Re: relativity and age of cosmos

From: Moorad Alexanian (
Date: Mon Oct 15 2001 - 12:00:14 EDT

  • Next message: george murphy: "Re: relativity and age of cosmos"

    Doesn't the existence of a cosmic microwave background serve as a preferred
    frame, not to say absolute frame. Moorad

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "george murphy" <>
    To: "Ted Davis" <>
    Cc: <>
    Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 11:50 AM
    Subject: Re: relativity and age of cosmos

    > Ted Davis wrote:
    > > The idea of linking relativity (GTR in this case) with a "literal"
    > > interpretation of early Genesis and thus "explaining" the old age of the
    > > universe (which is taken as genuine in this particular interpretation)
    > > been promoted by the Israeli physicist Gerald Schroeder, a former
    > > at MIT who has published books and web materials giving very interesting
    > > versions of OEC. This may be what Wayne Dawson has in mind.
    > The most basic thing that relativity says about "the age of the
    > universe" or "the age of the earth" is that these concepts have no
    > significance. The universe & the earth are 6000 years old in a reference
    > moving at sufficiently high speed through the background radiation. This
    > some other combination of velocity & gravitational effects) allow anyone
    > wishes to hold a type of YEC position, but it doesn't really address the
    > problems - i.e., are the narratives of Genesis 1 and/or Genesis 2 accurate
    > descriptions of a sequence of real events in the history of the universe?
    > Shalom,
    > George
    > George L. Murphy
    > "The Science-Theology Dialogue"

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 11:59:26 EDT