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" <email@example.com>
To: "Ted Davis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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?
> George L. Murphy
> "The Science-Theology Dialogue"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 15 2001 - 11:59:26 EDT