Posted on 05/29/2015 2:32:28 PM PDT by lbryce
I will respond this once to you. Give a look to the work of Berry Setterfield.
bb & A-G and I have discussed cosmology and the wonders of God's creative design (including relativistic effects) at such great length that we sort of communicate in a form of "shorthand".
There was nothing in your #81 with which I had serious disagreement. In fact, thanks for the mention of Berry Setterfield. Did I miss a link to his work?
And yet Einstein took pains to point out that the laws of nature are the same for all (relativistic) observers, regardless of their particular "inertial frame."
And the laws of nature seem to reflect the uncanny cooperation of a finite number of indispensable universal constants, so much so that we can speak of "fine tuning" of the physical universe/multiverse.
Anyhoot, time happens to be one of those indispensable universal constants. In physics, it is a measure known as Planck time:
The Planck time is the time it would take a photon travelling at the speed of light to cross a distance equal to the Planck length [1.6 x 10–35 meters]. This is the 'quantum of time', the smallest measurement of time that has any meaning, and is equal to 10–43 seconds. — Dan Summons, Physics Undergrad Student, UOS, Southampton, at PhysLink.com: Physics and Astronomy OnlineWhat I’m trying to get at is: if C is variable, it cannot serve as a constant measure of anything. This is true of all the other universal constants as well. Moreover, and significantly, if you change the time value, you affect the length (space) value.
If one “constant” changes in value, then it seems to me all the other physical constants must “adjust” accordingly in order to preserve the on-going unity of the physical universe — in ways accessible to the human mind, which is finite and limited.
To say that there are universal physical constants operating to produce the integrated whole of the universal system is to say that the universe itself is subject to limits. And that is to say that there is no explanation for it as a random development.
If time — C, the speed of light, with a value of 299,792,458 meters per second — is indeed “slowing down,” or decaying as Setterfield avers, then Planck length (space) must (?) be increasing commensurately. Perhaps this accounts for the accelerating expansion/inflation of the universe that physicists have observed in recent times?
Anyhoot, I do not have a clue whether Setterfield’s notion of C decay holds water. But if his insight is correct, a great many long-cherished presuppositions of physics will need to be revisited and scrutinized.
We still await the unification of the Relativity and Quantum theories….
Just some thoughts, dear brother in Christ. Thank you so very much for sharing your insights!
Indeed, dearest brother in Christ!
Entropy is the reason why there are no perpetual motion machines in Nature.
Perpetual - Another wiggy concept..
Presently there are about ten to the sixty-third 'virtual particle pairs' per cubic meter of space. This figure would be mmuucchh smaller with less stretch energy in a smaller 'volume' of spacetime. Scripture says He is going to roll up the heavens, eventually. Imagine if you can what God can do with so much energy if he conserves it as He rolls up the tent, I mean the heavens!
Bttt
Not to mention that those kind of incredible changes in energy and/or mass could not have been hidden from our modern telescopes. We'd be seeing them every time we looked at distant galaxies.
Shalom
Imagine a cubic meter of spacetime. Today that cubic meter contains 1063 virtual particle pairs popping in and out of existence. A photon traveling through that cubic meter of particles will collide with some of these and the more collisions the slower is the time to traverse the cubic meter. In the past the number of virtual particle in such a cubic meter were less, since the stretch was not as great back then. The energy of the stretching of the volume of spacetime then is convertible by E=mc2 so the virtual particle count is lower earlier in the Universe's History, but growing exponentially.
The energy output of the sun in Adam's day would have proportionally less based upon the mechanism of the zpe being less dense then. Betty boop mentioned no naturally occurring perpetual motion machines. The electron orbiting a nucleus is radiating energy. If the zp field were not replenishing this energy radiated the electron would plummet into the nucleus. It is not perpetual motion since the energy to sustain the orbit is being supplied continuously by the zp field. The inertial forces on all mass in the Universe arise from the zpe interactions with the particles making up the masses.
Thank you for your question, Rabbi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM1fJF7IIUs&list=PL92CC6C4FFD70D276
Thank you ever so much, dear brother in Christ, for fleshing out the details of your thought!
You call to mind certain passages in David Bohm's magisterial Wholeness and the Implicate Order [1980, 2002; p. 241f] that seem directly relevant to the problems of universal spacetime that we are envisioning here under certain precepts of Barry Setterfield. [I note there are no citations to Bohm in Setterfield's paper.]
...[I]f one applies the rules of quantum theory to the currently accepted general theory of relativity, one finds that the gravitational field is also constituted of such 'wave–particle' modes, each having a minimum 'zero-point' energy. As a result the gravitational field, and therefore the definition of what is to be meant by distance, cease to be completely defined. As we keep on adding excitations corresponding to shorter and shorter wavelengths to the gravitational field, we come to a certain length at which the measurement of space and time becomes totally undefinable. Beyond this, the whole notion of space and time as we know it would fade out, into something that is at present unspecifiable. So it would be reasonable to suppose, at least provisionally, that this is the shortest wavelength that should be contributing to the 'zero-point' energy of space.We humans may be on clocks and watches; but this plenum isn't.
When this length is estimated, it turns out to be about 10–33 cm. This is much shorter than anything thus far probed in physical experiments (which have got down to about 10–17 or so). If one computes the amount of energy that would be in one cubic centimeter of space, with this shortest possible wavelength, it turns out to be very far beyond the total energy of all the matter in the known universe.
What is implied by this proposal is that what we call empty space contains an immense background of energy, and that matter as we know it is a small, 'quantized' wavelike excitation on top of this background, rather like a tiny ripple on a vast sea. In current physical theories, one avoids the explicit consideration of this background by calculating only the difference between the energy of empty space and that of space with matter in it. This difference is all that counts in the determination of the general properties of matter as they are presently accessible to observation. However, further developments in physics may make it possible to probe the above-described background in a more direct way.... [T]his vast sea of energy may play a key part in the understanding of the cosmos as a whole.
In this connection it may be said that space, which has so much energy, is full rather than empty....
It is being suggested here, then, that what we perceive through the senses as empty space is actually the plenum, which is the ground for the existence of everything, including ourselves. The things that appear to our senses are derivative forms and their true meaning can be seen only when we consider the plenum, in which they are generated and sustained, and into which they must ultimately vanish.
This plenum is, however, no longer to be conceived through the idea of a simple material medium, such as the ether, which would be regarded as existing and moving only in a three-dimensional space.... [À la Newtonian mechanics.]
Please note: this plenum is not God. I daresay it is only His "image," or maybe better to say, His shadow....
Thank you so very much, dear brother in Christ, for your deep, sustained, and penetrating interest in the fundamental problems of cosmology! Please keep up the excellent work, and keep me posted on developments!
You probably already saw that readmissions should read re-emissions.
But let's think about this for a second as a thought experiment: You're having to posit that light was traveling a couple million times faster (at least) at the time of Adam. So, 2 million squared equals 4,000,000,000,000 (4x10^12, or four thousand billion) times the amount of radiant energy from the sun. So to absorb all that extra energy, you're positing that the universe was 4x10^12 times smaller at that time so as to create the necessary particle density. Congratulations, you now have everything in the visible universe (about 30 billion light-years) condensed into an area the size of our solar system only six thousand years ago.
Consequences:
- It's too hot for matter to form, especially with the increased energy output from the increased speed of light.
- The speed at which the universe would have to expand to get to its current size is so fast that it tears apart atoms, let alone stars and planets. We have a universe today with nothing but thinly diffused hydrogen at best.
- Since the speed of light affects chemistry, you can't get the fine-tuning required to maintain biological life.
- You require constantly shifting laws of physics throughout history. Yet the Bible points to the consistency of the laws of physics as proof of the consistency of God in his moral laws and covenantal fidelity.
And all this because you are insisting on a woodenly literal reading of the English translation of Genesis. None of this is necessary to someone who understands the original Hebrew.
I'm a huge Chuck Missler fan--he got me to take the Scriptures seriously and opened up a whole world to me back in the day--but he's just plain wrong on this. And so is Setterfield. His own biography admits that he never completed his university studies in physics and geology. That's not to say that this automatically invalidates his ideas, but rather that I would want to see his math checked by someone who has the expertise to do so. Go talk to a Christian astrophysicist like Hugh Ross--or even Danny Faulkner, if you insist on having a Young-Earth Creationist. Faulkner admitted years ago in a debate with Ross hosted by John Ankerberg that speed-of-light decay wasn't a feasible defense of YEC. In fact, he admitted that YEC doesn't have a valid physics model.
When even YEC astronomers object to Setterfield's hypothesis, that tells you how weak the position is.
Shalom
Can you explain why electrons do not radiate all their energy away or protons lose all their energy interfacing with the electrons? The Setterfield explanation fits the evidence rather than the 'consensus' to which you obviously cling in poking at me and the theory.
Haisch, Rueda, and Puthoff have published peer reviewed papers dealing with the implications of inertia arising from the zero point field. Once you've perused those perhaps we can have a more civil discussion.
But thank you for your response, Rabbi. It makes yet another opportunity to point int he direction of changing conceptualizations which better fit the Bible. BTW, I have been following Hugh Ross's offerings for a significant time and do not agree with him on all things he posits. Should I take it that you do take all his offerings as correct?
["Readmissions" did not make sense in the given context.]
On the other hand, one might start by saying that LIFE is a FACT of our universe. To me, it is a gift of a loving God, pure and simple.
A doubter about this might say that the "fine-tuning" of life is a matter of "chemistry." But this would be to back-handedly acknowledge that LIFE is something derivative from something more fundamental (i.e., the laws of chemistry). Of something "downstream" from a yet unidentified source, which Science does not feel lies in its own field of competence to explore.
So, why buggman, do you believe atoms themselves are torn part by the current definition of C? What do you think would happen if C "slowed down?" Or "accelerated," for that matter?
To me, your proposal leaves anything that is “real” in the universe up to the playing out of totally undirected, ultimately chaotic forces.
The result of “thinly diffused hydrogen at best” can hardly account for the actual universe that human beings normally perceive, in logic and experience. This is a universe that is capable of fostering life. Some have said it is a “living universe.”
But “life” never boils down to mere “chemistry” in its actions.
BTW, I do NOT insist that the consistency of the universe requires constantly shifting laws of physics throughout history. Rather I believe a universe can only form and be held together over humanly-understood time by means of universal laws and constants that do not vary over time.
Having said all of the above, I still do not understand what your “grievance” is with my original argument. I would be so very, sincerely glad, if you could/would share the details that constitute your point of view, in opposition to mine.
Can’t wait to hear from you again. Thank you so much for writing!
“something “downstream” from a yet unidentified source.....”
What a concept.. the bubbling babbling stream of logic.. i.e. down stream / up stream..
The Information data stream..
1) is there something nasty dead in the stream or just pissing?..
2) is the stream clean pristine and pure?...
3) drinking it can you become sick, or refreshed?..
4) are there proverbial fish in the stream?..
5) Crayfish, algae?...
6) is it a brooke, stream or river?..
7) where does information come from anyway?..
***
As the Universe expands (and it is accelerating, some scientists claim) it adds 'potential energy' tot he spacetime zero point field. This energy generates virtual particles that pop in and out of existence so fast that they can't even be registered on measuring device now. If the electromagnetic events we sense are effected by the existence of these 'particles' then the increase in numbers of them effects the speed at which an electromagnetic phenomenon works out. Less virtual articles to collide with, faster transit time from a to b ... and since it is now nearly certain that the zpe is the source of inertia and therefore gravity ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.