• 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

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium 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.
I am no physicist, but I did not know you could choose your way out of time dilation.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
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.
Correct, I never said otherwise.

God created everything ? ha ha ha there is no evidence for God, only cretins believe He exists.

Now, some serious scientific stuff to consider, life began from a combination of unknown chemicals , eu, ah, in an environment somewhere on earth, and created the precursor organism for all life, Ta Da !! What geniuses, this is how it had to be. unfortunately, there are no fossilized precursor organisms, no observation of anything close to this in nature, no replication of the process, even with ¨intelligent design´. Nothing except a few polymers very distant from anything living..

Unlike those doofus God people, we are very intelligent, and don´t believe in fairy tales, they better have some evidence, which they don´t. The idiots.

We, on the other hand have the scientific method, therefore we don´t need to have evidence of the creation of anything, it happened all by itself, we know this, only dummies believe anything else.





 

shmogie

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

Forsooth!
It is all about time boyś, the measurement of it and the perception of it. Read some on general and special relativity. It ain´t magic, itś called science.
 

Shad

Veteran 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.

This is how people create pseudoscience by accepting a claim based on no evidence or misplaced evidence then working backwards from that conclusion to only confirm what they already believe in.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I am no physicist, but I did not know you could choose your way out of time dilation.


Ooh, you are right...
quote "According to the theory of relativity, time dilation is a difference in the elapsed time measured by two observers"

We use this for everyday things like GPS.
Sorry, I was thinking of some creationist idea.

Telling my spouse recently of what would happen if you could go to Alpha Centuri
at the speed of light, and looking back with a super telescope at earth, what would
you see? Didn't know that was called time dilation.
Thanks
:)
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Correct, I never said otherwise.

God created everything ? ha ha ha there is no evidence for God, only cretins believe He exists.

Now, some serious scientific stuff to consider, life began from a combination of unknown chemicals ..

Back before the 20th Century many Christian people thought of creation as God literally
planting living things upon the earth, one at a time.
But Genesis doesn't say that - it says that God "commanded" the creation to create
itself. "And God commanded the seas to bring forth life.... birds that flew in the sky."
That was seen as an irritant, if not offensive to religious people - how could God command
the earth and see to create? But after Darwin's "warm little pond" and this African business
those Genesis verses don't seem so strange.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member

Re Sun and Planets, or Sun first.
See your point -

yes and no, maybe (!)

Both formed together, but the processes might have taken
longer for the planets as they are more complex, ie differentiation
of the core, crust and mantel,collecting of gas to form atmospheres,
cometary bombardment to create oceans on earth etc..
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
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.

Dry yes, and before that molten, and before that pebbly, and before that gaseous,
and before that Bose-Einstein condensate, and before that .......
I suspect the Genesis account begins with an observer standing upon the earth,
and at a beginning point to which he has some comprehension.
There are so many steps, ie the snowball earth or the hyper-dimension fabric
which could have formed the singularity which began our universe etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc etc etc....

The bible could have said "This is the beginning, but there are many other steps
involved, and an infinite regression back in time and even before time that you
would not understand." No, Genesis just gives us some basic steps in the creation
of the earth - and precedes it with "In the God created the heaven and the earth."
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Sun shining - dark? I think not
It is still though by many that life developed in the sea.
Here is a livescience link that confirms there are many different theories

The sun shines on Venus and Titan too. At one stage scientists think
earth was little like both these worlds.
The problem with sea water first life is the salt. Scientists recently were
looking at hydrothermal vents but the concensus now is that life came
from fresh water, (ie "land" to the bible, and land life before sea life.)
 

Neutral Name

Active Member
Young earth creationists believe that the earth is between 6000 and 12,000 year old typically, but we can observe the light from stars that are more than 6000 to 12,000 light years away. That means these stars existed before God created the universe.

One YEC attempt at resolving this issue is to suggest that the speed of light was dramatically faster in the past than it is today. There is a problem with this though as I posted in another thread:

If the speed of light was significantly higher in the past than today, there would have been a corresponding increase in energy released by matter (E=M*C squared.) All stars require the reaction of matter in order for there to be the fusion that makes them work. If the universe was as young as they suggest and we apply Einstein's equation to our sun, then 6000 years ago our sun would have put out about 800 billion times the energy it does today. Too toasty for life.


LOL. Man after my own heart.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Dry yes, and before that molten, and before that pebbly, and before that gaseous,
and before that Bose-Einstein condensate, and before that .......
I suspect the Genesis account begins with an observer standing upon the earth,
and at a beginning point to which he has some comprehension.
There are so many steps, ie the snowball earth or the hyper-dimension fabric
which could have formed the singularity which began our universe etc etc etc
etc etc etc etc etc etc....

The bible could have said "This is the beginning, but there are many other steps
involved, and an infinite regression back in time and even before time that you
would not understand." No, Genesis just gives us some basic steps in the creation
of the earth - and precedes it with "In the God created the heaven and the earth."
Face it. Genesis is just a book of myths. The writers had no clue about the formation of the Earth, nor is there any reason to think that they should.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Face it. Genesis is just a book of myths. The writers had no clue about the formation of the Earth, nor is there any reason to think that they should.

They had no clue, yet they stated the continents emerged later
in earth's history, that life emerged on earth of itself, first on land
and then in the oceans, that birds came out of the sea and that
humans were the last to be created.
Sounds like they did have a "clue."
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Why has there have to be a reason? Like math or physics, it just is... does there doesn't have to be a deep meaning to all things. The logic of 1+1=2 did not have to be created, it just is for no reason.

Okay. Science states there is a reason for everything.
ie rain comes from condensation of water vapor, and
not the gods. It's all cause and effect, physical laws etc..
But when it comes to the first effect science will say
there's no cause and none is required - even the maths
of 1+1=2 sprang into "existence." Sounds like magic
if it's not of God.
So, you believe in an ultimate creator, or you believe
in magic.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It is all about time boyś, the measurement of it and the perception of it. Read some on general and special relativity. It ain´t magic, itś called science.

\But we are dealing with cosmology, which puts us into general relativity, not special relativity.

The proper time along the path of the Earth from its beginning to now is about 4.5 billion years. The point of proper time is that *all* observers agree on its value, even if they measure different coordinate times and coordinate locations.

It seems many creationists like to invoke relativity to save their ideas without really understanding relativity. For example, the phrase 'going close to the speed of light' is, in itself, meaningless. For *all* speeds other than that of light, you need to say in which frame the speed is measured.

So, for example, it is meaningful to say '99% of the speed of light with respect to the Earth' or '99% of the speed of light with respect to my spaceship', but not '99% of the speed of light'.

Next, the Genesis account is clearly an earth-based frame of reference: the Earth is not moving at close to the speed of light in the story. It is at rest (although changing). So invoking an observer moving at close to the speed of light with respect to the Earth isn't in the text, nor anything close to the text.

What I don't get is why people can't just accept that Genesis was written by people who didn't know how the Earth formed and guessed based on the ideas they had at the time. There was no 'separation of waters' by a 'firmament'. There was no 'ocean of the deep'. The order of creation in Genesis is wrong in detail.

Genesis is a version of the Canaanite creation myth merged somewhat with the Babylonian creation myth. It isn't science and it doesn't agree with science. But, if it is what you want to believe, that's your choice.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Okay. Science states there is a reason for everything.
ie rain comes from condensation of water vapor, and
not the gods. It's all cause and effect, physical laws etc..
But when it comes to the first effect science will say
there's no cause and none is required - even the maths
of 1+1=2 sprang into "existence." Sounds like magic
if it's not of God.
So, you believe in an ultimate creator, or you believe
in magic.

Why do you claim that math 'sprang into existence'? Can you support this claim?

Next, science does NOT claim a 'reason' for everything. It can, and does *describe* how things happen. And it attempts to find underlying descriptions that can encompass as many observations as possible. But science can be quite happy with events happening 'for no reason'.

For example, the vast majority of quantum events are probabilistic. Science can determine the probabilities and the correlations, but it cannot predict the result of any particular observation. In that sense, the specific result of a particular observation has no 'reason' why it was one way and not another. It is, in a very strict sense, random.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
They had no clue, yet they stated the continents emerged later
in earth's history, that life emerged on earth of itself, first on land
and then in the oceans, that birds came out of the sea and that
humans were the last to be created.
Sounds like they did have a "clue."

Life did NOT arise first on land. It arose first in water (maybe tidal ponds). Birds did NOT come out of the sea (they are a type of dinosaur) and other species have arisen since humans have been around.

Looks like it is wrong on almost every point.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
They had no clue, yet they stated the continents emerged later
in earth's history, that life emerged on earth of itself, first on land
and then in the oceans, that birds came out of the sea and that
humans were the last to be created.
Sounds like they did have a "clue."

But that might not be correct. There almost certainly always has been dry land on the Earth. They could have been lucky, but it looks more like that they were just wrong. Also what makes you think that humans were "last"? There have been many new species evolve since we appeared. You are finding flaws in the Genesis account.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Why do you claim that math 'sprang into existence'? Can you support this claim?

Next, science does NOT claim a 'reason' for everything. It can, and does *describe* how things happen. And it attempts to find underlying descriptions that can encompass as many observations as possible. But science can be quite happy with events happening 'for no reason'.

For example, the vast majority of quantum events are probabilistic. Science can determine the probabilities and the correlations, but it cannot predict the result of any particular observation. In that sense, the specific result of a particular observation has no 'reason' why it was one way and not another. It is, in a very strict sense, random.

Quantum is 'random' but that randomness smooths out to definable events,
ie an electron can be anywhere in the universe in theory, but in reality it will
appear in "orbit" around an electron.
You can vanish off the earth, walk on the sun and reappear back on earth
again, according to Quantum mechanics - the probability is 10 to the power
hundred, to the power one hundred again.
So nothing is "impossible" but it aint really random either.

Is math separate from the universe? Science presupposes the laws of
physics sprang into existence with the big bang. Why not maths, too?
Does math describe the universe, or is it somehow a part of the universe?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
But that might not be correct. There almost certainly always has been dry land on the Earth. They could have been lucky, but it looks more like that they were just wrong. Also what makes you think that humans were "last"? There have been many new species evolve since we appeared. You are finding flaws in the Genesis account.

The continents are made of granite. This rock is lighter than the base basalt.
It is formed from pressure and water. The creation of the continents required
the oceans to help support "subduction" which drove huge chunks of the
earth's crust deep into the mantle where there was that heat and pressure.
Without an ocean there's no continental crust. We don't know if there were
low lying dry regions prior to the continents - the bible suggests there wasn't.
 
Top