modi thorsson

Simple: to an observer or a physical process the lapse of time would have the same speed as when you put the same observer or process in current timeframe; ie. for the same observer 1 second then would be 1 second now. Carbon dating and other dating measurements suggest a far longer period than 6000 years have lapsed, therefore his statements are false.

 

His fallacity: reference frames.

He replied with this:

But we are not in the same time frame! So that doesn't help you. I'm not postulating a 6,000 yr. old earth. I'm saying that the poetic language of the Bible (Genesis). Is more adequate for describing the past, then current scientific understanding. Also the dating systems you enjoy standing on. Are doubtful to hold true in the long run. As decay rates are being shown, not to be constant under a non-uniformitarian system. Which is the kind of system being revealed.

I also brought up, how his idea of the early universe with no matter was incorrect. The expansion he was talking about was the Inflationary epoch, but matter existed within the Planck epoch. He replied with this:

Modern cosmology doesn't work with the known evidence. So what are you saying? Einstein said that a non-quantifiable "ether", was a necessity, for light, gravity and all space to exist. The rest of your unproven (science fiction) hypothesis might make you feel good. Other wise it is quite useless.

Which is pretty typical with creationists. When talking about evolution you use the latest genetic evidence, they then talk about darwin.

Ugh.

I am new here. I'm a computer programmer by trade.

Most of my hobbies revolve around history but I have keen interest in all aspects of science. I'm hoping I can expand my understanding of the formation of the universe, especially the early periods.

Hi, first post here.

I am not sure if this is the right place to post this, however considering what im about to post is baseless and completely not within mainstream physics I figure it should be the right sub-forum.

I have been having a back and forth with a creationist now for 2 days with him making some wild claims that he can prove the universe is 6000 years old using relativity, inflation period of the universe and the 'ether model'. I'm not having this back and forth with him to try and 'make him see the errors of his ways' since that is usually impossible, however I do want to leave something behind in case anyone comes across his ramblings and doesn't accept them on face value. Physics is not my strong suit by far (that is history and evolution) but nothing what this guy is saying makes sense from what I do know.

Here are his various thoughts on the subject.

Your not as informed as you think! Latest scientific understanding suggest. A much faster moving solar system closer to the beginning of the Big Bang. Would have been covering time at a much faster rate compared to today. 1 day back then could be millions or even billions of yrs. today! So don't get all haughty about your "education". He? who laughs last, laughs best!

 

This is common sense science. Which anyone with his head screwed on strait would acknowledge. Peer reviewed? article's are challenged and upset everyday. So they aren't the final say about any thing. "all the current evidence".

 

Theory of Relativity tells us. Time passes slower on faster moving objects relative to slower ones. The Milky Way was moving with the expansion of space much faster? at the beginning then now. If the assumption that expansion rate is slowing down holds true. Some Astrophysics say expansion could have been faster then light! So a day back then. From our present speed, would appear millions or billions of years long, now! But back then only 1 day.

 

The initial expansion (slowing down explosion) probably involved NO matter. Just an unknown, called "ether" space. An unknown quality that is elastic/no constants and can be expanded. It has the resources to generate matter. etc. Of course most modern materialist scientist fear anything that doesn't originate with matter. So they're stuck? in the goo of dualism.

 

I know he is wrong about this, even with my limited understanding - nothing he is saying matches up with the current model for the universe. The Ether model is old and no longer used, he thinks the inflation period lasted long enough for the milky way to form and be part of it (impossible I know), and that some how a 'universe expanding several times faster than light' makes the universe 6000 years old. However rather than trying to reason with this guy with my limited knowledge I was wondering if someone here could lend me a hand.