|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: ICANT'S position in the creation debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Theo,
Theodoric writes: Well that cinches it. I will not be debating you any more. It is kinda hard to cease doing something that you never began to do isn't it? I have given you my opinions on things. You gave your opinion on things. Then you told me how my opinions are wrong. That is not debating that is preaching. Debating is where you take a subject. Pick a position. Then affirm and defend that position. At least that is what I was taught in school. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
When the new telescope is deployed in 2014 and stars are seen that are 500 billion light years away I have a feeling those numbers will change. I could be mistaken. Which telescope are you talking about and where do you get this 500 billion light years away figure? Even if there were stars 500 billion light years away, we would not be able to see them since the sheer amount of space between us and them expanding makes it seem as if they are moving away faster than light, so their light can't reach us.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I am guessing the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), successor to the Hubble. link
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak link - Remove the "/url" from directly after the "gov".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I am guessing the James Webb Space Telescope That's what I assumed too, but I wanted to double check with him before assuming anything. You never know, he might have been tlaking about the Area 51 telescope we're building with technology reverse-engineered from the space ships we have stored there...but I've already said too much.
successor to the Hubble. They call it this, but since it coveres IR, whereas Hubble was largely visible light, I find the claim dubious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I watched a video the other day, of which I can't currently find, and I could have swore it said the JWST was capable of both.........most likely on DailyGalxy.
Oops, way off topic here. Sorry mods edit: nope, I am wrong. It IS a straight infrared telescope. Edited by hooah212002, : admitted I was wrong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Straggler, Thanks,
Straggler writes: Just to let everybody else know what ICANT is talking about here: We had talked about it in an earlier thread and you started this particular thread. But you did not reference Guth's information of a zero energy universe. Guth's paper was on Chambridge Cosmology Site but since they started revamping it I have not been able to find several things that was there before. Hopefully they will get everything back in the future. There is only one section of Inflation with information in it. That is the Low density inflationary universes. Everything else is missing its information. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Perdition,
The article I read was on that was linked from a NASA report on the completed mission or repair to Hubble. There was no mention of a name for the telescope just that it would be much better than Hubble even with the capability to see 500 billion light years, where Hubble can see only 20 billion light years. As far as I know it may all be fantasy. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
That is NOT AT ALL what NASA claims the JWST is capable of. Please, please, PLEASE stop blaspheming astronomy like this. Did you not read the link I responded to perdition with? Did you research what you typed?
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi hooah,
Get off that hight horse and read my posts or don't comment. I said it was a report linked to NASA'S report. That ain't saying NASA said anything. And yes I read the article you referenced. Now how old is the universe? If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed. Not necessarily. There are things farther than 13.7 billion light years away. We can't see them (AFAIK) but that doesn't mean the universe is older than that because every bit of space expanding will make the objects seem to be moving faster than light, which will push them beyond the distance light can travel. Remember, 13.7 billion light years is a measure of the distance light can travel in a year multiplied by 13.7 billion. 13.7 billion years old, for the age of the universe, would be the same even if light travelled at a different speed. Edited by Perdition, : I'm sure we all agree the universe is older than 13.7 years...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 831 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I do apologize for calling you out on bullshit. Please accept this apology.
I was merely stating thata) you claim the article you read linked to NASA's report b) I directly linked to the JWTS site, which makes no such claim. If the new telescope can see things that the math says is 50, 100 billion or more light years from us something will have to be changed It doesn't make this claim. The only claim is the mission statement, which states that they *hope* to be able to see the oldest light in the universe. Which, hypothetically, would be the BB. So, please, utilize your resources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Which, hypothetically, would be the BB. Technically wrong. The "dark ages" was a span of time after the big bang where light was still not able to move freely. The oldest light would be from the end of these dark ages.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Technically wrong. The "dark ages" was a span of time after the big bang where light was still not able to move freely. The oldest light would be from the end of these dark ages. I am pretty sure (so sure I won't look it up) that this is wrong. The universe was all "light" for the first 300,000 years while the matter was so dense (and ionized) that light wasn't free to move through space. After that the "haze" cleared and light moved freely. This started the dark ages because there was nothing emitting light anymore. Then the first stars formed and the dark ages ended. I don't remember how long that was (100 million years?). Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
We had talked about it in an earlier thread Do you mean this? http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0101/0101507v1.pdf This is a paper by Guth regarding inflation and mentioned by me in a previous thread. Also if you fancy continuing Message 126 is still awaiting a response.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Straggler,
I thought we had already hashed this to death is the reason I had not answered it.
Straggler writes: It has existed for all of time. But that apparently is not what you mean by "always". The sense that you seem to mean infinite/eternal/always strongly implies that you are invoking a sense of "time" that is somehow external to the universe. On what do you base this implicit assumption? You believe the universe has lasted for all of time.Time is a property of the universe. Time has lasted just as long as the universe. Sounds kinda circular to me. Since you have no intention of answering the questions I proposed. Which one existed first? Time or the Universe. If either began to exist they both began to exist, simotaniously. Therefore one can not exist without the other existing. But the universe "just is" then it exists. If the universe exists time exists.
Straggler writes: On what do you base this implicit assumption? 'No Thing' can only produce 'No Thing' If there is 'No Thing', and I am told there is 'No Thing' outside of the universe. Either the universe is infinite in all directions. OR The universe began to exist. Guth's paper you referenced Here says:
quote: He goes with 99.9% of the people working in scientific cosmology holding that view. Then he begins a discussion of the second level which is inflation. On page 13 he says:
quote: Pure repulsivegravity material filling space is necessary for eternal inflating universe to begin. But if gravity and space is a part of the universe and does not exist outside of the universe, we are on a merry go round.
quote: So can you clear this mess up for me? Is the universe infinite in all directions? OR Did the universe begin to exist?
Straggler writes: Why is the universe itself not that "uncaused existence"? If it had been expanding for infinity everything in it would be dead that is the prediction for it's demise. God Bless, "John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024