First of all, in your previous post, you claim that the inflationary period lasts for 300,000 years. Nope, not even close. The inflationary period began around 10-36 seconds after the Singularity, and went until sometime between 10-33 and 10-32 SECONDS.
300,000 years is the length of the radiation dominated life of the universe; it has nothing to do with Inflation.
Now to dissect your thoroughly unhinged mystic:
Einstein taught the world that time is relative.
This statement is so vague it has no actual meaning.
That in regions of high velocity or high gravity time actually passes more slowly relative to regions of lower gravity or lower velocity.
This statement is mumbo-jumbo. Part of it is true, and part of it is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a "region of high velocity" because absolute uniform motion (velocity) cannot even be detected. If you (or he) understood relativity, you would know this.
The clocks of observers in different Lorentz frames appear to run more slowly EACH according to the OTHER. The choice of reference frame is entirely immaterial, and the claim that some parts of the universe are at "high velocity" is therefore 100% baloney.
(One system relative to another, hence the name, the laws of relativity.)
This statement is nonsense. Gravitational time dilation is not relative. Your guru is quite confused.
This is now proven fact.
The part that's true, is of course, true. The parts that are nonsense, sadly, remain nonsense.
[
Let me parenthetically add that what is so confusedly described so far, contrary to what Miggie describes as my "dishonesty" is, in fact, time dilation. What follows is also "time dilation." The only difference is, the space expanding effect doesn't give rise to relativistic dilation effects, because "stretching space" doesn't do that.
]
And now on with the hilarity...
Time actually stretches out.
In the case of gravitational fields, yes. In the case of relative uniform motion, no, it doesn't. The relative times recorded by commotional observers are different, but time does not "stretch" for them. They have their own proper time. The proper time of the earth is not different from "God's point of view," or "The universe's point of view," or from Miggie's point of view, or some deranged mystic's point of view.
Were ever you are time is normal for you because your biology is part of that local system.
Absolutely laughable nonsense. [And not even proofed, to boot.] ALL of the laws of physics, including those governing things dead, and things inanimate, are affected. Biology plays no role.
But there is a third aspect of the universe that changes the perception of time, Not gravity and not velocity. That is the stretching of space.
Nope. 100% BS.
The effect of the stretching of space produces the effect that when observing an event that took place far from our galaxy, as the light from that event travels through space and the sequence of events travels through space, the information is actually stretched out.
Nope.
Variable objects with known time constants at the edge of space do not show such behavior. Near objects within our Hubble neighborhood do not show such behavior either. Objects at middle distance -- which are being observed in the distant past -- also do not show that. They beep, pulsate, turn, live and die at the same rates.
"Honest debate" requires calling crap ... crap.
This would be crap.
Your Dr. is one of the most confused simpletons in the history of pseudoscience, who fails to understand that objects seen as 14 billion light years away are being observed in the distant past as well as across great distances of space, and the kinematical and other time-varying physical properties do not show any of the effects his crackpot theory would require if time actually changed as the universe expanded. Quasars and distant galaxies are in this unexpanded period. Stars in them emit the same spectra, and live and die at the predicted rates. Not faster, not slower, not different.
Fail. You should have stuck with relativistic time dilation (and so should he) because this absolutely confused hodge-podge of relativity, semi-classical physics, and pure mysticism is nothing more than a load of 100% pure and unrefined BS. His "space stretching" claim is falsified by every observation of the universe we have.
Being a fool, you continue to address a strawman. Dr Schroeder does not address time dilation. But I can see why you are so desperate to attack that notion. I’m sure you are legendary ... in your own mind. Enjoy your weekend.
In 1959, a survey was taken of leading American scientists. Among the many questions asked was, "What is your estimate of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story; it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."
That was 1959. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning.
This totally leaves out the real reason for why scientists generally believed that the universe was eternal, and that's Hoyle's Steady State Theory. He tries to make it seem like scientists had no more understanding of the age of the universe than Aristotle, and also leaves leaves out Lemaitre, who is the real pioneer of the Big Bang, which he called the primordial atom.
Yes, the cosmic microwave background was one of the final nails in the Steady State coffin, and helped vindicate Lemaitre, but both theories were known to the scientific community and had already developed into a heated debate. They weren't subscribing to an eternal universe because of ancient Greek philosophy; many supported it because it had the full backing of Fred Hoyle, who'd been formulating it since the late 40s.
Lemaitre was a priest who was a friend of Einstein, and when the Church tried to use Lemaitre's theory as proof of Genesis, Lemaitre wrote a letter to the Pope and told him to knock it off; his work in cosmology and physics was science, not religion.
There’s no need to get angry or upset but the science determining ages is not the fixed hard science you two believe it is. Science does not have all the answers to this stuff just b/c you were taught otherwise [thank God for the internet where everyone can voice an opinion!].
Can you explain polystrate fossils, you know fossils that divide many layers of strata that supposedly took greater than a million years to lay down?
How about recent blind carbon dating that indicated the presence of carbon-14 in dinosaurs? [remember carbon dating is only good for 65 thousand years not the claimed dino ages o 65 million or more].
Or have you bothered to read this list?
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
It was posted a couple of times on FR and no it is not debunked [that’s an answer I hear from others all the time without any statements or links to back up the debunking claims.
[excerpt follows]
Age of the earth
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe
by Don Batten
Published: 4 June 2009
There are many categories of evidence for the age of the earth and the cosmos that indicate they are much younger than is generally asserted today.
Can science prove the age of the earth?
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth and the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here. Although age indicators are called ‘clocks’ they aren’t, because all ages result from calculations that necessarily involve making assumptions about the past. Always the starting time of the ‘clock’ has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time. Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed.
There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested. For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old. However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now. And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).
No scientific method can prove the age of the earth or the universe, and that includes the ones we have listed here.
Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today—called the principle of uniformitarianism. If the age calculated from such assumptions disagrees with what they think the age should be, they conclude that their assumptions did not apply in this case, and adjust them accordingly. If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.
Examples of young ages listed here are also obtained by applying the same principle of uniformitarianism. Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young age of the earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases. In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.
The assumptions behind the evidences presented here cannot be proved, but the fact that such a wide range of different phenomena all suggest much younger ages than are currently generally accepted, provides a strong case for questioning those accepted ages (13.77 billion years for the universe and 4.54 billion years for the solar system).
Also, a number of the evidences, rather than giving any estimate of age, challenge the assumption of slow-and-gradual uniformitarianism, upon which all deep-time dating methods depend.
When the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a young age of the earth.
Many of these indicators for younger ages were discovered when creationist scientists started researching things that were supposed to ‘prove’ long ages. The lesson here is clear: when the evolutionists throw up some new challenge to the Bible’s timeline, don’t fret over it. Sooner or later that supposed evidence will be turned on its head and will even be added to this list of evidences for a younger age of the earth. On the other hand, some of the evidences listed here might turn out to be ill-founded with further research and will need to be modified. Such is the nature of science, especially historical science, because we cannot do experiments on past events (see “It’s not science”).
Science is based on observation, and the only reliable means of telling the age of anything is by the testimony of a reliable witness who observed the events. The Bible claims to be the communication of the only One who witnessed the events of Creation: the Creator himself. As such, the Bible is the only reliable means of knowing the age of the earth and the cosmos. See The Universe’s Birth Certificate and Biblical chronogenealogies (technical). In the end we believe that the Bible will stand vindicated and those who deny its testimony will be confounded.
Biological evidence for a young age of the earth
The finding of pliable blood vessels, blood cells and proteins in dinosaur bone is consistent with an age of thousands of years for the fossils, not the 65+ million years claimed by the paleontologists.
DNA in ‘ancient’ fossils. DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years.
Lazarus bacteria—bacteria revived from salt inclusions supposedly 250 million years old, suggest the salt is not millions of years old. See also Salty saga.
The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago. Sanford, J., Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, Ivan Press, 2005; see review of the book and the interview with the author in Creation 30(4):45–47,September 2008. This has been confirmed by realistic modelling of population genetics, which shows that genomes are young, in the order of thousands of years. See Sanford, J., Baumgardner, J., Brewer, W., Gibson, P. and Remine, W., Mendel’s Accountant: A biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program, SCPE 8(2):147–165, 2007.
The data for ‘mitochondrial Eve’ are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
Very limited variation in the DNA sequence on the human Y-chromosome around the world is consistent with a recent origin of mankind, thousands not millions of years.
Many fossil bones ‘dated’ at many millions of years old are hardly mineralized, if at all. This contradicts the widely believed old age of the earth. See, for example, Dinosaur bones just how old are they really?
Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels, proteins (hemoglobin, osteocalcin, collagen, histones) and DNA are not consistent with their supposed more than 65-million-year age, but make more sense if the remains are thousands of years old (at most).