Creation in 6 Days or 15 Billion Years?

[southsider2k5]

 

I had never heard this theory before? Does anyone know more about it, or the arguments against it?

[HuskyCaucasian]

that's fascinating. I need time to process it a bit.

[HuskyCaucasian]

[CrimsonWeltall]

 

I had never heard this theory before? Does anyone know more about it, or the arguments against it?

 

Wow, that's sad for the history channel. This guy takes the age of the universe (13.5-14 By) and rounds it up to 15 billion, then pulls the exact number of 1 trillion out of thin air for his "time dilation" to come up with .015, which equals 5.5 days...which rounds up to 6 days.

 

Ok then.

 

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

that time dilation thing was new to me.

[Balta1701]

that time dilation thing was new to me.

Comes out of standard relativity. It's actually been tested on earth a number of times (put an atomic clock on a plane, fly the plane for a year, check it against a clock that stayed at the surface and the 2 clocks will be offset by an amount that you can calculate).

 

 

[Balta1701]

Wow, that's sad for the history channel. This guy takes the age of the universe (13.5-14 By) and rounds it up to 15 billion, then pulls the exact number of 1 trillion out of thin air for his "time dilation" to come up with .015, which equals 5.5 days...which rounds up to 6 days.

 

Ok then.

When you go through the details of the math, it's actually fairly surprising how exactly he needs to choose the velocity at which the Earth is moving away from the center of the universe to get this to work. The exact equation for the time dilation factor, the lorenz function, expresses time dilation as a function of 1/(1-V^2/C^2) where V is the velocity and C is the speed of light. If I did this right, for it to be exactly 1 trillion like he uses, you have to differ from the speed of light by 1 part in about 10^24. You'd basically be at 99.999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, and if you're off by any of those 9's, the calculation doesn't work. This is probably why there's no obvious responses to this online; when you do the math, it requires an incredibly precise prediction of the velocity for the calculation to give the result he wants.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Comes out of standard relativity. It's actually been tested on earth a number of times (put an atomic clock on a plane, fly the plane for a year, check it against a clock that stayed at the surface and the 2 clocks will be offset by an amount that you can calculate).

I should clarify what I meant to say... vs what I actually said. lol

I meant to say I've never read or seen a specific time dilation number. I know that clocks will offset when flown at different speeds.

[Balta1701]

I should clarify what I meant to say... vs what I actually said. lol

I meant to say I've never read or seen a specific time dilation number. I know that clocks will offset when flown at different speeds.

The reason you've never seen a specific number attached to time dilation is that the specific factor depends on the velocity (and on gravity but that's getting into General relativity and I ain't going there). He's implicitly defining a velocity when he gives you that factor.

[HuskyCaucasian]

The reason you've never seen a specific number attached to time dilation is that the specific factor depends on the velocity (and on gravity but that's getting into General relativity and I ain't going there). He's implicitly defining a velocity when he gives you that factor.

aahh ok. Is it a plausible velocity?

[Balta1701]

aahh ok. Is it a plausible velocity?

See post 7.

[HuskyCaucasian]

When you go through the details of the math, it's actually fairly surprising how exactly he needs to choose the velocity at which the Earth is moving away from the center of the universe to get this to work. The exact equation for the time dilation factor, the lorenz function, expresses time dilation as a function of 1/(1-V^2/C^2) where V is the velocity and C is the speed of light. If I did this right, for it to be exactly 1 trillion like he uses, you have to differ from the speed of light by 1 part in about 10^24. You'd basically be at 99.999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light, and if you're off by any of those 9's, the calculation doesn't work. This is probably why there's no obvious responses to this online; when you do the math, it requires an incredibly precise prediction of the velocity for the calculation to give the result he wants.

VERY interesting... but now my brain hurts. lol

[Balta1701]

VERY interesting... but now my brain hurts. lol

Hell, relativity makes my brain hurt too. And this is the easy part of it.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Hell, relativity makes my brain hurt too. And this is the easy part of it.

I absolutely love physics and quantum theory. At times I wonder if I should have gone that route as a career, but it just bends my mind too much. I'll be reading a book and it makes total sense, but the moment I put it away it stops making sense.

[CanOfCorn]

I absolutely love physics and quantum theory. At times I wonder if I should have gone that route as a career, but it just bends my mind too much. I'll be reading a book and it makes total sense, but the moment I put it away it stops making sense.

 

Not to mention that you have a jalapeno on a stick as your avatar. Quantum theorists just don't do that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

/green

Edited December 30, 2009 by CanOfCorn

[chw42]

So the guy proclaims he reinvents relativity and rounds some numbers and then makes some up to make it .015 years or 6 days.

 

Ok.

 

 

[Texsox]

S

cience without religion i

s

lame, religion without

s

cience i

s

blind.

 

Albert Ein

s

tein

,

"

S

cience, Philo

s

ophy and Religion: a

S

ympo

s

ium", 1941

U

S

(German-born) phy

s

ici

s

t (1879 - 1955)