Author Topic: That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...  (Read 15639 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zeronet

  • Hanger Man
  • 29
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
I don't care if you worship the devil(thats a blatent lie actually, i do care and wouldn't think very highly of you) as long as you don't try and enforce your beliefs on others.
Got Ether?

 

Offline Kamikaze

  • A Complacent Wind
  • 29
    • http://www.nodewar.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I don't care! I'm keeping my beliefs even if they are 'illogical' and contrary to science. HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHHAA

*goes off muttering to self*


Dogma is so wonderful, it's so easy.
Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. - Richard Feynman

 

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I'm personally unconcerned. The physicist and author Gregory Benford had one of his characters say, "God and Heaven exist, or they don't, regardless of our belief or disbelief." That pretty much sums it up for me. I doesn't matter if either exists. I exist in the here and now. I'll worry about those other things when I'm no longer in the here and now.


Ahh, but you are mistaken here. They exist regardless of whether we believe in them or not. It does matter that they exist, it doesn't affect their existance if you believe that to be true. :)

Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
I do believe, however, after reading more of this guy's work and reviewing relativity theory, his idea about dilated time in an inflationary universe explainging six day creation is, indeed, nuts. His idea hinges upon a very important mistake: It requires a universal reference frame.

-- If you accept that there is no universal reference frame (as relativity theory shows), then this man's theory cannot work.

-- If you accept that relativity theory is wrong (and there IS a universal reference frame), then this man's theory doesn't have any scientific basis and cannot work.

Either way, the guy's theory falls down pretty hard based on his own proof.


What's impossible about having a universal reference point with a time-dilated universe? God's the reference point, and He exists outside of both the universe and time. Ergo, problem solved. :)
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich


Ahh, but you are mistaken here. They exist regardless of whether we believe in them or not. It does matter that they exist, it doesn't affect their existance if you believe that to be true. :)

You and I can't prove they exist or don't exist. I don't care either way if they do. Its a matter of belief. You believe and I don't have enough data from which to draw a conclusion. It doesn't matter if I believe. My belief doesn't change the fact of the existence or inexistence. Believing or disbelieving in the existence of Jupiter doesn't change the fact of its existence. Its moot. You think I'm wrong. I think one of us might be. Neither of us can further the debate in a useful manner.

Quote

What's impossible about having a universal reference point* with a time-dilated universe? God's the reference point, and He exists outside of both the universe and time. Ergo, problem solved. :)

Sandwich, dude, this is where I may sound insulting, but I don't mean to. If you don't understand why there is no universal reference frame in relativity theory, you don't understand relativity theory enough to talk about it. Its all comes down to there being no universal reference frame. As an experimental theory, relativity, both special and general,  is the most successful in the history of science. It has been confirmed over and over again that there is no universal reference frame. For the speed of light to be constant (and hey, in any given medium, the speed of light never changes), there cannot be a universal reference frame.

This guy is presenting a theory that claims to stand on a bedrock of relativity theory (for that is what he is doing when he invokes time dilation, etc). That he then ignores its single most important conclusion leaves his work to crumble like a stool with a rotten leg: it looks sound on casual inspection but as soon as you put any weight upon it, the rotten wood gives way.



* btw, that's reference FRAME, not reference point. A quibble, I know.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2003, 11:04:19 pm by 440 »
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Hate to reply to myself, but something just struck me. It is, I think, a truly critical point.

Self-consistency is critical for any scientific theory. If I theory is not self-consistent, it is thrown out. This is what the scientific method is designed to do.

 This guy presents his ideas as a unification of Bibilical tales and modern science. If we are to follow his logic, we are assuming perforce that God does not violate the rules of the Universe that He set up (whether God CANNOT or merely CHOOSES NOT TO break them is not important here.) It follows then, that God does not break the rules of relativity by providing the necessary and impossible universal reference frame.  

If we, instead, assume that God DOES act in such a way that events in the Universe break the rules within the Universe, we can discount this man's theory. In simplest possible terms, it would come down to 'God can do anything He decides,' which throws causality and consistency out the window.

However, our universe IS consistent and causality does exist. Event follows event. Gravity does not suddenly reverse. Light speed is a constant. The Universe is vast and elegant and in all observable cases internally consistent to its own rules (so far as we can understand and observe them). Thus, I again, must say, this man's theory does not hold up.
« Last Edit: September 03, 2003, 11:01:47 pm by 440 »
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
Sandwich, dude, this is where I may sound insulting, but I don't mean to. If you don't understand why there is no universal reference frame in relativity theory, you don't understand relativity theory enough to talk about it.


You're right - I don't really understand relativity theory because I've never studied it. :D Hmm, perhaps I should read that book already. :p
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline Ace

  • Truth of Babel
  • 212
    • http://www.lordofrigel.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
For the speed of light to be constant (and hey, in any given medium, the speed of light never changes), there cannot be a universal reference frame.


Last time I checked, the speed of light in a vacuum was constant. Experiments have shown that the speed of light can change when moving through another medium. But I need to yank out the article as my recollection is hazy.
Ace
Self-plagiarism is style.
-Alfred Hitchcock

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by Ace
Last time I checked, the speed of light in a vacuum was constant. Experiments have shown that the speed of light can change when moving through another medium. But I need to yank out the article as my recollection is hazy.


That's why he said in any given medium. The speed of light does change in different media. Going from vacuum to air slows light down as does going from air to water (which is where you get refraction from).
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline J.F.K.

  • 29
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by mikhael
This guy presents his ideas as a unification of Bibilical tales and modern science. If we are to follow his logic, we are assuming perforce that God does not violate the rules of the Universe that He set up (whether God CANNOT or merely CHOOSES NOT TO break them is not important here.) It follows then, that God does not break the rules of relativity by providing the necessary and impossible universal reference frame.  

If we, instead, assume that God DOES act in such a way that events in the Universe break the rules within the Universe, we can discount this man's theory. In simplest possible terms, it would come down to 'God can do anything He decides,' which throws causality and consistency out the window.


Good points, I think I follow you. Thank goodness no one will ever need to rely on his theory, then. :nod:
.
[font="SerpentineDBol"]. . . . W H O . I S . T H E . M A N , . W H O . I S . T H E . M Y T H ?[/font]

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by Ace


Last time I checked, the speed of light in a vacuum was constant. Experiments have shown that the speed of light can change when moving through another medium. But I need to yank out the article as my recollection is hazy.


c is a constant in any given medium. It is not the samein all media, however. Light moves slower in glass, for example, than air. It moves slower in air than it does in vacuum. It does, however, remain constant within the bounds of the medium it is within.
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
W007!! I can bump this without guilt, since it's been less than a month! :p ;)

Anyway, I wouldn't have bumpped it without having run across an excellent article written by Schroder himself "summarizing" the whole theory.

http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Age_of_the_Universe.asp

Still reading it myself though. ;)
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline diamondgeezer

That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
Still reading it myself though. ;)

What will you do it it turns out to disprove the existance of God?

 

Offline Drew

  • 29
    • http://www.galactic-quest.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
i dont think you can prove or disprove the existance of God...

and this post was dead along time ago!
[(WWF - steroids + ties - spandex) / Atomic Piledrivers] - viewing audience = C-SPAN

My god.. He emptied the gasoline tank from the van onto your cat, lit him on fire, threw him in the house and dove for cover.  :wtf: Family indeed.  ~ KT

Happiness is belt fed.

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Sandwich, I'm glad you bumped this. Its one of my favorite religious/scientific topics for a long time.

This was a good read. The expanded version of this theory made a few things clearer. In the end however, it only reconfirmed my sincere belief that the author is mistaken. His theory makes for wonderful philosophy, but very poor science.

Quote
From the article:

"What is your concept of the age of the universe?" Now, in 1959, astronomy was popular, but cosmology - the deep physics of understanding the universe - was just developing. The response to that survey was recently republished in Scientific American - the most widely read science journal in the world. Two-thirds of the scientists gave the same answer. The answer that two-thirds - an overwhelming majority - of the scientists gave was, "Beginning? There was no beginning. Aristotle and Plato taught us 2400 years ago that the universe is eternal. Oh, we know the Bible says 'In the beginning.' That's a nice story, it helps kids go to bed at night. But we sophisticates know better. There was no beginning."

Is this a quote? If it is not, it should not be presented as a quote. By 1959, any scientist who understood Einstein's equations had already seen that one of the primary solutions explicitly required a start at singularity. I'd really like to see the data from this Scientific American survey. Regardless, the article should present this as a synthesis, rather than as a quote.

Quote
From the article:

That was 1959. In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered the echo of the Big Bang in the black of the sky at night, and the world paradigm changed from a universe that was eternal to a universe that had a beginning.

Penzias and Wilson confirmed the echo. The echo was postulated long before, as a consequence of a the singularity solutions of Einstein's equations.


Quote
From the article:

Science had made an enormous paradigm change in its understanding of the world. Understand the impact. Science said that our universe had a beginning, that the first word of the Bible is correct. I can't overestimate the import of that scientific "discovery."

And not just the Bible, but beliefs of other cultures dating as far back a 5000BC (Chinese) and 6000BC (Egyptian) and 7000BC (Mesopotamian). In fact, there is a plethora of pre-judeochristian ideologies that postulate a beginning to the Universe. From a strictly secular point of view, why is the version in the Torah preferred to the creation myths of these other cultures?

There follows a long bit of religious rationalization with no accompanying scientific inquiry. I will not touch that. it is the realm of the theologians.

Quote
From the article:

Because from erev to boker is a flow from disorder to order, from chaos to cosmos. That's something any scientist will testify never happens in an unguided system. Order never arises from disorder spontaneously. There must be a guide to the system. That's an unequivocal statement.

Actually, any competent physicist will tell you that order can arise spontaneously for chaos--and commonly does. Stars and solar systems are examples of order that arose from chaos. The secret to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy increases)  is that it does NOT say that order cannot form from chaos. It says that in a given system the overall entropy increases. Any decrease in entropy in one region will immediately give rise to an increased amount of entropy in another region. Thus, the entire system continues to become more entropic as a function of time.

Quote
From the article:

Order can not arise from disorder by random reactions. (In pure probability it can, but the numbers are so infinitesimally small that physics regards the probability as zero.)

This is a misunderstanding of propability. For order to arise from chaos in a single region in a vast universe, the propability is near zero. Over the entire universe, the set of all possible regions, containing all possible matter, the probability approaches 1.

Quote
From the article:

Science has shown that there's only one "substanceless substance" that can change into matter. And that's energy. Einstein's famous equation, E=MC2, tells us that energy can change into matter. And once it changes into matter, time grabs hold.

This is a misunderstanding of Einstein's thoeries. Time exists as soon as matter OR energy exist. Time exists for energy--it must, elsewise quantum effects like tunneling could not take place! Photons are quanta of light, pure energy. They are emitted and absorbed over time by electrons. Without this, electrons couldn't make quantum leaps to different energy levels and molecular bonding could not take place.  If you wish to argue strictly, time is infinite in the reference frame of a photon. Outside the reference frame of the photon, time is not infinite. In both frames, however, it does exist.
There is logically and mathematically a distinct difference between 'infinite' and 'non-existent'. Mathematically, just imagine a graph of a curve. When the tangent becomes vertical, the slope of that tangent does not exist (it is undefined). Where the tangent has no slope (the slope has become zero), the graph continues on to infinity, unchanged. These are distinct. Logically, imagine a box in an otherwise perfect vacuum. Within the box is an enclosed space. This space is either a vacuum (it utterly empty) or it has at least one atom in it (it is not empty). It is a binary state: empty or not-empty. Likewise, does-not-exist and infinite (or exists) are binary.

What follows is an interesting thought experiment with a laser at the beginning of time being shot at the Earth, one pulse per second. 15billion years down the line would we see one pulse per second? No, because in an inflationary universe, space itself between pulses gets stretched out, making the distance longer. Thus the first packet would reach us at t=0, and the second packet would reach us not at t=1, but at t=1+[however long it took to travel the expanded distance]. Indeed, it would take longer and longer for each packet to arrive. But this is true from both points of view. In the Earth reference frame, the source is receding at speed, causing a red-shift in the beam. Its getting farther and farther from us, so each pulse is delayed a little bit by the expanding space. From the reference frame of the source, EARTH is receding. This is an important consideration because it shows that there is no absolute reference frame. In order to ensure that the earth recieved a pulse-per-second, the source laser would have to fire faster and faster (trending toward infinitely fast pulses, limiting at the planck time) . Those six days are still 13-21 billion years, no matter where you sit. You cannot accept the time-space dilation implications of relativity without accepting the implication that there is no absolute reference frame. The one leads to the other.

In the final section, the author discusses time dilation in inflationary universes with respect to a reference frame that exists within that universe. This is where the author makes a very large mistake:

Quote
From the article:

Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half.

Only if the observer in question is in an absolute reference frame. If the observer is in a relative reference frame, the perception of time is constant. Only in an (impossible) absolute reference frame could an observer see time and space dilating with respect to each other. Since, however, relativity (the very same relativity that allows for time dilation and initial singularities) does not allow for any sort of absolute reference frame, this is impossible.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2003, 12:45:27 pm by 440 »
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

 

Offline 01010

  • 26
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
I think my head just exploded.
What frequency are you getting? Is it noise or sweet sweet music? - Refused - Liberation Frequency.

 

Offline Woolie Wool

  • 211
  • Fire main batteries
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Mikhael's post made perfect sense to me.
16:46   Quanto   ****, a mosquito somehow managed to bite the side of my palm
16:46   Quanto   it itches like hell
16:46   Woolie   !8ball does Quanto have malaria
16:46   BotenAnna   Woolie: The outlook is good.
16:47   Quanto   D:

"did they use anesthetic when they removed your sense of humor or did you have to weep and struggle like a tiny baby"
--General Battuta

 

Offline Sandwich

  • Got Screen?
  • 213
    • Skype
    • Steam
    • Twitter
    • Brainzipper
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
I'll respond to the one part that I both understood and is, from what I can see, the core issue.

Quote
Originally posted by mikhael


In the final section, the author discusses time dilation in inflationary universes with respect to a reference frame that exists within that universe. This is where the author makes a very large mistake:

[q]from the article:
Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half.
[/q]
Only if the observer in question is in an absolute reference frame. If the observer is in a relative reference frame, the perception of time is constant. Only in an (impossible) absolute reference frame could an observer see time and space dilating with respect to each other. Since, however, relativity (the very same relativity that allows for time dilation and initial singularities) does not allow for any sort of absolute reference frame, this is impossible.


The theory goes that the Creator is the absolute reference. And since, according to the Bible/tradition, He is the one who dictated the story of the 6 days of creation to Moses, His POV is used.

Imagine time as a (very long) airport slidewalk (not sidewalk). We are all stationary in relation to our anchor point on the slidewalk. This slidewalk has white lines across it every meter, representing a relative 24-hour "day". But way back at the beginning of the slidewalk, the rubber is stretched out, whereas at the point where we are positioned, it is "normal".

Now a "day" as marked in white lines at our position is one absolute meter (compared to the floor on the sides of the slidewalk) in length. But back towards the beginning, that same "day" occupies far far more absolute length than it does "now". However, because we are limited to the slidewalk, we look back along it's length and count not the white lines but the distance. We mentally project ourselves back along the length of the slidewalk and imagine that the meter-long step we take in the "present" will be the same distance (not time-white-lines-distance, but meters-distance) back at the beginning. What we forget is that since we are bounded by the slidewalk, as we travel back along it, we stretch out as well.

And in the meantime, what does our absolute observer see? Why, nothing but a "day" lasting a thousand years on the one hand, and on the other... a thousand years lasting a mere day. :) He counts the white lines:

Code: [Select]

|                                                        |                        |          |    |  | |
|                                                        |                        |          |    |  | |


6 literal days of creation that lasted 16 billion years.
SERIOUSLY...! | {The Sandvich Bar} - Rhino-FS2 Tutorial | CapShip Turret Upgrade | The Complete FS2 Ship List | System Background Package

"...The quintessential quality of our age is that of dreams coming true. Just think of it. For centuries we have dreamt of flying; recently we made that come true: we have always hankered for speed; now we have speeds greater than we can stand: we wanted to speak to far parts of the Earth; we can: we wanted to explore the sea bottom; we have: and so  on, and so on: and, too, we wanted the power to smash our enemies utterly; we have it. If we had truly wanted peace, we should have had that as well. But true peace has never been one of the genuine dreams - we have got little further than preaching against war in order to appease our consciences. The truly wishful dreams, the many-minded dreams are now irresistible - they become facts." - 'The Outward Urge' by John Wyndham

"The very essence of tolerance rests on the fact that we have to be intolerant of intolerance. Stretching right back to Kant, through the Frankfurt School and up to today, liberalism means that we can do anything we like as long as we don't hurt others. This means that if we are tolerant of others' intolerance - especially when that intolerance is a call for genocide - then all we are doing is allowing that intolerance to flourish, and allowing the violence that will spring from that intolerance to continue unabated." - Bren Carlill

 

Offline Setekh

  • Jar of Clay
  • 215
    • Hard Light Productions
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich
The theory goes that the Creator is the absolute reference. And since, according to the Bible/tradition, He is the one who dictated the story of the 6 days of creation to Moses, His POV is used.


I've read and I think I really understand. The implications of having God outside the time continuum are pretty profound, especially for stuff like predestination and free will. Errr, anyway, that's about all I want to add to this conversation, or I'll make a fool of myself. ;)
- Eddie Kent Woo, Setekh, Steak (of Steaks), AWACS. Seriously, just pick one.
HARD LIGHT PRODUCTIONS, now V3.0. Bringing Modders Together since January 2001.
THE HARD LIGHT ARRAY. Always makes you say wow.

 

Offline mikhael

  • Back to skool
  • 211
  • Fnord!
    • http://www.google.com/search?q=404error.com
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Quote
Originally posted by Sandwich

The theory goes that the Creator is the absolute reference. And since, according to the Bible/tradition, He is the one who dictated the story of the 6 days of creation to Moses, His POV is used.

You missed the whole point. If relativity is correct (and hey: its the most successful theory in the history of science. its has never once failed to predict the results of an experiment on non-quantum scales), then there can be no absolute reference frame. Its an impossbility. For there to be an absolute reference frame to exist, it must exist outside the Universe. If you introduce an absolute reference frame anywhere in the Universe (where you could observe the laser), then relativity would, perforce, be false. If the reference frames of the laser source and laser destination and the laser observer (your postulated God) are not in the same universe (and in this case only two can be: the laser source and the laser target, God's absolute reference frame must be external to time and space entirely), then no meaningful statement can be made about how the observer (God) sees the events.

By taking God as an absolute reference frame, you're essentially taking the discussion outside the realm of physics and scientific inquiry. You have as much as said that the only way this theory can work is if God is immune to the laws of physics.

You have effectively proven that the theory cannot stand up in the face of scientific inquiry without introducing an element (God) which can violate the framework specified by the theory. Therefore the theory fails to be internally consistent and cannot be used in any sensible way and must be dismissed.

The theory is interesting and, indeed, could be used as the basis of a great story, but it is not consistent with the science or the Universe, despite what the guy claims. I will not argue about the Creation of the Universe itself, mind you. I will only claim that this guy's theory is broken and invalid.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2003, 12:02:29 pm by 440 »
[I am not really here. This post is entirely a figment of your imagination.]

  

Offline Nico

  • Venom
    Parlez-vous Model Magician?
  • 212
That Theory About Creation vs. Science I Mentioned...
Mike, you love arguing much more than I do, obviously?
Ever heard about Don Quichote? :)
SCREW CANON!