Stars Went Billions of Years Back in Time When Created.

[cslewislover]

Truthman, you want good attitudes, right? I asked you seriously, and I didn't expect such an answer (the two word answer seems very trite to me). Will you please answer me? I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know.

Sorry. I didn't mean to be trite. I was simply acknowledging that you were correct. I typed it with a smile if that helps.

I'm not sure I understand (oh, maybe I do; like I was agreeing with you? But I was just asking.). But anyway, I asked more, will you not answer? How would the matter travel back in time? What would be it's motive - in other words, what would make it do that?

[truthman]

So is it just me or is physics weird?

Physics is extremely complex and difficult to comprehend. Try fully grasping what general relativity means when it says that gravity is a warping (changing) of space and time (which I think I understand), then, when you get that down, study superstring theory and its 13 dimensions so you can explain it to me.

[truthman]

Truthman, you want good attitudes, right? I asked you seriously, and I didn't expect such an answer (the two word answer seems very trite to me). Will you please answer me? I wouldn't have asked if I didn't want to know.

Sorry. I didn't mean to be trite. I was simply acknowledging that you were correct. I typed it with a smile if that helps.

I'm not sure I understand (oh, maybe I do; like I was agreeing with you? But I was just asking.). But anyway, I asked more, will you not answer? How would the matter travel back in time? What would be it's motive - in other words, what would make it do that?

Matter cannot have a motive. God would have to be the one with the motive.
How would matter travel back in time? Just as it goes forward in time, only backwards. I know, it is hard to grasp. Time is something that no one understands very well. Do a search for a good definition of time.
Time is said to be the 4th dimension in general relativity, the others being the spatial dimensions of length, height, and width. None of the dimensions have meaning without matter. If there were no matter, there would be no length, height, width, or time. So, time is an attribute of matter.
I have concluded (I am not prepared to prove it right now though) that time is the transfer of energy. Adding energy to matter (acceleration) causes time to slow down (according to special relativity). Then, according to general relativity, gravity is the same thing as acceleration and warps spacetime (slowing down time). The law of entropy that prevents the flow of energy from lesser to greater also prevents matter from going back in time. However, in the act of creation, God was the source of energy and the one that caused time to begin.

[cslewislover]

The second definition of motive is "causing or able to cause motion," as in the word "locomotive." Motive comes from the Old French, "causing to move," and from Latin, "to move."

I don't know all the physics, but God would have done all anyway. I don't think God would make things look old just for the sake of it, so that's why I'm interested in Schroeder's theories.

[truthman]

The second definition of motive is "causing or able to cause motion," as in the word "locomotive." Motive comes from the Old French, "causing to move," and from Latin, "to move."

I don't know all the physics, but God would have done all anyway. I don't think God would make things look old just for the sake of it, so that's why I'm interested in Schroeder's theories.

I am not used to hearing anyone use that definition of motive. I am familiar with it though. Sorry.

It's not a matter of God making them "look" old. It would mean that they actually are old, because the matter went back billions of years in time and then existed for billions of years as it moved forward in time.

[dayage]

Truthman,

I'll repeat this here.

Space is volume. It need not contain matter. At the time of inflation there was no matter, only energy and space-time. Inflation took place between about 10-36 seconds and 10-33 seconds after the big bang. That is a small fraction of a second. So, even if matter existed, it only went back in time a small fraction of a second.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Bottom line is that no matter was traveling faster than the speed of light.

Any matter travelling faster than the speed of light would go back in time: that is why. Yes, it would mean the universe is billions of years old, although it wasn't created that long ago.

Are you refering to Humphreys' model where the earth is "protected," from time dialation as the universe rapidly ages? Or, are you suggesting that all matter, even that which makes up the earth, went back in time?

Explain how this would give you an old universe and young earth (or creation in 6, 24-hour days).

[truthman]

Thanks again for the input. It is quite helpful.
Again, space is meaningless without matter. No matter, no space.
Yes, I understand what you say that it was before the big bang cooled enough to form particles of matter.
No, I am not alluding to Humphrey's model here. Just trying to flesh out an idea I had.
Hopefully you can help me further. What are the farthest distances we can observe in the universe? 15 billion light years?
The light arriving today from a star at the farthest distance would have left the star 15 billion years ago, then, right?
Assuming the earth is at the centre (only for the sake of calculation guys, which is really not too unreasonable since we observe galaxies and stars at equal distances in opposite directions) then the matter making up the star would have had to travel 15 billion years at the speed of light to get there, so at MINIMUM it would take 30 billion years for us to see the light from that star and that is if the matter traveled at the speed of light.
Now, why couldn't God have caused the matter that eventually formed the stars out in space have traveled much faster than the speed of light to reach those far distances?

[truthman]

If the matter that makes up the earth did not travel faster than the speed of light, it would not have traveled back in time, of course.

[Canuckster1127]

Truthman,

Asking this as a question as sincerely interested, and please don't hear anything else in the tone, but why is it necessary to try and reconcile the scriptural account of creation to this degree against today's understanding of quantum physics? Moses and the Isrealites who were the human means of transmission and the original audience had no idea and no need to do this. Is it that your understanding of inspiration and Scripture requires or believes that God Himself, who of course knew these things (and better and more than we do) and thus purposely "hid" them in the text knowing that men of faith would see and know of these things?

I don't have a problem at all with seeking to understand and reconcile these things, as that's a great deal of why this board and forum exist. What I'm asking is more in the realm of expectations and the degree to which this type of attempt delves. What if the primary point of the Genesis creation account was not to provide an account that would align perfectly with 21st century western science? What if Genesis was given primarily to give an account to the nation of Israel that was wandering in the desert to provided context that God was the agent and designer of creation and that Israel was His chosen nation and part of His plan even from the beginning of time?

I competely understand and share what I suspect is your belief that God as both creator and the author of divine revelation would not produce anything that would contradict each other. My question is, is it necessary to go deeper in that effort to reconcile todays knowledge against a document written in non-scientific language from a pre-science culture? It's not a question of alignment for me, so much as it is a question of context and the depth of that alignment.

I admire your quest to understand creation better. I share it, although I have to confess that after years of pursuing understanding on the scientific side as something of an amateur, I've come to the conclusion that the time and specialization required to begin to understand it is more than I am capabale of doing. I've fallen at this time of my life on the Old Earth Creationist side, not because I don't believe God was not capable of creating the earth in the time spans of Genesis (if they are indeed understood correctly by my YEC brethren) but because I believe first and foremost the rendering of the text that understands yom as an extended period of time is the best translation of the text and second because I believe that the evidence from creation itself bears this out. I suspect that you would say the same thing of your position which I know along with many others is sincerely held.

So, feel free to ignore or fly by this if it's a diversion from your purpose here, but I'm sincerely interested in whay you would have to say about this. I'm finding myself less passionate about this particular question, not because I don't think it has importance, but because I'm thinking that it's attempting to understand and reconcile and entire cake if you will when it may well be that God's intent in the context in which he delivered it, doesn't go any deeper than the icing.

I hope that makes sense. If not, prod me and I'll try and clarify it.

blessings,

bart

[robyn hill]

I have to admit, I have a fascination with physics. I think a good way to visualize the relativity of time, is to imagine spinning a ball at the end of a string. The farthest point, the ball, will travel slower, and the part of the string closest to the hand, will move faster, both relative to the hand. So I imagine the hand, or energy source, if it were moving fast enough, is it stopping in time? Is it possible for time to stand still when compared relative to the energy source? Just curious if anyone could explain this to me. I agree with Bart, I don't hold this as a variable for God's existence, rather, just curious?

[dayage]

Truthman,

Again, space is meaningless without matter. No matter, no space.

Where do you get this from? Most of the universe is empty space. Do those regions not exist?

Yes, I understand what you say that it was before the big bang cooled enough to form particles of matter.

Before the big bang, nothing about this universe existed. So, there was no matter. A fraction of a second after the big bang inflation started. After that, matter began to form.

Assuming the earth is at the centre (only for the sake of calculation guys, which is really not too unreasonable since we observe galaxies and stars at equal distances in opposite directions) then the matter making up the star would have had to travel 15 billion years at the speed of light to get there, so at MINIMUM it would take 30 billion years for us to see the light from that star and that is if the matter traveled at the speed of light.

I believe that the most distant galaxies that we see are 10-11 billion light years away. Your right about that being a minimum, because matter traveling that fast would never come together to form stars, much less galaxies.

Now, why couldn't God have caused the matter that eventually formed the stars out in space have traveled much faster than the speed of light to reach those far distances?

It is not a matter of what God CAN DO, but what DID HE DO? God CAN DO anything. You would have to give some evidence to support your claim. One thing that I think rules against you idea is that matter would have been very dense at the beginning of your model. This is because you speculate that it was centered around us at the beginning. Then it was flung to the far reaches of the observable universe. I would expect that the farther out it went, the more scattered it would become. This is because you are having to spread it throughout a much larger volume of space. This would mean that any galaxies that could form would be farther apart from each other than ones nearby. This is the opposite of what we find.

The big bang predicts that nearby galaxies would be farther apart, because space has been stretching as time has gone by. This is what we see. Far away galaxies are closer to each other, because space, at that time, had not undergone as much expansion.

Also, remember that the Bible teaches that the universe (space) was and is being stretched by God. It does not teach that space was created and then matter scattered throughout it. The Bible's teaching matches the big bang model.

[truthman]

Thanks again, Dayage for your input. I find it quite helpful.

As far as space, you are correct that there is much space between stars, galaxies, etc. But if there were no stars, galaxies, or anything with length, height and depth, I don't see how there could be space. The empty space between things made of matter is defined by the matter, i.e. 6,000 light years has meaning only if there is matter that can be said to be 6,000 light years apart.
You cannot measure distance without matter. You might imagine a meter stick in space measuring space, but you have to conceive of a meter stick made of matter.

As far as "stretching" space, it seems quite tenuous. Stretching space could only be seen or defined by increasing space between material objects. And exactly what is meant by stretching space? That 2 meters turns into 4 meters, or something of that sort?
Physics requires energy to increase space or area between material objects.

[dayage]

truthman,

At the beginning of the big bang, energy was released. It existed in what? SPACE! That energy then began to convert into matter.

Can you show me some quotes from physicists that agree that space does not exist without matter. And what kind of matter are you refering to? Atoms, molecules, or just things that you can see with your naked eyes?

God is the one that the Bible claims is stretching the heavens. So, if you have a problem with expanding space, then you have a problem with the Bible.

[truthman]

Dayage

I am familiar with the verse in Zechariah that says the Lord "stretcheth forth the heavens". Don't stoop to accusing me of not believing the Bible. I thought you were above that.
The Hebrew word natah is translated stretcheth. Natah is also used in reference to God stretching out his hand. Does that mean that God literally stretches his hand to be bigger or longer? The sense is unfolded or opened up.

Zechariah 12:1 ¶ The burden of the word of the LORD for Israel, saith the LORD, which stretcheth forth the heavens, and layeth the foundation of the earth, and formeth the spirit of man within him.
Zephaniah 1:4 I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, [and] the name of the Chemarims with the priests;
Zechariah 1:16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; I am returned to Jerusalem with mercies: my house shall be built in it, saith the LORD of hosts, and a line shall be stretched forth upon Jerusalem.

When I say matter, it begins with quarks, leptons, etc. which make up atoms, which make up molecules, etc.

Rather than ignore my reasoning regarding space and matter, please look at the reasoning and if I'm wrong, show me what is wrong with it.

[Kristoffer]

lets just try to avoid the uncomfortable truth that we can detect the light of galaxies billions of light years away by saying that they travelled back in time.

How much do you want to believe that the world is 10,000 years old?