nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
The issue is not if there is a medium for light to travel in, but the issue is what is causing light to appear to travel faster than the speed of light? The assertion is that light is traveling on something (spacetime) and that something is stretching and adding additional distance. This is not simply mathematical modeling, but an assertion that something is physically affecting light.
It is the galaxy recession speed that appears to be faster than the speed of light for very distant galaxies, not the light itself which can't travel faster than c. The inferred distance to the galaxies from the observed redshift would require light to travel faster than c if there were no expansion of the metric (spacetime), simply from v = x/t (c=v in this case) with x= distance and t=time. But if the metric is expanding this problem goes away and the light doesn't need to travel faster than c. The galaxies (mass) are not traveling faster than the speed of light, and the speed of light is never exceeded for the photons, if the explanation is that the metric is what is expanding (ie. space itself).
The physical thing affecting the light is the coupling between spacetime and mass-energy that causes gravity. When the metric (spacetime) is distorted in the vicinity of massive bodies per the GR description, this coupling causes light to follow the spacetime curvature due to the coupling between the photons (energy) and the metric tensor field. Light isn't traveling on anything per se as it needs no medium to propogate. It is reacting to gravity which is the same as spacetime curvature in the GR description. There doesn't need to be any physical "thing" for light to travel on/in.
Is your objection to an expanding metric model based on the lack of human understanding of what dark energy is yet (assuming that is causing the metric expansion)? Or some other aspect of the GR description?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win. John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. Mark Twain
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:41 am
Noted (not just by me) that you are ignoring my response, insisting that I play your game and that you are being evasive and dishonest. And don't think of pulling the 'ad hom' gambit as this is about argument method, not personals.
Don't make yourself look absurd and dishonest. I know it is a forum convention that Bible apologists do this, but really, don't. it does you no credit.
I'm just laying out all the possibilities; it's called open mind. Bible apologists should try it, sometime.
Moderator Warning
This post contains multiple uncivil comments. Please debate the issues rather than making uncivil comments about other individuals or groups.
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:06 pm.Light isn't traveling on anything per se as it needs no medium to propogate. It is reacting to gravity which is the same as spacetime curvature in the GR description. There doesn't need to be any physical "thing" for light to travel on/in.
Yes, I agree that light doesn't require anything to propagate in or travel on. And I agree that spacetime curvature can be modeled for gravitational distortions caused by objects. This describes the path of light around objects, but it does not account for the redshifting. There needs to be some other mechanism to affect the wavelength, and not affect the path of light. And from what I gather, it is the proposal that spacetime is stretching that accounts for this. We agree that using spacetime to describe light bending around objects is a model. Where the issue comes in is extending this model to claim it is an actual entity and it is also able to affect light to move greater distances.
Is your objection to an expanding metric model based on the lack of human understanding of what dark energy is yet (assuming that is causing the metric expansion)? Or some other aspect of the GR description?
The objection is fundamentally the distinction between what is a model and what actually exists. That is why I asked, "How can one objectively demonstrate spacetime or metric tensor or whatever is carrying light along to be real and not simply a conceptual model?"
However, anyone using Photoshop knows there is a way to paint and not have brush strokes and not have contours - by using an airbrush.
I believe the shroud image resembles an airbrush technique better than any other artistic technique (paint brush, drawing, rubbing, scorching). It's theoretically possible to duplicate the shroud visual image using an airbrush, and probably even duplicate the 3D effect.
Of course, there's one major problem with this. The airbrush was not invented until the late 19th century.
Up until the mid-2000s, it was widely published that the airbrush was invented in 1893, but following research undertaken in collaboration with New York University's Conservation Department, and personal support from Professor Margaret Holben Ellis, a more detailed history emerged, which required many authorities such as Oxford Art to update their dictionaries[1] and references.
Depending on the definition requiring compressed air or not, the first spray painting device that could be called an airbrush was patented in 1876 (Patent Number 182,389) by Francis Edgar Stanley of Newton, Massachusetts.
If the shroud was a forgery, the artist somehow simulated the airbrush technique hundreds of years before its invention.
If he used paint to create the shroud, he should be rightly credited with the first airbrush painting.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:41 am
Noted (not just by me) that you are ignoring my response, insisting that I play your game and that you are being evasive and dishonest. And don't think of pulling the 'ad hom' gambit as this is about argument method, not personals.
Don't make yourself look absurd and dishonest. I know it is a forum convention that Bible apologists do this, but really, don't. it does you no credit.
I'm just laying out all the possibilities; it's called open mind. Bible apologists should try it, sometime.
Moderator Warning
This post contains multiple uncivil comments. Please debate the issues rather than making uncivil comments about other individuals or groups.
Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
I appreciate the warning. In fact I tried to contact a mod or two to get some advice of what was a tricky situation, but I couldn't get the hang of the private messaging. I will say that it is rather easy to confuse pointing up errors in argument with personals. But I think it is best to bow out of this thread as I don't think the subject can be progressed much more, and it's been instructive. I will thank otseng for the discussion as it has brought a lot of interesting points about the object to my attention. I'll leave the thread to others.
When viewing the shroud with light at the back of the shroud, one can view the scorch marks, water stains, and blood marks. But, the body image is not visible, revealing that it does not block any light. One can also see the bands and threads in the cloth which reveals how the shroud was constructed. Can also see the side strip on the left and confirms it was all part of the same cloth, but was cut off and reattached.
"Photography in transmitted visible light: the blood stains and the water stains margins are well marked but the image is not visible confirming its superficial nature." https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/A ... 8dd32898d6
"Blood spots are much more visible on the TS by transmitted light than by reflected light; this implies that the blood saturated the cloth and it is not a superficial image as the body image is." https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... RIN_SHROUD
Yes, I agree that light doesn't require anything to propagate in or travel on. And I agree that spacetime curvature can be modeled for gravitational distortions caused by objects. This describes the path of light around objects, but it does not account for the redshifting. There needs to be some other mechanism to affect the wavelength, and not affect the path of light. And from what I gather, it is the proposal that spacetime is stretching that accounts for this. We agree that using spacetime to describe light bending around objects is a model. Where the issue comes in is extending this model to claim it is an actual entity and it is also able to affect light to move greater distances.
The "straight line" redshift is completely different from gravitational "bending" due to spacetime curvature as far as the mechanism. Imagine a galaxy 1 billion light years away from Earth. Its stars are emitting light constantly and those photons head out in all directions. A tiny number reach Earth a billion years after they were emitted. During the transit the cummulative effect of the expanding metric causes the frequency of EM wave to appear lower to us when it reaches Earth (wavelength longer):
The CMBR is the result of this exact same process. When those photons were emitted 13.7 or so billion years ago after the "surface of last scattering" (when the universe had cooled enough for H atoms to form) their wavelength corresponded to a blackbody temperature near 3000 K (about 1 micron wavelength in the near infrared), and now the wavelength of that light corresponds to a blackbody temperature of only 2.7 K or a wavelength 1000x longer near 1 mm, whch is in the microwave. If there had been no redshift due to spacetime expansion, we'd have no explanation for the CMBR. Light from distant galaxies undergoes the same process, and this so-called "stretching" does not cause a deviation in the path of the light.
We agree that using spacetime to describe light bending around objects is a model. Where the issue comes in is extending this model to claim it is an actual entity and it is also able to affect light to move greater distances.
I don't think the mathematical model for spacetime claims it is an "actual entity" any more than we'd say an inch is an actual entity, or that latitude and longitude are actual entities. They are units and coordinate systems used to frame mathematical models of real systems, but are not physically real themselves. The bending of light near massive bodies is a gravitational effect, and in GR gravity is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime (the metric) near that object. Expansion of the metric in GR says that space itself is expanding, but does not define "space" as any physical thing itself. If a galaxy is receeding as the metric expands, that will produce a redshift as measured here on Earth, without the need for space to be an "actual entity" (other than it existing as the "stuff" that fills the volume between masses in the universe).
The objection is fundamentally the distinction between what is a model and what actually exists. That is why I asked, "How can one objectively demonstrate spacetime or metric tensor or whatever is carrying light along to be real and not simply a conceptual model?"
I'd argue that spacetime is not "real" in terms of being a physical object, but it doesn't need to be. Since light does not require any medium to propogate in, spacetime does not need to be any kind of real (physical) thing to serve as a framework to explain gravity (in GR) or cosmoligical redshift. It is a concept used in the GR model to explain observations. Its coupling to mass and energy (eg. photons) is what causes the real effects like gravity, and cosmological redshift. I suppose you could argue that this coupling could not exist if spacetime is not a physical thing, but GR does not specify any physical characteristics for spacetime. Maybe when a theory of quantum gravity is developed this will all make more sense and better analogies can be made. But like dark matter and dark energy, that is yet another unsolved physics problem.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win. John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. Mark Twain
Yes, I agree that light doesn't require anything to propagate in or travel on. And I agree that spacetime curvature can be modeled for gravitational distortions caused by objects. This describes the path of light around objects, but it does not account for the redshifting. There needs to be some other mechanism to affect the wavelength, and not affect the path of light. And from what I gather, it is the proposal that spacetime is stretching that accounts for this. We agree that using spacetime to describe light bending around objects is a model. Where the issue comes in is extending this model to claim it is an actual entity and it is also able to affect light to move greater distances.
The "straight line" redshift is completely different from gravitational "bending" due to spacetime curvature as far as the mechanism.
Yes, I agree, that's why I said, "This describes the path of light around objects, but it does not account for the redshifting."
I'd argue that spacetime is not "real" in terms of being a physical object, but it doesn't need to be.
I agree that spacetime is not "real", but a conceptual model. But, would you agree that something must actually be stretching in order to account for the redshifting? Or put it another way in post 1529:
otseng wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 9:31 pm
It is the spacetime fabric that is being stretched, not just the wavelength of light. We see this in the estimates of the size of the unobservable universe.
otseng wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 7:46 am
There are various estimates to the size of the unobservable universe. All of them are massive.
This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe.
If the space-time fabric was not being stretched, then how can the size of the unobservable universe be over 15 million times (to up to infinite in extent) of the distance of the limit light can reach for the age of our universe?
Further, you stated:
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 10:51 pm
I'm in the camp that the spacetime fabric IS expanding (being "stretched"), so I accept that explanation for the size of the observable universe.
If the shroud was created by an artist, perhaps the best genre to classify it would be realism -- or most specifically, hyperrealism or photorealism.
"Hyperrealism is a genre of painting and sculpture resembling a high-resolution photograph. Hyperrealism is considered an advancement of photorealism by the methods used to create the resulting paintings or sculptures." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreal ... sual_arts)
"Photorealism is a genre of art that encompasses painting, drawing and other graphic media, in which an artist studies a photograph and then attempts to reproduce the image as realistically as possible in another medium." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism
The shroud body image, scourge marks, and blood stains are so well depicted that many medical doctors consider it authentic.
"The authenticity of the Shroud from the point of view of anatomy and physiology is a scientific fact."
Dr. Pierre Barbet
"If this is the work of a forger, than the forger would have to have been a trained anatomist, for there is not one single blunder. Indeed, anatomy bears witness to authenticity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Barbet_(physician)
"The evidence of a scourged man, who was crucified and died of suffocation is clear cut. The markings on this body are so clear and so medically accurate that they are, in my opinion, beyond dispute."
Dr. Robert Bucklin, Chief of the Forensic Medical Division in the Los Angeles County Coroner-Medical Examiner Office https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n54part12.pdf
"It is not an unreasonable conclusion for the forensic pathologist to determine that only one person historically is undergone this sequence of events. That person is Jesus Christ." https://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm
"The perfect correspondence of the four head blood clots gives us the certainty that the Shroud covered the corpse of a man while alive endured the lesion of these blood vessels."
Dr. Sebastiano Rodante
"from the evidence of the bloodstains alone this is clearly not a human forgery."
Prof J. Malcolm Cameron
The investigation was by far the most intricate, intriguing, and challenging experience of my career. As a chief medical examiner - forensic pathologist, I had investigated some of the most complicated, puzzling, bizarre, and horrific forensic cases that included homicides, suicides, drug deaths, vehicular accidents, suspicious deaths, child abuse case, poisonings, and the like. None compared to the intricacies that confronted me during my probe into the death of Jesus. In a sense, the process was like conducting an autopsy across the centuries. This lifelong study challenged the entire range of my scientific and medical background in the areas of forensic pathology, medicine, cardiology, anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, biophysics, physics, computer science, pharmacology, inorganic and organic chemistry botany.
"Hyperrealism has roots only as far back as the late 1960s to early 1970s, making it a relatively new art movement by most standards." https://www.plusonegallery.com/blog/28/
Should the TS artist be rightly credited as creating the first hyperrealistic/photorealistic artwork?
Since the shroud is even able to convince medical doctors, should it be classified into its own genre called uberrealism?
Much time and space on this topic was spent on the Tower of Babel and it being the source of different languages. Question:
Man has now far exceeded the Tower of Babel, sending people to the Moon, hundreds of satellites into orbit, and more out of the solar system. God was supposedly threatened by a little Ziggurat and man's boldness in Genesis 11. Is he sleeping? Dead?
