Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Argument supporting existence of a God

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    What about relativity? Do you think general and special relativity are valid?
    It depends on what you mean by valid.

    Does the math work? Yes.

    Does time actually exist? Again it depends on how you define the term 'time'. Einstein's theories are all based on the idea that time is defined as "what clocks measure". By that definition, his theories are fine so long as you understand that what is commonly referred to as time dialation is really an effect that momentum has on clocks.

    If, on the other hand, you conflate the normal concept of time with the scientific idea of time, as most modern cosmologists do, then you're going to be confused because the concept of time only exists as just that, a concept. Time, in fact, is a convention of language that is used to convey information about the sequences and duration of events. It does not exist in an ontological sense. Clocks exist, time does not. So long as you keep that straight then Einstein's theories are as "valid" as any we have.

    Clete
    sigpic
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
      But as you say below, photons are particles, and it's not parallel to waves on the surface of water, because the photons are traveling the sinusoidal route, this is shown in diffraction of light. And even though the velocity of light along a straight line is limited to c, since the photons are actually traversing a sinusoidal route, they are traveling a greater distance than the straight line, and the greater the frequency of the light, the greater the distance traveled. And so therefore the higher the frequency of the photon, the greater distance its travels and so the greater its average speed, which is therefore greater than c. It must be.
      The phrase highlighted in red is your faulty premise. The photon are NOT taveling a sinusoidal route. That is not happening.

      You are speaking of a partical as though it was traveling along the surface of a wave function. That flat out is not what happens. The photon itself IS a wave function.

      That ought to sound contradictory. If it doesn't then you are not understanding what I'm saying.

      How can a partical be a wave function?

      Answer that question and they'll give a Nobel prize and then shut the Nobel prize making factory down because you'll likely have finished physics.

      I thought the answer is roundly 'nothing.' I thought that it being nothing, is the foundation upon which special relativity rests.
      No, not at all. Relativity doesn't address the issue so far as I understand it.

      Maxwell proved that light was an electromagnetic wave in the mid 1800s and Einstein discovered the photoelectice effect, proving it was a particle in 1905, which is what won him his nobel prize.

      No one has yet answered what light is propagating through or how it makes sense that light is somehow both a particle and a wave.


      And this doesn't negate, but adds to, that light is also definitely a wave.
      It is just as definitely a particle.

      And - just as definitely not a particle.

      It's much weirder than you think...

      sigpic
      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

      Comment


      • Have you heard of the pilot wave theory?
        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
          Have you heard of the pilot wave theory?
          No.

          (FYI: If you don't [quote ] me, it could be days before I see your post, if I see it at all.)
          sigpic
          "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
            Have you heard of the pilot wave theory?
            It looks broadly like a competing interpretation of quantum physics to the 'many worlds' theory.

            btw, so far as I can tell, God is, according to modern physics, a 'non-local hidden variable.'
            "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

            @Nee_Nihilo

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Clete View Post
              The phrase highlighted in red is your faulty premise. The photon are NOT taveling a sinusoidal route. That is not happening.

              You are speaking of a partical as though it was traveling along the surface of a wave function. That flat out is not what happens. The photon itself IS a wave function.

              That ought to sound contradictory. If it doesn't then you are not understanding what I'm saying.

              How can a partical be a wave function?

              Answer that question and they'll give a Nobel prize and then shut the Nobel prize making factory down because you'll likely have finished physics.
              It's coming back to me. I remember crunching through the Schrodinger equation. I never apprehended what it meant, but I crunched the numbers many times. As I mentioned previously, I've come round to Newtonism again, and finally understand the importance of the concept of momentum, and its relation to force and acceleration and kinetic energy and its conservation and all that it means. It was the tie that binds together all the rest of Newtonian mechanics.

              And now I have to return to the subsequent education I didn't receive, that used Newtonism as a reference, by analogy. The Schrodinger equation is in quantum parallel to F=ma in Newtonism, and now that I understand F=ma better than I did before, maybe this time around I'll be able to apprehend quantum. 'Worth a shot anyway.
              Originally posted by Clete View Post
              No, not at all. Relativity doesn't address the issue so far as I understand it.

              Maxwell proved that light was an electromagnetic wave in the mid 1800s and Einstein discovered the photoelectice effect, proving it was a particle in 1905, which is what won him his nobel prize.

              No one has yet answered what light is propagating through...
              So I thought that the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent confirmations positively deny that there can be anything through which light propagates, and that Einstein used this finding as the foundation for special relativity? Can you explain my error here?
              Originally posted by Clete View Post
              or how it makes sense that light is somehow both a particle and a wave.
              I think your answer above, that all we can really say is that it is a wave function, is probably as good as we can get, unless someone can translate what that means into more common parlance.
              Originally posted by Clete View Post
              It is just as definitely a particle.

              And - just as definitely not a particle.

              It's much weirder than you think...

              Fantastically intriguing though. And to think that this is 'all' God made on Day One. Genesis 1:3 KJV
              "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

              @Nee_Nihilo

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                So I thought that the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent confirmations positively deny that there can be anything through which light propagates, and that Einstein used this finding as the foundation for special relativity? Can you explain my error here?
                I don't mean to imply that its not related but I wouldn't say that the M&M experiment was "the foundation for special relativity".

                Both relativity theories have to do with the way the universe looks to different observers who are moving relative to one another and are not specifically about light per se. Light is an important aspect but is not the central theme or subject of the theories.

                I think your answer above, that all we can really say is that it is a wave function, is probably as good as we can get, unless someone can translate what that means into more common parlance.
                No way. Someone will eventually figure it out. That is, of course, assuming that it possible to figure out at all.

                Fantastically intriguing though. And to think that this is 'all' God made on Day One. Genesis 1:3 KJV
                This is what I meant by "assuming that it possible to figure out at all".

                It could well be that the nature of the physical (i.e. created) universe is such that the creatures in it are incable of figuring out the minute details. The nature of God's reality may be both far enough outside our ability to comprehend and sufficiently imposed upon the physical universe so as to make such details beyond our grasp. (Col. 1:17)

                I think, however, that it is wise to assume that we can figure it out and, as a result, keep trying to do so.

                The problem with science today isn't an inability to figure things out but rather an unwillingness to question the scientific establishment for fear of losing one's grant money or ability to publish one's work or just outright losing your job as a scientist.

                Clete
                sigpic
                "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Idolater View Post
                  I thought that the Michelson-Morley experiment and all its subsequent confirmations positively deny that there can be anything through which light propagates.
                  M&M found an orbital velocity of 8kms, not zero. Their experiment did not establish the absence of an aether.
                  Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                  E≈mc2
                  "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                  "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                  -Bob B.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                    I don't mean to imply that its not related but I wouldn't say that the M&M experiment was "the foundation for special relativity".
                    As I understand it, they sought to show the orbital velocity of the Earth by measuring a difference in how a split beam of light behaved differently along paths at 90 degrees to reach other. This was to prove the existence of an aether — through which light propagates.

                    Their contraption was to provide direct observations of "fringe shifts," how light was offset by traveling either with the assumed aether or against it. They thought they failed because their measurements returned an Earth orbital velocity of 8 kilometres per second, which is said to be instrument error in an aether-less universe.

                    However, the information I have is that they missed a step in their calculations (essentially multiplication by 4), so the observation was very close to the orbital velocity of 30kms.

                    Today's interferometers don't do direct measurements, and the aether has been replaced with "spacetime."
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                      As I understand it, they sought to show the orbital velocity of the Earth by measuring a difference in how a split beam of light behaved differently along paths at 90 degrees to reach other. This was to prove the existence of an aether — through which light propagates.

                      Their contraption was to provide direct observations of "fringe shifts," how light was offset by traveling either with the assumed aether or against it. They thought they failed because their measurements returned an Earth orbital velocity of 8 kilometres per second, which is said to be instrument error in an aether-less universe.

                      However, the information I have is that they missed a step in their calculations (essentially multiplication by 4), so the observation was very close to the orbital velocity of 30kms.

                      Today's interferometers don't do direct measurements, and the aether has been replaced with "spacetime."
                      There were actually a few problems with their experiment but others have done it better with results that are, in fact, effectively (statically) zero.

                      The problem isn't with the result but with what the result is assumed to mean.

                      The experiment was intended to detect an aether wind caused by the Earth moving through the eather in it's orbit around the Sun.

                      No such wind was detected but that does not prove that an eather doesn't exist. If an eather exists, we have no idea what it's properties are. We don't know, for example, how it responds to magnetic fields or whether it is effected by the mass of bodies like the Earth. We don't know whether it is rigid (as the M&M experiment tacitly assumes) or whether it flows like a fluid. If it is fluid, how viscous is it? We don't know any of that and all of that would effect an experiment's ability to detect it's presents.

                      For example, if the aether flows like a think liquid that sort of sticks to massive bodies (Picture pushing a spoon through a vat of honey.), then the Earth's movement through it may not create any wind at all near the surface.

                      Perhaps its a fluid that isn't so "thick" but is instead spinning around the Sun the way we are. If so, again, you'd detect no eather wind.

                      Perhaps the eather is captured by magnetic fields and we are carrying a pocket of eather along with the Earth, sort of like the air in your car is held in by the closed windows. Again, just as you detect no wind while driving through air with your windows closed, you'd detect no eather wind if it is captured by the Earth's magnetic field.

                      The point being simply that the experiment did not prove that an eather doesn't exist. But instead of clear thinking, the scientific establishment of the day just took the null result and declared the eather to be nonexistant and effectively stopped looking for a medium through which light could be propagating.

                      Perhaps no such medium exists but we'll never know because no one is looking for it.
                      Last edited by Clete; February 27th, 2019, 10:49 AM.
                      sigpic
                      "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                        Others have done it better with results that are, in fact, effectively (statically) zero.
                        Using laser interferometers.
                        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                        E≈mc2
                        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                        -Bob B.

                        Comment


                        • http://www.relativitychallenge.com/p...s.06302006.pdf
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • If photons are material particles, why do they pass through the glass of a Crookes radiometer?
                            Last edited by Omniskeptical; February 28th, 2019, 08:26 AM. Reason: grammar, clarity
                            John 1:1-2 εν αρχη ην ο λογος At the beginning, it was a word; και ο λογος ην προς ο θεος and a word, it was unto a God; και θεος ην ο λογος and the God, it was.. A word 2 ουτος a-such... 2 ην εν αρχη προς ο θεος ... it was at the beginning unto a God.

                            Yahweh is a word of God, not just Christ!

                            Comment


                            • Very interesting paper. I'm very skeptical of it, however.

                              I mean, I really do want for it to be true because to my mind it would make the world make so much more sense BUT...

                              1. Why isn't it at least written as a formal scientific paper that would at least be eligible for scientific publication? I know that none of the prominent scientific journals would touch it with a ten foot pole but there are other journals that would publish it and then it could at least legitimately proclaim itself to be a published scientific paper. That may not be important to you personally, but it is important in the larger scheme of things.

                              2. I wasn't kidding earlier when I mentioned to someone that Einstein's equations are very robust and, in addition to that, his theories make several predictions that a lot of people have repeatedly tested and shown to be accurate, not the least of which is the fact that the GPS system wouldn't work if they didn't use Einstein's equations to compensate for the different rate at which clock tick in orbit. Additionally, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the fact that General Relativity permitted Einstein himself to calculate the orbit of Mercury which, up to that time, was a big mystery to science because it did things that Newtonian physics said it shouldn't do.

                              3. As I said before, there were some at least potential problems with the MM experiment itself, not just with the math. Any paper that figures out a way for their results to show the expected orbital velocity of the Earth is suspicious for that reason alone. In short, if someone has good reason to believe that the experiment will show the presence and the aether then set it up and run the experiment and show the results. Of all the things I've seen that what to suggest that the MM experiment actually shows an aether, this is the one thing that they all universally have in common. They never rerun the experiment, which would not be that expensive to do, by the way.

                              So, having said all of that, I want to emphasis that I do not dismiss it out of hand. I'm merely skeptical. The first thing I ever read that really got me wondering about the MM experiment was this article about the work done by Dayton Miller. It is to this day, the most persuasive thing I've seen on the subject. Still, it just seems way too conspiratorial to think that the last century of science including the success of Einstein's theories in producing real world practical things like the GPS system and the ability to calculate anomalous orbits of real planets has all been faked somehow or at the least is some sort of miraculous coincidence.

                              Clete
                              sigpic
                              "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                                Very interesting paper. I'm very skeptical of it, however.
                                I would expect nothing less.

                                1. Why isn't it at least written as a formal scientific paper that would at least be eligible for scientific publication? I know that none of the prominent scientific journals would touch it with a ten foot pole but there are other journals that would publish it and then it could at least legitimately proclaim itself to be a published scientific paper. That may not be important to you personally, but it is important in the larger scheme of things.
                                I'm fairly certain Steven has had this paper published. I know he has had others. Maybe at https://www.aip.org?

                                EDIT: Published by Galilean Electrodynamics in May/June 2008.

                                2. I wasn't kidding earlier when I mentioned to someone that Einstein's equations are very robust and, in addition to that, his theories make several predictions that a lot of people have repeatedly tested and shown to be accurate, not the least of which is the fact that the GPS system wouldn't work if they didn't use Einstein's equations to compensate for the different rate at which clock tick in orbit. Additionally, I'd be remiss if I failed to mention the fact that General Relativity permitted Einstein himself to calculate the orbit of Mercury which, up to that time, was a big mystery to science because it did things that Newtonian physics said it shouldn't do.
                                Accuracy doesn't mean that a mathematical model should be accepted as a perfect description of real life.

                                Moreover, the same author elsewhere presents a competing model that he says is more accurate.

                                3. As I said before, there were some at least potential problems with the MM experiment itself, not just with the math. Any paper that figures out a way for their results to show the expected orbital velocity of the Earth is suspicious for that reason alone. In short, if someone has good reason to believe that the experiment will show the presence and the aether then set it up and run the experiment and show the results. Of all the things I've seen that what to suggest that the MM experiment actually shows an aether, this is the one thing that they all universally have in common. They never rerun the experiment, which would not be that expensive to do, by the way.
                                Yeah. I think that is an excellent challenge. We should redo the M&M experiment using modern precision engineering to make their device super accurate. And use the math properly, of course.

                                So, having said all of that, I want to emphasis that I do not dismiss it out of hand. I'm merely skeptical. The first thing I ever read that really got me wondering about the MM experiment was this article about the work done by Dayton Miller. It is to this day, the most persuasive thing I've seen on the subject. Still, it just seems way too conspiratorial to think that the last century of science including the success of Einstein's theories in producing real world practical things like the GPS system and the ability to calculate anomalous orbits of real planets has all been faked somehow or at the least is some sort of miraculous coincidence.
                                I think the success you speak of — and Einstein's work has brought success — has insulated people against investigation. That might explain the seeming "conspiracy."

                                I'm always surprised at the visceral response to challenges issued to relativity theory. Heck, it's just spacetime. It's not like it's the religion of Darwinism or anything.

                                Article about the work done by Dayton Miller
                                Got a link?
                                Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                                E≈mc2
                                "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                                "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                                -Bob B.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X