Age of the World

[pgp_protector]

If so, then let's try to think about an example:

We are on the earth. To a space traveler, what is our time at this moment according to his clock?

What parameters should he consider? Don't run away from this question, let's figure it out.

What time did they leave according to our & there clock ?
What was there speed & rate of acceleration ?
What is there speed in relation to our speed ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Other than a few bible verses and a balloon with dots on it do you have anything else to offer on my original post?

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

What time did they leave according to our & there clock ?
What was there speed & rate of acceleration ?
What is there speed in relation to our speed ?

If I remember correctly --- isn't the formula:

time on earth / time in space over the square root of [1 - V[sup]2[/sup]/C[sup]2[/sup]]?

Something like that.

 

[flatworm]

If so, then let's try to think about an example:

We are on the earth. To a space traveler, what is our time at this moment according to his clock?

What parameters should he consider? Don't run away from this question, let's figure it out.

It's very annoying that you continue to ignore the fact that the "6000 years" figure comes from the Biblical chronology of people and events on earth, thus all sharing a common reference frame. Relativity doesn't enter into it.

 

[Chalnoth]

If so, then let's try to think about an example:

We are on the earth. To a space traveler, what is our time at this moment according to his clock?

What parameters should he consider? Don't run away from this question, let's figure it out.

You haven't completely defined the observer. But it doesn't matter. What you're talking about here is nothing more than a pointless exercise in busy work. It is sufficient to be aware that knowledge of his velocity as a function of time as given by an observer on Earth is enough to calculate the observer's time on his ship.

 

[FishFace]

If I remember correctly --- isn't the formula:

time on earth / time in space over the square root of [1 - V[sup]2[/sup]/C[sup]2[/sup]]?

Something like that.

Judging by the fact that there's no equality in that equation, I'd guess not.

(Also there is no implied equality given by stating "the formula for X")

 

[FishFace]

Simple space travel will make two time references. One for the travelers and one for the rest who are not traveling.

If the space traffic became crowded, then you need many many references for the timing. It would be a chaos and nobody would know what the time is at where in the universe.

This means we do not know the nature of time. So we do not know how long is the 6000 years.

I love this - you believe that, because the idea seems complex to you, this implies that no-one understands the idea!

Good one! For your information, Chalnoth is a professional physicist, and a few more of us have the rudiments of relativity under our belt.
Wikipedia will probably be a gentler teacher than us.

But your final statement is the most puzzling. If we didn't know the nature of time - which we do - then "how long is the 6000 years" doesn't even make any sense. As it stands, it is asking a tautology, since a year is 365.24 days, or 525 948.77 minutes, or 31 556 926 seconds, or the duration of 2.9*10^17 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. (to 2 s.f.)

In other words, 6,000 years can be precisely defined in terms of counting.

 

[FishFace]

But I have a feeling you won't though. And if you ever did, you certainly wouldn't die a martyr's death knowing it was wrong. These two facts loudly cry against you.

So let's just give this tooth fairy logic a decent burial, shall we?

But he doesn't need to, he just needs to say someone has.

As an aside, why do you think that someone dying for something implies its truth? Was Jim Jones the Messiah? Is Islam the true way to God? Plenty of people of martyrs. Most of the time they shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[FishFace]

If I remember correctly --- isn't the formula:

time on earth / time in space over the square root of [1 - V[sup]2[/sup]/C[sup]2[/sup]]?

Something like that.

Judging by the fact that there's no equality in that equation, I'd guess not.

(Also there is no implied equality given by stating "the formula for X")

 

[juvenissun]

You haven't completely defined the observer. But it doesn't matter. What you're talking about here is nothing more than a pointless exercise in busy work. It is sufficient to be aware that knowledge of his velocity as a function of time as given by an observer on Earth is enough to calculate the observer's time on his ship.

OK, then how about the speed of the earth? Should the space traveler count that in?

 

[juvenissun]

It's very annoying that you continue to ignore the fact that the "6000 years" figure comes from the Biblical chronology of people and events on earth, thus all sharing a common reference frame. Relativity doesn't enter into it.

Did someone talk about time-distance over the space? Is that part of the OP?

 

[Chalnoth]

OK, then how about the speed of the earth? Should the space traveler count that in?

Well, you could, but the correction is too small to make any significant difference. Regardless, as others keep saying, this is just a red herring. The age of the Earth, in the reference frame of the Earth, is approximately 4.55 billion years, give or take a few tens of millions of years or so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Judging by the fact that there's no equality in that equation, I'd guess not.

(Also there is no implied equality given by stating "the formula for X")

I think it's:

TE = TS/√[1-(V/C)[sup]2[/sup]]

It's called the Lorenz (or Lorentz) Contraction --- or something.

 

[flatworm]

Did someone talk about time-distance over the space? Is that part of the OP?

The age of 6000 years remains in the reference frame of the earth. The distance to distant stars is likewise being measured from the point of view of the earth. The speed of light is, as you well know, constant regardless of reference frame.

In other words, bringing Relativity into this is a red herring, so please move on.

 

[juvenissun]

Well, you could, but the correction is too small to make any significant difference. Regardless, as others keep saying, this is just a red herring. The age of the Earth, in the reference frame of the Earth, is approximately 4.55 billion years, give or take a few tens of millions of years or so.

Well, I don't think the difference is that insignificant if you also consider the flying speed of the Milky Way.

We are NOT just talking about the age of the earth. Are we also talking about the light-year space-time of the star light? You do not get the 4.5 Ga age from the time of star light travel. The story of 4.5 b.y. is an entirely different game. My argument is that we do not understand the nature of time. The issue is deeper and more fundamental than just the age of the earth.

We have not finished the discussion of the space-time issue yet. Do not run away.

 

[juvenissun]

The age of 6000 years remains in the reference frame of the earth. The distance to distant stars is likewise being measured from the point of view of the earth. The speed of light is, as you well know, constant regardless of reference frame.

In other words, bringing Relativity into this is a red herring, so please move on.

Move on to what? I want to talk about the nature of time. You said you know what it is.

 

[GrayCat]

Move on to what? I want to talk about the nature of time. You said you know what it is.

Time is a Human made concept to measure change. Change exists independent of humans, though.

So the ways to measure change are relative due to varying spatial distances where the change is taking place.

Sometimes i think it is all an illusion though.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, I don't think the difference is that insignificant if you also consider the flying speed of the Milky Way.

We are NOT just talking about the age of the earth. Are we also talking about the light-year space-time of the star light? You do not get the 4.5 Ga age from the time of star light travel. The story of 4.5 b.y. is an entirely different game. My argument is that we do not understand the nature of time. The issue is deeper and more fundamental than just the age of the earth.

It's still not significant, not compared to our ability to measure the age of the Earth. The velocity of the Milky Way with respect to the cosmic microwave background is approximately 600 km/s, or 0.002c. This makes for a gamma factor of 1.000002.

So, yeah, we might want to correct our estimate of the age of the Earth by about 10,000 years out of 4,550,000,000 years, if we were interested in the age of the Earth with respect to the CMB, and had that kind of experimental precision.

But, the truth of the matter is that our experimental precision now is low enough that it's rather pointless to bother with the correction, even if we were interested in that measure of time.

 

[FishFace]

OK, then how about the speed of the earth? Should the space traveler count that in?

Speed of the earth with respect to what? See, if you know half of the material necessary to decide whether we understand time due to relativity, you'd know that the sentence "the speed of X" doesn't make sense without a reference frame, explicit or implied.

Anyway, you really need to elaborate on your argument that we don't understand time; you made one spurious argument about how you didn't really like relativity, but as I say, that's not a good reason. Say more.

 

[juvenissun]

It's still not significant, not compared to our ability to measure the age of the Earth. The velocity of the Milky Way with respect to the cosmic microwave background is approximately 600 km/s, or 0.002c. This makes for a gamma factor of 1.000002.

So, yeah, we might want to correct our estimate of the age of the Earth by about 10,000 years out of 4,550,000,000 years, if we were interested in the age of the Earth with respect to the CMB, and had that kind of experimental precision.

But, the truth of the matter is that our experimental precision now is low enough that it's rather pointless to bother with the correction, even if we were interested in that measure of time.

So, the timing on earth could be different to observers in space who has different moving (traveling) history. Your argument to the 6000 years time is that this is the time period to people live on earth. But why should this be necessary the case? Could this 6000 years be the time for a particular space traveler? Then the "equivalent" or correspondent time interval on earth relative to people on earth could be any period of time depends on the moving history of the traveler. Most likely it will be a much longer time period.