| Origins Theology Forum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums. |
 | | 
20th March 2008, 06:48 AM
|  | Regular Member
  
| | Join Date: 21st December 2007
Posts: 143
Blessings: 90,712
Reps: 3,418 (power: 8) | | Originally Posted by Aggie  But even though for something to go exactly the speed of light would require infinite energy, for something to go faster than the speed of light would not—beyond that point its kinetic energy decreases as its speed increases. I don’t recall exactly how this is calculated, but I think it might be because objects traveling faster than the speed of light behave as though they have negative mass. Although the equations of Special Relativity allow for this, there’s a fairly obvious practical consideration that makes it impossible to accelerate an object to past-light speed with any known technology. We have no way of accelerating an object instantaneously, so accelerating something beyond the speed of light would have to involve accelerating it to the speed of light first.
That doesn’t mean no one will ever find a way around this barrier, though, or that there can’t be matter that’s been traveling at beyond the speed of light since the beginning of the universe. And as stated in the article I linked to, for something traveling at beyond the speed of light, time will flow in reverse relative to stationary observers.
This is correct, but the infinite energy required for acceleration to light speed is not the reason for the light speed barrier. After all, you have photons that travel exactly at light speed, and they do not carry infinite energy.
The real reason is replacing the Galilei transformation with the Lorenz transformation. The Lorenz transformation effectively prevents that you exceed light speed in any possible reference frame, no matter if you accelerate with infinite energy or not.
The reason for the Lorenz transformation is not mathematical, but physical. It's basically the structure of our universe. So there are theoretically other universes possible where physics is different, Lorenz transformation does not apply, time can be traveled backwards and the future is fixed and accessible to an omniscient being. But not in our universe.
When we go back from physics to Scripture, you can read that God Himself explains He's not able to predict the future: 1 Mose 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth.
He repents what He did because He has not foreseen the consequences. There are many similar passages in Scripture, so it's obvious that God can not predict the future. |
20th March 2008, 06:58 AM
|  | you are not reading this.
24    
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood 
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | | And yet:
God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
(Numbers 23:19 NIV)
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
20th March 2008, 10:52 AM
|  | Legend
 
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by shernren And yet:
God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
(Numbers 23:19 NIV)
God is faithful to keep his promises. That is a different thing from knowing which potential human actions will be realized by human choice.
The wonderful thing is that no matter what we do, God DOES keep his promises. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 9:38-39
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
21st March 2008, 04:13 AM
| | you are not reading this.
24
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | | Even if I should agree with that view (which I still have reservations about), that is a far cry from saying that God changes ...
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
21st March 2008, 09:14 AM
| | Legend
| | Join Date: 2nd March 2004 Location: Toronto
Posts: 11,850
Blessings: 61,126
Reps: 12,567,898,174,147,644 (power: 12,567,898,174,166) | | Originally Posted by shernren Even if I should agree with that view (which I still have reservations about), that is a far cry from saying that God changes ...
No argument from me there. I don't believe God changes.
__________________
"Either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy - and then admit that we just don't wanna do it." Steve Colbert |
21st March 2008, 09:34 AM
|  | Soldier of Knowledge
28    
 | | Join Date: 18th January 2004 Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,720
Blessings: 59,514
Reps: 18,604,695,596,698 (power: 18,604,695,606) | | Originally Posted by shernren Either that, or you can start at over the speed of light. You can't accelerate past the speed of light, but if you spontaneously create a particle that comes into existence already moving faster than light, it can go as "fast" as you like - although the physical meaning of familiar properties like mass, energy, momentum etc. start becoming a bit fuzzy.
Now that I think a bit more about it I can't really see any way around what ClearSky and Paul365 are saying, at least within the physical universe. If we consider God's omniscience as some kind of process depending on the nature of the spacetime paths involved, then there cannot be any way for God to influence the past based on knowledge of the future. However God's omniscience is a Biblically declared truth and one of the foundations of His theistic eminence, so it therefore cannot possibly be a physical process.
All right, I wasn’t sure what the reason was for this limitation. The one thing I remembered for certain is that speeds greater than the speed of light are theoretically possible; there’s just no known way to accelerate an object to that from below light speed. As long as this is possible, though, I think my original point still stands.
If reference frames where the future and past are reversed are theoretically possible, doesn’t that means the future must exist as part of the space-time continuum, even if the structure of the universe makes it inaccessible to us? If the future is part of the structure of the universe, that means it’s still something which God would have created along with everything else, and would therefore know what it is even if knowing this isn’t possible for us.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
21st March 2008, 01:57 PM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 21st December 2007
Posts: 143
Blessings: 90,712
Reps: 3,418 (power: 8) | | Originally Posted by Aggie If reference frames where the future and past are reversed are theoretically possible, doesn’t that means the future must exist as part of the space-time continuum, even if the structure of the universe makes it inaccessible to us? If the future is part of the structure of the universe, that means it’s still something which God would have created along with everything else, and would therefore know what it is even if knowing this isn’t possible for us.
You're still sticking to the acceleration energy idea, but the acceleration energy has nothing to do with the light speed limit. A universe with faster-than-light reference frames is possible, but requires different physics than our universe. However one can speculate whether God intentionally created our universe this way in order to avoid a fixed, determined future.
Last edited by ClearSky; 21st March 2008 at 02:11 PM.
|
21st March 2008, 04:13 PM
| | Soldier of Knowledge
28
| | Join Date: 18th January 2004 Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,720
Blessings: 59,514
Reps: 18,604,695,596,698 (power: 18,604,695,606) | | Originally Posted by ClearSky You're still sticking to the acceleration energy idea, but the acceleration energy has nothing to do with the light speed limit. A universe with faster-than-light reference frames is possible, but requires different physics than our universe. However one can speculate whether God intentionally created our universe this way in order to avoid a fixed, determined future.
Did you read Shernen’s post that I quoted? He explained this better than I can. Faster than light-speed reference frames are possible; what he said isn’t possible is a reference frame at the speed of light. So it isn’t possible to accelerate an object from below the speed of light to above it, but particles can travel above lightspeed as long as they’ve always been going that speed.
After I linked you to that article at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, you asked me for an explanation of how this was possible, so I provided one and then Shernen gave a better one. I don’t understand how you can keep claiming this is the “current state of science” now that you’ve been presented with plenty of evidence that this isn’t the case.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
21st March 2008, 11:36 PM
| | you are not reading this.
24
| | Join Date: 18th February 2005 Location: Shah Alam, Selangor
Posts: 8,060
Blessings: 18,378 My Mood
Reps: 15,461,686,232,085,960 (power: 15,461,686,232,100) | | Originally Posted by Aggie Did you read Shernen’s post that I quoted? He explained this better than I can. Faster than light-speed reference frames are possible; what he said isn’t possible is a reference frame at the speed of light. So it isn’t possible to accelerate an object from below the speed of light to above it, but particles can travel above lightspeed as long as they’ve always been going that speed.
After I linked you to that article at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, you asked me for an explanation of how this was possible, so I provided one and then Shernen gave a better one. I don’t understand how you can keep claiming this is the “current state of science” now that you’ve been presented with plenty of evidence that this isn’t the case.
Eh? No. A reference frame at the speed of light is certainly possible, even encouraged: what universe do you think photons live in? 
__________________ And who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars?
- Origen, 215AD [De Principiis 4.1.16]
... to insist that the rising of the sun is figurative while the rising of the Son is literal is also hypocrisy.
- Geraldus Bouw,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
22nd March 2008, 07:20 AM
| | Member
| | Join Date: 22nd November 2007
Posts: 76
Blessings: 90,781
Reps: 2,488 (power: 7) | | Originally Posted by Aggie Did you read Shernen’s post that I quoted? He explained this better than I can. Faster than light-speed reference frames are possible; what he said isn’t possible is a reference frame at the speed of light. So it isn’t possible to accelerate an object from below the speed of light to above it, but particles can travel above lightspeed as long as they’ve always been going that speed.
After I linked you to that article at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, you asked me for an explanation of how this was possible, so I provided one and then Shernen gave a better one. I don’t understand how you can keep claiming this is the “current state of science” now that you’ve been presented with plenty of evidence that this isn’t the case.
Huh? You seem to somehow read a different thread than the rest of us. The light speed limit is current state of science and is confirmed by all experiments and observations since more than 100 years.
Have you read this thread, and the link that you posted? There is no argument in favor of objects or information traveling faster than light. If you think you have one, please don't hesitate to post it. I'm very curious to hear of it since it would turn all current physics upside down.
Last edited by Paul365; 22nd March 2008 at 10:30 AM.
| | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
