Can the Universe be created in 6 days?

[daas]

You people do know that a light year is measure of DISTANCE and not TIME right?

[Advent]

You people do know that a light year is measure of DISTANCE and not TIME right?

its a measurement of both tho

[MD Marketers]

Read genesis. KJV. Talk done

why his version and not another version?

and to add for MD marketers, you think we dont know how old the Universe is ? son thats one of the things we do know, in the vast things that we do not know.

Wrong.
We don't know the age of the universe.
We know the age of the observable universe. Wording is everything.

Once you accurately state the age of the universe from Event A to B, that age will never change. If you tell me it's definitely 13.799±0.021 years old from Event A to event B then it will not change once the parameters don't change. If we change the event state then we cannot argue the old age any more. It automatically becomes a new debate.

T=d/v for event a to b
20 years = 100m / 5km/year

T=d/v for event a1 to a9
10 years a1 to a9 = 50m / 5km/ year
Or maybe
20 years a1 to a9 = 60m / 3km/ year

The velocity & distance of a1 to a9 can change multiple times and it will still not affect the age of a to b. It will be compensated by (a-a1) & (a9-b)

They aren't simultaneous equations & we don't have data for "a" or "b" yet

The age of two expanding galaxies is not going to change the age of event start & event end, even if it occurred during the same age.
That's just not how we do maths.

The Topic is this:
How do we know the Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old & it cannot be 6 days old or even 46 billion years old?

The claim that we know the Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old is wrong. More like ± infinity.
The claim that we know the Observable Universe is 13.799±0.021 billion years old is correct
The claim that the Universe can be 6 days old is still possible.

[MD Marketers]

How can one define the universe based on a principle of Earth's rotation (i.e. days)? The concept seems very egocentric, doesn't it?

you should do like your name says be "silent" when you dont know what you talking about, the universe's age is calculated using "light year", you do know the atomic clock has nothing to do with earth's rotation right ? hint it has to do with the time something decays

Actually if we attempted to use light speed the observable universe would either be infinite or no older than 46.2 billion years old. The common understanding is that it expanded faster than light speed then slowed down then sped up again.
I showed this in the Original Post

[MD Marketers]

You people do know that a light year is measure of DISTANCE and not TIME right?

Yes but light speed is a measure of velocity relative to distance based on a particular reference frame

[bluesclues]

scientific facts:

observable universe is 90billion light years wide
universe is 14billion years old

the universe and earth couldve been created in 6 days for the same reason science says is is possible for matter to travel at 3x+ times the speed of light to reach its current position.

do the math..90billion light year diameter = 45 billion radius.

thus.. matter, travelled 45 billion light years in 14billion years(the age of the universe). if u see something wrong there then there probably is.

so to back this up, science has proposed the"displacement theory".

what this says is that the matter itself didnt travel at 3x the speed of light, but empty space was "manifesting" between the matter as it travelled at maximum velocity. according to them, this accounts for how matter could travel 45billion years in all directions in only 14billion years.

i say.. that theory is BS.

BUT SAY WHAT..

if matter could cover 3x times the speed of light in distance and time because of displacement.. then why not 45x, 100x, 1000 x. or however much needed for it to be in 6 days. lol.

im just postulating on the scientific tangent here. i dont believe the biblical 6 days are 6 human earth around the sun days. just using their same logic it can be applied to the 6 day theory and make it relevant imv.

[Slartibartfast]

MD just remember creation of the universe includes a lot more than just the spreading of matter. For the universe to be created in 6 days, planets, suns, solar systems and galaxies must also be able to be created in that time as well.

For curiosity's sake, under what conditions do you think a stable solar system can form in under a week amd do you think it is possible in this universe given our physical laws and your understanding of them?

[de_dougla_smurf]

Theory of relativity.

Many many many many billions of things for mortal things can be 6 for ominipotent immeasurable things.

Beacuse gravity and 5th dimension stuff.

[desifemlove]

no, religion is a pipedream. and there is no God..

[daas]

You people do know that a light year is measure of DISTANCE and not TIME right?

its a measurement of both tho

[Advent]

scientific facts:

observable universe is 90billion light years wide
universe is 14billion years old

the universe and earth couldve been created in 6 days for the same reason science says is is possible for matter to travel at 3x+ times the speed of light to reach its current position.

do the math..90billion light year diameter = 45 billion radius.

thus.. matter, travelled 45 billion light years in 14billion years(the age of the universe). if u see something wrong there then there probably is.

so to back this up, science has proposed the"displacement theory".

.

Space itself is expanding which explains why the observable universe is so big, compared to the age of the universe. because space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.

i dont know you guys choose to not know certain things ?

[MD Marketers]

MD just remember creation of the universe includes a lot more than just the spreading of matter. For the universe to be created in 6 days, planets, suns, solar systems and galaxies must also be able to be created in that time as well.

For curiosity's sake, under what conditions do you think a stable solar system can form in under a week amd do you think it is possible in this universe given our physical laws and your understanding of them?

Time dilation does not speed up anything.
It simply changes the ruler by which we measure time.
The relative velocity of the displacement of matter is what changes the ruler of time.
Some parts of this universe are/were expanding faster than light speed.
This is proven when observing the oldest galaxies in opposing directions.
The rate of expansion is added to the Hubble constant to determine velocity of expansion.
It was observed that expansion of some galaxies are happening at faster than the speed of light.
This means that the time difference between each galaxy from the reference frame of either galaxy will be zero until the point the expansion slowed down to speeds less than light speed.
The age difference between galaxies at the current rate of expansion based on either of the galaxies reference frame will be zero.
In essence the same principle would apply to the universes reference frame from event start to event end.
Time for an expanding universe cannot be measured by the same ruler we measure time.
It is highly dependent on changes in velocity from event start to event end.
We don't know the where the point of event start is as yet nor do we know the shape of the universe either.
You can be 14 billion years old in your frame of reference and it will not affect the cumulative age of expansion based on it's starting velocity.

Galactic expansion is not relative to universal expansion.
You need to look at it like this:
You piloted a plan from point Miami to England.
A passenger on the plane watched a guy riding a bike through the isle.
He clocked him at 5 km/h.
Time dilation states that:
His speed does not affect your speed.
His conscious duration does not affect your duration.
His time dilation does not affect your time dilation.
The observer hasn't started checking the time since you left the airport. In fact he was unconscious for the most part of the journey.
Get me the data then we will talk.

[bluesclues]

i am just glad that you can now realize science even with its strict scientific methods and processes is not above reproach. basically for all the same reasons why some atheists say religion should not be above reproach.

but as we've seen in the past week, with 'planet x' and a host of other occurences ive tracked which show the ancients knew things that by all technological assertion, 'they should not know'. its so much, it gives them so much weight and shows how young modern science really is.

i can tell you that i completely do not subscribe to the idea of empty space expanding. because that is what the big bang theory states. it literally states that empty space is expanding and basically.. did not exist before the universe. so before the universe, there was absolutely nothing, not even empty space. and when the big bang occured, empty space started to grow within this bubble of the universe.

ask them what was outside that bubble.

but the mystics describe it like this.

space is a type of water and does not consist of particles. it is infinite. strong gravitational forces can cause ripples in that water just like dropping a pebble into a still pond. but most importantly, that water when controlled by a sentient power is able to manifest any atom and hold it there and hold it in existence. this accomplished by the generation of a sound/frequency which forces empty space water, which i call 'dark water' to manifest different particles and magnetic fields depending on the level and power of the frequency. by the pantheon of various gods. the sentient power also manifests as various forces which form a circulatory system of energy transferrence that is for all purposes autonomous. called this universe.

the objective is that God, has devised a clever way to multiply infinity. himself being infinite, he has made a way for other infinite beings to be crafted. thus i refer to this universe as a God maker machine. if ur not becoming a god with your life, ur an underachiever. because that option is available.

thus the universe is a symphony of sounds. very complex and powerful sounds/frequencies give rise to the formation of matter. one day you will see science admit this.

i could connect all the dots and show how the theories interlock without contradiction. demonstrating that it is a soundly possible rationale. i now lean on the mystics to guide my scientific belief. if scientific theory disagrees with mystic assertion or contradicts a part of it, i recognize the theory as a wasted pursuit. i swear the ancients know everything.

[Slartibartfast]

You are talking about relative age based on time dilations due to relative speeds approaching the speed of light.

Now the only way for the universe to be 6 days old to an observer, the following assumptions would need to be true. I'm winging it here so feel free to correct me
1. The observer exists.
2. The observer is a conscious being. If you want to argue that the universe can be 6 days old to some inanimate specs of dust I will agree with you but the very idea of an "inanimate observer" is an oxymoron and does not prove anything significant to me.

Now, assuming that nothing existed before the universe that would mean that a conscious being had to come into existence within 6 days (or an equivalent amount of time seeing that they won't measure time the same way as us). As far as I know there is no science that suggests that a conscious being could spontaneously form from random particles/ chemicals over the course of six days while travelling at near light speeds.

Another side note, shouldn't a datum of time be established. The "six days" specified in ancient text refers to six earth days thus establishing our unit of time at our current planet velocity as the datum of reference. You must now ask yourself, is there any part of the universe that could have possibly exited the big bang last Thursday?

[MD Marketers]

You are talking about relative age based on time dilations due to relative speeds approaching the speed of light.

Now the only way for the universe to be 6 days old to an observer, the following assumptions would need to be true. I'm winging it here so feel free to correct me
1. The observer exists.
2. The observer is a conscious being. If you want to argue that the universe can be 6 days old to some inanimate rspecs of dust I will agree with you but the very idea of an "inanimate observer" is an oxymoron and does not prove anything significant to me.

Now, assuming that nothing existed before the universe that would mean that a conscious being had to come into existence within 6 days (or an equivalent amount of time seeing that they won't measure time the same way as us). As far as I know there is no science that suggests that a conscious being could spontaneously form from random particles/ chemicals over the course of six days while travelling at near light speeds.

Another side note, shouldn't a datum of time be established. The "six days" specified in ancient text refers to six earth days thus establishing our unit of time at our current planet velocity as the datum of reference. You must now ask yourself, is there any part of the universe that could have possibly exited the big bang last Thursday?

Sorry just got back home.

You have made a lot of assumptions there. I will answer these questions by asking you some questions. The answers you give will actually be the same answer I might give.

As you all know by now. I am agnostic on the subject of god, but I question everything even when it seems rationale at first glance. As an agnostic (some would say skeptic) I make decisions based on probability, risk & reward.

Question 1:
What is the simplest way of describing 144 hours of relative time to an ancient people that think 24 hours = 1 day?
Place answer here.

Question 2:
The twin paradox:
Twin 1 watches twin 2 leave the planet when he was 20. Twin 2 had travelled 5 years at light speed then returns. Twin 1 is now 25 years old.
How old is twin 2?
If twin 2 used a rocket how old is the rocket?
Place answers here.

Question 3:
The Universe flying a plane picks up sleeping Slartibartfast in Miami heading England.
Slartibartfast wakes up during the flight and saw a flight attendant walking past him as he was now passing the Florida coastline.
He looks at the camera recording and estimated that the attendant took 5 minutes to walk from the back of the entrance of the plane to where he was sitting.
How long did it take the Universe to get to from the Airport to the Florida coastline?
Place answer here.

[bluesclues]

so to back this up, science has proposed the"displacement theory".

Space itself is expanding which explains why the observable universe is so big, compared to the age of the universe. because space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.

i dont know you guys choose to not know certain things ?

that is what i said. it's called field displacement theory. i dont know how you guys choose to not know certain things... like reading and comprehension

but whats funny is that you see nothing wrong with the idea of "empty space" expanding out of nothing. lol considering empty space is .. well.. u tell me whats the definition of empty space? or "space".

the terrible truth is that most of you dont recognize the difference between "scientific facts" and "facts". not all scientific facts are "facts". when you understand this.. check me back.

and ur also incorrect in your statement. it is not scientific.

Space itself is expanding

it is not.

it appears to be expanding. this is the basis of the theory.

[bluefete]

get bluefete in here

Ah reach!! Bait taken! What next?

[bluefete]

Didn't Einstein say that time slows down relative to where the observer is?

Example, if you travelled at the speed of light, you would reach alpha centauri in about 4 years.

If it takes you 8 years round trip, the people on earth would have aged 8 years but you might only have aged 4 years because of the speed at which you travelled.

All this to write that only God can do these great things.

Logic dictates that something cannot come out of nothing. However, only a pre-exisiting God with no beginning or end can create something from nothing.

If he can do that he can more than do his creations in 6 literal days.

[MD Marketers]

Didn't Einstein say that time slows down relative to where the observer is?

Example, if you travelled at the speed of light, you would reach alpha centauri in about 4 years.

If it takes you 8 years round trip, the people on earth would have aged 8 years but you might only have aged 4 years because of the speed at which you travelled.

All this to write that only God can do these great things.

Logic dictates that something cannot come out of nothing. However, only a pre-exisiting God with no beginning or end can create something from nothing.

If he can do that he can more than do his creations in 6 literal days.

Bluefete this isn't a discussion abut God.
I didn't prove God exists here. Only that the universe can be created in less than 6 days.
Don't you have your own thread to discuss that already?
Let's start a debate about God's existence in a new thread. One vs One.
Battle of the Year.
Gogo

[Advent]

so to back this up, science has proposed the"displacement theory".

Space itself is expanding which explains why the observable universe is so big, compared to the age of the universe. because space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.

i dont know you guys choose to not know certain things ?

that is what i said. it's called field displacement theory. i dont know how you guys choose to not know certain things... like reading and comprehension

but whats funny is that you see nothing wrong with the idea of "empty space" expanding out of nothing. lol considering empty space is .. well.. u tell me whats the definition of empty space? or "space". Why should i see a problem with it?, its what we observe. how do you explain the hubble parameter ?

the terrible truth is that most of you dont recognize the difference between "scientific facts" and "facts". not all scientific facts are "facts". when you understand this.. check me back.

please elaborate

and ur also incorrect in your statement. it is not scientific.

Space itself is expanding

it is not.

it appears to be expanding. this is the basis of the theory.

What you think the meaning of Theory is in science ?

also on your quote

but whats funny is that you see nothing wrong with the idea of "empty space" expanding out of nothing. lol considering empty space is .. well.. u tell me whats the definition of empty space? or "space"

[Slartibartfast]

1. 6 Days ( Note this only works for primitive beings on this one planet in this one solar system in this one galaxy)

2. Twin 2 would be younger. Assuming time stopped and twin 2 spent 100% of the time travelling at light speed then twin 2 would be 20 still. The rocket would be a couple days old as far as I know.

3. You lost me at "the universe flying a plane". Not sure how it is possible for something to travel between two points within itself.

You made a lot of assumptions in your questions as well but I'm trying to answer you as directly as possible anyway. I normally won't but you arguments do tend to follow a strict logical pattern so I think I could safely ignore the assumptions for now to make you argument go as smoothly as possible.

[MD Marketers]

1. 6 Days ( Note this only works for primitive beings on this one planet in this one solar system in this one galaxy)

2. Twin 2 would be younger. Assuming time stopped and twin 2 spent 100% of the time travelling at light speed then twin 2 would be 20 still. The rocket would be a couple days old as far as I know.

3. You lost me at "the universe flying a plane". Not sure how it is possible for something to travel between two points within itself.

You made a lot of assumptions in your questions as well but I'm trying to answer you as directly as possible anyway. I normally won't but you arguments do tend to follow a strict logical pattern so I think I could safely ignore the assumptions for now to make you argument go as smoothly as possible.

What did you think create means?
Create: BRING (something) into existence.
Bring: take or go with (someone or something) to a place.
Bring: cause (someone or something) to be in a particular state or condition.
Existence: the fact or STATE of living or having objective reality.

The process of creation brings matter & energy from a state of singularity to an expanded state.
There couldn't have been a better word.

We are discussing the time taken to get from one state to the present state.

The simplified analogy of the plane is only a metaphor for you to better understand the concept of what we are discussing. It could be dark energy for all we know but that isn't the topic of discussion.

The time taken from event start (the singularity) to event end (now) is the topic of discussion.
The galaxies can do backflips over black holes from now until the flying spaghetti monster turns to noodles and it still wont affect the time taken for the universe to expand from start to present.
Time dilation and expansion is what makes it possible for us to calculate a 13.8 billion year old universe and it could all happen in the blink of an eye.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm a little lost. Are you replying to something I said or stating something new?

[MD Marketers]

I'm a little lost. Are you replying to something I said or stating something new?

Change "The Universe flying" to "Mr. Universe flies"
Any better now?

[Slartibartfast]

Ahhhh, lol. Ok. well yeah 5 mins is the obvious answer.

[MD Marketers]

I'm a little lost. Are you replying to something I said or stating something new?

Change "The Universe flying" to "Mr. Universe flies.
Mr. Universe flies a plane & picks up a sleeping Slartibartfast in Miami heading England.
Slartibartfast wakes up during the flight and saw a flight attendant walking past him as he was now passing the Florida coastline.
He looks at the camera recording while on the plane and estimated that the attendant took 5 minutes to walk from the back entrance of the plane to where he was sitting.
How long did it take from the airport to the Florida coastline?

The flight from Miami to England represents the creation of the Universe.
Miami represents the singularity.
England represents the future.
The Florida coastline represents now.
Slartibartfast represents present day mankind. We were asleep as cosmic stardust for the most part of this journey.
The flight attendants represents the stars.
The cameras are the telescopes & other devices we use to observe the universe.

Now for the real story:
The Universe started it's journey a long time ago from a single point in space time.
We don't know exactly how long it took but we do know the state of everything is now different than it was in the past.
The question is how long did this take to happen. It's the same question as:
How long did it take to create the present state of the universe.
It's also the same question as:
How long did it take to create the universe.
It's also the same question as:
How old is the Universe.

One thing Physics has thought us about Time is that it is dependent on relative velocity.
If you give a physicist the velocity of creation and the distance from start to finish he will be able to tell you the age of creation.

The physicist doesn't have the data yet.
He has data about the age of things that happened during that journey but the data he gathered does not affect the age of the actual journey.
The Galaxies could have expanded much faster or slower over longer or shorter distances (based on both the galaxy's reference frame & our own) and it still will not affect the age of the universe if we do not know the speed of the universe from the start.

It's like the grandchild paradox. (I just made that up)
The child is presently 20, his dad 39 & his grandad 59
Let's say the grandchild sent his dad & grandad on a rocket out into space at a little slower than light speed & the journey took 40 years for them to return based on the grandchild's perspective.
A split second after the rocket launched the dad sent the grandad on another rocket at light speed and waited 19 years for the grandad to return to the rocket relative to the dad's time.
They then waited 1 more year relative to their time, before they returned home to the grandchild.

They will all be 60 years old when the rocket returns to earth.
Mankind has the grandchild's frame of reference in this whole story. He aged 40 years.
Those expanding galaxies has the dad's frame of reference. He aged 21 years
The universe has the grandad's frame of reference. He aged 1 year

Do you understand why the universe can be younger than it's own creation?

I could even change up the story to make the grandad 20 years old, the dad 40 & the grandchild 80 years old and it would still be possible under the laws of time dilation.

[MD Marketers]

Ahhhh, lol. Ok. well yeah 5 mins is the obvious answer.

How?
We don't know how far the plane flew before the attendant started walking. We don't know the speed of the plane either.
5 minutes is the time it took the attendant to walk. It's not the time from Miami to the Florida coast.
Add enough time dilation in there (and an airport observer) and the plane could have reached the Florida coastline in under 5 mins.
If you compared data afterwards the observer will say your watch is broke & you will probably say the same thing about his.

[MD Marketers]

1. 6 Days ( Note this only works for primitive beings on this one planet in this one solar system in this one galaxy)

As far as I can tell, it wasn't published across the galaxy. Assuming that you were an alien reading earth history why would you even assume that a sentenced addressed to an earthling with the word "day" in it could possibly be referring to your planet's rotation?
You do know I'm agnostic right?

2. Twin 2 would be younger. Assuming time stopped and twin 2 spent 100% of the time travelling at light speed then twin 2 would be 20 still. The rocket would be a couple days old as far as I know.

The rocket would have aged the same amount of time as twin 2. It's a non conscious object that doesn't age due to time dilation. Frame of reference has nothing to do with consciousness.

[bluesclues]

so to back this up, science has proposed the"displacement theory".

Space itself is expanding which explains why the observable universe is so big, compared to the age of the universe. because space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.

i dont know you guys choose to not know certain things ?

that is what i said. it's called field displacement theory. i dont know how you guys choose to not know certain things... like reading and comprehension

but whats funny is that you see nothing wrong with the idea of "empty space" expanding out of nothing. lol considering empty space is .. well.. u tell me whats the definition of empty space? or "space". Why should i see a problem with it?, its what we observe. how do you explain the hubble parameter ?

the terrible truth is that most of you dont recognize the difference between "scientific facts" and "facts". not all scientific facts are "facts". when you understand this.. check me back.

please elaborate

and ur also incorrect in your statement. it is not scientific.

Space itself is expanding

it is not.

it appears to be expanding. this is the basis of the theory.

What you think the meaning of Theory is in science ?

also on your quote

but whats funny is that you see nothing wrong with the idea of "empty space" expanding out of nothing. lol considering empty space is .. well.. u tell me whats the definition of empty space? or "space"

is a fact supported by a theory still a fact?

[MD Marketers]

so to back this up, science has proposed the"displacement theory".

Space itself is expanding which explains why the observable universe is so big, compared to the age of the universe. because space itself can expand faster than the speed of light.

i dont know you guys choose to not know certain things ?

that is what i said. it's called field displacement theory. i dont know how you guys choose to not know certain things... like reading and comprehension

but whats funny is that you see nothing wrong with the idea of "empty space" expanding out of nothing. lol considering empty space is .. well.. u tell me whats the definition of empty space? or "space". Why should i see a problem with it?, its what we observe. how do you explain the hubble parameter ?

the terrible truth is that most of you dont recognize the difference between "scientific facts" and "facts". not all scientific facts are "facts". when you understand this.. check me back.

please elaborate

and ur also incorrect in your statement. it is not scientific.

Space itself is expanding

it is not.

it appears to be expanding. this is the basis of the theory.

What you think the meaning of Theory is in science ?

also on your quote

but whats funny is that you see nothing wrong with the idea of "empty space" expanding out of nothing. lol considering empty space is .. well.. u tell me whats the definition of empty space? or "space"

is a fact supported by a theory still a fact?

Facts are dependent on:
1. The current state of global knowledge in support of a claim
2. Currently having no evidence globally to disprove the evidence you provided.

When you disprove a fact you create a new fact.
It has happened more times than you can imagine in human history.

A fact is not a claim to an objective reality. Facts are subjective.
Here is the definition:
Fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true.
Eg.
Pluto being a planet was once a fact. It was indisputable at the time.
Pluto is not a planet, is also a fact. It is no longer an accepted understanding based on global knowledge & evidence.

When you say something was never a fact what you are saying is:
It was never an indisputable claim based on global knowledge and evidence provided at any point in the history of Humanity.

I bet someone here is going to reply to this with something like:
"It was never a fact that Pluto was a planet"

If you do then you don't know what a fact is.