The Universe can be 6 days old
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-01-2016, 08:32 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 07:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  The surface of your bubble is not the bubble. The interior is not expanding at the speed of light.

You understanding of expansion is incorrect and you have been proven wrong.
The bubble isn't creating new matter. It is finite. It is only stretching.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that matter can be created instead of stretched)

The energy of the bubble has never increased or decreased in the story. It hasn't lost anything or gained anything.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that the universe can lose energy)

As it expands it thins out because it is losing parts & stretching at the same time.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that the universe does not thin out the older it gets)

The center of the bubble is empty. As in nothing exists. Not even time.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that time passes in a vacuum of absolute nothing)

The edge of the bubble is stretching away from the broken off parts & its own skin at exactly the speed of light in a vacuum
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that an expanding perfectly spherical bubble can stretch away from itself at different speeds if it exists in a vacuum)
In other words all frames of reference at any point in that expanding bubble skin will be equal to any other point on the skin.

Tell us exactly what it means to say "matter is stretched" ?
You know this by looking at stretch marks ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 08:33 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 08:36 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
At work.
I must admit, I'm still waiting for AgShane to post some science. Not just regurgitate other people's links about science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 09:00 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 07:29 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 07:16 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Not the observable universe. We observe using light and light takes time to travel. If the universe was only a second old then the moon would have just blinked on and the sun would still be eight minutes from being visible. The nearest stars wouldn't start to shine for several years.

Go out tonight and look up at that fuzzy patch in the constellation of Andromeda. That's the Andromeda galaxy and it's 2.5 million lightyears distant. That tells you that the universe is 2.5 million years old at a minimum and you can do that with your naked eye.

The most distant galaxies that we've ever observed are over 13 billion lightyears distant. Thus, the universe must be a minimum of 13 billion years old.
Agreed the age of the universe can be over 13 billion years old based on your frame of reference.
It does not disprove the story nor the claim.
The universe can be created in 6 days.
The bubble expands at the speed of light. At that speed time does not pass (this is proven by Einstein's theory of relativity & is supported by scientists the world over)
The bubble only experienced 6 days in total each time it had stopped expanding (based on its frame of reference(
At the end of the 6th day the universe was only 6 days old based on its frame of reference.

You haven't disproven the story, but at least you gave the best answer so far.
Thanks man

I'll keep this really simple.

Time dilation gains you nothing.

It is a needless complexity that creates a whole list of problems that I detailed in an earlier post that you appear to have missed amongst all the others. Don't worry about it because here's your chief flaw:

The universe appears 13.7 billion years old. That's based on a bunch of independant measurements including the distance to the furthest observable galxies (>13 Gly) and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.

The only way to produce a universe that looks 13.7 billion years old is to age it 13.7 billion years.

Now let's add time diltion to the mix. Just suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that there's some mechanism by which we can massively accelerate and deccellerate the entire universe without it going anywhere, imploding, exploding, disintegrating or doing any of the other horrible things that inevitably happen when you tamper with fundamental constants like this.

Assume a time dilation factor of 1000. What you get is a universe that appears 13.7 million years old, which confuses the hell out of the geologists.

You've messed up the sense of your dilation. Look at the famous twins "paradox". The twin that remains stationary, on Earth, ages normally. The one that is travelling near the speed of light returns looking like he's barely aged a day.

Time dilation can make time run slower, make a subject in another reference frame look younger. It cannot make it run faster or make the subject in the other reference frame look older. To do so you would need to achieve negative speed. Slower than stationary. A lot slower!

For time dilation to get you anything you need us to be the moving twin. You need to yoink all of humanity off of Earth and zip us about space (Damned if I know where. This isn't my fairytale.) at very nearly the speed of light and then plunk us all back down again. You have todo this because the Earth itself appears 4.5 billion years old, so we have to be time-dilated for that bit too.

That gives you 13.7 billion years for the universe to age and 4.5 billion for the Earth to form and go about its business. Meanwhile time is hardly passing at all for us at near-light speed and we pop back 6 days later by our watches.

You moved the wrong piece of the puzzle and gave the time dilation to the wrong component and in doing so destroyed the universe (but that's another matter). You needed to move humanity at ridiculous speeds.

Unfortunately for you, there's simply no explanation for applying a massive time dilation so very selectively to a bunch of jumped-up apes. That is what we in the scientific world call magic.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
22-01-2016, 09:05 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
PS: Even whipping humans around the galaxy at NAFAL (nearly as fast as light) doesn't do it. Humans look old too. We appear to have evolved from much earlier forms. We share the overwhelming bulk of our DNA with chimps, including our endogenous retroviri. That gets very, very hard to explain away if you're a creationist. No amount of time dilation will fix that.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 09:10 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 07:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  The surface of your bubble is not the bubble. The interior is not expanding at the speed of light.

You understanding of expansion is incorrect and you have been proven wrong.
The bubble isn't creating new matter. It is finite. It is only stretching.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that matter can be created instead of stretched)

How is matter stretched? What does that even mean? It is certainly not scientific.
You fail again.

Quote:The energy of the bubble has never increased or decreased in the story. It hasn't lost anything or gained anything.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that the universe can lose energy)

Non-responsive. I said nothing about that.

Quote:As it expands it thins out because it is losing parts & stretching at the same time.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that the universe does not thin out the older it gets)

Nothing is lost. It is certainly not scientific since matter/energy cannot be destoyed.
You fail again.

Quote:The center of the bubble is empty. As in nothing exists. Not even time.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that time passes in a vacuum of absolute nothing)

Except it is not empty; that is not the way the universe expands.
You fail again.

Quote:The edge of the bubble is stretching away from the broken off parts & its own skin at exactly the speed of light in a vacuum

Meaningless, contradictory, non-scientific drivel.
You fail again.

Quote:(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that an expanding perfectly spherical bubble can stretch away from itself at different speeds if it exists in a vacuum)
In other words all frames of reference at any point in that expanding bubble skin will be equal to any other point on the skin.

The 'skin' is not the bubble. Define 'skin'.
You fail again.

Quote:What better shape than the inside of a bubble to prove chaos theory.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence any other object other than a bubble can create the randomness of chaos better than the inside of a sphere)

Show the proof. You are failing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
22-01-2016, 09:42 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The center of the bubble is empty. As in nothing exists. Not even time.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that time passes in a vacuum of absolute nothing)

Meaningless, contradictory, non-scientific drivel.
You fail again.

Come on Chas. Now you wrecked the bedtime story.

Oh, BTW. The center of the bubble is "empty" ? Not even time ?
I actually feel sorry for Shaney. The "center of the bubble" is space.
In this universe spacetime in not divisible.
Woops.

Quote:What better shape than the inside of a bubble to prove chaos theory.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence any other object other than a bubble can create the randomness of chaos better than the inside of a sphere)

There is nothing in Chaos Theory that says it operates any more or less in a sphere.
There is no evidence anywhere of that, or even a proposal for that. Read that thing he wrote again. It appears he completely misunderstands what Chaos Theory is all about. Nothing "creates" randomness in Chaos Theory. ORDER arises spontaneously in Chaos Theory in an ALREADY random universe. He has it backwards.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-01-2016, 09:47 PM (This post was last modified: 22-01-2016 10:03 PM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:00 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 07:29 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Agreed the age of the universe can be over 13 billion years old based on your frame of reference.
It does not disprove the story nor the claim.
The universe can be created in 6 days.
The bubble expands at the speed of light. At that speed time does not pass (this is proven by Einstein's theory of relativity & is supported by scientists the world over)
The bubble only experienced 6 days in total each time it had stopped expanding (based on its frame of reference(
At the end of the 6th day the universe was only 6 days old based on its frame of reference.

You haven't disproven the story, but at least you gave the best answer so far.
Thanks man

I'll keep this really simple.

Time dilation gains you nothing.

It is a needless complexity that creates a whole list of problems that I detailed in an earlier post that you appear to have missed amongst all the others. Don't worry about it because here's your chief flaw:

The universe appears 13.7 billion years old. That's based on a bunch of independant measurements including the distance to the furthest observable galxies (>13 Gly) and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.

The only way to produce a universe that looks 13.7 billion years old is to age it 13.7 billion years.

Now let's add time diltion to the mix. Just suspend disbelief for a moment and assume that there's some mechanism by which we can massively accelerate and deccellerate the entire universe without it going anywhere, imploding, exploding, disintegrating or doing any of the other horrible things that inevitably happen when you tamper with fundamental constants like this.

Assume a time dilation factor of 1000. What you get is a universe that appears 13.7 million years old, which confuses the hell out of the geologists.

You've messed up the sense of your dilation. Look at the famous twins "paradox". The twin that remains stationary, on Earth, ages normally. The one that is travelling near the speed of light returns looking like he's barely aged a day.

Time dilation can make time run slower, make a subject in another reference frame look younger. It cannot make it run faster or make the subject in the other reference frame look older. To do so you would need to achieve negative speed. Slower than stationary. A lot slower!

For time dilation to get you anything you need us to be the moving twin. You need to yoink all of humanity off of Earth and zip us about space (Damned if I know where. This isn't my fairytale.) at very nearly the speed of light and then plunk us all back down again. You have todo this because the Earth itself appears 4.5 billion years old, so we have to be time-dilated for that bit too.

That gives you 13.7 billion years for the universe to age and 4.5 billion for the Earth to form and go about its business. Meanwhile time is hardly passing at all for us at near-light speed and we pop back 6 days later by our watches.

You moved the wrong piece of the puzzle and gave the time dilation to the wrong component and in doing so destroyed the universe (but that's another matter). You needed to move humanity at ridiculous speeds.

Unfortunately for you, there's simply no explanation for applying a massive time dilation so very selectively to a bunch of jumped-up apes. That is what we in the scientific world call magic.
Everything you claim about time dilation I agree to.
The question does not ask if humans can create the earth in 6 days.
It is based on; if an expanding bubble can create the world in 6 days.
There exists no other frame of reference outside or inside the bubble before the universe was created.
At no point in the story does the bubble create something outside the skin while it is expanding. It never expands into anything. Therefore there is no frame of reference that can be slower than the bubble.
The bubble has the slowest frame of reference and is also the starting frame of reference for creation.
At no point in the entire expansion would there have ever been a creation that could have existed before the skin of the bubble. Therefore at no point could there have been a frame of reference whose time could move slower than the bubble skin.
The bubble skin will always be the outside observer no matter what frame of reference you claim.
There is no better frame of reference to take time from than the bubble skin.
We don't need negative speed to accomplish this.
The speed of light works just fine & is scientifically proven.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 09:53 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  Meaningless, contradictory, non-scientific drivel.
You fail again.

Come on Chas. Now you wrecked the bedtime story.

Oh, BTW. The center of the bubble is "empty" ? Not even time ?
I actually feel sorry for Shaney. The "center of the bubble" is space.
In this universe spacetime in not divisible.
Woops.

Quote:What better shape than the inside of a bubble to prove chaos theory.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence any other object other than a bubble can create the randomness of chaos better than the inside of a sphere)

There is nothing in Chaos Theory that says it operates any more or less in a sphere.
There is no evidence anywhere of that, or even a proposal for that. Read that thing he wrote again. It appears he completely misunderstands what Chaos Theory is all about. Nothing "creates" randomness in Chaos Theory. ORDER arises spontaneously in Chaos Theory in an ALREADY random universe. He has it backwards.
Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science. This post you are responding to isn't even put forward as a defense of the topic. It was just food for thought.
As I said before though.
Just provide me 1 piece of evidence to prove the world couldn't be created in 6 days and you won.
If your not going to do it then I call it a draw between us.
Don't lock the thread as I am still debating others.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 09:58 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 08:22 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The bubble isn't creating new matter. It is finite. It is only stretching.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that matter can be created instead of stretched)

How is matter stretched? What does that even mean? It is certainly not scientific.
You fail again.

Quote:The energy of the bubble has never increased or decreased in the story. It hasn't lost anything or gained anything.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that the universe can lose energy)

Non-responsive. I said nothing about that.

Quote:As it expands it thins out because it is losing parts & stretching at the same time.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that the universe does not thin out the older it gets)

Nothing is lost. It is certainly not scientific since matter/energy cannot be destoyed.
You fail again.

Quote:The center of the bubble is empty. As in nothing exists. Not even time.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that time passes in a vacuum of absolute nothing)

Except it is not empty; that is not the way the universe expands.
You fail again.

Quote:The edge of the bubble is stretching away from the broken off parts & its own skin at exactly the speed of light in a vacuum

Meaningless, contradictory, non-scientific drivel.
You fail again.

Quote:(I will help you, see if you can find evidence that an expanding perfectly spherical bubble can stretch away from itself at different speeds if it exists in a vacuum)
In other words all frames of reference at any point in that expanding bubble skin will be equal to any other point on the skin.

The 'skin' is not the bubble. Define 'skin'.
You fail again.

Quote:What better shape than the inside of a bubble to prove chaos theory.
(I will help you, see if you can find evidence any other object other than a bubble can create the randomness of chaos better than the inside of a sphere)

Show the proof. You are failing.
Chas. You never see the sarcasm until its too late.
The parts where I wrote (I will help you), are actually arguments that will help prove me wrong.
That's why I keep saying I will help you and posting stuff that is the opposite of what I'm saying.

You actually condemn the arguments that would have helped you prove me wrong.

Really shocked you didn't even see that though. Still thanks for the assist any way.

Also when are you all going to start posting evidence to get me to shut up though?

I'm kinda getting bored of pasting this:
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-01-2016, 10:01 PM
RE: The Universe can be 6 days old
(22-01-2016 09:53 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-01-2016 09:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Come on Chas. Now you wrecked the bedtime story.

Oh, BTW. The center of the bubble is "empty" ? Not even time ?
I actually feel sorry for Shaney. The "center of the bubble" is space.
In this universe spacetime in not divisible.
Woops.


There is nothing in Chaos Theory that says it operates any more or less in a sphere.
There is no evidence anywhere of that, or even a proposal for that. Read that thing he wrote again. It appears he completely misunderstands what Chaos Theory is all about. Nothing "creates" randomness in Chaos Theory. ORDER arises spontaneously in Chaos Theory in an ALREADY random universe. He has it backwards.
Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science. This post you are responding to isn't even put forward as a defense of the topic. It was just food for thought.
As I said before though.
Just provide me 1 piece of evidence to prove the world couldn't be created in 6 days and you won.
If your not going to do it then I call it a draw between us.
Don't lock the thread as I am still debating others.

It's "you're" not "your".

You : "I am here today to prove that this is theoretically possible to do using only science"
You : "Chances are nothing I wrote there is proven by science."

You admitted you failed.
I don't have to do anything.
You said you were going to do something, and didn't.
That's now a draw.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: