Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saw an interesting youtube vid by Gerald Schroder, MIT physicist now at Jerusalem U.
He said if you stood at the big bang point of creation and went with the expanding front of the universe through time, today you would be out there at the flamefront, 14 whatever billion light yrs distant .
But due to relativity you would not have experienced that passage of time.
You would have actually only experience 5K yrs.
Sounds like bible class but its interesting.
Saw an interesting youtube vid by Gerald Schroder, MIT physicist now at Jerusalem U.
He said if you stood at the big bang point of creation and went with the expanding front of the universe through time, today you would be out there at the flamefront, 14 whatever billion light yrs distant .
But due to relativity you would not have experienced that passage of time.
You would have actually only experience 5K yrs.
Sounds like bible class but its interesting.
I mean time is generally measured with regards to non-relativistic occurrences. Time doesn't pass at all for a photon traveling across the galaxy or the Universe, but we don't say the photon left a distant star at the same time it appeared, because if it left a star 50,000 light years away, our ancestors would have been cavemen at the time the photon left.
Saw an interesting youtube vid by Gerald Schroder, MIT physicist now at Jerusalem U.
He said if you stood at the big bang point of creation and went with the expanding front of the universe through time, today you would be out there at the flamefront, 14 whatever billion light yrs distant .
But due to relativity you would not have experienced that passage of time.
You would have actually only experience 5K yrs.
Sounds like bible class but its interesting.
I think there's debate or conflicting theories on the age of the universe. If you adhere to general relativity then it's about 13.8 billion years old, but quantum mechanics says the universe had no beginning, that its age is infinite.
Weird. My understanding is that the expansion is actually the only phenomena that travels faster than light. aaaaaaaand....a photon of light experiences no time or space, so no causality. So if the universe is travelling faster than that.....ugh my brain.
Saw an interesting youtube vid by Gerald Schroder, MIT physicist now at Jerusalem U.
He said if you stood at the big bang point of creation and went with the expanding front of the universe through time, today you would be out there at the flamefront, 14 whatever billion light yrs distant .
But due to relativity you would not have experienced that passage of time.
You would have actually only experience 5K yrs.
Sounds like bible class but it's interesting.
Is this the Biblical Apologist Gerald Schroder, by chance? I believe it is his point to make it sound like a Bible class. I don't believe it is a coincidence.
Saw an interesting youtube vid by Gerald Schroder, MIT physicist now at Jerusalem U.
He said if you stood at the big bang point of creation and went with the expanding front of the universe through time, today you would be out there at the flamefront, 14 whatever billion light yrs distant .
But due to relativity you would not have experienced that passage of time.
You would have actually only experience 5K yrs.
Sounds like bible class but its interesting.
There is lots of hyperbole going on in the citation you provided. At high speeds time is slower, however most of the growth in the universe has been due to inflation (a very poorly named thing). Which permits space to grow faster than the speed of light, but nothing moves outside the new space moved. There is more distance, but no movement of the mass outside the inflation.
When we talk about our universe, it is our visible universe. We can't see beyond the visible universe, and can't be certain what is or isn't there. Our visible universe may be an infinitesimally small part of the universe, and the big bang may be continuing in an infinite number of places at an infinite rate. We will never see or experience this.
There is lots of hyperbole going on in the citation you provided. At high speeds time is slower, however most of the growth in the universe has been due to inflation (a very poorly named thing). Which permits space to grow faster than the speed of light, but nothing moves outside the new space moved. There is more distance, but no movement of the mass outside the inflation.
When we talk about our universe, it is our visible universe. We can't see beyond the visible universe, and can't be certain what is or isn't there. Our visible universe may be an infinitesimally small part of the universe, and the big bang may be continuing in an infinite number of places at an infinite rate. We will never see or experience this.
The "citation" (without a link to the reference) is an apologetic for Biblical creation as an attempt to squeeze 13.8 billion years into a YEC view. Indeed, boatloads of hyperbole would be expected.
Our visible universe may be an infinitesimally small part of the universe, and the big bang may be continuing in an infinite number of places at an infinite rate. We will never see or experience this.
That suggests certain ideas in science require more faith than faith itself.
Unprovable , non verifiable, it barely qualifies as science.
Sorta like string theory, which isn't even a real theory.
I notice a lot of that these days.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.