The End of Time

[Amie]

Einstein's theory of relativity basically claims that the faster we move, the more slowly time moves (gravity slows it down), and the slower we move, the faster time moves.

The "twin paradox" states that one twin undertakes a long journey at the speed of light, while the other remains on earth. When the one who traveled returns, he is younger than the one who stayed.

For a long time I considered the thought that time would change just because something is moving faster ridiculous. I still question it.

However, I'm enjoying some suppositions if it were true.. I certainly couldn't disprove it by the math, lol!

Now check this out - the Earth's rotation is slowing steadily. If it were to remain on it's current course (And there is truly no way of knowing that it will - it's orbit was slowing and then around '99, "poof", it's back on track), it is in line to stop. If Einstein's theory is correct, this would not mean an end for us all...

While the earth was spinning faster, time will have actually moved more slowly. A person could live for 900 years that time, and maybe be 90 our time. Dinosaurs could have existed for hundreds of thousands of years that time, but when you measure the age of the world using our time, the planet could literally be about 6,000 years old (<-- again, that's our rotation time).

When the earth's spin slows, time will move more quickly and lifetimes will take less and less time. Eventually an entire lifetime could theoretically be lived for less than a millisecond our time.

If there is an afterlife, then if the earth stops (lots and LOTS of "ifs"), there would no longer be any noticable difference between humanity's lifetime here, and there. It would be like being born in "heaven".

Now, IF that were true, then God and our loved ones live all around us - just in a faster (even time-less) time.

This also could be my late-night imagination going haywire, lol!

Amie

[Donone]

Amie,
There is an interesting online book by a Christian Scientist named Arthur Custance who wrote "A Story Out of Time" reflecting on the implications of lthe speed of light and eternity. I am not sure you are actually moving when the earth revolves. You have to get airborn in relation to earth to experience time differently from earthlings.
Blessings,

Don

[davo]

wow I'm not sure how that all works but it's enough to make my head spin :homer2:

[Amie]

Amie,
There is an interesting online book by a Christian Scientist named Arthur Custance who wrote "A Story Out of Time" reflecting on the implications of lthe speed of light and eternity. I am not sure you are actually moving when the earth revolves. You have to get airborn in relation to earth to experience time differently from earthlings.
Blessings,

Don

Thanks Don! I looked it up and it's actually available online (http://www.custance.org/library_menu.html). Just flipping through, it seems that there is commonality in what he is saying, and what I said.

He doesn't have the fulfilled view however, and of course bias effects objectivity, lol. I intend to take a little more time reading through his stuff.

I appreciate the referral!


wow I'm not sure how that all works but it's enough to make my head spin

Barry has some good news for you here: http://talk-grace.com/showthread.php?p=942#post942 :biglaugha:

Amie

[jlv]

Amie,

The faster I drive, the slower time moves, and the longer I live.

How fast do I need to go so that all red-lights shift to green?

In his original Special Relativity paper, Einstein made a prediction that clocks would move slower at the equator than at the north pole. This was based on rotational speed. His paper on General Relativity predicted both clocks would run at precisely the same speed. Gravity cancels motion.

Jeff

[Amie]

Jeff,

We can have an "on the planet" or "around the planet" perspective, right? What would happen to us as the result of the state of the planet would be just a consolation, wouldn't it?

Lemme clarify again as well - I have always doubted the accuracy of the theory of relativity. It seems to me that though our measurement of time may be less accurate, that time would pass the same none-the-less. But hey, I don't think in math either..

Amie

[Barry]

Living with In-laws may greatly affect ones perception of relativity. :eek:
:rofl:

[Steve Zodiac]

Einstein proposed that time exists as a part of matter -- no matter in the universe, no time. Matter (according to Einstein) has time fields wrapped around it. Therefore, the further away from a body, the slower the time fields become, because they have expanded.

If you were to travel 1 lightyear from earth, you would be 6 trillion miles further away in the time field, so you would be 1 year further away. This depends on his theory of space/time curvature, though. And it all depends on a Big Bang or some kind of beginning to space and time.

If space and time have always existed, then there is no such thing as time, merely the delay in perception on the part of the observer. In a flat universe (one that isn't curved) there is no time passage, just an eternal "now". We can't experience the eternal now because we operate at a particular speed -- our brains have a clock that ticks at about 9 milliseconds, so that biological component is what causes us to perceive "time".

The theory of an infinite and eternal universe was the most common prior to the 1920's and makes the most sense from an observational standpoint.

[Steve Zodiac]

I knew Arthur Custance when he was alive and had the opportunity to hear him speak on many issues -- the Deluge in particular. Custance was concerned that theology and science were moving further apart, so he set himself to rectify the problem by attempting to spin the bible, scientifically.

Since the bible isn't a science book, his efforts were only partially successful. For instance, one of his more indepth works, The Seed of the Woman, tried to show that "sin" is an inherited, genetic characteristic passed through the woman. Thus, the Messiah could not have a human father, since the "sin nature" was part of the male genome and not the female.

A silly assertion, but not unreasonable with his need to reconcile science and theology.

[Barry]

A silly assertion, but not unreasonable with his need to reconcile science and theology.
Agreed. Biblical terms are in a league all to themselves framed in the concept of recorded eschatological history.
Barry

[Donone]

Very interesting that you met Custance when he was alive. I agree that Seed of the Woman was a stretch, as were a few of his conclusions in a story out of time, but still he was a man of creative efforts to struggle with truth. I found it fascinating that he was adopted as a hero of the Calvary Chapel movement and spoke in their churches. Do you have any knowledge of this or his particular eschatological views?

Don

[Amie]

Matter (according to Einstein) has time fields wrapped around it. Therefore, the further away from a body, the slower the time fields become, because they have expanded.

I was thinking, what if that is on a smaller scale? It is in relation to a small thing, on a planet or "heavenly body" of sorts. But what of the heavenly bodies in relation to their origin? Perhaps the origin (whatever the Big Bang was) is relevant, and time changes as the heavenly bodies expand away from it?


The theory of an infinite and eternal universe was the most common prior to the 1920's and makes the most sense from an observational standpoint.

Eternal yes, unchanged perhaps not. What do you make of its' expansion?
I agree that the bible is by and large not a science book, lest we all buy the idea that the Earth resembles a flat bottomed snow globe (http://www.4-hmall.org/4H_Mall/images/Inventory_Images/FS/GF36.jpg) around which the sun rotates vertically.

Technically though, "science" is a search for knowledge of something. There is a connection therefore, between science and theology. If "science" is limited to what is presupposed today as "existing knowledge" (whether theologically or scientifically), then it doesn't always click.

Perhaps it is the difference between fundamental and realistic? Custance's idea on the "Seed of the Woman" sounds very fundamentalistic.


..but still he was a man of creative efforts to struggle with truth.

He may not be right in every aspect (who is?), but there is some meat there to chew upon.

Amie

[Steve Zodiac]

Don,

Custance was what we used to call an "Acts 13" dispensationalist and a futurist -- that is, he believed that the "church" (as replacement theology likes to say) was inaugurated when Paul turned to the "gentiles". He also looked to the unknown future for the return of the Messiah.

Yes, I knew him in 1974-1976 when he would participate in our bible conferences in Riverside, CA. He was a friend of Russ Schaefer, the founder of Scripture Research -- now run by Jerry Wayne Bernard, believe it or not. I think Evelyn White, his longtime secretary is still living and runs the website.

Calvary Chapel was an "Acts 2" church, at least when I knew Gregg Laurie in the 70's. I have no idea what they teach, now, although Chuck Smith has not changed his theology one whit in over 30 years...probably why all of their services sound like they're only interested in evangelism. Knowledge is dangerous to new believers, donchyaknow.

[Steve Zodiac]

Amie,

No, "time" as you're referring to it, is an illusion. There is no "time" away from which things can expand. There is no expansion of space, since there was no origin to the universe. Since the universe is eternal, then there was nowhere from whence it came and nowhen for it to begin.

The Hotel Infinity is full. Every room is booked with an infinte number of guests. One night an infinte number of Shriners show up for their annual convention. What can the desk clerk do? All the rooms are taken.

He simply moves the infinite number of guests to the even numbered rooms -- since there is an infinite "number" of even numbers -- leaving the odd numbered rooms for the Shriners. Once again, there is an infinite "number" of odd numbers. In fact, the clerk can do this as often as necessary -- an infinte "number" of times. The hotel can always be full, yet have room for infinitely more guests.

So, expansion is not necessary, the universe is already infinitely "large."

[Amie]

Steve,

As to expansion, I was referring to this: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101expand.html

Amie

[Steve Zodiac]

Amie,

Yes, I knew that's what you meant, but the theory of expansion is based on the big bang theory -- that the universe was originally contained in a place smaller than an atom and then erupted into this continuum, creating time, space, matter and energy in one swell foop.

After only a few trillionths of a second, the proto-universe expanded and cooled, allowing particles to condense out of the primordial soup of energetic interactions. This is the conventional theory of the beginning of everything.

There are several problems with the big bang from a strictly observational standpoint. I can post links to some of the articles, if you wish, but this is a good synopsis:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

But, think about your understanding of God's eternal nature. Since God is infinite and neverending, then "when" did God start to create? Since infinity precludes evolutionary processes -- because everything always exists -- and God is infinite, then God's creative process is infinite in scope. The universe has always existed.

Expansion is really a tacit theory of evolution: in the beginning there was gas.

[Barry]

But, think about your understanding of God's eternal nature. Since God is infinite and neverending, then "when" did God start to create? Since infinity precludes evolutionary processes -- because everything always exists -- and God is infinite, then God's creative process is infinite in scope. The universe has always existed.



That is IMO a great point Steve.
What we have done so far is go from a center of the universe ideology to being very small in reference to size and place.
The earth was the center.
Then the Sun.
Then the Galaxy
Then the Expanding Universe.

What if the Universe that we see is part of a still larger yet unknown process?

In any case those are some interesting thoughts.
I'll check out that link above.
Barry

[Amie]

Steve,

I see the issues with "The Big Bang" theory, and I appreciate the gentle spirit in which you shared them (more than you know!).

I don't know that a beginning to our universe would mean that something different and infinite from which it will have come, never ever existed. I see, sort of like bumping into the wall (lol), that there is no center from which the universe is expanding. Anyhow, an origin for what we have today, doesn't negate an eternal something, nor does it cancel out the possibility of a return to that eternal something - again not having an "end", but a "change", or not having a "beginning" persay, but a "changing point".


So, expansion is not necessary, the universe is already infinitely "large."

I think I get it in that things moving only lends the illusion of growth.

If space and time have always existed, then there is no such thing as time, merely the delay in perception on the part of the observer.

I think we agree at least as per perceptions. If there were a race from here to the next galaxy and one ship traveled more slowly, the difference would be how fast they traveled, how long each trip took, and how long they seemed to take.

Einstein said that his theory of relativity (paraphrasing him) would be like sitting on a swing with a beautiful woman as opposed to working. I wonder sometimes, whether he was misunderstood. The curvature of space would only appear to dilate time, in that we could travel distances at crazy speeds. If you went the same distance in a straight line, you really would be older because it would take you longer.

I understand his theory to mean that the faster we go, the slower time seems to pass. I don't get how the curvature of space would be necessary for that to be true. The things in space that it curves around are moving as well, and I don't understand how that would not be taken in account.

Maybe you're just the fella mull these things over with?

Amie

[Amie]

What if the Universe that we see is part of a still larger yet unknown process?

That's my question - and how would it affect everything..

Amie

[Amie]

Steve,

And I think that how I see time would help in your understanding what I'm clumsily trying to communicate. I see it as a measure of existance..

Amie

[Steve Zodiac]

Barry,

By definition, the universe already contains everything that there is. Its nature is that there is no requirement for it to be contained within a larger set.

Quantum theories postulate a multi-verse -- a multitude of universes, an infinity of them. But, that and the other larger set that may contain our existence isn't necessary, we are already within eternity.

If the theory of an infinite existence is true, then there is room in it for everything that can be imagined to come into being -- indeed, everything that can't be imagined is there, as well.

[Steve Zodiac]

Amie,


Anyhow, an origin for what we have today, doesn't negate an eternal something, nor does it cancel out the possibility of a return to that eternal something - again not having an "end", but a "change", or not having a "beginning" persay, but a "changing point".

I believe you're saying that a beginning to the universe doesn't mean that it isn't eternal in scope. However, the universe is all there is, by the very definition of the word. It can't exist eternally and have an origin, simultaneously. That would be a paradox.

The universe is a singularity. It is a simultaneity and is not discontinuous. It has no breaks in time, nor boundaries of space and extends throughout infinity. There is no "where" in the universe -- no middle, no end and no starting point.

If the big bang were true, then there would be a "place" in "time" where all coordinates are zero. No pitch, no roll, no yaw and no duration. The cosmic egg would have no dimension and no source -- and that is what the theory of the big bang suggests.

Time, as a measure of existence, is completely subjective. There is no absolute standard of time and there is no primal clock from which the starter blows his whistle, we are all listening to a whistle inside of ourselves. We can't even point to when we began, as individuals. I can't say that Steve began on such and such a date.

Sure, I was born on 9/12, but that isn't when this "I" that is writing came into existence. This person arose from a collection of experiences and potentials, but the exact moment is indeterminate. Looking at it from the opposite direction, one can never "catch" onesself falling asleep. Consciousness is there one second and the next it isn't. Where do "I" go when I sleep?

The universe never sleeps and it never arose from a collection of events and circumstances. It will never end and it will forever be in a flux of energy, moving through cycles that last for trillions of years. It came from nowhere and it is going everywhere.

[Amie]

Steve,

I am saying that there could have been a beginning to the universe as we know it today - and there could be a change in our future as well.

I'm not sure that I would equate that which is eternal, with the universe.

Amie

[Steve Zodiac]

Barry,


What if the Universe that we see is part of a still larger yet unknown process?

Yes, what we "see" is nothing compared to the whole. But, what we observe is colored by our observational techniques, so it may be that what we see is not what really exists.

When we "look" at distant objects in space, we determine their distance through several methods. But none of those methods allow for a direct measurement -- we must infer our results from instrumentation built to test certain theories. If the theories are wrong, then the results will be wrong.

As human beings, we check our theories with observations, we don't do observations in a vacuum and then come up with theories. The same holds true with theology -- the denominations and sects exist and then attempt to justify their existence, often despite the observations.

[Barry]

I see the conclusion to this statment is that we are stuck in time until we can advance out of time if advancing out of time is ever possible.

Barry

[Steve Zodiac]

Amie,


I am saying that there could have been a beginning to the universe as we know it today - and there could be a change in our future as well.

Each time we develop a new measuring stick, we can see more and the universe gets bigger and more mysterious.

What do we really know of the universe? From a strictly local standpoint, yes, things change all the time and those changes usually happen very quickly. But on the larger scale, what exactly changes?

Stars and galaxies condense out of cosmic forces and then explode back into the pool of potential out of which they were born. But does that change the universe? If I have a bag of flour and I shake it up, the bag of flour doesn't change, only the little particles inside of it move around. The number of particles doesn't change and the way they interact doesn't change.

Why does the universe need a beginning? God didn't begin, so how long did God "wait" before starting?

As a preterist, your understanding of eschatology is that it was applicable to a local people in the past and has no bearing on the future of this planet, am I right? Have we ever heard of a planet being destroyed? Do we know of anything that could explode a planet? Before you answer, "supernovae" or "blackholes" remember that those aren't really things, they are only theories.

What makes anyone think that this planet will cease to exist? So, what's the problem with it lasting forever? If not this planet, why not the whole bag of flour?

[Steve Zodiac]

Barry,


I see the conclusion to this statment is that we are stuck in time until we can advance out of time if advancing out of time is ever possible.

What if there's no time out of which to unstick?

[Amie]

But on the larger scale, what exactly changes?

We can't know.

Stars and galaxies condense out of cosmic forces and then explode back into the pool of potential out of which they were born. But does that change the universe?

If the universe as we know it (flour) was once a bag of wheat, then that would change it :)


Why does the universe need a beginning? God didn't begin, so how long did God "wait" before starting?

I don't equate God and the universe.


As a preterist, your understanding of eschatology is that it was applicable to a local people in the past and has no bearing on the future of this planet, am I right? Have we ever heard of a planet being destroyed? Do we know of anything that could explode a planet? Before you answer, "supernovae" or "blackholes" remember that those aren't really things, they are only theories.

K, well at present I would have to disagree. I think that black holes are real, though they haven't been accurately defined yet. There are photos of supernovas, and of things rotating around black holes.

Who knows whether or not this planet will end on a natural non-eschatological level? That doesn't necessarily even mean that life for humanity would be over.


What makes anyone think that this planet will cease to exist? So, what's the problem with it lasting forever? If not this planet, why not the whole bag of flour?

I don't have a problem with things lasting forever. I am just examining other possibilities.


I see the conclusion to this statment is that we are stuck in time until we can advance out of time if advancing out of time is ever possible.

Which is exactly the possibility that I was imagining.. maybe not wheat this time, maybe cocoa powder :), I would like that :D.

Amie

[jlv]

The universe is a singularity. It is a simultaneity and is not discontinuous. It has no breaks in time, nor boundaries of space and extends throughout infinity. There is no "where" in the universe -- no middle, no end and no starting point.

Amie,

Contrary to Steve's opinion, there are discontinuities in both space and time. General Relativity is the best theory we have to explain them.

JL