6 Days IS 15.75 Billion Years - Time Dilation and the Expansion of the Universe are Evident Axioms

The OP is a preacher. He's been doing it a long time on here. He'll post a thread indicating proof of something, provide ZERO objective evidence or quote something extremely hypothetical and then when everyone debunks him he'll disappear for a few months then return and try again. It seems like he's just trying to trick people into joining his religion.

Originally posted by tremex

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by tremex

 

Sorry, try again. The current number (it will undoubtedly change as we observe more) is 13.77 plus or minus 0.059. (0.4% of variance)

If you insist on using "magic" numbers at least show integrity by using the actual numbers. Rounding away at closest 0.2 billion years is bad voodoo.

There are more sources that put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years. But according to data from the WMAP satellite, the universe is between 13.711 and 13.829 billion years old. Rounded to one decimal place, it is between 13.7 and 13.8 billion years old. The average 13.77 is as much as likely to be the "actual" age as 13.79, 13.8, 13.82 or any number in that open interval. So it makes only sense to pick 13.7, because it has a contextual meaning. So once again, remember that "actual" doesn't mean... well, the mean, as a measure of central tendency.

edit on 31-1-2013 by tremex because: (no reason given)

It only makes sense to use the actual numbers (those from WMAP being the source) with the calculated error of plus/minus 0.5% (0.4 was incorrect the first time)
Rounding to one decimal to make it fit a personal goal is disingenuous. As I said bad voodoo, but hey if it keeps you warm at night go for it.

Originally posted by Barcs
The OP is a preacher. He's been doing it a long time on here. He'll post a thread indicating proof of something, provide ZERO objective evidence or quote something extremely hypothetical and then when everyone debunks him he'll disappear for a few months then return and try again. It seems like he's just trying to trick people into joining his religion.

Agree.

Even if his god exists. I wouldn't worship him. He can go to hell as far I care because this god doesn't deserve my reverence for being such a**hole.

Originally posted by Barcs
The OP is a preacher. He's been doing it a long time on here. He'll post a thread indicating proof of something, provide ZERO objective evidence or quote something extremely hypothetical and then when everyone debunks him he'll disappear for a few months then return and try again. It seems like he's just trying to trick people into joining his religion.

Zero objective evidence? He presents a theory by a professor of physics who was taught and worked at MIT. This same academic was awarded a prize by Texas A&M college of science just last year. The theory is based in Einsteins general relativity theory. It is supported by science and religion. He would be laughed out of his field if his ideas did not have some merit.

Where is your objective evidence? Where is the debunking you mention? How can you uphold a scientific view and sneer at its findings in the same post?

Good job posting this EnochWasRight. I myself have mentioned this very thing before here and no one really refutes it they just go on with their anti religious rhetoric hoping to garner stars from the other God haters.

Originally posted by NihilistSanta
Zero objective evidence? He presents a theory by a professor of physics who was taught and worked at MIT. This same academic was awarded a prize by Texas A&M college of science just last year. The theory is based in Einsteins general relativity theory. It is supported by science and religion. He would be laughed out of his field if his ideas did not have some merit.

Let's forget your appeal to authority fallacy above. The OP is not presenting a case that's based on science. He is twisting studies around to try to indicate that biblical creationism is true when there is no correlation at all between the concepts. I'm familiar with how the OP operates, I've seen it dozens of times. The formula is pretty simple.

1. Refer to scientific study or hypothesis
2. Form your own conclusion out of it
3. Present your case as fact

The problem is that step 2, which connects 1 & 3, requires some degree of personal opinion. I'm not suggesting universal expansion is false or that time dilation does not exist. I'm saying the OP is selectively exploiting these positions to preach about his religion and claim it is factual. I believe they call it cherry picking.

Where is your objective evidence? Where is the debunking you mention? How can you uphold a scientific view and sneer at its findings in the same post?

What would you like evidence for? I'm always happy to back up my claims. I wasn't sneering at any findings, I was warning everybody about the nature of the OPs posts. You have to take them with a grain of salt based on post history. He'll very often use terms and catch phrases like "absolutely proves", "nail in the coffin", "definitive evidence", when it is his opinion that is used to create the bridge between the concepts he's referring to.

Good job posting this EnochWasRight. I myself have mentioned this very thing before here and no one really refutes it they just go on with their anti religious rhetoric hoping to garner stars from the other God haters.

You can't refute something that is a complete guess in the first place. You can only explain that it is merely opinion, and not based on science at all, for example:

I present definitive evidence that the Bible story of Six literal days, according to God's perspective, are literally 15.75 billion years. There can be no question now. Genesis 1 and 2 represent the timeline of our current cosmology. Not only do they match, but the events of each day, as depicted in Genesis, are precisely what the Bible narrative outlines.

I don't even know where to begin with that paragraph, there's so much speculation. There's no correlation, I'm sorry.

reply to post by EnochWasRight
Question: In the first video talking about the laser beam. If this were correct then the stretching of time and the universe would also result in the stretching of the beam would it not? wider, longer. So the gaps between the 1 second pulses he talked about would not be the billions of years he says would result and the flash would in fact last much longer than a pulse. We would see that flash in slow motion and covering a much larger area.

So when we observe distant galaxies they should be much larger than the ones that are relatively closer. Magnified by the expanding universe I don’t ever remember reading that.

Something seems off here. Can you explain?

I've been looking for something like this for years - I saw it on here about 5 or 6 years ago, but I haven't been able to find it again since I've joined.

If these videos are the ones I'm thinking of, they seemed to work to me when I first saw them, it's to do with the time dilation effect of gravity, like as you get closer to a black hole time slows down for you, but not for the observer. So as matter was more condensed from the big bang, a day would be billions of years now, then the second day would be a few billion, then the third would be millions, then the fourth would be a few million, the fifth would be a few hundred thousand etc.

I'll have a look at these videos, I hope they're the ones I'm thinking of, I want to look at them now I'm older and more analytical. Thanks OP.

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

Question: In the first video talking about the laser beam. If this were correct then the stretching of time and the universe would also result in the stretching of the beam would it not? wider, longer. So the gaps between the 1 second pulses he talked about would not be the billions of years he says would result and the flash would in fact last much longer than a pulse. We would see that flash in slow motion and covering a much larger area.

So when we observe distant galaxies they should be much larger than the ones that are relatively closer. Magnified by the expanding universe I don’t ever remember reading that.

Something seems off here. Can you explain?

He is a well respected and worked at MIT. I would defer to his opinion over mine. He knows what he is talking about. In matters like this, I typically form my own conclusions around what is stated by these types of individuals.

reply to post by EnochWasRight

He is a well respected and worked at MIT. I would defer to his opinion over mine. He knows what he is talking about. In matters like this, I typically form my own conclusions around what is stated by these types of individuals.

Well can you at least explain how if the gap between the pulses are stretched as the universe expands then the space in which the beam exists is also stretched which to my mind means the pulse length and width is expanded.

Can never get my head around relativity and this confuses me even more. Then dispo posts about gravity's effect on time but this would mean as the universe expands time should speed up as gravity becomes less dense or at least more spread out.

Why do I get a feeling there's a bit of bias going on here. Oh that's right, because they're trying to fit a belief to the facts, rather than drawing a conclusion *from* the facts..

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by EnochWasRight

 

He is a well respected and worked at MIT. I would defer to his opinion over mine. He knows what he is talking about. In matters like this, I typically form my own conclusions around what is stated by these types of individuals.

Well can you at least explain how if the gap between the pulses are stretched as the universe expands then the space in which the beam exists is also stretched which to my mind means the pulse length and width is expanded.

Can never get my head around relativity and this confuses me even more. Then dispo posts about gravity's effect on time but this would mean as the universe expands time should speed up as gravity becomes less dense or at least more spread out.

edit on 1-3-2013 by colin42 because: (no reason given)

Relativity is not too hard to describe. It's a relationship in opposites, but dimensionally across all opposites. This is the part that messes with us. One relationship affects all others. As expansion happens, imagine you are in the middle of a winding staircase. The step you are on is one size, but above and below, the other steps are smaller in appearance. In reality, they are only relative to you position on the steps. If the steps were expanding, this would continually increase, yet the step you are on always appears the same no matter where you move. In the case of light, it is stretching with the fabric of time/space. The light traveling to you is also falling away at the back end. Watch the video again.

reply to post by colin42


As gravity increases, time slows - as measured by an atomic clock.

Basically, a caesium atom would decay more quickly on the moon than it would on earth.

Because gravity is bigger on earth, it slows everything down.

Similarly, a caesium atom on jupiter would take longer to decay than it would on earth, because jupiter produces more gravity.

The theory that 1 day = billions of years at the time of the big bang is not unreasonable, but I haven't had chance to check the videos yet, so I can't say whether the math works out. To be honest, I probably won't be able to say whether the math works out anyway, I defer to the resident physicists such as phage for that one.

reply to post by EnochWasRight
I've watched the video and I realise what does not make sense.

He keeps saying stretching. The universe is expanding not stretching. The distance between the galaxies may be increasing but that does not mean space and time is 'stretching'. He does not explain why time is 'stretching'

Relativity is not too hard to describe. It's a relationship in opposites, but dimensionally across all opposites. This is the part that messes with us.

The link below does not mention opposites just the relativity between objects.

Einstiens Special Relativity for Dummies So is he talking about special theory of relativity (STR) or General Theory of Relativity (GTR)?

The link above would be STR as the light is a fixed point and the light travels at a constant speed in a straight line away from it. Would that be correct? I watched the first video a few times and nowhere in it does he mention gravity. Does gravity not affect time?

Not a Very Big Bang About Genesis An article by Mark Perakh

The article above is worth reading and is also from someone with authority like Gerald Schroder. Please read.

Why did Gerald place his laser emitter along the path not at the start? If you follow his stretching time it must mean following his logic that time is stopped at the start but that cannot be as that is not what we see.

It’s called the expanding universe because it is all expanding and that expansion would happen at the emitter as well and be relative to everywhere else in the universe which is another thing he does not mention

The laser beam is an example of STR. The emitter is at a fixed point. The laser beam travels away from it at a constant speed. So how does the expansion of the universe stretch that beam?

Why does he claim the space between the burst will be stretched but not the beam itself? What happened to gravity? Have you posted all the parts of this video as a lot of explanations seem to be missing, most importantly an explanation of why time is being stretchted

Originally posted by Dispo
reply to post by colin42

 

As gravity increases, time slows - as measured by an atomic clock.

Basically, a caesium atom would decay more quickly on the moon than it would on earth.

Because gravity is bigger on earth, it slows everything down.

Similarly, a caesium atom on jupiter would take longer to decay than it would on earth, because jupiter produces more gravity.

The theory that 1 day = billions of years at the time of the big bang is not unreasonable, but I haven't had chance to check the videos yet, so I can't say whether the math works out. To be honest, I probably won't be able to say whether the math works out anyway, I defer to the resident physicists such as phage for that one.

The problem I have gravity is not mentioned just the 'stretching' of time.

Surely if time is being 'stretched' the further out you go then time slows not speeds up the further out you are but that is not what he is saying and all this with no mention of gravity

reply to post by redtic


It's religion. It's what they do.
This is absurd. Creationist juggling to twist, fit and shoe horn science into their theory, attempting to make it more believable.

Why would space stretching equate to all matter stretching as well? This is the big question I have regarding the whole thing. Gravity is supposedly created by the warping and stretching of space-time around matter. Space stretches around the matter, the matter doesn't stretch. Time does NOT slow down when you are near an object of high mass/gravity. YOUR PERSPECTIVE of it does. The earth is actually moving some 50,000+ mph through space around the sun, but it certainly doesn't feel like it. The problem with the whole idea is that who could possibly be around to witness the expansion of the universe, from outside of it? That is a problem you need to resolve before assuming anything about 6 days and biblical creationism. Show evidence that anything ever could exist outside of the universe, FIRST. Then we'll talk about his perspective lol.

reply to post by Barcs
Yes it does appear that Gerald Schroder is stretching a lot of things doesnt it.

The Bible also tells us that the world was created in six days, and fixes the epoch of this creation at about 4000 years before the Christian era. Previously to that period the earth did not exist. At that period it was produced out of nothing. Such is the formal declaration of the sacred text, yet science, positive, inexorable steps in with proof to the contrary. The history of the formation of the globe is written in indestructible characters in the worlds of fossils, proving beyond the possibility of denial that the six days of the creation are successive periods, each of which may have been of millions of ages.

This is not a mere matter of statement or of opinion. It is a fact as incontestably certain as is the motion of the earth, and one that theology itself can no longer refuse to admit, although this admission furnishes another example of the errors into which we are led by attributing literal truth to language which is often of a figurative nature. Are we therefore to conclude that the Bible is a mere tissue of errors? No; but we must admit that men have erred in their method of interpreting it.
-Kardec

Well most thinking people that understand science and scripture also understand the entire Universe was NOT created in 6 literal 24 human days. It really is simple, light from stars billions of light years from earth just arriving at our planet now in 2013 were not created just over 6000 years ago. There are many other things like dinosaur bones hundreds of thousands of years old. Young earth creationism is bunk, those that still teach it are devoid of reason and understanding of basic science.

However well I agree in principle of what is presented that the days represented are billions of years, there is one flaw.
Genesis 1:1 is not embedded in the creative days, it is separate and takes place before the creative days start.
So whereas it may be that each creative day gets shorter, the first day time frame is undoubtedly wrong and each subsequent time frame for each day is much too long, as the whole formula is messed up. And we don't need to know anyways, but the total age of the Universe as stated by science is most likely not far from the reality.
The long time lines needed for the universe to expand as shown by scientific cosmology need not be disputed by Christians that believe in creation, as this is much different than evolution, and two completely different branches of science.