Time travel is also proposed in General relativity. Why or why not could anything have gone backwards in time from the beginning of Creation?
(I edited the title to try and get some discussion)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
I believe it may be possible to travel back in time. All anyone needs is a Delorean with a flux capacitortruthman wrote:Anything travelling faster than the speed of light would go backwards in time according to special relativity.
Time travel is also proposed in General relativity. Why or why not could anything have gone backwards in time from the beginning of Creation?
(I edited the title to try and get some discussion)
Sure, and if my job paid me $1,000,000 per hour, I'd have a lot of money. Wouldn't I? What have you seen to make you think that stars travel faster than the speed of light? I have never heard of stars that travel that fast. According to OEC, when God created everything in our universe at the big bang, He also set all the laws in the universe into place. Laws we still see today. It just seems like something that takes way too much blind faith to believe that stars traveled faster than the speed of light. OEC explains what we observe in the universe today. And, it explains it in a much simpler way, AND is backed by the Word of God. Why would I need to believe in some far-fetched science fiction theory about time traveling stars? Truthman, I just think you are grasping at straws. I don't mean any disrespect, but it just seems silly.truthman wrote:Well, Rick. If the stars went back in time billions of years, then they would be billions of years old now wouldn't they?
truthman said:truthman wrote:Thanks for the input.
I believe "silly" and "science fiction" are unnecessary. I might choose to label what you believe as silly science fiction. Why not have an open mind and seriously look at the hypothesis?
If God created the matter at a point in the universe, then dispersed it rapidly away from that point in some form of inflation as considered in the big bang theory, it would have far exceeded the speed of light causing it to go backwards in time. Then, the stars, galaxies etc. formed from that matter would have been formed billions of years before the matter was created.
That is not silly nor science fiction.
What that I believe would you label as science fiction?I might choose to label what you believe as silly science fiction.
I still don't understand why you believe it would have exceeded the speed of light. Isn't it true that the only thing that is known to go the speed of light, is light itself? Do we know of anything that exceeds the speed of light?it would have far exceeded the speed of light causing it to go backwards in time.
If God created all space , matter and TIME at the big bang, then how could stars galaxies etc. have been formed billions of years before time. There were no years before time was created with the physical universe, right? God created time from outside of time.Then, the stars, galaxies etc. formed from that matter would have been formed billions of years before the matter was created.
O.K. I see what you're getting at, but I'm a simple guy, and I tend to go with the simple things as long as they make sense to me. OEC makes sense to me. The theory you put forth doesn't make sense to me. It may be only because my simple mind can't understand your theory.truthman wrote:The current big bang model although it does not exist in a fully working model, proposes inflation (rapid expansion far exceeding the speed of light) as an explanation of how the universe got to be what it is today. I didn't make it up.
If the matter went backwards in time, then when it slowed to less than the speed of light it would have gone forward in time, but its starting point would have been billions of years before it was created.
It might help if we think of it in terms of space. If you started a race and ran backwards for an hour and then turned around, it would take you an hour to run back to the starting line before you could proceed to go beyond the starting line.
Still holding my breath , and waiting for your answer.truthman said:
I might choose to label what you believe as silly science fiction.
What that I believe would you label as science fiction?
Turning blue now. Seriously, if you're referring to OEC, I'd love to hear why you don't believe it. I'm not afraid to hear different opinions. It helps me make my decision about something. I tried to honestly look at both sides(OEC & YEC) before I started leaning towards OEC.truthman wrote:may betoo complicated
please, don't hold your breath.
If you're honest and not dogmatic, and not arrogant, then you won't have to worry about being banned when talking about YEC. I've seen quite a few discussions between YECs and OECs that have gone very well, and both sides were pleasant. If someone comes across like Kent Hovind when debating, then expect a big fat ban stick to whack him/her across the noggin. And also, If you're honest, whatever side you're debating from, any attack would not be merited. The mods would be just as quick to ban an OECr who attacked a YECr, as they would the other way around.truthman wrote:Please, just look at the current topic, seriously consider it and if there is a scientific or biblical reason why it cannot be true, then post it. It helps if we get input from different people. You may well see things wrong with it that I don't see, but let's give it a real effort if we can.
(P.S.) I am afraid the YEC position is not welcome on this board and I am scared of being attacked and banned from the forum