Jump to content


Photo

How Einstein's Theory Of General Relativity Explains The Existence Of God.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
58 replies to this topic

#1 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 August 2011 - 07:12 AM

General Relativity is made to conform to the views of naturalism only.

The other possibilities about General Relativity that are ignored, are when space-time is altered, a new dimension is created outside our own space-time. This leaves infinite possibilities for other existences outside our own. It even opens the door for the realm of Heaven and Hell to exist. And beings just like God.

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

If you turn this into a simple equation, you will find that what's being said here is that there is a space-time difference between us and Heaven. To make it more understandable you have to make the equation a year to years comparison instead of a day to years comparison. To make one day a year you times it by 365. You also have to times 1000 years by 365. So what you get is 1 y/365,000 y So heaven's space-time is 365,000 times faster then our space-time.

And because Time Dilation (the faster you go the slower time passes), another Einstein theory, works off this principle as well. And the Bible says it's space-time is eternal. We now have how fast space-time has to become in order to be infinite (eternal).

Since infinite laws apply to make this space-time (Heaven) work, what if it also had to apply to everything else that existed there? Examples:
1) Infinite knowledge.
2) Infinite wisdom.
3) infinite existence.
etc...

This infinite dimension would explain how God created. A dimension that is 365,000 times faster would enable God to do 365,000 times more things in a day then normal. In other word, one 24 hour day would be like 1,000 years in God's space-time. This would also explain:

1) Why we cannot see God. How do you see a being moving 365,000 times faster than we are?
2) How God can be everywhere at once. 365,000 times faster would allow this.
3) How everything about our lives can be recorded for judgment later. His angels also move 365,000 tomes faster.
etc...

Let's take one of the examples often talk about in science known as a Black Hole.

God's word says that Hell is a place where fire burns but produces no light. A Black Hole produces so much heat from it's extreme run away gravity constantly crunching (crunching causes friction, friction causes heat) all types of matter that how hot it is inside, is not even imaginable. And regardless of any light that this heat may produce, it never can escape making the heat itself dark (like a fire that produces no light just like Hell). A Black Hole would contain a type of darkness that you could not even see your hand in front of your face. And it's heat would be eternal like hell because it has an endless supply of matter to crunch. Water would not be able to exist there because of the heat. That is why in God's word, everyone there always asks for water. And because a black hole bends and alters space-time, it is feasible to conclude it's existence is infinite along with everything inside it.

Gravity.

My idea of the unexplainable force of gravity is that it reaches out from one of these other dimensions. As for the reason we cannot see it or figure out it's source. Example: A magnetic field acts very much like gravity. But only attracts certain objects with opposite magnetic poles, not all matter. What if the magnetic fields can cross other dimensions of space-time? And when it does cross other dimensions of space-time it's altered and makes magnetic forces from there act like gravity here? A parallel universe where everything is duplicated so every matter here that produces a magnetic field here also produces one there. but when combined through space-time results in gravity. How much would "how a magnet works" have to be altered to make it act like gravity? Not much. In fact all things that produce gravity also have a magnetic field, even Black Holes. Knowing this it is easy to come to the conclusion that a magnetic field is required for gravity to work, which makes my idea feasible.

Also, if you increase the properties of how a magnetic field works by 365,000 times (space-time in the other dimension), it would be feasible to conclude that the field would now attract anything being that strong, and would no longer need an opposite magnetic poles for this attraction.

The main reason science will "always" ignore these ideas is because other dimensions = a God possibility. Because the laws that govern these other dimensions may allow such abilities to exist. To ponder that man is not in control to a humanist, is scary. To ponder that we may be accountable for our actions, is also scary to someone who thinks they should be able to act anyway they want, or do anything they want.

Laws of physics exist for a reason. They cause order where chaos would exist otherwise. And laws also require a law maker, why? A law is not something that is physical, so it's origins cannot be explained that way. And because laws of physics require intelligence to understand, means it also requires intelligence to create or make. How would anyone explain the origin or existence of a non physical thing that takes the intelligence of the mind to understand? Did the laws that govern people in each government just exist, or did the intelligence of man place them there? Now what would be able to place the laws that govern a universe in place? When you use deductive reasoning to eliminate all that does not work, there is only one answer that is left. God made the laws of physics because He is powerful enough, and intelligent enough.

#2 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 01 August 2011 - 08:06 AM

ikester, how do you figure that Gravity is an 'unexplainable force'? Gravity is perfectly well described by the Theory of General Relativity - a theory which can be demonstrated to be true through experiment. Mass causes distortions in space-time, to which other physical objects with mass react, that's a pretty simple explanation.

Secondly, a magnetic field doesn't work AT ALL like gravity. There is only the appearance of similarity in very specific situations. Electricity doesn't do anything even remotely like gravity and electricity and magnetism are exactly the same force (Electromagnetism).

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 August 2011 - 02:05 PM

Gravity is perfectly well described by the Theory of General Relativity - a theory which can be demonstrated to be true through experiment. Mass causes distortions in space-time, to which other physical objects with mass react, that's a pretty simple explanation.


So you (or anyone else for that matter), has empirically tested General Relativity everywhere, under every circumstance? If not, your “Gravity is PERFECTLY well described” statement fails, as you are ASSUMING the outcome, not stating a fact.

And, since your first statement fails, your second statement fails as well, and is not so simple as you presume.

#4 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 August 2011 - 02:13 PM

ikester, how do you figure that Gravity is an 'unexplainable force'? Gravity is perfectly well described by the Theory of General Relativity - a theory which can be demonstrated to be true through experiment. Mass causes distortions in space-time, to which other physical objects with mass react, that's a pretty simple explanation.

Secondly, a magnetic field doesn't work AT ALL like gravity. There is only the appearance of similarity in very specific situations. Electricity doesn't do anything even remotely like gravity and electricity and magnetism are exactly the same force (Electromagnetism).


If the theory explains gravity to a "true" state of how it works, then it would be a law instead of a theory.

Magnetic experiment

The experiment above shows why my idea is feasible.

#5 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 01 August 2011 - 02:22 PM

So you (or anyone else for that matter), has empirically tested General Relativity everywhere, under every circumstance? If not, your “Gravity is PERFECTLY well described” statement fails, as you are ASSUMING the outcome, not stating a fact.

And, since your first statement fails, your second statement fails as well, and is not so simple as you presume.


I believe he is here to waste our time claiming things that are untrue.

#6 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 01 August 2011 - 05:15 PM


So you (or anyone else for that matter), has empirically tested General Relativity everywhere, under every circumstance? If not, your “Gravity is PERFECTLY well described” statement fails, as you are ASSUMING the outcome, not stating a fact.

And, since your first statement fails, your second statement fails as well, and is not so simple as you presume.

I believe he is here to waste our time claiming things that are untrue.


You may well be right Ike... But then again, he may be a dogmatic zealot, and totally believe what he says is true (sans the evidence to support his statements). We'll just have to wait and see where he attempts to take his arguement.

#7 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 02 August 2011 - 06:03 AM

If the theory explains gravity to a "true" state of how it works, then it would be a law instead of a theory.


:(

In science:
-Laws don't explain things. They state things.
-Theories don't state things. They explain things.

#8 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 August 2011 - 08:55 AM

:(

In science:
-Laws don't explain things. They state things.
-Theories don't state things. They explain things.


So they are both true, right?

The idea the General Relativity explains gravity means that when they use the collider thing to do what they want (to create micro black holes). They will bend space time and destroy our planet. But, you will claim that it won't. Can't have it both ways.

#9 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 02 August 2011 - 09:04 AM

So they are both true, right?


For the specific realms in which they are intended to work, yes. Laws of Thermodynamics work in the natural world, not the metaphysical. Germ Theory works with microorganisms, not computer viruses.

If a set of scientific laws/facts are intended for the same domain as a set of scientific theories, then no, I don't think they're able to contradict. Well, at least I can't seem to think of a situation in which they could.

Although, I will readily admit that certain branches of physics (mainly quantum mechanics) are mind-bending to say the least and I'll leave those situations to experts in the field. ;)

#10 Basin

Basin

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:All subsections of physics, really.
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 02 August 2011 - 09:58 AM

So they are both true, right?

The idea the General Relativity explains gravity means that when they use the collider thing to do what they want (to create micro black holes). They will bend space time and destroy our planet. But, you will claim that it won't. Can't have it both ways.


On your second point there, no they wouldn't. A black hole isn't necessarily destructive. I tiny black hole the mass of a proton has no more gravitationally destructive power than a proton itself. Did you know, if our Sun were replaced with a black hole of the same mass, the Earth would experience no change in orbital radius whatsoever? It wouldn't be sucked in at all.

#11 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 02 August 2011 - 11:37 AM

If the theory explains gravity to a "true" state of how it works, then it would be a law instead of a theory.

Magnetic experiment

The experiment above shows why my idea is feasible.


ikester, simply because a concept, idea or mechanic is colloquially referred to as a "law" does not make it universally true. For example, Newton's "Law of Gravitation" predicts that the orbit of a body around a spherical body of greater mass will trace a perfect ellipse. When additional bodies are added to the system, eg: our Solar System, the point of closest approach will rotate around the larger body in a predicted way. However, the observed orbit of the planet Mercury does not conform with Newton's Laws. Mercury's orbit lasts 88 Earth days. Since Newton published his Law of Gravitation (July 5, 1687) Mercury has orbited the sun 1,344.9 times, more than enough times to accurately measure the perihelion (closest approach to the sun) of its orbit. If a "law" is always true, how is it possible that Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation be wrong?

#12 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 02 August 2011 - 11:52 AM

So you (or anyone else for that matter), has empirically tested General Relativity everywhere, under every circumstance? If not, your “Gravity is PERFECTLY well described” statement fails, as you are ASSUMING the outcome, not stating a fact.

And, since your first statement fails, your second statement fails as well, and is not so simple as you presume.


The point is conceded, please allow me to reiterate: every circumstance thus far empirically tested, and every observation thus far made supports General Relativity. While we have not hurled probes into black holes, the existence of black holes was first predicted by General Relativity and the subsequent observation of their existence is a confirmation of the theory's predictions.

And, my second statement was not a corollary to the first. They were unrelated and not contingent. The second statement stands.

Honestly, I do not understand why creationists would have an issue with General Relativity, it makes no predictions regarding the origin or development of life, nor does it make any predictions regarding the possible existence of a Creator deity. It simply explains the geometry of four-dimensional spacetime in the presence of mass. It's like arguing that the angles of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees is "just a theory".

#13 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 02 August 2011 - 12:03 PM

And, my second statement was not a corollary to the first. They were unrelated and not contingent. The second statement stands.


The are indeed corollary, because you make the same sweeping and unfounded assumptions in both that is easily refuted by you lack of inductive and all inclusive evidence to state such.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 August 2011 - 08:12 PM

The point is conceded, please allow me to reiterate: every circumstance thus far empirically tested, and every observation thus far made supports General Relativity. While we have not hurled probes into black holes, the existence of black holes was first predicted by General Relativity and the subsequent observation of their existence is a confirmation of the theory's predictions.

And, my second statement was not a corollary to the first. They were unrelated and not contingent. The second statement stands.

Honestly, I do not understand why creationists would have an issue with General Relativity, it makes no predictions regarding the origin or development of life, nor does it make any predictions regarding the possible existence of a Creator deity. It simply explains the geometry of four-dimensional spacetime in the presence of mass. It's like arguing that the angles of a triangle adding up to 180 degrees is "just a theory".


How did they bend space time to test this?

#15 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 02 August 2011 - 08:54 PM

How did they bend space time to test this?


[Admittedly, I'm late to this conversation]
You don't have to bend space-time yourself in order to test it. Just look at places where space-time should be bent, and then see whether your predictions hold true. Heck, I learned about this in Astronomy merit badge as a 14 yr old.

#16 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 03 August 2011 - 12:23 AM

How did they bend space time to test this?


"They" didn't bend space-time. They allowed the Earth to bend space-time and then measured the bending.

http://news.sciencem...ty-probe-b.html

After decades of development, Gravity Probe B circled Earth from pole to pole for 17 months starting 20 April 2004 and used gyroscopes to measure two aspects of general relativity. One, the "geodetic effect," arises because Earth's mass creates a kind of dimple in spacetime that messes up the usual rules of geometry. As a result, the circumference of a circle around Earth should be slightly shorter than Euclid's value of 2π times the circle's radius. Gravity Probe B measured the predicted 2.8-centimeter decrement in its 40,000-kilometer orbit to 0.25% precision.

The satellite also confirmed the frame-dragging effect, in which the rotating Earth twists the surrounding spacetime. It's as if the spinning Earth were immersed in honey, Everitt explained. "When it spins, the Earth will drag the honey with it," he said. "In the same way, the Earth drags spacetime with it." Gravity Probe B confirmed the frame dragging effect, which is less than 1/10 times as pronounced as the geodetic effect, to 19% precision.


This conforms with previous observation:

In 2004, Cifuolini and Erricos Pavlis of University of Maryland, Baltimore County, measured frame dragging by tracking the orbits of the LAGEOS and LAGEOS II satellites, simple reflectors launched in 1976 and 1992 and used primarily to monitor the motion of Earth's surface. By very carefully monitoring which way the planes of the satellites' orbits turned or "precessed," they measured the effect to 10% accuracy, largely stealing the thunder of the Gravity Probe B team in some researchers' opinions. "At best they've just confirmed the work Ciufolini did," says Robert O'Connell, a theorist at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge. "So I find it a bit too much, all the hoopla" of a NASA press conference, he says.



#17 Chanzui

Chanzui

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Age: 32
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Taipei, Taiwan

Posted 03 August 2011 - 12:37 AM

The are indeed corollary, because you make the same sweeping and unfounded assumptions in both that is easily refuted by you lack of inductive and all inclusive evidence to state such.



Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were referring to my statement about Electromagnetism, not the statement that "Mass bends spacetime". Yes, The statement about Mass bending spacetime IS a corollary to the first statement, so, allow me to clarify.

In all circumstances so far observed and tested, the Theory of General Relativity has both been empirically demonstrated to be accurate and has made predictions which subsequent observations and evidence support. Currently it is the best and most accurate understanding of Gravitation we have and there are no competing theories with anything like General Relativity's support of empirical data and observation. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that General Relativity's explanation of gravity as the change in geometry of spacetime as a result of the presence of mass is, in fact, True.

Would you agree that is accurate?

#18 adsummum

adsummum

    Australia

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • Age: 24
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Australia

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:14 AM

The other possibilities about General Relativity that is ignored, is when space-time is altered, a new dimension is created outside our own space-time. This leaves infinite possibilities for other existences outside our own.

I believe you are alluding to the Everett 'Many-Worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics (for the record, quantum mechanics has not been reconciled with GR; i.e. GR is not particularly relevant to your proposition, much less the alteration of space-time. It should be noted that the passage of any object through space will bend space-time relative to a stationary observer). Everett differs from the non-deterministic properties of the Copenhagen interpretation in that it suggests that wavefunction collapse (the transition from non-determined to determined state by virtue of an observer) results in the formation of two or more branching realities (NOT dimension; for instance, an extra spatial dimension in 3D space would be a new axis perpendicular to the first 3): i.e. it proposes that the world's timeline is not linear, and that every possible world is realized concurrently (think of tree branches).

If you turn this into a simple equation, you will find that what's being said here is that there is a space-time difference between us and Heaven. To make it more understandable you have to make the equation a year to years comparison instead of a day to years comparison. To make one day a year you times it by 365. You also have to times 1000 years by 365. So what you get is 1 y/365,000 y So heaven's space-time is 365,000 times faster then our space-time.

You need to learn the difference between scalar and vector quantities. Then learn the difference between various algebraic structures; sets, groups, fields, spaces etc.

And because Time Dilation (the faster you go the slower time passes), another Einstein theory, works off this principle as well. And the Bible says it's space-time is eternal. We now have how fast space-time has to become in order to be infinite (eternal).

I don't think you understand time dilation, and for that matter special relativity. Time does not go slower as you go faster. Your experience of time is always constant. However your perception of the passage of time in another person's frame of reference who is traveling at high speed relative to you is slower. Likewise, their perception of the passage of time in your frame of reference is slower, as relative to them, you are traveling at a high speed. If you are both There is no absolute 'slowing down' of time


How much would "how a magnet works" have to be altered to make it act like gravity?

Everything. Magnetism is a manifestation of electromagnetism, which at higher energies, is a manifestation of the electroweak force. To change magnetism would be to change the properties not simply of the behavior of light and EM fields, but also the weak nuclear force. Gravity lacks the notion of polarity present in EM. Even if we entertain the notion that atomic nuclei exist, their electron shells wouldn't, and chemical bonds and interactions would be an impossibility. So, best case scenario, we don't even exist. For the record, gravity is 41 orders of magnitude weaker than EM.

Not much. In fact all things that produce gravity also have a magnetic field, even Black Holes.

No. Magnetic fields are produced by a changing electric potential. A neutron, for instance, has mass, so exerts a gravitational force, but it has 0 charge. Black holes do not necessarily have charge. For the specific case of black holes, Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes are uncharged and do not possess magnetic fields.

The main reason science will "always" ignore these ideas is because other dimensions = a God possibility

Please see string theory and M-theory for examples of higher dimensional space (M-theory has 11). If you are referring instead to the many world interpretation, as per my initial suggestion, then note that it is a mainstream theory explored in most undergrad physics courses, a is everything I mentioned here. I stress this last point.

#19 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:29 AM

[Admittedly, I'm late to this conversation]
You don't have to bend space-time yourself in order to test it. Just look at places where space-time should be bent, and then see whether your predictions hold true. Heck, I learned about this in Astronomy merit badge as a 14 yr old.


LOL, they can measure space time change in a black hole across space. :rolleyes:

So what device do they use to measure this time change?

When I was 14, I was to busy wondering if I was going to make it through each day with my life at my school. When busing started, we had fights and riots all the time. People brought knifes and chains to school. I even saw someone get stabbed with a broken bottle. Even one of the teachers got raped. And police were there everyday arresting someone for something. Most have been nice to be able to think about learning. But even with all that I still graduated. Science class was more worried about cramming evolution down our throats then learning anything about astronomy. There was no space time bending talked about.

#20 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 03 August 2011 - 08:40 AM

LOL, they can measure space time change in a black hole across space. :rolleyes:

So what device do they use to measure this time change?


You don't need a black hole in order to demonstrate General Relativity at work. Basin had a great post about this in the "Star Formation" thread: it is very simple, with some help from someone who knows where to look, to find examples of "lensing" in the night sky. That is something not at all predicted by Newtonian mechanics but is perfectly predicted by General Relativity.

EDIT: with a telescope, obviously




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users