Is Time Affected By Expansion Of The Universe?

[chair]

:think: Ive been saying this for years. Science usually does just this starting with a theory and trying to prove it . Im not against science but the conclusion should not be dismissed if it dosen't match the theory.

There is a lack of understanding about science in general among many participants in this forum.

Scientists don't "come up with a theory" and then go and see if it matches reality. The theories are developed in the first place in order to explain phenomena that aren't understood. Then they are tested over time to see how they fit new information.

Often a theory will turn out to have been accurate for some circumstances, but not for others. Newtonian mechanics, for example, are "true" in most day to day circumstances, but fail on teh microscopic level.

 

[Evoken]

Aren't you presumptous to assume man is on the 'reality' side of it and has anything to measure something that he cannot even prove is 'real'?

What other side is there and how do you know it? We know for a fact that something external to us exists (ie existence, reality). We can know for sure that this that exists is what it is and remains what it is in spite of what we may say or think about it and in spite of how we feel about it.

We live in the shadow, only, of the real, and cannot touch, feel, smell, experience or measure that true Reality -not until we get out of quarantine, anyway.

What evidence do you have that the "true Reality" cannot be experienced? If it cannot be experienced then how do you know there is such "true Reality"? How do you know that we are in "quarantine" (whatever that means)?

Unless you provide some objective evidence for your claims, they remain nothing more than faith based assertions.


Valz

 

[Letsargue]

It appears that most people are coming around to the belief that the universe expanded from a condition where it was once very much smaller than its current size.

It may surprise many creationists that scripture states many times that God "stretched out the heavens", and this may mean that scientists are essentially correct in proposing something akin to the Big Bang.

I am curious about the opinions of people as to what effect, if any, such an expansion might have on the variable of time.

For instance, when the universe was 100 times smaller than it is now would time go by 100 times (or some non-linear function) faster or would it go by at the same rate it does today?

---There is neither any such thing as TIME, as a thing; nor is the Universe expanding. -- It is totally impossible for the universe to expand. Where would it expand to??? - If all space is in the universe, there is NO SPACE outside of the universe for it to expand into. Scientists are as big a fools as most so called “christians”.
*
-------------Paul---
*

 

[Stratnerd]

Ive been saying this for years. Science usually does just this starting with a theory and trying to prove it . Im not against science but the conclusion should not be dismissed if it dosen't match the theory.

Actually, someone comes up with a new theory and we try to disprove it! Even the person coming up with it! What better way to support a theory than to show it stands up to scrutiny (falsification)

As for the time thing: someone outside the universe might see our watches moving more slowly if everything were expanding so quickly but for those of us in the universe, well, same 'ol same 'ol,

 

[bob b]

There seem to be two things that are believed to affect time:

1) velocity and 2) gravity.

My initial posting was to explore the possibility of a third phenomenon, expansion of the co-ordinates of the universe, which is what the Big Bang proposes.

Despite the implication of its name, the Big Bang is not an "explosion" in the conventional sense of the term.

During the initial phase of the expansion, Big Bang proponents concede that the speed of light was hundreds of times faster than it is now. They explain that this was possible because it was the co-ordinates of space that were expanding, not the physical quantities within the universe itself. This effect is of course beyond human experience and not able to be measured directly.

However, Big Bang proponents also believe that the extreme rapid expansion phase only lasted for less than a picosecond (a trillionth of a second) at which time the universe was the size of a grapefruit. They believe that the expansion then slowed drastically to a rate that would complete the expansion of the universe to its present size over the next 15 billion years or so.

It occurred to me to ask myself what would have happened if the universe had continued to expand at its initial rate for only one more picosecond? In other words what would the size of the universe have been after two picoseconds at the initial very rapid rate?

The answer would be its present size.

So why not assume that the universe was expanded to its present size in two picoseconds not one, and then the expansion stopped? Would this assumption result in duplicating the observations which we are seeing today from the light that started out sometime in the past?

To reiterate, I am not saying that the universe today is not 15 billion light years in size, what I am suggesting is that it would not necessarily be 15 billion years old , and the idea that it would take light from distant stars 15 billion years to reach us is believed by most people because of the confusion between how long it would take today and how long it took in the past.

I don't really know if these ideas have any real merit of course, but I thought they were interesting to think about.

 

[Ps82]

Hi B bob,
I find what you say interesting. This topic is difficult for me ... for I admit that I have not searched all the scriptures about it ... nor do I read enough books about it ... nor do I comprehend and retain all points when I do read them ... so I come from a pretty weak position, but I do have ponderings.

QUTOE B bob:
My initial posting was to explore the possibility of a third phenomenon, expansion of the co-ordinates of the universe, which is what the Big Bang proposes.

I WONDER:
By co-ordinates ... do you mean the outer edges or boundaries of something we call 'the universe'? Or do you mean specific points within the area of the universe that are visible locations?

THE WAY I SEE THE BIG PICTURE:
I believe that God is an invisible infinite omni-present omni-aware intellectual Spirit entity ... and I believe that 'in the beginning was GOD' ... therefore nothing else competed with God's infinity and omni-presence, etc.

There wasn't even nothingness or any empty space ... for if there was something identifiable called nothingness or an empty space then how could God be said to be infinite and omni-present?

Therefore in Gen.1 I think the deep morass of the darkness upon which God's Spirit moved was already infinite in size as was God ... and was eternal according to any time frame concepts we want to apply to it.

I SEE THE BIG BANG THIS WAY:
God spoke and rules of obedience concerning all manifested things that he was establishing were set, and they suddenly sprang forth out of God's own essence instantly.

I have also found that the fact that God separated things is just as important that he ever created any visible matter. I think there is evidence that the first actions of God were more along the lines of separating types of acts ... perhaps coinciding with the manifesting of visible things.
For example God separated or called out the essence of LIGHT from out of the darkness and when he did this then LIGHT appeared. The directions to separate were necessary for the appearance.

QUOTE B bob:
During the initial phase of the expansion, Big Bang proponents concede that the speed of light was hundreds of times faster than it is now. They explain that this was possible because it was the co-ordinates of space that were expanding, not the physical quantities within the universe itself. This effect is of course beyond human experience and not able to be measured directly.

MY REPLY:
I would say it this way. The appearance of infinite LIGHT was instantaneous and filled the infinite darkness in an omnipresent manner. It simply became visible out of the infinite darkness. vs.3 And God said, "Let there be LIGHT... and there WAS LIGHT - not a pile of light at one location.

In fact I consider LIGHT to be an established realm in which things can and will one day exist. After all, I am supposed to dwell with My Lord - visually - within his kingdom in the LIGHT eternally at some point. I also consider DARKNESS to be a realm where things can exist. After all, there will be eventually entities that dwell eternally invisible in the outer darkness and away from the kingdom established in the LIGHT. They are more like places than things.

At this moment, of discussing infinity and the appearance of LIGHT whether I am even SURE that I'd say that LIGHT travels or is expanding in any way ... anymore than I think darkness was traveling and expanding at this time.

Rather might the more sold things being established out of God's invisibleness into visible ness be what is traveling through the Light and darkness at speeds set by God?

Might light and dark be infinite and timeless ... first existing within God eternally, but then it was the actual separation event that was a set point that began a time unit called LIGHT/DAY and DARKNESS/NIGHT or called 'IN THE BEGINNING'?

Might light and dark, at first, after being separated have co-mingled like a twilight appearance?
You, know morning and evening are a visible example of how light and dark simultaneously co-mingle to create a certain look.

If you read Genesis you will notice that the units of time which God mentions DO NOT denote a repetitive cyclic change from light to twilight to dark and back again. Gen.1 just simply says from twilight to twilight. BUT, what God does tell us about how he marked off units of time ... was when he finished certain accomplishments ... in other words HIS works accomplished seemed to mark dividing points... like chapters within books divide topic information into logical units.

QUOTE B bob:
However, Big Bang proponents also believe that the extreme rapid expansion phase only lasted for less than a picosecond (a trillionth of a second) at which time the universe was the size of a grapefruit. They believe that the expansion then slowed drastically to a rate that would complete the expansion of the universe to its present size over the next 15 billion years or so.

MY REPLY:
Obviously, I do not hold that this has to be the truths... except I think that LIGHT did probably appear in the blink of God's eye. I'm not convinced that it was the measurable size of a grapefruit. In fact the Bible tells us that there came a point where God began to gather LIGHT together into manifested bodily forms for specific purposes - such as marking off time:

For God to do this act ... would mean that LIGHT was dispersed and had to be gathered together.
Gen.1:14-18 Let there be lightS(plural) within the firmament of heaven, to divide the day from the night...

Just wow ... I could write a book just on this sentence!!!!
The firmament was called Heaven, and it was established as a boundary between the waterS(plural), and I think of it like a realm as well. It was a boundary that separated some SPIRITUAL waters of God from other the spiritual waters of God. (Gen.1:6-8)

In these next verses we see God establishing bodies of LIGHT within the area of this specific firmament called heaven. One major purpose of these more solidified bodies of LIGHT and DARK matter was to mark off time. Some bodies to rule over the LIGHT called DAY ... and other bodies having no light of their own would rule over the DARKNESS called NIGHT. Perhaps it is this realm of the firmament where light has been gathered together where scientists do their observations of light movement measurements ... I think scientists measure light movement in relationship of how they see light in regards to other heavenly bodies.

I love to ponder questions like this: Perhaps the speed which has been assigned to light by scientists is really the time it takes for our eyeballs and brains to process the light as visible to us. You know that it takes time for our eyes to adjust to the darkness of the night and to be able to see the light that is ALREADY THERE ... just not yet processed in our eyes.

BUT if you read the verse that ends these works done toward filling the firmament heaven with bodies like sun, moon, and stars by God ... you'll see that God continues to say from his perspective that it is still morning and evening ... or twilight-a co-mingling of light and dark. (Gen.1:19) Quote: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Remember 'day' was the name given to LIGHT ... so one might say this: And evening and morning were the fourth period of LIGHT'S existence.

QUTOE B bob:
It occurred to me to ask myself what would have happened if the universe had continued to expand at its initial rate for only one more picosecond? In other words what would the size of the universe have been after two picoseconds at the initial very rapid rate?

The answer would be its present size.

MY REPLY:
I so agree that you have come to a likely conclusion ... but not because space, time, and infinity of the universe was expanding ... for, my point is, how can a realm of infinity expand? I think this might be called a conundrum or a point where one bit of info that negates the other.

However, things can move through and within infinity ... and if collections of light and bodies of dark matter are form within a realm like the firmament of heaven then ... they can travel or expand.
QUOTE Bbob:
So why not assume that the universe was expanded to its present size in two picoseconds not one, and then the expansion stopped? Would this assumption result in duplicating the observations, which we are seeing today from the light that started out sometime in the past?

MY REPLY:
You have lost me here.

To reiterate, I am not saying that the universe today is not 15 billion light years in size, what I am suggesting is that it would not necessarily be 15 billion years old, and the idea that it would take light from distant stars 15 billion years to reach us is believed by most people because of the confusion between how long it would take today and how long it took in the past.

MY REPLY:
I agree that mankind is confused ... theorizing things for themselves ... I think there are answers for us in Gen. 1 and 2 ... and I do not profess that I have it all figured out ... but I think I've discovered a few interesting points to ponder.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Don't want to be taken to task for making asinine statements, then don't make them.

:doh: Mr. Black Kettle meet Mr. Black Pot.

 

[smuda]

I'd like to know how this "Quantum Cosmologist" came up with 1 billionth of a second :nono: As for the universe expanding faster, that seems to me to be a function of entropy. As objects emit gravitational waves, their mass decreases, which causes the gravity between objects to diminish and they move farther apart (Just a guess.)

badp, I may have the fraction wrong. But here is the article I read it in. pretty wild stuff of course. have fun. http://www.whatthebleep.com/herald7/articles.shtml

"Very similar to what happened in the early universe during in the so-called inflationary epoch. And it refers to the first billionth of a second of the universe where the universe rapidly emerged and underwent a process of exponential runaway inflationary expansion."

 

[Ps82]

Hello Bob b,
Sorry about about reversing the letters in your name in my post above.

82Ps.

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Don't want to be taken to task for making asinine statements, then don't make them.

Mr. Black Kettle meet Mr. Black Pot.

While this may be your impression, one of the crucial differences here is that I don't expect people to ignore them with the excuse their comments are "off topic."
That aside, are you agreeing with Badp's comment that Stephen Hawking deserves to be labeled a "so-called" genius? That he hasn't earned the appellation, "genius"? I believe Hawking has more than proved he deserves it, and anyone who calls it "so-called," especially because of bias or prejudice, is making an asinine statement. So while I, in your estimation, may make asinine statements, this should hardly prevent me from charging others with the same thing. An asinine statement is an asinine statement no matter who recognizes it.

 

[bob b]

While this may be your impression, one of the crucial differences here is that I don't expect people to ignore them with the excuse their comments are "off topic."
That aside, are you agreeing with Badp's comment that Stephen Hawking deserves to be labeled a "so-called" genius? That he hasn't earned the appellation, "genius"? I believe Hawking has more than proved he deserves it, and anyone who calls it "so-called," especially because of bias or prejudice, is making an asinine statement. So while I, in your estimation, may make asinine statements, this should hardly prevent me from charging others with the same thing. An asinine statement is an asinine statement no matter who recognizes it.

I would appreciate you (and others) not messing up my thread with tangential disputes.

 

[bob b]

Ps82,
No offense taken.

Hi B bob,
By co-ordinates ... do you mean the outer edges or boundaries of something we call 'the universe'? Or do you mean specific points within the area of the universe that are visible locations?

The latter.

There wasn't even nothingness or any empty space ... for if there was something identifiable called nothingness or an empty space then how could God be said to be infinite and omni-present?

God existed before He created the universe so apparently there is a "spirit" world.

I SEE THE BIG BANG THIS WAY:
God spoke and rules of obedience concerning all manifested things that he was establishing were set, and they suddenly sprang forth out of God's own essence instantly.

Logical.

I have also found that the fact that God separated things is just as important that he ever created any visible matter. I think there is evidence that the first actions of God were more along the lines of separating types of acts ... perhaps coinciding with the manifesting of visible things.
For example God separated or called out the essence of LIGHT from out of the darkness and when he did this then LIGHT appeared. The directions to separate were necessary for the appearance.

Perhaps.

MY REPLY:
I would say it this way. The appearance of infinite LIGHT was instantaneous and filled the infinite darkness in an omnipresent manner. It simply became visible out of the infinite darkness. vs.3 And God said, "Let there be LIGHT... and there WAS LIGHT - not a pile of light at one location.

In fact I consider LIGHT to be an established realm in which things can and will one day exist. After all, I am supposed to dwell with My Lord - visually - within his kingdom in the LIGHT eternally at some point. I also consider DARKNESS to be a realm where things can exist. After all, there will be eventually entities that dwell eternally invisible in the outer darkness and away from the kingdom established in the LIGHT. They are more like places than things.

At this moment, of discussing infinity and the appearance of LIGHT whether I am even SURE that I'd say that LIGHT travels or is expanding in any way ... anymore than I think darkness was traveling and expanding at this time.

Rather might the more sold things being established out of God's invisibleness into visible ness be what is traveling through the Light and darkness at speeds set by God?

Might light and dark be infinite and timeless ... first existing within God eternally, but then it was the actual separation event that was a set point that began a time unit called LIGHT/DAY and DARKNESS/NIGHT or called 'IN THE BEGINNING'?

Might light and dark, at first, after being separated have co-mingled like a twilight appearance?
You, know morning and evening are a visible example of how light and dark simultaneously co-mingle to create a certain look.

If you read Genesis you will notice that the units of time which God mentions DO NOT denote a repetitive cyclic change from light to twilight to dark and back again. Gen.1 just simply says from twilight to twilight. BUT, what God does tell us about how he marked off units of time ... was when he finished certain accomplishments ... in other words HIS works accomplished seemed to mark dividing points... like chapters within books divide topic information into logical units.

Possibly.

MY REPLY:
Obviously, I do not hold that this has to be the truths... except I think that LIGHT did probably appear in the blink of God's eye. I'm not convinced that it was the measurable size of a grapefruit.

I'm not either. It was only an illustration to aid in explaining the concept.

In fact the Bible tells us that there came a point where God began to gather LIGHT together into manifested bodily forms for specific purposes - such as marking off time:

For God to do this act ... would mean that LIGHT was dispersed and had to be gathered together.
Gen.1:14-18 Let there be lightS(plural) within the firmament of heaven, to divide the day from the night...

Just wow ... I could write a book just on this sentence!!!!
The firmament was called Heaven, and it was established as a boundary between the waterS(plural), and I think of it like a realm as well. It was a boundary that separated some SPIRITUAL waters of God from other the spiritual waters of God. (Gen.1:6-8)

Have you pondered Bob E's hypothesis regarding the meaning of the firmament and heaven in this context?

MY REPLY:
I so agree that you have come to a likely conclusion ... but not because space, time, and infinity of the universe was expanding ... for, my point is, how can a realm of infinity expand?

My personal belief is that "infinity" is only a mathematical term and does not occur in the physical universe we live in, which had a beginning and is finite.

Any speculation about what existed prior to this physical universe or what lies outside it may be interesting, but somewhat futile as it can never be known with any degree of assurance.

I don;t wish to be rude but I would appreciate people sticking to comments regarding my idea and avoidance of broadening the subject until such comments on this idea have been thoroughly discussed.

 

[SUTG]

For instance, when the universe was 100 times smaller than it is now would time go by 100 times (or some non-linear function) faster or would it go by at the same rate it does today?

Time is a concept. It cannot be speeded up or slowed down, only the events which are measured by time can be slowed down or speeded up.

Both of these statements seem to assume some sort of Absolute time. Do you not agree with the Theory of Relativity?

 

[Nick M]

Have you pondered Bob E's hypothesis regarding the meaning of the firmament and heaven in this context?

Not to take away from my favorite one time television host, but it was Dr Walt Brown who found that research in his book "In the Begining". I don't remember who Dr Brown credited with the "raquia" definitions.

Mr Enyart is just refrencing that.

 

[bob b]

Not to take away from my favorite one time television host, but it was Dr Walt Brown who found that research in his book "In the Begining". I don't remember who Dr Brown credited with the "raquia" definitions.

Mr Enyart is just refrencing that.

If you will check the references you will find that there were two people who independently made the suggestion to Walt Brown, one of whom was Bob Enyart.

From a search for "Enyart" at http://www.creationscience.com

"Pastor Diego Rodriguez first suggested this in a letter on 10 January 2005. Pastor Bob Enyart’s independent proposal was sent on 23 February 2005. ..."