RECORD vs LAYERS

[doubtingmerle]

No wonder you don't think the Creator wrote Romans.

Paul blisters believers who are doing well, embrace evolution, and end up becoming atheists.

(Have we discussed this before?)

No, sir, I explain why I changed my mind. It had nothing to do with not liking the message. It was the pesky facts that made me change my mind.

Where in the book of Romans does it say God wrote it? Paul takes credit (Romans 1:1) and Tertius takes credit (Romans 16:22). Not once does God take credit. Are you sure he wrote that book?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where in the book of Romans does it say God wrote it? Paul takes credit (Romans 1:1) and Tertius takes credit (Romans 16:22). Not once does God take credit. Are you sure he wrote that book?

Does someone need a course in Amanuensis 101?

 

[Aaron112]

No, I didn't get mad. I learned new things, and with that new knowledge, I changed my mind.

I don't know if healing is possible then, or not.

When the devil gave "new" information , temptation, to adam, adam sinned, and mankind fell into darkness as a result.

Now you have fallen, admittedly, into darkness.

Is there any hope of recovery to righteousness? Maybe, maybe not.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't know if healing is possible then, or not.

From what do I need to be healed?

For I feel quite fine, Doc.

When the devil gave "new" information , temptation, to adam, adam sinned, and mankind fell into darkness as a result.

I am not talking about "new" information.

I am talking about new information.

Now you have fallen, admittedly, into darkness.

No sir, I have opened the door and walked into the light.

Is there any hope of recovery to righteousness? Maybe, maybe not.

Now you want to talk about my moral character? I thought we were talking about the fossil record (or fossil layers, or whatever you want to call it.)

But for the record, I now think I have high moral character.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Does someone need a course in Amanuensis 101?

Nope.

Does someone need a course in how to find out the author of a book? See 3 Simple Ways to Find the Editor of a Book - wikiHow

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He follows the Bible pretty close and he sticks to the KJV. Gensis chapter one talks about the Beginning and genesis chapter two talks about the generations. Esp the generations of Adam. So this is the perspective or viewpoint. In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein determined that time is relative—in other words, the rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference.

An Einsteinian 'frame of reference' here means a frame moving with respect to another frame whose time is being measured. It is irrelevant and meaningless in the context you're using it - there's no reference frame for comparison.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This post was quoted twice or more now,
and it looks like no one noted that
you MIS-quoted me. tsk tsk
So then
are you so desperate ? Why ?
Why not just learn to listen and stop arguing ?

Just pointing out an issue.

Look again - I quoted your post directly and paraphrased what I quoted ("...he is right, more often than others, so stop arguing"). IOW, 'he is right more often than others' implies, 'he might be right this time'.

 

[Diamond72]

An Einsteinian 'frame of reference' here means a frame moving with respect to another frame whose time is being measured.

Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another, and that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source of the light. One of the key implications of this theory is that time and space are relative, rather than absolute. This means that time and distance can appear to be different to different observers depending on their relative motion. One of the most famous examples of this is the "twin paradox", in which one twin remains on Earth while the other travels in a high-speed rocket. When the traveling twin returns, they will have aged less than the twin who remained on Earth due to the effects of time dilation.

 

[Diamond72]

there's no reference frame for comparison.

I use the reference frame of Gerald Schroeder. Each day is half the distance of the day before. Although there is only one day, it becomes a pattern and all the other days are a copy of that one day.

Schroeder's proposed interpretation is based on a combination of scientific and religious concepts, and includes the idea that time operates differently at different levels of reality. He argues that time in the "quantum realm" operates much faster than time in the macroscopic world, and that this difference in the rate of time can account for the apparent discrepancy between the age of the universe as calculated by scientists and the age of the universe as described in religious texts.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity states that the laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another, and that the speed of light is constant for all observers, regardless of the motion of the source of the light. One of the key implications of this theory is that time and space are relative, rather than absolute. This means that time and distance can appear to be different to different observers depending on their relative motion. One of the most famous examples of this is the "twin paradox", in which one twin remains on Earth while the other travels in a high-speed rocket. When the traveling twin returns, they will have aged less than the twin who remained on Earth due to the effects of time dilation.

Yes, I know... and? [i.e. how is this relevant to your point about the generations of Adam?]

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I use the reference frame of Gerald Schroeder. Each day is half the distance of the day before. Although there is only one day, it becomes a pattern and all the other days are a copy of that one day.

That's not a reference frame - I don't know what it is. A reference frame is a coordinate system; in Einsteinian terms, it's generally used to compare observed properties of objects in relative motion, i.e. different reference frames.

Schroeder's proposed interpretation is based on a combination of scientific and religious concepts, and includes the idea that time operates differently at different levels of reality. He argues that time in the "quantum realm" operates much faster than time in the macroscopic world, and that this difference in the rate of time can account for the apparent discrepancy between the age of the universe as calculated by scientists and the age of the universe as described in religious texts.

That makes no sense in Einsteinian Relativity and no sense in quantum physics... even if he somehow managed to unify the two via scale-dependent time (how does that work?), the idea of time passing at different rates over time is meaningless as there is no external reference for comparison.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Schroeder's proposed interpretation is based on a combination of scientific and religious concepts,

I think I found Schroeder's error.

 

[Diamond72]

I think I found Schroeder's error.

Really, that would be amazing if you could point out an error of a PhD from MIT.
It would be a lot easier to go after a Harvard professor, than MIT.

 

[Diamond72]

That makes no sense in Einsteinian Relativity and no sense in quantum physics... even if he somehow managed to unify the two via scale-dependent time (how does that work?), the idea of time passing at different rates over time is meaningless as there is no external reference for comparison.

Schroeder's proposed interpretation is based on the idea of "time dilation" which is a consequence of Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. According to this theory, time can appear to operate at different rates in different gravitational fields and in different relative velocities. Schroeder argues that this time dilation can also apply to the quantum realm and can be used to reconcile the age of the universe as calculated by scientists with the age of the universe as described in religious texts. However, this interpretation is not accepted by mainstream science and there is no scientific evidence to support it.

The Age of the Universe | Gerald Schroeder

 

[Diamond72]

Yes, I know... and? [i.e. how is this relevant to your point about the generations of Adam?]

You are talking about two different things. The generations of Adam begins with chapter two of Genesis 6,000 years ago. Gerald Schroeder is talking about Genesis Chapter one. That is fine if it does not work for you. It works for me from my perspective. This is something everyone has to work out for themselves.

There are two main ways to measure a day:

1. Solar time: A day is defined as the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis with respect to the sun. This is called a solar day and it is measured by the position of the sun in the sky. A solar day is slightly longer than 24 hours, due to the fact that the Earth's orbit around the sun is not a perfect circle and the Earth's rotation on its axis is not perfectly constant.
2. Sidereal time: A day is defined as the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis with respect to a fixed point in the sky. This is called a sidereal day and it is measured by the position of stars in the sky. A sidereal day is slightly shorter than a solar day, due to the fact that the Earth is also orbiting the sun, so that a star will not be in exactly the same position in the sky when the Earth completes one rotation on its axis .

Both solar time and sidereal time are used for different purposes, solar time is used for civil time and sidereal time is used for astronomical observations.

God took me to the center of the Universe, so I know where He measures time from. There had to be a reason why He wanted to show me that. Even though it was 14 billion light-years away. Still, we were there in almost an instant. There is by the way NOTHING at the center of the universe, other than space and all that it contains. Of course, there is light. The universe is filled with light.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Really, that would be amazing if you could point out an error of a PhD from MIT.
It would be a lot easier to go after a Harvard professor, than MIT.

Harvard, MIT, I find their errors all the time. Just an ordinary day doing physics.

In case it wasn't clear (since you deleted that part of my one sentence post) Schoeder's error is mixing science and religion. The two are not compatible.

 

[sjastro]

Really, that would be amazing if you could point out an error of a PhD from MIT.
It would be a lot easier to go after a Harvard professor, than MIT.

Well lets look at his calculations.
From your link.

The most common non-linear relationship in the universe: A = Aₒexp(-Lt) defines the relationship between the earth view of time and the Biblical view of time

Where e is the natural base = 2.71827

A = earth time in number of days

Aₒ = the instantaneous ratio of the threshold rest energy of a proton {the proton is the first stable form of matter following the big bang creation of the universe that defines the element} to the current energy of space corrected for the increase in the rate of expansion of space. The units are as temperatures; and as a ratio of temperatures, the units of temperature cancel. The significance of A0 is that it equals the number of earth days that would be initially, instantaneously, compressed into the biblical perspective of time at the instant the energy level of the universe passed the threshold rest energy of a proton. As the universe expands and cools, the value of this ratio changes.

L = natural log of 2 {usually referred to as ln2} = 0.693 divided by the half period;

Half period = t1/2 = one Genesis day

t = time in Genesis days and goes from 0 to 5.5 days; each day 24 hours duration; 5.5 and not 6 because Adam receives the human soul – the neshama – half way through the 6th day. In the calculation, the difference between using 5.5 or 6 is minute.}

Integrate A = Aₒexp(-Lt) with t going from 0 to 5.5 days

Integral ∫A = Integral ∫Aₒexp(-Lt) = (-Aₒ/L)exp(-Lt)

Note that the units of the right side of the integrated equation is days

Integral ∫A = -((10.9 x10¹² /3) x ( 1 day/0.693))exp(-0.693 t) /1 day| with t going from 0 to 5.5 days

Integral ∫A = 5.12 x10¹² days = 14 x 10⁹ years

Two views of one reality from two vastly different perspectives

The equation A = Aₒexp(-Lt) apart from being pulled out of thin air without derivation has the highly questionable constant Aₒ (Aₒ = the instantaneous ratio of the threshold rest energy of a proton {the proton is the first stable form of matter following the big bang creation of the universe that defines the element} to the current energy of space corrected for the increase in the rate of expansion of space.)
Why use the rest energy of the proton?
Common consensus amongst cosmologists and particle physicists the first stable form of matter formed before protons were magnetic monopoles.

The rest mass of magnetic monopoles is a staggering 10¹⁷ X more massive than a proton hence if Aₒ used the monopole mass, Schroeder's calculations would be blown out of the water (not that the equation makes any sense).
While magnetic monopoles are hypothetical they are believed to still exist in our universe.
We can thank inflationary expansion of the universe for our existence as monopoles would have caused the early universe to collapse under gravity.
The reason why magnetic monopoles have not been detected is attributed to the expansion of the universe as explained in this post.

Here is a video on magnetic monopoles.

On a different subject the light curves of type 1A supernovae destroys Schroeder's argument and highlights why his equation doesn't make any sense.
The light curve or how the brightness of the supernova changes with time is found to be stretched by the factor (1+z) where z is the redshift of the parent galaxy where the supernova occurred and is not based on his exponential function.
What this means is when you remove the effects of expansion, the time scale is exactly the same in the observer's frame of reference as it is in the supernova's frame of reference for any redshift z.
This invariance is an example of proper time τ and should not be confused with coordinate time t used in special relativity.

 

[Diamond72]

The rest mass of magnetic monopoles is a staggering 10¹⁷ X more massive than a proton hence if Aₒ used the monopole mass, Schroeder's calculations would be blown out of the water (not that the equation makes any sense).
While magnetic monopoles are hypothetical they are believed to still exist in our universe.
We can thank inflationary expansion of the universe for our existence as monopoles would have caused the early universe to collapse under gravity.
The reason why magnetic monopoles have not been detected is attributed to the expansion of the universe as explained in this post.

The equation you mention, A = Aₒexp(-Lt), is known as the Robertson-Walker metric and is used in cosmology to describe the expansion of the universe. The constant Aₒ in this equation represents the initial scale factor of the universe, or the ratio of the current size of the universe to its size at the beginning of the expansion. The use of the rest energy of the protons in this constant is because the protons are among the most stable and long-lived particles in the universe, and their rest energy is a well-defined quantity that can be used as a reference point.

It's important to note that the Robertson-Walker metric is a mathematical representation of the expansion of the universe and has been well supported by observational evidence and scientific research. The constant Aₒ is just one of the parameters in this equation and it's used to provide a reference point for the current size of the universe.

 

[Diamond72]

On a different subject the light curves of type 1A supernovae destroys Schroeder's argument and highlights why his equation doesn't make any sense.
The light curve or how the brightness of the supernova changes with time is found to be stretched by the factor (1+z) where z is the redshift of the parent galaxy where the supernova occurred and is not based on his exponential function.
What this means is when you remove the effects of expansion, the time scale is exactly the same in the observer's frame of reference as it is in the supernova's frame of reference for any redshift z.
This invariance is an example of proper time τ and should not be confused with coordinate time t used in special relativity.

You are correct that the light curves of Type Ia supernovae have been used to provide evidence for the accelerated expansion of the universe, which contradicts the predictions of the steady-state model proposed by Schroeder. In the steady state model, the universe is in a state of constant expansion and matter is continuously created, so the density of matter in the universe should be constant over time. However, the observation of Type Ia supernovae at high redshifts, which are farther away and therefore observed as they were in the past, showed that they were fainter than expected if the universe had been expanding at a constant rate. This suggests that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, rather than remaining constant.
You also mentioned that the light curve of Type Ia supernovae is found to be stretched by the factor (1+z), where z is the redshift of the parent galaxy. This means that the time scale of the light curve, as observed by an observer on Earth, is longer for supernovae that are farther away. This is known as time dilation and is a consequence of special relativity. The time dilation factor (1+z) is related to the proper time τ, which is the time measured by an observer who is at rest relative to the supernova, and the coordinate time t, which is the time measured by an observer who is moving relative to the supernova. The proper time is always shorter than the coordinate time, and this difference is given by the time dilation factor (1+z).
Overall, the observation of Type Ia supernovae light curves is considered one of the strongest evidence for the accelerated expansion of the universe and this idea has been supported by many other measurements and observations from cosmology, it also makes the steady state model proposed by Schroeder less appealing.

 

[Diamond72]

When God showed me the universe was expanding, He did not say if it was a steady state or if the rate was increasing. His emphasis was that at some point in time, the universe would begin to shrink and come back together again. Just as people and families drift apart but in time they will come back together again. Today they use the word contract. The traditional belief going back at least 1,000 years is that the universe started off the size of a mustard seed. Neil Degrasse Tyson talks about this in his book on Astrophysics. Only Tyson says one-trillionth the size of the period at the end of a sentence. So in the beginning the universe was very condensed and very hot.