The Time Bubble Theory

truthteller said:

First, at this time, there are a number of new c-decay theories being studied by "mainstream" cosmologists, physicists, including armies of the atheistic persusasion. I read Jose Majeiro's book "Faster than the Speed of Light", where he expounds on his VSL (variable speed of light) theory. It turns out there are now several variations on the theme.

He was trying to find a way to account for a number of contradictions among the various implications of the existing fixed-c cosmologies. Among other things, the "anthopic principle" drives these people nuts!

Click to expand...

The c variation here is hypothesised to have occurred during the inflation epoch of a Big Bang inflationary scenario.

Just shows you how dumb the YEC's are to jump on anything sounding good to them but they don't read the smallprint. Just makes 'em look dumber and that's tough to do.

I know I have asked this before, but...

1) What predictions does the bubble theory make?
2) Do you have any evidence for the bubble theory?

time said:

"not the giant change that would be required for the creationist c-decay theory to be right" Since c decay is about the speed of light it isn't important in the bubble theory, since it would only be important, or existant, in our present created time affected 'little' bubble. So if you talk then of the speed of light, or other force, that involves time, it is all as it seems, in the bubble. Out of it, however, it does not apply. So cut with the c theories, already.

Click to expand...

time said:

"the way you compare the two is by judging how long it would take light to travel through that portion of space"
Yes, according to how we measure time in our created sphere. This means we think if time were the same (or even applicable) outside our bubble, that it would limit all things the same way.
"From a different point of reference, what one person measured as time would appear to be space and vice versa, but the distances would still be equal."
Yes, this is how it would work if God, and all creation were in the dome, or bubble, that God made for us.

Click to expand...

It is also how it would work if there were more to the universe than what we see. It would be true in either case.

time said:

"We are ruled by time in the same way that we are ruled by space, meaning that we will always inhabit it"
Well for Christians we can look forward to a 'time' where there will be 'time no more'! And as already mentioned, God isn't bound by time now. So we will not always be ruled by it.

Click to expand...

There is no "time" when/where time ends. If the universe has limited volume (which is likely) then time also is limited, and just as space does not exist where there is no space, time does not exist beyond the end of time. Neither does space. Our physical bodies are part of time and space, so they can't exist outside of time and space either. All of the physical processes that allow us to live rely on space and time, and cannot take place without them.

If there is a God, then it's quite likely that He isn't part of space and time--we seem to agree on that. However, humans' bodies only exist the same way that planets exist--as physical bodies that are part of time--so we can't exist outside of time. The only way any aspect could exist outside of time would be if there was a component to our existence that was eternal, which could exist regardless of whether there was space and time. There's no evidence for this idea, but it's not completely out of the question. The part that's out of the question is that our physical bodies could also exist beyond time.

And because our thoughts and actions are products of our physical bodies, (And are themselves physical,) they are subject to the same laws that govern the rest of the space and time.

time said:

"showing that time moves at slightly different rates in different places"
Yes, and they are travelling in our bubble. I think of it like a gigantic geodesic dome, covering our solar system. In it, we are bound by time.

Click to expand...

As I said before, we are only bound by time in the same way that we are bound by space. You seem to be assuming once again that the laws of physics only exist in the parts of the universe that we can see.

First of all, the size of the portion of the universe that we can see is larger than you may realize. Stars that formed billions of years ago and are billions of light-years away can be seen now, since the light that they produced billions of years ago took billions of years to reach us. The laws of physics have to be this way in a potion of the universe large enough to contain several galaxies.

There is no reason to belive that they are any different elsewhere, since as I said before the limitations in how much of the universe we can see are only products of the speed at which information can travel. In any case, in as much of the universe as is able to affect us, time behaves in the same way as space. This can be observed, and whether or not the parts of the universe that cannot affect us behave differently is irrelevant.

time said:

"Lets say this bubble exists, it still doesn't explain an old earth"
Well, once you conceed the heavens, I'll be happy to shed some light on your supposed 'old' earth!

Click to expand...

The hypothesis has no scientific motivation that I can see. We haven't found any evidence that the rest of the Universe obeys different physical laws than the Earth. The heavens are not conceeding.

time said:

"What predictions does the bubble theory make"
That people of the 'bubble' would operate in time. We do! That the outside the 'bubble' cosmic activity, which was all part of a young creation (which it is!) -would be interpreted by the time restricted people inside the bubble, as needing millions of years to happen. (which many people do say of the cosmos!)

Click to expand...

In my previous post I did not realize that you were saying that things outside our "bubble" could affect us. How could they? If the laws of physics were different outside of our bubble, there could not be atoms outside of it. Atoms are actually fairly complex structures that rely on all of the laws of physics except gravity, and the existence of stars relies on all of these as well as gravity.

And now you're suggesting that this other universe be sending information to the interior of our bubble that looks EXACTLY the same as the information that exists inside it. This could only happen if God was deliberately trying to fool us by making the interface between our bubble and the rest of the universe alter this information to make it look like our laws of physics were also applicable outside of it. Under any other circumstances, the information from outside our "bubble" would look like the static on a broken TV.

Post deleted--I double posted by mistake.

rihu76 said:

I believe in God, but to literally interpret the Bible is folly. Pseudoscientific attempts to justify a literal account of biblical events is even worse.

Click to expand...

History is replete with thousands of well-known historical figures, luminaries of all types, with a lot more scientific acumen than you or me, who have attempted to show the Bible wrong, and have managed to become absolute believers in its veracity along the way. The author of Ben Hur, some of the most famous historical archaeologists, and now tens of thousands of scientists of the physical disciplines (biology, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, biochemistry, geologists, you name 'em) have come face to face with the facts.

Clarence Darrow's "Nebraska man", used to ridicule Wm. Jennings Bryant, a couple pieces of bone. The missing link between dinosaurs and birds discovered by the Chinese farmer that showed all the paleo-evolutionists to be fools, desperate for even a hint of the evidence they so fraudulently proclaim to have. Hoeckel's frauds, still presented in "science" textbooks as evidence of goo-to-you. Four presidents hewn out of a mountain, obviously evidence of a master sculptor. And yet the vastly and infinitely more complex people themselves from which those faint shadows were made, supposedly were spontaneous?!

Then the master crowning foomaker: a Mars rock with a hint of a special crystalline compound ballyhooed by NASA as evidence of life on Mars. Evidence of something else vastly more intricately designed, but that was spontaneous!?? Wow! What is even more spectacular is that these are PhD's! Amazing! God must be laughing uproariously!

If we can just pick and choose what we want to believe in, then what need is there of the Bible? You say you're Catholic, this Pope on his first visit to the U.S., rebuked the Catholic body in the U.S. when he said too many here treat it as a "cafeteria" faith.

truthteller said:

Clarence Darrow's "Nebraska man", used to ridicule Wm. Jennings Bryant, a couple pieces of bone. The missing link between dinosaurs and birds discovered by the Chinese farmer that showed all the paleo-evolutionists to be fools, desperate for even a hint of the evidence they so fraudulently proclaim to have.

Click to expand...

Proved them fools, eh? Fools cuz they didn't know that evidence existed that they couldn't have possibly known existed until it was found?

Do u call Columbus a fool cuz he didn't know the Americas existed and there was no way he could have?

And BTW, plz clean up your English. It's barely readable, in which case, I hope u r just learning the language.

time said:

"not the giant change that would be required for the creationist c-decay theory to be right" Since c decay is about the speed of light it isn't important in the bubble theory, since it would only be important, or existant, in our present created time affected 'little' bubble. So if you talk then of the speed of light, or other force, that involves time, it is all as it seems, in the bubble. Out of it, however, it does not apply. So cut with the c theories, already.

Click to expand...

But you haven't given any motivation for your hypothesis. Scientific hypotheses are motivated by evidence and make testable predictions which can be confirmed or falsified.

you cant be serious. Those are the predictions it makes? Based on these predictions, I could say that the "appearance of age" theory is true. If these are the best predictions it makes, I think modern cosmology is safe.

Now, where is your evidence of this bubble?

time said:

"What predictions does the bubble theory make"
That people of the 'bubble' would operate in time. We do! That the outside the 'bubble' cosmic activity, which was all part of a young creation (which it is!) -would be interpreted by the time restricted people inside the bubble, as needing millions of years to happen. (which many people do say of the cosmos!)

Click to expand...

The missing link between dinosaurs and birds discovered by the Chinese farmer that showed all the paleo-evolutionists to be fools, desperate for even a hint of the evidence they so fraudulently proclaim to have.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about Archaeoraptor here, which turned out to be mistakenly made out of two different animals which EACH supported the dinosaur/bird connection better than Archaeoraptor could have? Or the six other species from that area that also support it? They are exactly what Gregory Paul and Robert Bakker predicted 10 years earlier based solely on their understanding or avain evolution, and now the exact animals whose existence was predicted by the theory of evolution have been found.

If you were not aware that there are other threads about this topic, I suggest that you read them. If you have some informed questions afterwards, I will be happy to answer them. Here are a few of them: http://www.christianforums.com/t86023 http://www.christianforums.com/t80067 and the last page of this one: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1740552#post1740552 .

If your ignorance is willful, however, I suggest that you shut up. Willful ignorance will not add anything to this discussion, and merely make you look like an imbecile.

How would you know if time applied beyond our immediate dimension? By how long something appears to take to do something?

Click to expand...

I already explained this in my previous post. If the laws of physics were different in a part of the universe that was close enough to us for us to observe, these parts of the universe would look COMPLETEY different to us from the parts where our laws of physics applied. Unless God had construced the boundary between the two in such a way as to deliberately fool us, which isn't likely.

Oh and truth you are right, we are definatly fools for thinking Nebraska man was a real fossil, then discovering it wasn't and dropping it from evidence. Obviously it would be much more inteligent to just try and ignore all the evidence that says it was a bad fossil and continue to use it to this day, like many creationist organizations have done with their "evidence for a young earth." Yep, that would be much less foolish.