The 15 billion yrs of cosmos & 6 dys of creation r same.

Page 1 of 8 [ 113 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age:36
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 10:06 am

http://home.att.net/~wislit/scirel/godscience.htm

Gerald Schroeder is a physicist at MIT, and these are some of his class notes.

(I've copied out some of it below. The subs of the equations got a little crunched in the transfer, so see the link above.)

The "time" of the six days is from a cosmic perspective, whereas; "time" in the rest of bible is ordinary, earthly time.
Relativistically, the flow of time at a location with high gravity or high velocity is slower than a location with lower gravity or lower velocity (time dilation).
Δt v= Δt0/sqrt(1-(V2/c2), Δt v= change in time; Δt 0= change in rest time; V=velocity; c=speed of light
thus, the duration between ticks of a clock or beats of a heart is longer in high G.
Gravity not only affects weight, it affects time.

For example, an imaginary planet, Hadas, whose gravity was 350,000Gs.
*2 years on earth would only be 3 minutes on this imaginary planet
*For someone on Hadas, only 3 minutes passes
*Someone observing on earth, we see the Hadarite moving in slow motion

Relativistic time has actually been measured.
*Clocks ticking off 1 year on earth, tick off 67 seconds less on the Sun (with 30Gs)
*Measured use the frequency of light
*light is the cosmic clock
*light waves coming from the Sun are stretched 2.12 ppm
*stretched light waves => slower time

Now Dr. Gerald Schroeder looks at a "day" in the 6 days from a cosmic perspective:
light as the cosmic clock
The clock of Genesis starts with the creation of the universe through the creation of humanity
It must identify the relative passage of time not between locations, but between in the cosmological history of the universe.
Right after the Big Bang, the universe was gravitationally undifferentiated and the relative passage of time varied very little.
Shortly after, gravity wells formed and time varied noticably.
For the perspective of Genesis, we want to look from the moment shortly after the Big Bang into the future (our present)
The cosmic background radiation (CBR) (Penzas and Wilson, 1965) is a measure of this undifferentiated moment.
The CBR frequency is the basis of cosmic (proper) time => the clock of Genesis 1.
At the Big Bang, the entire visible universe was packed into a miniscule speck.
The universe has been expanding ever since: the edge of the universe has stretched out billions of light years
The waves of CBR have also stretched by the same proportion as the universe.
E.g., has the size of the universe doubled, the distance between wave crests doubled, and cosmic time passes at half its original rate
The universe was a million million (1012 times smaller at 0.00001 seconds after the Big Bang (when matter formed)
This validated in the laboratory where the frequency of that moment can be measured; it is a million million times higher
Thus the cosmic clock has slowed by a million million times
looking back in time to the Big Bang, the universe is 15.75 billion years old
looking out from the Big Bang, time is moving a million million times faster
looking forward from the Big Bang, the universe is six days old!
The cosmic clock records the passage of one minute, when we experience a million million minutes
15.75 billion years = 15,750,000,000 years = 5,750,000,000,000 days = 5.5 x 1012 days
1 million million = 1012
5.5 x 1012 / 1012 = 5.5 days
Genesis and science are both correct
Note: light exists in timelessness: no time passes on a light wave
chapter 4: The Six Days of Genesis
As the universe expanded, its size (scale) became ever more similar to our scale
The "duration" of each successive 24 hour Genesis day encompassed a period ever closer to our own.
The million-million factor is thus an average
Each doubling of the universe, slowed the cosmic clock by half
The cosmic duration of each "day" is halved:
Day 1 = 8,000,000,000 years
Day 2 = 4,000,000,000 years
Day 3 = 2,000,000,000 years
Day 4 = 1,000,000,000 years
Day 5 = 500,000,000 years
Day 6 = 250,000,000 years


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 24 Jul 2007, 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

rideforever
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Posts: 412
Location: Brighton, UK

24 Jul 2007, 10:53 am

Yeah, you are right, you proved it ! !



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age:36
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 11:45 am

rideforever wrote:
Yeah, you are right, you proved it ! !


Don't think I wish, or deserve, any credit -- I don't even understand the more sophisticated of his equations; I'm just presenting them from Dr. Schroeder, a Jewish physicist who teaches at MIT and fluently reads Genesis in its original Hebrew, for those more knowledgable than I. I've been in so many WP discussions where "science" and "religion" are said to conflict, that I thought I'd present a way in which they would not. I'm not saying Gerald's right -- I don't know enough to know -- but what do you think?


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


calandale
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Mar 2007
Posts: 15,131

24 Jul 2007, 11:58 am

I think it's cute, but like the numerology,
one can manage all sorts of such tricks.

The whole concept of 'day' has no meaning,
without the Earth and the Sun, neither of
which existed.



Iamscientist
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2007
Posts: 70
Location: Oklahoma

24 Jul 2007, 12:37 pm

Look, in my younger days I would appreciate the twisting of scripture to try to make it fit science, but come on...


Genesis 1:2 the EARTH was without form and void. Funny, on the science channel they tend to put the formation of the earth after the Cosmic background radation releasing event at around 300,000 years after BBang.

Gen 3:6 the sky seperates the water below (rivers, streams, oceans) from water above? Well, maybe they'll find that floating ocean above the sky on the next shuttle mission....

The sun was created on the fourth day... Only a million or so years old!?! Probably not.

I thought God rested on the seventh day what happened to it? Don't tell me that is the future, Genesis 2:1 is written in the past tense.


_________________
Iamscientist



Truth is, I'm not a scientist. I'm an analytic philosopher, but we like to think we're scientists.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age:36
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 12:59 pm

calandale wrote:
I think it's cute, but like the numerology,
one can manage all sorts of such tricks.

The whole concept of 'day' has no meaning,
without the Earth and the Sun, neither of
which existed.


Actually, each day in Genesis is described, one by one, as "evening and morning". As Schroeder mentions, the Hebrew used here for "evening" and "morning" is "chaos" and "order", respectively. Making the verse read: "There was chaos and order Day One." And, as you point out, the fact that the sun is not created until Day Four is of course obvious to both writer and reader of Genesis, so quite clearly, the words "light" and "day" refer to something else.

I mean, take verses 13-14. Who with rudamentary intelligence would write, "And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years" if "evening" and "morning" referred to the sun?? Clearly, the author meant another event sequence, and from the Hebrew, we get the concepts "chaos" and "order". He breaks it down here:

Quote:
What is a "day?"

Let's jump back to the Six Days of Genesis. First of all, we now know that when the Biblical calendar says 5758 years, we must add to that "plus six days." A few years ago, I acquired a dinosaur fossil that was dated (by two radioactive decay chains) as 150 million years old. (If you visit me in Jerusalem, I'll be happy to show you the dinosaur fossil - the vertebra of a plesiosaurus.) So my 7-year-old daughter says, "Abba! Dinosaurs? How can there be dinosaurs 150 million years ago, when my Bible teacher says the world isn't even 6000 years old?" So I told her to look in Psalms 90:4. There, you'll find something quite amazing. King David says, "1000 years in Your (G-d's) sight are like a day that passes, a watch in the night." Perhaps time is different from the perspective of King David, than it is from the perspective of the Creator. Perhaps time is different.

The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2), in trying to understand the subtleties of Torah, analyzes the word "choshech." When the word "choshech" appears in Genesis 1:2, the Talmud explains that it means black fire, black energy, a kind of energy that is so powerful you can't even see it. Two verses later, in Genesis 1:4, the Talmud explains that the same word - "choshech" - means darkness, i.e. the absence of light.

Other words as well are not to be understood by their common definitions. For example, "mayim" typically means water. But Maimonides says that in the original statements of creation, the word "mayim" may also mean the building blocks of the universe. Another example is Genesis 1:5, which says, "There is evening and morning, Day One." That is the first time that a day is quantified: evening and morning. Nachmanides discusses the meaning of evening and morning. Does it mean sunset and sunrise? It would certainly seem to.

But Nachmanides points out a problem with that. The text says "there was evening and morning Day One... evening and morning a second day... evening and morning a third day." Then on the fourth day, the sun is mentioned. Nachmanides says that any intelligent reader can see an obvious problem. How do we have a concept of evening and morning for the first three days if the sun is only mentioned on Day Four? We know that the author of the Bible - even if you think it was a bunch of Bedouins sitting around a campfire at night - one thing we know is that the author was smart. He or she or it produced a best-seller. For thousands of years! So you can't attribute the sun appearing only on Day Four to foolishness. There's a purpose for it on Day Four. And the purpose is that as time goes by and people understand more about the universe, you can dig deeper into the text.

Nachmanides says the text uses the words "Vayehi Erev" - but it doesn't mean "there was evening." He explains that the Hebrew letters Ayin, Resh, Bet - the root of "erev" - is chaos. Mixture, disorder. That's why evening is called "erev", because when the sun goes down, vision becomes blurry. The literal meaning is "there was disorder." The Torah's word for "morning" - "boker" - is the absolute opposite. When the sun rises, the world becomes "bikoret", orderly, able to be discerned. That's why the sun needn't be mentioned until Day Four. Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

Order can not arise from disorder by random reactions. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.) So you go to the Dead Sea and say, "I see these orderly salt crystals. You're telling me that G-d's there making each crystal?" No. That's not what I'm saying. But the salt crystals do not arise randomly. They arise because laws of nature that are part of the creation package force salt crystals to form. The laws of nature guide the development of the world. And there is a phenomenal amount of development that's encoded in the Six Days. But it's not included directly in the text. Otherwise you'd have creation every other sentence!

The Torah wants you to be amazed by this flow of order, starting from a chaotic plasma and ending up with a symphony of life. Day-by-day the world progresses to higher and higher levels. Order out of disorder. It's pure thermodynamics. And it's stated in terminology of 3000 years ago.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age:36
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 1:10 pm

Iamscientist wrote:
Look, in my younger days I would appreciate the twisting of scripture to try to make it fit science, but come on...


Genesis 1:2 the EARTH was without form and void. Funny, on the science channel they tend to put the formation of the earth after the Cosmic background radation releasing event at around 300,000 years after BBang.

First of all, "without form and void" could mean any high level of chaos, and actually, it always sounded to me very forboding, like that "earth" wouldn't have even approximately looked like a planet. It could well even mean a field of cosmic dust.
Iamscientist wrote:
Gen 3:6 the sky seperates the water below (rivers, streams, oceans) from water above? Well, maybe they'll find that floating ocean above the sky on the next shuttle mission....

See Biblical flood. The flood's ending: "The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained" (Gen 8:2).
Iamscientist wrote:
I thought God rested on the seventh day what happened to it? Don't tell me that is the future, Genesis 2:1 is written in the past tense.


Perhaps. Actually, much of the Bible is written from a timeless perspective and grammar. In the Prophets, for example, future predictions are often made in both future and past tense, at the same time, back-to-back. Here's an example from the prophecy of Israel's Messiah: "Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider" (Isaiah 52:13-15).


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age:36
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 1:22 pm

calandale wrote:
I think it's cute, but like the numerology,
one can manage all sorts of such tricks.

Well-respected physicists in the scientific community aren't compelled to try any "tricks" with their mathematics -- lest their credibility evaporate overnight, and their careers be ruined. Attempting to change well-known physics equations is just way too risky an option for the professional to try before his colleagues.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Iamscientist
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jul 2007
Posts: 70
Location: Oklahoma

24 Jul 2007, 1:39 pm

I'll just answer all of your responses with, "Ok, It could be that way"....


But I will counter all of your points with the simple hypothesis that the author (The Elohimist, isn't that what they call the author of that section?) made some s**t up to explain the origin of the earth because he didn't have a telescope, and while there may be spiritual or religious meaning in Genesis, there ain't no science.

I'll let whoever reads this decide which is more plausible.


_________________
Iamscientist



Truth is, I'm not a scientist. I'm an analytic philosopher, but we like to think we're scientists.


Last edited by Iamscientist on 26 Jul 2007, 10:32 am, edited 1 time in total.

spdjeanne
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age:35
Posts: 546
Location: Earth

24 Jul 2007, 1:49 pm

Although the original post does provide some information regarding this argument including a web address, I guess I feel like Ragtime has made this mostly a argumentum ad verecundiam argument. I feel that the fact that Gerald Schroeder is a physicist at MIT is more central to his argument than the actual information regarding the theory. I don't like appeals to authority... I don't like authority at all.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age:36
Posts: 9,770
Location: Dallas, Texas

24 Jul 2007, 1:59 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
Although the original post does provide some information regarding this argument including a web address, I guess I feel like Ragtime has made this mostly a argumentum ad verecundiam argument. I feel that the fact that Gerald Schroeder is a physicist at MIT is more central to his argument than the actual information regarding the theory. I don't like appeals to authority... I don't like authority at all.


As you can see, I freely laid out all of his equations to be examined, with a recommendation to refer to the source page. The reader can decide how to weigh Schroeder's background.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


JonnyBGoode
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Mar 2007
Posts: 1,327
Location: Long Beach, CA

24 Jul 2007, 2:04 pm

spdjeanne wrote:
I don't like authority at all.

I fight authority, authority always wins...


_________________
18:33. Press 'Return'


spdjeanne
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age:35
Posts: 546
Location: Earth

24 Jul 2007, 9:31 pm

Ragtime wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
Although the original post does provide some information regarding this argument including a web address, I guess I feel like Ragtime has made this mostly a argumentum ad verecundiam argument. I feel that the fact that Gerald Schroeder is a physicist at MIT is more central to his argument than the actual information regarding the theory. I don't like appeals to authority... I don't like authority at all.


As you can see, I freely laid out all of his equations to be examined, with a recommendation to refer to the source page. The reader can decide how to weigh Schroeder's background.


You are right, I have seen and did see that you posted references about the argument, but I guess my point would be that if the argument is any good, Schroeder's background should be of no consequence. However, I do see that when it comes to Science, we all appeal to authority. We have to rely on the expertise of others because we don't have the capacity to study everything ourselves. Go ahead, appeal away. :)



spdjeanne
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2007
Age:35
Posts: 546
Location: Earth

24 Jul 2007, 9:38 pm

JonnyBGoode wrote:
spdjeanne wrote:
I don't like authority at all.

I fight authority, authority always wins...


I have found that when I recognize what I believe to be the ultimate authority, God, I don't need to worry so much about accepting or rejecting the authority of others, i.e. my parents, boss, president, etc, which actually makes it easier, indeed possible, to love them. With God, authority is different because I feel that God actually has my best interest in mind which is also God's best interests, whereas with other authority I feel like a cog in a huge machine, insignificant and disposable.



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age:33
Posts: 5,568
Location: In the recesses of my mind

25 Jul 2007, 10:11 am

calandale wrote:
I think it's cute, but like the numerology,
one can manage all sorts of such tricks.

The whole concept of 'day' has no meaning,
without the Earth and the Sun, neither of
which existed.


yeah depends where you are


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl