Just to make a curious approach…
I think I will wait a little while longer before I agree.
Interesting question - perhaps to be found in quantum physics.
Possibly, but such a frame would have had to have been travelling at a very large fraction (say 99%+) of the speed of light since the instant of the Big Bang. Nothing around us has been moving at that speed for that length of time: light moves faster while everything else moves slower.
It was just a thought; however, wouldn’t the “expansion of the universe” involve not mearly space but spacetime as well, time of billions of years past , distorting even further our concept of time?
Once will serve me for a lifetime.SpiritMeadow, I found your post to me, as well as those to others here, to be rather condescending. I will take responsibility for how I “heard” your tone. I encourage you to be responsible for the possible tone you create in your messages.
Perhaps your tedium with the topic led you to be less than cautious in your word choice? Perhaps, if you find the topic to be tedious, you should leave it to those of us who have not yet participated in a conversation on this topic? Just a couple of thoughts.
Although it may take me years of therapy to get over the comments of a total stranger, please feel free to respond to me as often or infrequently as you like. It does me no harm. And I’ll feel free to respond back as I wish. That’s how these forums work after all.
Gertie
There is neither time nor space, but only spacetime. The two are inseparable. Our usual concept of time is not correct for anything that is not suitable for classical physics. In quantum physics time can run as easily backwards as forwards - indeed it is diffucult to find a consistent definition for “forwads” in time under quantum mechanics. In general relativity, gravity affects spacetime, and hence affects both space and time. Your normal concept of time is ot correct for either extreme (very small or very massive). When you get something that is both a black hole or the monobloc - then things get very strange and unintuitive indeed.
No. The expansion of the universe is a different effect. Time dilation is due to other causes.
Hello jcrichton,
Hi, rossum!
Hi, D M!
No. I meant to convey that He actually and literaly rested from Creation; that is that He rested from setting into motion the universe and all that exists in it… but not rested in terms of being depleted of energy and needing to renew His strength. And that He is still active in the workings of the universe (i.e.: the Church that Christ built is organic hence the need of the Holy Spirit to continue to nurture and lead it.)
Yes, but more… that the Holy Trinity continues to work as the universe continues to expand or mutate, in terms of change and growth–remember what Jesus said about the turmoil of the end of time “in respect for the elect not all will happen at once.” (paraphrased)–this indicates a constant vigil and interaction.
Correct.
…I think that this part was from the other post where I cited the narrative of Genesis’ Creation: at the beginning the heavens (universe) and the earth were Created, then several cycles were applied to the various unfolding of Creation; the Sun and Moon being brought into existence not on the first day but on the fourth suggests that the cycles were not necessarily based on six twenty-four-hour periods.
What I am suggesting is that there is no actual time frame in Creation as there are two periods (the first states that at the very beginning of Creation God frames the universe and sets an earth devoid carbon based life; the second, which is broken down into 6 stages where the earth is prepared for life and where the various life forms are brought into existence–Scriptures are quite opened for interpretation as myriads of years could have elapsed between the various periods; conversely, knowing that God is Spirit and that He brought everything into existence, I reason that carbon dating the materials could offer exagerated readings as science would not be calculating the actual materials but the residual energy (due to Creation) embeded in them.
No. Scientists are saying that the Fine Structure Constant (which includes the speed of light) has been constant for at least the last 10 billion years and probably the last 12 billion years.
I agree; It’s what I awckwardly was trying to say.
Right; so, wouldn’t this mean that,to say the universe is 13 billion years old, although not wrong, would nevertheless be a biased answer?
My problem would be that if time can be dilated by the gravitational warping of spacetime, why would it not be affected by the stretching of spacetime due to the expansion?
It is the correct answer in our frame of reference. In other frames of reference the answer can be anything from 0.0 nanoseconds after the Big Bang upwards. There is no overall preferred frame of reference, unlike in classical physics. From our own point of view our own frame of reference is the most convenient.
It would, I made a mistake. The effect is there, but small; as with red-shifts local effects tend to dominate over universal effects unless you are looking at very distant objects. Special relativity is local, not cosmological; general relativity is cosmological and the expansion of spacetime is a general relativistic effect.
It does, my apologies for my mistake.
Hi jchrichton!
It makes God to be a deciever if what appears to be very, very old, is actually very, very new.
Not - we can be interpreting things wrong or just not have enough information.
But that does not sound reasonable to do such a thing. Since our faith must compatiable with reason, it can’t be young.
There is a truth out there no doubt. However, we observe things and then try to best interpret what we observe. We gather data and then try best to interpret that data.
I totally agree that faith and reason are not contrary.
