RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist?

RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 1:24:51 PM)
Interesting comment. Question for the physicists - can light exist in the absence of time? Knowing that light always travels at a constant speed, and knowing that speed is dependent on space/time, if there were no time there should be no light. Seems like an odd logical result, but I'm a banker not a physicist. Seems like physics would imply a "time" before which there was no light.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 1:57:12 PM)
quote: (theo)"Be"-ing requires time in which to "be." God is, therefore requires time in which "to be." (everstudy) Well, I think we then have found something higher and loftier than God... TIME. quote: (everstudy) God cannot be higher than what He is dependant on, and since you say He is dependant on time for His existance, I say worship Time. Forget about this not so all powerfull god (little 'g' now that you've relagated him to a dependant). Time is the end all of Gods. How silly! We depend on bugs and bees for polination and subsoil, but I do not think that somehow makes us inferior to bugs and bees. Or maybe you were threatened once by a dung beetle? Dependency does not make one inferior, but rather lends superiority to one's character. God is dependent upon his sense of right and righteousness, by whcih he judges his creation. That does not make him inferior to that which he depends upon. He depends upon man to keep our part of the covenant; he depends upon his covenant to sustain any meaningful relationship with his creature man. He depends upon his own ability to sustain his creation. That does not make him inferior to his own ability. We become stronger through dependency, not inferior. If I depend upon your ability to keep your bargain with me, I gain, not lose. In fact, it is exactly those through whom dependency fails that we become weakest. Besides all that, I did not say God depends upon time, I said God is, therefore requires time in which "to be." And THAT is a fact of both nature and supernature. quote: (everstudy) Or does Time also depend on something for It's existance? I'd like to worship the Most High God... could you tell me who that would be now? ~ Everstudy ~~ please notice sarcasm...~~ Duly noted. "And he is the head of the body, the church:" [Col 1:18] "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For the body is not one member, but many. 15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again THE HEAD (Christ) (cannot say) TO THE FEET, I HAVE NO NEED OF YOU. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another. 26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. 27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?"[I Cor 12:12-29] Which of the above do you consider God to be dependent upon to the point of being inferior? He needs, us, depends upon each of us to do our part, but that is wherein He is glorified, not shamed. I really think you should rethink this one.

evry1needsgod -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 2:07:35 PM)
quote: These are aspects of God's nature though, not things. Love, holiness and righteousness are not physical things that God finds himself dependant on. God could be compeletely unloving, and still exist apart from time. I would like to see a proof that "time is part of the Nature of God, and ALWAYS was..." but I don't think it's coming. And this was exactly my point when arguing with TB about this aspect on another thread of his. God is not limited by anything outside of His Nature, so unless TB can prove to me (an you) that time is an aspect of God's Nature, he remains wrong about this.

everstudy -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 2:36:30 PM)
Oh boy, where to start? Let's begin before Gen. 1:1. God is Eternally existant. Do you have another definition for eternal than that which is commonly accepted? quote: silly! We depend on bugs and bees for polination and subsoil, but I do not think that somehow makes us inferior to bugs and bees Dependency does not make one inferior, but rather lends superiority to one's character. God is dependent upon his sense of right and righteousness, by whcih he judges his creation. That does not make him inferior to that which he depends upon. He depends upon man to keep our part of the covenant; he depends upon his covenant to sustain any meaningful relationship with his creature man. He depends upon his own ability to sustain his creation. That does not make him inferior to his own ability. We become stronger through dependency, not inferior. If I depend upon your ability to keep your bargain with me, I gain, not lose. In fact, it is exactly those through whom dependency fails that we become weakest. I feel like I'm talking to a mormon here... you're compare apples and oranges. You have to seperate what you think about nature and what you think about God. You cannot compare Him to the creation. I depend on my boss to pay me. I depend on a farmer to raise a cow so I can eat steak. I depend on a lot of things. God does not. He is self sufficient. I have a sense of righteousness. God IS righteous. He does not have to depend on a "sense", it is by His nature He acts. He Is just, that is how He judges; He IS faithful, that is how He sustains us. He IS almighty, that is how he sustains His creation. He upholds His covenants, not based on what man does (look at the lives of Issac and Jacob), but on the fact that He IS. God does not become stronger, He IS all powerful, it is part of His nature. You seem to be taking the position that God is like man, dependant on our senses, with each other with the creation in general. I'd like you to prove that biblically. quote: Besides all that, I did not say God depends upon time, I said [']God is, therefore requires time in which "to be."['] And THAT is a fact of both nature and supernature. Your position: God is; Time is required to be; Therefore God requires time to be. Seems to me that if God required an outside influence to exist, He's dependant on it. ~ Everstudy

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 2:37:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: evry1needsgod quote: These are aspects of God's nature though, not things. Love, holiness and righteousness are not physical things that God finds himself dependant on. God could be compeletely unloving, and still exist apart from time. I would like to see a proof that "time is part of the Nature of God, and ALWAYS was..." but I don't think it's coming. And this was exactly my point when arguing with TB about this aspect on another thread of his. God is not limited by anything outside of His Nature, so unless TB can prove to me (an you) that time is an aspect of God's Nature, he remains wrong about this. Proving or not proving anything at all to you has no bearing upon the truth or falseity of anything at all.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 3:29:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: everstudy Oh boy, where to start? Let's begin before Gen. 1:1. God is Eternally existant. Do you have another definition for eternal than that which is commonly accepted? (theo) How about the truth of the matter, far removed from commentaries. Like maybe webster? Webster's DICTIONARY? Who defines eternity as "unlimited time." See that little word "TIME?" THAT is what eternity is all about. quote: (theo) silly! We depend on bugs and bees for polination and subsoil, but I do not think that somehow makes us inferior to bugs and bees Dependency does not make one inferior, but rather lends superiority to one's character. God is dependent upon his sense of right and righteousness, by whcih he judges his creation. That does not make him inferior to that which he depends upon. He depends upon man to keep our part of the covenant; he depends upon his covenant to sustain any meaningful relationship with his creature man. He depends upon his own ability to sustain his creation. That does not make him inferior to his own ability. We become stronger through dependency, not inferior. If I depend upon your ability to keep your bargain with me, I gain, not lose. In fact, it is exactly those through whom dependency fails that we become weakest. (everstudy)I feel like I'm talking to a mormon here... you're compare apples and oranges. You have to seperate what you think about nature and what you think about God. You cannot compare Him to the creation. I depend on my boss to pay me. I depend on a farmer to raise a cow so I can eat steak. I depend on a lot of things. OF COURSE you can compare God to the creation, or any part of it. Comparison is just that, a comparison. And theology is all the time comparing God to man; telling us how little and insignificant man is "COMPARED" to God. Get a life. If man can be compared to God, God can be compared to man. quote: (everstudy) God does not. He is self sufficient. I have a sense of righteousness. God IS righteous. He does not have to depend on a "sense", it is by His nature He acts. He Is just, that is how He judges; He IS faithful, that is how He sustains us. He IS almighty, that is how he sustains His creation. He upholds His covenants, not based on what man does (look at the lives of Issac and Jacob), but on the fact that He IS. (theo) What part of "Christ is the head of the church, the body." "Can the head say to the feet, I have no need of thee?" was too fast for you? Jesus depended upon Peter, Paul, James, and all the apostles to spread the gospel to the whole world. God depended upon Jesus to offer his own self as a sacrifice for our sins. God depended upon Moses to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt. There are so many ways God depends on man it becomes repetitious ad nauseum. Could God have done it a different way? OF COURSE He could have. But the fact is He did not. He chose to depend upon his prophets and priests and kings and men of all walks of life to come to him in order to glorigy his name. quote: (everstudy) God does not become stronger, He IS all powerful, it is part of His nature. (theo) You seem to take the position that "power" is the only strength. One can be almighty and still grow stronger in other aspects. Jesus "grew in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and men." So even though God gave Jesus all power, and he was the all powerful son of God, still he grew in other aspects. He became stronger in those things in which he grew. quote: (everstudy) You seem to be taking the position that God is like man, dependant on our senses, with each other with the creation in general. I'd like you to prove that biblically. (theo) Can Christ the head say to the feet, I have no need of you? Can God say to his creation, I have wasted my time trying to make something of you? God threatened to destroy the children of Israel and start over with Moses as the head of the family in Abraham's place. Moses argued with God telling him, And Egypt will say Your God was powerful enough to take his people from Egypt, but was not powerful enough to keep them. God changed his mind and continued with the children of Abraham. quote: (theo) Besides all that, I did not say God depends upon time, I said [']God is, therefore requires time in which "to be."['] And THAT is a fact of both nature and supernature. quote: (everstudy) Your position: God is; Time is required to be; Therefore God requires time to be. Seems to me that if God required an outside influence to exist, He's dependant on it. ~ Everstudy What makes you think "Time" is an outside influence? Time permeats everything. There is nowhere Time does not effect. Even our own bodies reflect the effects of time to the tiniest atom of our being. And yes, even God is declared by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to be "ancient" of days. Time effects even God. He is ancient and eternal, both of which are terms relating to long time.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 3:40:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book (theo) How about the truth of the matter, far removed from commentaries. Like maybe webster? Webster's DICTIONARY? Who defines eternity as "unlimited time." See that little word "TIME?" THAT is what eternity is all about. Isn't it possible to define eternity as either a) existing throughout all time, or b) immeasurable by time, e.g. "timeless" ? If the latter, you could describe God as existing apart from and independent of the dimensions of space/time. In that case, God would be both "eternal" and existant before as well as after time itself.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 3:57:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book (theo) How about the truth of the matter, far removed from commentaries. Like maybe webster? Webster's DICTIONARY? Who defines eternity as "unlimited time." See that little word "TIME?" THAT is what eternity is all about. Isn't it possible to define eternity as either a) existing throughout all time, or b) immeasurable by time, e.g. "timeless" ? If the latter, you could describe God as existing apart from and independent of the dimensions of space/time. In that case, God would be both "eternal" and existant before as well as after time itself. Sure you could but then you would have to invent a different word for "time" and also for "eternity." Eternity MEANS endless time. There is no way you can honestly reference eternity or things eternal without a reference to endless time. "Timeless" references a total lack of time. Eternity references a totallity OF Time. Neither "timeless" nor "timelessness" are concepts found in scripture. Only time as it happens, or time in its fullness, never as nonexistent "timelessness."

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 4:12:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book (theo) How about the truth of the matter, far removed from commentaries. Like maybe webster? Webster's DICTIONARY? Who defines eternity as "unlimited time." See that little word "TIME?" THAT is what eternity is all about. Isn't it possible to define eternity as either a) existing throughout all time, or b) immeasurable by time, e.g. "timeless" ? If the latter, you could describe God as existing apart from and independent of the dimensions of space/time. In that case, God would be both "eternal" and existant before as well as after time itself. Sure you could but then you would have to invent a different word for "time" and also for "eternity." Eternity MEANS endless time. There is no way you can honestly reference eternity or things eternal without a reference to endless time. "Timeless" references a total lack of time. Eternity references a totallity OF Time. Neither "timeless" nor "timelessness" are concepts found in scripture. Only time as it happens, or time in its fullness, never as nonexistent "timelessness." Not really - it's a question of "frame of reference" a la Einstein. To an observer bound within space/time, an entity that exists outside that dimension would be "eternal" - ie. existing before and after the creation of space/time. That's kind of the point though. Time is by definition a relative concept, physically speaking. It only exists in relation to something else. If God is absolute, then it would seem logical that he exists separate and apart from space/time. "Eternal" per Webster's includes the idea of timelessness as one possible definition out of 4. Just a thought. BT

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 4:13:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW Interesting comment. Question for the physicists - can light exist in the absence of time? Knowing that light always travels at a constant speed, and knowing that speed is dependent on space/time, if there were no time there should be no light. Seems like an odd logical result, but I'm a banker not a physicist. Seems like physics would imply a "time" before which there was no light. Not as far as I am aware. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and IIRC modern physics posits that energy/matter and space-time originated simultaneously. So there was no time before light and no light before time.

hellohellohi -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 4:32:34 PM)
"Before" is a time-based reference. You cannot say "before time" unless you are just being poetic. Long-story short: scientists need only talk about what it can see into. I.e.: don't talk nonsense. I think to speak of the "origin" of the Universe is nonsense for science to speak of. Rather, it should say "the advent of empirical chronology" or something. Science and mystery do not mix (unless it is a temporary mystery.)

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 4:43:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi "Before" is a time-based reference. You cannot say "before time" unless you are just being poetic. ...Rather, it should say "the advent of empirical chronology" or something. True, it's just easier to say "before time". 3 syllables instead of 12. Chalk it up to economy of speech (or laziness).

everstudy -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 5:08:01 PM)
quote: What makes you think "Time" is an outside influence? Time permeats everything. There is nowhere Time does not effect. Even our own bodies reflect the effects of time to the tiniest atom of our being. Like talking to a member a of cult, I need to figure out what you mean by certain terms. Define "Time" Define "Dependance", "depends on..." & "depended upon..." How do you define God's: 1) Omniscience 2) Omnipresence 3) Omnipotenence These need to be clarified or we'll just continue going in circles. ~ Everstudy {{I realize that this may be better suited in another forum, but these questions need to be answered to better answer the OP}} --Edited for correct spelling

evry1needsgod -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (6/30/2008 9:28:55 PM)
quote: Proving or not proving anything at all to you has no bearing upon the truth or falseity of anything at all. IOW, you can't prove it Biblically, and you have no foundation for your arguments, so admit you are wrong and everyone will be happy! [;)] (btw this was a bit sarcastic if you hadn't noticed) quote: everstudy: How do you define God's: 1) Omniscience 2) Omnipresence 3) Omnipotenence You should take this question back, because this will only cause problems. TB does not believe in these because these words are not mentioned in Scriptures, even though the principles and definitions are. Here's whats going to happen. TB will reply telling you he does not need to answer your question because those words are not found in the Bible. You will most likely sigh, then type a post full of simplistically wordy questions that a 5 year old is capable of understanding, because summing things up with words that aren't necessarily mentioned in the Bible will throw TB for a spin. This happened in his recent thread. I hope you have patience, because you have engaged in a 3 month battle of words. My only advice for you is to stay SIMPLE. The more complex you get, the more grammatical correction he can throw your way, sending the entire debate in circles.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 9:15:23 AM)
quote: (theo) How about the truth of the matter, far removed from commentaries. Like maybe webster? Webster's DICTIONARY? Who defines eternity as "unlimited time." See that little word "TIME?" THAT is what eternity is all about. (GroupW) Isn't it possible to define eternity as either a) existing throughout all time, or b) immeasurable by time, e.g. "timeless" ? If the latter, you could describe God as existing apart from and independent of the dimensions of space/time. In that case, God would be both "eternal" and existant before as well as after time itself. (theo)Sure you could but then you would have to invent a different word for "time" and also for "eternity." Eternity MEANS endless time. There is no way you can honestly reference eternity or things eternal without a reference to endless time. "Timeless" references a total lack of time. Eternity references a totallity OF Time. Neither "timeless" nor "timelessness" are concepts found in scripture. Only time as it happens, or time in its fullness, never as nonexistent "timelessness." (GroupW) Not really - it's a question of "frame of reference" a la Einstein. To an observer bound within space/time, an entity that exists outside that dimension would be "eternal" - ie. existing before and after the creation of space/time. That's kind of the point though. Time is by definition a relative concept, physically speaking. It only exists in relation to something else. If God is absolute, then it would seem logical that he exists separate and apart from space/time. "Eternal" per Webster's includes the idea of timelessness as one possible definition out of 4. Just a thought. BT I think of it more as a "frame of reference" a la God. Einstein was wrong in his theory of "time and speed of light." I do not use him for reference. Where is Time defined as a relative concept, in the context of the discussion?

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 9:19:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW Interesting comment. Question for the physicists - can light exist in the absence of time? Knowing that light always travels at a constant speed, and knowing that speed is dependent on space/time, if there were no time there should be no light. Seems like an odd logical result, but I'm a banker not a physicist. Seems like physics would imply a "time" before which there was no light. Not as far as I am aware. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, and IIRC modern physics posits that energy/matter and space-time originated simultaneously. So there was no time before light and no light before time. So in your world,. "In the beginning "modern physics" said "Let there be light?" Modern physics is just as much in the dark about the realities of how things are, as any other group. They produce theories that seem to satisfy their understanding of reality, and posit assumptions that seem to work, and go from there. Sometimes they are even right.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 9:29:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hellohellohi "Before" is a time-based reference. You cannot say "before time" unless you are just being poetic. Long-story short: scientists need only talk about what it can see into. I.e.: don't talk nonsense. I think to speak of the "origin" of the Universe is nonsense for science to speak of. Rather, it should say "the advent of empirical chronology" or something. Science and mystery do not mix (unless it is a temporary mystery.) Agreed. But I think you waste your time. I have tried to present the same theme aobut "before" being a reference to time, and it falls on deaf (figurative) ears. "Before" and "when" (both are references to time) are used in the eighth proverb to detail a pre-creation event. "The LORD possessed me in the BEGINNING of his way, BEFORE his works of OLD. 23 I was set up from EVERLASTING, from the BEGINNING, or ever the earth was. 24 WHEN there were no depths, I was brought forth; WHEN there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 BEFORE the mountains were settled, BEFORE the hills was I brought forth: 26 WHILE as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. 27 WHEN he prepared the heavens, I was there: WHEN he set a compass upon the face of the depth: 28 WHEN he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: 29 WHEN he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: WHEN he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30 THEN I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was DAILY his delight, rejoicing ALWAYS BEFORE him; 31 Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men." [Prov 8:22-31] All of the words in capitals are references to time, prior to creation. Which is precisely why they do not hear it. To their ears it becomes poetry or allegory, not reality.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 9:31:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (theo) How about the truth of the matter, far removed from commentaries. Like maybe webster? Webster's DICTIONARY? Who defines eternity as "unlimited time." See that little word "TIME?" THAT is what eternity is all about. (GroupW) Isn't it possible to define eternity as either a) existing throughout all time, or b) immeasurable by time, e.g. "timeless" ? If the latter, you could describe God as existing apart from and independent of the dimensions of space/time. In that case, God would be both "eternal" and existant before as well as after time itself. (theo)Sure you could but then you would have to invent a different word for "time" and also for "eternity." Eternity MEANS endless time. There is no way you can honestly reference eternity or things eternal without a reference to endless time. "Timeless" references a total lack of time. Eternity references a totallity OF Time. Neither "timeless" nor "timelessness" are concepts found in scripture. Only time as it happens, or time in its fullness, never as nonexistent "timelessness." (GroupW) Not really - it's a question of "frame of reference" a la Einstein. To an observer bound within space/time, an entity that exists outside that dimension would be "eternal" - ie. existing before and after the creation of space/time. That's kind of the point though. Time is by definition a relative concept, physically speaking. It only exists in relation to something else. If God is absolute, then it would seem logical that he exists separate and apart from space/time. "Eternal" per Webster's includes the idea of timelessness as one possible definition out of 4. Just a thought. BT I think of it more as a "frame of reference" a la God. Einstein was wrong in his theory of "time and speed of light." I do not use him for reference. Where is Time defined as a relative concept, in the context of the discussion? Last time I checked, physicists had verified his theory of time and the speed of light. Time isn't defined here in this conversation as relative. Time from the point of view of a fixed observer, however, is always relative. I brought up relativity since the word "eternal" can mean both "for all time" as well as "timeless" or "outside of time". To me, if God is truly God in an all-powerful sense, I would imagine him as being unconstrained by space/time - i.e. dimensionless. In that view, he would be "outside of time" and remain "eternal" to those of us constrained to life within space/time. Off topic, but vaguely relevant: As far as I know, Einstein only had a couple of major errors. One - while his theory works perfectly on a very large scale, it completely falls apart at the atomic level. Scientists are still working on how to reconcile Einsteins theories with quantum mechanics. Two - he was wrong on the rate of expansion in the universe and injected his "cosmological constant" to make his equations work. He later called that his greatest error.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 10:12:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (GroupW) Not really - it's a question of "frame of reference" a la Einstein. To an observer bound within space/time, an entity that exists outside that dimension would be "eternal" - ie. existing before and after the creation of space/time. That's kind of the point though. Time is by definition a relative concept, physically speaking. It only exists in relation to something else. If God is absolute, then it would seem logical that he exists separate and apart from space/time. "Eternal" per Webster's includes the idea of timelessness as one possible definition out of 4. Just a thought. BT I think of it more as a "frame of reference" a la God. Einstein was wrong in his theory of "time and speed of light." I do not use him for reference. Well, it is quite easy to sustain one's case if one simply ignores inconvenient references.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 10:34:09 AM)
I don't have a case really to sustain here - just some interesting hypotheticals. This is one of those "ponder your navel" questions that I enjoy but really don't get very adamant about. As far as the frame of reference comment goes, it's not ignoring anything. In physics, the answer to certain questions such as the passage of time will vary according to one's location and movement relative to another object. Each object has it's own "frame of reference". Change the frame of reference, and you get a potentially different answer. Imagine 3 different people all moving away from each other at various speeds. The amount of time that passes given an equal distance traveled will be different depending on which of those 3 persons you designate as your starting "fixed point" or "frame of reference". Change the frame of reference for any one measurement, and you can get a different measurement for the amount of time that passes for a certain distance traveled. That's all. Weaving that idea into the original poster's questions has some interesting implications, namely that before our universe existed there was neither space/time nor light. There would have been only God, who by definition would have to exist then independent of space/time in order to be "eternal". An interesting thought path - the sort of thing that the old Scholastic church fathers like St. Anselm or Thomas Aquinas might have done if they'd had the benefit of modern physics for a starting point.

theo_book -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 10:49:57 AM)
quote: (GroupW) Off topic, but vaguely relevant: As far as I know, Einstein only had a couple of major errors. One - while his theory works perfectly on a very large scale, it completely falls apart at the atomic level. Scientists are still working on how to reconcile Einsteins theories with quantum mechanics. Two - he was wrong on the rate of expansion in the universe and injected his "cosmological constant" to make his equations work. He later called that his greatest error. My reference was rather to the fact the velocity of light has been slowed to about 38 miles per hour in a scientific experiment, creating an heretofore unknown state of matter. Unknown at least to our earthbound physicists, not necessarily unknown to God. Feb 18, 1999 Harvard University Gazette. [http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html This would demonstrate that the velocity of light is neither fixed nor constant. There are other articles online showing that the velocity of light has slowed measurably with reference to the cosmos. THAT is a different argument.

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 1:03:35 PM)
I remember that article now that you mention it. Actually, it just confirms what scientists already knew in the days when Einstein was still alive - namely, that Einsteinian relativity describes the world accurately on a macro scale but completely falls apart on a subatomic micro scale. I think that was the first of the two major inaccuracies I mentioned earlier. Interestingly, the new kind of matter in which this occurs is called the Bose-Einstein condensate, having first been postulated by Einstein in 1924.

gluadys -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 1:10:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW I don't have a case really to sustain here Actually I was remarking on theo_book's response to your mention of Einstein and relativity. Sorry for the confusion. quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book My reference was rather to the fact the velocity of light has been slowed to about 38 miles per hour in a scientific experiment, creating an heretofore unknown state of matter. Unknown at least to our earthbound physicists, not necessarily unknown to God. The constancy of the speed of light applies to the speed of light in a vacuum. It has long been known that when passed through a medium, the speed of light is affected by the medium. There have also been experiments in which light travels faster than the constant. The fact that a medium affects the speed of light was a factor that proved the ether theory of space to be incorrect.

EcclesFruitcake -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 1:11:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: theo_book quote: (GroupW) Off topic, but vaguely relevant: As far as I know, Einstein only had a couple of major errors. One - while his theory works perfectly on a very large scale, it completely falls apart at the atomic level. Scientists are still working on how to reconcile Einsteins theories with quantum mechanics. Two - he was wrong on the rate of expansion in the universe and injected his "cosmological constant" to make his equations work. He later called that his greatest error. My reference was rather to the fact the velocity of light has been slowed to about 38 miles per hour in a scientific experiment, creating an heretofore unknown state of matter. Unknown at least to our earthbound physicists, not necessarily unknown to God. Feb 18, 1999 Harvard University Gazette. [http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html This would demonstrate that the velocity of light is neither fixed nor constant. There are other articles online showing that the velocity of light has slowed measurably with reference to the cosmos. THAT is a different argument. From the article: 1. The idea of this new kind of matter was first proposed in 1924 by Albert Einstein and Satyendra Nath Bose, an Indian physicist. According to their theory, atoms crowded close enough in ultra-low temperatures would lock together to form what Hau calls "a single glob of solid matter which can produce waves that behave like radio waves." 2. Slowing light this way doesn't violate any principle of physics. Einstein's theory of relativity places an upper, but not lower, limit on the speed of light. So, how was Einstein wrong about "time and speed of light"?

GroupW -> RE: Was there ever a time in which light did not exist? (7/1/2008 1:23:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gluadys quote: ORIGINAL: GroupW I don't have a case really to sustain here Actually I was remarking on theo_book's response to your mention of Einstein and relativity. Sorry for the confusion. No problem.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI