I have someone claiming 6000 year old universe possible with relativity.

[modi thorsson]

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.

Edited July 8, 2011 by modi thorsson

[Fuzzwood]

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.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Fuzzwood

[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.

 

 

[pwagen]

Fuzzwood is aboslutely correct. Did you notice that he changed the topic when he was proven wrong? Going from "we got here in 6000 years" to talking how the Bible is more accurate and peer reviewed material is crap because it changes with time? Discussing things with people who refuse to see is pointless. For your own sake, don't do it.

 

Also, Einstein disagreed with the aether theory. Good fact checking, mr Creationist.

[Fuzzwood]

Ask him to stop changing the subject or stfu because you dont deem him worthy anymore then

[pantheory]

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.

 

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.

If you are trying to explain how reality works by reasoning with him, I wouldn't bother. He is too far down on the education ladder to understand valid explanations by anyone IMO. If you are trying to better understand this material yourself and also to be able to provide enlightenment for such conversations, there are some relatively simple cosmology primers out there as well as on-line material that can be read in maybe just a few days.

 

If you Google "ether" (aether) you will see a number of modern aether models so he may not be wrong in this statement, since considerations of a particulate aether such as the many dark matter proposals, Higg's particles, quantum foam, gravitons, field strings, etc. continue. Otherwise I see no merit at all, according to evidence or logic, in anything else that he believes as indicated above

Edited July 8, 2011 by pantheory

[Ringer]

I usually just ask them not to disprove what you believe, but to prove what they believe as well as give reproduced evidence that could do both of these things.

[J.C.MacSwell]

Tell him he's crazy...6 THOUSAND years! Tell him the Universe was created 5 minutes ago and unfolded from there.

 

Get him to prove you wrong.

[jbor]

As for the ether goes, refer him to the Michelson Morley experiment. You're being bated with rubbish.

 

Creationism: It is possible because it's not impossible. Might be worth asking why he thinks God would chose to leave so much false scientific misinformation about the age of the Universe: Does he believe that God is mischievous and only capable of generating Universes over a short time-scale?

[pantheory]

jbor: As for the ether goes, refer him to the Michelson Morley experiment. You're being bated with rubbish.

You may be unfamiliar with the very numerous modern aether theories; of course this is totally unrelated to a 6,000 year old Earth or creationism, and I agree that most of what is suggested in the above paragraph I also consider to be rubbish, but aether remains a serious theory concerning many scientists as evidenced by the many modern papers concerning its mechanics.

 

This link below shows some of these many modern papers concerning aether. I provided this link because it is a summary but certainly not all inclusive. The most recent paper listed was in 1995 and there are many more recent.

 

http://www.mountainm...au/aetherqr.htm

Edited July 9, 2011 by pantheory

[ajb]

...but aether remains a serious theory concerning many scientists as evidenced by the many modern papers concerning its mechanics.

 

I do not think there are many scientists who are working on models of a luminiferous aether. Such an aether is not required in accepted theory and there is no experimental evidence that it exists. I don't know any modern papers on the subject myself.

 

This link below shows some of these many modern papers concerning aether. I provided this link because it is a summary but certainly not all inclusive. The most recent paper listed was in 1995 and there are many more recent.

 

http://www.mountainm...au/aetherqr.htm

 

A couple of points here I should make. Dirac's paper, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907 suggests that quantum field theory (as it was understood at the time) requires an aether. However, he does not formulate this and so it is hard to really understand what he truly meant. It is not current modern thinking that an aether is required.

 

 

Einstein-Aether Theory is not a theory of the luminiferous aether, rather it is "general relativity plus a unit time-like vector field". Such a vector field gives a preferred direction to space-time much like the luminiferous aether would, but this is where similarity stops. Aether is also used to mean any vector field that breaks local Lorentz invariants, it is in this sort of context you will hear the term today. Just about all modern papers I know use the term aether to mean "something that breaks local Lorentz invariance" rather than some medium for propagation of light. The others talk about a gravitational aether.

 

 

The notion of a gravitational aether comes up from time to time in theories of quantum gravity. This is linked with dark energy and cosmology. This I would consider to be a little on the fringes, but dark energy is a current open problem cosmology. Gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid added to a geometric theory of gravity and should have observable effects that deviate from general relativity.

 

Anyway, this is a red herring and has no real bearing proving a young Earth.

Edited July 9, 2011 by ajb

[ewmon]

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'.

As with other creationists, he sees nothing wrong with cherry-picked, peer-reviewed scientific data to suit his faith. I have yet to hear of a creationist doing his/her own scientific work. Also, people almost always encounter creationists who merely quote all this stuff but haven't done the cherry-picking themselves, making them even further removed from the science. Other creationists publish books/websites with this "research", and the creationists who confront us have merely read the published material.

 

[the creationist] talking how the Bible is more accurate and peer reviewed material is crap

Ironically, the canonization of both testaments of the Bible was done by "peer review" -- the evaluation by other experts in the field of a scientific or scholarly writing or research to judge if the writing merits publication or funding -- and apparently, so were most/all of the translations of the Bible.

[ewmon]

(Double post removed)

Edited July 9, 2011 by ewmon

[pwagen]

Tell him he's crazy...6 THOUSAND years! Tell him the Universe was created 5 minutes ago and unfolded from there.

 

Get him to prove you wrong.

Excellent idea! If I ever lower myself to discuss the topic with a creationist, I'll try this one.

[pantheory]

I do not think there are many scientists who are working on models of a luminiferous aether. Such an aether is not required in accepted theory and there is no experimental evidence that it exists. I don't know any modern papers on the subject myself.

 

A couple of points here I should make. Dirac's paper, Nature, 1951, vol. 168, pp. 906-907 suggests that quantum field theory (as it was understood at the time) requires an aether. However, he does not formulate this and so it is hard to really understand what he truly meant. It is not current modern thinking that an aether is required.

 

Einstein-Aether Theory is not a theory of the luminiferous aether, rather it is "general relativity plus a unit time-like vector field". Such a vector field gives a preferred direction to space-time much like the luminiferous aether would, but this is where similarity stops. Aether is also used to mean any vector field that breaks local Lorentz invariants, it is in this sort of context you will hear the term today. Just about all modern papers I know use the term aether to mean "something that breaks local Lorentz invariance" rather than some medium for propagation of light. The others talk about a gravitational aether.

 

The notion of a gravitational aether comes up from time to time in theories of quantum gravity. This is linked with dark energy and cosmology. This I would consider to be a little on the fringes, but dark energy is a current open problem cosmology. Gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid added to a geometric theory of gravity and should have observable effects that deviate from general relativity.

 

Anyway, this is a red herring and has no real bearing proving a young Earth.

I agree, I haven't seen any mainstream papers concerning a luminiferous aether (explaining EM radiation waves) in the last 30-40 years but the models of yore are still out there as well as numerous alternative (non-mainstream) proposals and papers in alternative cosmology journals and other publications. I also propose such a model. As to gravitation aether, my own model is also one of those -- so aether is mandatory for my own model for these and other reasons.

 

When talking to young-earth people (or religious people in general) I usually try to change the subject after their initial assertions, to one where I can learn something rather than just listening to what I consider to be ill-conceived justifications such as the ones above.

 

I love your postings. No axe to grind, simply edifying all concerning the facts and theories involved, providing information for learning. In my experience these qualities are very rare concerning someone with your extent of education. Thanks, Forrest

Edited July 9, 2011 by pantheory