How old is the Earth?

[Fascinated With God]

Yeah, I once experimented with a ratio-driven ancient Greek scale using software on my computer. The major 3rds in particular sounded very different, kind of peaceful. When I applied that scale to saturated guitar tones, even major chords sounded restful and static, without any beating at all. I've been so accustomed to our equal-tempered scales that it took me a little time to decide whether I liked it or not. Eventually I decided I did.

Music is the language of emotion and notes off the well tempered scale can convey a completely different kind of feeling, much more primal and evocative.



So if you are a practicing physicist I have a question. At what velocity are we traveling through time? I once read a Scientific American article where the author wanted to calculate the radius of curvature in 4D space/time of an object accelerating in a straight line. I was amazed that you could actually measure our velocity though time in spatial units. I remember that it was an enormous number that had something to do with c^2. I found an 8 year old thread on physicsforum.com where the senior poster made a reference to our veolcity as being an invarient 4D vector and he mentioned c^2 was involved, but it wasn't clear.

My interest in this is that what I really want to know is how fast would we be travelling in space if we could become zero momentum tachyons. The laws of momentum are reversed for tachyons, more momentum slows you down to the speed of light while less momentum speeds you up to infinity at zero momentum. At least it appears to be infinite speed to a stationary observer. But from the travellers point of view he will be moving through space at a finite speed. For a zero momentum tachyon one dimension of space is swapped with time, so the traveller would travel in that spatial dimension at the same velocity that we travel through time. (While he would be holding completely stationary in time from our perspective.)


A related question, Feynman diagrams use to put downward arrows on antimatter particle trails. Does antimatter really go backwards in time?

 

[ChetSinger]

Music is the language of emotion and notes off the well tempered scale can convey a completely different kind of feeling, much more primal and evocative.

Yeah, our modern major thirds in particular are notoriously sharp and dissonant. But we've gotten used to them. It's the price we pay for being able to write music in any key. Have you listened to much Handel, and noticed that all his trumpet music is written in the key of D? Those old trumpets weren't transposable like our modern ones. On youtube you can see trumpeters playing Handel with those old instruments, they look like bugles with holes drilled in them.

So if you are a practicing physicist I have a question. At what velocity are we traveling through time? I once read a Scientific American article where the author wanted to calculate the radius of curvature in 4D space/time of an object accelerating in a straight line. I was amazed that you could actually measure our velocity though time in spatial units. I remember that it was an enormous number that had something to do with c^2. I found an 8 year old thread on physicsforum.com where the senior poster made a reference to our veolcity as being an invarient 4D vector and he mentioned c^2 was involved, but it wasn't clear.

My interest in this is that what I really want to know is how fast would we be travelling in space if we could become zero momentum tachyons. The laws of momentum are reversed for tachyons, more momentum slows you down to the speed of light while less momentum speeds you up to infinity at zero momentum. At least it appears to be infinite speed to a stationary observer. But from the travellers point of view he will be moving through space at a finite speed. For a zero momentum tachyon one dimension of space is swapped with time, so the traveller would travel in that spatial dimension at the same velocity that we travel through time. (While he would be holding completely stationary in time from our perspective.)

While I've been educated I don't practice professionally. My private interest these days is pretty much acoustics, with a sprinkling of cosmology.

That being said, it sounds like you're referring to special relativity, where the speed of the passage of time varies among reference frames and is dependent upon their relative velocity. The faster you go, the slower time passes, like in the classic example of flying away in a spaceship and returning to meet your great-great-grandkids. The equations that describe those relationships between reference frames do have c^2 in them. And that's the speed of light squared, which is a really big number. If you go here and move down to the section titled "Reference frames, coordinates and the Lorentz transformation", you'll see the transformation equation that has v^2/c^2 in it. That's your velocity squared divided by the velocity of light squared. When your speed is low that ratio approaches zero and you get classical Newtonian mechanics. But when your speed approaches c that ratio approaches 1 and relativistic effects start to kick in.

I don't know enough about tachyons to comment, sorry.

A related question, Feynman diagrams use to put downward arrows on antimatter particle trails. Does antimatter really go backwards in time?

No, I don't think so. The time reversal operator is just a mathematical concept, it doesn't actually make time go backward.

 

[Fascinated With God]

That being said, it sounds like you're referring to special relativity

No, relativity gives no insight into our velocity in time that I am aware of.

No, I don't think so. The time reversal operator is just a mathematical concept, it doesn't actually make time go backward.

[/quote]A mathematical concept for what? Just a way of delineating antimatter?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I don't think we really know how big the universe is. I think we're just confident regarding the distances we can actually see across. I've seen some astronomers speak confidently about the size of the universe, and others express caution.

I put the special creation of Adam and Eve at 6,000 years ago because I don't see any wiggle room in the genealogies, and because Jesus said "from the beginning he made them male and female". Regarding the earth I lean toward being a YEC, too, although I respect and appreciate the OEC work done by Hugh Ross.

I go along with the biblical genealogy, back to Adam, more or less, as well. Although I no longer accept the two creation accounts as being true and reliable, as I once did. Also, I still accept the account of the flood, as being global, although it’s easier not to believe it, and that happened about 4000 years ago. I think the remains of the Ark is up on a hill in Turkey. There were originally two accounts of the flood, from Judah and Israel, and at some time the two accounts were merged into one, that accounts for the discrepancies. It’s a real shame that they did that.
I read some books by Hugh Ross, I might look into his work again, as I am moving towards old earth, despite the evidence; I can’t see how the star light could have got here, but I’m probably just wrong on that, as I don’t have the answer to it.
If you are more YEC, how do you reconcile the problem of how starlight got here from a galaxy 13.3 billion light years away? If there really is a lensing effect in space, that would prove relativity, wouldn’t it?
I don’t accept any ‘day age’ theory; I just don’t think the creation accounts are true; they are creation myths, similar to other cultures. I thought they were inspired, but not anymore. The waters mentioned in Genesis sound a lot like other creation myths, where creation comes out of the primordial waters; the Hebrews did away with all the dragons, that’s what I think.
I have heard stories of miracles where legs grow out, and hands are knitted together out of nothing, and although I’ve never seen it myself, I think these accounts are true. And I was thinking that maybe all of creation was formed out of the either, by a miracle. How long it took, I don’t know. I don’t go along with the big bang theory’ that the singularity was spinning, and that explains why everything in the universe seems to be spinning; that doesn’t work, as some planets are orbiting in the wrong direction, and it is too simplistic anyway. I don’t accept that planets etc. coalesced out of dust or whatever, through gravity; I suppose I just believe in creation by God, but not as the bible records it.

 

[ChetSinger]

No, relativity gives no insight into our velocity in time that I am aware of.

If by 'velocity in time' you mean how quickly time passes, then the theory of special relativity does predict that, at least relative to other reference frames. For example, if you're an astronaut traveling at high speed, time will pass more slowly for you than for people here on earth and the theory of special relativity predicts by how much.

But if you mean something else, of course, then SR may be irrelevant.

A mathematical concept for what? Just a way of delineating antimatter?

I don't really know, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean that time is actually going backward.

 

[Fascinated With God]

If by 'velocity in time' you mean how quickly time passes, then the theory of special relativity does predict that, at least relative to other reference frames.

No, this has nothing to do with relativity. There is a veolocity as measured in meters per second with which we pass through time. That is the same velocity with which a zero momentum tachyon travels through space.

 

[ChetSinger]

I go along with the biblical genealogy, back to Adam, more or less, as well.

Cool!

If you are more YEC, how do you reconcile the problem of how starlight got here from a galaxy 13.3 billion light years away? If there really is a lensing effect in space, that would prove relativity, wouldn’t it?

I can't reconcile it with science, but I can't reconcile Christ's resurrection with science, either. Or his miracles. Nevertheless I like Jesus, and with God's mercy I'm going to stay on his side. I'm glad there are some Christian physicists working on various theories to reconcile a young earth with our astronomical observations, because I don't have the ability to do it myself.

The theories of special and general relativity have been tested many times and are pretty solid. Even the GPS systems in our cars have relativistic corrections built into their equations. So relativity is solid. But I don't think that should be a problem for any believer.

I don’t accept any ‘day age’ theory; I just don’t think the creation accounts are true; they are creation myths, similar to other cultures. I thought they were inspired, but not anymore. The waters mentioned in Genesis sound a lot like other creation myths, where creation comes out of the primordial waters; the Hebrews did away with all the dragons, that’s what I think.

I have heard of some unexpected similarities among creation stories, even as far from the Middle East as the Americas. Perhaps that's because they echo, in some manner, what actually happened. Just as various Flood stories have some uncanny similarities between them, echoing a Flood that actually happened.

 

[ChetSinger]

No, this has nothing to do with relativity. There is a veolocity as measured in meters per second with which we pass through time. That is the same velocity with which a zero momentum tachyon travels through space.

OK, but I don't know enough to add to that conversation.

 

[SkyWriting]

For the first time I think I understand what the Genesis account of creation is about. It is a matter of visualising the universe as they visualised it, and that’s the truth about it because it is then understandable, whereas if you visualise it with our modern knowledge, it doesn’t make any sense. So for those who are interested, here’s what I conclude:

The earth was without form and empty, but there was an ocean of water, which was like a disc or square of water. It was dark over the water, and God’s spirit was over the surface of the primordial ocean. Then Yahweh separated the disk of water, and half of it went up; the expanse or firmament (the sky) was set between two bodies of water; two disks. There was no land at first, just water. Then there was darkness and light, but that was before the creation of the sun, moon and stars. The dry land emerged up out of the disk, at the centre.

Then the sun, moon and stars were placed in the expanse, in the sky, under the disk of water above. Outside of these disks of water there was nothing, so you might fall off the end of the earth. It was all very platform- like. The ancients didn’t have any concept of heaven or hell, that came later, but heaven was placed on an upper level, above the upper water. That continued into the time of Paul, who also understood these things as platforms, one above the other (and why wouldn’t he as that’s what it says in the bible).

Then now try and see if that works, looking at it from our understanding of what is really out there; with water above and below; sorry, not possible, there would have to be water ‘around the earth’ not above it. These ancient people had no knowledge of galaxies, and they didn’t know how big stars are, or what they are. They wouldn’t have known that there is a vacuum out there in outer space. For them, there was a firmament, a dome with blue water above. It wasn’t known that rain etc. comes from the clouds.

But, let's check your premise:

“Shower, O heavens, from above, and let the clouds rain down righteousness; let the earth open, that salvation and righteousness may bear fruit; let the earth cause them both to sprout; I the LORD have created it."

Seems you choose not to read. (supporting my next point)

There is ample evidence that the older the people, the smarter they were.
Plus your just making up what you think they knew. Which is not smart. Supporting my point.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

There is ample evidence that the older the people, the smarter they were.
Plus your just making up what you think they knew. Which is not smart. Supporting my point.

That is what Hugh Ross does, and he has many duped disciples.
He pretends, in arrogance, to know that the earlier peoples were pretty dumb and not able to know what he, with his most" modern and enlightened understanding", based on fallible men's fairy tales, knows, and he is ready to rewrite the Bible based on his fairy tales.
Only those believe him who do not believe God, and they have to close their eyes to all history and Bible teaching otherwise, and to the fact of artifacts around the world that show ancient man was smarter and much more technology minded than we have even achieved yet, since God divided our tongue, and separated us into tribes who never get along so that we do not try the Bab-El rebellion again, and divided the land mass so as to separate us further.
There is no new thing today that has not already been done before, by those who came before us, as Solomon wrote, but men forget, and willfully hide the evidences of the high technology of the past, in order to dumd us down from belief in the Word of God.
Great civilizations with great technologies have risen to great heights in the past 6 thousand years, and they have forgot God -whom they all knew, as Romans 1 says- and were turned into hell -as Psalm 9 says, and even the names of their kings are forgotten.
World wide communication, space travel, atom bombs, organ transplants, and even brain transplants, have all been done before, by those who came before us, and when they forgot God, they were turned into hell, as a nation -and some pretty speedily, like Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain, as warnings to those who come after to not do those things.

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Ancient Atomic Knowledge?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

There is ample evidence that the older the people, the smarter they were.
Plus your just making up what you think they knew. Which is not smart. Supporting my point.

my opinions are not likely to be popular with anybody, and it would be wise for me to keep quite most of the time. Old earth creationsts try to fit in the Genesis creation accounts into their creation models. Probably the only people who feel free to dump the OT creation accounts are atheists, and maybe TEs.

 

[Aman777]

His:>>my opinions are not likely to be popular with anybody, and it would be wise for me to keep quite most of the time. Old earth creationsts try to fit in the Genesis creation accounts into their creation models. Probably the only people who feel free to dump the OT creation accounts are atheists, and maybe TEs.

Dear His, Amen. Atheists and Theistic Evols dispise me and my views. It's because they have NO answers to God's Truth. When you show them that God tells us that Adam was made the 3rd Day BEFORE any other living creature, they scream. (Genesis 2:4-7) TEs want us to believe that Adam evolved from other living creatures, but he did not. It destroys their false ideas and reveals that the atheistic Theory of Evolution is filled with flaws.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Fascinated With God]

It destroys their false ideas and reveals that the atheistic Theory of Evolution is filled with flaws.

There is nothing atheistic about evolution. That is nothing but pure slander. Perhaps you think we are all communists to?

 

[SkyWriting]

No, this has nothing to do with relativity. There is a veolocity as measured in meters per second with which we pass through time. That is the same velocity with which a zero momentum tachyon travels through space.

-The X-Men character Silver Samurai has the power to generate a tachyon field which can cut through everything but adamantium by channeling his mutant energy into anything, usually his katana.

-In the DC Universe, tachyons are used by both Hourman II and III.

 

[SkyWriting]

There is nothing atheistic about evolution. That is nothing but pure slander. Perhaps you think we are all communists to?

No, actually evolution presumes no supernatural powers were involved Mr. Poe.

 

[SkyWriting]

my opinions are not likely to be popular with anybody, and it would be wise for me to keep quite most of the time. Old earth creationsts try to fit in the Genesis creation accounts into their creation models. Probably the only people who feel free to dump the OT creation accounts are atheists, and maybe TEs.

My views are far from popular with anyone. That should rarely be a reason to keep quiet

 

[SkyWriting]

That is what Hugh Ross does, and he has many duped disciples.
He pretends, in arrogance, to know that the earlier peoples were pretty dumb and not able to know what he, with his most" modern and enlightened understanding", based on fallible men's fairy tales, knows, and he is ready to rewrite the Bible based on his fairy tales.
Only those believe him who do not believe God, and they have to close their eyes to all history and Bible teaching otherwise, and to the fact of artifacts around the world that show ancient man was smarter and much more technology minded than we have even achieved yet, since God divided our tongue, and separated us into tribes who never get along so that we do not try the Bab-El rebellion again, and divided the land mass so as to separate us further.
There is no new thing today that has not already been done before, by those who came before us, as Solomon wrote, but men forget, and willfully hide the evidences of the high technology of the past, in order to dumd us down from belief in the Word of God.
Great civilizations with great technologies have risen to great heights in the past 6 thousand years, and they have forgot God -whom they all knew, as Romans 1 says- and were turned into hell -as Psalm 9 says, and even the names of their kings are forgotten.
World wide communication, space travel, atom bombs, organ transplants, and even brain transplants, have all been done before, by those who came before us, and when they forgot God, they were turned into hell, as a nation -and some pretty speedily, like Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities of the plain, as warnings to those who come after to not do those things.

Ooparts & Ancient High Technology--Evidence of Ancient Atomic Knowledge?

Now if your going to be wise, then you ruin my point. Oh Well.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by Aman777

It destroys their false ideas and reveals that the atheistic Theory of Evolution is filled with flaws.
​

Fascinated:>>There is nothing atheistic about evolution.

Dear Fascinated, Sure there is. Atheists and Theistic Evols claim that we evolved our Human intelligence over a long periiod of time. They fail to recognize that God tells us we changed from natural to Human intelligence when Noah's grandsons married and produced offspring with the descendants of the sons of God who were here when Noah arrived.

This fulfills the prophecy of Genesis 6:4 which tells us the combination of sons of God and Adam's descendants produces intellectual giants. This combination produced the high technology of Cain's descendants "and also after that", it produced Human Civilization on our Planet.

Fasc:>>That is nothing but pure slander. Perhaps you think we are all communists to?

No. Slander is uttering a Lie, and I don't think we're all communists. If you don't agree that the only way we can inherit the human intelligence of Adam is to mix the descendants of Adam with the sons of God, then it's up to you to explain. Tell us HOW and WHEN we magically inherited our human intelligence from mindless, uncaring, unintelligent nature. I don't think you can.

It's time for the TOE to recognize God's Truth, and rethink their flawed Theory which is being force fed to innocent students in Public Schools.

In Love,
Aman

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

perhaps there's no alternative to teaching evolution to school children, as it's the mainstream opinion. i think it's rubbish, but that's the way of the world.
I don't think they should teach them the creationist view either, but they can't tell them that they don't have any answers, which would be the truth about it, it's a difficult problem, as teaching evolution results in atheism, for most young people.

 

[Aman777]

His:>>perhaps there's no alternative to teaching evolution to school children, as it's the mainstream opinion. i think it's rubbish, but that's the way of the world.

Dear His, Evolution is a measurement of the changes in the allele frequency in a population over time. I have no problem with evolution since it is nothing but adaptation within a species. It happens everytime a baby is born, since two individuals produce a separate individual.

My problem is with the false assumption that evolution produces human intelligence in Apes. It does not and cannot. The only way to inherit the human intelligence of Adam is get it from another human.

His:>>I don't think they should teach them the creationist view either, but they can't tell them that they don't have any answers, which would be the truth about it, it's a difficult problem, as teaching evolution results in atheism, for most young people.

I agree that the creationist view cannot be taught since there are so many differing creationist views. The only thing I ask is that they should admit that the TOE does NOT tell us how or when we changed from animal intelligence to the higher intelligence of humans.