Proof of God

nickemblow · #1 2nd October 2003, 12:01 PM

I am currently doing an environmental science degree at the queensland university of technology, and I believe in God. Not only do I believe in God, but i believe that God is actually required in any form of creation.

Ok, now for a bit of background info:
The speed of light, c (~3x10^8 m/s) is, as far as we know, the only constant in this universe. Meaning that, no matter what you do, you can never exceed it inside of this universe. If you do (which is actually allowable under general relativity) you will travel backwards in time and disrupt causality, ie, the grandfather paradox (where you kill your own grandfather therefor you could never exist, therefor how could you kill your own grandfather in the first place....) Obviously there must be a flaw in general relativity. However, this is off topic, if general relativity is correct in making c a constant (which has been tried and tested a few times and always comes up true) then this universe is limited to what is below c, since c it self is only ever achievable by light, (unless you set up worm holes....which is lets say, hard.), So whatever is above c, is outside of this universe. Beyond. Outside of this universe, you could peer down upon this universe and see it as a simple equation. A chaotic equation. All of time would be there, you could see everything from beginning to end, and all at the same time. This is what God sees, the beginning and the end. So therefor it is possible that God is a c trancendant. Some one or something that is outside of this universe. But God is a part of this universe, i here you say. Yes it is also possible that being above and beyond, a c creature could very well influence outcomes of this universe, since it is only impossible to (as far as i know) travel past c from our side, if you are above, then you would have enough energy to disperse and slow down, become part of it.

I believe God is in everything, and sees everything.
I know that for there to be a beginning, SOMETHING must have happened, whereby the speed of the explosion was c. And for an explosion to occur, there has to be energy. Where there is energy, there is life - of some sort. Call a battery life if it actually runs something. If it dont, then the chemical energy dont get converted to electrical energy and the entropy increases making the battery useless by its used by date.

I am by no means a creationist. If anything i am a scientist. Or at least, have an understanding of science. But here is an interesting fact, creation in the bible puts the mankind at what, 6000 years before present? Well, the first civilization in recorded history, sumer, is 6000 years old.... Maybe Shakespear made a slight missinterpretation when he wrote the King James? Who knows. I just know what i know and that is there is more to life then what science can prove, and there is more to God then religion is telling us.
-nick

GirlForChrist · #2 2nd October 2003, 12:15 PM

IMO: God exists and IMO He is a big part of faith......

Nathan David · #3 2nd October 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by nickemblow

I am currently doing an environmental science degree at the queensland university of technology, and I believe in God. Not only do I believe in God, but i believe that God is actually required in any form of creation.

Ok, now for a bit of background info:
The speed of light, c (~3x10^8 m/s) is, as far as we know, the only constant in this universe. Meaning that, no matter what you do, you can never exceed it inside of this universe. If you do (which is actually allowable under general relativity) you will travel backwards in time and disrupt causality, ie, the grandfather paradox (where you kill your own grandfather therefor you could never exist, therefor how could you kill your own grandfather in the first place....)

General relativity says nothing of the kind. I suggest you read up a little more.

Also, Shakespeare was not involved with the King James Bible.

Mainframes · #4 2nd October 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by nickemblow

I am currently doing an environmental science degree at the queensland university of technology, and I believe in God. Not only do I believe in God, but i believe that God is actually required in any form of creation.

Ok, now for a bit of background info:
The speed of light, c (~3x10^8 m/s) is, as far as we know, the only constant in this universe. Meaning that, no matter what you do, you can never exceed it inside of this universe. If you do (which is actually allowable under general relativity) you will travel backwards in time and disrupt causality, ie, the grandfather paradox (where you kill your own grandfather therefor you could never exist, therefor how could you kill your own grandfather in the first place....) Obviously there must be a flaw in general relativity. However, this is off topic, if general relativity is correct in making c a constant (which has been tried and tested a few times and always comes up true) then this universe is limited to what is below c, since c it self is only ever achievable by light, (unless you set up worm holes....which is lets say, hard.), So whatever is above c, is outside of this universe. Beyond. Outside of this universe, you could peer down upon this universe and see it as a simple equation. A chaotic equation. All of time would be there, you could see everything from beginning to end, and all at the same time. This is what God sees, the beginning and the end.
-nick

Relativity actually states that anything that is travelling below the speed of light cannot reach or exceed the speed of light,and anything travelling above the speed of light also cannot reach or drop below the speed of light. Therefore you can either travel forward in time or backward in time but you can never do both. Therefore relativity is fine and the Grandfather paradox will never happen.

Mike Flynn · #5 2nd October 2003, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by nickemblow

I believe God is in everything, and sees everything.
I know that for there to be a beginning, SOMETHING must have happened, whereby the speed of the explosion was c. And for an explosion to occur, there has to be energy. Where there is energy, there is life - of some sort. Call a battery life if it actually runs something. If it dont, then the chemical energy dont get converted to electrical energy and the entropy increases making the battery useless by its used by date.

Are you saying that the origin of energy is life? Interesting, but certainly not founded in science per se...kind of philosophical instead...

Originally Posted by nickemblow

I just know what i know and that is there is more to life then what science can prove, and there is more to God then religion is telling us.
-nick

Thats a good attitude to have, whether you're a creationist or not.

Jet Black · #6 2nd October 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by nickemblow

The speed of light, c (~3x10^8 m/s) is, as far as we know, the only constant in this universe.

this is not true. there are a number of constants which are constant. there have to be, for example the permittivity and permeability of free space cannot change, or c would also change. The fine structure constant cannot change either, or strange things would happen.

Meaning that, no matter what you do, you can never exceed it inside of this universe.

see it as more of a barrier: no massive object can reach, and hence exceed the speed of light However it is thought that there might be supersymmetric tachyons which can personally I can't see it though.

Obviously there must be a flaw in general relativity.

yes, but not exactly for this reason. It is important that we do not allow ourselves to become bogged down in unphysical results.

However, this is off topic, if general relativity is correct in making c a constant (which has been tried and tested a few times and always comes up true) then this universe is limited to what is below c, since c it self is only ever achievable by light, (unless you set up worm holes....which is lets say, hard.), So whatever is above c, is outside of this universe.

no, anything travelling faster than c would still be in this universe.

Beyond. Outside of this universe, you could peer down upon this universe and see it as a simple equation. A chaotic equation.

actually you wouldn't be able to see it, just like we can't see things travelling superluminally.

All of time would be there, you could see everything from beginning to end, and all at the same time.

no, you would only get this effect travelling at c time dilation would be total, everything would happen immediately.

if you are above, then you would have enough energy to disperse and slow down, become part of it.

actually you wouldn't. you would face exactly the same problem getting to c as we would. superluminal objecs would rapidly belt off in the direction of infinite velocity.

whereby the speed of the explosion was c. And for an explosion to occur, there has to be energy. Where there is energy, there is life - of some sort.

not an explosion, an expansion.

LorentzHA · #7 2nd October 2003, 02:27 PM

I think you may have misread Einstein. He never said nothing cannot go faster that the speed of light he merely said that your mass will become infinite. This would exclude matter moving at tachyon or super-luminal speeds.

Edit: Sorry this post is to Nickemblow. My quote button would not work...Nickemblow this is my response.

LaserCool · #8 2nd October 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by nickemblow

The speed of light, c (~3x10^8 m/s) is, as far as we know, the only constant in this universe. Meaning that, no matter what you do, you can never exceed it inside of this universe. If you do (which is actually allowable under general relativity) you will travel backwards in time and disrupt causality, ie, the grandfather paradox (where you kill your own grandfather therefor you could never exist, therefor how could you kill your own grandfather in the first place....)

I'm speaking from a point of view holding a Physics degree, so unlike yourself, I actually had to do work with Relativistic equations, both relativistic classical mechanics and electromagnetism, and some relativistic applications to quantum mechanics.

In all frames, c is constant. One of the consequences is that massive objects cannot exceed c, as a direct consequence of the famous Einstein equation E=mc^2. This is not the complete equation, but only the value for stationary objects. The full equation for moving objects is:

E = mc^2/[sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)].

So the Lorentz transformation of total energy means that the total energy (and consequential apparent mass) actually blows up to infinity as the massive object approaches c (v^2/c^2 -> 1 and the denominator approaches zero. The limit of the equation as v->c is positive infinity).

This is the limiting factor on massive objects like you and me and why we can't reach c. The other factors like the apparent time travel, etc. are theoretical constructs if a massive body could appraoch c. They are speculations of what might happen to the process of time dialation if the massive body could exceed c. Since:
dt = dt'/[sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)]
dt would become negative if v>c. But since the mass becomes infinite as the body approaches c there's nothing to worry about.

Photons don't suffer from this problem becasue photons don't have a rest mass, and ONLY exist at c.

Originally Posted by nickemblow

Obviously there must be a flaw in general relativity.

I think there's a flaw in your understanding of relativity. if you'd actually investigated the mathematical formulations fo GR, you'd see that there's no conflicts in the system. It may seem nonsensical, but that's because your general sense perceptions do not include events of realtivistic speeds or energies.

GR is well documented in lab experiments, especially with particle accelerators.

Originally Posted by nickemblow

However, this is off topic, if general relativity is correct in making c a constant (which has been tried and tested a few times and always comes up true) then this universe is limited to what is below c, since c it self is only ever achievable by light, (unless you set up worm holes....which is lets say, hard.)...

Not true. The events in the universe may not occur involving masive particles accelerated past c, but that does not necissarily mean that there is such a limitation on particles that exist at c (i.e. photons), or if such a particle could be found that naturally exists above c (i.e. theortical tachyons). To date tachyons have not been found.

Originally Posted by nickemblow

So whatever is above c, is outside of this universe. Beyond. Outside of this universe, you could peer down upon this universe and see it as a simple equation. A chaotic equation. All of time would be there, you could see everything from beginning to end, and all at the same time. This is what God sees, the beginning and the end. So therefor it is possible that God is a c trancendant. Some one or something that is outside of this universe.

Once again, not true. Tachyons would have strange formulations of mas and/or energy (such as "negative mass") which would permit their existence inside the universe, but a more fundamental problem with your statement is the idea of a range of events "outside" the univese. The Universe is every thing that does exist, inclding all matter and all energy, no matter how exotic. If tachyons exist, then they are part of the universe, but behave strangely (to or experienmce) within it. What a tachyon would "see" is pure speculation, but I have no reason to believe that a tachyon "sees" anything because it doesn't necissarily have eyes, nor that it would "perceive" the universe differently. The time dialation suggests that the tachyon would "see" the universe behaving in reverse time, but all of time wouold not be there for the tachyon to access.

In other words, the laws of physics wold "appear" to run backwards, to our understanding, for the tachyon. That tachyon would STILL be bound to the laws of physics, and to the nature of the Universe, but would "perceive" events running "backwards". It would "think" opposite charges repel, like charges attract, gravity is a repulsive force, quantum mechanical systems develop certianty over time, etc.

But nevertheless, in its own fram, the tachyon would still be bound to unchangeable laws, and would not "know" all time. It would only know what we call the "future" but know nothing of what we call "the past".

As I read the Christians' God, this is not how He lives. God, the Bible leads me to believe, has a memory of past human events and knowledge of human futures. if God were a tachyon, he'd only know the future, but be ignorant of our past.

Originally Posted by nickemblow

But God is a part of this universe, i here you say. Yes it is also possible that being above and beyond, a c creature could very well influence outcomes of this universe, since it is only impossible to (as far as i know) travel past c from our side, if you are above, then you would have enough energy to disperse and slow down, become part of it.

God cannot be both IN the universe, and BEYOND the universe. There is no "beyond" the universe. There is only the Universe and all things comprising it.

How the tachyonic God would percieve the universe doesn't make Him any less bound to physical laws.

Originally Posted by nickemblow

I know that for there to be a beginning, SOMETHING must have happened, whereby the speed of the explosion was c. And for an explosion to occur, there has to be energy. Where there is energy, there is life - of some sort. Call a battery life if it actually runs something. If it dont, then the chemical energy dont get converted to electrical energy and the entropy increases making the battery useless by its used by date.

The speed of the Big Bang (I guess that's what you're referring to), was not limited to c, since the conditions at the beginning allowed for enough uncertianty in its Schrodinger wave equation to permit this. In other words, when the Universe was smaller than it's own Compton wavelength, the universe could expand at whatever speed it liked. This may have been far in excess of c.

Life requires energy to exist, energy does not require life. The energy trapped in the orbit of Mercury around the Sun has nothing to do with life at all. The life on earth depends on a flow of energy from the Sun. Cut a plant off from that light source, and it will die. Kill a plant, and the Sun does not cease to exist.

Originally Posted by nickemblow

If anything i am a scientist. Or at least, have an understanding of science. But here is an interesting fact, creation in the bible puts the mankind at what, 6000 years before present? Well, the first civilization in recorded history, sumer, is 6000 years old.... I just know what i know and that is there is more to life then what science can prove, and there is more to God then religion is telling us.

If anything, you are not a physicist. To wax philosophic correctly, you have to understand physics firsthand, not the vague speculations you wave about.

It's very likely that he Sumerians had the first "civilization", and this may have formed the foundation of the biblical claim. It however doesn't prove that the Earth is only 6000 years old, or any of the YEC claims are valid. It is far more likely that the dates were something biblical writers used to incude "parent" civilizations in their own histories in order to justify their claims of lineage. It's still specious and pointless.

I know that if you don't know the science, don't make scientific claims. Sure there may be areas science is mute on; Philosophy, Mythology, Art, etc. The issue is that you made a scientific claim without any firm grasp on the science. You have to choose, are you acting as a scientist, or are you not?

If you wish to apply science to your claim, you cannot change your claim to exclude science if you don't like the results.

If you wish to make a non-scientific claim, don't try to hijack science to justify such a claim. It makes you look like a fool.

Mike Flynn · #9 2nd October 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by LaserCool

I'm speaking from a point of view holding a Physics degree, so unlike yourself, I actually had to do work with Relativistic equations, both relativistic classical mechanics and electromagnetism, and some relativistic applications to quantum mechanics.

Originally Posted by LaserCool

As I read the Christians' God, this is not how He lives. God, the Bible leads me to believe, has a memory of past human events and knowledge of human futures. if God were a tachyon, he'd only know the future, but be ignorant of our past.

God cannot be both IN the universe, and BEYOND the universe. There is no "beyond" the universe. There is only the Universe and all things comprising it.

Now that would be a hard thing to prove using the laws of physics I'd say...since they are strictly born from the measurable parts of this universe. Anything beyond this universe is of course, pure speculation scientifically speaking...but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Perhaps the above is just your opinion, then?

Originally Posted by LaserCool

If anything, you are not a physicist. To wax philosophic correctly, you have to understand physics firsthand, not the vague speculations you wave about.

I know that if you don't know the science, don't make scientific claims. Sure there may be areas science is mute on; Philosophy, Mythology, Art, etc. The issue is that you made a scientific claim without any firm grasp on the science. You have to choose, are you acting as a scientist, or are you not?

If you wish to apply science to your claim, you cannot change your claim to exclude science if you don't like the results.

If you wish to make a non-scientific claim, don't try to hijack science to justify such a claim. It makes you look like a fool.

Most people in the world (including we scientists), don't understand the science very well...5 years of quantum mechanics was the hard way to learn this! That doesn't stop them from having opinions on it and their own little philosophies, etc. I think its pretty clear that this guy has a long way to go with understanding science that he's mentioning...but I wouldn't be too hard on him. Everyone has to start somewhere. Your doing good work clarifying the science for him. Why not use a
carrot instead of a stick?

the_malevolent_milk_man · #10 2nd October 2003, 05:29 PM

Not to be nit picky but batteries do not lose their energy due to entropy. Everything experiences entropy but it has very little effect on the battery. It's caused by self discharge which is due to internal chemistry changes within the battery. Different batteries made with different materials lose their charge at different rates, this is again due to the internal chemistry and structure that affects the self discharge rate.