Galaxy Riddle

Originally posted by sonhouse
Age less? That is the opposite of what happens with relativistic velocity, the one going faster ages less, so if I go out in a spaceship at .999c and go out 100 light years and come back, a round trip of 200 light years, I also go 200 years into the Earth's future.

That is not theory btw.

There are many aspects of science that HAS to take that into a ets REALLY stretched out and conversely, as you get away from gravity fields, time speeds up.

Incorrect. The one travelling at a higher velocity through space does travel slower in time but i specifically said going faster through time, not space. And the point was that however i travelled through time i would be aged that much so no matter what point of view you have or how fast or slow you travelled through time, when you came back it would be possible to determine my age.

Basically, the point of veiw of an observer doesnt change what is actually happening to the person or thing being observed. So when someone says time is variable I say no, it is relative. Through the application of physics we can go back in time from our point of view and even if time somehow changed, which is a completely unfounded claim, it would be irrelevant, since if the earth orbited the sun 13 billion times and elsewhere it seemed like only a year went by then we would say 13 billion years passed.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So you are OK with relativity so long as it doesn't apply to the age of the universe?

I am OK with relativity in general. In fact, I have stated in the 'supper accurate clock' thread that the age of the universe cannot be accurately claimed because it is different for different locations in space.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The time observed from some other location may be different because of the theory of relativity. But the universe is not billions of years old, if the Earth clock is always used.

But you are OK with stars and galaxies being billions of years old by their own clocks?

Originally posted by tomtom232
Time is relative, age is not... If you were to go out into space and travel through time faster than me it would not make me age less by the time you returned.

Of course age is relative. Age is nothing more than a measure of the passage of time since the beginning of something.

Originally posted by tomtom232
The one travelling at a higher velocity through space does travel slower in time but i specifically said going faster through time, not space.

Incorrect. One cannot travel faster or slower through time. Ones time is faster and slower. That is what it means to have relative time. There is no universal clock.

Through the application of physics we can go back in time from our point of view and even if time somehow changed, which is a completely unfounded claim, it would be irrelevant, since if the earth orbited the sun 13 billion times and elsewhere it seemed like only a year went by then we would say 13 billion years passed.
What if somewhere else 20 billion years had passed? Time is relative and so is age. Age can only be stated for a given route through spacetime. Two points on the earth just a meter apart vertically have measurably different ages.
Two people born at exactly the same time and in the same room, who go and live their lives at different altitudes, will have different ages.
The centre of the earth is younger than its surface.
These differences are not significant enough to notice, or even affect the error bounds in our quoting of the age of the earth or the universe, but they are very real and have been measured.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But you are OK with stars and galaxies being billions of years old by their own clocks?

That might be possible.

The Instructor

Originally posted by twhitehead
Incorrect. One cannot travel faster or slower through time. Ones time is faster and slower. That is what it means to have relative time. There is no universal clock.

[b]Through the application of physics we can go back in time from our point of view and even if time somehow changed, which is a completely unfounded claim, it would be irrelevant, since i ...[text shortened]... quoting of the age of the earth or the universe, but they are very real and have been measured.

What about if the space is be stretched at various speeds as an object is traveling throught it?

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
What about if the space is be stretched at various speeds as an object is traveling throught it?

The Instructor

I don't think the stretching of space affects time significantly.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't think the stretching of space affects time significantly.

But you don't know.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
But you don't know.

No, I don't. Is it important? If so, how?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I don't. Is it important? If so, how?

If the Earth is in the center or very near the center of the universe, then the denting and stretching of space so the stars are spread out may account for why the light from the stars were visible on Earth almost immediately in the beginning of creation and yet takes so long to get here now or why the stars are so far away and we can see the light without the universe being billions of years old.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
If the Earth is in the center or very near the center of the universe, then the denting and stretching of space so the stars are spread out may account for why the light from the stars were visible on Earth almost immediately in the beginning of creation and yet takes so long to get here now or why the stars are so far away and we can see the light without the universe being billions of years old.

The Instructor

No, it wouldn't account for either of those. I already told you that if you allow for major changes in physics then there is no good reason to think that astronomers have got anything right. Why believe that a star is billions of light years away if you can't trust the speed of light? After all, the speed of light is one of the things used to confirm its distance.
You simply cannot hold onto your young earth creationism without throwing out most of astronomy.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, it wouldn't account for either of those. I already told you that if you allow for major changes in physics then there is no good reason to think that astronomers have got anything right. Why believe that a star is billions of light years away if you can't trust the speed of light? After all, the speed of light is one of the things used to confirm its ...[text shortened]... u simply cannot hold onto your young earth creationism without throwing out most of astronomy.

I think I can still believe in most of astronomy and also believe in a 6 day creation as is recorded in the Holy Bible. Obviously, there are some errors in astronomical theory that will have to be changed. But as you know, science does eventually change when the old theories are proved wrong and new ones come along.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think I can still believe in most of astronomy and also believe in a 6 day creation as is recorded in the Holy Bible. Obviously, there are some errors in astronomical theory that will have to be changed. But as you know, science does eventually change when the old theories are proved wrong and new ones come along.

The Instructor

You can believe anything you like, it doesn't mean you are rational when you do so. Its just stupid to accept most of astronomy as fact when you dispute some of the most fundamental parts of it.
Next you'll be telling us that you accept most of geology except the parts where the earth is over 6000 years old.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You can believe anything you like, it doesn't mean you are rational when you do so. Its just stupid to accept most of astronomy as fact when you dispute some of the most fundamental parts of it.
Next you'll be telling us that you accept most of geology except the parts where the earth is over 6000 years old.

The YEC people just interpret the data in a different way than the Old Earth people.

http://www.icr.org/article/1095/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/creationists_infiltrate_us_geology/

http://www.conservapedia.com/Young_Earth_Creationism

The Instructor