Thursday, March 03, 2011
Kevin answers the Hartnett Question...Who was wrong???!!! A look at the fourth dimension and the Creation Week
Would you look at the two equations on this post -
And see if a constant is being presented as a variable or vice-versa? That is the claim of my blog commenters? I am not good with advanced math I am more of a historic/forensic type scientist type of geek.
Thanks, hope you are having fun and learning lots of stuff!"
The first equation is simply defining a ratio of the passage of time in two locations with t_0 being a measure of time that passes on Earth (or whatever bubble around Earth had a slower clock) and t being a measure of time that passes elsewhere in the universe. He probably derived the ratio that he used (10^-13) based on the amount of astronomical time that he wanted to show could elapse within a day here (30 billion years), but these calculations were meant as an example, so that should be fine.
The integrals themselves are probably a more complicated way to convey his point than is necessary. Because we have defined a ratio of time here to time elsewhere, we can simply use that ratio to convert between different time 'units'. Essentially, the second equation converts from 1 day here (.003 years) to the equivalent number of years elsewhere by multiplying .003 years by the inverted ratio (to keep units correct). The only variable is the measure of time that we want to convert (.003 years in the example). Everything else is just a conversion factor (like 12inches/1foot).
The only criticism I could see about those equations is that time is typically the one variable that can be substituted freely among different equations because time is generally assumed to not slow down and speed up based on position, but that is the entire claim of this article. Anyone that has a problem with the equations has a problem with the claim of the article itself; the equations themselves work in the context of the claims of the article.
Personally, I think our inability to explain how the universe created can be attributed to our inability to understand the fact that God is timeless and the implications of that fact. He exists outside of time, so us trying to explain the events of the first 7 days in the context of time is futile. When God created the universe, He did not start with a chunk of matter and energy and sculpt it into galaxies and stars and planets. That would imply a sense of time (both in the time to sculpt and and a time at which the universe was created and started progressing through time). Instead, when God created the universe, he created what it was AND what it was going to be. Any (4th dimensional) object within this universe could be moved around (in the 4th dimension) within our own timeline. With that said, making the claim that the universe was created in 7 days is quite unimpressive because those 7 days are simply the points in our timeline that God chose to introduce these 4th dimensional objects, but he could have spent infinite 'time' creating those objects and could have introduced them into our timeline at any point in the objects own timeline. Our ability to explain the creation of the universe lies in our ability to explain the timeless nature of God, and I don't see how we could ever explain something that is impossible for us to understand, although it certainly is fun to try to.