This is the claim made by nuclear scientist Gerald Schroeder.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html

I was recently watching a t.v. show, where Gerry Schroeder was interviewed and explained his above statement.

Science estimates that the Earth is 15 billion years old but, The Bible states that the universe was created in 6 days, so how are both of them right? Because of a process known as time dilation.

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

The fabric of space is like rubber in the sense that it can stretch, and in doing so it distorts time. When the Big Bang occured it stretched space by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000 or one trillion.

Now because this massive stretch distorted time, Earth's age appears to be 15,000,000,000 or 15 billion years old. But if you were to view the earth from point of origin on the universe (where no time has been distorted) the time is much shorter. And Gerald Schroeder's proof?

15,000,000,000 (age of the universe based on earth's relation to the point of origin) divided by 1,000,000,000,000 (factor by which the universe has stretched)
is equal to...

0.015 and that converted into days is 6!

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/schroeder.cfm

List of things wrong with Schroeder's theories.

Schroeder proceeds to give an example of "time dilation." This is a well known experimental result regarding the behavior of mu-mesons (muons). As Schroeder tells the readers, while 200 microseconds elapse in the frame of reference attached to the ground, only 4.5 microseconds elapse in the frame of reference of the moving muon itself. Experts would gladly agree with that statement, while laypersons have to rely on Schroeder's scientific background and accept his statements.

From this point on the paths of experts and of laypersons necessarily will go in different directions. Laypersons, impressed by Schroeder's scientific credentials, may continue accepting his further explanations. The experts, however, would rather shrug off the next step in Schroeder's line of thought. In that next step, Schroeder makes a leap from the case of fast moving muons to the case of creation of the universe in six days. According to Schroeder, before creating the first man, Adam, God acted in his own frame of reference, vastly different from the frame of reference which would be chosen by him at the moment of Adam's creation. In the pre-Adam frame of reference - the frame of the Creator - what would become billions of years on the future post-Adam clock were just days. At the moment of Adam's creation, God chose to switch to the post-Adam frame of reference, which then became the same for God and men. What had been only six days in the pre-Adam frame of reference, in the new frame of reference common for both the Creator and the creation, would become billions of years. That is what Schroeder tells us.

Can we assert that the above idea is false? We can't. On the other hand, can we assert, based on rational considerations, that the above idea is true? Again, we can't.

So what we have is another piece of religious explanation that cannot be proven true or false.

In short, nothing fucking new at all.

In short, nothing fucking new at all.

Geez, if you're gonna use such mean language go back to IFIOTW :).

This is the claim made by nuclear scientist Gerald Schroeder.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html

I was recently watching a t.v. show, where Gerry Schroeder was interviewed and explained his above statement.

Science estimates that the Earth is 15 billion years old but, The Bible states that the universe was created in 6 days, so how are both of them right? Because of a process known as time dilation.

Science does not claim that the earth is 15 billion years old. More in the neighborhood of 4.6 billion years. The big bang occured a damn long time before the earth formed.

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

The fabric of space is like rubber in the sense that it can stretch, and in doing so it distorts time. When the Big Bang occured it stretched space by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000 or one trillion.

Now because this massive stretch distorted time, Earth's age appears to be 15,000,000,000 or 15 billion years old. But if you were to view the earth from point of origin on the universe (where no time has been distorted) the time is much shorter. And Gerald Schroeder's proof?

15,000,000,000 (age of the universe based on earth's relation to the point of origin) divided by 1,000,000,000,000 (factor by which the universe has stretched)
is equal to...

0.015 and that converted into days is 6!


Science does not know the point of origin of the universe.

Science does not claim that the earth is 15 billion years old. More in the neighborhood of 4.6 billion years. The big bang occured a damn long time before the earth formed.

You're right but, I thought I would confuse people, instead of saying "age of this universe in comparison to the center of the larger surrounding universe.

Science does not know the point of origin of the universe.

Yes, which is why it is only a theory.

Kinda stupid question but..who wrote the book of genesis? Who delivered the information?

Arguably, Moses. Most likely: Several people.

Yes, which is why it is only a hypothesis.

fixed

Who delivered the information?

Gerald Schroeder believes that the ancients were more in touch with the natural world, especially astronomy (the egyptian pyramids, stonehenge, etc.) and could deduce this information.

Yes, which is why it is only a theory.
It's not a fucking theory, it's a damn hypothesis.

It's not a fucking theory, it's a damn hypothesis.

I was always under the impression that a theory and a hypothesis were the same thing.

In everyday use the two terms are interchangable. As used in science, they have much different meanings.

Definitions as used in science:


Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.
Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.
Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm#) of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.


Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.


Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

Source (http://wilstar.com/theories.htm)

^Thanks for clearing that up. Ignorant people--the ones who say "Oh, evolution is ONLY a theory. . . ." should read it.

Back to topic. A lot of time and energy is wasted when people try to mix science with mythology.

Cosmology is mythology with numbers attached.

Cosmology is mythology with numbers attached.

Astronomy actually adds the numbers correctly.

Astronomy actually adds the numbers correctly.

Then why is it that from the observations we have acquired so many still believe in the problematic Big Bang hypothesis rather than the observable universe exiting in a finite region of infinite eternal space?

Because peoples views of the universe are intwined in their view of themselves and society. It will either collapse on themselves in a big crunch, or slowly decay in dissipation of all matter.

Cosmology is tied up in particle physics, so if this hypothesis is wrong, then our modern foundation crumbles. In cosmology and in particle physics theory and experiment continue to suffer from contradiction. Remember, it is the big bang proponents who still believe in the myth that matter is made of particles. It is just a matter of time before the body of stories associated with a culture or institution (mythology) collapse and a scientific and philosophical revolution begins.

Care to substantiate ANY of that bullshit? Let me guess.... No? What a fucking surprise. :rolleyes:

I was thinking of not responding to you because of your brash and disrespectful tone, but I think knowledge is more important than one mans feelings, so here you go:

Spherical standing wave (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm)structure of matter?

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/wave-structure-matter-theorists.htm

I googled spherical standing wave structure of matter criticism (http://www.totse.com/community/spherical%20standing%20wave%20structure%20of%20mat ter%20criticism), and I thought this (http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=4644&st=0&)was a very interesting conversation between physicists.

Isn't the most simplest theory (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Ockhams-Razor.htm) that matches the data supposed to be the best one?

Instead of mindlessly criticizing, do some research please. Then you can criticize all you want.

Type big bang in their search engine and you'll find all sorts of interesting information which works well with the observations. (finite spherical physical 'observable universe' exists as part of infinite eternal space)

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html


That website looks like it was made by a 4 year-old, therefor loses all credibility and makes you look dumb. Why can't religious freaks just accept the fact that certain people are smart enough not to follow in their retarded ass beliefs? Why does it bother you all so much that some people don't believe? This sounds like a good idea for a thread...

That website looks like it was made by a 4 year-old, therefor loses all credibility and makes you look dumb.

Doesn't matter what the website looks like, all that matters is the information it contains. I apologize if you aren't able to understand it, but don't say it "loses all credibility" just because it looks stupid. Besides, the man is a nuclear scientist, hardly a 4 year old.

Why can't religious freaks just accept the fact that certain people are smart enough not to follow in their retarded ass beliefs?

:rolleyes: Don't flatter yourself...

Why does it bother you all so much that some people don't believe?

Is it the believers that are bothering you, or is it you that is bothering the believers?

lol for the lol in the lol lol lol

lol on you

I was thinking of not responding to you because of your brash and disrespectful tone, but I think knowledge is more important than one mans feelings, so here you go:

Well that's a new one... Because all you've ever done is whine about my "unsavory remarks" while you conveniently get to spread all the unsubstantiated bullshit you want. (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?p=10023537&highlight=unsavory#post10023537) It's nice to see that "knowledge" is important to you now.



Spherical standing wave (http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Quantum-Theory-Mechanics.htm)structure of matter?

Yes, we've heard the same thing before; you mentioned that "theory" before. What you conveniently fail to mention - which was explained to you before - is that that "theory" isn't supported by mainstream Science, there is no meaningful experiment that has confirmed it and it isn't the simplest explanation as you claim since it would require overturning lots of experimental data in particle physics.

Could it be true? Sure. Is there anything supporting it other than a theoretical/hypothetical basis that sounds nice on its surface? Not that you've provided.

Moreover, although my comment was a little open ended, the intention was for you to substantiate all the things you've said. In specific, things like "why is it that from the observations we have acquired so many still believe in the problematic Big Bang hypothesis" which implies the Big Bang theory is wrong and people shouldn't believe it, or "In cosmology and in particle physics theory and experiment continue to suffer from contradiction".

This whole crap you keep reading on the Internet might be interesting, but it's not supported by mainstream Scientists - which would be dying to support it if had any merit because it would essentially be a guaranteed Nobel Prize and research grants for life - for a reason: there is little substance other than the pseudo-scientific fluff that grabs the attentions of internet hippies who've smoked too much.

All depends on interpretation, you could say nothing validates this or you could say that everything validates this, it depends on how you look at the data. Some people like to take the mainstream institutionalized mythology, however, that interpretation doesn't resonate as well with me, so I choose to take the interconnected wave mythology. How your mythology is anything more than an interesting theory that looks good on paper and all other mythologies are inferior and pseudo-scientific when both mythologies can match the data, I don't know. I suppose it is because it is your interpretation, and if the foundations turnout to be wrong, then Science has been going down the wrong path and everything would need to be rethought. Maybe the interpretation of the future will be that all non-ætherspace theories are pseudo-scientific. Some people like to make things more and more complex and add more and more things, while others like to make things simpler and simpler, down to a point where all things emit out waves while all things absorb these out waves making them in waves for that specific piece, making the universe one interconnected ocean thing interacting with itself. Crackpot theory, or revolutionary genius? Depends on how you want to look at it. This "internet hippy" won't be posting as much in the future because I have things that need doing and a life to live. But don't fear, I shall pop in from time to time to express my revolutionary-genius / crackpot wisdom now and again.

"Maybe" doesn't help anything. Yes, "maybe" your allegations are true... and maybe I'll get a blow job from Angelina Jolie tomorrow while Jennifer Connelly tickles my balls. "Maybe" is the stuff of delusions, not of Science. Science requires more than "maybe"; it may accept it as a starting point, but until you produce something more, it wont take you seriously.

All these "crackpot" ideas of yours haven't produced anything. The Big Bang theory has (e.g. the prediction of the Cosmic microwave background). Particle Physics has. You calling these things "myths" - a self-serving move if I've ever seen one - isn't going change the fact that they've produced something while your ideas have not, and thus stand remarkably much higher than these ridiculous "theories" of yours. They are not even in the same league.

P.S. It's not you expressing your "crackpot wisdom" that's the problem, it's you thinking it's somehow on par with actual Science that proves problematic or, dare I say, delusional.

LoL, this thread is too much!

"kurdt318" since you started this thread, let me tell you something (but for all to read): Stop reading the bible literally, trying to prove God as creator of the world. Instead read the bible like a metaphor, a story. The earth is Billions of Years old not thousands. Religion is not meant to be read as an expression of something that happened in time and space.

Personally, I believe that God didnt make the universe personally, but through a process of emanation. It came forth. People often say if you were to imagine a drop of water into a larger body of water this would cause a ripple effect.

If God made us perfect and all-knowing (according to Genesis) why did he give us the first rule in our perfect state?

"...but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.""(Genesis 2:17)

If we were perfect in God than we would have known better, and avoided the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil naturally. However "God" had to tell us not to partake in its fruit, which means we were ignorant from the start. Which tells me that is not my source but the root of my ignorance, the fact I had been put into a physical body and psychological body as well. The answer to where I come from (for the spiritual believer) is founded in The Secret Book of John.

Leading me to believe that I am alien to this world or as A.E. Houseman said: "I a stranger and afraid in a world I never made."

These are familiar with the existentialists beliefs... However what makes me different from the existentialists is that I still believe their is a God just not in this universe or world unless I cultivate the Kingdom in My own life. (hence, why our prayers go unanswered when we go through such trying times)

LoL, this thread is too much!

"kurdt318" since you started this thread, let me tell you something (but for all to read): Stop reading the bible literally, trying to prove God as creator of the world.

I hope I didn't come off sounding as the Bible is my manual of life, quite the opposite actually. I consider myself "Gnostic." But,it has wisdom, as does everything else.

However, I do believe God created the universe (hell, God IS the universe), through what we today know as evolution.

However what makes me different from the existentialists is that I still believe their is a God just not in this universe or world unless I cultivate the Kingdom in My own life. (hence, why our prayers go unanswered when we go through such trying times)

As I said before, God IS the universe, and everything in it. What I think you're getting at, is that we create our own realities, all change comes from within. As for why your prayers go unanswered, I don't have an answer. I talk to God on a daily basis and it answers my prayers and then some.

I hope I didn't come off sounding as the Bible is my manual of life, quite the opposite actually. I consider myself "Gnostic." But,it has wisdom, as does everything else.

Then the Bible is nothing more than an antiquated book of Grimm's fairy tales?

Little stories that serve to teach a moral or idea at the end.

I would aruge that the story of Hanzel and Grettle, Little Red Riding Hood, and the Ugly Duckling are VASTLY superior than nearly all spiritual nonsense INCLUDING the bible for this reason:

Those stories are quite clear in two things

1) The point
2) That it is a work of fiction.

Both things that if the Bible HAD DONE, would have saved the lives of hundreds upon hundreds of millions.

There you have it: Grimm's fairy tales and Mother Goose are superior to religion.

Then the Bible is nothing more than an antiquated book of Grimm's fairy tales?

Little stories that serve to teach a moral or idea at the end.

I would aruge that the story of Hanzel and Grettle, Little Red Riding Hood, and the Ugly Duckling are VASTLY superior than nearly all spiritual nonsense INCLUDING the bible for this reason:

Those stories are quite clear in two things

1) The point
2) That it is a work of fiction.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I think.

Both things that if the Bible HAD DONE, would have saved the lives of hundreds upon hundreds of millions.

Quite terrible, isn't it?

There you have it: Grimm's fairy tales and Mother Goose are superior to religion.

Religion is defined as being a set of beliefs that explain the cause, nature and reason of the universe, etc. So I guess if you want to start a church worshipping The Virgin of The Red Hood, be my guest.

I hope I didn't come off sounding as the Bible is my manual of life, quite the opposite actually. I consider myself "Gnostic." But,it has wisdom, as does everything else.

This universe from the Gnostic perspective was founded by Emanation. God does not create the universe, The Universe would come from God however, as the rest of the cosmology goes shit happened and we ended up with a flawed universe. They idea is to escape it while cultivating The Kingdom around you. You escape the world of illusion by cultivating The Kingdom of Heaven and receiving Gnosis, knowledge of where you come from.

However, their is a multitude of ways of reading scripture (I personally denounce the literal way, b/c the literal words still need to be thought about). Even the Gnostic Story of Everything is meant to be interpreted in many ways. When we discuss the spirit we look inside never outside.

However, I do believe God created the universe (hell, God IS the universe), through what we today know as evolution.

We can believe in evolution and maintain our spiritual beliefs. I am not going to argue that, from the Gnostic POV we are not our bodies, so whatever happens to our bodies is not important, while we are in them it would be best to maintain them. So don't think a Gnostic does not care about their health they do but they know it is not the focus.

God emanated the universe, God does not create... Things just come forth from God. The physical universe was like a bad science project in that something went horribly wrong. The head scientist was ignorant and didnt know what he was doing.

As I said before, God IS the universe, and everything in it. What I think you're getting at, is that we create our own realities, all change comes from within. As for why your prayers go unanswered, I don't have an answer. I talk to God on a daily basis and it answers my prayers and then some.

Yes I would agree our reality is subjective. Now my prayers go answered, but their are people who say their prayers do go unanswered. Largely because, they were taught to pray for God in an external manner.

Then the Bible is nothing more than an antiquated book of Grimm's fairy tales?

Little stories that serve to teach a moral or idea at the end.

I would aruge that the story of Hanzel and Grettle, Little Red Riding Hood, and the Ugly Duckling are VASTLY superior than nearly all spiritual nonsense INCLUDING the bible for this reason:

Those stories are quite clear in two things

1) The point
2) That it is a work of fiction.

Both things that if the Bible HAD DONE, would have saved the lives of hundreds upon hundreds of millions.

There you have it: Grimm's fairy tales and Mother Goose are superior to religion.

From your position yes, they have things to teach. Its done in a storybook form. They are myths. HOWEVER: In our society we blow myths off like just another story. This is not supposed to be done. Just because it never happened does not mean in never happens. You look at the story of Christ during crucifixion and you put that into proportion with our lives around us and you will see that from your position its a story of how the people with the best intentions are rejected.

From my position as an esotericist its your position and more. This is a story meant to help us overcome the world and transcend the mundane. Expansion of consciousness and bring about what we would call "The Perfected Self" fulfilling the age old idea that "Perfection comes from Imperfection."

This is the point of the bible, not to kill and not to further suffering. These spiritual texts where meant to convey spiritual truths not worldly ones, it was not meant to say that I should kill an infidel but rather all expressed in these texts should (for the most part) be internalized. It is wrapped in a story to convey a deeper message. While I would disagree with your conclusion, I would be willing to compromise and say that: "Religion is superior but the message of spirituality is conveyed through a Mother Goose fashion."

MOST IMPORTANT: "Keep Thy Religion, To Thyself!" B/C, religion (spirituality) was never meant to be forced upon anyone, but a way to experience the mystery of what God is, instead of what we think God is.

I believe God was the source or being of all the energy that created the universe. The origin of pure raw energy, the building block of life. IMO it is like a system flawless and divine yet chaotic and unpredictable. Organized religion tends to personify God as a being with human like consciousness and feeling yet he is beyond that. Some people define it as "Spinoza's version of God" and to most degrees I believe it.

However, sometimes I feel like he has intervened in my life in such a subtle yet influential way.

This is the claim made by nuclear scientist Gerald Schroeder.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/new.html

I was recently watching a t.v. show, where Gerry Schroeder was interviewed and explained his above statement.

Science estimates that the Earth is 15 billion years old but, The Bible states that the universe was created in 6 days, so how are both of them right? Because of a process known as time dilation.

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

The fabric of space is like rubber in the sense that it can stretch, and in doing so it distorts time. When the Big Bang occured it stretched space by a factor of 1,000,000,000,000 or one trillion.

Now because this massive stretch distorted time, Earth's age appears to be 15,000,000,000 or 15 billion years old. But if you were to view the earth from point of origin on the universe (where no time has been distorted) the time is much shorter. And Gerald Schroeder's proof?

15,000,000,000 (age of the universe based on earth's relation to the point of origin) divided by 1,000,000,000,000 (factor by which the universe has stretched)
is equal to...

0.015 and that converted into days is 6!

:eek: