Ask a physicist anything. (3)

[Wiccan_Child]

God-Energy Theory

The God-Energy Theory was first proposed by the Prophet Isaiah in the 8th Century B.C. At that time the expansion/stretching of the universe was predicted by Isaiah based on the God-Energy Theory:

“I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” - Isaiah 44:24,45:12, 8th Century B.C.

This predicted expansion/stretching of the universe/heavens was confirmed over two thousand years later, in the 20th Century A.D, by Hubble’s Law and General Relativity.

In God-Energy Theory the kinetic energy in the expanding universe was predicted as being created from the (electromagnetic) force exerted by the Hand of God: “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” - Isaiah 45:12, 8th Century B.C.

Since God-Energy Theory has made a successful scientific prediction regarding the expansion/stretching of the universe, and Dark-Energy Theory is only an ad-hoc, gap-filler, place-holder theory signifying scientific ignorance regarding 74% of the universe, does this mean that God-Energy Theory offers a better scientific explanation for the expansion/stretching of the universe than Dark-Energy Theory does?

No. Isaiah was not making a scientific prediction, we was using a poetic gesture to expound his thoughts on God. It seems to be a pastime of apologists to twist Scripture to fit their ends; I'm not sure God would approve.

 

[MorkandMindy]

God-Energy Theory

The God-Energy Theory was first proposed by the Prophet Isaiah in the 8th Century B.C. At that time the expansion/stretching of the universe was predicted by Isaiah based on the God-Energy Theory:

“I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” - Isaiah 44:24,45:12, 8th Century B.C.

This predicted expansion/stretching of the universe/heavens was confirmed over two thousand years later, in the 20th Century A.D, by Hubble’s Law and General Relativity.

In God-Energy Theory the kinetic energy in the expanding universe was predicted as being created from the (electromagnetic) force exerted by the Hand of God: “My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.” - Isaiah 45:12, 8th Century B.C.

Since God-Energy Theory has made a successful scientific prediction regarding the expansion/stretching of the universe, and Dark-Energy Theory is only an ad-hoc, gap-filler, place-holder theory signifying scientific ignorance regarding 74% of the universe, does this mean that God-Energy Theory offers a better scientific explanation for the expansion/stretching of the universe than Dark-Energy Theory does?

Yup.

There's bending of space-time:

2 Sam 22 10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down
With darkness under His feet.

And the stretching of space and time was predicted millennia before Einstein and Minkowski:

IS 40 21Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth? 22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
23That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity.



And they knew about the strength the sky has:

Job 37 18Hast thou with him spread out the sky, which is strong, and as a molten looking glass? 19Teach us what we shall say unto him; for we cannot order our speech by reason of darkness.

And that strength is needed to be able to hold up the stars:

Gen 1 14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

And the rain that is above the stars as well:

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


I've searched the Internet and nobody is sure what the firmament is made of, other than some kind of metal. If anyone has any ideas I'd be grateful for them.

It has to be able to withstand corrosion because of all that water above it.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I've searched the Internet and nobody is sure what the firmament is made of, other than some kind of metal. If anyone has any ideas I'd be grateful for them.

We had a guy on the CE forum a few years ago, Ike IIRC, who claimed the firmament was transparent metallic hydrogen. I think it got burned up to make the water for the flood.

 

[MorkandMindy]

I've searched the Internet and nobody is sure what the firmament is made of, other than some kind of metal. If anyone has any ideas I'd be grateful for them.

We had a guy on the CE forum a few years ago, Ike IIRC, who claimed the firmament was transparent metallic hydrogen. I think it got burned up to make the water for the flood.

Ah, the day the sky caught fire; could make a good movie

 

[MorkandMindy]

I've searched the Internet and nobody is sure what the firmament is made of, other than some kind of metal. If anyone has any ideas I'd be grateful for them.

We had a guy on the CE forum a few years ago, Ike IIRC, who claimed the firmament was transparent metallic hydrogen. I think it got burned up to make the water for the flood.

Is metallic hydrogen strong enough to support the stars?

 

[Doveaman]

No. Isaiah was not making a scientific prediction, we was using a poetic gesture to expound his thoughts on God.

Are you saying a thought expounded cannot become a scientific theory? Isn't that how theories/hypotheses are formed; by expounding our thoughts on what we believe is possible until those theories/hypotheses are tested and confirmed? Isaiah believed the universe was stretched out by God-Energy, which was confirmed scientifically by Hubble's law and General Relativity.

It seems to be a pastime of apologists to twist Scripture to fit their ends; I'm not sure God would approve.

I think He would, but with no need to "twist Scripture":

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Rom 1:20

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Are you saying a thought expounded cannot become a scientific theory?

No. I'm saying the throw-away comments of a poet aren't declarations of belief. I don't doubt that there are pieces of ancient text that superficially resemble modern scientific ideas, but to call that evidence of prior knowledge is too much. If you throw enough spaghetti on the wall, some of it is going to stick.

Various religious groups over the aeons have guessed at the Earth's age; Ussher thought it was a paltry few thousand, while Vedics believed it to be billions, or even trillions, of years old. Odds are, at least one religious group is going to come close to the true age without any divine intervention. As it happens, the Hindu religion comes pretty close to the true age of 4.5 billion years; this isn't evidence for the Hindu faith, but merely a statistical quirk that is entirely expected.

Isn't that how theories/hypotheses are formed; by expounding our thoughts on what we believe is possible until those theories/hypotheses are tested and confirmed?

Yes. But that is not what happened with Isaiah.

Isaiah believed the universe was stretched out by God-Energy,

You see literal statements and declarations, while I see poetry and metaphor. Who's right? Can you justify your claim that Isaiah was making a statement of belief, rather than just waxing poetic?

which was confirmed scientifically by Hubble's law and General Relativity.

If memory serves, don't you reject relativity?

I think He would, but with no need to "twist Scripture":

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." - Rom 1:20

The Bible can say the oceans are sweet and the sky is green for all the good it would do.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Is metallic hydrogen strong enough to support the stars?

and what's holding the stars up now???

 

[Wiccan_Child]

and what's holding the stars up now???

Dust from the ground up wings of the fairy godmothers of porcupines.

It's also what goes into gummy bears to make them so gummy.

 

[shinbits]

Shinbits: gravity doesn't speed light up because the speed of light isn't dictated by gravity, any more than placing a magnet next to running water will make it run faster.
.

this was beautifully, explained. thank you.

however, I'm still unclear as too why inertia doesn't affect c.

 

[Doveaman]

and what's holding the stars up now???

Dust from the ground up wings of the fairy godmothers of porcupines.

It's also what goes into gummy bears to make them so gummy.

I say they are held up by the electromagnetic energy such as that created by the Hand of God:

 

[Chesterton]

Known as Einstein's Cross, it is a quasar that sits directly behind a the Huchra's Lens galaxy, such that gravity bends the quasar's light around it in four different directions: the central object is the galaxy, and the four objects around it are all the same quasar.

The following are also examples of this phenomenon, though in this case the light from a distant galaxy is warped into a ring around a relatively close star (or quasar, or what have you):

What causes the difference between seeing four points of light as opposed to seeing a 360-degree ring of light?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

this was beautifully, explained. thank you.

however, I'm still unclear as too why inertia doesn't affect c.

Because light, photons, are peculiar buggers. Inertia is simply the tendency for objects to stay where they are, to continue moving as they are.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What causes the difference between seeing four points of light as opposed to seeing a 360-degree ring of light?

That's a good question, and I'm not entirely sure. I'd wager that it's due to a complex distribution of mass; a nice sphere of mass would create a nice, symmetrical ring. An uneven distribution of mass would cause light to bend in just the right way, but only in one particular region of space; thus, you would see the illusory image in only one particular place.

It's hard to describe with words...

 

[BrianOnEarth]

however, I'm still unclear as too why inertia doesn't affect c.

Inertia requires mass.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Inertia requires mass.

Mmm... maybe. Momentum doesn't require mass, despite being defined in some heretical circles as p = mv.

 

[catzrfluffy]

Is it true that the particle foam has holes in it, allowing things to travel through space-time.

Also, how can time be a dimension?

Why does something get heavier the closer it gets to light-speed?

Why does time aboard that something also get slower?

And do you know any physies who would travel forward in time and shoot themselves backward, just to see what would happen?

[Source of ramblings = http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...STEPHEN-HAWKING-How-build-time-machine.html.]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is it true that the particle foam has holes in it, allowing things to travel through space-time.

The particle foam is the idea that the universe is brimming with particles popping into and out of existence, and this results in things like the strong nuclear force.

Also, how can time be a dimension?

Because we're moving through time in the same way (ish) that we're moving through space. Think of it like a 2D creature contemplating the third dimension: it's baffling, but nonetheless true.
The short, but unsatisfactory, answer, is that our theories describe it as a dimension.

Why does something get heavier the closer it gets to light-speed?

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Does it get heavier, or does it move slower? Does space contract, or time dilate? The reality is that all are correct ways of looking at it.

From the point of view of the particle, for instance, its mass stays the same.

Why does time aboard that something also get slower?

Let's say a spaceship is moving away from the Earth at close to lightspeed. We, on Earth, look through a telescope and see the ship's clock ticking much more slowly than the Earth's clock: time has dilated for the ship. But perversely, the ship sees the Earth as the thing that's moving, so it sees the Earth's clock ticking slowly.

Think about that for a few minutes. And yes, that warm feeling is your brain gooifying.

And do you know any physies who would travel forward in time and shoot themselves backward, just to see what would happen?

I, for one, would love to do that. With one caveat: I test it on monkeys first

 

[IzzyPop]

I, for one, would love to do that. With one caveat: I test it on monkeys first

I'd suggest squirrels. That way after the first couple tests go all wahoonie shaped you can have a nice empirical data set to answer her earlier question.

 

[BrianOnEarth]

Mmm... maybe. Momentum doesn't require mass, despite being defined in some heretical circles as p = mv.

Momentum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia