expect the universe to be as it is then. Possibly in the early early Egypt, maybe when they built the big pyramids, the other universe state was still here. That explains why they could move the big stones.

I told you, your argument is very childish... I repeat again:
1. There is no evidence that the Universe was different (by all historical accounts, even going back to ancient civilizations).

Not true, your dates are wrong, and there is documentary evidence of big pyramids, and long lifespans.

2. Claiming that the Universe could be different because we "just don't know" is completely illogical, it's the same as claiming "The tooth fairy was real, because we have no proof that she was not!" There are some things that are possible, and others just plain illogical.

On the contrary, science is what doesn't know, and tries to claim it was the same. At least is assumes that, and builds upon that premise.

I told you:
1. Nothing else causes Redshift.

Not relevant. Something else used to cause it. And it is the far past we are talking about, not now.

2. Redshift is continuously occurring, so the phenomenon that we're observing is happening now.

Of course it happens now, that is the way our light in this state works. You only assume it used to do the same.

3. If the Universe is 6k years old, then we would not be seeing ANY light from other Galaxies, because for many of them it takes more than 6k years for the light to get here.

Now, yes, our universe state light is slow as molasses compared to the created light, in the created state universe.

If we're seeing the light AND the universe is 6k years old, then it means that EVERY galaxy that we see right now is no more than 6k light years away... and this is NOT the case .

Oh, yes, it most certainly absolutely is. Count on it.

4. There is no historical accounts of any change in the Universe that would be so dramatic as to bend the laws of physics, and that can be confirmed by looking at the history of ancient civilizations which date more than 4k years.

There was no real science dealing in physics at the time. They had just come from the flood, and then had their languages divided not long after! How do you expect them to write science journals, when science wasn't in existence yet, and they had gone back to drawing pictures and such to communicate!!!?

5. "Same state past" is a made up thing, you just made it up because you have nothing else to say.

No, it is a made up thing by you and science, because you have squat to say about the future or past.

6. "Is Space Expanding?" YES!

No. So far all you offered is faith based myth of a same past state. Grow some science, or lose the claim.

I told you, we're observing Redshift which is occurring NOW, thus the Space is expanding NOW!

Now, the redshift from billions of miles away is not from now, is it? It comes to us, as all light does, but it comes from a long time ago. This is basic stuff.

I don't care if it was/wasn't expanding 6k years ago (which it was), or that it will/won't expand in the future (which it will).

Cut the prophesies. I mean have you nothing more than myth and prophesy???

Unless you prove the same past state required by all the old age claims of science, and expansion of the universe, you really have no case at all. I mean that.

 

[dad]

Dad, have you read up on redshift from any non-creationist websites?

I have browsed a bit. Why, is there something about it, you feel is relevant to the far past?

 

[Guest]

If that is news to you, that many feel that the waves travel through time, then maybe you better not even mention things quantum. You are just being silly.
The evidence for the time travel that I read was that basically there was no other explanation for how the quantum reaction happened. So, why not? If light speed seems to be no obstacle in the quantum world, why would time be???

And I didn't mention quantum physics, you did... and you don't know what you're talking about! Dad, stop before you hurt my brain! You really have no clue what Quantum Physics are, and you have no clue what you're talking about.

What is the same state past?

There is no such thing. It is a fantasy world assumed to exist by falsely called science. It is the idea that the present is the key to the past. No proof exists for the claim.

SAYS YOU!? And who are YOU to say that?

Your dates are wrong wrong wrong, remember! They are based on the present state decay, and assume that this universe state also existed in the past.
That being said, the Sumerians and Egyptians, after the flood had light. It was just not our light, in our universe, if the past was a different state. Trees that grew in a week had light, just not our light.

So Egyptians lived in a universe where the light was different? What about Indians and Chinese? Did they live in a different Universe too? So there was a split and those people all of a sudden started living in the "present state" universe??!? HAHHA
OMG, this is the funniest thing ever! Where do you come up with this stuff?

No you most certainly don't! Look into it, and how the dates are assigned. It is all set to the present state clock. If the universe was left in this state several thousand years ago, then the red shifting we observe not that far away is fine. It has nothing to do with the far away stuff they use for the claim that the universe is expanding.

How are the dates assigned? We have historical accounts of ancient Chinese, Indians and Egyptians (all of them have meticulous records)... nowhere in there does it say anything about a "split" and what the heck is the split anyway? What "far away stuff", there is no far away stuff that makes the universe expand... dad, if you're going to talk about something at least make sense.

How would it NOT??? And, more importantly, how would present universe state science know??? The light of the created state universe from far far stars could get here lickedy split, real fast. Adam saw it. Now, if the star was made, in this state, it would take, not days to get here, but millions of years. Why would not such a change cause some shifting of light?? Think about it.

OMG HAHAHA! You really don't know what you're talking about! Maybe we should assume something else, how about this:
A magic unicorn came in and farted in the middle of the universe causing redshift to happen . Heck, by your logic there is no way to prove that it didn't happen HHAHA! I "thunk" about it, and I figured the more reasonable thing that could have happened is not that a split occurred and then caused redshift, but my favorite unicorn cut the cheese ;)

We observe it, ..when? Now. The stars are how far away? Billions of light years. You have been observing it about how long? A century? Several decades? A few hundred years?
If the light was shifted at the split, it takes some time to get here. Within that obvious limits, redshift is no problem at all. Get it?

Dad, if the stars are billions of light years away it means that the light which we're seeing right now IS billions of years old! If the light has to travel x-billion light years, then it is x-billion years old. What that means is that GOD did not create the universe 6k years ago (because he also created light at the same time), but he created it billions of years ago.

If the light is not that old because of some magic event, but the stars are billions of light-years away, then how are we seeing the light that's coming from them?

But that is exactly the question! The exact question is "Is Space Expanding?"

But is that really the question???

YES!!! OMG, why am I even talking to you??

If the red shifting of light billions of light years away happened because of the split, then we wouldn't need space to expand.
That is a separate issue. If you have some non PO myth based evidence that space is expanding, give it to us.

And if a unicorn farted, then we wouldn't need a split! HAHAHAH OK Dad, I change my theory!
A unicorn farted and caused redshift, the universe is NOT expanding! HAHAHAHAHA

No you don't, that is the point. Our records, I think really begin with Sumer and Egypt. They would have to be after the flood, if my research so far is correct. Therefore, they are, except for some of the guys, maybe, at the first century after the flood, -post split. We would expect the universe to be as it is then. Possibly in the early early Egypt, maybe when they built the big pyramids, the other universe state was still here.

Well you're wrong, our records begin even further back in time with the ancient Chinese and Indians... they have very meticulous records, you should do some more research.

That explains why they could move the big stones.

No, I say a unicorn farted and did it! HAHAHAHA Dad, you're really wacked-out! HAHAHHA

Not true, your dates are wrong, and there is documentary evidence of big pyramids, and long lifespans.

Yes there IS documentary evidence of the "big pyramids"- THEY STILL EXIST! How about the long lifespan, where would we find this evidence dad? Please let us know!

On the contrary, science is what doesn't know, and tries to claim it was the same. At least is assumes that, and builds upon that premise.

Dad, my feeling for your whole misconception is that your lack of scientific knowledge does not allow you to really understand how we determine dates, times and historical events. So if you don't understand how CMB works, or how radiation works, then how do you suppose you can argue against it? Well, you can because you live in a different world, one which you made up to suite your twisted illogical thoughts... but I tell you what, the answer to all our questions is: "A unicorn farted!" HAHAHA

Not relevant. Something else used to cause it. And it is the far past we are talking about, not now.

What else caused redshift? The farting unicorn? How far in the past dad? Please be specific about what you're saying.

Of course it happens now, that is the way our light in this state works. You only assume it used to do the same.

No, you assumed it wasn't , but you haven't proven it. I showed you plenty of evidence, even your own words contradict what you're saying.

Now, yes, our universe state light is slow as molasses compared to the created light, in the created state universe.

And when does it slow down? HAHAHA, So light was faster before? Where do you get that? It certainly doesn't say it in the bible HAHAHAH
Light was faster "before the split"? Maybe the farting unicorn made it accelerate faster HAHAHA

If we're seeing the light AND the universe is 6k years old, then it means that EVERY galaxy that we see right now is no more than 6k light years away... and this is NOT the case .

Oh, yes, it most certainly absolutely is. Count on it.

AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
DONE AND DONE!
Dad, you are officially DONE! Just stop! You really are embarrassing yourself!

There was no real science dealing in physics at the time. They had just come from the flood, and then had their languages divided not long after! How do you expect them to write science journals, when science wasn't in existence yet, and they had gone back to drawing pictures and such to communicate!!!?

You don't need any major scientific knowledge to know that the Universe has just split. If the light is traveling slower, the stones are harder to move to make Big pyramids, and gravity isn't working the same, I suspect people WOULD know. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out .

6. "Is Space Expanding?" YES!

No. So far all you offered is faith based myth of a same past state. Grow some science, or lose the claim.

Same past state is IRRELEVANT dad , what part of that don't you understand? What makes you think that "same past state" is even relevant? Please explain, because what you have given so far is your skewed opinions which make no sense and only exist in your head. Unless you can come up with some reasonable logic to even remotely explain what you mean, I suggest you give up on trying to push your "same past state" fantasies.

I told you, we're observing Redshift which is occurring NOW, thus the Space is expanding NOW!

Now, the redshift from billions of miles away is not from now, is it? It comes to us, as all light does, but it comes from a long time ago. This is basic stuff.

And you have offered nothing! But I'll go a step further , I say the farting unicorn did it! HAHAHA

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Now, yes, our universe state light is slow as molasses compared to the created light, in the created state universe.

Do you really understand the implications of speeding light up? Even the people at http://www.answersingensis.com stay away from this incredulous argument. Here is a direct quote.

However, the speed of light is not an “arbitrary†parameter. In other words, changing the speed of light would cause other things to change as well, such as the ratio of energy to mass in any system.3 Some people have argued that the speed of light can never have been much different than it is today because it is so connected to other constants of nature. In other words, life may not be possible if the speed of light were any different.

here is the link http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ight-prove

If you could play with the speed of light and not mess things up really badly, these people would be the first to jump at it. I suggest you abandon this thought process. (if not the rest of what I have read)

Dad:
Now, the redshift from billions of miles away is not from now, is it? It comes to us, as all light does, but it comes from a long time ago. This is basic stuff.

I am having a hard time understanding what you are saying. Are you saying that there is no wavelength shift with respect to the motion of the source? If that is what you are saying, just walk out side and listen to a car pass. You will certainly here the sound change pitch due to the Doppler effect. This is the same basic principle in red shift. Red shifting being the same effect on light waves as the pitch getting lower as the car passes and starts to move away from you.

Or are you saying that the stars just aren't moving away anymore? Of course that can not be proven false they could have decided to start doing lazy 8s just yesterday for just that one day, and be doing loop-to-loops tomorrow. We just can't say until the light from yesterday and tomorrow reaches us. Logical reasoning from current evidence says that is unlikely (well, thats really a bit of an understatement )

 

[Guest]

Now, yes, our universe state light is slow as molasses compared to the created light, in the created state universe.

Vault, you have to understand that his whole argument is based on the following things:
1. Same state past cannot be guaranteed (whatever that means).
2. There was a split in the Universe about 4-6k years ago which caused redshift.
3. Redshift happened on a distant galaxy (say several billion light years away) may have been caused by other things, so we can't guarantee that it wasn't something else that caused it.
4. Even though the galaxies are several billion light years away, the light is not that old because before the split of the Universe light traveled faster (see the quote above ).
5. There are no galaxies that are more than 6000 light years away, because if they are, then it would mean that light is more than 6000 years old, thus the Earth wasn't created by God about 6k years ago (what happened to 3 and 4, I don't know ).
6. Science is too young to know if the Universe is expanding.
7. Science's conclusions are based on "myth" about the state of the Universe, which according to Dad is not constant.
8. We know that redshift is occurring now, but how do we know it was occurring a long time ago, or how do we know it will continue to happen in the distant future? We would have to guarantee that the Universe is in the same state, which science can't do (this is my favorite, what a kicker!)
9. Something about quantum physics and waves which travel through time...
10. Ancient civilizations which happened to exist prior to "the split" had a different Universe
a) They lived longer
b) They were able to move the big stones to make the big pyramids in Egypt
c) And my personal favorite: light traveled faster
11. Actually, they lived after the flood (which is supposed to have happened after "the split").

And so on... There is a pattern there (if not obvious):
Not only are some of the statements COMPLETELY insane, but they even contradict themselves... I don't know how much more can dad get confused. I really don't know where he gets this stuff, it certainly doesn't say it in the Bible. I don't recall anywhere in the bible anything about the speed of light being faster.