Theory of Relativity and Young Earth

[INPEFESS]

My brother (by way of background, majored in physics and mechanical engineering, currently a pilot for United Airlines) and I were discussing a topic that fascinate us: in this case, the apparent conflict between the Scriptural account of creation and modern scientific research. The idea we discussed is not a new idea, I know--indeed, a Protestant friend of mine and I discussed it some time ago--but one that is certainly not given due consideration. Because of my tendency to be verbose, I will present it in the broad, general  terms used by him.

"I was contemplating high speed velocity flight....as in the speed of light and the theory of relativity. What happens if the Bing Bang scientists are right and at the beginning matter accelerated at or higher than the speed of light? In that case the rocks that made up earth could actually be millions of years old with the earth only experiencing 7,000 years of history with humans. It would also explain vast amounts of time passing while only a day passes in Genesis. It would be interesting to run calculations to see what 7,000 years translates in terms of relativity to the millions of years estimated by scientists."

Please feel free to comment on, critique, or expound upon the theory, but only if you truly wish to discuss and exchange ideas, not simply tell others that they are wrong and you are right. If you just want to get on your pedestal and browbeat those who you perceive as less educated than yourself, then your input isn't welcome on my thread. I will just have the moderators shut the thread down.

Thanks KS in advance for your cooperation!

[GloriaPatri]

"I was contemplating high speed velocity flight....as in the speed of light and the theory of relativity. What happens if the Bing Bang scientists are right and at the beginning matter accelerated at or higher than the speed of light? In that case the rocks that made up earth could actually be millions of years old with the earth only experiencing 7,000 years of history with humans. It would also explain vast amounts of time passing while only a day passes in Genesis. It would be interesting to run calculations to see what 7,000 years translates in terms of relativity to the millions of years estimated by scientists."

The bolded is incorrect. Cosmologists believe that spacetime itself experienced a very, very brief period of extreme expansion at the very beginning of the universe's lifetime, not that matter was moving at speeds at or greater than c (which is impossible since it would require infinite acceleration in a finite time, or infinite time with finite acceleration. Either way that requires infinite energy). But that very brief period of fast expansion is accounted for when cosmologists make estimates for the age of the universe, and even if they had somehow failed to do so there are still distant objects billions of light years away whose light has reached us to this day. That alone precludes a young universe. And radiometric dating of certain rock samples in the Earth's crust preclude a young Earth.

[INPEFESS]

By "young earth" is meant "young to humans," but old in time.

That's why it was said, "In that case the rocks that made up earth could actually be millions of years old with the earth only experiencing 7,000 years of history with humans."

[GloriaPatri]

Human fossils have been discovered that are well over 100,000 years old. Human history is far longer than a literalistic reading of Genesis would allow for.

[Quaremerepulisti]

1.  Time would indeed pass slower in a strong gravitational field according to relativity, but the magnitude of the field necessary to produce 6 orders of magnitude time dilation would rip the earth completely to shreds.

2.  And regarding rocks, millions of years have passed in the rock's reference frame.  If the rocks are in a high gravitational field, then even more time will pass in a weak gravity field.

[INPEFESS]

Human fossils have been discovered that are well over 100,000 years old. Human history is far longer than a literalistic reading of Genesis would allow for.

Ok then, I guess that settles it.

[Sempronius]

How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

[GloriaPatri]

How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

Didn't read the article, since I'm on my phone, but scientists are well aware of how contamination can skew radioactive-dating results. But they're easy enough to account for. Also, I highly doubt those rocks are only 10 years old. Even if YECists were correct, the atoms making up these rocks would be thousands of years old.

[Maximilian]

How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

Thanks for posting that link.
Very interesting article.

[red solo cup]

http://godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

[Quaremerepulisti]

How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

So, uh, let me get this straight.  Daughter isotopes present in the lava flows which formed rocks at Mt. St. Helens didn't simply vaporize into thin air when the lava formed into rock.  Therefore, they were detected when these rocks were submitted for radiometric dating, leading to a nonzero age.  And this proves SCIENTISTS ARE LYING about the earth being very old.

[Sempronius]

How reliable is this?

http://creation.mobi/lessons-from-mount-st-helens

Below figure 11.
"Mount St Helens reveals fatal radioactive-dating flaw"

The author writes that they tested newly-formed rocks (I think), that were 10 years old and the results showed they were 300 000 to 3 million years old.

What are the explanations to this?

Didn't read the article, since I'm on my phone, but scientists are well aware of how contamination can skew radioactive-dating results. But they're easy enough to account for. Also, I highly doubt those rocks are only 10 years old. Even if YECists were correct, the atoms making up these rocks would be thousands of years old.

Here's an article describing how they analized the samples

http://creation.mobi/lavadome

[Quaremerepulisti]

Here's an article describing how they analized the samples

http://creation.mobi/lavadome

This is really bad.

All they did was submit samples to a lab for measurements of potassium, argon, and radiogenic argon.  The amount of radiogenic argon was non-zero.  So then they plugged these numbers into the radiometric decay equation to come up with their estimates of age. 

Except in real life, radiometric dating accounts for the possibility of non-zero daughter isotopes at the rock's formation via the use of isochron techniques.  (Which is why they didn't, of course, submit the samples to a lab for K-Ar dating, but only for estimates of K and Ar concentrations, for the isochron technique would have yielded a fail.)

[Sempronius]

Here's an article describing how they analized the samples

http://creation.mobi/lavadome

This is really bad.

All they did was submit samples to a lab for measurements of potassium, argon, and radiogenic argon.  The amount of radiogenic argon was non-zero.  So then they plugged these numbers into the radiometric decay equation to come up with their estimates of age. 

Except in real life, radiometric dating accounts for the possibility of non-zero daughter isotopes at the rock's formation via the use of isochron techniques.  (Which is why they didn't, of course, submit the samples to a lab for K-Ar dating, but only for estimates of K and Ar concentrations, for the isochron technique would have yielded a fail.)

Okay I see, I'll gladly read all the arguments and here is a critique of the article

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146

So in order to date a rock it must be at least 2 million years old. Okay If God created the earth couldn't argon excess be higher through the creating power of God? Imagine if he created Mount Everest in 3 minutes. So much energy is being generated then.

[Sempronius]

And here's an article more relating to the OP. How can distant stars reach us if the universe is young?

https://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf

The writer argues that young creationists cannot fully explain distant stars, but the same goes for cosmologs who try to prove big bang. Its all about which agenda you have. If you follow the bible you will develop theories that resonates with your beliefs, if you follow a materialistic view you will do the same