Re: changing c...was: distance and time
>--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, grant hallman <unilogic@p...> >wrote:Victor:
> At 09:17 AM 28-11-04 -0000, Victor wrote:
> >Please note that I am only reading the Bible in its historical >context
> >- using the words as they were understood by students in Peter's >day.
> > I am not trying to fit it to our system of thinking.
> Fine by me - as long as you aren't trying to fit the scientific
> thinking into someone's interpretation of the Bible.
I do indeed reject science as a method for decoding earth history.
Without controversy, ancient documents should be interpreted in their
historical context, not explained with our culture. For this reason
Christians should not tailor the Bible to fit our scientific culture.
Although the modern first principle had been invented when the New
Testament was penned, contradictory first principles (such as Plato's
system) were popular until the Western system became dominant.
Furthermore, the Bible even identifies our first principle and clearly
Someone could ask, if it clearly contradicts it, why do Bible scholars
not discuss this issue? Because, as Paul so clearly warned, the
elementary ideas, the first principles, of the philosophers take away
ones freedom. We learn to think with these elementary ideas in
kindergarten so we do not know how to think like the prophets in the
Bible. It is natural to unconsciously adjust everything to fit your
first principle. Christians do not consciously say, I am going to use
the first principle of a pagan to interpret the Bible. Our education
system hides our first principle, using it continuously without ever
discussing it openly. Christians simply interpret the Bible with our
culture and reasoning, and the vast majority of them probably never
heard of our first principle and how fundamental it is to our whole
way of thinking.
> >Ok let pretend that I am going to define some property of matterVictor:
> >without using Aristotle's assumption. I imagine that something >called
> >mass exists and I define some way of measuring it such as weighing >it.
> > If I do not hold Aristotle's assumption first, I can not be
> >mathematically precise because there is no way to test to see if >this
> >property of matter that I have invented changes. You say we could >put
> >it on a precision scale and keep weighing it and since it stays the
> >same, it must be a permanent property of matter.
> >But wait! Lets imagine that I sealed a bean seed into a jar with
> >water, soil and air, placed it on a precision balance scale and >keep
> >weighing it. The seed starts to germinate and grow but the weight
> >stays the same. Why? Because bean seeds are complex and they
> >interact with their environment in complex ways.
> Well, no actually. The jar and its contents keep the same mass
> a property of matter which doesn't change.
You cannot prove that without holding as self evident that something
in matter is unchanging. Once you are under a first principle, it is
difficult to think apart from it, as we usually make the evidence fit
our basic assumption. Science is a system of making complex
mathematical theories to force fit the evidence to its first
principle. Evidence, however, can be interpreted so much simpler with
biblical principles, without even using mathematics.
A first principle cannot be proved, especially from within the system
of thinking that is derived from it. For example, I cannot prove that
the speed of light in vacuum is a constant, without holding this
assumption as self evident. If everything really was decaying in an
orderly way - together - as Paul states, then dithering motions within
atoms (we call that time), atomic dimensions, "gravity", "mass", the
whole thing could be shifting as a relationship. This is especially
true today, when the assumption that atoms are unchanging defines the
units of measurement. If atoms change as a relationship, every unit
of measurement would shift with it, and we would see constants, not
because they are real, but because we used our assumption to define
them in the first place.
> >You see the opposite of Aristotle's assumption is that matter is aas the
> >complex relationship. Experiments have been going on for over a
> >century with atoms and whatever matter is it sure seems to be complex.
> "Complex", yes.
> > What if I smash two bits of stuff together and pick up the pieces and
> >find that there is only a fraction of the original stuff left. Try it
> >with two high speed protons, and only a fraction of the original
> >"mass" is found after the collision. Try it with a positron and an
> >electron and only light is left. Whatever mass is, it sure does not
> >seem to be some independent property of matter.
> Your examples simply do not show that, in fact the opposite. As long
> matter stays as matter, it retains the same mass. The discovery of"missing
> mass" in particle physics led to successful discoveries of neutrinos andmass-energy is in
> mass-energy conversions, all based on the assumption that
> fact conserved.Victor:
Energy is a nebulous thing that exists in equations and cannot be
separated from matter or light with any experiment. Yet it is
convenient to treat it as a separable entity, but we invented it. It
exists in our minds, not in reality. What the ancients measured, and
what we see in the distant universe, does not fit our rational system.
We even have to invent "dark energy" springing out of the vacuum, that
even contradicts our principles of conservation, in order to force fit
the evidence to our assumption. Simpler explanation: matter decays as
a relationship. In which case, every definition of physics is founded
upon a false first principle.
> > It can evento be
> >disappear. No philosopher has been able to explain duality and non
> >locality - but if matter is a complex relationship - such things would
> >be expected - normal - not radical or incomprehensible.
> Again your conclusions are unwarranted. The examples u cite earlier are
> explainable if mass and energy are both accounted for. For the above
> warranted, you would first have to explain exactly what "matter is a(completely
> complex relationship" actually means, and show quantitatively how that
> would lead to the "expectation" that such things are "normal". Otherwise
> you're just handwaving: "Look, it's so complex, but i have this
> untestable) assertion!".Victor:
I can NOT explain how an e-coli can divide into two identical cells in
20 minutes using millions of complex operations. It takes precise
sequencing to assemble a motor in its bearings and provide a power
system to rotate the flagellum at 270 rev / sec. Even decoding the
DNA would not allow such an explanation because there are even events
that operate on the DNA. However, I could watch e-coli consistently
divide and say it is normal for them to do so as a complex relationship.
I am not hand waving. If anyone thinks they can explain an atom, then
they don't understand how complex they are. Certainly we can
statistically predict the probability of some action, but that does
not explain why. If I try to trick a single subatomic "particle" into
revealing its path through a double slit, it stops doing its quantum
tricks. If I try to find out if it is a particle or a wave like
entity, it switches to fit my measuring device. The act of observing
changes the observed. Yet even the measurement of one "twin" affects
the other "twin" ten kilometers away. Experiments with Bell's
Inequality makes it clear that, whatever matter is, it cannot be
described with local properties. My claim, is that if I interpret
what the Bible says about matter literally - that would be expected
because matter is a relationship NOT MADE of independent or even semi
independent things like mass or energy.
> >What if atoms are like bean seeds in a jar, they are affectingphrase
> >themselves and their environment?
> Of course they are, which is /unlike/ beans in a jar, which /cannot/
> interact with its environment.
> >What if this relationship is
> >shifting, interacting as a relationship.
> What if u finally explained precisely what u mean by this? U use the
> like a magic charm, one size fits all occasions and explains everything,Victor:
> aka nothing. Get specific.
I cannot use mathematical specificity if I deny the first principle.
I can only interpret the evidence with the simplest explanations.
1. Atoms are a complex relationship with light. God made something in
the beginning and it had no form but twice it says it had a surface.
Then God said let there be light and matter took shape. That is very
profound, because atoms sure seem to be a relationship with light.
Charges and motions within atoms appear to be related to virtual
light, internal light that does not escape unless we split the atom -
and then an intense light is emitted as in a nuclear bomb. The God of
the Bible, mentioned the house of light that has a border, whose paths
within its house are mysterious, which is also the place where
darkness dwells. That is the most amazing description of atoms I have
ever read. God in the same passage, also mentioned huge dinosaurs
living in the Jordan that men would not try to capture or kill. This
description of atoms comes to us from the age of the dinosaurs.
2. Every characteristic of an atom is related to the others - nothing
3. Atoms shift internally over the ages. Primordial atoms were
different and yet they were the same substance. The evidence seems to
show that they were more compact yet did not affect each other in the
same way gravitationally as modern atoms.
I will predict what the James Webb space telescope will find. It will
find incredibly dense micro galaxies, shooting out dense balls of
stars that expand into the present version of galaxies. These
objects, like those in the Hubble Deep Fields, will be minimally
affected by gravity as they shoot out equally spaced clumps of stars
in long equally spaced strings. The Bible describes the early sky as
dense like molten bronze and spreading out like hammer blows on metal.
Hammer blows are often "time repetitive." How did the people who
lived in the age of dinosaurs, the earliest ages in the Bible,
describe so perfectly what we would see with our space telescopes.
> >Such changes could not beout?
> >measured with a scale, or in any other local experiment, because even
> >the apparatus and the standards of measurement would be affected.
> Why would they? Why would everything change exactly so as to cancel
The objects you think would need to exactly cancel out, are in fact
defined using Aristotle's ASSUMPTION that something about matter is
unchanging. You are trying to make the data fit your assumption again,
which is normal. Everyone uses their first principle all the time as
the basis of their entire way of thinking. If it is false, the entire
system of scientific reasoning is false from the ground up.
> Followon question: How could things change that way, even if they wanted
> to? Because the properties of mass/energy do not all scale in the same,
> linear fashion. You have never replied to this fatal problem in your
Again, you are assuming that matter is not a relationship. I am a
relationship. Every part of my body is inseparable from the others.
If I try to separate them, I would not function the same as if I am
whole. My mind affects my organs and visa versa and complex chemical
messengers continually affect all the parts TOGETHER. Every part of a
relationship affects the others. No part is independent.
A bee hive is a relationship. Individual bees can be separated, but
they will die apart from the hive, because they are an inseparable
complex relationship. They continually pass chemical messengers from
bee to bee that regulates all the functions of the hive. A hive is a
An e-coli is a complex relationship. Every part works together.
Messengers move back and forth through the incredible complexity of
this "simple" life form. Disrupt one part, such as the cell membrane,
and it dies.
Why in the world should we believe that atoms, that are incredible
complex, are not a relationship? Why should we hold the pagan's first
principle and never, ever question it? After all, the parts of an
atom are continually interacting with each other. Messengers, called
virtual photons, flit back and forth causing complex things we call
charge and motion. According to the scientific system, if "charged"
parts of an atoms tried to move, everything in the universe would
collapse into primordial formlessness because they should loose
"energy" and spiral in. (I am using your definitions as an example, I
am not agreeing they are valid.) Electrons cannot move internally or
the universe would cease to exist. So even motion in an atom, is an
interaction with light which is why Feynman's diagrams are so useful.
Why should I force the whole universe to fit this little untested
assumption that the Bible predicted, everyone thinks is self evident,
and yet the whole universe is clearly demonstrating is false. Or do
you prefer to imagine that the universe is made of 99% undetectable
things so that our first principle can be protected?
> > Allunchanging,
> >the constants of physics depend on this assumption. Peter predicted
> >that this would be the first principle of the last days, and it sure
> >looks like a first principle to me, since every aspect of scientific,
> >mathematical reasoning must start first with this assumption.
> >Everything we see in the universe is complex and interacting with
> >things around it. What right do we have to believe Aristotle that the
> >one thing in the universe that does not change is matter itself?
> You do know that modern science does not assume that matter is
On the contrary, it assumes that the nature of matter is unchanging.
In this scheme, things can change, even be destroyed, but it does not
change its "being." The contradictory system, used by all the
ancients before the Greeks, was that everything, including time, is a
decaying complexity. It is this system that the Bible declares. In
such a system, human knowledge is very limited, however. No matter
how hard we studied, we could not get much beyond what the Bible
declares. We wisest man, according to the Bible, was Solomon. He
declared that even if a wise man study day and night, he can not
discover, he can not figure it out causally. That is what one would
expect if our first principle is false.
> >After all, if we look in the distant universe, we see light from longVictor:
> >ago atoms and they are shifted in comparison to local atoms. The most
> >distant light comes from tiny compact naked galaxies that do not look
> >like anything around here and they do not seem to move like any thing
> >around here. What is simpler, to believe the visible evidence that
> >atoms shift as a relationship, or to invent invisible things so that
> >we never have to admit that the whole system of scientific reasoning
> >is based an assumption that the Bible predicted by we protect at all
> >costs from investigation. Simple explanations are far more likely to
> >be valid than thousands of tons of papers covered with differential
> >equations. It is really simple and obvious if we just believe what
> >the Bible says that matter itself decays in an orderly way.
> "Simple" is only better than "complex" if it is also "correct". You have
> not (and cannot) show that redshift is a result of atoms changing "as a
> relationship". For one thing, if u /could/ show this, u would contradict
> your own requirement that the shift could not be observed.
I am not saying the shift cannot be observed. I said it cannot be
observed locally. When we observe distant primordial atoms, we are
looking at them as they were - we are seeing the past. Local atoms
would shift along with our equipment, they would exists in the same
time frame as we do, and so the changes could not be observed locally.
Example: Isaiah says the earth continually increases in size. Local
experiments could not detect such changes. Even GPS, laser ranging to
LAGOS or VLBI to distant quasars would fail because we use our
definition of time and matter in the mathematical calculations.
However, the simplest kinds of evidence show that the early earth was
indeed much smaller, as I have pointed out in past posts. We could
also look at the evidence on the surface of other planets, such as
magnetic stripes on Mars (that apparently only had a single northern
sea). Distant galaxies and star clusters are invariably smaller and
appear to be expanding and ejecting other dense objects that expand
into more defuse galaxies. You see God can defeat scientific
reasoning even while providing simple non mathematical evidence that
His Word is TRUE.
> >You see, I just took the Bible literally when the Apostle Paul saysVictor:
> >that matter is subject to corruption.
> Yeah - that means rust, wear, decomposition. Phenomena which are well
> understood by science and do not require "special" explanations.
> cheers - grant
No Paul twice uses words to describe this corruption that have to do
with orderliness, like soldiers who obey their orders with discipline
and lined up in formation. He also twice uses together words in Greek
to describe this corruption. Rust is disorderly - chaotic. Different
parts rust at different rates - usually the surface first. If matter
corrupts as Paul states - then every part would have to be affected -
it would have to be together.
Again - as Peter says, the first thing you need to know is the first
principle. Yet Christian schools never mention this historical little
assumption. Why do we enslave our students to think with pagan
principles? Why don't we at least discuss the issue? It is because
we would seem to be foolish? We want to seem scientific. However,
the Bible commands us to embrace foolishness rather than try to be
wise in this age, because then we would deceive ourselves. He even
say He cannot give us wisdom if we think with two minds, James 1.
Thinking with the pagan system and the Bible, both, surely is double
minded. We have tried it for centuries and look where it has gotten us.
Christians - please start thinking about this first principle. He can
even do what the Bible says, He can defeat the wisdom of this age.
All He had to do was do what the Bible says He did, and the evidence
clearly supports. However, we must free ourselves from the pagan's
first principle in order to think biblically about the universe.
I know it is the hardest thing you can do, to examine your first
principle, but it is the most important thing, in the realm of
physics, that you can think about. Think about it.
> > > Daniel: This is inane. According to you we can not measure time.Victor:
> > > However, the Bible clearly states that we can uses the sun,
> > > and stars to measure the passage of time.
> > >
> > Victor:
> > The passage you refer to, Genesis 1:14, does NOT say God gave us
> > sun, moon and stars so we could "measure" the passage of time. Two
> > verbs are used in this verse
> > 1. God "said"- [qal] -to say, to think, to command, to promise;
> > [imperfect] - an action or condition which is incomplete. The
> > imperfect sometimes describes a single action in the past - but it
> > suggests unfinished action. (Either what God commanded is not yet
> > completed - or it is emphasizing the process that was not complete
> > then. Ancient Hebrew did not have verb tenses like past, present or
> > future).
> > 2. to "divide" [hiphil] - to separate, set apart, to make a
> > distinction, difference; [infinitive] corresponding to the "ing" in
> > English. What God placed in the sky keeps on setting apart the
> > and years.
> > 1. This DOES NOT imply that this is a linear process. It is by
> > very nature cyclical and says nothing, in this passage, whether the
> > days and years are equal.
> Daniel: Read the passage again!
> Genesis 1:14
> "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
> separate the day from the night, and **let them serve as signs to
> mark seasons and days and years**"
> Let them serve as signs to mark the seasons and days and years!
Daniel, you seem to be reading more into it than is in the text. It
does not mention time or measuring, just dividing or distinguishing
the days, years and seasons.
1. The creation account in Genesis is from God not man - no human was
on the scene at this stage. It gives the sequence of how God created
the earth, the planets, animals, man, and finally woman.
2. The account mentions the first, second and third day. Each was
marked by a single period of light and darkness, called evening and
morning. No reference is made to how long that was, just that it each
was set apart by an evening and a morning.
3. On the fourth day God made the sun, moon and stars so that they
would be used to DIVIDE and SET APART the days, seasons and years.
By the way, God had already made the building blocks of the "heavens
and the earth" on the first day. No human was there to say what that
matter looked like. On the first day, what he made had no form or
shape until He made light. The evidence shows that atoms are
intimately involved with light so that even the shape of atoms
involves interactions with light.
4. Using the sun, moon and stars to distinguish days etc is a
cyclical system that in no way implies that days and years are
unchanging. In fact Israel himself said that the days and years do
change in Genesis 47:9. Please use the blueletterbible.org site to
look up the grammar and words in the original language.
> > 2) This does not imply that time is a thing. Solomon states thatSorry. I have given references to this in previous posts - it is in
> > put time (`owlam) in our minds (heart and mind are equivalent in
> > ancient languages like Greek and Hebrew). God is not a deceiver by
> > tricking our minds. The concept of time is very useful for
> > categorizing the sequence and arrangement of events. He also
> > us with a conscience that is very useful. In the Bible, time is NOT
> > SOME INDEPENDENT THING. In this passage, Solomon states that this
> > long-time "in our mind" prevents us from understanding how
> > beautifully things worked in the past. He apparently thought, like
> > all the ancients, that the past was superior to the present (things
> > worked beautifully in the beginning).
> Daniel: You keep telling me the Bible says this and the Bible says
> that...yet you never give specific references, why? Try to be more
Ecclesiastes 3:11. I suggest you look up the Hebrew words and grammar
on blueletterbible.org 'owlam - the thing that is in our minds means
> > 3) The Bible repeatedly implies and EVEN STATES DIRECTLY thatVictor:
> > days were longer than later days. The Greek and Hebrew repeatedly
> > states that those few generations between Adam and Christ lived
> > the long ages, the vast eons.
> Daniel: This makes no sense. Thought experiment time!
Societies who have a different concept of time are radically different
from each other (e.g. Mayans). This is doubtless why we are so
different from all previous people because no other people ever
imagined that time is linear.
If we just limited our discussion to Greek, the New Testament, where
words and grammar are more precise than in Hebrew.
chronos aionons - long ages past
pro aion before the ages
telos aion - conclusion of the ages
sunteleia aion - the completion of the ages
peleroma chronos - fulness of time
ekpalai - from the beginning a great while ago - Peter uses this to
say the stars are very ancient..
palai - formerly, a long time ago, ancient time
Repeatedly the Bible uses words that have to do with long time,
ancient time, the long ages but also counts the generations back to Adam.
> If an experimenter travels back to the time of Methuselah (how?Victor:
> magically transported by God) with her atomic clock in hand (as well
> as appropriate astronomical equipment.) What will she measure.
> Note: a second is defined today as 1/86,400 part of the mean solar
> day and is equal (in the international system of measures) to the
> duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to
> the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state
> of the cesium-133 atom.
> Another thought experiment:
> Say our time travelling experimenter takes the worlds oldest man (in
> modern recorded history), when he was a baby, back and places him in
> the crib with baby Methuselah. Assuming that the reason for both
> men's longevity was due to some inherent quality and not some random
> (and nonreproducible) factor in their envireonment. Will Methuselah
> still outlive him by a factor of nearly ten?
You are trying to make the universe fit your assumption. Peter in II
Peter 3:3 - 4 tells us what the most important, the first thing to
know about the thinking of the last days. If you reject the
assumption that matter does not change in being or relationship,
cesium beam transitions are meaningless for decoding the past.
> > Aristotle, known as the father of science, seems to have been the
> > first person to treat time as a separate thing. The idea that
> time is
> > linear is very recent and did not begin til monks in Europe built
> > mechanical clocks that ticked. It was the repetitive sound of
> > clocks that first seems to have suggested linear time. (Using this
> > idea of linear time, the Europeans were able to write down the
> > of music and begin to play multi-part music. The ancients all
> > apparently played the same note together because they did not have
> > idea about time that is essential for our kind of music.) All non
> > Western societies believed time was variable. We are the only
> > civilization anywhere that has imagined that time is linear.
> > > First off we don't call the oscillations of atoms "time." We use
> > > oscillations of atoms to measure the passage time. Before the
> > > age, time we used astronomical standards to measure the passage
> > > time. This was the case throughout most of written human
> > > Even the Bible clearly states that the heavenly bodies can and
> > > used to measure time.
> > >
> > > Genesis 1:14
> > > "And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to
> > > separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to
> > > seasons and days and years,"
> > >
> > > In fact Show us where in the Bible that people back then
> > > things any differently than we do today.
> > >
> > > Leviticus 19:36
> > > "Use honest scales and honest weights, an honest ephah [ 19:36
> > > ephah was a dry measure. ] and an honest hin. I am the LORD your
> > > God, who brought you out of Egypt."
> > >
> > > Oh and one more Biblical quote about your Supposed shifting of
> > > measurements:
> > >
> > > Proverbs 20:10
> > > "Differing weights and differing measures- the LORD detests them
> > > both."
> > Victor:
> > The idea that scales are to use honest standards for weight in no
> > implies that matter is unchanging. Even while they used scales,
> > ancients seemed to all have believed that time and matter were
> > decaying continuously. Their ancestors could lift great megaliths
> > that they couldn't budge. Huge dinosaurs ran around this planet.
> > they were alive today they would have trouble stretching out their
> > necks unless their bones were made of titanium. Actually the
> > of dinosaurs show their bones were porous like birds - yet they
> > massive. Ancient animals tended to be huge - often much larger
> > the modern varieties. Something has changed. The Bible has the
> > answer, but it is the assumption that the pagan Aristotle invented
> > that holds our minds in a vise.
> > Think about it.
> Daniel: As far as I can determine, you are making all this up. Think
> about it? Give me something tangable to think about and I will.
> So far you have offered up zero proof for your claims. Thus I am not
Of course I have offered zero proofs. I am talking about an
assumption. Proofs are based on this elementary assumption and never
go back to prove the first principle - because you cannot prove it.
Look up Isaiah 42:5 and look at the Hebrew verb forms. It says the
earth and everything on it continually spreads out.
Isaiah 44:24 again not only does God continually spread out the
heavens but also the earth. You cannot make a stronger anti-science
statement than to say the earth was smaller in the past and that it
continually stretches and spreads out - uninterrupted action. And yet
the Bible says it. Should we believe what the Bible says - or should
we interpret it with science, the system founded on an idea invented
by a pagan. If you change your first principle, the evidence jumps
into a whole different way of thinking - one in which the Bible is the
only profound system of truth.
Can the God of the Bible defeat scientific reasoning itself? Can He
really make his enemies His footstool, those who say He did not
create? Can He use their own skills to defeat them. (I Corinthians
3:18-20) If you just think about this little assumption, you will see
how He does it.