If our sun is second or third generation, does this not conflict with Genesis ?

Since you did not write message 151, I am going to presume you meant message 155 written in response to message 151. You consider that to be an explanation. But I find it to be full of made up science. It explains only what you believe and not anything real."So then the earth was not yet formed, had not yet been created."Of course according to Genesis the earth had life on it, and there was day and night on the earth before the sun, moon, or stars even existed. Clearly the non-formed state of the earth was over by the end of day three. None of your mumbo jumbo about different times on the sun fixes that. Your question and your idea about 'secrets of the universe' being not containable in any number of days is not even Biblical. Forget the criticisms about your physics. You say essentially 'let's question God's power' and then finding it lacking let's make up some stuff.It seems much more likely that Genesis was written by someone who simply wasn't present during the big bang or the creation of flora and fauna and who knew jack about what happened. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You say stuff that is clearly wrong. But when your errors are pointed out you don't respond. That's why the arguments are not serious. We cannot get you to do anything but reassert your conclusion regardless of the flaws in its underpinning.

While that's true, Eliyahu has suggested that those other places include extreme gravity wells, and the story for those things is quite different than for inertial frames. For gravitational dilation, both the observer at the top of the gravity and the one at the bottom agree that the latter's clock runs more slowly.

I could have phrased it better, but I included accelerating reference frames, which are the same as gravity wells. As you say, there's no mystery. Observers at opposite ends of a gravity well can make measurements that make clear whose time is flowing slower. An observer in an accelerating reference frame or in a gravity well would know that the Big Bang and the formation of the earth were not simultaneous events. As it happens, we live at the bottom of a gravity well and did not have any trouble figuring this out. Making the gravity well "extreme" doesn't change this.Elihayu also hasn't seemed to have considered that if he were correct that the Big Bang and the formation of the earth were simultaneous, then everything that ever happened, including the cup of coffee he just finished, were also simultaneous with those events. Which obviously makes no sense. Well, obvious to us.--Percy

Bs'dWhat is it that I make up according to you? And so do you guys. Oh oh, and then you guys think that you are the sophisticated well educated and scientific ones, debating the religious hillbillies who think the earth is flat.Time is affected by things like speed, gravitation, and space. (ever heard the term "space-time"?)When two atomic clocks are set up, one a meter higher than the other one, then you can see that the top one runs faster than the bottom one, because a meter higher the gravitational field of the earth is less than a meter closer to earth, and therefore a meter higher time is less slowed down then a meter lower. These are absolute real differences in time.An earthly clock, when brought to the sun, will slow down, and then every earth year he will tick away one year minus 67 seconds, because time there is slowed down by the bigger gravity of the sun.Those are very real absolute time differences. There are litterally BILLIONS of places in the universe where time is so much slowed down, that a clock, if we would place one there, would tick away only six days in fifteen billion earth years. So if a clock were placed there after the big bang, it would say that only six days have passed by there since then. Let's say that the term "in the beginning" is not one exact point in time. Keep in mind the difference between science and speculation.The only real science is emperically testible science. The rest is stamp collecting.We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.
― Hannes Alfven, Nobel price winner in physicsA good example of the above is the evolution theory.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

Bs'd??????????????????Where do I say that the big bang and the creation of the earth were simultaneous events??

Bs'dLike what for instance?

Bs'dThat's the one. Please tell me what part of the science is not correct. I'm not saying the earth didn't exist on day three, I'm saying that until the end of day six Genesis counts with cosmic standard time. I bring ancient Jewish commentators.Judaism has a lot more sources of information than only the Bible. Well, the chances of a human being present at the big bang are a kind of small, what?But here is what a Jewish commentator wrote about the creation of the world:"The first act of creation made something that was so thin that it had no substance. It was the only act of creation that ever happened, and compressed in that point in space was the whole universe just after its creation."Sounds like the big bang to me. Edited by Eliyahu, : No reason given.

I don't know much about relativity (actually closer to nothing than not much) so is Eliyahu right about this? It strikes me that if you had an atomic clock at 20^oK it would run slower than an atomic clock at 300^oK. But does time itself actually run slower or just the clock? Or is it merely our reference frame that is different when accelerating or under the influence of extreme gravity?HBD

Most of what you say is made up. How about this from your Message 158: This is all just you making stuff up, or maybe they're your religious beliefs. It isn't anything science believes to be true. "Oh, yeah? Well, so are you!" is your rebuttal to an accurate observation? Could you at least be original, or even accurate? Is it too much to ask? I'm apparently debating a religious hillbilly who thinks the Big Bang and the formation of the Earth were simultaneous events simply because his religious book tells him so. You can pretty much trust that people here understand relativity, you don't have to describe it for us.What you haven't described, and can't since it isn't possible, is the manner in which the Big Bang and the Earth's formation were simultaneous events. It's impossible because the quarks making up the Earth were also in the Big Bang, and those quarks couldn't be in two different places at once. Or are you going to invoke quantum mechanics now? I agree that in our universe there must be such a place. And there must be a place where the clock ticked 7 days. And another place where it ticked 8 days. And another where it ticked a single day. So what. What has any of this to do with simultaneity? We can say that, but then this is just you making things up again.If "in the beginning" is not "one exact point in time," then might it span, oh, I don't know, maybe 9.14 billion years, roughly the amount of time separating the Big Bang from the formation of the Earth? I've been describing both established science and scientific speculation, which hints at future directions in science, and clearly science is *not* coming more and more into line with the Bible. You're correct that science came into better agreement with the Bible about there being a beginning, but it did so out of evidence, and what we've learned and the evidence gathered since the 1930's has not brought science into any closer alignment with the Bible. In fact, most of what we've learned has made science less and less aligned with the Bible.Even you understand this: Yet evolution is an accepted scientific theory that has experienced considerable development since the 1930's and is one of the key ways in which science has become less and less aligned with the Bible. Your argument that the Bible and science are coming into better and better alignment is ludicrous on its surface. Were there any truth to it there wouldn't even be a creation/evolution debate.--Percy

Yes, he's right. That's one reason why GPS satellite clocks are purposefully set to keep the wrong time on Earth so they will keep the right time in orbit. See also Project GREAT: General Relativity Einstein/Essen Anniversary Test: Clocks, Kids, and General Relativity on Mt Rainier.Atomic clocks are internally and very precisely temperature controlled. If they were not they would indeed run differently than "proper time" (the time in your current reference frame)Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

You just did this to me, now you're doing it to NoNukes. After someone makes a summary statement, what perverse part of your nature makes you request it all be presented to you again? Is your memory that short? Are you that confused? Cosmic standard time? You mean like the scientific version of cosmic standard time? The one where the Big Bang happened at time 0 and the Earth formed at time 9.14 billion years?I think I see one way that you're reasoning is leading you astray. This is from your Message 155: Light falling into the gravity well of a black hole will experience the same slowing as everything else. An observer will not see "an enormously high frequency." I can find this quote nowhere on the net - who said it?Anyway, "in that point in space was the whole universe" does sound like the Big Bang, "it had no substance" not so much.--Percy

The Bible says that creation of the heavens and the Earth were simultaneous events: In another message you equivocated and said that "in the beginning" might not be a specific point in time, but in that case the first day spans 9.14 billion years. Grass was created on the third day, which means the next two days span about 4.5 billion years. Your days of Genesis seem to vary in length.So, keeping in mind that light falling into a gravity well is slowed along with everything else, tell us again how your observations from the bottom of a gravity well correspond with Genesis.--Percy

I just spent an hour trying to track it down. There might be a translation of a translation issue here, but I did go through everything I have and what I could find online about commentaries dealing with creation. I could find nothing close to this. That being said there are lots and lots of Jewish commentaries about everything(if you ever spend time reading Jewish commentaries you will find it hard to believe they are all the same religion).It will be interesting to get the original source so we can actually compare that to the translation we were given. Then again maybe eliyahu considers himself a Jewish commentator.

So the earth did exist before the sun was created according to you and Genesis. Yet there were mornings and evenings even before day 3.Just yelling out cosmic time may allow you to claim that there was some time compression, but it does not allow you to change the order of causally connected events. Relativity does not allow that.Note that I'm not bothering with the dispute about the length of the six days. I'm taking issue with the events described as occurring in those days.So you have yet to explain the 'morning and evening on earth, and in some cases on a void formless earth, without a sun. Is it your position that I have not pointed out at least some of your errors? It is not as though posts disappear after you and I make them.In the interest of getting a discussion started, why don't you describe the physics of a place that meets these requirements: So you know about plenty of black holes that were created at time close to creation and that still exist right now? Black holes created a week or two after creation could certainly not have this property.I submit that this is something you made up.And then you propose that the author of Genesis was writing about time viewed from such a place? Or is it that God operated from there?