The Time Bubble Theory

[Aggie]

Hi, I was over at EVC forum, and was able to come up with a theory. Here it is.
" The Time Bubble Theory
Time is a factor applicable to us. The time it takes light to travel as it relates to us is the speed of light. The time it takes light to travel the further away from us, and our created enviorment -becomes relative. All things it does out of our realm, are not the same as here, (near what will be the center of the universe). Therefore what would take 'here' so much time to happen, as you get very distant, takes less and maybe no time to happen! So what we are seeing then (in the cosmos) is not the record of what happened in some distant past, it's Now. Time, if not applied universally would seem to make more sense. So 'Time = Distance (divided by) Speed' is not true universally. Therefore as well as Einstein's formula not being applicable universally, the universe is neither HOMOGENOUS, nor ISOTROPIC! So we, at this juncture, are still ruled by, and under time. Everything then for us is affected by time, like how long light takes to travel from the sun, etc. Considering our own limitations of time, and how they will end, (according to the bible)-it is natural to try to project our concepts of time out into areas where it does not apply. Now exactly what are the boundries to the time bubble we are in, and does it end gradually, or abruptly, remains to be found out. (Feb, 2004, E.B.Davidavitch)"
Well, it seems this would allow for Creation. Anyone see a flaw, or, something to add, or any idea perhaps how to 'falsify' it? (They seem to think an idea must have a way to be falsified, or it isn't so good)

This theory is trying to combine two things that don't really have to do with one another. One thing--which is predicted by relativity--is that the conversion factor between space and time is the speed of light, meaning that if you want to determine whether a distance through time or a distance through space is greater, the way you compare the two is by judging how long it would take light to travel through that portion of space. 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.

The other thing is that there is a limited speed with which information can travel given throught a given curvature of space-time. It cannot travel faster than the speed of time at a particular speed and curvature, although altering the speed and curvature would alter this rate. Likewise, it cannot travel faster than the speed of light, which is measured to be the same in any frame of reference but only because people moving at different speeds will have different notions of how fast something is moving.

We are ruled by time in the same way that we are ruled by space, meaning that we will always inhabit it. Any additional limitations, however, are only products of the fact that space-time is not significantly curved at any point within reach of humans at the moment, and because humans cannot currently travel at anywhere near the speed of light. Our ideas of time always moving forward, and affecting everyone equally, are products of the latter rather than the former.

I should add that the illusory nature of the latter limitations can be demonstrated by experiments now, showing that time moves at slightly different rates in different places. GPS satellites continuously take this into account; without compensating for the relativistic warping of time they would be unable to function.

Future technology may lessen this limitation even further.

 

[Arikay]

1) Still waiting for predictions and evidence for this theory.

2) Eyewitness testimony is not always considered as good evidence in court, normally scientific evidence is prefered. Especially when the eyewitness testimony is old, and the person testifying is known to be biased.
Matter of fact there are many studies that show that eyewitness testimony can often be incomplete or false, even though the person giving the testimony thought it was true, because the brain is not a camera and can record events much differently than what really happend.

 

[funyun]

You feel it seems this was an impotant part of your educatin. Don't feel you have to share why. I couldn't much care.

There r more important parts of education than ancient mythological texts, but I enjoy learning things and yes I do think it's important. I'm simply saying it's better to argue from a full range of the facts. You obviously know little about mythology, and thus have nothing to logically compare the Hebrew mythology of the Bible to in terms of how far-fetched it all is.

Some point. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that I could buy a darwin book to have on hand, just in case there be a toilet paper shortage.

This response doesn't fit into the context of what I said. It looks to me more like an excuse for taking a stab at Darwin then any form of intelligent rebuttal.

In a court the eyewitness testimony of many people is proof. I don't think I can help you much on that one, you'll have to decide for yourself. I'm with the Almighty on this one.

You dodged my statement with a badly-worded and poorly-constructed analogy. And u still haven't provided any proof. In a court, hear-say does not hold up. And the Bible fails to meet the standards for "eyewitness testimony".

 

[rihu76]

"The Bible is no more a written record than the Metamorphoses"
It is written It is a record. God wrote some of it personally, with His Own finger. His Son also is responsible for so much of the New Testament (Look at a red letter edition) I've heard of His Book. So has the world. I never heard of yours.

God wrote the Bible? If you believe that, then I'm afraid no amount of debate with the scientifically literate on this forum will do anyone any good. The Bible was written under divine inspiration, not divine dictation. If you can see this, then there is room for real discussion.

 

[funyun]

If god wrote the Bible, he's a horrendous editor.

 

[rihu76]

Some point. If I had a nickel for every time I heard that I could buy a darwin book to have on hand, just in case there be a toilet paper shortage.

Haha! That's actually pretty funny!

(but I still don't believe you)

 

[rihu76]

1) Still waiting for predictions and evidence for this theory.

2) Eyewitness testimony is not always considered as good evidence in court, normally scientific evidence is prefered. Especially when the eyewitness testimony is old, and the person testifying is known to be biased.
Matter of fact there are many studies that show that eyewitness testimony can often be incomplete or false, even though the person giving the testimony thought it was true, because the brain is not a camera and can record events much differently than what really happend.

I am in full agreement. This is precisely the nature of memory, and therefore of eye witness testimony. In fact, there are documented cases of psychiatrists, perhaps unintentionally, planting false memories into people's heads.

 

[time]

"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.
"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.
"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.
"Nature is trying very hard to make us succeed, but nature does not depend on us. We are not the only experiment." Buckminster Fuller

 

[armed2010]

 

[time]

"In fact, there are documented cases of psychiatrists, perhaps unintentionally, planting false memories into people's heads"
Jesus appeared to I think it was hundreds after He rose from the dead. He had many friends, and deciples. (Some secretly 'for fear of the Jews'). He healed and fed thousands. He also had twelve apostles. Do you think He was anything like your crazy shrink? Why spend so much time trying to make fun of Him, and His, if you dislike, distrust, and disbelieve Him?
"Where there is love there is no question" Einstein

 

[armed2010]

 

[time]

"Haha! That's actually pretty funny!

(but I still don't believe you) "
You're not dead yet, who knows?

 

[rihu76]

"In fact, there are documented cases of psychiatrists, perhaps unintentionally, planting false memories into people's heads"
Jesus appeared to I think it was hundreds after He rose from the dead. He had many friends, and deciples. (Some secretly 'for fear of the Jews'). He healed and fed thousands. He also had twelve apostles. Do you think He was anything like your crazy shrink? Why spend so much time trying to make fun of Him, and His, if you dislike, distrust, and disbelieve Him?
"Where there is love there is no question" Einstein

Check out my faith icon. Does it not state that I am Catholic? You are simply overreacting to a completely neutral statement. This, of course, doesn't help your credibility in a debate. 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.

 

[Arikay]

1) Do you have any evidence to back up this bubble theory? Or is it just mussing?

2) How many records do we have of Jesus appearing to people? Do these records match up? Thousands of people have all seen the same lights in the sky, and they were even recorded. Thus UFOs must exist, correct?

3) In a way, we are in a bubble, its about 14 billion light years to the edge of this bubble, beyond it we currently cant see.

 

[rihu76]

"Haha! That's actually pretty funny!

(but I still don't believe you) "
You're not dead yet, who knows?

Yes, perhaps after I die God will reveal His ridiculously irrational layout of the universe and we will have a good laugh together.

 

[truthteller]

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!

 

[Arikay]

The difference is that none of the current c-decay theories are anything like the creationist ones. If I remember right they are about tiny variations in c, not the giant change that would be required for the creationist c-decay theory to be right, especially since the creationist version has been disproven (again, Jet had a good post about that, and since he knows much more about this than I, I think I will try to find it).

 

[time]

"First, at this time, there are a number of new c-decay theories being studied "
It's not so much that anything decays, I don't think, as it is that it doesn't apply. In other words, Deep space cosmos, according to the theory, is in real time, so to speak, because time isn't binding it like it does man's world. Our limitations, or dimension or bubble (solar system, maybe more) is where time applies totally. So then, if it did not apply out there far away, it would not need great time to create it. So we would see it like it is, not like it supposedly was millions of years ago.

 

[ThePhoenix]

Heck, I think even AIG disavowed C-Decay

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

"First, at this time, there are a number of new c-decay theories being studied "
It's not so much that anything decays, I don't think, as it is that it doesn't apply. In other words, Deep space cosmos, according to the theory, is in real time, so to speak, because time isn't binding it like it does man's world. Our limitations, or dimension or bubble (solar system, maybe more) is where time applies totally. So then, if it did not apply out there far away, it would not need great time to create it. So we would see it like it is, not like it supposedly was millions of years ago.

Hey I know some folks speak in tongues but you're the first I've seen type in tongues.

time,

not a single sentence makes sense. It's gibberish.