Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Time Dialation

Expand Messages
  • TBD
    Message 7190 ... Actual science says the expansion of space is a fact. It does not dismiss this fact by calling it magical simply because there isn t as yet
    Message 1 of 169 , Nov 1, 2002
      Message 7190

      --- In creation_evolution_debate@y..., "David Bowman"
      <David_Bowman@g...> wrote:

      > > > Humphreys' scenario in its initial
      > > > collapse and its magical reversion
      > > > is not at all similar to the normal
      > > > theories. The analogous calculations
      > > > from normal theories of the elemental
      > > > abundances just do not apply to
      > > > Humphreys' scenario. Humphreys'
      > > > big crunch of water with a magical
      > > > reversion of the collapse has nothing
      > > > to do with the nucleosynthesis
      > > > calculations for the big bang trans-
      > > > mutations, for normal stellar cookings
      > > > of other elements, or for supernovae
      > > > explosions. The conditions that Humphreys claims are not
      > > > those of these other situations.
      > >
      > >You have twice used the word 'magical' here, to describe something
      > >that science says has definitely occurred.
      > Huh? I certainly did not! I used the word 'magical' to describe
      > Humphreys' claim of a divine miracle of arbitrarily and wildly
      > raising the cosmological constant to ridiculous values with no
      > physical or natural cause so as to have his model avoid
      > the 'crunch' singularity in the collapsing phase, and start back
      > up after the 'bang' singularity in the expanding phase all the
      > while that an initial universe of liquid
      > water is transmuted into the mix of elements we see throughout the
      > universe. Actual science has *no* such silly and magical scenario.

      Actual science says the expansion of space is a fact. It does not
      dismiss this fact by calling it 'magical' simply because there isn't
      as yet a satisfactory explanation. Humphreys hypothesized that the
      expansion of space was caused by God changing the cosmological
      constant, however that isn't a scientific part of his theory. The
      theory, just like all others, simply states that the expansion of
      space started for reasons unknown. The real difference is that he
      describes this expansion as starting before the creation of a
      singularity resulting in less extreme conditions that those of
      traditional BB models and allowing for the creation of heavier
      elements than those models.

      > Real science does not pretend to have an explanation when it
      > doesn't. Real science always has some unexplained phenomena.

      Hmphreys has unexplained phenomena as well, as in how did God
      accomplish the expansion of space? The hypothesis is with a change
      in the cosmological constant, but there are other possibilities. If
      you are going to insist that it had to have happened in the absence
      of God, you are the one who is letting your theology interfere.

      > The usual hot Big Bang theory does *not* postulate initial matter
      > made of liquid water.

      No, the usual hot BB theory starts with a singularity. But we aren't
      talking about the usual hot BB theory, are we? The conditions
      Humphreys specifies result in lower temperatures than most BB
      theories, and the creation of heavier elements.

      > > Your denial of this fact reflects your opinion of
      > > Humphreys, and not any scientific viewpoint.
      > I do not deny that high temperatures and densities will cause
      > nuclear transmutations. But just which ones are produced and
      > in what concentrations depends crucially on the details. It is
      > Humphreys that is avoiding the scientific nitty gritty by appealing
      > to miracles and by skipping the relevant calculations, and yet
      > falsely claiming to have explained the elemental abundances
      > anyway. For some reason you have bought these bogus claims.

      Two things. First, if you do not deny that high temperatures and
      densities will cause nuclear transmutations, then what is the
      problem? That they will is the entire claim in a nutshell. Second,
      you are misrepresenting what Humphreys has said. He claimed that his
      theory explained elemental existence, not elemental abundances. You
      seem to want all the details (which we have already agreed are often
      worked out by others in the course of fleshing out a theory) to be
      handed to you on a silver platter. You are the one who has stated
      that science always has some questions, some "unexplained
      phenomena". Chill. Sooner or later someone will work out the
      detailed answers you want.

      > > It's no different from saying "God did it, and we just don't know
      > > how".
      > Yes, it is different. One case is an honest admission of
      > ignorance as to the process, and the other is a positive
      > theological claim.

      Since God is responsible for all of creation, it is pretty silly to
      insist that He didn't do it. He did it all. Which part of "we just
      don't know how" doesn't qualify as an honest admission of ignorance
      as to the process?

      > The scientific explanation for that something will appeal to
      > natural law and not to God whether or not God personally did it
      > by directly pulling the strings of the laws of nature, or whether
      > he instituted the laws and gave them complete autonomy and stood
      > back, or whether the laws are operative in some self-existent
      > manner in the absence of any god, or whether some gods control
      > some aspects of nature and other gods control other aspects.
      > Scientific explanations and scientific understandings are by
      > definition in terms of the operation of causally proximate laws
      > of nature and *not* in terms of appeals to ultimate or final
      > causes. It is *religion* that makes attributions to divine
      > responsibility for what happens-*not* science. Why is this so
      > hard to understand?

      Humphreys believes in God; unlike many others, he refuses to throw
      God out the door when he investigates the universe God has created.
      That he mentions God in the course of his presentation is a real
      stumbling point for you it seems. God is real; mentioning Him does
      not invalidate any area of scientific investigation unless you let
      the fact that God had a hand in something stop you from questioning
      further just how He did so (a mistake Humphreys has not made). There
      are many who still believe that God placed the stars at various
      distances and placed the light from those stars enroute at that
      creation so that we could see them without having to wait for it to
      travel all that distance. There is indeed no scientific basis for
      this belief, however possible it may be since all things are possible
      for God. Still, I and many others believe that God operates within
      consistent natural laws of His own design, and that it is possible to
      understand a great deal of how He does what He does.
      Scientifically. The mention of God doesn't change the scientific
      nature of the investigation; it merely acknowledges the source.

      > Making attributions to God is *not* finding out how.

      Then this is your error. Humphreys implicitly attributes all to God,
      and rightly so. He also explains a great deal of what he doesn't
      explicitly attribute to God, using science to do so. Lastly, he
      acknowledges that continued investigation is necessary into just how
      the parts of the theory he explicitly attributed to God were

      > Evolution is no different in how it applies the scientific method
      > than is physics, or chemistry.

      Popper and other significant names wrt the philosophy of science have
      taken serious issue with this claim.

      > We don't attribute the motions of the planets to angels pushing
      > them in their orbits, and we don't attribute chemical reactions
      > to an interplay of good and evil spirits, and we don't explain
      > thunderstorms in terms of the antics of Thor and Odin.

      Neither Humphreys nor any other creation scientist I am aware of does
      any of these. If you are trying to distinguish them from
      conventional science with these, you are wasting your time.

      > Science, *all science* doesn't deal with the supernatural at all.

      Scientists are not science. They *do* science. They also happen to
      be individuals who may or may not be aware of the role of God as
      Creator. If they do recognize the role of the Creator, they can
      still *do* science while at the same time acknowledging Him instead
      of ignoring Him. You seem to think this is impossible. It isn't.

      > > > One of the main problems with the whole creationist/ID
      > > > movements is that they keep confusing religious issues with
      > > > scientific ones.
      > >
      > > One of the main problems with Neo-Darwinists is that they keep
      > > claiming that science has nothing to do with God, and then they
      > > turn right around and say that evolution disproves God.
      > Anyone who says this is wrong.

      We certainly agree here!

      > You are, in true creationist fashion, painting with a much too broad
      > of a brush.

      ;-) This is almost laughable. The statement I made which you are
      referring to as "painting with a much too broad of a brush" is
      deliberately an *exact* reflection of the sentence you made
      immediately before it. Take another look. How could you miss the
      fact that I was echoing YOU and *your* broad brush description of
      the "problems with the whole creationist/ID movements"? "True
      creationist fashion" indeed! ;-D

      > That's just Gould's personal religious opinion based on his own
      > personal ideas about how he imagines God must be like. It has
      > nothing to do with science. It certainly doesn't disqualify
      > evolutionary theory from being science.

      It certainly *is* Gould's personal religious opinion, but it is based
      upon his understanding of evolution. Draw your own conclusion. I

      > So? What makes you think that scientists should be prohibited from
      > expressing religious sentiments--even ones that are informed by
      > their science?

      I love it! This is the classic, "Have you stopped beating your
      wife?" question! It's a strawman, you know.

      > But it would be nice if the audience actually understood
      > the difference between when such spokesmen are wearing the science
      > hat, and when they are wearing a religion hat.

      From your lips to your own ears. If only you could see your way
      clear to granting Humphreys the same latitude to address the issues
      of science and religion that you are granting Gould, and see the
      change of hats that takes place there as well.

      > > By their own words they declare that evolution is
      > > no longer a science, it is a belief system - a religion.
      > No, they don't. Such religious claims are just that, atheistic
      > religious claims. They don't reflect on the science of evolution at
      > all.
      > > This is the true source of the conflict.
      > So the true source of the conflict is that the creationists can't
      > distinguish religion from science, and keep confusing them.

      ;-) I knew that sooner or later your habit of chopping into the
      middle of my paragraphs would result in you confusing yourself about
      what was said.

      > > He was speaking specifically of evolution, and said quite
      > > specifically that Darwin, via evolution, "removed that keystone of
      > > FALSE COMFORT (emphasis added)" provided by religion in
      > > describing the relationship between evolution and religion.
      > But that's just his religious opinion. It has nothing to do with
      > science. It is merely a religious opinion that is highly *informed*
      > by science, but is a religious opinion nonetheless.

      It's his opinion of evolution and the role it should play in
      society. Yet you keep saying it is the creationists who confuse
      religion and science. Here is a clear example that proves either it
      is Neo-Darwinists led by Gould who are making this mistake, or
      evolution is indeed a religion.

      > > In the words of the foremost and most qualified proponent of
      > > evolution, evolution refutes and replaces religion; plain and
      > > simple.
      > For him it does (er, did). He was an atheistic Marxist for heavens
      > sake. That doesn't mean that other devoutly religious scientists
      > (who happen to accept usual evolutionary theories) don't consider
      > him to be profoundly mistaken about this.

      Perhaps. Still, it should make *you* understand the reason for many
      of the objections to evolution as it is being taught today, with
      religious certainty and a ferocious response to any questioning.
      Again, it isn't the creationists who are confusing science with

      > > No one put words in his mouth, and no one forced him to make the
      > > declaration he did.
      > Isn't freedom a religion a wonderful thing?

      Freedom OF religion is. Now if I only had the choice not to be
      taught the religion of Neo-Darwinism in school... (Sorry, couldn't
      resist) ;-)

      > > He must have felt in 1999 that they had gotten far enough in to
      > > come out in the open and reveal their true agenda. His mistake.
      > So you are given to conspiracy theories, too?

      Only obvious ones.

      > > As I suspected, your explanation of 'comoving matter' takes it
      > > completely out of the discussion. Now you are trying to bring
      > > velocity induced issues in.
      > No. No. No. I was being properly careful. The reason for the
      > repeated disclaimer word 'comoving' was to head off and to *prevent*
      > a complaint that what I was claiming for the matter was not
      > universally true.

      You must run into a lot of diversionary tactics in debates. I try to
      avoid those. I was quite specific about the time dilation being
      caused by gravitation and gravitation alone.

      > > Not that it is of any importance.
      > It is important to understand what is actually going on.

      Not really. It was just a legalistic caveat you felt was necessary.
      Moving on...

      > > > Also Humphreys' distribution of matter *is*
      > > > homogeneous with a uniform density throughout the *inside*
      > > > of the matter sphere. It is just not globally homogeneous since
      > > > his model has a vacuum outside that sphere.
      > >
      > >You appear to be unable to relate to the dynamic nature of the
      > >situation in Humphreys' cosmology. In the first sentence of the
      > >above paragraph you describe the situation as it is now, after the
      > >coalescence of the earth and the disappearance of the event
      > > horizon and the white hole.
      > I *do* understand the dynamical situation in Humphreys' cosmology.
      > It is Humphreys that does not understand the dynamic situation of
      > his cosmology. My first sentence is correct at *all times*--
      > including now--and for any time in the past all the way back to the
      > creation and for all times in the until the end of time (assuming
      > it has an end).

      You are confusing Humphreys' monocentric model with the traditional
      omnicentric ones.

      > Only the density of the matter is time-dependent. All the
      > matter ages together synchronously. The event horizon has no effect
      > inside the matter-region. How many times does this have to be said
      > before it sinks in? Look it up. Any GR textbook will do. The
      > matter-filled region of Humphreys' model behaves *just like* the
      > usual corresponding Friedman-Robertson-Walker BB model except that
      > Humphreys doesn't have the matter extend uniformly through all of
      > space.

      In any omnicentric model this would be correct. In a monocentric
      model, it isn't.

      > But this sphere is simply a finite section of an unbounded BB
      > model, and the 'missing matter' in the region external to the
      > bounded matter-filled sphere doesn't have *any effect* on what
      > happens inside that sphere whether it is present or not.

      This is where you are wrong. Humphreys' model isn't just a finite
      section of an unbounded omnicentric BB model, it is a completely
      different model because it has a single center. Applying the same
      omnicentric solutions doesn't work. If you need to visualize the
      situation, try imagining a universe that consists not of matter and
      spacetime, but of matter *in* spacetime. If all that there is is
      matter and spacetime, the universe can be omnicentric; but if the
      spacetime exists as infinite beyond all the matter of the universe,
      then the universe itself is very much like a planet; just on a much
      larger scale. In this image spacetime is infinite, but the matter of
      our universe is not. The same physics can be applied to the universe
      that we apply to our planet including its monocentric nature and the
      gravitational time dilation which we have observed as a fact.

      > > This is the problem with depending just on numbers to the
      > > exclusion of reality.
      > No it isn't.

      Okay, I'll play. Yes it is. Your turn.

      > Why, pray tell, would you prefer a model that has all the matter in
      > a zeroth fraction of the available space--nearly all of which is a
      > vacuum? What's all that extra empty space for, anyway?

      Does it have to have a purpose? I prefer it because it is simply a
      larger scale reflection of the reality we know exists around us from
      the atomic to the molecular to the planetary to the stellar to the
      galactic scales. They are all the same. Why do you want to assume
      that the universe has to be something different?

      > > I like science fiction, but it doesn't influence my view of
      > > reality. It's just an entertaining pasttime. I'm not the one
      > > who doesn't recognize that lost data from light sources whose
      > > light has passed us is just that; lost data.
      > It's only lost to us. Until it is also past all other possible
      > sentient beings and their remote sensors, it isn't necessarily
      > lost. It might be, but we don't know that for sure.

      It's gone, Dave. It's in science fiction land.

      > > > Why would you want to presuppose a uniquely distinguished
      > > > center anyway? Why do you think you are so special that you
      > > > deserve to be in the uniquely distinguished center of the
      > > > universe? Why do you think it is all about you, anyway?
      > >
      > >Because it IS.
      > A little arrogant are we? Don't forget that pride it the foremost
      > of the deadly sins.

      That's not arrogance. Accusing me of thinking it was all about me
      was more hyperbole. You got the response you deserved.

      > > Yet through all of this, the "comoving" clocks in Colorado and
      > > England measure time differently. An observed fact, not a claim.
      > To the extent that these clocks measure different time, to that
      > *same* extent they are *not* comoving with the cosmic expansion.

      So now you are saying that the clocks keep time differently because
      of relative velocities, and not relative gravitational potentials? I
      can say that same thing about the model Humphreys presente. As the
      expansion of space carried the earth clear of the event horizon, the
      gravitational potential it was experiencing kept it from being
      strictly comoving with the expansion of space, and the relative time
      dilation it experienced was the result. Since the gravitation was so
      extreme, the time dilation was extreme as well. It seems that you
      want it both ways; clocks can experience time dilation due to
      differing gravitational potential, but the earth cannot. You are
      being inconsistent.

      > > > All the comoving matter really ages synchronously in
      > > > *both* the usual unbounded models *and* in Humphreys'
      > > > bounded 'model'.
      > >
      > > But somehow, in the real world (not the model) the commoving
      > > clocks at different elevations on the earth age differently,
      > > and not synchronously. Why does this happen in reality, but
      > > not in the model?
      > Sheesh! Because every scientific model is a *simplified*
      > *approximate* representation of the real more complicated situation.

      If the model reflects reality that poorly, you need a new one. Your
      *simplification* is giving you the wrong answers.

      > > Your refusal to acknowledge even the simple fact that a
      > > gravitational collapse of all the matter of the universe would
      > > result in heavier elements being created speaks volumes.
      > I didn't say that it wouldn't result in heavier elements. I said
      > Humphreys didn't calculate what elements it would result in and how
      > much of each.

      I say he doesn't have to. Be fair. Darwin didn't have to find his
      own transitionals; Humphreys doesn't have to calculate the
      proportions of elements.

      > > Your insistence that Humphreys attributing the expansion of
      > > space to God's intervention invalidates his theory is a useless
      > > point,
      > Whether you like it or not supernatural attributions have no place
      > in science.
      > > because science has clearly stated that the expansion of space
      > > started at a definite time in the past (the moment of the Big
      > > Bang), triggered by an unknown.
      > This is because classical GR is incomplete and the theory does have
      > some unanswered questions. But it doesn't predict impossible
      > things, nor does it appeal to a supernatural rescue from features of
      > the model that disagree with the data.

      Humphreys isn't appealing to a supernatural rescue; he is recognizing
      the fact that God is God.

      > > If Humphreys attributes it to God, so what?
      > No problem for his own personal religion. But isn't science.
      > Pretending it is is just dishonest.

      That is your misunderstanding. No one is pretending any such thing.

      > > Science wants an explanation of "how" God did it, I understand
      > > that. Until that explanation is forthcoming Humphreys and the
      > > rest of science are standing on the same ground of "(I/We) don't
      > > know how (God did it/it happened)", so what is your beef?
      > Simply admitting one's ignorance is commendable and honest. The
      > beef is that Humphreys pretends to have a scientific theory that
      > supports his YEC theology. He doesn't. This is dishonest.

      Your are misrepresenting him again. He is working on a theory to
      support YEC, of which white hole cosmology is only a part. I agreed
      with you a long time ago that white hole cosmology isn't sufficient
      to defend YEC. Humphreys himself agreed that there are many issues
      YEC faces and questions it has to answer which aren't addressed by
      his cosmology. Claiming he is being dishonest misrepresents what he
      actually has said.


      PS. This has been fun, but it has gone on long enough that it has
      gotten repetitive in some areas, and so I have stopped addressing
      those topics in which I can see no real progress in the ideas being
      presented. I suspect that all which is likely to be said wrt
      Humphreys and his theory will have been said fairly soon. I note
      that back in post 6872 you accused me of using the clamor that was
      going on here as a "lame excuse to keep from having to defend my
      views". That was quite some time ago, and I have been here the
      entire time. This debate has gone on for quite a while now, and
      should I decide that it has become more repetitive that I am willing
      to give my time to, I trust that you will be mature about letting it
      come to an end.
    • Schubidoo
      ... ... kick. ... offensive ... case ... evolution. ... He doesn t like it when I use curse words , because he is a fucking weenie. He
      Message 169 of 169 , Nov 29, 2002
        --- In creation_evolution_debate@y..., "LAlbert" <lalbert001@e...>
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: TBD
        > To: creation_evolution_debate@y...
        > Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 11:04 AM
        > Subject: [creation_evolution_debate] Re: Regurgiquotes
        > --- In creation_evolution_debate@y..., "LAlbert"
        > wrote:
        > >> Still kicking the hell out of the messenger, huh Z?
        > >Why not? Every once in a while, the messenger deserves a good
        > It's not a comment on the state of his soul, but I find it
        > every time Shubi invokes the name of God and he knows why. In
        > you don't, it has nothing at all to do with his views on
        > He should expect to be kicked.
        > >Z.
        > Leon: Huh? Here's the comment from shubi that inspired your
        accusation regarding quoting without attribution:
        > "> Here are some facts:
        > >
        > > Though lack of an apparent mechanism
        > > of inheritance eventually prompted him
        > > to accept the latter idea, Darwin's
        > > theory was rooted in direct observation
        > > and an attempt to discover universal
        > > laws. His evolutionary sketch was a
        > > branching tree, not a single ladder.
        > > Above all, Darwin rejected the prevailing
        > > view that organisms are perfectly
        > > adapted to their environment. He viewed
        > > the natural world, instead, as caught in
        > > an incessant struggle between competing
        > > individuals that have different degrees
        > > of fitness."
        > Leon: Where is there any invoking of the name of God here?
        > Leon

        He doesn't like it when I use "curse words", because he is a fucking
        weenie. He didn't like the well-written Britannica article, either,
        but that is because he knows its true.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.