# Goofy creationist theory

#### BWV

there is a goofy creationist theory that attempts to explain how light from stars billions of light years away exists in a 5000 year old universe by using the time dilation of relativity

So using Lorentz, if the farthest object is 10^10 light years and the earth is "really" only 10,000 years old the difference in relative velocities would have to be around .99995 C

$10^{10} / 10^4 = 10^6$

$\sqrt{(1-.99995^2)} \approx 10^6$

Its a silly theory, but can it be made consistent with relativity?

Last edited by a moderator:
Related Special and General Relativity News on Phys.org

#### mgb_phys

Homework Helper
Light moves at the speed of light - in the photons reference frame there is no time dilation (in fact there is no time!)

#### Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
there is a goofy creationist theory that attempts to explain how light from stars billions of light years away exists in a 5000 year old universe by using the time dilation of relativity

Just so you know, we have a pretty low tolerance for religious materials here. PF used to have a Relgion subforum, and it was an absolute mess.

So using Lorentz, if the farthest object is 10^10 light years and the earth is "really" only 10,000 years old the difference in relative velocities would have to be around .99995 C

$10^{10} / 10^4 = 10^6$

$\sqrt{(1-.99995^2)} \approx 10^6$

I see, they just plug in the value that they *want* the age of the universe to be and compute what the relative velocity between the Earth and the most distant object *must* be for that to happen. Something reeks of fertilizer here.

#### skeptic2

Obviously the creationist physicist is far more educated than me but if the star emitting the light is moving at 0.99995 c, then wouldn't it appear younger than earth by a factor of 100, so it would be only 100 years old, not 10^10!

#### Fredrik

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
BWV, none of that makes any sense, and physicsforums.com is definitely the wrong place to discuss crackpot nonsense. (It's clearly against the forum rules. People are getting banned for it, and threads like these are getting locked or deleted). If you want to discuss this particular nonsense, I suggest forums.randi.org, where it can be met by the appropriate amount of ridicule.

#### mgb_phys

Homework Helper
Obviously the creationist physicist is far more educated than me but if the star emitting the light is moving at 0.99995 c, then wouldn't it appear younger than earth by a factor of 100, so it would be only 100 years old, not 10^10!
No, because the FSM is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage.

#### Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Let's get this cleared up right now. The creationist is making an elementary error called frame mixing. Of course it's no secret that there exists an inertial frame S' in which the elapsed time from the formation of the Earth to the present is on the order of 5000 years. Any freshman can calculate what that speed such a frame would have to have in order for that to happen. So the "age" of the Earth as determined by S' is 5000 years. But Earth scientists don't care about the age of the Earth as determined by S'. They only care about the age of the Earth as measured from the Earth. That is, what we call "the age of the Earth" is the proper time between its formation and the present.

BWV, the only reason I haven't locked this thread is that your opening post seems to me to be an honest question. I don't like to come down hard on members just for asking. But I must advise you that this thread will be kept on a very short leash. We're not too keen on crackpot theories here, and even less so when those theories are religious in nature.

#### Tom Mattson

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
BWV, none of that makes any sense, and physicsforums.com is definitely the wrong place to discuss crackpot nonsense. (It's clearly against the forum rules. People are getting banned for it, and threads like these are getting locked or deleted). If you want to discuss this particular nonsense, I suggest forums.randi.org, where it can be met by the appropriate amount of ridicule.
OK, I hear you. What's more, another Science Advisor and another PF Mentor would like action taken here. With that in mind, I am going to lock this thread. The "theory" in the OP is based on an elementary mistake.

Move along, nothing to see here.

#### ZapperZ

Staff Emeritus
2018 Award
I know this thread has been locked, but I just want to say that this thread is an insult to Goofy.

Zz.

### Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving