Big Bang...boom ????

[seveneyes]

One other thing since I find the subject fascinating and am enjoying posting about it is that since time is relative and we base our years on how many times the earth has gone around the sun as a point of reference. In relative time 2 to 3 of our days is an entire lifetime for some life forms. It makes me wonder, in a solar system sense, where do we find anything else that is like a solar system. I see it in protons and electrons. How long in our time, does it take an electron to go around its proton 13.7 billion times? Ultimately in relative time in the light of a timeless reality, the two (our solar system and the electron) have experienced the same thing. I truly believe that the more mankind learns about time, the more the theory of evolution will be turned upside down.

[RickD]

One other thing since I find the subject fascinating and am enjoying posting about it is that since time is relative and we base our years on how many times the earth has gone around the sun as a point of reference. In relative time 2 to 3 of our days is an entire lifetime for some life forms. It makes me wonder, in a solar system sense, where do we find anything else that is like a solar system. I see it in protons and electrons. How long in our time, does it take an electron to go around its proton 13.7 billion times? Ultimately in relative time in the light of a timeless reality, the two (our solar system and the electron) have experienced the same thing. I truly believe that the more mankind learns about time, the more the theory of evolution will be turned upside down.

Just an interesting note; I heard the amount of space in between electrons, neutrons, and protons, in an atom, is relatively greater than the amount of space in between the planets in our solar system. Maybe one of you nerds can confirm that.

[seveneyes]

I dont have any links to anything on the subject. I just sort of came across the Idea from other things that have heard and seen happen. I think that for me it really comes down to the fact that I believe that even though we are in this universe, what is outside of it is what really defines what life is and is the whole reason for it. So to me, time being relative shows that we are still connected to the timeless reality and therefore, 13.7 billion years is a ridiculous thing to ponder in the light of eternity and has no bearing on anything. I think that it is pretty clear that the linearity that we perceive in time is also kind of strange in a multidimensional universe. Why do we only view in terms of past and future like a 2 dimensional line and why do we assume that looking backward will answer everything?

I think of time being instituted by God. I wonder if it works like blowing bubbles. Think of yourself holding a bubble maker and blowing into it. If the bubble maker is the point of time institution and the bubble time itself. The first thing that comes our of the bubble stick is the far side of the sphere and then finally the beginning of the sphere. Creation outside of time means that the past and future have already been created and are like a sphere floating in timelessness. The things that haven't happened yet have in fact already happened... Or, creation is still taking place, the bubble is still being blown. The future and past are still growing which tells me that the creation begins not in our distant past, or in our distant future. The bubble blower evidently would be right in the middle somewhere.

I am not actually attempting to say that I am right about anything here, or create some new doctrine. All I am sure of is that timelessness is important in understanding our origins and it is not looked at by most anyone. It is not even questioned. The whole theory of evolution bases itself on assumptions about time.

Another interesting thing about the bubble analogy is that if the future didn't come out of the point of origin first and the past did, then the bubble blower was blowing from the future into the past...The whole bubble analogy may be flawed to begin with, but it is interesting regardless.

[dayage]

seveneyes,

There is a mystery to the nature of the universe and there is a reason that science and the bible seem at odds concerning the timeline, however, God did create the universe and our linear view of time does not hold a candle to what the reality actually is.

They are not at odds. Could you please give an example.

Since the time demension (of our universe) was created at the Big Bang, how could the creation event send a ripple backwards in time?

In the Big Bang, we can measure the age of the universe. Light only travels so fast, so for the light to have reached us, from distant stars and galaxies, then a certain amount of real time had to laps. Astronomers only observe the past and they can see our universe's development at different stages. We have background radiation, in the universe, that comes from the time before there were stars and galaxies. In this radiation are signitures that allow astronomers to witness what was happening during inflation, just 10 to the -43 seconds after the Big Bang. We can only observe the past, because enough time as past to allow the light to reach us.

[dayage]

jlay,

That is the fallacy of reification. Stars don't 'say' anything. People, using methods that have unprovable presumptions, say how old they view the universe.

What is great, is that it has been put to the test. The debate is finally out on DVD. All of the astronomers involved, are Christians. I'm going to wait a week or so and get it from Dr. Ross and Reasons to Believe, but it is already available from John Ankerberg.
http://www.johnankerberg.org/catalog/HOU-DVD.html

The quick summary is here.
http://www.reasons.org/articles/special ... e-universe

[seveneyes]

seveneyes,

There is a mystery to the nature of the universe and there is a reason that science and the bible seem at odds concerning the timeline, however, God did create the universe and our linear view of time does not hold a candle to what the reality actually is.

They are not at odds. Could you please give an example.

Since the time demension (of our universe) was created at the Big Bang, how could the creation event send a ripple backwards in time?

In the Big Bang, we can measure the age of the universe. Light only travels so fast, so for the light to have reached us, from distant stars and galaxies, then a certain amount of real time had to laps. Astronomers only observe the past and they can see our universe's development at different stages. We have background radiation, in the universe, that comes from the time before there were stars and galaxies. In this radiation are signitures that allow astronomers to witness what was happening during inflation, just 10 to the -43 seconds after the Big Bang. We can only observe the past, because enough time as past to allow the light to reach us.

The assumption is that what instituted the big bang and time, happened immediately BEFORE the event, and that measuring that time actually means anything relevant toward our actual origin. If it happened outside of time, there was no BEFORE the event. What I am hypothesizing is that a massive creative event outside of time now has us seeing the past that is there, but was actually set in motion sometime in the middle of time itself, a ripple effect occurred at the creation event, or in effect, the future came before the past, but our limited knowledge and perceptions keep us looking linearly backward and assuming that it was the ultimate beginning.

This is only hypothesizing. I am not claiming that it is actual, only that it is interesting and that the nature of timelessness (eternity) in the light of relative time at it's institution highlights mans assumptions and leading perceptions going into the science itself and I see that it is flawed. If time is relative, to a hydrogen atom at stable temperatures, its electron goes around its nucleus 100 times to our earths one time around the sun, and the space between the nucleus and electron are relatively identical in scale. So to the atom, the universe is 100 times older than we think. The opposite end of the spectrum is true also for the sun as it relates to revolving around the galaxy. If you want to base years on revolutions around an object that is. Let me ask you, How long is 13.7 billion years on the scale of eternity? -Relative time keep in mind- I could maybe equate it to the blink of an eye. Timelessness is the actual reality, not our perception of time. So saying that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago is in fact not a correct assertion, only our perception.

Now my bubble idea is an offshoot of this realization. It comes from the thought of a massive event outside of time and it's effect within time. (possibly possible effects). We dont actually know enough about the nature of time to conclude that the creation actually occurred where we perceive the beginning to be.

The timeline issue with evolution and the bible is that counting the days and the years since creation happened you have just over 6,000 years and in evolution you have 13.7 billion years.

[seveneyes]

One other thing to consider here. If a planet was being sucked in by a black hole it would experience a slowing of time. Those on the planet would never see themselves ever getting sucked up- millions of years would pass in their view, but an outside observer would see the planet totally disappear and be gone inside of the black hole in an instant once it was close enough. So to say that we know that billions of years have passed is a stretch in the light of relative time. This whole thing could be going on in an instant. -Measured against eternity, it is.

[RickD]

Seveneyes wrote:

I truly believe that the more mankind learns about time, the more the theory of evolution will be turned upside down.

Could you explain the connection?

[seveneyes]

Seveneyes wrote:

I truly believe that the more mankind learns about time, the more the theory of evolution will be turned upside down.

Could you explain the connection?

Look at my above post concerning black holes. It is theorized that the center of our galaxy is a black hole. The circulating star mass around it would be being sucked in if this is so. Is the 13.7 billion years that we think has transpired actual or because of the slowing of time, and we are perceiving time not as it actually is, but because of what the black hole is doing? There are a lot of things about time and factors that we haven't yet come to understand that are and may be effecting our perception of the universe.

[RickD]

But what does that have to do with evolution?

[dayage]

seveneyes,

We are a long ways away from the center of our galaxy. We are not in the black hole, so time is not effected.

The assumption is that what instituted the big bang and time, happened immediately BEFORE the event, and that measuring that time actually means anything relevant toward our actual origin.

Before the universe time did not exist (God is timeless), because it was created at the Big Bang.

in effect, the future came before the past, but our limited knowledge and perceptions keep us looking linearly backward and assuming that it was the ultimate beginning.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." God's word tells us that creation occured with time. That time period deals with the universe, then the "days" deal with earth history after its initial creation.

Timelessness is the actual reality, not our perception of time. So saying that the universe began 13.7 billion years ago is in fact not a correct assertion, only our perception.

To God, yes, but we live in time. Therefore, in our measurments it is 13.7 years old. It is not an illusion. The Bible says that the Heavens declare God's glory and His righteousness. God can not lie to us in His word or His works. To give us a universe that measures billions of years, but really is not, is a lie.

The timeline issue with evolution and the bible is that counting the days and the years since creation happened you have just over 6,000 years and in evolution you have 13.7 billion years.

An old earth/universe does equal evolution. You can not count the time since creation. The "days" are long periods of time. Just look at Hebrews four. It says that we can still join God in His seventh day of rest. Likewise, the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 are not complete. Just look at Luke 3:36-38 and compare it with Genesis 11. Can you find the extra name in Luke? The order of events in Genesis one is the order of these events in the record of nature.

[seveneyes]

I appreciate the sentiments dayage, but I think you are missing the point of the things that I was saying for the most part.

God isn't lying for the fact that he created time to be relative. Did you know that an electron around a stable nucleus (hydrogen atom at constant temperature) goes around it at nearly 500,000 mph. It would complete a year cycle around our sun in 4 days. The relative distance of that electron from its nucleus is in scale relatively the same distance that our earth is away from the sun. In atomic years, the universe is roughly 100 times older than we see it. The sun orbits the galaxy at 550,000 mph and completes that solar year in a much longer time. So by that solar year our universe is much younger than 13.7 billion years. If you say, but it's still the same age I would argue, to who? God gave us a point of reference by the stars etc, so we could eventually learn the realities of time and its relativity. Timelessness is the reality that all things must reconcile to for time is relative to your position in the grand scheme. Compared to eternity (which is why time is relative) 13.7 billion years is nothing. So in reality, the universe is nothing years old. And just because we see the earth has gone around the sun 13.7 billion times does not mean that the big bang that long ago was the point of creation. It may have been the point that God decided (from outside of time) to allow the first actulizer to begin, but since creation began outside of time, it could literally come from any point in the past present or future to make that actualizer begin. God was not bound by our time and still in't. Nor is he bound by "Laws" of physics. I should call them "Allotments" of physics because they are temporarily and permanently subject to change. The bible says the point of creation was just over 6,000 years ago, but the Earth was formless and void and the waters were over the face of the deep before creation. So creation of the universe happened after things already existed.

[seveneyes]

But what does that have to do with evolution?

Because evolution hinges on timelines. If time is not exactly as evolutionary theory assumes it is, or has not been constant as they assume, finding these things out would change our entire view on the universe. Think of it. We find out that the 13.7 billion years has only actually been 10,000 years, but because of our ignorance and flawed perspective we didn't see it until recently. If something like that ever happens, or other discoveries about time, it could completely erase evolution as a theory.

If you haven't read my past posts then you aren't aware that my portion of this thread came about through musings about the nature of time and possible possibilities. I am not declaring any new doctrine or science. Just contemplating openly.

[seveneyes]

Time being relative is almost like if someone asked the question: "how fast is 60mph?" I would say it is that you go 60 land miles in 1 hour, that is the speed. But how fast is that really? The question then becomes compared to what? 60mph is relatively slow to say the speed of a planet moving through space, but is relatively fast to a human. Is it still 60mph though? A mile is a distance and distance is relative. Is a mile far? To some yes, but in the grand scheme? not far at all. Relativity is relevant to understanding a bigger picture. There is a bigger picture to our origins and to the origin of species than science currently can see.

[RickD]

The bible says the point of creation was just over 6,000 years ago, but the Earth was formless and void and the waters were over the face of the deep before creation. So creation of the universe happened after things already existed.

In a YEC interpretation of scripture, yes. It's not scripture itself that says the point of creation was"just over 6000 years ago". The YEC interpretation is not equal to scripture itself. You do understand that?