How long was a day when the universe began

[rational experiences]

Back in time thought says it is no time and no light.

Father said man never accepts his owned answer.

Man said in the future by idea advice exact...no resource will exist.

I must invent a resource now then.

Theist I add up first as predictive future itself. Moment. I build a machine ready for that moment. No reaction in a future.

As the machine is the future reactive creation heat plus cold. Cold both evolution and future now. In scientific terms.

Advice of a man exact. As man told me what is man's humans science training.

So man now says what else can I think upon who has a future by existing now.

He said biology.

Yet we don't own any future either we live in evolution cooling and now terms also.

So father said listen to your own words they told you already the answer.

Reason as he used words first to explain what is science before he did numbers.

If he thinks we are god a resource we own no future already.

 

[nPeace]

Depends if there are other lifeforms out there

But to me, "measurement" is not something that exists, it's like asking if addition/subtraction existed before humans. It's something you can do when you have several objects or instances of something. I would probably just say that it is something that naturally occurs when possible. But also it makes no sense to measure or add/subtract things unless you have an agent that can make use of it.

Good point. So if other lifeforms do exist... and this is not far fetched, according to most scientist, a measure of time, which may be called a day, could be hundreds, or thousands of years.

 

[nPeace]

And honestly, I think that holds true whether one is religious or not, if we go with God of the bible, it is never explained what the reason for life is in the first place

For those who read the Bible upside down, or with their mind totally shut off, and their heart hardened, yes, that usually is the view, but I am not sure what your reason for having that view is. God knows.

The Bible does explain... clear as crystal, the purpose of life.

 

[Stevicus]

That would depend on what or whose perspective.
For example, measurements, as we know, are all based on man's view.
A hand's breath... A cubic... a foot.... If we go back in time we will see that these had an origin, and varied based on the "originator".

Of the creator of the universe, it is said, a thousand years is as one day.
So, while, to us, a thousand years is a large amount of time, it is nothing but "a day" to the creator.

To illustrate this further, people often say, "in the day of...". For example, "in Julius Caesar's day". Obviously, they are not thinking of 24 hours.
It's madness to argue that a day must be 24 hours in all contexts. Absolute madness! ...but we live in a world of madness. So not surprising that there are people who actually do.

Well, "day" can be expressed in other ways, as in sunrise to sunset. As a kid, I recall understanding "night" and "day" as simple as understanding "dark" and "light," but when I was introduced to the concept of a "day" meaning a 24-hour (or 23:56) time period, I initially resisted the idea. Later on, when someone said "have it done first thing in the morning," I'd do it at 12:01a (I was a bit of a smart aleck).

On the other hand, smaller units of time, such as seconds and minutes, might illustrate the same concept without getting bogged down in varying definitions of "day." Is a second still a second no matter where or when you are? Is a minute still a minute?

 

[nPeace]

Well, "day" can be expressed in other ways, as in sunrise to sunset. As a kid, I recall understanding "night" and "day" as simple as understanding "dark" and "light," but when I was introduced to the concept of a "day" meaning a 24-hour (or 23:56) time period, I initially resisted the idea. Later on, when someone said "have it done first thing in the morning," I'd do it at 12:01a (I was a bit of a smart aleck).

On the other hand, smaller units of time, such as seconds and minutes, might illustrate the same concept without getting bogged down in varying definitions of "day." Is a second still a second no matter where or when you are? Is a minute still a minute?

Still perspective.
If an entity move 1000000+ times faster than the speed of light, and a person references that to our understanding, it's a second, or split second... but its neither, from the other perspective. It's not a nano-second either... but referencing it as that for understanding, helps.

 

[Nimos]

This sounds like the old philosophical question about "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around." Can we agree that it still makes a noise even if no one is around to hear it?

Yes, I agree and it was my thought as well.

Yet I don't think its exactly the same, because in his example, there would be an objective/aim whether we are here or not, at least that is how I understood it.

 

[Nimos]

As for a purpose in life, I do certainly think human beings need one, beyond mere survival. Though when survival is threatened, one’s perspective naturally narrows down to that, and that alone.

I agree, but that is purely when looking at it from our own perspective. But let's say you are an ant and you are born and then you start doing whatever ants do and then you die. Clearly, the ant is not having big philosophical thoughts about its own existence and probably not its purpose either, it simply does whatever an ant is supposed to do, yet the ant and all other lifeforms seem to at least have the instinct of wanting to live rather than die. So one would assume that the "idea" that living is better than not, must be universal. Even bacteria, viruses etc, seems to prefer spreading rather than not.

It could be 50% from the start, but those that didn't want to survive are obviously gone, so it could have been completely random in the very beginning

 

[Nimos]

Good point. So if other lifeforms do exist... and this is not far fetched, according to most scientist, a measure of time, which may be called a day, could be hundreds, or thousands of years.

Sure, it depends on how they measure it. But I think most intelligent beings should they be out there, will see an equal benefit from measuring time at different time units as we do, so I don't think humans are unique in that way. And I even think most animals have an understanding of time as well, not in the same way as we do, for instance, most animals go to sleep when the sun goes down and some get up at night, but they still have to be able to somehow know when its time to go to sleep etc.

 

[Nimos]

For those who read the Bible upside down, or with their mind totally shut off, and their heart hardened, yes, that usually is the view, but I am not sure what your reason for having that view is. God knows.

The Bible does explain... clear as crystal, the purpose of life.

What is God's idea with life then, why did he make it? The closest as I see it is that God thought it was good, but that is not an explanation.

 

[Stevicus]

Still perspective.
If an entity move 1000000+ times faster than the speed of light, and a person references that to our understanding, it's a second, or split second... but its neither, from the other perspective. It's not a nano-second either... but referencing it as that for understanding, helps.

Yes. Speed might also be a matter of perspective, since Earth is moving through space at a speed of nearly 500,000 mph. Yet, it feels like I'm just sitting here typing a post. If I'm just looking from my own perspective, then I'm on a stationary flat earth where the sun, moon, and stars are moving in the sky above me. But we know that's not the case. So, where does our perspective end and objective reality begin?

 

[Polymath257]

As has been discussed, there are several different notions under the word 'day'.

First, a 'day' could be noon to noon. So, we need a planet that rotates and a star that provides a notion of 'noon'. For those on Earth, this would be a solar day. Mars has a slightly longer day, Jupiter a much shorter day, Mercury a much longer day in this sense.

Second, a 'day' could represent a single rotation with respect to the distant stars. This is a sidereal day and is shorter than a solar day for most of the planets (Venus is complicated). This concept of a 'day' does not require a star nearby. We can equally well talk about the period of rotation of the sun (which, again, is complicated because it is a gas and doesn't rotate at the same rate at the poles as at the equator). Again, though, each planet would have a different length of time for a sidereal day.

Both of the previous notions of a 'day' get longer as the rotation of the planet slows. So, in the past, the length of a day on Earth was closer to 16 hours (we have fossil evidence of this) and was likely much less earlier.

The problem with these notions is that they reply on the rotation of some planet and so are not even defined before that planet exists. So, we can't use the rotation of the Earth to define a day before the Earth actually existed.

The same issue is found when talking about the notion of a 'year'. That is the length of time required to orbit a star and varies from planet to planet and even for the same planet over time. it also makes no sense before that planet even exists.

So, to make things uniform, we define the concept of a 'day' and a 'year' by reference to the notion of a 'second', which is defined in terms of the number of cycles in a particular light emitted under specific conditions.

Using this definition, we can extend the notion of 'day' and 'year' as far back as the notion of 'second' makes sense. We simply *define* a day to be 86400 seconds and a (Julian) year to be exactly 365.25 days, so 31,557,600 seconds.

This is probably the best definition to use in answer to the OP: the length of a day was 86400 seconds.

I would point out that the notion of time 'before the universe' is simply not defined. Time is an aspect of the universe.

PS:
I should point out that these definitions are NOT affected by relativistic effects. if two observers are moving with respect to each other, BOTH use the same definition for a second with materials moving with them. They also use the same definition of a meter with materials moving with them. Relativity then explains how to compare their measurements.

 

[Heyo]

You appear to be conflating a sidereal day and a solar day. A solar day is 24 hours, The sidereal day is a bit shorter. That is the period of one full rotation of the Earth, but not exactly. The sidereal day is based upon our equinox, which also undergoes precession

Nope. A sidereal day is the time an observer on earth would see a distant star in the same position. Due to earths movement around the sun, the sun would appear in the same position 4 seconds later because the observer (with the earth) has shifted it's own position.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. Speed might also be a matter of perspective, since Earth is moving through space at a speed of nearly 500,000 mph. Yet, it feels like I'm just sitting here typing a post. If I'm just looking from my own perspective, then I'm on a stationary flat earth where the sun, moon, and stars are moving in the sky above me. But we know that's not the case. So, where does our perspective end and objective reality begin?

I'd like to clear up some misunderstandings.

1. THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE MOTION.

If you have one observer, you can *always* regard that observer as being at rest. It helps if that observer is not accelerated, but it is possible even in that case. More commonly, uniform motion (same direction and speed) is indistinguishable from being at rest.

2. TIME DOES NOT SLOW DOWN FOR THOSE IN MOTION.

No matter what observer, the notion of a second is defined by a specific type of light emitted in a specific situation. If you are using that definition, you use something at rest *according to you*: in other words, you consider yourself at rest (which you can always do by 1 above).

What happens is that if there are *two* observers in motion *with respect to each other*, then both measure the clocks of the other as moving slower than their own. Neither detects anything different about their own clocks (or measuring rods).

Again, both observers regard themselves at rest. Time dilation is a matter of comparing clocks in motion to each other and goes BOTH WAYS. There is no absolute standard for being at rest. The situation is symmetric between the two observers.

3. TIME DOES NOT SLOW DOWN BECAUSE OF GRAVITY.

This is similar to what happens in 2. Again, we have two observers, one closer to a gravitating object and the other farther away. Each looks at the clocks of the other (think atomic clocks). The one further away measures the clock closer in to be moving slower. In this case, though, the situation is not symmetric: the one closer in measures the more distant clock as going faster.

But, again, both observers use the same definition of a 'second' by using materials right beside them. Neither detects anything 'wrong' about their own clocks.

4. THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL NOTION OF TIME.

Since there is no absolute notion of motion, and since observers in motion with respect to each other have different time measurements, there is no absolute reference for time.

As a *convenience*, cosmologists use the 'comoving' reference frame. This is the frame in which the universal expansion seems to be centered on the observer. It is also the one in which the cosmic background radiation has no dipole moment.

So, when people say that the Earth is moving at some speed through space, it is *very* important to ask what reference frame they are using. If they mean the comoving frame for galactic expansion, it can make sense. Otherwise, it is simply a nonsense figure.

 

[101G]

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe?

Addressing the OP only, and not have read all the posts. A day in creation is not a 24 hr solar day. in order to get a solar day, #1. the Sun must be shining, and #2. the earth must be rotating.. that didn't happen until creation day four. so a 24 hr. solar day is out. but a hint at how long?

Genesis 2:1 "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them." Genesis 2:2 "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Genesis 2:3 "And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"

the definition of "DAY" here in verse 4 is the same Hebrew word,
H3117 יוֹם yowm (yome) n-m.
1. a day (as the warm hours).
2. (literal) from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next.
3. (figurative) a space of time defined by an associated term.
{often used adverb}
[from an unused root meaning to be hot]
KJV: age, + always, + chronicals, continually(-ance), daily, ((birth-), each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, X end, + evening, + (for) ever(-lasting, -more), X full, life, as (so) long as (... live), (even) now, + old, + outlived, + perpetually, presently, + remaineth, X required, season, X since, space, then, (process of) time, + as at other times, + in trouble, weather, (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), X whole (+ age), (full) year(-ly), + younger.

notice the third definition, 3. (figurative) a space of time defined by an associated term..here the associated term is "generations", with the "s" at the End. and the KJV of the bible it can translate a DAY as an "AGE". the Palmist states that a DAY with the Lord is as, a thousand years.. NOTE, as, and not a thousand, but as.

but understand this concept, TIME is observable, but not measured, until something is CREATED and MADE. example in a void universe time is observable, but not measured, meaning TIME-LESS, or eternal. now if only one object is created and made, the conditions is the same .... TIME-LESS. but if two objects exist, the status is the same unless they are in motion, at least one of them. because of the Motion, we can now measure TIME. we can now observe if the two objects are getting closer, or father apart. that the measurement problem. motion is the key. the same with LIGHT, NATURAL LIGHT. no movement of Light, no measurement of Time... NATURALLY.

and since we live in a CREATED world, time can only be measured by motion.

so at Genesis 1:1 the status was TIME-LESS until God, the Spirit MOVED, or MADE thins that was created. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:2 "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

now TIME-LESS, in CREATION, is now observable in measurement

101G.

 

[Audie]

Well, it all boils down to how you define a day.

If that his relative, then your OP is moot.

Your call.

Ciao

- viole

The mortification took place b4 the question even asked

 

[Polymath257]

Nope. A sidereal day is the time an observer on earth would see a distant star in the same position. Due to earths movement around the sun, the sun would appear in the same position 4 seconds later because the observer (with the earth) has shifted it's own position.

Yes, the sidereal day is the time it takes for a star to go from directly overhead to directly overhead. This is one rotation of the Earth in a non-accelerating frame.

The sidereal day is about 4 minutes shorter than a solar day (the sun going from overhead to over head) because of the motion of the Earth in its orbit.

There are 365.25 solar days in a year and 366.25 sidereal days in the same time interval. (Yes, I rounded off).

That said, the length of a year was once defined as the time between two successive vernal equinoxes. The procession of the equinoxes makes that reference frame slightly accelerated, so needs to be adjusted in some situations in a manner similar to the solar/sidereal day.

 

[wellwisher]

Many arguments here about the bible and creation are about "a day". We all only know the concept of "a day" as we live our lives here on earth.

How long was a day when the universe became the universe?

If the entire universe began as a singularity; primordial atom, then all the mass/energy of the universe would be contained in a point. The time dilation; modeled via General Relativity, would be so huge, time would be essentially stopped. Billions of earth years would seem to past in an instant, if you sat on the singularity even for a second.

Since the earth would not form until about 8 billions years after the BB, the earth reference does not apply to this earlier time, since the earth reference is an imaginary reference for the first 8 billion years. The would be no place for such expanded time early on. I prefer use only the possible references, that could have existed, which were all very time dilated.

As the universe expanded, the mass density will gets less and less; mass/vol decrease, so the average time dilation wood make time speed up in terms of a hypothetical earth reference . I have not done the calculations, but if you were standing within the early expanding BB universe, with its extremely time dilated reference; where the earth reference does not initially exist, a day in your early universe reference, could be billions of earth years for the future earth.

The ancients appear to have used the God or correct reference time; local singularity time, and not the earth reference time, since the latter would violate Relativity, and make the estimate way too large; imaginary earth reference was a poor choice for science.

New telescope data shows galaxies appearing very quickly in terms of the early universe. These appear to only be about 500 million earth years old. If adjusted for the local BB time dilation, this would need to occur very very fast; maybe days or years. I have a scenario that works using local BB time. I presented it the past week or two.

 

[nPeace]

What is God's idea with life then, why did he make it? The closest as I see it is that God thought it was good, but that is not an explanation.

Genesis 1:26-28; Genesis 3:8-16; Psalms 115:16; Psalms 37:11; Isaiah 45:18; Isaiah 11:6-9; Isaiah 65:21-25; Acts of the Apostles 17:26-28
If these don't answer the question for you, let me know.

 

[Polymath257]

If the entire universe began as a singularity; primordial atom, then all the mass/energy of the universe would be contained in a point. The time dilation; modeled via General Relativity, would be so huge, time would be essentially stopped. Billions of earth years would seem to past in an instant, if you sat on the singularity even for a second.

This has the (common) misunderstanding that the singularity is a point. It is not. The closest you get is a common time for all events today. The universe did NOT 'come out of a point'. There is no 'sitting on the singularity' and no 'time at the singularity'.

And no, time dilation did not work like you claim. It is simply not the case that 'billions of earth years' would have passed. The total time back to the singularity is about 13.7 billion years *in Earth years*.

Since the earth would not form until about 8 billions years after the BB, the earth reference does not apply to this earlier time, since the earth reference is an imaginary reference for the first 8 billion years. The would be no place for such expanded time early on. I prefer use only the possible references, that could have existed, which were all very time dilated.

Nope. Time dilation doesn't work like that. We use the known laws of physics to determine the amount of time in the comoving reference frame. The reference frames were NOT 'time dilated'.

As the universe expanded, the mass density will gets less and less; mass/vol decrease, so the average time dilation wood make time speed up in terms of a hypothetical earth reference . I have not done the calculations, but if you were standing within the early expanding BB universe, with its extremely time dilated reference; where the earth reference does not initially exist, a day in your early universe reference, could be billions of earth years for the future earth.

No, it would not. Again, time dilation in general relativity simply doesn't work like that. The amount of time back to the Big Bang was about 13.7 billion years in the comoving frame. Yes, this takes into consideration relativistic effects.

The ancients appear to have used the God or correct reference time; local singularity time, and not the earth reference time, since the latter would violate Relativity, and make the estimate way too large; imaginary earth reference was a poor choice for science.

Again, a misunderstanding of what general relativity says and how it works. There is no 'correct' reference frame.

New telescope data shows galaxies appearing very quickly in terms of the early universe. These appear to only be about 500 million earth years old. If adjusted for the local BB time dilation, this would need to occur very very fast; maybe days or years. I have a scenario that works using local BB time. I presented it the past week or two. It can be adjusted as needed.

Again, wrong. This happened over the course of 500 million years in the reference frame of the forming galaxy, which is essentially the comoving frame.

 

[nPeace]

Yes. Speed might also be a matter of perspective, since Earth is moving through space at a speed of nearly 500,000 mph. Yet, it feels like I'm just sitting here typing a post. If I'm just looking from my own perspective, then I'm on a stationary flat earth where the sun, moon, and stars are moving in the sky above me. But we know that's not the case. So, where does our perspective end and objective reality begin?

I still have not been able to get a clear answer as to what exactly is objective reality, and who determines that, because most of what is considered objective, is relative.