The Apostle Peter offers a short monologue on the last days (reference verses at end of this essay), and ends with a mysterious note. The key verse about time is:
2 Peter 3:8 “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
Psalm 90:4 “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.”
Those who play fast and loose with time, that is, evolutionary time, take these verses as metaphorical. I’ve heard pastors say – this means a thousand years passes like a second…
No, it says a thousand years is as a day. One day = one thousand years. That’s what it says. In two places.
The reason a liberal interpretation is favorable to them, is they choose to shrink from the notion the Earth and Cosmos are young. What does time matter to God after all? Turns out, time is precious to God. He invented it for a reason, and uses it to express his greatest glory.
No big, right?
These verses, if taken in context, have a literal meaning. If we divide the day into twenty-four one-hour segments, and divide one-thousand by the results, we can see if a day is as a thousand years, an hour is about forty-two years.
Think about this context. We arrive in heaven after death, and barely one hour passes with each forty-two years on earth. Or rather, when my mother died years ago, she entered heaven, and I don’t believe I’ll survive forty-two more years (I could be wrong). But let’s say I die twenty-one years later. When I arrive in heaven, only thirty heavenly minutes have passed.
Why is this important? Think about organizing a family reunion. Everyone is supposed to arrive at six in the evening, but we know some might be late for various reasons. When the party starts, some guests have arrived. More trickle in. We find ourselves standing nearer the door so when guests arrive we can greet them.
A half hour after my mother arrives, she’s already busy interacting with her forebears and friends who preceded her. I show up, and we have another family reunion – our own. And this process continues every heavenly minute. Believers show up and are re-acquainted with others.
Every heavenly minute. Tell me this isn’t something we look forward to.
It’s basically a perpetual family reunion – running on a different clock.
The heavenly-time / earthly-time also plays into the afterlife for those in Sheol. As we see from the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man, clearly the Rich Man knew he just arrived and wanted to make sure his brothers didn’t follow him.
What does that say of the sentiment of those souls in Sheol? While the souls in heaven cheer for each new face through the door, the souls of Sheol wail for every new soul, because they understand the hopelessness of their condition, and wouldn’t have wished it on anyone.
Scientists tell us time passes more slowly in a “gravity well”. That is, the closer a person gets to the geometric center of a mass, the more gravitational influence, and the slower time itself transpires. When atomic clocks are synchronized, they can be placed in separate locations and reflect different times. One at the top of a stairwell, will offer a different (faster) time than the one at the bottom of a stairwell, because the one at the bottom is deeper, albeit fractionally, in Earth’s gravity-well. Time moves slower under the influence of gravity, so says Einstein. At least, the folks with the atomic clocks on the stairwell claim this is what we see. But is it?
Interestingly, the people who created those atomic clocks will be the first to say they cannot measure a time differential so small. When the original experiment using aircraft and atomic clocks was published, the numbers published to the public were different than the ones on file with the government. These are public records, and can be seen by anyone if they are curious. Why were these reported numbers fudged? It seems more and more, science has a price. Anyone willing to pay that price, gets the science they paid for.
Many of Einstein’s contemporaries disagreed with him. Many today still do. I read a recent article about the many things relativity has solved. One of humanity’s greatest achievements, and so forth. And yet, why are there so many adamantly resisting it? And why didn’t Einstein receive a Nobel for it?
From the above, the one-thousand-years-to-day seals the fact that time is relative and not constant. Could Einstein have perceived this reality and attempt to solve it mathematically? Unfortunately, instruments don’t exist which can definitively say, because of Einstein’s very own assertions. For example, if two clocks are synchronized, the mere act of moving them apart causes them to go out of sync. Moving them back together re-syncs them. The motion alone causes this. What of the two atomic clocks at the top and bottom of the stairs? They too, were sync’d and later moved. And are now out-of-sync, not because time moves differently, but because the motion caused it.
Or was Einstein just a crackpot?
One of the most famous paradoxes of time dilation is the Twins Paradox. The Wiki for this paradox explains the various solutions (over fifty and counting). Ironically, the solutions to the paradox all go outside of Einstein to explain it. After all, Einstein explained the “motion alone” was the cause of the effect. The explanations to rescue the Twins Paradox invoke practically anything but “motion alone”. If we defend the Twins Paradox without using “motion alone” – we deny Einstein. Wasn’t the objective to vindicate Einstein?
We find more ironies, dichotomies, and paradoxes in what Einstein actually promoted, than any science fiction has ever manufactured from it.
More recently, Stephen Hawking re-described black holes as something different than his original explanation. The headline “black holes don’t exist” was tempered with a redefinition of a black hole. Forget everything you thought you knew. Now we know more. And what we used to know was wrong. How many times has this happened in the past century alone?
And if science can so easily declare whole parts of itself wrong in favor of new information, why do people defend science knowledge? It’s like pouring a cup of coffee in an earthquake.
Don’t get me wrong – science has done amazing things with what we know. It’s those mysterious things we’ve never solved – questions like – What is Energy? What is Matter? What is Gravity?
You know, important stuff.
A black hole is a mathematical concept, not an observed or measurable object. How can refining, or redefining math, with no physical basis of accountability, have anything to do with “knowledge”? It must be validated in the physical world.
Keep in mind a black hole has never been observed and is largely a rescue device to explain the anomalies of galactic motion. When it wasn’t enough, dark matter was invented as another rescue device. When both of these hit walls, the black hole was redefined. In the end, Hawking attempted to define the universe in terms of gravity, as had Einstein, as had Newton. Yet recent discoveries have shown Hawking, Einstein and Newton all three were describing behavior without defining the solution. Could gravity be an expression of another force, and not a force unto itself?
Today, the four most significant domains of physics stand undefined, after all these years, even centuries of the best scientific minds attacking them. The first is energy – we can define its behavior but nobody has ever defined “what” energy is. The second is matter – we can define its behavior but not “what” matter is. The third is light, while we can define it behavior we cannot say “what” it is (is it a wave, a particle, or both?). The fourth is gravity – again we can define its behavior and effects, but not “what” gravity is. That it affects matter (another undefined) adds to the mystery. Moreover, some would say neither time nor space have definitions either. Of their behavior, but not “what” they are.
This is a sad state of affairs, that these fundamental forces are all around us, represent well-over ninety-nine percent of our perception of physical reality, but remain undefined.
Einstein needed to simplify his math, and provide a deterministic way to reach conclusions, and the variability of time was a significant rogue quantity. Rather than open his math up to the complexity time requires, he decided to put a speed limit on the universe. This would be light speed, and declared it constant. He didn’t measure it as such (and every measurement of light speed since the first measurement, shows light speed slowing down over time – nobody expected this).
“That light requires the same time to traverse the path A > M as for the path B > M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity” (Einstein 1961, p. 23) [emphasis is in the original].
Einstein simply “declared” the speed of light as constant. In another essay, I point out the definition of speed:
Speed = distance / time
Notice if either distance or time isn’t constant, speed can’t be constant. If we take sides with Einstein and claim light speed is constant, we have to define time as constant. If we do this, we deny Einstein. If we define time as relative, we take sides with Einstein, but this means the speed of light is relative, and we deny Einstein.
Can we see why many thought (and still do) that Einstein was a crackpot?
With the many discoveries in quantum physics, especially quantum entanglement, we now know particles can instantly influence each other over vast distances. There is no “speed limit” between them. Some suggest a “wormhole” between the particles. Some have even suggested wormholes exist between every particle in the universe and every other particle in the universe. So that our universe has more wormholes than particles.
See how complicated all this gets when people don’t want to forsake a crackpot? It leads to more crackpottery (some call psycho-ceramics).
Here’s what they defend – the light-year. If time is relative and speed is relative, there’s no such thing as a light-year. And if so, the distances in space are “undefined” and the universe’s age is “unknown”.
Does the average Joe really have a problem with this? I mean, when we go work every day, are there Einstein bobble-heads on our desks? The influence of Einstein is actually pretty rarefied. Ditching his theories in favor of something better and more comprehensive, will do all of science a favor. But adhering to him even when observations deny him, has stunted, some say poisoned science for many decades.
Back to black holes. Most don’t realize the ironies of black holes. If the black hole is so dense that gravity keeps light from escaping – wait a second – the boundary of the black hole is the “speed of light” and cannot exceed it – this is a universal speed limit, recall. And if the boundary of a black hole is the speed of light, and light travels at said speed, why doesn’t light escape? The point is, light should escape, it it compelled to escape and it’s possible to do so. The black hole was invented to explain something else, so this pesky little irony is ignored.
Scientists claim photons are exempt from time dilation – that is – for any particle with mass traveling at the speed of light, time stands still. If this applies to a photon, it means the photon moves from a distant star to our eyeballs instantly. No duration of time passes for the vast distance it travels. But wait, they say, the photon has mass, but not “rest mass” so it’s exempt. Of course it’s exempt – it has to be, you see. If it’s not, there’s no such thing as a light year.
Back to black holes – it operates on strong gravity. Its core has collapsed into dense matter and the gravity is so strong – well – not even light can reach escape velocity. The funny thing is, gravity only has influence on objects with mass, so why doesn’t the mass of the photon count here? Oh, no it doesn’t, they say, because the gravity of a black hole influences the “wave” of light and turns it inward.
Ahhh – if the behavior of light is anomalous as a particle, we invoke the wave, and if anomalous as a wave we invoke the particle. The mystery remains, but we don’t have to maintain context. How convenient.
But turn that back around. If light can’t escape a black hole, and gravity can’t move faster than light, gravity can’t escape a black hole either. But the gravity of a black hole does influence the space around it. How is this possible unless gravity is faster than light?
Back to black holes. If the Sun were to “blink out” we’re told we wouldn’t know it for at least eight minutes. But if the Sun ever disappeared, would the earth take eight minutes before it drifted, or would it drift immediately? Everyone answers “immediately”, but this means the effect of gravity is faster than light (some scientists have shown both in math and the physical world that gravity is billions of times faster than light). However the example of the Sun’s mass above is not theoretical. The Milky Way is on-the-move. The Sun sits in a rotating arm of the galaxy. It is moving through space at extraordinary speed. In the eight minutes it supposedly takes gravity to get to the Earth, the Sun has already moved from the position when it emitted the the light, by half a solar diameter. Another eight minutes for a full solar diameter.
So – uh – is the Earth revolving around the Sun itself, or around a spot in space where the Sun was eight minutes ago?
Why does this matter? Because the Earth doesn’t experience drag or lurch. It floats and revolves peacefully without any lag effects. Moreover, if the Eart revolves around a spot where the Sun was eight minutes ago, Earth would experience radical orbital decay.
Now let’s translate this to atomic motion. The same speed-of-light problem exists with electrons spinning about a nucleus (provided atoms are not structured). If there is a propagation delay associated with the speed of light between the nucleus and the electron, it will experience the same orbital decay.
So does this mean the forces in the atom, and the force of gravity are “instant”? No light speed propagation delay at all?
Some say gravity doesn’t “move”. But its effect decreases with distance. We understand the effect, but not what gravity “is”- so how can we say it does not move? First define it, then determine what it can or cannot do. For example, new theories suggest gravity is an effect of the electromagnetic force, that gravity is just an artifact of electricity. Or rather, electricity is the driving force (and electricity does move) – and gravity is just an expression of electricity. Electrodynamic behavior is the same as gravitational behavior, so how do we know gravity is in play at all? What if gravity merely mimics the electrical force? Keep in mind a simple magnet can pull a metal object off a table, defeating the influence of gravity of the whole Earth.
Gravity as a force is too weak to be a viable contender for scalable galactic effects.
After all, the Earth’s atmosphere has a slight positive charge. The Earth’s surface has a slight negative charge. These opposite charges cause the atmosphere to “stick” to the surface, otherwise the thousand-miles-per-hour spin rate of the Earth would make for uninhabitable wind speeds. Likewise clouds have varying degrees of negative electric charge, and the ones with higher negative charge float higher in the atmosphere. This charge-separation is 10^38 more powerful than gravity. When raindrops leave a cloud, they take on a slight positive charge and are pulled to the earth anywhere from five to ten times faster than they would fall from gravity alone. And electrical effects of charge attraction and charge separation explain all this.
Dark matter has never been observed and never will be – it’s made of something completely unfamiliar to physics. Black holes have never been observed and never will be. Even the so-called places in the sky where they “think” a black hole might be, invariably have one or more equally viable explanations, but these explanations are ignored as unacceptable by the establishment science. Galileo would have recognized this, since his chief opposition to the Heliocentric Theory were the Aristotelian (Geocentric) academicians in universities. Sure, the Catholic church came down on him too, but that wasn’t his primary resistance. Establishment science rigorously protects its theories long after they have lost their explanatory and predictive power.
We have a Galilean-sized problem once again brewing in the cosmos, and how the cosmos will be defined.
Some years ago, a scientist introduced me to the “one way” speed of light. It has never been measured. Light speed is always derived from a two-way round-trip. Every measurement of lightspeed has a built-in throttle in several ways.
First it requires electronic starting/finish gates to mark the start and stop of the signal, and electronics is tied to atomic motion, arguably no faster than the speed of light. Second, when light “bounces” from something, it doesn’t just bounce. A photon is absorbed an re-emitted. This requires an atom to take on the photon and re-emit the photon, once again constraining the emission to atomic motion, artificially clamping the speed. Third, since aforementioned clocks can’t be sync’d at a distance (moving them apart causes them to go out of sync) we can’t just send a one-way signal between two clocks. Even if we embed a signal in the light itself, electronics is required to receive and interpret the signal, and this once again clamps it to the speed of the electronics.
As far back as the 1600’s, researchers claimed they had proven the constant speed of light when light from the Sun reflected off moons of Jupiter. This too, required the reflection of light, not the one-way speed of light.
As noted in another essay, if the one-way speed of light and time dilation of a photon hold true, light can travel any arbitrary distance with no duration in time. Keep in mind when God created the heavens on day one, he made them to be used as a clock – to tell time (Gen 1:14). But if the speed of light is a constant, and the nearest star to the Sun is over four light years away, the sky around the Earth on Day Eight would have been devoid of stars, and still would be. Yet the context of the passage is that the Creation is functionally mature, and stars are visible immediately. Based on this, we should give God the benefit of the doubt and seek other answers than those provided by people attempting to disprove God’s existence, and using “long ages” of time to do it.
Once again, humans take something God provided (time) as a blessing and use it against God. Returning evil for good. Even if God didn’t exist at all, the hoops these folks jump through to deny the obvious, is staggering. If they would simply align with “what is observed” and let the math follow, they might find the cosmos has an unknown and unknowable age (and this would not stop them from saying God isn’t real), but at least the science would once again pursue observation and tailor the math accordingly, rather than what they do now – pursue math and tailor the observation accordingly.
Point being – why can’t a secularist “just do science”. It doesn’t matter what he thinks of his origins (if he wants to exclude God). He can make up any arbitrary story, or none at all, and it should be good enough. After all, nobody’s going back in time. Nobody will receive benefit or harm whether these are known.
We don’t need anything from the deep-time past to do operational science today. Think about computers, space-based satellites, electricity-driven technologies – every one of them depends upon laws in effect today, and none require a reference to deep-time for accuracy in their products. Do you believe a cell-phone engineer has Darwin bobble-heads on his desk? Does biological evolution, or long ages of the earth and cosmos, have anything to do with making a high-quality telephone? Of course not. Deep-time isn’t going anywhere.
God placed the Creation here for us to examine and put to use. Whether believer or not, anyone can use the Creation as a starting point and move on it. Let the conclusions fall where they may. If the conclusions point to God, or at least, don’t point away from God, but the scientist can still “do good work” and “make important discoveries” – nobody from our church will harass him into Christianity. Just keep up that good work. Conversely, he/ she should not take unknowns and unknowables, turn them into science, and treat them as real.
And here’s the primary kicker – God said (Genesis 8:22) that he would keep the universe consistent. We know the laws of physics, chemistry, gravity, aerodynamics, etc. have a purpose. They won’t change. We can then setup predictable scientific experiments and use the scientific method.
However, the secularist who does not accept the reality of God still benefits from the aforementioned laws. He may say – we don’t believe in your God, and we can still do science! But this is irrelevant. The fact remains if God isn’t real, what guarantee do they have of consistency? The laws have no overarching purpose and can arbitrarily come and go as they please. Without a purpose, the laws have nothing keeping them in place, or changing entirely. The laws of the universe remain steadfast because God promised to keep them there.
The secularist cries foul because you can’t put God into a test-tube and apply the scientific method. The laws of the universe are here to stay, they say. And they better stay, they say, because a lot is riding on it.
This is arbitrarily inconsistent. They have no reason whatsoever to believe the laws will remain in place, or won’t spontaneously change for reasons unknown. They likewise have no reason to believe the laws will go away, but that’s the point. Without God, the laws can come and go, without any reason at all.
And immersed in such a grand inconsistency, it’s hard to tell where the edges are.
Can we see, with fuzzy edges, the lack of a Creator means we can’t do science at all?
Can we also see how Genesis 8:22 – a promise of consistency from the Creator, provides a sound foundation for science?
That we can do science, means the Creator is real.
I’ll develop the above further in another essay on perception.
2 Peter 3:3-10 “Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.”
Some theologians claim this account is fictional. That Jesus manufactured a story about someone named Lazarus and a rich man.
This “parable” however, begins with the same phrase as the “parable” of the prodigal son. “There was a certain man”. Why would Jesus use a term like “certain man” if he didn’t intend the audience to accept it as real?
The intended audience of this tale, and the prodigal, was the religions leaders. They are shots-across-the-bow. The prodigal after all, isn’t a story about the first son, but about the reaction of the second son (a metaphor for the religious leaders).
This account of the Rich Man is made even more chilling when we understand the position of the pharisees and leaders – some of the richest men of their time, and rubbed shoulders with the richest. For Christ to describe it this way, with a beggar named Lazarus, and a man clothed in purple, who ate a lot, and threw scraps to his dogs – this is very specific terminology.
In other words, Jesus may as well have been saying, remember thus-and-so, here’s what happened to him…
It is also an interesting insight to what people in hell actually think. They are in pain, they experience duration, they have lost hope, they want to warn others, and they don’t have a clue why they are in hell. And likewise, don’t have an ounce of repentance in them.
Another interesting factoid, is that while the Rich Man’s body, and his brain, are rotting in a tomb somewhere, the Rich Man remembers Lazarus, recognizes Abraham, understands his Jewish heritage (cries “Father Abraham…”) and recalls his brothers still alive. He “remembers”. This tells us human memory is in the soul, not the brain. The brain is merely a metaphysical switchboard between the body and the soul. When we think about it, the amount of storage capacity to record a person’s life – in stereoscopic HD video, including sound, smell, touch, pain, any other senses, all recorded in-sync for immediate recall – is a lot of storage – more molecules than the brain has to offer. So the stuff has to be stored somewhere else. Think of the soul as the body’s “cloud storage”.
Luke 16:19-31 “There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.”