[_ Old Earth _] A Reconciliation Between Young and Old Earthers?

[Crying Rock]

Hey guys,

I’m no Albert Einstein, just a guy that plays in the dirt, so take it easy on me.

I have a very limited grasp of spacetime : does time stretch with space? I’ve done some very basic research via Wiki, and a couple of concepts I’ve read about have led me to wonder if there is reconciliation between young and old-earthers:

Time Dilatation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The way I understand this concept, with my limited research is, in light of the Big Bang Theory, if true, this could make 1000’s of years appear to be billions, depending on the rate of expansion and the observer.

Assuming a Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe (I respect that there are other theories), if observers have been moving apart at high rates of speed, then would local clocks be moving fast compared to the clocks on that which is observed (especially in the beginning- which is also disputed)? If so, then does what we observe in the distance have a younger age, locally, than what we observe.

Has the expansion of the very fabric of spacetime caused this debate among YE/ OE proponents?

Thoughts?

Signed,

Dizzy Rock

 

[Barbarian]

Hey guys,

I’m no Albert Einstein, just a guy that plays in the dirt, so take it easy on me.

I have a very limited grasp of spacetime : does time stretch with space?

With velocity.

I’ve done some very basic research via Wiki, and a couple of concepts I’ve read about have led me to wonder if there is reconciliation between young and old-earthers:

Time Dilatation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

The way I understand this concept, with my limited research is, in light of the Big Bang Theory, if true, this could make 1000’s of years appear to be billions, depending on the rate of expansion and the observer.

Interesting idea. And it would work, if the Big Bang was truly a big bang. But it was expansion of space itself. So no, it doesn't work, at least as we understand it now.

Assuming a Big Bang scenario for the origin of the universe (I respect that there are other theories), if observers have been moving apart at high rates of speed, then would local clocks be moving fast compared to the clocks on that which is observed (especially in the beginning- which is also disputed)? If so, then does what we observe in the distance have a younger age, locally, than what we observe.

I brought that up once with someone who understood relativity better than I did. He showed me a lot of numbers, which indicated that it didn't work. I have to admit that within a week, I forgot much of it, but there is a book out called the "Cartoon Guide to Physics" which has an interesting way of demonstrating the idea. I'll see if I can find my copy.

 

[Paidion]

Reconciliation between young earthers and old earthers! Interesting idea.

How about reconciliation between round earthers and flat earthers? ☺

 

[Crying Rock]

...but there is a book out called the "Cartoon Guide to Physics" which has an interesting way of demonstrating the idea. I'll see if I can find my copy...

That's just the sort of book I need: ala "Spacetime for Dummies".

 

[Crying Rock]

Reconciliation between young earthers and old earthers! Interesting idea.

How about reconciliation between round earthers and flat earthers? ☺

;)

Seems to be an oil and water thing.

 

[Crying Rock]

Hey guys,

I’m no Albert Einstein, just a guy that plays in the dirt, so take it easy on me.

I have a very limited grasp of spacetime: does time stretch with space?

With velocity.

What do you think about Hubble’s law:

"Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us.[1] The velocity of these objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[2]. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[3] after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law

Interesting idea. And it would work, if the Big Bang was truly a big bang. But it was expansion of space itself. So no, it doesn't work, at least as we understand it now.

Straighten me out here: does Hubble's law imply that matter in the universe is moving at certain velocities relative to other matter? If true, then would the clocks of different observation points be moving at different rates relative to one another?

Or, are the various velocities, implied by Hubble's law, too low to make a significant difference between the clocks of different observation points?

Any luck finding that "Cartoon Guide to Physics"? I might check and see if it is online.

If anyone out there lurking knows of some very simple illustrations of how Time Dilatation works in theory, and how it relates to an expanding universe scenario, I’d really appreciate you pointing me in the right direction.

Rock

 

[Paidion]

"Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us.[1] The velocity of these objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[2]. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[3] after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang."

I think that "Hubble's Law" is not a law of nature at all, but a theory to explain the behaviour of light at great distances. Doesn't it seem preposterous that "distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us"?

Can you imagine this with automobiles? Watch an automobile driving away from you at 50 mph. Can you imagine a "law" that would necessitate that any automobile twice as far away would have to travel 100 mph, and any auto which was 5 times as far away, would have to travel 250 mph? A car only half the distance would be force by nature to travel 25 mph.

 

[Crying Rock]

"Hubble's law is the statement in physical cosmology that .[1] The velocity of these objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured much earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[2]. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble in 1929[3] after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang."

I think that "Hubble's Law" is not a law of nature at all, but a theory to explain the behaviour of light at great distances. Doesn't it seem preposterous that "distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us"?

Can you imagine this with automobiles? Watch an automobile driving away from you at 50 mph. Can you imagine a "law" that would necessitate that any automobile twice as far away would have to travel 100 mph, and any auto which was 5 times as far away, would have to travel 250 mph? A car only half the distance would be force by nature to travel 25 mph.

Does Hubble's "law" require that "distant galaxies recede from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us", or is it just observed that "distant galaxies are receding from us at a velocity proportional to their distance from us"?

I'm just trying to get a handle on this stuff. :crazy