God's Random Creation

Bill5612 · May 17, 2012

I am working on a telescope mirror making project. I am grinding and polishing an 8 mirror by hand. So far Ive put about 7 hours of work into it, and I estimate that I will put another 14 hours. These time estimates do not account for me messing up. One screw up will add two or three hours to the work load. Many people have asked me why I am doing this. I have access to a machine that can do the work for me, and I can buy a piece of glass that has been done by a professional company. So, why am I spending so much time on this project? Because I can do a better job than they can. And that is because of the power of randomness. Our hands and arms produce random motion and random pressure. And its that randomness that produces a near perfect spherical telescope mirror. A machine just cant reproduce the kind of random motions our hands can. And the funny thing is we dont have to try to be random. It happens automatically.

In the world of astrophysics the terms; random, chaos and uncertainty have become an important part of how science describes the creation. Let me give you an example. A photon can have mass or it doesnt, depending upon how you experiment on it. A photon can be a wave length rippling through the cosmos or it isnt. A photon can be in two places at once, or it cant. What matters is how the experiment is set up. Different experiments give seemingly contradictory results. However, photons have to be this way in order to do their job. And that is, to give us heat and light, without killing us. Thus randomness is an important part of how the creation works.

Now us Christians do not like these terms. We believe that God has a plan for everything, and that chaos, randomness and uncertainty do not fit in with Gods plan. For us, these terms fall outside of Gods organized universe. But, what if God uses randomness in Gods creation? Lets take a look at the book of Ecclesiastes and see what it says about this subject.

If clouds are full of water,
they pour rain on the earth.
Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north,
in the place where it falls, there it will lie.
Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. (Eccl 11:3-4)

This passage acknowledges the seeming randomness of our world. The clouds and rain come when they will; a tree falls where it may. A person who does not work regardless of these chaotic circumstances will not harvest a crop. Here is another passage that explains it further.

As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed in a mothers womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things. (Eccl 11:5)

This passage acknowledges the seeming randomness, the path of the wind, and says that it is all a part of the work of God. And so, randomness is an important part of Gods creation. Just because we dont fully understand why this is, doesnt mean that God does not use randomness to make things work. Even chaos is a part of Gods amazing plan.

Soon I will return to the grind stone, literally, and attempt to create my near perfect mirror. Funny, it is the seeming imperfection of how I work that creates the seeming perfection of the star images in my eyepiece. Praise God today my friends, this is how God created the universe.

God bless you,

Pastor Bill
Uncovering God in Everything
First Baptist Church of Rahway

Wiccan_Child · May 17, 2012

Bill5612 said:
I am working on a telescope mirror making project. I am grinding and polishing an 8 mirror by hand. So far Ive put about 7 hours of work into it, and I estimate that I will put another 14 hours. These time estimates do not account for me messing up. One screw up will add two or three hours to the work load. Many people have asked me why I am doing this. I have access to a machine that can do the work for me, and I can buy a piece of glass that has been done by a professional company. So, why am I spending so much time on this project? Because I can do a better job than they can. And that is because of the power of randomness. Our hands and arms produce random motion and random pressure. And its that randomness that produces a near perfect spherical telescope mirror. A machine just cant reproduce the kind of random motions our hands can. And the funny thing is we dont have to try to be random. It happens automatically.

I disagree, I think machines, not humans, are better at attaining perfection.

Bill5612 said:
In the world of astrophysics the terms; random, chaos and uncertainty have become an important part of how science describes the creation. Let me give you an example. A photon can have mass or it doesnt, depending upon how you experiment on it. A photon can be a wave length rippling through the cosmos or it isnt. A photon can be in two places at once, or it cant. What matters is how the experiment is set up. Different experiments give seemingly contradictory results. However, photons have to be this way in order to do their job. And that is, to give us heat and light, without killing us.

High-energy photons damage us, low-energy photons don't. This has nothing to do with wave-particle duality, nor with randomness.

Bill5612 said:
Thus randomness is an important part of how the creation works.

The nature of light has nothing to do with randomness . Wave-particle duality describes the nature of the photon, it doesn't describe a random flip between a genuine wave and a genuine particle.

So neither wave-particle duality nor the energy of light relate to randomness. You're better off using quantum mechanics as the basis for your analogy, as that does involve genuine randomness.

Bill5612 said:
Funny, it is the seeming imperfection of how I work that creates the seeming perfection of the star images in my eyepiece.

I've never heard of imperfections in telescope mirrors doing anything but create obfuscating aberrations that astronomers try to eliminate.

Bill5612 · May 18, 2012

Friends,

Wiccan Child questioned my statements on telescope mirror making. Here are some quotes from Jean Texereau, How To Make a Telescope. Though published in 1951 it is still considered the classic text book for telescope optics.

"It often surprises the beginner that some of the most precise surfaces man has made are fashioned by hand, using no machinery whatever, and by a procedure that is almost childishly simple."

"The shaping of high-precision surfaces is governed by two basic principles, and these have been applied consciously or otherwise ever since the stone age; 1) the principle of abrasive action, and 2) the law of averages."

"The work requires at least several thousand strokes; therefore if the motion is applied by hand, and the operator makes each stroke length only approximately correct, then in the long run the errors of individual strokes are compensated to an astonishing degree. We can state, in fact, that the more numerous and varied the operator's errors, the better he will succeed."

And, from the Stellafane Website; teaching people how to make mirrors since 1923.

"Most professional and some amateurs do use machines, but these are simple, rotating spindles to supply the energy for grinding from a motor and not your muscles. You may notice that many commercial telescope advertisements proclaim they use "Hand Figured Optics" - in fact this is one of the best and least expensive ways to get an accurate surface on a mirror - most machines just can't hold the tolerances necessary, and any good telescope optic, including the mirror you could make in your kitchen, should be hand figured."

"In fact, many amateurs choose to make their own mirrors to get Superior optical quality. Figuring optics is labor intensive (which is why good optics cost so much), and some firms choose to stop figuring at "good enough". The amateur can choose to spend a little more time to make great optics."

Peace,

Pastor Bill

Wiccan_Child · May 18, 2012

Bill5612 said:
Friends,

Wiccan Child questioned my statements on telescope mirror making. Here are some quotes from Jean Texereau, How To Make a Telescope. Though published in 1951 it is still considered the classic text book for telescope optics.

"It often surprises the beginner that some of the most precise surfaces man has made are fashioned by hand, using no machinery whatever, and by a procedure that is almost childishly simple."

"The shaping of high-precision surfaces is governed by two basic principles, and these have been applied consciously or otherwise ever since the stone age; 1) the principle of abrasive action, and 2) the law of averages."

"The work requires at least several thousand strokes; therefore if the motion is applied by hand, and the operator makes each stroke length only approximately correct, then in the long run the errors of individual strokes are compensated to an astonishing degree. We can state, in fact, that the more numerous and varied the operator's errors, the better he will succeed."

And, from the Stellafane Website; teaching people how to make mirrors since 1923.

"Most professional and some amateurs do use machines, but these are simple, rotating spindles to supply the energy for grinding from a motor and not your muscles. You may notice that many commercial telescope advertisements proclaim they use "Hand Figured Optics" - in fact this is one of the best and least expensive ways to get an accurate surface on a mirror - most machines just can't hold the tolerances necessary, and any good telescope optic, including the mirror you could make in your kitchen, should be hand figured."

"In fact, many amateurs choose to make their own mirrors to get Superior optical quality. Figuring optics is labor intensive (which is why good optics cost so much), and some firms choose to stop figuring at "good enough". The amateur can choose to spend a little more time to make great optics."

Peace,

Pastor Bill

OK. Not being an optics engineer, I happily defer to the experts. Do you have any comments on my statements about duality and randomness?

NGC 6712 · May 18, 2012

Bill5612 said:
A photon can have mass or it doesn’t, depending upon how you experiment on it.

Only virtual photons can be said to possess mass because of the Uncertainty Principle. It can be negative or positive. But a photon of light is always massless.

Oh - and try grinding a Ritchey–Chrétien hyperbolic primary by hand.

Bill5612 · May 18, 2012

Friends,

"According to quantum mechanics, the simultaneous position and momentum of an electron (or any other particle) cannot be known more precisely than allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle" from Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution by Dina Prialnik, Cambridge University Press 2000.

Dr. Prailnik's book explains how stars work. However, the passage above acknowledges that the forces at work inside of stars are also governed by a certain amount of uncertainty. Thus I will restate what I said in the above post, God uses randomness in God's creation.

If you wish to continue the discussion I have a request. I would like you to include citations that back up what you are saying. I back up what I say by doing research on the subject. I see no reason why I should respond to those who do not.

Pastor Bill

SkyWriting · May 18, 2012

Bill5612 said:
I am working on a telescope mirror making project. I am grinding and polishing an 8” mirror by hand. So far I’ve put about 7 hours of work into it, and I estimate that I will put another 14 hours. These time estimates do not account for me messing up. One screw up will add two or three hours to the work load. Many people have asked me why I am doing this. I have access to a machine that can do the work for me, and I can buy a piece of glass that has been done by a professional company. So, why am I spending so much time on this project? Because I can do a better job than they can. And that is because of the power of randomness. Our hands and arms produce random motion and random pressure. And it’s that randomness that produces a near perfect spherical telescope mirror. A machine just can’t reproduce the kind of random motions our hands can. And the funny thing is we don’t have to try to be random. It happens automatically.

In the world of astrophysics the terms; random, chaos and uncertainty have become an important part of how science describes the creation. Let me give you an example. A photon can have mass or it doesn’t, depending upon how you experiment on it. A photon can be a wave length rippling through the cosmos or it isn’t. A photon can be in two places at once, or it can’t. What matters is how the experiment is set up. Different experiments give seemingly contradictory results. However, photons have to be this way in order to do their job. And that is, to give us heat and light, without killing us. Thus randomness is an important part of how the creation works.

Now us Christians do not like these terms. We believe that God has a plan for everything, and that chaos, randomness and uncertainty do not fit in with God’s plan. For us, these terms fall outside of God’s organized universe. But, what if God uses randomness in God’s creation? Let’s take a look at the book of Ecclesiastes and see what it says about this subject.

If clouds are full of water,
they pour rain on the earth.
Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north,
in the place where it falls, there it will lie.
Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. (Eccl 11:3-4)

This passage acknowledges the seeming randomness of our world. The clouds and rain come when they will; a tree falls where it may. A person who does not work regardless of these chaotic circumstances will not harvest a crop. Here is another passage that explains it further.

As you do not know the path of the wind,
or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb,
so you cannot understand the work of God,
the Maker of all things. (Eccl 11:5)

This passage acknowledges the seeming randomness, the path of the wind, and says that it is all a part of the work of God. And so, randomness is an important part of God’s creation. Just because we don’t fully understand why this is, doesn’t mean that God does not use randomness to make things work. Even chaos is a part of God’s amazing plan.

Soon I will return to the grind stone, literally, and attempt to create my near perfect mirror. Funny, it is the seeming imperfection of how I work that creates the seeming perfection of the star images in my eyepiece. Praise God today my friends, this is how God created the universe.

God bless you,

Pastor Bill
Uncovering God in Everything
First Baptist Church of Rahway

I dated a girl in HS who was a practicing engineer along with her father. She explained that there is no such thing as random. Just motion that we don't understand. Over time, I understood she was right.

There is nothing random about grinding a lens. It takes intelligence.

Can you imagine the amount of random trial and error it would take to get a focused image
on the back of your eye? JUST pick these THREE lines and get them to intersect with random
changes to the lens.

Wiccan_Child · May 18, 2012

Bill5612 said:
"According to quantum mechanics, the simultaneous position and momentum of an electron (or any other particle) cannot be known more precisely than allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle" from Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution by Dina Prialnik, Cambridge University Press 2000.

I agree with this.

Bill5612 said:
Dr. Prailnik's book explains how stars work. However, the passage above acknowledges that the forces at work inside of stars are also governed by a certain amount of uncertainty. Thus I will restate what I said in the above post, God uses randomness in God's creation.

'Uncertainty' doesn't mean 'random'. The Uncertainty Principles are observables that have fundamental limits on how discrete they are - the more discrete the position, the more uncertain the momentum. It's not that the particle has an absolute momentum, and we have limits on how accurately we can measure it - rather, the particle genuinely doesn't have a fixed momentum, as it exists in a superposition of states.

This has nothing to do with randomness. The uncertainty of a particle's momentum refers to its superposition in a number of states of different momenta, that's all. The Principles are also often conflated with the observer effect - perhaps you're thinking of that?

Bill5612 said:
If you wish to continue the discussion I have a request. I would like you to include citations that back up what you are saying. I back up what I say by doing research on the subject. I see no reason why I should respond to those who do not.

Since you yourself provided no citations for your original claims, and it is those claims I dispute, I submit that the onus is on you, not me.

To reiterate:

"A photon can have mass or it doesnt, depending upon how you experiment on it. A photon can be a wave length rippling through the cosmos or it isnt. A photon can be in two places at once, or it cant. What matters is how the experiment is set up. Different experiments give seemingly contradictory results. However, photons have to be this way in order to do their job. And that is, to give us heat and light, without killing us. Thus randomness is an important part of how the creation works."

It seems your saying:
1) Photons have properties X, Y, and Z
2) There properties are indicative of randomness
3) These properties let photons do their God-given job.
4) Therefore, randomness is how God gets things done.

My criticisms are:
1) Your description of the properties is incorrect, or at best misleading. A photon acts like a classical particle in some experiments, and a classical wave in others, but its nature doesn't change.
2) None of the properties you describe actually exhibit randomness. For instance, whether the photon is in a superposition depends on what it's been doing - it's not random.
3) Whether a given photon can do its job (giving us heat and light without killing us) depends on how much energy it has, not on things like wave-particle duality.

So. While you made other errors, your major error is that the properties you describe aren't examples of randomness - the onus is on you to substantiate your claim. In essence, your last statement - "Thus randomness is an important part of how the creation works." - is a non sequitur which you have yet to substantiate.

SkyWriting · May 18, 2012

Bill5612 said:
Friends,"According to quantum mechanics, the simultaneous position and momentum of an electron (or any other particle) cannot be known more precisely than allowed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle" from Theory of Stellar Structure and Evolution by Dina Prialnik, Cambridge University Press 2000. Dr. Prailnik's book explains how stars work. However, the passage above acknowledges that the forces at work inside of stars are also governed by a certain amount of uncertainty. Thus I will restate what I said in the above post, God uses randomness in God's creation. If you wish to continue the discussion I have a request. I would like you to include citations that back up what you are saying. I back up what I say by doing research on the subject. I see no reason why I should respond to those who do not. Pastor Bill

No Problem Bill.
I am thrilled to back up any claim I make.
You should note that your quote has no mention of randomness in it. The book that has influenced your sermon:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Stellar-Structure-Evolution/dp/052165937X

uses the word "random" seven times. Each of the 7 uses should read "seemingly random" for correct precision.
None of those examples are really random. They are just dependent on unknown or unknowable influences.

Heisenberg has not one word to say on randomness. His argument is that such concepts as orbits of electrons do not exist in nature unless and until we observe them.

"The real source of quantum “randomness” is now believed to be the interactions or “entanglements” of particles, whose behavior is in fact deterministic.”http://www.imamu.edu.sa/Scientific_...arity probed by a which-way experiment_01.pdf

SkyWriting · May 18, 2012

Bill5612 said:
If clouds are full of water,
they pour rain on the earth.
Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north,
in the place where it falls, there it will lie.
Whoever watches the wind will not plant;
whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. (Eccl 11:3-4)

This passage acknowledges the seeming randomness of our world. The clouds and rain come when they will; a tree falls where it may.

100% correct.

seeming randomness

Rain can be predicted,
http://www.wikihow.com/Predict-the-Weather-Without-a-Forecast

as can the fall of a tree.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...8DPMM8&sig=AHIEtbR9CpOQIx-KskJy7YXsJlnrUrKF1Q

Bill5612 · May 23, 2012

Friends,

Yup, it looks like I was wrong about photons having mass. I must have confused this with something else I have read. Just shows that I should stay away from quantum physics in my posts. I'll stick with the Bible and astronomy.

Peace,

Pastor Bill

Michael · May 23, 2012

Bill5612 said:
Friends,

Yup, it looks like I was wrong about photons having mass. I must have confused this with something else I have read. Just shows that I should stay away from quantum physics in my posts. I'll stick with the Bible and astronomy.

Peace,

Pastor Bill

It's an honest enough mistake Pastor Bill. Don't be too hard on yourself. Photons are *THOUGHT* (not absolutely known) to contain no 'rest mass' while passing through a vacuum, however, even the MEDIUM that they pass through during the experiment can have an effect on that outcome. It might be more scientifically accurate to say that it has an "effective rest mass" in certain scenarios.

Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Photons inside superconductors do develop a nonzero effective rest mass; as a result, electromagnetic forces become short-range inside superconductors.

Photons certainly contain and carry KINETIC ENERGY, and move various quantified amounts of kinetic energy from one place to another. They do technically have a mass-energy equivalence according to Einstein that is dependent upon the wavelength of the photon.

Massâ€“energy equivalence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not nearly as black and white as it appears at first glance.

Wiccan_Child · May 23, 2012

Bill5612 said:
Friends,

Yup, it looks like I was wrong about photons having mass. I must have confused this with something else I have read. Just shows that I should stay away from quantum physics in my posts. I'll stick with the Bible and astronomy.

Peace,

Pastor Bill

You may have been thinking of neutrinos, their mass is somewhat suspect. Your candor is a refreshing sight on CF, though, kudos.

Michael · May 23, 2012

Wiccan_Child said:
Your candor is a refreshing sight on CF, though, kudos.

Indeed.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

God's Random Creation

Pastor Bill

Contributor

Pastor Bill

Contributor

Newbie

Pastor Bill

The Librarian

Contributor

The Librarian

The Librarian

Pastor Bill

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency