[To Joseph Farah:] I enjoyed your column entitled “How old is the Earth?” Marco Rubio answered well. But physics answers best.

This issue was settled nearly 100 years ago with acceptance of the Special Theory of Relativity, which has since become one of the most proven theorems in physics. There is no real argument of six days versus 13 billion years, for they are the same measurement. Time is not a fixed measurement. Instead, time measurements depend on the platforms of the observer. For the same event, a moving observer will measure a time that is less than that which a stationary observer would measure. The differences between the two measurements could be very large, as in six days versus 13 billion years.

The well-known “Twins Paradox” illustrates. Young twins, aged 20 years, say goodbye to each other at a spaceship terminal on Earth. One twin remains on Earth while the other blasts off into space and returns, at very high velocity. The roundtrip through space requires one year, measured aboard that speeding spaceship. Upon landing, the twins greet each other. The spaceship twin is 21 years of age; the Earth-based twin is an old man of 80.

Using the best-known estimate of the big-bang expansion rate, I can postulate a moving platform (God’s platform) that gives a six-day creation, or 144 hours using mankind’s current time clock. God’s platform does not move at constant velocity, but instead moves with the velocity of mass-from-converted-energy that will eventually become our Earth. Of course, neither man nor Earth existed for  much of this creation event, and thus no “stationary” platform existed during that time. But our stationary platform exists now, and God seems to have passed his “moving” time measurement to mankind’s “stationary” time measurement on the sixth day. Using the special theory, we can confirm that a high-speed platform measurement of six days equates to billions of years on a stationary platform.

Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D., professor at MIT, published a paper on this maybe 10-15 years ago.

Lewis Patrick

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.