Re: concordism/time

From: James W Stark (stark2301@voyager.net)
Date: Wed Jan 12 2000 - 17:38:01 EST

  • Next message: jeff witters: "*Physical constants"

    Glenn, It's all a matter of perspective and openness to change in what we
    think is the truth. My goal is to seek the truth as God intended, not as we
    intend. All truth is NOT God's truth. There are many brands of truth held
    forth as God's truth. We can only share them with each other and let
    individuals intentionally change themselves. Reason and scientific research
    can not test all truth. We must keep our basic assumptions open to
    questioning. Internal consistency can not establish the truth without
    outside help. Alone it only creates a brand of truth. The constancy of the
    speed of light is only one observation that defines a current measurement
    barrier, not truth in reality. Our estimates of that latter truth are always
    subject to doubt and questioning. The truth of a zero time is only an
    assumption for building a brand of truth. We can not test it.

    > From: glenn morton <mortongr@flash.net>
    > Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 20:53:06 +0000
    > To: "James W Stark" <stark2301@voyager.net>
    > Cc: Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>, asa@calvin.edu
    > Subject: Re: concordism/time
    >
    > At 10:58 AM 1/11/00 -0500, James W Stark wrote:
    >> 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.
    >
    > Dick and Bert did give you the correct answer to why time and space must be
    > considered as one. Even motion of light on a train, as the famous physics
    > problem illustrates, shows that space and time are inseparable.

    Of course, this inseparability is an observed measurement barrier. Science
    naturally has to limit existence to what is measured. We need philosophy
    and religion to reach beyond that barrier. The truth shall always be beyond
    our brands of truth, but science is currently content to look only within
    for its own truth as a loyalty to unity or wholeness. It needs to be come
    God-referencing rather than self-referencing in its design of models.

    > The distance traveled and the time measured vary for different observers.
    > Without space, you can't have time.

     This is true for only measured time. We are free to separate them if it
    will help create a more valid worldview. What we can measure or observe is
    part of God's boundary for our gift of freedom. Much of truth in reality
    exists beyond what we can measure. That is the domain of philosophy and
    religion.

    > However, a question for you. Since you think there is such logical
    > conflicts, have you ever had a course in special relativity--ever read a
    > mathematical book on general relativity?

     You apparently perceive a lack of understanding. That is a natural
    impression of those who question the facts or assumptions. I am a chemical
    engineer and a retired math professor. I was trained as an electronics
    repairman in the ASA (military). My math courses are equivalent to just a MA
    and I have done experimental work in electrochemistry in industry. I read
    many technical books ferreting out the assumptions of scientists. Alas, I do
    not recall taking anything on special relativity. Most of my graduate course
    work even beyond a masters has been educational, philosophical, or
    religious. Have you taken a course on special relativity? Can you suggest a
    special relativity book for me to see the truth that you are pointing at?
    >>
    >>> ***************
    >>>
    >>> 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.
    >
    > According to whom? Where is this evidence? Is it from Barry Setterfield? I
    > just saw that it is from Dolphin Lambert which means it is from Barry
    > Setterfield. I would point you to an article I, Harold Slusher, Tom Barnes
    > and Bob Bartman wrote concerning the craziness that Setterfield's views
    > would bring. It is
    >
    > Morton, G. R., Slusher, H. S., Bartman, R. C., and Barnes, T. G., (1983).
    > Comments on the Velocity of Light. Creation Research Society Quarterly.
    > 20:63-65.
    >
    > Summary: This is a critique of Barry Setterfield's suggestion that the
    > speed of light had decreased. If his formulation of the changes were true,
    > then there should have been 417 days per year at the time of Christ and the
    > earth would have been melted when God created Adam due to the tremendous
    > heat generated by the extremely rapid radioactive decay during the creation
    > week.
    >
    > There is no evidence of any of this (and more as outlined in that article).
    > And you can't claim that this is an evolutionary article because Slusher
    > and Barnes are well known young-earth creationists and when we wrote it, I
    > was also a young-earther. This does not boil down to faith as you say.
    > Setterfields ideas are crazy.

    I'm aware of these writings but I have not bought into them yet. I just like
    the questioning attitude. John D. Barrow has an open mind rather than
    writing off the possibility as nonsense. See Is Nothing Sacred? in New
    Scientist, 24 July 1999. You can see it on the Internet at

    http://www.newscientist.com/ns/19990724isnothings.html
    >
    >
    >> It all comes down to a question of faith in fundamental assumptions.
    >
    > No, it all comes down to observational data which clearly shows that time
    > and space are inseparable. If time and space were not entangled, no
    > cyclotron or linear accelerator would work in the fashion they do.
    > glenn
    >
    I contend that faith undergirds every model be it scientific or not. That
    faith is revealed in the assumptions that are accepted as true but
    untestable. That observational data can only show the limitations God has
    set for us in God's gift of freedom. Many truths are beyond measurement.
    That is why we make so many assumptions.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 12 2000 - 17:38:47 EST