R_speir's theory of backwards in time creation

No you won’t put this off on me. We are dealing with an ancient text that says God created in 6 ordinal days. I am trying to deal honestly with that claim and think of every way possible. Not only is that idea feasible 1. because God the omnipotent, could do it but 2. it is actually physically, scientifically, sound

…or better yet, let’s say it this way…be my guest. >>> overthrow it.

As with other forms of Last-Thursdayism or Omphalism, there is no conceivable evidence either for or against it. If you disagree, please refute the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, with full appearance of a prior history. If you want to believe it, fine. Just don’t think that it’s in any way a scientific hypothesis.

And I will also note that it is incompatible with your other notion that a global flood produced the fossil record and that radiometric dates are all due to contamination.

1 Like

It’s your burden of proof to support this latest loony claim, not the job of anyone else to disprove it.

Did you ever figure out a mechanism for creating angular unconformities of different ages with fossilized remains in both sets of strata? Do you realize your latest claim of backwards time / old appearance directly contradicts your earlier young life creation claims? :slight_smile:

Oh but you are so wrong. This idea is firmly established in Minkowski spacetime. Show where these other silly ideas can boast that?

Already done. 1. God is a miracle worker 2. Minkowski spacetime is a physical reality.

A post was split to a new topic: A Speculative Proposal: Divine Time to Explain the Days of Creation

FAIL. Merely claiming God did it is not evidence such backwards time travel was actually done.

Now how about those angular unconformities with fossils in both strata?

There was no “backwards time travel”, not for God. Question: does God presently exist 14 billion years ago?

In our Christian and secular views of a God - with all his omni-attributes which we all conclude he must have in order to be God - does that God presently exist 14 billion years ago (as well as 14 billion years hence)?

If I understand correctly (and I may have it all wrong) the observer in the diagram (the point connect future and past light cones) exists on a plane ( called the hyper surface of the present) with all the other nows throughout space, each with its own set of light cones. So points outside our light cone in the now still exist. Also, I don’t think there’s a privileged reference frame as your idea implies. So I think this is a major problem for you.

1 Like

@r_speir this is very similar to Hud Hudsons, Hypertime Fall,

He works it out to the point that everyone agrees that 1. it is six day creation, and 2. it is entirely consistent with our observations of an ancient universe. As I said, it is very close to your proposal.

What do you think?

1 Like

Sheesh. My gosh, you understand this mumbo jumbo? What on earth is he even saying? I need some physical anchors, goalposts, something to tie his lofty thoughts to the real world. Help me.

2 Likes

I have not stipulated a metric yet, but let’s say I stipulate Friedmann spacetime. As such there is not a preferred spacetime frame. So the question becomes, by “privileged reference frame” are you thinking I am requiring a preferred spacetime frame or are you just complaining that God’s selection of our planet as his spacetime starting point for Minkowski “now” could not possibly have occurred? There is a big difference in a preferred spacetime frame and simply a privileged view from earth. Which are you complaining about?

There’s no singular now in Minkowski space. Even if there were, it would be a “point” and certainly not an entity like a planet. Also, a point on the sun is just as valid as a point on earth or in another galaxy because there is no privileged reference frame or “now”

You seem confused. I will try to give an answer to your jumbled reply.

Of course! There is always a “now” in Minkowski spacetime. Is it singular? Why even ask that? That adds nothing to the matter at hand. It sounds like you are trying to catch me at something completely outside the bounds of the pertinent discussion.

Yes, the earth can be considered a “point” in Minkowski spacetime. Why would one even try to argue with that? It too is completely irrelevant and does not add to the discussion. Why are you bringing the sun into the discussion? Of course, it too could be considered a “point”. Are you aware that both the earth and the sun might be considered a “point” in this discussion if so desired? But it would not add meaning. So, either you are confused or you are trying to catch me at something you think is in your favor, but is not.

And why keep bringing up a privileged reference location in the cosmos? As an earth observer, you are always privileged. If I was looking back at you from a distant galaxy, I too would be privileged. Where are you going with this? Are you perhaps conflating a privileged location with a preferred spacetime frame of reference?

I already told you that I might choose the Friedmann metric, and that alone quashes any idea of a preferred spacetime frame.

The earth is your privileged reference frame in the Minkowski now because all other nows are non-existant. The atoms of the earth come from the stellar cloud that condensed into our solar system, that were previously ejected from other older stars. Each has its own path through Minkowski space time but those paths don’t exist, so neither can those atoms. Essentially you created one universe and then replaced it with one entirely different universe and called that the same.

@John_Harshman, @Timothy_Horton, no name-calling please! You can edit or I will flag, and I get grumpy when people make me do work. :wink:

1 Like

Not sure what you’re referring to.

The atoms of earth you refer to would have been created in-situ and the planet pre-formed in this case, and not as a result of accreted material from the solar nebula. The nascent earth would have occupied the Minkowski spacetime “now”. When God – who already occupied a spacetime location 14 billion years prior to the MInkowski “now” of earth – suddenly created the universe, the result would have been an accelerated aging of earth’s planetary material, as well as a geologic transformation, as the entire history of the universe unfolded and caught-up, so to speak, with the “now” of earth.

In this manner, the miracle of the wine at Cana would hark back to the creation of earth and the cosmos. What began as water in pots was supernaturally turned to juice, then rapidly aged – in situ. In other words, no-one harvested the grapes, crushed them, poured the juice into wineskins, placed the wineskins in a cool cave, waited for fermentation to occur, or poured the wine into the water pots.

The miracle of rapid aging in both cases would have been God’s ability to occupy and freely operate in a spacetime location that predates our “now”.

And since you are wondering, God’s creation of earth’s past light cone would have connected seamlessly to the Minkowski “now” of earth. What would have begun as a privileged location for earth in spacetime, would today be undiscernible and swallowed up in an enormous Friedmann universe.

But the past, the Big Bang that does eventually form our solar system would be interrupted by a period in which there was nothing but the earth, and then resumed with all the universe again. You have a replacement of history, not an integration.

Not at all. Do you know about light cones and causal connection? Everything in the Minkowski “now” is causally connected to its past light cone. No breaks.