Age of the Universe

Originally posted by twhitehead
But speed is a function of space and time. So the distance covered by light, over a given time remains constant.

[b]The point is that time is not a constant, and in the"early" universe the proximity of matter and also the speed at which that matter moves relative to other mass in the universe, will have had enormous effect on time. Therefore it is my are talking here about galaxies, that would probably have taken millions of years to form.

[/b]I believe that scientific fact and creation are fully compatible; it is the interpretation of the facts that is the differentiator. For example:

Fact: farthest galaxy x is y light years away
Interpretation: the universe must be at least y years old

My challenge is that whilst that assumption may seem rational, we do not know enough about the universe expansion process to be fully sure that that interpretation is accurate. However I would of course concede that based on our current "experience" of time, that galaxy y could not have moved from point of origin to where it is now in "current" 6,000 years.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if the problems with Einsteins theory is worked out and proved
correct, how does it prove gravity is not a force and how does it prove
that it is empty space that is warping, bending, stretching, contracting,
etc.?

Just because you have an opinion about space does not change 100 years of research. Space bends, time bends, there have been countless experiments that show those two things. Newton could not have figured out what was wrong with the orbit of Mercury, it was off by a little bit. Einstein did. Because Mercury was close to the sun where the warpage of space is greater and it effects the orbit of mercury in ways that Newton could not have figured out in a thousand years. It took the genius of Einstein to show that space is in fact malleable.

This clearly shows your mind set is back 300 years. I think you can't admit even to yourself when you are clearly so behind the times in physics.

You think it is mere coincindence that the spacetime equations worked out by Einstein just HAPPENS to be the absolutely correct math to deal with satellites whizzing by at 18,000 mph which changes the time frame in the satellite and where time flows just a nudge faster where it is a couple hundred or more miles above the earth and the bending of space is a smidgen less than on the surface of the Earth. Just how is it that the Einstein equations all the GPS system to work PERFECTLY? We can figure out where stuff is on the Earth based on GPS studies to within a half inch with advanced scientific instruments and within a few feet with just the normal run of the mill GPS nav aids you can buy at Target. Like I said before, without Einsteins equations, GPS navigation would be off by miles and totally worthless, you can use your EYES and compass to navigate better than that.

Just co-incidence? Think again. You are the modern day equivalent of the people 600 years ago who thought the Earth was flat. Exactly the same.

Originally posted by divegeester
My challenge is that whilst that assumption may seem rational, we do not know enough about the universe expansion process to be fully sure that that interpretation is accurate.

Well all science could in theory be wrong, and your computer only works by sheer luck. But I doubt it.
We do know enough about the physics of the universe to be very very sure that the galaxy we live in is in the region of 100,000 light years in diameter, and our neigbour, the Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away.
This is clearly not compatible with young earth creation. Not in the slightest.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe expanding.

There really are only two possibilities. Either the universe is very old, or someone created it in such a way as to make it appear very old, and went to extreme lengths (pun intended) to make it look that way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even if the problems with Einsteins theory is worked out and proved
correct, how does it prove gravity is not a force and how does it prove
that it is empty space that is warping, bending, stretching, contracting,
etc.?

Because Einsteins theory states that gravity is not a force and that space is warping.
Your question is makes no sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Because Einsteins theory states that gravity is not a force and that space is warping.
Your question is makes no sense.

First give me a reference that the theory states that gravity is not a force
and that space is warping. Then, we can go from there. That would seem
to be in opposition to magnetic force also unless you can show me otherwise.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well all science could in theory be wrong, and your computer only works by sheer luck. But I doubt it.
We do know enough about the physics of the universe to be very very sure that the galaxy we live in is in the region of 100,000 light years in diameter, and our neigbour, the Andromeda Galaxy is about 2.5 million light years away.
This is clearly not c ...[text shortened]... to make it appear very old, and went to extreme lengths (pun intended) to make it look that way.

Besides the Horizon problem and the "strong magnetic field of Jupiter"
problem here is another problem with the evolutionary model of the
universe:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i3/uranus_energy.asp

Originally posted by RJHinds
I made the following statement to sunhouse on another thread:

I already know that empty space does not stretch, compress, or bend.
There has to be something in the space like water or the atmosphere
to cause what you think is warping or bending of space. Although
Einstein's equations may be used with GPS satellites, it has nothing to
do with stret ...[text shortened]... due to the force of gravity
and not the bending of space.

I believe I did support my claim.

Newtonian physics while solid Einstein filled in the blanks and expounded on why bodies behave the way they do. To say Einstein was not an expert on gravity is kinda absurd too.




Manny

Originally posted by pyxelated
This page has some pretty interesting things to say about this question:

http://creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ13.html

I'm not necessarily a young-earther, or even a creationist at all, but I'd be interested in hearing what anybody more scientifically competent than I am would have to say in response to this.

Bright, exploding stars are called supernovas. If starlight, seemingly from a supernova, had been created en route to Earth and did not originate at the surface of an exploding star, then what exploded? Only a relatively short beam would have been created near Earth. If the image of an explosion was created on that short beam of light, then the star never existed and the explosion never happened. One finds this hard to accept.
Every hot gas radiates a unique set of precise colors, called its emission spectrum. The gaseous envelope around each star also emits specific colors that identify the chemical composition of the gas. Because all starlight has emission spectra, this strongly suggests that a star’s light originated at the star—not in cold, empty space. Each beam of starlight also carries other information, such as the star’s spin rate, magnetic field, surface temperature, and the chemical composition of the cold gases between the star and Earth. Of course, God could have created this beam of light with all this information in it. However, the real question is not “Could God have done it?” but “Did He?”

I pasted this because this is what leads me to believe in an old Universe

Manny

Originally posted by menace71
Newtonian physics while solid Einstein filled in the blanks and expounded on why bodies behave the way they do. To say Einstein was not an expert on gravity is kinda absurd too.




Manny

Maybe Einstein did become an expert on gravity. I don't know for sure.
But I doubt that he overturned Newtons law of Gravity, which I believe
is still valid today. And I am sure that gravity is referred to as the force
of gravity. So I can't believe Einstein would say that there is no force
of gravity. Or that he would say that gravity is the warping, stretching,
or bending of empty space. So I would like to see a reference that
actually says that or is that just an interpretation of what they think he
said. If he did say that then he is not an expert on gravity for I know
that empty space does not stretch, warp, contract, or bend. It is just
there to be filled and that is it. I suppose then he would also have to
say there is no magnetic force.

Originally posted by menace71
Bright, exploding stars are called supernovas. If starlight, seemingly from a supernova, had been created en route to Earth and did not originate at the surface of an exploding star, then what exploded? Only a relatively short beam would have been created near Earth. If the image of an explosion was created on that short beam of light, then the star never e ...[text shortened]... “Did He?”

I pasted this because this is what leads me to believe in an old Universe

Manny

Some people read the Holy Bible and say it leaves open the possiblity
of an old universe and they believe that because they can't get past the
starlight problem and don't understand how God could have done it so
that we see the starlight as we do today. I believe since God did the
rest of creation very fast that he was consistant and did it all in the
six days of twenty-four hours. I see no problem with Him creating
a universe that looks old to us, since it is clear he must of created man
with the appearance of age, since the Holy Bible does not indicate man
was created as a baby. How He did it we may never know, but I believe
He did it because I believe God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some people read the Holy Bible and say it leaves open the possiblity
of an old universe and they believe that because they can't get past the
starlight problem and don't understand how God could have done it so
that we see the starlight as we do today. I believe since God did the
rest of creation very fast that he was consistant and did it all in the ...[text shortened]... d as a baby. How He did it we may never know, but I believe
He did it because I believe God.

what happened to the "a day is as a thousand years" nonsense that christians like to use to explain why their lord didn't return in a single generation as he promised?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what happened to the "a day is as a thousand years" nonsense that christians like to use to explain why their lord didn't return in a single generation as he promised?

In the Old Testament some of the prophets were given instructions
to count a day in the prophecy as a year. So in a prophecy a day can
stand for something other that 24 hours. The phrase "in his day" does
not mean a literal 24 hours, but during the life of the person. But I
think the creation days are literal 24 hours, because it uses the phrase
"evening and morning". Also when indicating how long he would be
in the grave, Jesus said, "...so shall the Son of Man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth." This is surely 24 hour days.
(Matthew 12:40 NASB) But of the phrase "a day is as a thousand years
with God", it is not clear how that would apply to the creation days. But
I do believe one of the early Church fathers believe Jesus had said
something about returning after two days or on the third day after His
ascension into heaven and he used the 1000 years statement in his
estimate of when Christ would return. This may have been since He
did not return in the literal time period. But if He does not return in
the next 1000 years then perhaps it was misunderstood. I don't believe
that statement was recorded in the Holy Bible, however. Most of us
Christians hope that it is much sooner than that and we are looking
for His return any time now.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe Einstein did become an expert on gravity. I don't know for sure.
But I doubt that he overturned Newtons law of Gravity, which I believe
is still valid today. And I am sure that gravity is referred to as the force
of gravity. So I can't believe Einstein would say that there is no force
of gravity. Or that he would say that gravity is the warping ...[text shortened]... filled and that is it. I suppose then he would also have to
say there is no magnetic force.

Tell me how you 'know' space does not warp or bend?

Before you answer, read this link, it even has a graphic:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html

Originally posted by RJHinds
First give me a reference that the theory states that gravity is not a force
and that space is warping. Then, we can go from there. That would seem
to be in opposition to magnetic force also unless you can show me otherwise.

I already gave you the reference: the Wikipedia page. Read it this time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Tell me how you 'know' space does not warp or bend?

Before you answer, read this link, it even has a graphic:

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html

As you know the earth is like a big magnet with a north and south pole.
It exerts an attractive force so that we can use a compass to tell direction.
These magnetic forces are really electrical forces and are related to
gravitation.

Newton's law of gravitation resembles Coulomb's law of electrical forces,
which is used to calculate the magnitude of electrical force between two
charged bodies. Both are inverse-square laws, in which force is inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies. Coulomb's
Law has the product of two charges in place of the product of the masses,
and the electrostatic constant in place of the gravitational constant.

Every planetary body (including the Earth) is surrounded by its own
gravitational field, which exerts an attractive force on all objects. Assuming
a spherically symmetrical planet, the strength of this field at any given point
is proportional to the planetary body's mass and inversely proportional to
the square of the distance from the center of the body.

The strength of the gravitational field is numerically equal to the acceleration
of objects under its influence, and its value at the Earth's surface, denoted
g, is approximately expressed below as the standard average.

g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2

This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the
Earth's surface increases its velocity by 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for
each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a
velocity of 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s) after one second, 19.6 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after
two seconds, and so on, adding 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s) to each resulting
velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, any and all objects, when
dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time.

If an object with comparable mass to that of the Earth were to fall towards
it, then the corresponding acceleration of the Earth really would be
observable.

According to Newton's 3rd Law, the Earth itself experiences a force equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction to that which it exerts on a falling
object. This means that the Earth also accelerates towards the object until
they collide. Because the mass of the Earth is huge, however, the
acceleration imparted to the Earth by this opposite force is negligible in
comparison to the object's. If the object doesn't bounce after it has collided
with the Earth, each of them then exerts a repulsive contact force on the
other which effectively balances the attractive force of gravity and prevents
further acceleration.

Under an assumption of constant gravity, Newton's law of universal
gravitation simplifies to F = mg, where m is the mass of the body and g is
a constant vector with an average magnitude of 9.81 m/s2. The
acceleration due to gravity is equal to this g. An initially stationary object
which is allowed to fall freely under gravity drops a distance which is
proportional to the square of the elapsed time.

Most of the above information was from the Wikipedia article on gravity.
The following two paragraphs is taken from your reference.

As Einstein developed his general theory of relativity, he had to refine the
accepted notion of the space-time continuum into a more precise
mathematical framework. He also introduced another principle, the principle
of covariance. This principle states that the laws of physics must take the
same form in all coordinate systems.

Applying the principle of covariance meant that the space-time coordinates
in a gravitational field had to work exactly the same way as the space-time
coordinates on a spaceship that was accelerating. If you’re accelerating
through empty space the geometry of space-time would appear to curve.

Notice that it says the geometry of space-time would APPEAR to curve.
Space does not actually curve but the calculations are made as if it
curved like on graph paper in order to make it come out right by the
accounting for fictitious forces due to bodies in motion.

Now again from Wikipedia on Fictitious Force:

A fictitious force arises when a frame of reference is accelerating compared
to a non-accelerating frame. As a frame can accelerate in any arbitrary way,
so can fictitious forces be as arbitrary (but only in direct response to the
acceleration of the frame). However, four fictitious forces are defined for
frames accelerated in commonly occurring ways: one caused by any relative
acceleration of the origin in a straight line (rectilinear acceleration), two
caused by any rotation (centrifugal force and Coriolis force) and a fourth,
called the Euler force, caused by a variable rate of rotation, should that
occur.

So what Einstein was actually doing is devise a way to figure out how to
calculate all the fictitious and inertia type forces that would arise if all
bodies are moving in various directions. It does not mean that space is
actually curving. However, the effect on the smaller object like a light
beam would cause the beam to curve, not the space. But by graphing
it on paper, one could represent the space curving to account for the
effect of the forces. Some people find this easier to understand by
putting it on graph paper rather than using the formulas.