James W Stark wrote:
>
> ----------
> >From: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
> >To: James W Stark <stark2301@voyager.net>
> >Subject: Re: concordism/time
> >Date: Tue, Jan 11, 2000, 11:33 AM
> >
>
> > James W Stark wrote:
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> >From: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
> >> >To: Dick Fischer <dfischer@mnsinc.com>
> >> >Subject: Re: concordism/time
> >> >Date: Mon, Jan 10, 2000, 10:54 PM
> >> >
> >>
> >> > Dick Fischer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Jim Stark wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Could someone explain the logic of interpretation that asserts time was
> >> >> >created? "In the beginning" implies the beginning position of a sequence
> of
> >> >> >events in time. It does not appear to assert that the position has to be
> >> >> >zero for time. What was created was space and matter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Current Big Bang theory asserts that tme, space, matter and energy all
> >> >> commenced at the singularity. None of the four entities can exist prior
> to
> >> >> the Big Bang event. Time is motion dependent.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dick Fischer - The Origins Solution - www.orisol.com
> >> >> "The answer we should have known about 150 years ago."
> >>
> >> Dick, the Big Bang theory is based on equations that assume projection into
> >> the past. When the density is allowed to approach infinity time does not
> >> become zero. I recall that it was 10 to the minus 42 second. This historical
> >> estimate is totally dependent on the assumption of mathematical regression
> >> into the past. The results are useful for further research but we can not
> >> presume to extend this working model to reality. That is a philosophical
> >> task that requires much discussion and removal of logical conflicts.
> >> Consequently, this theory establishes only circumstantial evidence, whose
> >> use depends on our personal worldviews.
> >>
> >> > ***************
> >> >
> >> > Further, according to the General Theory of Relativity, time and space
> >> > had to have a beginning.
> >>
> >> Bert, science can not "prove" a beginning of anything. What do you see in
> >> that theory that supports a belief that time had to have a beginning?
> >> Examine its equations and assumptions carefully. It also assumes that the
> >> speed of light has always been the same. However, evidence is gathering
> >> that it may have been much faster in the past.
> >>
> >> > If we acc ept both Gen 1:1 and GTR, then it
> >> > makes good reason to understand t=0 as "In the beginning God created
> >> > space-time...." Bert M.
> >>
> >> It all comes down to a question of faith in fundamental assumptions. An
> >> assumption of a beginning for time will require much philosophical
> >> examination to minimize internal conflicts in our personal worldviews.
> >> I have found nothing in science or the Bible that establishes with much
> >> logical force that there was a beginning for time. It can be a useful
> >> assumption, if one chooses to use it. I find that it creates too many
> >> additional conflicts in my personal worldview, but I remain open to
> >> questioning that assumption. Thanks for the feedback.
> >>
> >> Jim Stark
> >>
> >> >
> > **********
> >
> > Evidence is not amassing that time was faster in the beginning.
>
> Oops, you (Massie) misread what I said. I said the speed of light, not
> time. check out Lambert's Library at http://www.ldolphin.org/asstbib.shtml.
>
> For time to go faster we can predict it with a simple equation that Einstein
> wrote, but that is pure speculation that can not be tested. It is only an
> assumption that that equation is valid for speeds close to that of light.
> Equations can not promise truth. -Unless you assume that every equation does
> so. We can use equations to structure any concept we want, but its validity
> as truth has to be tested. The domain of validity for an equation depends on
> controlled research. Extrapolating a model beyond that domain is pure
> speculation that must be tested before we should label it as truth. Dilation
> of time is pure speculation.
>
> > The space-time therom of general relatively forces a begining to time
> > and has driven Hawkings to posit such lunacy as is evidenced in "A Breif
> > History of Time" to avoid a beginning.
> >
> > Bert M
>
> I do not see the forced logic that you seem to be pointing to. Can you give
> me a reference? Perhaps I pointed at it with my comment above.
************************
The equations of general relatively lead to various mathematical
conclusions. One such conclusion worked out by Hawkings and others is
that space-time had to have a beginning. I do not have the reference
handy.
Its like this: Gravity (Newtonian wise) is very very established as a
law of physics (provided we stay within the parameter confines which get
us into realms where the more complete theory of general relatively is
relevant.) A conclusion of Newtonian gravity is that objects released
on the surface of the earth fall in a certain way. No one doubts it.
Now, general relatively is very well established and it should really be
call a law of physics and not a theory. One of the conclusions is that
space-time have to have a beginning. Well, this is impossible to
demonstrate by measurement and this conclusion is challenged by some
inlcuding Hawkings. But, what is Hawkings motivation? He well states
it, "What then for God?" he wants to eliminate this beginning because
he wants to eliminate the need for a God as he sees it.
Yes the "beginning" is an extension of grt but a good one and such
projections are about as good as you can do to discover about origins.
Incidently, the big bang and the beginng of space-time fit a lot of
observables and this is very supportive of believing in the "beginning."
Bert M
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 15:18:33 EST