OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 01, 2014, 07:41:08 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Poll
Question: Do you believe that the acount of genesis in the Old testament should be taken literally?
Yes - 53 (15.7%)
No - 129 (38.2%)
both metaphorically and literally - 156 (46.2%)
Total Voters: 338

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy  (Read 324466 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,577



« Reply #1710 on: October 29, 2009, 05:11:31 AM »

I just found out that Ray Comfort has a new book out: Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution. If anyone has read it, I'd love to hear about it, either here or in the Reviews section. Smiley
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1711 on: October 29, 2009, 05:31:49 AM »

I just found out that Ray Comfort has a new book out: Nothing Created Everything: The Scientific Impossibility of Atheistic Evolution. If anyone has read it, I'd love to hear about it, either here or in the Reviews section. Smiley

Ah yes...... Ray Comfort.  Roll Eyes Haven't read his book, but he gives himself a 5 star rating at Amazon. Kind of sad, really.

My last book, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think" knocked Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" off the number one spot in the atheism division. Then atheists (God bless them) swarmed in and gave it hundreds of stinging reviews. It was interesting to see one review saying that the book was the best thing since sliced bread, while the next said it was far worse than the worst mold on rotting bread. Let's see what happens with this book. http://www.amazon.com/Nothing-Created-Everything-Scientific-Impossibility/dp/1935071238

One thing about the man; he is good for a laugh. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4&feature=related
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 05:36:27 AM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1712 on: October 29, 2009, 05:43:29 AM »

You know what's even more sad? Ray's also the only one who found his review helpful. But now a second person has given his book a one-star rating, "just to balance out Ray's review," saying, "This book having a 5-star rating because the author is the only one to review it doesn't seem very honest." 100% found that review helpful.

Hmm. Things aren't looking so good for Ray, if he wants to sell some books on Amazon.

Oh, and re: the video: That is hilarious. Perhaps he should sell that script; I'm sure he could get more money for it than for any of his books.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2009, 05:48:03 AM by ytterbiumanalyst » Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,577



« Reply #1713 on: October 29, 2009, 05:49:04 AM »

Quote
Ah yes...... Ray Comfort.   Haven't read his book, but he gives himself a 5 star rating at Amazon. Kind of sad, really.

Yeah, I noticed, lol. I've seen authors who use something like lulu.com review themselves, but I don't think I've ever seen a person who has an actual publisher review themselves.
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1714 on: October 29, 2009, 05:56:08 AM »

Quote
Ah yes...... Ray Comfort.   Haven't read his book, but he gives himself a 5 star rating at Amazon. Kind of sad, really.

Yeah, I noticed, lol. I've seen authors who use something like lulu.com review themselves, but I don't think I've ever seen a person who has an actual publisher review themselves.
Yeah, that should be the publisher's job. In theory, a published book could be counted on to have at least a decent level of quality. Unfortunately, most publishers are really only concerned that a book will sell. From sales of books like Left Behind and The Da Vinci Code, I can say with certainty there is a market for badly written books, if the subject is controversial enough. Unfortunately for Ray's wallet, this subject isn't one of them.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1715 on: November 03, 2009, 06:42:47 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"

I'm no longer a Young Earth Creationist. At least not in the strict sense, to be honest I don't know what kind of creationist I am now, but I have been thinking about this for years. And my speculation would be ....and I know that a number of YEC reject the big bang, while others accept the idea.

But I would say:

1.) If it is true that the initial expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light(A YEC came up with this idea first, but was laughed at, now that a noncreationist advocated the idea it's acceptable to believe in....well at least for a few nano seconds or seconds or whatever)

Then it really shouldn't matter if you have a different cosmological modal. Instead of Stars, Black Holes......etc. forming slowly over billions of years, they can form quickly from the speed and power of the initial expansion. Don't forget that Energy equals mater times light squared, and so..........why couldn't that light turn into energy and matter? Why can't all the elements we have on our chemistry chart be formed by the light from the initial expansion of the universe?

And if light was there "initially", then why should it matter if the light of some star is now 13 or 14 billion light years away when both came from the same source? At one time that star wasn't 13 or 14 billion light years away. At one time......the stuff that eventually formed that star was an "inch" or less away of what would eventually form our planet.









ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 06:44:26 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1716 on: November 03, 2009, 01:04:21 PM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"

I'm no longer a Young Earth Creationist. At least not in the strict sense, to be honest I don't know what kind of creationist I am now, but I have been thinking about this for years. And my speculation would be ....and I know that a number of YEC reject the big bang, while others accept the idea.

But I would say:

1.) If it is true that the initial expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light(A YEC came up with this idea first, but was laughed at, now that a noncreationist advocated the idea it's acceptable to believe in....well at least for a few nano seconds or seconds or whatever)

Then it really shouldn't matter if you have a different cosmological modal. Instead of Stars, Black Holes......etc. forming slowly over billions of years, they can form quickly from the speed and power of the initial expansion. Don't forget that Energy equals mater times light squared, and so..........why couldn't that light turn into energy and matter? Why can't all the elements we have on our chemistry chart be formed by the light from the initial expansion of the universe?

And if light was there "initially", then why should it matter if the light of some star is now 13 or 14 billion light years away when both came from the same source? At one time that star wasn't 13 or 14 billion light years away. At one time......the stuff that eventually formed that star was an "inch" or less away of what would eventually form our planet.

This is an approach I really never considered.
As for your "I don't know what kind of creationist I am now" dilemma, just a suggestion: don't classify yourself. As for me, I look into history and nature and try to 'see' the Bible events in them, and I know that some events (the Genesis 1 narration) are "philosophy of nature in poetry", some others (the Adam and Eve story) are allegories for now lost historical events of the past, and that others (such as the Battle of the Vale of Siddim) are so well set in an historical context (the Bible gives the 'corrupted' names of Hammurabi, Kudur-Mabuk, Rim-Sin I and Tidhaliya in the text, from a 1770s BCE period) that it would be useless to deny their reality. Every word of the Bible has been chosen by its human authors to convey spiritual teachings that a literal historical narration wouldn't have been able to do by itself, and they did so under divine inspiration. For this reason I deny none of the events of the Bible, but I try to see if there's a possible allegorization or poetry behind before saying "it must be literal".

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1717 on: November 03, 2009, 02:12:55 PM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"
1.) If it is true that the initial expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light(A YEC came up with this idea first, but was laughed at, now that a noncreationist advocated the idea it's acceptable to believe in....well at least for a few nano seconds or seconds or whatever)
I don't think you're really telling the whole story. I'm not sure who is the person to whom you refer, but I would venture to guess, knowing the nature of science and of the scientific community, that if a person came up with this model as a way of proving his existing metaphysical beliefs, then he would be scorned. However, if a person has valid scientific data to back up the claim, it would be hailed as new knowledge. It all depends on whether there is evidence.

Quote
Then it really shouldn't matter if you have a different cosmological modal. Instead of Stars, Black Holes......etc. forming slowly over billions of years, they can form quickly from the speed and power of the initial expansion. Don't forget that Energy equals mater times light squared, and so..........why couldn't that light turn into energy and matter? Why can't all the elements we have on our chemistry chart be formed by the light from the initial expansion of the universe?

And if light was there "initially", then why should it matter if the light of some star is now 13 or 14 billion light years away when both came from the same source? At one time that star wasn't 13 or 14 billion light years away. At one time......the stuff that eventually formed that star was an "inch" or less away of what would eventually form our planet.
Now this is an interesting idea, and the type of idea I had hoped for from those who espouse the young-Earth model. Unfortunately, as I suspected, the scientific knowledge of most of those people is rather lacking. I will attempt to address a few of these issues.

First, yes, we theorise that many of the stars were formed rapidly following the Big Bang. Such an event would naturally cause the abundance of energy necessary for star formation (after all, stars are essentially masses of incandescent gas--i.e. gigantic nuclear furnaces Grin). In an expanding universe, it is theoretically possible that the speed of light itself is not, as was previously theorised (as recently as Einstein), a constant. If that is true, then yes, the light from distant stars would in fact reach us much faster than their distance in light-years would suggest. Of course, experimentation is needed to see if this is an accurate physical model.

Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.

Third, all of the elements on our periodic chart were formed by the Big Bang. They are all just rearrangements of the same parts, bound by strong and weak nuclear forces. So everything that exists is made of the same "stuff." It's quite reasonable to believe that the hydrogen that is involved in our sun's nuclear fusion reactions is the same as the hydrogen that is in the water we drink. In fact, that's the essence of atomic theory.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,577



« Reply #1718 on: November 03, 2009, 03:53:48 PM »

I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,189


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #1719 on: November 03, 2009, 04:04:48 PM »

I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
Some of them fear that Intelligent Design leads towards deism. I disagree.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,347


metron ariston


« Reply #1720 on: November 03, 2009, 04:06:35 PM »

I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?

For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1721 on: November 03, 2009, 06:13:45 PM »

I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?

For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
I suppose one could believe in Intelligent Design and believe a flying spaghetti monster created life on earth.  Not that ID necessarily leads to belief in FSM; rather, one can believe the Designer to be any conscious, intelligent entity.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 06:14:29 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #1722 on: November 03, 2009, 06:30:59 PM »

I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?

For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
I suppose one could believe in Intelligent Design and believe a flying spaghetti monster created life on earth.  Not that ID necessarily leads to belief in FSM; rather, one can believe the Designer to be any conscious, intelligent entity.

Even if one were to assume that the Intelligent Designer were the Judaic-Christian God, he is relugated to the "God of the Gaps" by Intelligent Design  suppositions. He is an unreliable and limited God because his existence is based almost entirely on humans remaining ignorant and ascribing to him all that we don't know. As we push forward in discovering more and understanding more of our universe the domain of this "God" inevitably shrinks.
I think that's what makes "Intelligent Design" bad theology.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2009, 06:33:24 PM by Riddikulus » Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1723 on: November 04, 2009, 02:56:02 AM »

Quote
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.

Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 03:08:51 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1724 on: November 04, 2009, 03:28:35 AM »

I'd still like to get some type of information or answer from a young earth creationist on this point:

"Okay, what catastrophe within the last 7000 years caused us to be able to see stars that are billions of light years away?"

I'm no longer a Young Earth Creationist. At least not in the strict sense, to be honest I don't know what kind of creationist I am now, but I have been thinking about this for years. And my speculation would be ....and I know that a number of YEC reject the big bang, while others accept the idea.

But I would say:

1.) If it is true that the initial expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light(A YEC came up with this idea first, but was laughed at, now that a noncreationist advocated the idea it's acceptable to believe in....well at least for a few nano seconds or seconds or whatever)

Then it really shouldn't matter if you have a different cosmological modal. Instead of Stars, Black Holes......etc. forming slowly over billions of years, they can form quickly from the speed and power of the initial expansion. Don't forget that Energy equals mater times light squared, and so..........why couldn't that light turn into energy and matter? Why can't all the elements we have on our chemistry chart be formed by the light from the initial expansion of the universe?

And if light was there "initially", then why should it matter if the light of some star is now 13 or 14 billion light years away when both came from the same source? At one time that star wasn't 13 or 14 billion light years away. At one time......the stuff that eventually formed that star was an "inch" or less away of what would eventually form our planet.

This is an approach I really never considered.
As for your "I don't know what kind of creationist I am now" dilemma, just a suggestion: don't classify yourself. As for me, I look into history and nature and try to 'see' the Bible events in them, and I know that some events (the Genesis 1 narration) are "philosophy of nature in poetry", some others (the Adam and Eve story) are allegories for now lost historical events of the past, and that others (such as the Battle of the Vale of Siddim) are so well set in an historical context (the Bible gives the 'corrupted' names of Hammurabi, Kudur-Mabuk, Rim-Sin I and Tidhaliya in the text, from a 1770s BCE period) that it would be useless to deny their reality. Every word of the Bible has been chosen by its human authors to convey spiritual teachings that a literal historical narration wouldn't have been able to do by itself, and they did so under divine inspiration. For this reason I deny none of the events of the Bible, but I try to see if there's a possible allegorization or poetry behind before saying "it must be literal".

In Christ,   Alex

Thanks for the advice, and thanks for sharing your thoughts on the issue.





ICXC NIKA
Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1725 on: November 04, 2009, 03:34:09 AM »

I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?

For one thing, ID itself claims to have no theology. Design simply implies a "Designer" -- not necessarily a Monotheistic God, much less the Trinity.
I suppose one could believe in Intelligent Design and believe a flying spaghetti monster created life on earth.  Not that ID necessarily leads to belief in FSM; rather, one can believe the Designer to be any conscious, intelligent entity.

Even if one were to assume that the Intelligent Designer were the Judaic-Christian God, he is relugated to the "God of the Gaps" by Intelligent Design  suppositions. He is an unreliable and limited God because his existence is based almost entirely on humans remaining ignorant and ascribing to him all that we don't know. As we push forward in discovering more and understanding more of our universe the domain of this "God" inevitably shrinks.
I think that's what makes "Intelligent Design" bad theology.

Not necessarily, just as atheistic evolutionists and scientists evolve and change ideas, theistic scientists also evolve and change ideas.

Dr. Alister Mcgrath solved the God of the Gaps issue. It's in his book called "the Dawkin's Delusion". I'll quote him once I figure out where I put the book. He is a Theistic Evolutionist, now I don't agree with him on every issue.....because I'm not a Theistic Evolutionist, but I do grab other ideas from him. Everyone tries to put Creationism in a static/stale box when that's far from the truth.







ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 03:37:40 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1726 on: November 04, 2009, 04:46:49 AM »

Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"?
Quite likely.  Hydrogen, the most prevalent element in the universe, fuses into helium in the core of a star until there's little hydrogen left, then the star will contract enough to reach the density and temperature necessary to fuse the helium into even heavier elements like beryllium.  A small star like our sun may not be able to keep going past its consumption of all its helium, but the thousands-of-times-more-massive giants and supergiants will continue this cycle of fusion, fuel consumption, contraction, and fusion of heavier elements until their cores become iron, which just doesn't seem to fuse into heavier elements at the temperatures sustainable by these behemoths.  Eventually, such an iron-cored star will then explode in a supernova, which may actually be hot enough to fuse some of the iron into the even heavier elements, but I'm just guessing at this.  Of course, what's left of the star's core will likely continue collapsing to form a neutron star or even further to rip a hole in the very fabric of space and time itself.  I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 04:49:42 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #1727 on: November 04, 2009, 07:06:49 AM »

Quote
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.

Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
Yes, C=the speed of light, which is the speed of anything with zero mass. All objects with zero mass travel at the same speed, which is the speed of light. So relativity is not restricted to light, but really applies to any object in the universe which is in motion--and, since everything in the universe is in motion, this equation can be used to calculate the energy of any object in the universe.

Quote
Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?
Peter did an exceptional job explaining the fusion of elements in a star, but I want to add that light is usually a byproduct of this fusion, and that the colour of the light (that is, its wavelength and frequency) is determined at least in part by the elements that comprise the star. So perhaps light is not the cause of the fusion, but it could be an indicator of what is being fused.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1728 on: November 04, 2009, 10:15:56 AM »

Quote
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.

Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA

Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
Quote
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
Quote
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1729 on: November 04, 2009, 12:49:52 PM »

Quote
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.

Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA

Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
Quote
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
Quote
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,   Alex

Photons and gluons can only be considered equivalent if you assume commutative symmetry. Is there a reason you prefer this model over non-abelian models despite its experimental difficulties in the past?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #1730 on: November 04, 2009, 01:42:02 PM »

I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.

Or, at least, this is the only conclusion we can draw at the moment based on our observational (can't travel into a black hole and report about it), computational (I don't think we have the ability to process the information even if it could be gathered), and theoretical (we need new physics to describe things we don't understand) limitations.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1731 on: November 04, 2009, 03:12:23 PM »

I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.

Or, at least, this is the only conclusion we can draw at the moment based on our observational (can't travel into a black hole and report about it), computational (I don't think we have the ability to process the information even if it could be gathered), and theoretical (we need new physics to describe things we don't understand) limitations.

This is not technically true, black holes do emit X-ray radiation (photons) and possibly some other elementary particles, which may especially be the case if an elementary particles (e.g. one or more of the gluons) is definitively associated with the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of mass (gravity). In fact, there is a critical mass for a black hole, one that is large enough to create a temperature in equilibrium with background microwave radiation (roughly the size of Mercury), a smaller blackhole will eventually evaporate, while a larger one will only continue to grow.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,433


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #1732 on: November 04, 2009, 03:33:37 PM »

I have heard a number of Christians, people that I would assume are not young earth creationists, say that Intelligent Design is "bad theology". What exactly is meant by this?
Francis Collins calls it bad theology because ID is essentially a "God-of-the-Gaps" theology, as well as portraying God as a "clumsy Creator" who has to intervene here and there.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1733 on: November 04, 2009, 03:49:39 PM »

Quote
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.

Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA

Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
Quote
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
Quote
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,   Alex

Photons and gluons can only be considered equivalent if you assume commutative symmetry. Is there a reason you prefer this model over non-abelian models despite its experimental difficulties in the past?

I know there are many experimental complications in affirming an abelian model and that the standard model is technically a gauge model, and thus non-abelian. Anyway, I'm an old school thinker, and I believe that the gauge model alone hasn't solved all problems, especially regarding the past. Modern accelerators, despite all possible amounts of energy at our disposal, are very far from simulating an energy level required to bring us exactly to the Big Bang conditions when the universe decayed from pure energy into a miscellanea of high-energy particles. The breaking of the simmetry from photons down to the other low-energy particle, afaik, is clearly the best solution. As for the opposite path (here's the true problem) the difficulties are greater and I perfectly know that not all symmetries work backwards as they do forwards (I say this specifically in reference of QED, of course). After all, this principle has allowed scientists to explain out the theoretical "balance" between quarks and antiquarks after the Big Bang, a thing which, as we can see, has determined the constitution of a matter-based universe.
Anyway, I'm fairly convinced that when Big-Bang like energies are implied, photons would/might/could become the only constituent of the world. Of course this is a pure speculation from my mind, and though I'm interested in science since I was 9, I can't consider myself a scientist. There's still much room for studies, hypothesis, speculations etc to get to know which laws govern our universe. What we know for certain is that many of the great mysteries have been solved at this time. The standard model as we know it is far from complete though, there are many rival theories trying to complete it and include gravity once for all in the model, and none of them has prevailed up to now in a definitive way. In fact, we aren't sure that photons are massless (the doubt is getting stronger and stronger among scientists!) and we can't observe free gluons since they're undetectable when they are confined within hadrons, so observations and studies at the moment haven't untied this Gordian Knot. I still hope 'our' European LHC in Geneve might study these problems as never before and give us an answer while I'm still alive (I'm 25, so there might be enough time, God willing!).

A question: do you think that a non-abelian model could somehow affect a theory such as that proposed by jnorm888? Personally, I don't see any, but I'd be interested to know your opinion!

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1734 on: November 04, 2009, 03:57:12 PM »

I pity anything that falls into such a black hole, for such an unfortunate object, even if it be a massless photon, is taken from this universe never to be returned again.

Or, at least, this is the only conclusion we can draw at the moment based on our observational (can't travel into a black hole and report about it), computational (I don't think we have the ability to process the information even if it could be gathered), and theoretical (we need new physics to describe things we don't understand) limitations.

This is not technically true, black holes do emit X-ray radiation (photons) and possibly some other elementary particles, which may especially be the case if an elementary particles (e.g. one or more of the gluons) is definitively associated with the curvature of spacetime due to the presence of mass (gravity). In fact, there is a critical mass for a black hole, one that is large enough to create a temperature in equilibrium with background microwave radiation (roughly the size of Mercury), a smaller blackhole will eventually evaporate, while a larger one will only continue to grow.
Very true. The little black-holes are cosmic recyclers which, thanks to Hawking radiation, recycle matter into photons until they completely evaporate. Larger black-holes behave more like rubbish dumps or a sewage system where our cosmic rubbish is stocked once for all.

In Christ,    Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1735 on: November 04, 2009, 05:24:50 PM »

Quote
Second, light actually has nothing to do with Einstein's equation. The speed of light is simply the speed of zero-mass objects (of which light itself is one). Electrons, for example, also travel at the speed of light, because they have essentially no mass. The energy of an object is relative (hence the name of the equation) to its mass times the speed of a zero-mass object squared. Note that I say "essentially" no mass, because there is no object whose mass is actually zero. Even the smallest particles have an infinitessimal mass, and therefore, since the speed of light squared is literally astronomical, they have an enormous amount of energy.

Can you please explain this to me again? I'm sorry, but it's been 7 or 8 years since I last took physics.

And back then, I remember C = Light. We had to solve alot of word problems and derive alot of equations in where C = Light.

E = Energy

M = Mass or was that matter? I forgot.

C = Light


Yet you are saying C doesn't equal light but zero mass. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I either forgot or was never told that so can you please re-explain? Thanks! What you said was interesting, I never heard it put that way before....so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!


I agree with mostly everything else you said. Thanks for sharing!


Oh, I have one more question to ask! Were the elements on our Chemistry chart formed by "fusion"? And could the different wave lengths of light have anything to do with the different combinations/re-arrangements?








ICXC NIKA

Ytterbiumanalyst explained this very well. If you want, you can imagine all particles been slowed down by their masses. A mass-less particle would travel at the maximum speed possible (the 'c' constant) while a massive particle would be slowed down as if it were loaded with ballast.
As for this interpretation:
Quote
so basicaly, if something had "zero mass" then it could be said that such and such was going the speed of light....so it doesn't have to be strictly light.......it could be anything with zero mass. Interesting!
This isn't entirely true, but your somehow getting the point. It is more correct to say that all particles travelling at the speed of light are necessarily photons. Stephen Hawking explains this very well with a good example of his:
Quote
The Weinberg-Salam theory exhibits a property known as spontaneous symmetry breaking. This means that what appear to be a number of completely different particles at low energies are in fact found to be all the same type of particle, only in different states. At high energies all these
particles behave similarly. The effect is rather like the behavior of a roulette ball on a roulette wheel. At high energies (when the wheel is spun quickly) the ball behaves in essentially only one way – it rolls round and round. But as the wheel slows, the energy of the ball decreases, and eventually the ball drops into one of the thirty-seven slots in the wheel. In other words, at low energies there are thirty-seven different states in which the ball can exist. If, for some reason, we could only observe the ball at low energies, we would then think that there were thirty-seven different types of ball! (Stephen Hawking, A brief history of time)
In this case, all particles will behave like photons in every single aspect if they would be with a near-to-zero mass. In other words, they would become light as we know it... only at lower energies they would become some other particles again.
This shows also that your initial deduction is correct: the universe at the Big Bang was pure light, and everything was formed out of light. At the Big bang instant, there was only pure energy (mass-less virtual particles) compressed into a singularity. Soon after the Big Bang, these energy packs became photons which have the lowest mass possible, and they expanded with the universe whose fabric was expanding faster then light in every direction (the so-called inflation). As the universe expanded, the amount of energy began to diminish and the first photons began to slow down, acquire mass and 'determine' themselves as different particles according to their energy. This is how the universe developped in the course of its first instants, and the stars (the cosmic furnaces) were formed out of those photon clouds by cooling, so to say.

In Christ,   Alex

Photons and gluons can only be considered equivalent if you assume commutative symmetry. Is there a reason you prefer this model over non-abelian models despite its experimental difficulties in the past?

I know there are many experimental complications in affirming an abelian model and that the standard model is technically a gauge model, and thus non-abelian. Anyway, I'm an old school thinker, and I believe that the gauge model alone hasn't solved all problems, especially regarding the past. Modern accelerators, despite all possible amounts of energy at our disposal, are very far from simulating an energy level required to bring us exactly to the Big Bang conditions when the universe decayed from pure energy into a miscellanea of high-energy particles. The breaking of the simmetry from photons down to the other low-energy particle, afaik, is clearly the best solution. As for the opposite path (here's the true problem) the difficulties are greater and I perfectly know that not all symmetries work backwards as they do forwards (I say this specifically in reference of QED, of course). After all, this principle has allowed scientists to explain out the theoretical "balance" between quarks and antiquarks after the Big Bang, a thing which, as we can see, has determined the constitution of a matter-based universe.

Hence, my main problem with assuming commutative symmetry, it may make things work nicely at times, but as a mathematician you have to have a good reason to convince me of a property like that. Wink

Quote
Anyway, I'm fairly convinced that when Big-Bang like energies are implied, photons would/might/could become the only constituent of the world. Of course this is a pure speculation from my mind, and though I'm interested in science since I was 9, I can't consider myself a scientist. There's still much room for studies, hypothesis, speculations etc to get to know which laws govern our universe. What we know for certain is that many of the great mysteries have been solved at this time. The standard model as we know it is far from complete though, there are many rival theories trying to complete it and include gravity once for all in the model, and none of them has prevailed up to now in a definitive way. In fact, we aren't sure that photons are massless (the doubt is getting stronger and stronger among scientists!) and we can't observe free gluons since they're undetectable when they are confined within hadrons, so observations and studies at the moment haven't untied this Gordian Knot. I still hope 'our' European LHC in Geneve might study these problems as never before and give us an answer while I'm still alive (I'm 25, so there might be enough time, God willing!).

I'm not convinced photons have (non-relativistic) mass; however, I'm not at all opposed to the hypothesis that all mass is actually relativistic mass, it actually fits well with what experimental evidence we have; though I'd be much more comfortable with any theory of fundamental particles if it could better describe the interaction between them and spacetime, i.e. quantum gravity. And I also think that the Standard Model is far from perfect, it's good but I believe that many of the particles aren't elementary particles and whether or not there are elementary particles not yet know or considered, I'm not sure.

Unfortunately too much of modern theoretical particle physics is speculation without enough experimental evidence to truly form an informed model, I'll think I'll await further experimental evidence before forming too strong of an opinion...they need to get that damned LHC up and running and give us some real data.


Quote
A question: do you think that a non-abelian model could somehow affect a theory such as that proposed by jnorm888? Personally, I don't see any, but I'd be interested to know your opinion!

In Christ,   Alex

No, I don't. I don't find enough evidence to suggest that particles, even massless ones, could move faster than c, RELATIVE TO LOCAL SPACETIME, and certainly not after the Planck epoch. That they were moving at much higher speeds relative to each other while the universe was flattening out and assuming its current geometry is likely, but under these conditions, since gravity can only move at the velocity c (c being the speed of gravity is really much more significant than it being the speed of light), it would have been impossible for more complex particles to form. More complex particles, to say nothing of gravitational bodies, could not have formed until physical conditions much closer to our universe today than during the big bang existed.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,577



« Reply #1736 on: November 04, 2009, 05:31:52 PM »

Thank you for the answers regarding ID being bad theology Smiley
Logged

Problem: John finds a spider under his bed. John eats the spider. John gets sick to his stomach.

Question: Why did John get sick?
AlexanderOfBergamo
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Traditionalist Christian
Jurisdiction: The Original First Millennium Church
Posts: 706


« Reply #1737 on: November 05, 2009, 09:37:24 AM »

Thanks for your sincere answer, dear GiC. It is a pleasure to discuss these things in freedom.
On the LHC I would add one little anecdote: I personally met with the director of INFN (Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare - National Institute for Nuclear Physics) which is the Italian institute affiliated to CERN, after a conference he took on Dan Brown's Angels and Demons and specifically on how much "good science" there is in it (half and half was the answer!).
When he was asked why the LHC didn't work, he admitted that they projected the freezing mechanisms of the accelerator with low-cost materials and the unexpected result was that it just didn't work and damaged the accelerator. In a certain sense, the financial crisis affects science too! BTW he also said it will take one or two years to repair the damage and substitute the accelerator's freezing system, which is necessary to reboot LHC. Let's hope for a good outcome and for some new answers!

In Christ,   Alex
Logged

"Also in the Catholic Church itself we take great care that we hold that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and properly Catholic" (St. Vincent of Lérins, "The Commonitory")
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,067


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1738 on: November 16, 2009, 06:35:33 PM »

Thank you for the answers regarding ID being bad theology Smiley

Kenneth Miller also mentioned ID tends to lead to a deceptive God, that what may seem to be too old using radioactive dating or what may seem to show genetic similarities among species does not really mean that the former is too old or that the latter proves an evolutionary process.  Just that God made it seem that way.

Also, I personally thing it's bad theology because if one is to claim ID is a science, and then say that the Designer is the Trinity under Christian teachings, essentially under the scientific method, you're saying God is testable, and therefore He is really not beyond creation or uncreated, but created.  IMO, God under ID isn't God anymore.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #1739 on: December 13, 2009, 12:15:54 AM »

It seems as if I didn't know everything there was to know about creationism. Or maybe, he just used a different term that I wasn't use to.

Dr. Douglas Jacoby calls himself an "Evolutionary Creationist". Now I don't know if that is his own personal term for himself, but it seemed more like "Theistic Evolution" to me. Maybe he just didn't know about the term "Theistic evolution", and just wanted to try out a new term. I don't know, but here is a video of him:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/user/douglasjacoby#p/c/CE81926D5AA54286 ("Science, Man, God: A Creationism vs. Evolution Debate" Dr. Michael Shermer vs Dr. Douglas Jacoby)

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/user/douglasjacoby#p/c/CE81926D5AA54286

Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/user/douglasjacoby#p/c/CE81926D5AA54286


A review of the debate:
http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4803 (Round Two: Douglas Jacoby and Michael Shermer Debate) 












ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 12:17:14 AM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #1740 on: December 13, 2009, 12:21:56 AM »

Dr. Douglas Jacoby calls himself an "Evolutionary Creationist". Now I don't know if that is his own personal term for himself, but it seemed more like "Theistic Evolution" to me. Maybe he just didn't know about the term "Theistic evolution", and just wanted to try out a new term. I don't know

I've heard both terms used fairly often, but they usually speak more about the individuals background rather than their view on evolution.  I find Evolutionary Creationist is mentioned within certain protestant circles (one of the reasons I believe they emphasise creationism in the term), while Theistic Evolution is much more common in Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic circles.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2009, 12:25:57 AM by Nebelpfade » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,416



WWW
« Reply #1741 on: December 13, 2009, 01:05:43 AM »

My main problems with scientific explanations about the origins of the universe is that modern science assumes too many constants in an entropic universe.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,067


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #1742 on: December 13, 2009, 01:30:25 AM »

Dr. Douglas Jacoby calls himself an "Evolutionary Creationist". Now I don't know if that is his own personal term for himself, but it seemed more like "Theistic Evolution" to me. Maybe he just didn't know about the term "Theistic evolution", and just wanted to try out a new term. I don't know

I've heard both terms used fairly often, but they usually speak more about the individuals background rather than their view on evolution.  I find Evolutionary Creationist is mentioned within certain protestant circles (one of the reasons I believe they emphasise creationism in the term), while Theistic Evolution is much more common in Anglican, Orthodox and Roman Catholic circles.

Interesting.  That's the first time I heard that term.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,951


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #1743 on: December 13, 2009, 04:15:23 AM »

My main problems with scientific explanations about the origins of the universe is that modern science assumes too many constants in an entropic universe.
Would you care to explain what you mean by this?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,934


"My god is greater."


« Reply #1744 on: January 04, 2010, 03:13:32 PM »

Has anyone else here read Philip Sherrard's books, "Human Image: World Image" or "Rape of Man and Nature"? If not, I would highly recommend them. They reveal some fundamental philosophical problems between modern science and Christianity, going way beyond the creationism vs. evolution debate. In fact, both sides of the debate tend to rely on the dualist mindset that he critiques. There is a genuine Christian critique of modern science, Darwinism, etc., which has nothing to do with "fundamentalism".
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1745 on: January 27, 2010, 01:51:21 PM »

The following started HERE in Faith Issues  -PtA


Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2010, 04:25:33 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Rosehip
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #1746 on: January 27, 2010, 02:03:20 PM »

Then again, the account also calls "the evening and the morning" a day. So far I've never met anyone, Jews included, who call an evening and a morning a day. Traditionally, a day is calculated from sunset to sunset, not from sunset to sunrise.All throughout history there have been those who read the Genesis story as elevated prose and those who interpreted it literally. The allegorical approach is nothing new. What is new is making a lucrative business out of a literal reading of Genesis Chapter One.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 02:04:37 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #1747 on: January 27, 2010, 02:08:05 PM »

Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
Your loss.

As Rosehip says, this allegorical interpretation is neither atheist, nor modern. It is quite old. For one thing, how was there literal evening and morning before the creation of the sun?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 12,915



WWW
« Reply #1748 on: January 27, 2010, 02:13:09 PM »


...besides...if this is what you base your "Christianity" on...then you are completely missing what truly is Christianity.

Take a deep breath...and begin, again.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1749 on: January 27, 2010, 02:16:47 PM »

Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
Your loss.

As Rosehip says, this allegorical interpretation is neither atheist, nor modern. It is quite old. For one thing, how was there literal evening and morning before the creation of the sun?
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
you can be in a dark cave, and there' will still be time even though there's no sun there.
Rev 22:5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #1750 on: January 27, 2010, 02:20:21 PM »

Exo 20:8  Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Exo 20:9  Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
Exo 20:10  But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
Exo 20:11  For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
(from the ten commandments.)
Does the orthodox church believe that God made Heaven and earth and all that in them is in six days then rested on the seventh as the ten commandment says?
please don't tell me that 6 days is really longer than 24 hour days,because the Jews would have been working for from day 1 and 2 thousands of years, and maybe even millions of years before taking the sabbath day, for those who want to reconcile scripture to the world.

Personally I can't become roman catholic because they compromised the early church and ancient Israel's belief, with the world, they gave up, they no longer believe in 6 days, but in the first millennium God made this, then the second millennium God made this, if the orthodox can't even belief the first chapter of the Bible without worldy athiestic interpretation, then I might as well not be orthodox, not even christian anything.
Your loss.

As Rosehip says, this allegorical interpretation is neither atheist, nor modern. It is quite old. For one thing, how was there literal evening and morning before the creation of the sun?
Gen 1:3  And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
you can be in a dark cave, and there' will still be time even though there's no sun there.
Evening and morning does not come with me going in and coming out of a cave.  If you think otherwise, you are in a very dark cave.


Quote
Rev 22:5  And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.

You just proved the allegorical point.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1751 on: January 27, 2010, 02:29:20 PM »

Then again, the account also calls "the evening and the morning" a day. So far I've never met anyone, Jews included, who call an evening and a morning a day. Traditionally, a day is calculated from sunset to sunset, not from sunset to sunrise.All throughout history there have been those who read the Genesis story as elevated prose and those who interpreted it literally. The allegorical approach is nothing new. What is new is making a lucrative business out of a literal reading of Genesis Chapter One.

actually it can be translated or actually says day one, not a day.
Gen 1:5  And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Gen 1:5  appellavitque lucem diem et tenebras noctem factumque est vespere et mane dies unus
Gen 1:5  καὶ ἐκάλεσεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ φῶς ἡμέραν καὶ τὸ σκότος ἐκάλεσεν νύκτα. καὶ ἐγένετο ἑσπέρα καὶ ἐγένετο πρωί, ἡμέρα μία.
The Greek says Day one ἠμέρα μία, so does Latin day one, then it says the second day.
Logged
88Devin12
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,864



« Reply #1752 on: January 27, 2010, 02:32:46 PM »

Are you honestly inquiring or trying to convince us that we are wrong? I'm confused...  Huh
Logged
Christianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: ¿esse an non esse Orthodoxus?
Posts: 312


« Reply #1753 on: January 27, 2010, 02:39:50 PM »

Are you honestly inquiring or trying to convince us that we are wrong? I'm confused...  Huh
I want a return to the in six days God created heaven and earth and all that in them is.
Evolution which is a new influence in the church and doesn't believe in God the Creator, is not even as old as creationism.
I just want a return to pre-evolution creationism.

and that's why I'm asking if the orthodox church believe in it. I"ve heard that they don't force you to believe either side.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2010, 02:40:35 PM by Christianus » Logged
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 12,915



WWW
« Reply #1754 on: January 27, 2010, 02:48:44 PM »



Orthodoxy will never "force" you to do anything.  The Church will try to educate you and to help you along in your understanding, however, nothing is ever forced upon you.  Christ never forced anyone to do or believe anything....He simply explained it to them...where they could see and accept His logic (or not).

If you are asking if the Orthodox Church supports evolution in the sense that mankind evolved from chimps, then NO, the Church does NOT hold to this thinking.

God created mankind.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
Tags: science Theory of Evolution evolution creationism cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 75 queries.