Issues of light

Thanks for simplifying Humphries hypotheses so someone like me can understand. Do you concur with the hypothesis that Dr. Gerald Schroeder advances regarding an understanding of how men and God could look at 20 Billion years and 6 days (respectively) AND HAVE BOTH OBSERVERS BE COMPLETELY CORRECT? I think Schroeder proposes and refines his hypothesis in two different books - one is Genesis and the Big Bang.More simply, I ask what hour is it at the North Pole, and what day is it at the Solar Pole? Does the question extend to some central axis around which our Solar system revolves? Are there any scientists left who believe time is not relative to the Einsteinian observer?

Mark Perakh's critique of Schroeder seems rather shallow to me. On the most critical point of Schroeder's hypothesis, Perakh errs by stating Schroeder has based everything on an absolute time. I've read both of Schroeder's books, and I did not reach the same conclusion.Rather, Schroeder argues (as Einstein established) that no frame of reference is any more valid than another. Both are correct.I've also read Stephen Hawking's treatments on time, most notably the concept of event horizons. I'm fascinated by the simple explanation that time had a "beginning", which cooincides exactly with the advent of light (the formation of the first photons).Combining Schroeder, Hawking, and the currently accepted scientific view of the universe evolving from a "Big Bang" some 15-20 Billion years ago (by our frame of reference), there seems to be no remaining contradiction between science and the first chapter of Genesis. I'm interested only in answers that deal with the scientific validity (or non-validity) of Schroeder's hypothesis. I'd like to leave the theological questions raised for another forum.Using Occam's razor, can anyone propose a simpler explanation of relative time & space that refutes Schroeder's hypothesis? For true scientists reading this, please forgive the technical jargon.

I agree that Schroeder's ideas do not benefit scientists debating the merits of either creationism or evolution. In fact, it seemed to me that this was exactly Schroeder's point: his hypothesis to me seemed to be a thought experiment to test whether or not 15 Billion years could be feasibly be reconciled to six days (24-hour periods of time, as we know them). I think he succeeded, but I'm no scientist.I'm not looking for a theological discussion; I'm interested in learning if this hypothesis violates known scientific theory or fact.

I'm not interested in theological discussion here, but in taking Schroeder's ideas as a thought experiment (never published with such an intent, as disclaimed by the author). What scientific theories, principles, or laws are violated by considering that an observer outside of time & space (for both are inextricably linked, according to Einstein & Hawking) could view 144 hours as we view 15 Billion years? Is it valid to consider the outer fringes of the universe (if there is such a thing) to comprise an "event horizon" which devolves back to the beginnings of the universe? Would it be valid to conjecture that galaxies and stars would be "newer" at such an event horizon than most galaxies and stars near the center of such a universe?

I'm more than willing to let go of the 144 hours, but I chose it because Schroeder argued it.The arguments I've read in response are greatly appreciated, but seemed to dodge the question I posed: are any scientific laws, theories, or principles violated by Schroeder's hypothesis?I agree that it seems kind of silly to try to imagine an observer outside of space and time, and then expect that observer to behave according to our concept of them. I guess I'm too close to the metaphysical here, and need to back off.Still, something nags me about the Big Bang theory, and how time and space evolved. Perhaps Schroeder started me thinking this way, but I'd like to read some good articles about the formation of light: how soon was it after "singularity"? How "big" was the universe when photons first "escaped"? Do you know of any articles specific to this discussion? Thanks again for all of your replies.

I'm not troubled at all about such an observer using Earth's time frame of reference, since no other frame of reference would have any meaning to me. When I travel to France, I speak French.Concerning why translate from another frame of reference in the first place, I can only answer by saying that this is what I'm interested in exploring, as Schroeder did. I'm not talking about just any frame of reference, but specifically that of an observer on the outside of the universe, looking in. Certainly, the Big Bang theory cannot be described except from such a perspective.However, I may need to back off, because the question may force us into the metaphysical, in which I have no interest. I'd also like to get away from referencing Schroeder, because he clearly argues from a perspective which includes a lot of theology, also of little interest to me.Having said all that, want to take a crack at my question: does this hypothesis violate any scientific laws, theories, or principles? Can you direct me to other discussions on this topic?

Please see my replies to others on this topic.Clearly, Schroeder incorporates a lot of theology in his books, which hold little interest for me, except as pertains to this concept of light and time.I'm trying to determine if scientific laws, theories, or principles are violated by this kind of thinking. If I were to pursue development of a thought experiment (a la Einstein's methodology for special relativity), do I need to address this possibility? Or is it clear from other scientific observations that a clock riding on an hypothetical bubble-membrane at the very edge of the expanding universe would show the same time as one sitting at the center of that same universe?I've heard that galaxies are moving "faster" at the edge of the universe than near the center. Some have proposed this to be analogous to planetary orbits (gravitation lower at outer regions), but could it also be that as we look out, we are "seeing" light emitted at an earlier time, when the universe was "smaller" and expanding more rapidly than today? If so, then that hypothetical clock at the outer fringe would seem to me (according to relativity) to be ticking "slower" than my own clock. But then, I don't really know how far I actually am from the fringe, do I? Is it permissable for me to use the difference in ticking to estimate difference in distance from the "center"? Sorry, that last question will take us off topic.In any case, thanks for taking my questions seriously. I don't know too much (isn't it obvious?), but am eager to learn.