Now, by taking a good look at another picture from the Wikipedia reference, we can make
an estimate, as follows. Suppose that there is a small but positive discrepancy $\delta$ between atomic time and orbital time
- orbital ticks being a bit larger than atomic ticks:
$$
\frac{dT}{dt} = 1+\delta = \frac{T-A}{T_0-A} % \hieruit (T_0-A)(1+\delta)=(T-A) \hieruit -A(1+\delta-1)=(T-T_0-T_0\delta)
\hieruit -A = \frac{T-T_0}{\delta} - T_0
$$
From the picture we have the following estimates.
$$
T \approx 2017 \SP T_0 \approx 1972 \SP \delta \approx 27/\left[\,365 \times 24 \times 3600\times (T-T_0)\,\right]
\hieruit \\ -A \approx 2,3(65,201,972) \; \mbox{ B.C.}
$$
This value of $\approx - 2.4$ billion years is not a full order of magnitude different from the
Age of the universe according to established science,
where a Big Bang is assumed at approximately 13.7 billion years ago, or $t \approx -1/H_0$, where $t$ is the
Hubble time $\approx - 14.4$ billion years.
Much better data are obtained, however, from the following Wikipedia reference:
$\,\Delta T\,$ (timekeeping).
Quote: The value of $\Delta T$ for the start of 1902 is approximately zero; for 2002 it is about 64 seconds.
So the Earth's rotations over that century took about 64 seconds longer than would be required for days of atomic time.
That's enough information for a decent calculation (with MAPLE):
What we can do with Milne's Formula is not exhausted with the above. Let's take a good look again at
the formula that establishes the relationship between orbital time $T$ and atomic time $t$:
$$
t - t_0 = (T_0-A)\ln\left(\frac{T-A}{T_0-A}\right)
$$
This can be programmed (in Delphi Pascal) and we can perform some experiments.
Despite of this argumentation, it cannot be denied that the value of $\approx - 2.4$ billion years is much closer to
the Age of the Earth $\approx - 4.54$ billion years.
In retrospect, that shouldn't be much of a surprise anyway, because Alpha is derived here from orbital behaviour of the earth's
rotation. And why should that be closely related to the origin of the universe? Does it mean in general that there might exist
several moments of creation instead of one? Six maybe? Up to now, there is nothing in the theory that forbids such
a conclusion.
> delta := 64/(365*24*3600*(2002-1902));
> A := (2002-1902)/delta - 1902;
A := 4927498098
Which is a much closer estimate of the Age of the Earth $\approx 4,9(27,498,098)$ B.C. than the previous one, at least
when compared with the commonly accepted $4.54$ billion years - please take into account the "about"
and "approximately" from the quote.
program scheppen;
Uses Algemeen;
procedure test;
const
{ Year of Creation }
A : double = -20000;
{ Year of orbital -> atomic time }
T0 : double = 1967;
var
ta : double; { Atomic time }
Tg : double; { Orbital time }
tv : double;
dag : integer;
weet : string;
begin
Writeln('Creation in gravitation time :',-A:8:0,' year B.C.');
Tg := A; ta := 0; weet := '';
for dag := 0 to 6 do
begin
Tg := Tg + 1/365;
tv := ta;
ta := t0 + (T0-A)*ln((Tg-A)/(T0-A));
if ta-tv < 0 then weet := 'eternal'
else weet := Letterlijk(Round(ta-tv));
Writeln('year B.C. :',-ta:8:0,' | years :',
weet:8,' (end of day ',dag,')');
end;
end;
begin
test;
end.
What can be done is start with the moment of creation $A$(lpha). In the above program Alpha is assumed to be 20,000 B.C. (but other
values can of course be tried). We can not calculate for the corresponding atomic time, however, because it's minus infinity.
No problem, because orbital time is going to be increased with just one day at a time. Calculation defines what comes out for the
atomic time - in years - corresponding with those orbital days. If the program is executed, then the outcome is:
Creation in gravitation time : 20000 year B.C.
year B.C. : 347247 | years : eternal (end of day 0)
year B.C. : 332020 | years : 15226 (end of day 1)
year B.C. : 323113 | years : 8907 (end of day 2)
year B.C. : 316794 | years : 6320 (end of day 3)
year B.C. : 311892 | years : 4902 (end of day 4)
year B.C. : 307887 | years : 4005 (end of day 5)
year B.C. : 304501 | years : 3386 (end of day 6)
It is noticed that the end of day 6 corresponds rather accurately with the birth of mankind according to Evolution Theory, namely
approximately 300,000 years ago. But that's not all. In the Bible it is read that With the Lord a day is like a thousand years,
and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Peter 3:8).
If we understand this as an order of magnitude, then there is no contradiction too with the outcomes in the second column.
Another exercise, with Maple 8 this time, leads to an alike result. The two clocks - atomic time and orbital time together - are flexible enough to account for (sort of) an astronomic time scale and (sort of) a creationist time scale "at the same time". We took the freedom (again) to identify Atomic time with the Astronomical time scale and Orbital time with the Creationist time scale. It is expected that neither of the parties will object to this choice. All numbers are expressed in years. We have made an educated guess (= trial and error) for the age in Orbital time, in such a way that the beginning of the first creation day shall correspond with the commonly accepted age of the earth, which is $\approx 4.543$ billion years ago. Alas, it doesn't turn out that the earth was created $6,000$ before Christ. Instead we find $\approx 182.3$ million years B.C.
> age := 1.823*10^8;
> day := 1/365.242199;
> for i from 1 to 8 do
> milne[i] := age*ln(i*day/age);
> end do;
> for i from 1 to 7 do
> era[i] := milne[i+1]-milne[i];
> end do;
9
age := 0.1823000000 10
day := 0.002737909263
10
milne[1] := -0.4543230455 10
10
milne[2] := -0.4416869724 10
10
milne[3] := -0.4342953434 10
10
milne[4] := -0.4290508993 10
10
milne[5] := -0.4249829924 10
10
milne[6] := -0.4216592703 10
10
milne[7] := -0.4188491034 10
10
milne[8] := -0.4164148262 10
9
era[1] := 0.126360731 10
8
era[2] := 0.73916290 10
8
era[3] := 0.52444441 10
8
era[4] := 0.40679069 10
8
era[5] := 0.33237221 10
8
era[6] := 0.28101669 10
8
era[7] := 0.24342772 10
Astronomic eras of 100 million years are observed here, with orbital days having a duration of only 24 hours. Just to demonstrate that
embedding creationism in serious science is possible, in principle. I didn't hopefully suggest that we have succeeded already in doing so.
And one other thing should be mentioned that has the potential of spoiling the party altogether.