The First Day

[JohnR7]

If you measure the day as we measure the day now. Then the very first day was 1/ 100,000 of a second long. In that amount of time, the universe went from the size of a mustard seed, (some say smaller) to the size of our solar system. Day two was 2/ 100,000 of a second & the universe doubled in size.

It has continued to increase at that rate to the point were we are today with 24 hour days.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Please show your calculations.

 

[Morat]

  Didn't he post this before?

 

[Duane Morse]

The expansion did not begin until day two.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Please show your calculations.

Again? You guys want me to keep showing the math over and over again?

 

[Morat]

  Sure. Because, frankly, we had some objections last time, didn't we? We'ld like to make sure you corrected your problems before.

  However, if we're playing "pretend this is the first time I brought it up" you should have warned us.

 

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Morat
   However, if we're playing "pretend this is the first time I brought it up" you should have warned us. 

I have been working on trying to figure this out for a few weeks now. As it is with a lot of things in life, it may seem difficult, or at least it is difficult to understand what your wanting to know. But once you have it, you see how simple it was all along.

My aim was to develop a way to explain Genesis in light of recent scientific discovery. For now, I think I have accomplished my objective. I am not working on this for the sake of unbelievers, I am doing it for the sake of believers, to strengthen them in their faith.

There will always be people who contribute nothing and just want to tear down, plunder or plagerize the work of others. Our job as a Christian is to build up, strengthen and edify our fellow believers.  thanks, JohnR7

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Please show your calculations.

Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2 tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.

<SUP>Nachmanides has made a phenomenal statement. I don't know if he knew the Laws of Relativity. But we know them now. We know that energy — light beams, radio waves, gamma rays, x-rays — all travel at the speed of light, 300 million meters per second. At the speed of light, time does not pass. The universe was aging, but time only grabs hold when matter is present. This moment of time before the clock begins for the Bible, lasted about 1/100,000 of a second. A minuscule time. But in that time, the universe expanded from a tiny speck, to about the size of the Solar System. From that moment on we have matter, and time flows forward. The clock begins here.

</SUP>[/size]
http://www.windowview.org/science/schrdr/bigbang.gs.html

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
http://www.windowview.org/science/schrdr/bigbang.gs.html

ROTFL! That's quite an interesting definition of "day" he uses. Silly me. I thought a day was one rotation of the earth.

Of course if I can define "day" to be whatever I want, I can make the age of the Universe be any number of "days" you like.

I find it telling that even your fellow Christians at Answers in Genesis isn't particularly convinced, either:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4356news8-2-2000.asp

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
ROTFL! That's quite an interesting definition of "day" he uses. Silly me. I thought a day was one rotation of the earth.&nbsp;

Yes 1/&nbsp; 100,000 of a second was the rotation of the earth on the first day. It was spinning very fast. Now is has slowed down to where it takes 24 hours for one rotation. Actually, I think the way it was explained was that 1 100,000 of a second was the amount of time that passed before time grabed a hold of matter and time as we know it began.

The solar system as we know it, did not begin 'tell time grabbed a hold of it. It was spinning or swirling to fast to substain life. As it slowed down, then things began to seperate, day from night, land from water and so forth. There was a lot of carbon dioxide and so the trees and the grass began to emerge, to convert it to oxygen, then animals began to be formed and so on.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
I find it telling that even your fellow Christians at Answers in Genesis isn't particularly convinced, either:

Dr Humphreys was awarded his Ph.D. in physics from Louisiana State University. For one thing that is the Bible belt, and another thing Louisiana State University is not MIT.

That does not mean we should disregard Dr Humphrey, but he is coming up against some pretty stiff competition. Also Dr Schroeder's work is based on the work of Nachmanides, who has been highly respected sinse the 1200's.

For Dr Humphrey to say that Dr Schroeders work is based on recent findings is just not accurate. I say we should arrange a debate and let them work it out between them. IT would have to be very short notice though. Dr Schroeders is going to be here in America in December and is available, but that would not give us much time to set a debate up.

 

[Homie]

How do they measure the speed of light, seems impossible to be.

By my definition (and anyone else I know) time is time. 1 second is one second no matter what, we go by the standards made on earth.

The solar system as we know it, did not begin 'tell time grabbed a hold of it. It was spinning or swirling to fast to substain life

So what if it was spinning or swirling to fast to substain life, there was still time, time is not a 'thing' that grabs a hold of something, time is constant, if you were God you could stand there in space counting 1 second 2 seconds 3 seconds....etc no matter how fast it was spinning. Lets not change the meaning of the word to prove a theory, it would make it very difficult to communicate if we did that all the time.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Homie
How do they measure the speed of light, seems impossible to be.

By my definition (and anyone else I know) time is time. 1 second is one second no matter what,&nbsp;

I think the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. It is easy to run a internet search and look it up.

Micro time is fairly consistant. That is why we use atomic clocks to measure time. They do have to adjust the atomic clock by one second every 10 years or so, but they adjust it in both directions.

Sense our clock has it's smallest measurement at one second, it is only going to be that accurate, they can actually keep track of time in 1 100,000 of a second.

BUT, there is no evidence that Macro time is consistant. Lots of people on this board will argue in one post that macro time is consistant, and then in the very next post they will argue that macro time is not consistant.

&nbsp;
time is not a 'thing' that grabs a hold of something, time is constant,&nbsp;

According to Einstein and the theory of relativity, time is not consistant. Pure energy, light is an example is not effected by time. Only matter is effected by time.

 

[MSBS]

I'll agree with JohnR7 on this one. Schroeder is basing his calculations on relativistic time dilation effects. Not having covered relativity in some time (not since freshman physics) I can't express much of an opinion on the validity of his application of relativity in this case, but it seems at least logically sound on its face. Of course if you buy into this argument, YEC goes right out the window.

 

[Hank]

&nbsp;

Originally posted by JohnR7
According to Einstein and the theory of relativity, time is not consistant. Pure energy, light is an example is not effected by time. Only matter is effected by time.

To begin with Einstein is my hero; to me he is still the one with the clearest thoughts.

Time does not exist. It is a measurement of events. Thus Einstein explains time dilutions and not that time is inconsistent. Time dilutions are very much precise and consistent. What is pure energy and light? Now the biggy, how is matter affected by time? Does time do something to matter I am not aware of? I would love to know. I think that time has no influence on anything.

Since the other posts of yours are intended for believers I am omitting my thought on those.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by JohnR7
Yes 1/&nbsp; 100,000 of a second was the rotation of the earth on the first day.

How do you know that? How do you know it wasn't 1/50,000th of a second? Why wasn't the earth flung apart due to centrifugal forces?

The solar system as we know it, did not begin 'tell time grabbed a hold of it. It was spinning or swirling to fast to substain life.

You seem to want to take advantage of relativistic time dilation, but you forget that relativistic effects are only significant VERY NEAR THE SPEED OF LIGHT. If the solar system were spinning that fast, the centrifugal forces would overpower the force of gravity and therefore the solar system would never have formed in the first place.

 

[MSBS]

Hey, I just noticed this....if the earth is spinning at once every 1/100,000 of a second, the radial velocity is way more than the speed of light. You might want to slow your estimate down a bit.

LFoD, Shroeder's argument isn't based on the speed the Earth is spinning but some relativistic effects of the expansion of the universe as a whole.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by MSBS
Hey, I just noticed this....if the earth is spinning at once every 1/100,000 of a second, the radial velocity is way more than the speed of light. You might want to slow your estimate down a bit.&nbsp;

Of course, it would have to be more then the speed of light, because there was nothing but darkness. I do not actually know how fast the earth was spinning, 1/100,000 of a second was the length of the first day. If the earth spindown rate is 1 second every 100,000 years. Then it would take 100,000 years for a day to be one second long.

6,000,000 for the first min.

360,000,000 to reach the first hour long day.

&nbsp;

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
How do you know that? How do you know it wasn't 1/50,000th of a second? Why wasn't the earth flung apart due to centrifugal forces?&nbsp;

That is not the speed of the rotaton, that is the length of the first day. I do not know what the speed of the rotation would be, maybe I could try to figure it out. 1/ 50,000 of a seond would be the length of the 50,000 day.

Remember if the spindown rate is one second every 100,000 years, then it took 100,000 years to get to where we have a one second day.

 

[JohnR7]

Originally posted by Hank
&nbsp; Time does not exist.&nbsp;

I suppose time could be an illusion. But the earth seems to be going around the sun at a consistant rate. Years do not seemed to have changed from the beginning. Also on a micro scale,&nbsp; protons &amp; neutrons seem to spin at a fairly consistant rate.