Isn't eternity itself a form of timespace as in "from everlasting to everlasting"?

Also, what about timespace in relation to the creation of life on other inhabited worlds? Were they not all created prior to the creation of this world we live on?

By the way, you also posted your first post in this thread as a new thread in the New Light forum, therefore, as it isn't good to have two posts in two different threads to respond to, which thread do you want to pursue this, as a continued discussion here, or in in the new thread? If in the new thread, then I will move all the responses to your first post here to that thread there.

JCS, what day of the week did God create water and the formless planet?

I don't think "curved space," "cyclical space," etc. are ever specified in Scripture, so it is a big stretch, at best, to try to support these ideas from Scripture.

Regarding the creation of Light vs. the Sun, Moon, and Stars, Genesis 1 gives adequate clarity here for me. The word "stars" appears on the fourth day, to my interpretation, in one of the following contexts:

1) a parenthetical note describing who had made the stars, but not necessarily confining their creation to this particular day--the two major creations of the day being the "greater light" and the "lesser light;" or
2) a reference to the planets in our solar system which we see as the brightest stars in our sky; or
3) BOTH of the above.

I agree with those who say it would be silly for God to create a stream of light to a not-yet-created star which would otherwise be too distant to be viewed anytime in the next 6000 years. However, I also disagree with the math presented here earlier which essentially increases the speed of light to the square of its known measured value. By the mathematical "shortcut" earlier presented, using the square root of the speed of light (as measured by its distance), the effective speed of light is increased from 299,792,458 m/s to:

89,875,517,873,681,764 m/s.

Here is where this new speed of light was introduced:

You'll have to show me some science that demonstrates this as a possibility before I will be accepting this.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Go ahead and ignore my other post, I should've just posted it here to begin with.

Wow! Some difficult questions here. Uh, as best as I understand, timespace in a specified universe, acts independently from timespace in other universes. I should probably define what I mean by a "universe". At the Hubble distance (13.8 billion ly) light from objects recede away faster than the speed light travels from them. This radial distance marks the edge of a visible universe. Nothing beyond that distance can be visibly seen. However, potential and kinetic energy from foreign objects outside can still have effects.

What is eternity relative to timespace? Another hard question. If three dimensional space is defined by three axes (W, X, & Y), the dimension of time is a fourth axis "Z". Eternity would define a maximum undefinable quantity of time on the Z axis. Kurt Godel defined infinity as a series of numbers that includes all other sub sets. Meaning that there can not be a series of numbers greater than infinity. This is also why there is only one God. I'm now looking at your statement from a different perspective, "from everlasting to everlasting". An infinite series of infinite periods is still an infinite period of time. I still do not know the answer to your question but I suspect that at an infinite point on the number line, everything else has an infinite value as well. (So I'm guessing the answer is yes but it will take an infinite period of time to pass before I would know for sure.)

Now considering the timespace rate of other worlds, the rate varies with things like planet mass, rotation, orbit time, etc. In other universes, the laws of physics can even change.

Answering the question of when life was created on other worlds, I definitely believe life was created elsewhere before Earth. Does that mean that all other beings were created earlier? No. Is there life in our visible universe beyond Earth? It's possible. If there are other created beings on other worlds within the visible universe, could they have been created before the week of creation? I would have to say, not likely. (Unless they continued to exist amidst God's creative work of the observable cosmos.) I don't actually know.

Since the begining of time is marked with the first day I'd say the first day. (The Bible doesn't specify.)

On Green Cochoa's I point I have a substantial number of evidences to choose from. Let's start with the very little known fact that the speed of light accelerates when it leaves Earth's surface.

Richard Mould (from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, State University of New York) has a posted article called "Acceleration of Light at Earth's Surface". The very first sentence of the article states "General relativity requires that light traveling upward or downward at earth's surface has an acceleration equal to +2g."

The next point I'd like to discuss is the Pioneer Anomoly.When the distance light travels exceeds 1 light day, a phase transition occurs. Evidence supporting this is found in the "Pioneer Anomaly." Light emitted from Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, Voyager 1, and Voyager 2 blue shifted after probes had traveled significant fractions of a light day from Earth. Pioneer 10 has exceeded this distance by 3 light minutes as of October 8, 2005. If you've never heard of this you should do the research.

Another point of evidence is the distant time rate anomoly. The First Flash model predicts extreme time dilation at extreme distances. Astronomers have concluded that distant supernovae explosions experience a time rate equaling only 60% of what's thought to be normal. The vast majority of nearby superclusters (where supernova are often observed) lie within the range of 200,000,000 to 400,000,000 light years distance. These superclusters include Hydra, Pavo-Indus, Perseus-Pisces, Coma, and Hurcules. At the edge of the neighboring group of superclusters, (measuring a distance of 1,000,000,000 light years) we observe superclusters such as Horologium and Corona Borealis. According to First Flash calculations, a 60% relative time dilation rate exists between light measured 360,000,000 light years away and light measured at a distance of 1,000,000,000 light years.

Something else you may or may not know is that Big Bang theorists claim that the entire universe started expanding at 1,728x10^38 times the speed of light. I can't count to numbers that high! (So take your pick, both models claim the universe expanded faster than light.) B.G. theorists then claimed that after billions of years of deceleration, the universe started accelerating again due to the mysterious presence of dark energy. (The First Flash model claims that the universe has been gradually accelerating all along. If you compare the WMAP data from 2003 to the data in 2008, the expansion rate matches the First Flash model.

In 2003 the distance to the Light Horizon was estimated to be 13,690,000,000 light years away. Using my method, an age of 6122.19 years was calculated. In 2008 a greatly refined measurement was established at 13,730,000,000 light years. The age for this measurement was 6131.1248 years since creation. Believing this new measurement to be accurate, a corrected age and distance for 2003 resulted to be 6126.1248 years time (a difference of only four years) and 13,707,615,200 light years distance ( 17,615,200 Ly difference). This was well within their range of error of + or - 120,000,000 light years.

Studying the so called "mysteries from WMAP" it's been discovered that temperatures measured at any point of of the light horizon have virtually zero variation with any other points that are 60 degrees away from that point. If the rate of time for light remains constant, there is absolutely no way whatsoever, for the energy from that point, to effect anything else at that distance. Consider the radius of a circle, then draw a perfect triangle in the circle (the corners touching the circle). If all three angles are equal then the angles equal 60 degrees. The length of any one of the triangles is greater than the circle's radius. The circle's radius represents the distance from Earth to the light horizon. In the First Flash model, light from a point accelerates in all directions like concentric ripples in a pool. The data fits FFs predictions perfectly.

This last point is an article I've been posting on the walls at colleges.

Velocity of Light: Science or Fiction?

It's commonly quoted that light travels 186,282 miles per second. When it comes down to calculating the age of the universe however, the value for C is commonly reduced to 1. Quote from Roger Penrose's "The Road to Reality" p. 405: "It is a common practice in relativity theory work, to use units for which C=1." p. 434 "With more natural units with C=1, energy and mass are simply equal. However, I have explicitly exhibited the speed of light C (i.e. by not choosing space/time units so that C=1) to facilitate the translation to non-relativistic descriptions." again on p. 435, & 463.



When the value of C is reduced to 1 any multiplication or division by the same value is lost, thus C^2 =1. In doing so E=MC^2 becomes E=M * 1 * 1 or E=M. Avoiding alterations, mass actually = E/C^2 meaning we, as beings composed of matter, consist of energy existing within a framework of squared light. As a consequence of this, everything we perceive exists within the context of this squared framework including all observations of light itself. (Light is squared)



For an alternative perspective on light, suppose the entire universe is spinning at such a velocity. What effect would Earth's daily rotation have over a period of a year? (1 year * C * 365 rotations = 365 light years distance per year) [Actually 365 square LY] Using this model, how long would it take for light to travel from the Light Horizon (approximately 13,730,000,000 light years away) to Earth?

Square root (13,730,000,000 sq LY/365 sq LY) = 6133.22414 years



This time scale raises some very serious theological questions. But is this equation even sound? Basically it's stating S^2=T^2 *C^2 thus C^2=S^2/T^2. Can this be verified? Well, E=MC^2 = (M * T^2 *C^2)/ T^2 and energy is measured in joules = (Kg * Meters^2)/ Sec^2. Here is the same only simplified: (M * S^2)/ T^2. So (M *T^2 *C^2)/T^2 = (M *S^2)/T^2. Thus T^2 * C^2= S^2 meaning C^2 does in fact = S^2/T^2.

[quick key: C= velocity of light, E= energy, S= space, T= time]



This "First Flash" model proposes that (T^2 *C^2)/ T^2= S^2/ T^2 or (6133.22414y^2 * 365 sq LY)/ 6133.22414 y^2 = 13,730,000,000 sq LY/ 6133.22414 y^2

[The age of the universe is over 6000 years]



The Big Bang "Theory" proposes that (C^2= 1) thus (T^2 * C^2)/ T^2= (T^2 *1 *1)/T^2= T^2/T^2= S^2/T^2 meaning (13,730,000,000 sq LY *1^2)/ 13,730,000,000 y^2

[The age of the universe is nearly 14 billion years]

From this the question is raised, is the velocity of light a product of science or is it fiction?

I don't know exactly how "little known" this fact is, but I believe most scientists understand that light slows in our atmosphere. That is the precise reason they try so hard to measure its speed in a vacuum. In any case, I am well aware of the fact that light would accelerate as it passes through decreasingly dense atmosphere, until it finally reaches a maximal velocity in the vacuum of space. Furthermore, since light has mass, I believe it may be affected by gravitational fields and potentially accelerated thereby. Nonetheless, to accelerate it by the square of its speed would be completely beyond the realm of reasonable math.

Despite the math here, there is no "square" for the speed of light in 2g. Not even close.

Ok. I did some research. Here's what I found on Wikipedia:

From the last sentence in the quote above, we can distinguish the gravitational effects from the "Pioneer Anomaly" as being unrelated, i.e. they cannot be compounded together. Secondly, the acceleration from the "Pioneer Anomaly" is so small as to hardly be distinguishable from potential errors in calculation, or from the "noise" of the firings of the rockets which correct the spacecrafts' course.

It has been given a mathematical analog to the speed of light multiplied by the "Hubble Constant." So how much can we expect this constant to be?


Using the figure yielded by the Hubble Space Telescope, the constant amounts to 0.025% of the speed of light. Again, this is nowhere in the ballpark of squaring the speed of light!

This all seems a bit vague and theoretical. The very fact that language like "anomaly", "thought to be normal," and "model" is used indicates that this is not thoroughly established.

Something you may or may not know is that the "Big Bang" theory followed the theory of evolution, and was an attempt to remove God from the conscience. Neither do I believe in the theory of evolution, nor do I believe in a "Big Bang." This revision of the "Big Bang" theory was forced by the Hubble Telescope. In fact, the theory nearly died when the Hubble disproved so much upon which it was based. So, the scientists who have been "ad libbing" as they go, have managed to "adjust" their figures to still accommodate their pet theory. So be it. I don't trust their figures any more than I would trust their atheistic religious views. For a look at the trustworthiness of modern scientists and their math (ordinarily thought to be entirely objective and factual), one needs look no further than "ClimateGate."

I recognize that your method requires the speed of light to be squared. However, I question the validity of squaring it. It is one thing to square it as a means of calculating some other quantity, as Einstein does to calculate energy of a different unit entirely. It is a completely different matter to square the actual speed of light for the sake of measuring long distances and shortening them.


Again, why base so many figures upon the "Big Bang" theory, when said theory is a total farce to begin with? Inasmuch as the theory itself is built upon atheistic ideology which erases true facts of a Creator God from the realm of science, just as much these figures are devoid of the true facts of science. If you build your theory upon such a "broken reed," your theory cannot stand.

The Bible does not tell us one whit in terms of the actual age of the Universe. So much for the 14 billion years you may estimate. I tend to think the Universe may be an eternity older than that.

So far, I'm speaking to you in terms of the actual science. However, I can prove from the Bible itself that your figure of "6131.1248 years since creation" is incorrect--off by well over a century.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm going to concede on each of the points you've made. I strongly appreciate constructive criticism as it will help guide and direct me to find and refine possible truth. I fully intend to respond to each of your points in a timely manner, but it will take a little bit more work and time on my part to refine, expand, and clarify my prior statements.

I really do appreciate your honesty on the subject.

On the first day, then, Jesus created our plant, outer space, water, and light. He divided the light from the darkness and named them Day and Night. Is it possible to distinguish first day light from fourth day lights?

Genesis
1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.