• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Speed of Light and the Age of the Universe

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
YEC have an arrogant self inflicted ignorance due their faith that the Bible is the Word of God and infallible. A world of miracles an fantasy where physics have no boundaries, ultimately the biggest virtual reality game ever.

Oh, you mean like the universe sprang into being without
time, space, energy, physical laws or even a reason?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Well okay. Was the early earth dark and oceanic?
NASA looks at Saturn's moon Titan as an "early Earth analogue"
as it has seas, cloud cover and pre-biotic chemistry - just like
the early Earth.
Did life come from the land or the oceans? Science is now
convinced it came from fresh water.
That really has nothing to do with time dilation. And there may have been some similarities between Titan and the Earth, but it would have been huge differences. For one thing there is no water in the "Seas of Titan".
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
That really has nothing to do with time dilation. And there may have been some similarities between Titan and the Earth, but it would have been huge differences. For one thing there is no water in the "Seas of Titan".

I am not into 'time dilation'
Don't think anyone else should be either as we simply have no idea what time is.
Early earth was dark, cold and oceanic. At one stage it was nearly frozen solid too.
But I suspect the Genesis account begins right here, at a point where a human can
comprehend (you can't comprehend M-theory hyper-dimensional geometries that
might have formed the big bang!) and it begins with the here-and-now, not from the
viewpoint of someone in space (what's that????)
So there was no light and no solid earth... but the universe was already out there.
That's the bible's take on it.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Einstein theory of relativity pointed out that there is no preferred reference. The mistake that is often made in this type of discussion is everyone is assuming the earth reference, which sees the universe as being15 billions years old, is the absolute reference. According to Einstein this is a relative reference.

The way I approached this problem, years ago, was to reverse engineer the problem. I assumed, for the sake of argument, that the bible is true, and God created the universe in six days. The question now becomes, would have to be God's relative reference, so he sees it the way he says it was in the Genesis; God's relative reference?

That much compression of time and space; 6 days, relative to earth reference; 15 billion years, would require a reference, essentially at the speed of light. This reference would then need to be slowing,very slightly, from essentially the speed of light, to a speed that still is very close to the speed of light. This is inferred from the first day representing the longest time duration, and the last day the shortest time duration, in terms of earth reference.

So what could cause such a reference and what would look like? One possibility would be an equilibrium between energy, matter and anti-matter, where matter and anti matter is condensing from energy but immediately reversing.

The result is not exactly matter-anti-matter or energy, but an average paradoxical state that is at the speed of light, but also slightly below the speed of light, at the same time. The matter and antimatter and energy is appearing-disappear, like a sine wave but of slowing frequency.

This model, is occurring at the smallest states of matter and energy, instead of the bulk macro state, yet is inducing the bulk macro states; alpha generating the omega. This is similar to particle physics assumptions. Earth reference uses the macro omega reference.
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Einstein theory of relativity pointed out that there is no preferred reference. The mistake that is often made in this type of discussion is everyone is assuming the earth reference, which sees the universe as being15 billions years old, is the absolute reference. According to Einstein this is a relative reference.

The way I approached this problem, years ago, was to reverse engineer the problem. I assumed, for the sake of argument, that the bible is true, and God created the universe in six days. The question now becomes, would have to be God's relative reference, so he sees it the way he says it was in the Genesis; God's relative reference?

That much compression of time and space; 6 days, relative to earth reference; 15 billion years, would require a reference, essentially at the speed of light. This reference would then need to be slowing,very slightly, from essentially the speed of light, to a speed that still is very close to the speed of light. This is inferred from the first day representing the longest time duration, and the last day the shortest time duration, in terms of earth reference.

So what could cause such a reference and what would look like? One possibility would be an equilibrium between energy, matter and anti-matter, where matter and anti matter is condensing from energy but immediately reversing.

The result is not exactly matter-anti-matter or energy, but an average paradoxical state that is at the speed of light, but also slightly below the speed of light, at the same time. The matter and antimatter and energy is appearing-disappear, like a sine wave but of slowing frequency.

This model, is occurring at the smallest states of matter and energy, instead of the bulk macro state, yet is inducing the bulk macro states; alpha generating the omega. This is similar to particle physics assumptions. Earth reference uses the macro omega reference.

Occam's Razor to the rescue. Why do you believe in 'six days' when the bible uses numbers
in highly symbolic and often contradictory ways to make spiritual messages?
ie
How many are saved in the resurrection? A few? 1440,000? ten thousand times ten thousand?
All these are employed.
How many churches were there in Revelation? Seven? What about the other churches mentioned
in the New Testament? Seven was a symbol of completeness.
How many people were there in Adam's day when he had Cain and Abel? Four? Who were the
tribes that Cain fled to?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Well okay. Was the early earth dark and oceanic?
NASA looks at Saturn's moon Titan as an "early Earth analogue"
as it has seas, cloud coiver and pre-biotic chemistry - just like
the early Earth.
Did life come from the land or the oceans? Science is now
convinced it came from fresh water.

The sun and earth formed at roughly the same time, sun first closely followed by planet formation so no, earth was not dark. And doubtful it was oceanic, early earth had little atmosphere so much of earths water (if there was any) would have boiled off in the vacuum of space.

Titans seas are methane.
Along with nitrogen, carbon gasses, hydrogen sulphide and amonia, earths atmosphere contained quantities of methane which aided the development of organic life.

Science is in no way convinced life came from fresh water. It is a hypothesis with some support, as is life originating by fumaroles, life developing in shallow seas and life being delivered along with water by asteroids.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The sun and earth formed at roughly the same time, sun first closely followed by planet formation so no, earth was not dark. And doubtful it was oceanic, early earth had little atmosphere so much of earths water (if there was any) would have boiled off in the vacuum of space.

Titans seas are methane.
Along with nitrogen, carbon gasses, hydrogen sulphide and amonia, earths atmosphere contained quantities of methane which aided the development of organic life.

Science is in no way convinced life came from fresh water. It is a hypothesis with some support, as is life originating by fumaroles, life developing in shallow seas and life being delivered along with water by asteroids.

I think it's
1 - sun first
2 - then planets and their moons
Went to a few lectures of Dr. Andrew Prentice - he worked with NASA to determine
the size, number and characteristics of the planet's moons before the Voyager probes
reached them - isn't that amazing?

I think the sun and planets all formed together.

Anyhow, the earth was a cloud planet, like Venus. And it was an ocean planet, a bit
like Titan but on a larger scale, and with water. Probably the bulk of extra-terrestial
earth planets are water worlds it is thought.
So yes, cold, dark and wet.
And until 20 years ago the earth was thought to be bone dry. And two years ago it
was still through life emerged in the saline oceans.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Hmmmm. The universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. It has expanded more today than yesterday.

How can be the case if there is no limitation point of expansion ? What would you call it ?

Well, that's part of the point. Every location in the universe 'looks the same' as any other location. There is no edge to the expansion.

Instead, the expansion is *everywhere*. It isn't an explosion, but instead an expansion of space itself.

And this follows naturally from the laws of gravity given by general relativity. If you want details, I can give them, but you have to start thinking in terms of a four dimensional spacetime, not just a three dimensional space with time added. The geometry of spacetime is more integrated than that image conveys.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I disagree. The principles of science can be applied in some circumstances to identify Gods actions in creation

There is a cascade of scientifically identified events in the creation of the universe that make it perfectly suited for life.

The statisticians and mathematicians say that the odds of this occurring naturally are astronomically against that universe. All scientific.

Every calculation of a probability relies on some assumptions. In most of the calculations of the type you mention, it is assumed that events are uncorrelated whech we *know* full well are, in fact, correlated.

This is manifested by multiplying a lot of numbers together to get a small probability without considering how one event affects later events. A *correct* calculation is much, much more subtle than a simple multiplication.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Cosmology presumes the existence of the singularity, an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

No, actually, it does not. General relativity *predicts* singularities of various forms.

It also predicts that the universe is expanding from a condition that was hotter and denser in the past. It is *this* part that is the standard Big Bang scenario. The singularities of GR are recognized as being due to an incomplete theory. And we know that we have to integrate quantum mechanics into this, but have no experimental evidence to guide us on how to do this. Thnat means we have several speculative ideas about quantum gravity but no way to test between them currently. It also means that we simply don't know what, if anything, happens prior to about a nanosecond into the current expansion.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
No, actually, it does not. General relativity *predicts* singularities of various forms.

It also predicts that the universe is expanding from a condition that was hotter and denser in the past. It is *this* part that is the standard Big Bang scenario. The singularities of GR are recognized as being due to an incomplete theory. And we know that we have to integrate quantum mechanics into this, but have no experimental evidence to guide us on how to do this. Thnat means we have several speculative ideas about quantum gravity but no way to test between them currently. It also means that we simply don't know what, if anything, happens prior to about a nanosecond into the current expansion.
That is my whole point, thank you.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
Not deflection, a point. Se if you get it.

I can assure you that I get it, as will most who read this thread. It's quite simple, really. If it was not a deflection, you would have posted evidence or told me you had none.

Therefore, since you chose to deflect rather than to address my query, we can conclude that you have no evidence, objective, empirical, or experiential, or otherwise, of God as a creation agent.

Thanks for playing.
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
I once heared a YEC come up with the excuse that God just created the light beams "on their way" , so that it would "look" as if that light had been traveling all that time.


To be perfectly honest, I consider such to be the most sensible excuse. It's an exercise in futility to try and make creationistic nonsense match science, because it's simply not going to happen.

So the easiest way out, is to simply invoke magic. Some type of "last thursdayism", which is the idea that the universe and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created just last thursday. But then instead of last thursday, it was 6000 years ago.

If I were a YEC, i'ld invest heavily in such invoking of magic. It's the only real way you can marry such nonsense with observable reality. Take Noah's ark. I don't get why YECs insist on trying to match that with scientific evidence. It's a lost cause. It's not going to happen. Geology will never agree - the evidence just isn't there. Even only boat-wise, it's obvious bs... wooden boats that big just aren't sea worthy. Then there's all the logistic problems of 8 people having to take care of that many animals. It's just not realistic.

Unless you invoke magic.
"god put the animals in hibernation, so they didn't have eat or poop".
"god zapped the animals unto the boat, so kangaroo's and pinguins didn't have to cross entire oceans"
"the boat was made of magical wood which ignores the rules of physics so that it could float"
"god cleaned the earth of all the damage and sediments, making it look as if the flood hadn't occured"


I mean.... it's religion... you're already dealing with faith based bare claims from the very fundamental core going forwards. So why go through the trouble of trying to marry it with observable reality.

If "faith" is good enough to believe in god, I'ld guess that "faith" is good enough to believe in impossible boats and non-existing floods as well.

Nonsense! As a Last Tuesdaist, I find your pushing of Last Thursdaism to be Heretical.

Forsooth!
 

Bob the Unbeliever

Well-Known Member
This thread was an Interesting Read-- it's quite apparent, that one of the major posters? Is both a creationist, and someone I have on "ignore" (and thus, never see anything they post, not even quoted by others).

Makes for some amusing posts, though.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I think it's
1 - sun first
2 - then planets and their

think the sun and planets all formed together.

Which?

Anyhow, the earth was a cloud planet, like Venus. And it was an ocean planet, a bit
like Titan

It seems that Venus has only become a cloud planet fairly recently in cosmological terms, NASA hypothesises that if was habitable up to 2 billion years ago.

Recent discoveries when in sampling atmosphere in 3 billion year old magma bubbles suggest earths atmosphere was only 1/2 as dense as it is now

Probably the bulk of extra-terrestial
earth planets are water worlds it is thought.

Here is a link to facts on Kepler descovered habitable exoplanets.
Kepler-22b: Facts About Exoplanet in Habitable Zone

So yes, cold, dark and wet.

Sun shining - dark? I think not
Given the discoveries on atmospheric density i also think not wet. As i understand it, early earth was too hot to hold water, later the atmosphere too thin to keep hold of much.

And until 20 years ago the earth was thought to be bone dry. And two years ago it
was still through life emerged in the saline oceans.

It is still though by many that life developed in the sea.
Here is a livescience link that confirms there are many different theories

How Did Life Arise on Earth?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I am not into 'time dilation'
Don't think anyone else should be either as we simply have no idea what time is.
Early earth was dark, cold and oceanic. At one stage it was nearly frozen solid too.
But I suspect the Genesis account begins right here, at a point where a human can
comprehend (you can't comprehend M-theory hyper-dimensional geometries that
might have formed the big bang!) and it begins with the here-and-now, not from the
viewpoint of someone in space (what's that????)
So there was no light and no solid earth... but the universe was already out there.
That's the bible's take on it.
Where do you get that idea from? You are probably misinterpreting sources or using sources guilty of that. The surface of the very early Earth was almost certainly dry.
 
Top