Talk:Apparent age

Is God bound by time in creation?
All the articles I have read assume (perhaps without meaning to) that God is somehow bound by time and the direction of the time arrow. Since he created time, however, this seems unreasonable.

I suggest the possibility that, when God stretched out the heavens in physical space, he stretched them backwards in time too. Of course, this is only "backwards" from our point of view. Since God sees the end from the beginning, it would be analogous to stretching out space, but in the time dimension. In this scenario, while events on earth have taken only 6,000 years, millions or thousands of millions of years have passed in far away parts of the universe.

In this scenario, far objects are indeed millions of lightyears away, and the light from them has been travelling for the equivalent number of years, but their creation began with a stretching from the earth on day 4 of creation and worked backwards. I don't know if anyone could construct mathematics to describe such a view of creation. In one sense this is like Russell Humphreys' white hole cosmology (Starlight and Time), but my idea is that God was deliberately creating past time in the further parts of the universe.

Does anyone have any comment on this idea? Oelphick 16:59, 4 September 2006 (CDT)

In order to create such a model, assuming standard modern physics, the only way to create such a backwards motion would be to turn space on it's self. To connect to expansion would mean that the expansion would have to some how "turn" on it's self. Maybe a type of fluctuation in the outer universe?

Your current model assumes that time is some type of physical universal law, but in standard physics it’s not. But there is a back door. Assume Lorenzian relativity. That would make time a universal constant. Then your idea seems quite likely.

The first model I propose of your theory seems the most likely. It would be better accepted and would make many more predictions. The only problem with that is that we need a mechanism for fluctuation.

I’m not a physicist, so correct me if I am wrong. --Nlawrence 22:47, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Spelling Convention
I happily changed recognise spelled with an 's' to recognize spelled with a 'z'. It then occurred to me that this may simply be a difference between American and Canadian/British spelling, and the person who first writes the material should have precedence in spelling. Can anyone tell me if I should change the spelling of these words back? --John Baab 21:22, 6 August 2007 (EDT)


 * There is currently no policy governing spelling convention as it relates the American vs. British differences. Change them if you want.

--Mr. Ashcraft - (talk) 22:50, 6 August 2007 (EDT)