Can the Universe be created in 6 days?

[bluesclues]

again. it was a scientific fact that pluto was a planet. scientific fact. real facts do not change. regardless of new discovery, missing information is enough for you to understand that something is not a fact until all the blanks have been filled. if it has blanks, its not a fact. it is an assumption based on facts which were interpretted. further discovery may contradict the assumption. proving therefore it was never a fact. but a work in progress.

[INHUMAN]

Ched for those that believe humans evolved from apes

[MD Marketers]

again. it was a scientific fact that pluto was a planet. scientific fact. real facts do not change. regardless of new discovery, missing information is enough for you to understand that something is not a fact until all the blanks have been filled. if it has blanks, its not a fact. it is an assumption based on facts which were interpretted. further discovery may contradict the assumption. proving therefore it was never a fact. but a work in progress.

I am glad you see the difference between the words "real" & "fact" but although you see the difference I think you don't know what the difference is.
Real: "actually existing as a thing". It's objective
Fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true." It's subjective

Can you tell the difference between these statements:
1. Pluto was never considered to be a planet. (not a fact & also subjective)
2. Pluto was once considered to be a planet. (fact & also subjective)
3. Pluto is now considered to be a planet. (fact & also subjective)
4. Pluto is not a planet. (objective statement)

[Slartibartfast]

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.

In order for the question to make any sense I had to assume that time was being measured relative to point of observation (me and/or the camera) and that the flight attendant starting walking as the plane took off as that is the only way the question could possibly make sense.

If you wanted to ask for the exact time as measured relative to someone in the control tower or relative to an observer in space moving at exactly 0 m/s then you would have needed to elaborate the specific observer from which you wanted the measurement of time to be relative to.

If the flight attendant started walking at some time after take off and I do not know how long after take off she started walking then using the video to estimate the total elapsed time is inadequate as you end up with one equation with two unknowns.

Time between leaving airport and attendant getting up (unknown) + 5 mins walking = total time (unknown).

I'm afraid you will need to tighten up the question unless the answer you want is "It is impossible to know how long it took relative to a datum because the datum is unknown and the information needed is incomplete."

[Slartibartfast]

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.

1. Again I was working with the assumption that you were talking about ancient people on this planet. I made this assumption to try to let my answer line up with your original argument in an attempt to help you move you argument forward.

My fixed answer would be "It would be easiest to describe it as a fraction or multiple of one rotation of the planet". If for some reason it is impossible to measure one rotation of the planet you can use some form of celestial navigation (i.e. 144 hours is the length of time it takes this star to travel from this angle to that angle.


2. Sorry. Lazy typo. I'm assuming twin 2 would take a couple days to speed up to light speed and slow back down. So twin 2 and the rocket would both have aged a couple days, but aged by the same amount. However, unless it was close to twin 2's birthday, twin 2 would still be 20. i.e. Twin 1 would have aged 5 years. Twin 2 and his rocket would have aged negligibly but by the same amount.

[Slartibartfast]

Hope those answers help. I'm still curious to see where you are taking this argument.

[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.

1. Again I was working with the assumption that you were talking about ancient people on this planet. I made this assumption to try to let my answer line up with your original argument in an attempt to help you move you argument forward.

Yes I am talking about the statement being made to an ancient and primitive people whose only ruler of time was a day (night & day rotation).

My fixed answer would be "It would be easiest to describe it as a fraction or multiple of one rotation of the planet". If for some reason it is impossible to measure one rotation of the planet you can use some form of celestial navigation (i.e. 144 hours is the length of time it takes this star to travel from this angle to that angle.

Why does it seem like an illogical thing to tell an ancient people? If it really was done in 6 days (144 hours relative time) to what end would the claimant have in saying otherwise? Wouldn't that be dishonest?
How is complicating a simplified answer in any way make it simpler or easier to understand?
I did ask what is the simplest way of describing 144 hours.
If they got days by measuring hours then hours would have been the simpler way to describe it.
We already know they got hours by dividing up the day & not the other way around.
Days are simpler to understand than hours for them. Do you agree?

2. Sorry. Lazy typo. I'm assuming twin 2 would take a couple days to speed up to light speed and slow back down. So twin 2 and the rocket would both have aged a couple days, but aged by the same amount. However, unless it was close to twin 2's birthday, twin 2 would still be 20. i.e. Twin 1 would have aged 5 years. Twin 2 and his rocket would have aged negligibly but by the same amount.

Do you agree time dilation can stop a non conscious thing from aging? In an earlier post you seemed to have argued against it.

[Slartibartfast]

Sure. Go ahead with your arguments. I'm still waiting to see where this goes.

Also, for reference, which story of creation are we talking about? Not all of them say the world was created in six days so you must have one in mind. I know you are agnostic. I am just trying to find out what your argument is. It's impossible to propose counter arguments if I don't even know what you are arguing about. Do you agree?

[bluesclues]

again. it was a scientific fact that pluto was a planet. scientific fact. real facts do not change. regardless of new discovery, missing information is enough for you to understand that something is not a fact until all the blanks have been filled. if it has blanks, its not a fact. it is an assumption based on facts which were interpretted. further discovery may contradict the assumption. proving therefore it was never a fact. but a work in progress.

I am glad you see the difference between the words "real" & "fact" but although you see the difference I think you don't know what the difference is.
Real: "actually existing as a thing". It's objective
Fact: "a thing that is known or proved to be true." It's subjective

Can you tell the difference between these statements:
1. Pluto was never considered to be a planet. (not a fact & also subjective)
2. Pluto was once considered to be a planet. (fact & also subjective)
3. Pluto is now considered to be a planet. (fact & also subjective)
4. Pluto is not a planet. (objective statement)

Yes i have no problem with that. My only problem is with scientific clowns who try to tell me a present day theory is a fact.

Rewind time.. you are now living during the period when pluto was considered a planet.

Scientific fact... pluto is a planet
Fact - pluto is not a planet because this is not totally proven and still supported by theory.

End.

Thus we have many who cannot tell the difference between scientific facts and real facts in todays world with todays problems. They continuously live under the subjugation of scientific pronouncements. And insist that i must also do so. To which i refuse ... because i have a working brain that can tell the difference between... 'for sure' and 'wellll... we not so sure but we workin on it'.

Passing of a 'we not sure' as a 'for sure' aint gonna fly with me no time.

Perfect example in a previous post.
A man say 'space is expanding'.. so totally untrue.

We believe space is expanding... space appears to be expanding.

But is it really expanding? We have no proof.

What can u really tell us about distant 'appearances' in a world where light is manipulated by gravitational forces, which we are subjected to without fail? For all purposes, in such an illusory universe, surely our eyes can deceive us. Since even if light is bent, we would see a straight line. Only the external observer(outside the laws of gravitation) will be able to perceive bending light.

Planetary distance and universe size is measured by redshift in light as it travels through space. It works on the assumption that light travels at uniform speed throughout the universe. Again, an assumption, which we have already seen it possible for it to not be so. Light can refract multiple times in its journey, affecting its distance coverage in a specified travel time. Gravitation already has been seen to provide a lensing effect on its own like glass does refract light. So why couldnt it just be that light is being deterred and obstructed by gravitation providing the appearance of empty space expanding through the lensing effect.

I am asking why this isnt or couldnt be considered a valid interpretation of the data. For me empty space does not need to expand. Its already everywhere in infinite expanse.


Also note that field displacement doesnt seem to occur within a solar system. But only over very great distances, between solar systems and galaxies. So what do we know and what is a fact?

The other place where displacement was observed is on the micro-scale. How electrons manifest and travel along a wire. And how photons develop out of dark energy empty space.

[STORM1234]

short answer: no

[MD Marketers]

Sure. Go ahead with your arguments. I'm still waiting to see where this goes.

Also, for reference, which story of creation are we talking about? Not all of them say the world was created in six days so you must have one in mind. I know you are agnostic. I am just trying to find out what your argument is. It's impossible to propose counter arguments if I don't even know what you are arguing about. Do you agree?

I am only discussing the possibility that even the observable universe can be only 6 days old using scientific methodology from the reference frame of the singularity. Initial velocity makes all the difference.
Take the following example:
Singularity state Vi of 0.9999999999999999999999992914c & distance of 14.26 mpc right up until post observational universe. Let's say it works out to exactly 6 days. If you increase the distance I could increase the velocity until I get back 6 days.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just showing you what a lack of data can do to an equation.
Do you honestly think the distance/velocity from the FOR of any currently known event could possibly be added to increase the relative age of the expansion to 13.799 billion years if it was expanding for 14.26mpc at 0.9999999999999999999999992914c pre observation? There is currently no observable distance of expanding galaxies or CMB radiation inclusive of it's own relative time dilation that could change the age from 6 days to 13.8 billion years in the given scenario. We would need to increase the observable distance by 13.8 billion x 365 / 6 to get the age to match current estimates if we use our current FOR average velocity in the above scenario (time dilation included). Let's do the maths based on the event start FOR I just described.
t2 = event start FOR
t1 = event anywhere but start FOR
d = 14.26 mpc
v2 = 0.9999999999999999999999992914c
v1 = 0.000000000001c (you can put any figure here once it doesn't cross the SOL or Zero & feel free to add some time dilation (t= t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2), CMB velocity (0.9999983c) & a Hubble Constant (Ho D) in here as well)

t2 = d/v + t1
t2 = t0 + d/(Vi + (Vf - Vi)) = (14.26 mpc / 0.9999999999999999999999992914c) + (14.26mpc / (0.9999999999999999999999992914c + (0.000000000001c - 0.9999999999999999999999992914c))) = 6 days & a microsecond (yes all of post observation just increased the age of the universe pre observation by a microsecond when we added them)

Only if you dishonestly reverse the FOR will you be able to get 13.8 billion years.
t1 = d/v + t2 = (14.26 mpc / 0.000000000001c) + (14.26 mpc/ (0.000000000001c + (0.9999999999999999999999992914c - 0.000000000001c))) = 13.8 billion years (assuming I checked for the Hubble constant, CMB velocity and time dilation as well).
Last I checked we didn't create the universe so why are we reversing the FOR?
Get me the data for distance & velocity between event start & event end of pre-observation & then we can talk about the relative age of the universe.
What makes it worst is that most Physicists believe that the velocity of the big bang started at speeds faster than the SOL so my theory is very plausible.

[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.

[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 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.

Please explain what you mean by this:

Twin 2 and his rocket would have aged negligibly but by the same amount.

the very idea of an "inanimate observer" is an oxymoron and does not prove anything significant to me.

[Slartibartfast]

Please explain what you mean by this:

Twin 2 and his rocket would have aged negligibly but by the same amount.

the very idea of an "inanimate observer" is an oxymoron and does not prove anything significant to me.

1. A negligible amount mean not a significant amount. If five years past and they only aged five days it would not be significant. If twin 2 was 20 years, 3 months 1 week and 2 days old he would still say he is "twenty" years old if someone asked him how old he was. After aging 5 days, his answer would be the same because there is nothing significant about again 5 days in comparison to twenty years.

2.
I'll keep these to google definitions to keep it simple

Observe - perceive (something) and register it as being significant

Inanimate - Not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.
showing no sign of life; lifeless.

Oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Conjunction - the action or an instance of two or more events or things occurring at the same point in time or space.

Therefore, the idea of something lifeless perceiving something and registering it as being significant seems like a contradiction to itself as lifeless objects cannot perceive and register occurrences as significant.

I hope this helps. Like I said from before you even started your verbose argument, I completely agreed with your conclusion before you realised what you were concluding. I just do not see any significance to it.

[Advent]

Mental masturbation thread #MD

[fallen_angel]

they can probably build it in 4 days in china for quarter of the price, but it might not last as long

[INHUMAN]

God.took 6 days. Yes there is a god! Fcuk outta here with allyuy big bang monkey evolution tlk. Endofdiscussion.

[VexXx Dogg]

How long did it take for the Universe to create God?

[fallen_angel]

but god is a trini...

[INHUMAN]

Good point there. Who is gods daddy? U knw when u cant find an ans to something and u have sleepless.nights? Thx vexx!

[desifemlove]

again. it was a scientific fact that pluto was a planet. scientific fact. real facts do not change. regardless of new discovery, missing information is enough for you to understand that something is not a fact until all the blanks have been filled. if it has blanks, its not a fact. it is an assumption based on facts which were interpretted. further discovery may contradict the assumption. proving therefore it was never a fact. but a work in progress.

planet is a human definition. i doh see how that invalidates science..hahaha.

[MD Marketers]

Please explain what you mean by this:

Twin 2 and his rocket would have aged negligibly but by the same amount.

the very idea of an "inanimate observer" is an oxymoron and does not prove anything significant to me.

1. A negligible amount mean not a significant amount. If five years past and they only aged five days it would not be significant. If twin 2 was 20 years, 3 months 1 week and 2 days old he would still say he is "twenty" years old if someone asked him how old he was. After aging 5 days, his answer would be the same because there is nothing significant about again 5 days in comparison to twenty years.

2.
I'll keep these to google definitions to keep it simple

Observe - perceive (something) and register it as being significant

Inanimate - Not alive, especially not in the manner of animals and humans.
showing no sign of life; lifeless.

Oxymoron - a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction

Conjunction - the action or an instance of two or more events or things occurring at the same point in time or space.

Therefore, the idea of something lifeless perceiving something and registering it as being significant seems like a contradiction to itself as lifeless objects cannot perceive and register occurrences as significant.

I hope this helps. Like I said from before you even started your verbose argument, I completely agreed with your conclusion before you realised what you were concluding. I just do not see any significance to it.

Perception is irrelevant when determining age SBF.

age/āj/
noun
the length of time that a person has lived or "a thing has existed."

ex·ist/iɡˈzist/
verb
have "objective reality" or being.

ob·jec·tive/əbˈjektiv/
adjective
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by "personal feelings or opinions" in considering and representing facts.

What matters is the time measured by changes in the state of an event.
If the state doesn't change then it does not age.
We measure changes in state with the ruler of time.
This ruler has rules.
Rule #1:
Always use the frame of reference of the starting state of an event to determine the age of THAT event.

That's why the twin didn't age. It's state never changed.

[Slartibartfast]

MD I await your conclusion...

How does this prove the universe could have been created in 6 days and from the perspective of whom?

[VexXx Dogg]

what is 1 day in the context of the universe?
Look nasa have something for the kids to explain days at a planetery level.
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/days/en/

[MD Marketers]

MD I await your conclusion...

How does this prove the universe could have been created in 6 days and from the perspective of whom?

Age is not based on perspective. Why do you keep repeating that?
It's based on a starting frame of reference.
T=d/v
To find the age of creation we need to know the distance travelled and the speed at which it travelled from start to finish.
The age of creation and the age of a creation are two seperate things.
Im only discussing the time it takes to go from singularity to the present state.

[Slartibartfast]

And what is the starting frame of reference here and why is it relevant?

Also, why 6 days?

I'm still trying to find significance in your argument.

Again, I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying your conclusions are irrelevant but I would love to be proven otherwise.

[X2]

Six days as a matter of reference to what point in space / time ?

God said 6 days.... yet our ability to record time was not yet discovered. (when this information was supposedly passed down). So assuming the '6 days' is equal to 144 hours must also be a guess. This is, of course, using the archaic way you humans use to record 'time' with minutes, seconds and the like...

... with the shifting of orbit over millions of years, the length of a day on earth changes over time.... making our concept of a light year... well, relative.

When the twins theory happens... what if we monitor the light speed travelling twin with a telescope at key points during his journey ? WHat if the travelling twin monitors his stationary sibling ? Does he see his twin aging 5 years or does he see the same image of his twin every time he looks through the eye piece ?

The creation of the universe cannot be 'timed'... if space and time, gravity, magnetism... all inter related. If God exists in the manner in which humans have portrayed... then how would an inter-dimensional being explain to a creature such as ourselves, unaware of our own purpose, still asking questions in the dark, like a child born blind... "How long did it take to create the universe ?" Well shift...dawg... the answer is "42".

[bluesclues]

Bluesclues clue:

The days of the week are translations of pagan Gods names. While a day is actually a dei, which when translated to english means God. Day is light and light is of God. And God is a Dei.

[Slartibartfast]

And primitive beings were superstitious.... I'm not sure what the relevance of that statement is. Unless yoy would like to prove that by being superstitious you are actually a primitive being.

[eitech]

1 Corinthians 3:19 KJV
[19] For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

So true...