Re: HUBBLE Observations - The Age of the Universe - Continued:
- From: "Robert Morpheal, Morphealism, Bob Ezergailis" <morpheal@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:38:25 -0700 (PDT)
On May 19, 2:51 pm, dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear RobertMorpheal, Morphealism, Bob Ezergailis:
On May 19, 10:46 am, "RobertMorpheal, Morphealism, Bob Ezergailis"
There is no evidence that there was such a motion, or such an origin.
We can see the direction we are moving away from (currently), and
there is nothign special "over there".
Nothing special "over there" does not in any way prove that what is
moving away does not move
away from an origin. If movement away tends towards coinciding at some
point, then the probability
of there being an origin is certainly greater than the probability of
there not being one. Even if
defining "origin" remains beyond our knowing.
That does not really argue against my proposing that SOME of what is
out there and "moving away from"
where it is moving away from does not come from a different source,
offering a different frame of
reference. Multiple frames of space-time reference are a sure thing,
IMHO. Treating one relative frame
of reference as if it is an absolute space-time frame of reference is
simply wrong. It's a bad assumption
that is mythic, but untrue. Mythic because it strives to save religion
from embarassment, but eventually
that primitive cosmology, still being so staunchly defended and
preserved, must give way to a greater
complexity and a more profound scientific truth.
No preexisting space. So nothing to displace.
As I said, you assume that one relative space-time frame of reference
is the one and only, and thus
is the absolute space-time frame of reference. That is simply a
groundless assumption. The probability
is that it is untrue. Trying to save creation ex nihilo arguments from
medieval philosophy and theology
is unbecoming of modern science. It is time to move on from that, and
thus time to lave the ideas
that prevailed in the dark ages.
Why? There is clearly no evidence of "other stuff" that has not been
"evolving" right along with us.
Assumptions preclude its recognition.
Drop the existing assumptions and at best you can say "don't know".
That becomes a starting point, not a final conclusion.
Largely because if there is such stuff it is moving with us, with
nothing new encountered along the 14 Gy path, and the past equally
arrayed all around us. Nice slam with the "archaic and tradition" bit
though. Makes it sound like you are offering something like snake
oil.
Stuff from another origin mixed with stuff from "our" origin, if at
the same distance from
where we are in relation to it, would imply the same age, in terms of
the time that it took for it
to become visible to us. That is relative to our frame of space-time
reference. What we then
would fail to see it the other frame of reference, as to something's
own, and different, origin,
and thus different absolute age in terms of an absolute space-time
frame of reference. Two
or more frames of reference occurring in space-time proximity relative
to us, the observers,
can remain undistinguishable, and apparently of the same approximate
age in terms of
distance from the observer and speed of light.
So we have a very big problem, but we keep denying its possibilities.
Rest of exposition deleted, since it does not address teh serious
problems you have in your "logic" so far. It can only get worse from
here...
David A. Smith
David,
I definitely disagree. (Noted simply for posterity's sake.)
.
- Prev by Date: God preserved this limb on the Mars.
- Next by Date: Re: HUBBLE Observations - The Age of the Universe - Continued:
- Previous by thread: God preserved this limb on the Mars.
- Next by thread: Re: HUBBLE Observations - The Age of the Universe - Continued:
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
