Origins TheologyForum for the discussion of Creation Science (Young/Old) vs Theistic Evolution. Discussion of Atheistic Evolution should be taken to the Discussion and Debate forums.
There’s an article here explaining why this isn’t a problem, and another one here, although like the first one that I linked to, I’m not able to link to either of these directly.
It’s kind of frustrating that while you keep linking to information at sites like Wikipedia to support your viewpoint, not only are you unwilling to look at what’s in any of the articles I’m linking to; you also said in post #135 that as far as you’re concerned, any information not included in what I’m able to post directly may as well not exist. I’ve already told you that populist sites like Wikipedia don’t include all of the details about this topic, so in order to have a complete understanding of it, you need to read some of the professional literature. Does my inability to link directly to any of the articles describing the rest of this mean that as far as you’re concerned, there’s no more information about this topic at all?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes, sites like Wikipedia often don't contain all details, but in the case of Special Relativity, Wikipedia is pretty good. That's because Special Relativity is a simple and well-known theory. It fits on a single sheet of paper.
You seem to assume that there is some "hidden content" of Special Relativity that only experts know, and that contradicts the basic content of the theory. I can assure you that no such hidden expert's theory exists.
Both articles you've posted are of historic interest only. They were about Tachyons. Tachyons were popular about 50 years ago because of certain astronomical observations of that time. Cosmic particle rays react with the outer atmosphere and generate light flashes that you can detect. Sometimes, those flashes were preceded by a less intense flash from the same direction. The speculation was that this pre-flash was caused by particles that went ahead of the main particle stream. This would require that they went faster than light. For explaining this, some astronomers proposed modifications to the Lorenz transformation that allowed faster-than-light particles, the Tachyons.
However, the pre-flash found a natural explanation and no one has found Tachyons so far. So Special Relativity still stands and today the existence of Tachyons is not seriously considered anymore by most scientists. Still some articles about them appear from time to time. But normally Tachyons belong to the realm of science fiction today, and are not suited to be used for scientific arguments.
I’m not claiming that there’s some “hidden” part of Special Relativity that only experts know about; what I’ve read is that the equations for it that everyone agrees on allow for objects to move faster than light under the circumstances that Shernen described. The problem is, the equations themselves aren’t something I’m particularly familiar with. Although the articles I’ve read about this were fairly technical, they still described the concepts in physical (rather than mathematical) terms. So if you make an argument about this based on the equations, I’m not going to be able to address it directly.
What I’ve noticed, and have already pointed out, is that whenever this topic is described in a professional context, the possibility of objects moving faster than light is allowed for. The way in which this is described as being possible is similar to how Shernen explained it. Whenever it’s described as being impossible, however, it’s always in a populist article that doesn’t even attempt to address the sort of thing that Shernen was describing. Based on this, it seems pretty clear which articles are leaving something out.
Shernen might be able to explain how the equations work for objects moving faster than light, but that isn’t something I know how to do. I’d like to discuss this in a more general context. What do you have to say about the explanation Shernen gave of how this is possible if an object “starts” at above the speed of light, which I assume is similar to what’s explained in the part of the AIAA article that isn’t publicly available? Do you think the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics doesn’t understand Relativity properly?
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Normally we have three sources that tell us of God. The first Source is scripture, the second source is science (observing the world) and the third source are we ourselves (our built-in morale that was implanted by God). However there is also a 4th source and that is tradition. Tradition makes it difficult to accept some concepts of God, such as His change, because tradition dictates the concept of a spiritually immovable God.
I have a few comments about your position.
Firstly, you are blatantly inconsistent when you rely to such a large extent on science to tell you about God, when you won't even let science tell you about creation. You think your argument about closed spacelike curves (which is correct in at least one important respect - I'm in the middle of writing a detailed response to that) somehow says something about God's omniscience, never mind that the writers of the Bible didn't need to know squat about science to know that God does not change His mind. And yet you ignore the reams upon reams of physical evidence around us that the universe is patently not 15 billion years old and that evolution is the best explanation for our currently observable biodiversity.
If your God is a God who can make a 6,000-year-old universe look 15 billion years old why can't He create and use closed spacelike curves? Why should He perform the miracles you like but not the ones you dislike?
Secondly, the immutability of God is not just tradition. One might as well say that the Trinity is "just tradition" too. The Bible nowhere clearly and systematically doctrinizes the Trinity but there is no other doctrine of divinity that can make sense of it. Similarly, even if there were no clear and systematic doctrinization of the immutability of God in the Bible (and yet there are some clear as day declarations of it), there would be no other way to make sense of the Bible.
Originally Posted by ClearSky
Maybe God's character does not change. I don't know. Scripture tells us that His behavior towards humans drastically changes between 1200 AC and 400 AC. By 1200 He was very controlling and aggressive, after 400 he was withdrawn and merciful. Of course it's possible that the reason for this different behavior was not God's change, but something else. But what could it be? A change of character due to His experiences with humans seems the most plausible answer to me. Any alternative ideas?
You are really just connecting the dots that seem convenient to you. You think that if the same God who commanded genocides in 1200AC was the same God who commanded us to turn the other cheek in 30AD there must have been some change in between. Well you simply haven't included enough data in your convenient little plot.
For example, Abraham was saved by grace through faith, and not by his works, as Paul makes clear. How aggressive was God there? Furthermore, God predestined those who were to be saved from before the foundation of the world - if God has changed since then can His elect ever be sure of their salvation?
Your "controlling and aggressive" God was mightily easily persuaded by Moses to not wipe out the Israelites. A touch unpersistent? Or maybe God was testing Moses rather than promising genocide.
God spared Rahab of Jericho; and David was the grandson of a Moabitess. Hmm, a little lenient on the racist genocidal tendencies, isn't this God?
Then God used the Assyrians and Babylonians to wipe out the nations of Israel and Judah in 500-600BC. Doesn't seem any less violent.
God destroyed Jerusalem in AD70 with the Roman forces; Jesus explicitly predicted that as an outpouring of wrath in reply to their mistreatment of the Son. Again, doesn't seem any less violent.
And of course God is going to bring an end to the physical order at the end of time; is that not going to be violent?
You are imagining simple change when really God is just too complex for your little box. Is God a man that He must learn from His mistakes?
__________________
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]
What do you have to say about the explanation Shernen gave of how this is possible if an object “starts” at above the speed of light, which I assume is similar to what’s explained in the part of the AIAA article that isn’t publicly available? Do you think the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics doesn’t understand Relativity properly?
Obviously I can't comment on an article that I do not know, but as long as the AIAA does not publish something that that shows a misunderstanding of Relativity, we can certainly assume that they still understand the theory.
As to the possibility of an object that is created by a miracle at above the speed of light, the answer is simple and given by the Lorentz equations. Such an object gets imaginary space and time coordinates in any below-light-speed reference frame in our universe. This means that there is no physical reference frame in which such object would exist.
Last edited by ClearSky; 25th March 2008 at 10:48 AM.
Obviously I can't comment on an article that I do not know, but as long as the AIAA does not publish something that that shows a misunderstanding of Relativity, we can certainly assume that they still understand the theory.
As to the possibility of an object that is created by a miracle at above the speed of light, the answer is simple and given by the Lorentz equations. Such an object gets imaginary space and time coordinates in any below-light-speed reference frame in our universe. This means that there is no physical reference frame in which such object would exist.
Since Shernen has said he’s working on a more detailed response to you about this, I think it’s best for me to leave it for him to address. I mentioned before that I’m not familiar enough with these equations to debate with you about them, as long as they’re the only line of evidence about this you’re willing to consider.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
If your God is a God who can make a 6,000-year-old universe look 15 billion years old why can't He create and use closed spacelike curves? Why should He perform the miracles you like but not the ones you dislike?
This is a valid objection and would require an extended reply that I maybe write one day. But the basic idea is that God created us in His image, which means that human properties such as our logic also applies to God. For us it is logical and understandable that God created our world in consistence with laws of nature that can be determined through science. But it is not logical that God created a fixed future (implying spacelike loops) because that would render essential concepts, such as sin, free will, and judgment, illogical.
Originally Posted by shernren
Secondly, the immutability of God is not just tradition. One might as well say that the Trinity is "just tradition" too. The Bible nowhere clearly and systematically doctrinizes the Trinity but there is no other doctrine of divinity that can make sense of it.
That's why we assume the Trinity is correct. It is not mentioned in the Bible, but without it many events in the Bible would not make sense.
And that's exactly the reason for my assuming a change in God's behavior or character. It is not mentioned in the Bible, but without it large parts of the Bible would not make sense.
Originally Posted by shernren
For example, Abraham was saved by grace through faith, and not by his works, as Paul makes clear. How aggressive was God there?
I have not said that God was always aggressive. On the contrary, He was often merciful even in the early days. Abraham could persuade Him to spare Sodom for 5 just inhabitants, and Moses could persuade Him not to wipe out Israel. This is true. But nevertheless His overall behavior was extremely aggressive.
Originally Posted by shernren
Furthermore, God predestined those who were to be saved from before the foundation of the world - if God has changed since then can His elect ever be sure of their salvation?
No, and I do not believe in such predestination, for the reasons mentioned above. If everything were predestined, concepts such as sin would not make any sense.
Originally Posted by shernren
Then God used the Assyrians and Babylonians to wipe out the nations of Israel and Judah in 500-600BC. Doesn't seem any less violent.
God destroyed Jerusalem in AD70 with the Roman forces; Jesus explicitly predicted that as an outpouring of wrath in reply to their mistreatment of the Son. Again, doesn't seem any less violent.
God used the Assyrians in 800 BC to wipe out 10 of the 12 tribes of Israel. In 600 BC He used the Babylonians to drive the remaining 2 tribes into exile, but allowed them to return later. Seems a definite reduction in violence to me. The destruction in 70 AD was not caused by God, but by the Romans.
Originally Posted by shernren
And of course God is going to bring an end to the physical order at the end of time; is that not going to be violent?
Obviously, when we want to learn about God we need to look at what he really did, and not at what some think He might hypothetically be doing at some undetermined event at the end of time.
Originally Posted by shernren
You are imagining simple change when really God is just too complex for your little box. Is God a man that He must learn from His mistakes?
He made us in His image, and that means that He is in our image. When humans are able to learn from their mistakes, then God is also able to learn from His experiences.
Shernen, weren’t you going to post a more detailed response to what ClearSky is saying about Relativity? The reason I stopped debating with her about this is because I was assuming you’d be able to explain it better than I could.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Shernen, weren’t you going to post a more detailed response to what ClearSky is saying about Relativity? The reason I stopped debating with her about this is because I was assuming you’d be able to explain it better than I could.
What was the question? I'll have a crack (arm chair physicist)
What was the question? I'll have a crack (arm chair physicist)
It’s what she’s saying about the Lorenz Transformation equations prohibiting anything from existing that’s traveling faster than the speed of light. I’ve read articles explaining how faster-than-light reference frames are possible in physical terms, but since I’m not very familiar with the equations behind it, when she wants to debate it in mathematical terms I’m not able to give her what she’s asking for.
Shernen seems able to, but for some reason he’s stopped posting in this thread.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Linear Mode
