RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
December 9, 2013 at 10:03 am
(December 6, 2013 at 10:19 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:But if the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then the one way speed of light stops being a convention. The objection to ESC that Lisle raised in regard to a young earth was that a galaxy 13 billion light years away would have a 2.6 million year variation in age depending on the time of year. There isn't just a problem for creation week, according to YEC, we should still see some galaxies popping in and out of existence every 6 months when we stipulate ESC. Either the light has reached us or it hasn't and it is ludicrous to say that whether or not we can detect light from a distant galaxy is dependant on what you stipulate the one way speed of light to be. To my knowledge, disappearing/reappearing galaxies have yet to be reported, so either isotropy is non-conventional and ASC is empirically correct or the earth is much older than 10,000 years.(December 5, 2013 at 11:22 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: Well Lisle's objection to ESC seemed to be based on the effects on simultaneity of different inertial reference frames. He specifically noted in regard to ASC that the position of the earth at the moment of creation would not have that different to its position 6 months later.
Accurate statement.
Quote: It may be, but this makes it sound as if it is due to acceleration…
I guess that makes sense, but the amount of time dilation experienced is still dependant on the duration of the difference in relative velocity and acceleration alone doesn't account for that. Likewise, in ASC the amount of time dilation experienced would be dependant on the duration of the difference in position.
(December 7, 2013 at 10:09 am)Optimistic Mysanthrope Wrote: So clock 2 maybe travelling for twice the amount of time, but it is subject to a quarter of the contraction. Under ASC, they have travelled the same distance and should be subject to the same RTF. This should be demonstrable.
I was thinking about this again and it reminded me of the formula for kinetic energy: Ek=1/2mv^2
So if time is relative to position rather than velocity, this means that velocity is also subject to Lorentz Contraction and should therefore require less energy than predicted by ESC.
Quote:Well there is no such thing as absolute simultaneity so scripture has to be using a convention in order to describe the timing of creation week. I will give you another example, there are parts of the Bible that describe the Sun rising and setting. There is no such thing as absolute motion, but scripture is speaking from the perspective of the Earth. It could have chosen to describe such motion from the reference frame of the Sun or the Milky Way galaxy but that would have caused utter confusion to the readers. Under this system scripture is not wrong by saying the Universe was created in six days because as far as we know there is no absolute standard to measure the timing of such events by without stipulating a convention.
I don't think it would have created utter confusion, how is it confusing to know that the earth orbits the sun or that the universe was in existence for at least 13.7 billion years before humanity? Considering some of the things that are written in the old testament, I doubt it would have raised an eyebrow.
I mean I don't find it confusing at all, I just find it somewhat odd that it took so long for us to turn up if we're so damn special. On the other hand, it would lend great credence to the veracity of biblical claims if such information was written down before humanity had even invented the telescope!
I also don't think it unlikely that the book of genesis assumes instantaneous light. On the contrary, I would be rather surprised if it didn't as that would add credence to claims of its veracity – light was only shown to have a finite speed in the 17th Century (IIRC). Even though the concept of a finite speed of light can be traced back through Alhazen to Empedocles, for the bible to assume instantaneous light is to be expected and not at all indicative of an awareness of SR conventions in biblical times.
How does it make sense to describe the passage of light from the perspective of something that has yet to be created? Doesn't it make more sense to describe events from the perspective of the creator? After all, humans were the last thing to be created on the last day of creation, so it would make no difference to them if the previous “days” were literal, relative or figurative.
If Lisle assumes that the timing of creation “week” is relative to the perspective of humanity, why not also assume that descriptions of the Noachian deluge were written from the local perspective and that it was the known world which flooded rather than an actual global flood?