Yes or No. Is the universe 12,000 years old? Dont hide behind your bible. No but

[Gabu]

Where did this 12,000 years come from?

Good question...yet you ended it in a preposition.   Your question should read, "From where did this 12,000 years come?"

"This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put."
- Winston Churchill

[Gabu]

Hehehehe - as if, the mind of fundamentalists is a closed system.

Well it is true that it is impossible for external forces to act on it.

[Gabu]

Indeed, there are interesting possibilities for the edge of the universe.  I think the cyclical theory is particularly interesting -- you couldn't actually reach any "edge" of the universe because if you got close enough to it, you'd find yourself going back in the other direction!

One theory that I heard is that the universe's shape is actually four-dimensional without a center in three dimensions, which is a lot like the cyclical theory you stated.  It sounds like a weird idea, but imagine the following:

Take a one-dimensional universe - a line.  Then, connect its ends to form a circle.  The universe is still one-dimensional, but its center is in a second dimension.

Or, take a two-dimensional universe - a square sheet.  Then, connect its ends to form a sphere.  The universe is still two-dimensional, but its center is in a third dimension.

The theory is that our universe is the exact same, only that it's in three dimensions connected to form a four-dimensional shape.  The only problem is that, given that we live in three dimensions, it's not possible for us to visualize what the universe would look like (even though we can describe it mathematically very simply).

[Gabu]

Well, considering your friend's impressive credentials, why would I dare disagree with him?  After all, he does hold an undergraduate degree in Physics, and is a part-time professor.   Heck, he is almost qualified to be a TA at a major university.

Pretty much the only difference between someone with an undergraduate degree and someone with a graduate degree is that the latter person has done some form of research or study that led to a thesis or a dissertation, which uncovered some heretofore unknown fact.  Additionally, the latter person will likely have studied some topic to a larger depth than the coverage topics receive in an undergraduate program.

Anyone with an undergraduate degree in physics can be reasonably expected to have learned all or at least nearly all of the knowledge available with regards to general physics, including electricity and magnetism, quantum mechanics, and general relativity.

[Gabu]

Remember this info: 

1)  In the real world, a degree doesn't mean a person is right.  In fact, most people learn just enough in college to be dangerous.

2) Don't ever let someone's credentials keep you from questioning their "facts".  Don't ever back down simply because someone has the "better" credentials.

---

His use of gravity as a means to supposedly decrease entropy is a second semester physics problem and is quite trivial.  My answer was concise and correct.

I appeal to MUON2.

The fact that a person has a degree does not mean that the person is correct about something in the person's field of study, but it does make the person more likely to be correct, given that the person has spent four years of his life devoted to the subject.

How much time have you spent studying physics, and what gives you such total confidence that your answer was correct.  I simply find it kind of strange that someone who, to my knowledge, is more into theology than science, is now claiming to be a master of physics.