Starlight in a Young Universe

by Perry 46 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Perry
    Perry

    The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.

    Secular Materialists often change their ideas on exactly how things have made themselves, but never whether they did.

    The manifesto for this self imposed mental ban seems to be summed up by geneticist Richard Lewontin:

    ‘Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.


    It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

    For those of us that are not predisposed to implementing this self-imposed mental prohibition; Consider the seeming paradox of Starlight in a Young Universe:

    Consider that the time taken for something to travel a given distance is the distance divided by the speed it is traveling.

    That is:

    Time = Distance (divided by) Speed

    A=B/C

    The manipulation of either a, b or c could effect the perception of distant light. Let's assume that the speed of light (c) has not changed, what would a universe look like where time and distance were manipulated?


    In fact, Einstein’s relativity theories have been telling the world for decades that time is not a constant.
    Two things are believed (with experimental support) to distort time in relativity theory—one is speed and the other is gravity. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the best theory of gravity we have at present, indicates that gravity distorts time.

    This effect has been measured experimentally, many times. Clocks at the top of tall buildings, where gravity is slightly less, run faster than those at the bottom, just as predicted by the equations of general relativity (GR).

    However, if the universe has boundaries, then there is a net gravitational effect toward the center. Clocks at the edge would be running at different rates to clocks on the Earth. In other words, it is no longer enough to say God made the universe in six days. He certainly did, but six days by which clock?


    There appears to be observational evidence that the universe has expanded in the past, supported by the many phrases God uses in the Bible to tell us that at creation he “stretched out” (other verses say “spread out”) the heavens.

    Article

    It is important the admit here that even without an understanding of gravitational time dilation, the reality of the existence of God and of his limitless capabilities would not be diminished or threatened in any way. Though God made us with the capability to understand much of his character, he is infinite and we are not. Because of this reality, we will never surpass the mind of God, or approach his equal.

  • punkofnice
    punkofnice

    Hi, Perry. How are you?

    I'm sure you'll get some interesting comments about the above. I have to say it was a little bit too much reading for me.

    Edit to clarify - heady reading...and I feel too tired to concentrate.

  • nicolaou
    nicolaou
    Between Perry and Slimboy newbies have a lot of nonsense and pseudo science to navigate around.
  • Island Man
    Island Man

    The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis

    Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.

    A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.

    A faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith statement is seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any evidence disproving a faith statement. A faith statement is almost antithetical to a scientific hypothesis. Just about the only thing they have in common is that they're both statements.

    Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith statement is just ridiculous.

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis

    Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.

    A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.

    A faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith statement is seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any evidence disproving a faith statement. A faith statement is almost antithetical to a scientific hypothesis. Just about the only thing they have in common is that they're both statements.

    Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith statement is just ridiculous.

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis

    Wrong. A hypothesis is not comparable to a faith statement.

    A hypothesis is an idea put forward as a possible explanation for a phenomenon. The idea is then subjected to tests designed to disprove it.

    A faith statement is a claim put forward as truth that must be accepted with confidence and not doubted. Attempting to disprove a faith claim is seen by theists as a bad thing and theists will often reject any evidence disproving a faith claim.

    Sorry, but comparing a hypothesis to a faith claim is just ridiculous.

  • talesin
    talesin
    The Scientific Method begins with a faith statement called a hypothesis, and then goes on to look for evidence, for or against support of the faith statement.

    No, Perry, the scientific method begins with a question, which is then researched. Evidence is gathered, and an hypothesis *may* be formed, which is then tested. Data is analyzed, and a conclusion may be drawn.

    You have to start your point with an accurate statement. So, the scientific method (which actually was highly influenced by and follows the *Socratic Method* does not involve faith of any kind, nor is an hypothesis a 'faith statement' - far from it. xx tal

  • juandefiero
    juandefiero

    So, nothing can travel past the speed of light, they say.

    What about a wheel? the center of the wheel travels at a certain speed, but the outside of the wheel goes faster than the center.

    The larger the diameter of the wheel, the faster the outside goes.

    so, one would only have to create a big enough wheel, and accelerate the hub to a certain speed...whereas the outside would be going even faster.

    I suppose physics would prevent you from accelerating the hub to the speed required to get the outside going FTL.

    Nevermind.

    I had 3 Red Bulls this morning. Don't mind me.

    Although, if I have one more Red Bull, I'll be moving faster than light.

    If wheels turn at the speed of light, why are there still wheels?

    **drops mic**

  • Island Man
    Island Man

    Regarding your Richard Lewontin quote. There is a reason why scientists are committed to materialism - it's testable and it works. You can't say the same for mythology and superstition.

    Richard Lewontin was basically saying that we cannot give up sound Math and Science - no matter how counter-intuitive the conclusions - to accept fanciful, unproven and unprovable myths and superstitions. Reality always trumps make-believe.

  • OneEyedJoe
    OneEyedJoe
    Thanks Perry. I'm now stupider for having read that.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit