Tuesday 28 May 2019

With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles


Creation vs. Evolution : Responding to Dystopian Science · Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A · Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters · HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Tactics · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : Part III : On Bradley and Bessel · New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit? · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles

I

Me to Steve Taylor
4/11/2019 at 12:28 PM
You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
Here is the deal.

I am Young Earth Creationist. Back in 2001, August 23, I came across the Distant Starlight Problem.

As you know, soh-cah-toa or trigonometry gives an answer about distance only when there is a distance given in the question.

For a Heliocentric, that distance is Earth to Earth. The problem with that distance is - of Earth stands still, we would know the distance from Sun to Sun (along the zodiac = E to E on Heliocentric view), but we would not know that the distance star to star equals S to S.

So, since August 24 2001, I am Geocentric, takes neatly care of the Distant Starlight problem.

Now, if the stars are one light day away (and there are even so very good reasons why they cannot be just 8 light minutes away, unless you count S as a star rather than as a planet), they are each day performing a circle with the radius 1 ld, the diameter 2 ld and the circumference 6.28 ... light days.

This means, they are going 6.28 ... times faster than the speed of light.

Here is where you come in.

I came across this video:

The Speed of Light is NOT About Light
PBS Space Time | 7.X.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo

And I made this comment, basically on what it was saying:

New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/04/do-lorentz-transformations-prove.html

As you are into electronics, you would know much more about Lorentz transformations than I do, and that means, if you can at one go refute one or more of my solutions, right off the bat, do so.

Rest assured that your answer or answers (if I reply) won't be wasted, I intend to post the correspondence to this blog:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : If you wish to correspond with me
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

Have a great day and looking forward to hearing from you soon!
Hans Georg Lundahl

II

Steve Taylor to me
4/12/2019 at 8:07 AM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
Hello
I’ve just left the UK for a week. Will look at this when I return. In the meantime can you say whether you believe the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours in duration?
Regards
Steve Taylor

Sent from my iPhone

III

Me to Steve Taylor
4/12/2019 at 10:15 AM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
" In the meantime can you say whether you believe the days of Genesis 1 to be 24 hours in duration? "

Roughly speaking definitely, with a possible hesitation on whether the days in Henochs day and up to Flood were a few minutes longer, so that solar year of same length then was 364 and now is 365.2425 days.

Exactly 24 hours, well, with above reservation, plus day 1 could be some hours shorter. Did light appear at 6am or 9am? Was the world created a few minutes before, or was it created 6pm Saturday evening in modern terms?

This means, for star light to arrive to Earth on day five, when birds were created, without starlight created in transit or even more exotic stuff, the stars created on day four would have been at least then one light day and no more above.

Now they could be somewhat further away and that would mean their local movement around us each stellar day is more than 6.28 times the speed of light, which is what brings us to the questions on the Lorentz transformations, as mentioned.

Have a pleasant journey whereever you went!
Hans Georg Lundahl

IV

Steve Taylor to me
5/23/2019 at 12:58 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
Dear Hans-Georg,

Firstly, apologies for taking so long to get back to you. I do not think I have the time to enter a long correspondence, but I would like to make two points:



Yours sincerely
Steve Taylor

V

Me to Steve Taylor
5/23/2019 at 2:16 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
Better late than never!

  • 1) I already answered it here:

    New blog on the kid : And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...
    http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-cmi-also-felt-need-to-refute.html

  • 2) "If this is true"

    It is.

    "then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:"

    False, each starts to apply as soon as God puts it in place, as with laws of biology.

    "they are contravened each time God speaks and creates ex-nihilo or fashions miraculously."

    Also false, miracles do not contravene what natural laws state about outcomes of such and such a causality, they only provide causalities not provided themselves as outcomes by natural laws.

    "Arguments based on the application of physical laws and measurements that we now observe may therefore be invalid because the such laws do not apply to miraculous situations."

    Distant starlight paradox actually does not just apply to Creation week, but continues to apply.

    Suppose we see a nova that is supposed to be 100 000 light years away, and we have a problem now, not just back in creation week : why would a light source shine light to us in a maximum of 7500 years (or whatever the Biblical age of Heaven and Earth) if that light should take 100 000 years?

    Hence, my observation, it shouldn't.

    However, while I am accepting speed of light as observed for the journey of light, I am also allowing each body to rotate with the aether (note that it would only be disproven by Michelson Morley in a non-geocentric setting) at what is locally if not vectorially a speed higher than that of light.

    My rationale is, speed of light applies to light spreading through aether, not to aether itself or anything (including fix stars).

    Hence my question to you about Lorentz Transformations.


Sincerly,
Hans Georg Lundahl

Branching out
branches a and b will deal with different things, but came simultaneously on each exchange, or nearly so. Steve waited and skipped one occasion on the one branch, so like VIII a is not simultaneous with VIII b, but with X b.

Branch a)

VI a

Steve Taylor to me
5/23/2019 at 4:27 PM
RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
<<"then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:">>

False, each starts to apply as soon as God puts it in place, as with laws of biology.

So not completely false then ?

VII a

Me to Steve Taylor
5/24/2019 at 1:18 PM
Re: RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
Speed of light did not apply when darkness was on the face of the deep, but started applying when God created visible light.

Rotation of universe (inside the sphere of God's throne room) around around Earth started applying at least for light source from when God separated night and day.

Probably "firmament" created next day is a rotating and limited sphere of aether, moving around earth and its daily movement (full circle 23 h 55 min or so) started applying from when it was created.

Luminaries having a movement west along the aether and their own movement east (except fix stars) around zodiac started applying from day 4.

Biogenesis of plants started applying on day 3, of fish and birds on day 5, of beasts of earth and of men on day 6.

Your statement again:

<<"then for the creation week the commonly accepted laws of Physics based on our current observations do not apply:">>

= Each and all only start applying after creation week, when God withdraws the miraculous stuff.

That is how I read your statement and that is what I call false.

VIII a

Steve Taylor to me
5/24/2019 at 1:33 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
Your idea that the normal laws of physics (whatever they are) kick in as soon as an entity is created is plausible. (I am not sure you are right but don’t say that you are wrong).

My issue is, for example, with the laws of thermodynamics.

Considering the Universe as a closed physical system I cannot see how conservation of mass and energy can apply at all until after day 6 when creative activity ceases ( can you?).

If the first law of thermodynamics is not in operation, we are not in a ‘normal’ physical system or situation. Consequently great caution (at least) is needed in invoking or applying other physical laws if fundamental ones are not in operation (at least for those periods of creative activity).

This is why I am cautious of entering the argument with the assumption that we can use the physics and chemistry that we teach at University in 2019 and which may superseded anyway if mankind is still here in 100 years time….

IX a

Me to Steve Taylor
5/24/2019 at 1:55 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
" conservation of mass and energy "

Do NOT apply the way you think, the universe has not been a closed physical system ever, but always open to God, angels, devils, human souls, and it is doubtful to claim even animal souls (not image of God, not immortal) are fully physical.

They probably DO apply to real physical closed systems though - if any. Anywhere.

I meant things like speed of light where and however it applies, Ohm's law, Watt's law, Coulombe's law, etc. Aristotle's, Newton's or Einstein's version of gravity, whichever be true.

In other words, clearly observed regularities.

Branch b)

VI b

Steve Taylor to me
5/23/2019 at 4:30 PM
RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
"they are contravened each time God speaks and creates ex-nihilo or fashions miraculously."

Also false, miracles do not contravene what natural laws state about outcomes of such and such a causality, they only provide causalities not provided themselves as outcomes by natural laws.

Let me understand your position here.

Are you saying that when the Lord Jesus Christ walked upon the sea of Galilee the natural law that we term the law of gravitational attraction applied or not?

VII b

Me to Steve Taylor
5/24/2019 at 1:12 PM
Re: RE: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
Gravitation applied to all natural non-glorious bodies.

One explanation is, the properties of the glorious resurrection body were displayed in advance of resurrection, and the non-glorious everyday appearance was a result of His miraculously inhibiting those properties.

Subtlety (walking through walls / Virgin birth)
Brightness (appearance to Saul / on mount Tabor)
Lightness (ascending to Heaven / walking on water).

Another explanation, less likely to me, is, God provided a causality which was stronger than gravitation.

You are aware gravitation applies when a soccer ball is kicked across the football field, just that the propulsion from the kick applies even more?

You are aware gravitation applies when your pen lies on the table, even if it is 6000 km and some more above centre of Earth, just stabilities of table, floor, ground, tektonic plates and mantle apply even more?

There you have it, God's omnipotence / properties of glorious bodies, whichever, apply even more.

VIII b

Steve Taylor to me
5/24/2019 at 1:18 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
<< Gravitation applied to all natural non-glorious bodies.>>

  • (i) The body of the Lord Jesus Christ was a fully human body

  • (ii) Peter also walked on water (Matthew 14:29)


It seems to me that gravitation did not apply in these two miraculous situations

IX b

Me to Steve Taylor
5/24/2019 at 1:23 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
  • i) the glorious resurrection body is a fully human body, identic in identity but changed in qualities in relation to the human body
  • ii) St Peter had a foretaste of his resurrection.


So, gravity did apply and gloriousness of bodies (fully there, though hidden in Jesus, partially there by foretaste in St Peter) applied even more.

X b

Steve Taylor to me
5/24/2019 at 1:39 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
<< i) the glorious resurrection body is a fully human body, identic in identity but changed in qualities in relation to the human body>>

Pls read 1 Corinthians 15 – the resurrection body is said to be a ‘spiritual body’. Personality is preserved but its properties are altered. It is not subject to death for example

<

This is speculation on your part. You have no way of knowing what you say is true

XI b

Me to Steve Taylor
5/24/2019 at 2:06 PM
Re: You might be the right guy to give an indepth answer on Lorentz transformations
1 Cor 15 says nothing of resurrection body being non-identic, it only states it is changed, i e non-similar on some points.

It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in incorruption. [43] It is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory. It is sown in weakness, it shall rise in power. [44] It is sown a natural body, it shall rise a spiritual body. If there be a natural body, there is also a spiritual body, as it is written: [45] The first man Adam was made into a living soul; the last Adam into a quickening spirit.

It ... it = both it in each pair refer to same object, i e same body. The resurrection body of Christ was identic to his pre-Crucifixion body, since He showed the wounds acquired in the Crucifixion. It had other properties, but was not another body.

" This is speculation on your part "

On Our Lord's body prior to Crucifixion, it is sound Catholic theology, not personal speculation. I know it is true, even if you don't (as a non-Catholic), and that latter is why I gave an alternative in God's omnipotence, and the general relation between natural and omnipotent causation in miraculous events is the one outlined by C. S. Lewis in the book Miracles.

The only thing which is speculation on my part (unless it's half-memory) is St Peter having a foretaste of his resurrection.

But Moses had, since his face was shining, other property of resurrection bodies, so it seems reasonable.

And the shining part, shown to St Paul and on Patmos to St John was also hidden most events after Resurrection. This being Biblical support of the Catholic doctrine (probably inferior in certainty than dogma, but still doctrine) that Christ was hiding the resurrection properties of His Body prior to Resurrection.

Other Biblical support : "I am the resurrection and the life" said before raising of St Lazarus the Four Days Dead, i e before He rose Himself. Applies a bit better if His Body already had resurrection properties, through hypostatic union, and they were hidden, than if He was still waiting for them. But we are waiting for them.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)