Understanding Creationism through Physics.

[Technosoul]

I posted a theory simular to one that has become the topic of a new book that is now out. My theory was posted here at volconvo but that was a while back. I lacked the knowdege of physics and so it was not well recieved by people who post in the science forum. But someone has done that part of the job, and this is what I was waiting for.

The idea is founded on the principle that gravity is not pulling things together from the center (re: center of earth - etc.) but rather that gravity is a force that pushes matter together from three dimensions. Motion being orginated by the unmoved, creates a force field called time-space which is a motion like a stream of water. The density of the water remains the same from the mountian spring to the oceans (etc.). Within that dense motion smaller whirlpools are effected that can resist the motion of the water that moves past the whirlpool. Because the spinning motion holds it in place with pressure (gravity) from all sides of its circular presesnce. The whirlpool was not effected by an explosive event in what is now it's center - as the Big Bang theory would suggest.

That anology is for the layman to concider because of it's logical nature of explanation. The new book goes into the physics involved for the theory as well as lots of additional scientific data that is supportive.
Already presented at a science convention and well recieved.

The energy force originates not from this universe but from outside of everything. Or 'apart from' the universe where-in time-space is in effect.
The new book provides scientific support for that principle as well.

No not be missled because this book is far-advanced of anything you normally hear from the mainstream 'creationist' organizations.

The new book can be downloaded or you can order a printed copy, those without funds to pay (tax-deductable donation) can request it for it for free as that is the standard policy at FHU. The first link is audio, the other link is readable.

Once the theory is fully comprehendable then science can invent a way to tap into the "pushing gravity force" for unlimited energy that can be employed for human useage.

Finding God In Physics -Author's Comments

Finding God In Physics - a book by Roy Masters - A Journey Across the Universe

[Technosoul]

Good. At least 15 people viewed this and NO ONE objected or found fault with the links.

Normally any topic about "creation" brings the nay-sayers out in full force, but not this time. Must mean he is on to something that makes sense.

[pikatore]

I just viewed it, and instanly had problems.

Gravity is BOTH something that can originate from the centre of a large object, and be an attractive force.

That's why all objects have a centre of gravity, and massive spherical ones like the earth pull things towards it's center. It's semantics really.

This energy force was thought to be born very quickly AFTER the big bang took place, not be a pre-existent force on it's own.

Before you suggest these crazy new theories written by some apologist, you should try reading some more credible books like a brief history of time.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: pikatore I just viewed it, and instanly had problems. Gravity is BOTH something that can originate from the centre of a large object, and be an attractive force. That's why all objects have a centre of gravity, and massive spherical ones like the earth pull things towards it's center. It's semantics really. This energy force was thought to be born very quickly AFTER the big bang took place, not be a pre-existent force on it's own. Before you suggest these crazy new theories written by some apologist, you should try reading some more credible books like a brief history of time.

'A Brief History of Time" and the theories contained in it was read by the author and commented upon. The thing is the webpage did not show all the stuff written in the book and so it cannot properly debated without having the book. I just found out about the book Saturday when it was mentioned to me by a person visiting a garage sale I had at my house.
I did read his first book "The Science of Life" that came out in the 1960s and is now out of print but do not recall all the details.

The thing is he is claiming that you (science) has got it backwards and he has presented evidence and logic to counter-act the mainstream theories.

Now a whirlpool in a stream of water would seem to pull things into it's center - does that center contain "gravity", a attaction or are things pushed into it by the surrounding density of motion? Time-space motion would be the surrounding force that pushes from all sides and there-by causing the compacting effect. That is all I can get from the limited audio and printed material used at that webpage to promote the book.

Your idea is based party on the theory of the Big Bang, in the book History of Time, time would somehow reverse and implode back to the center or it's orginating point. Read the printed link where author Roy Masters commented on that and debate his comment about how silly that sounds.

In the past I have come across some of this other books relative to phychology and found them to be sensible. So based on that I recomended this new book.

All you did so far is say that another idea is the one you favor and so no new ideas matter, you have made up your mind. But that is not actually debating the new idea or the ideas supporting it.

[Zhavric]

I fail to see anything here beyond more god-of-the-gaps reasoning. This argumentation makes a massive assumption that god exists and then seeks to use sketchy science & quote mined science to prove it's claims.

Nothing new here.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric I fail to see anything here beyond more god-of-the-gaps reasoning. This argumentation makes a massive assumption that god exists and then seeks to use sketchy science & quote mined science to prove it's claims. Nothing new here.

Regardless of whether they use God as the gap-filler, it's still a scientific endeavor to try to point out a gap in the first place.
I would have preffered that they let it be unfilled, but we Christians are eager to go around to every pothole in the highway of science and fill it with holy water.

It's possible that this author has found something intriguing, but it wouldn't be proof of God; it would only be, at most, proof of a hole that God can still fill.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Regardless of whether they use God as the gap-filler, it's still a scientific endeavor to try to point out a gap in the first place. I would have preffered that they let it be unfilled, but we Christians are eager to go around to every pothole in the highway of science and fill it with holy water. It's possible that this author has found something intriguing, but it wouldn't be proof of God; it would only be, at most, proof of a hole that God can still fill.

There's hope for you yet.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zhavric I fail to see anything here beyond more god-of-the-gaps reasoning. This argumentation makes a massive assumption that god exists and then seeks to use sketchy science & quote mined science to prove it's claims. Nothing new here.

So you read the book already?

Or speculating?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Fangrim Regardless of whether they use God as the gap-filler, it's still a scientific endeavor to try to point out a gap in the first place. I would have preffered that they let it be unfilled, but we Christians are eager to go around to every pothole in the highway of science and fill it with holy water. It's possible that this author has found something intriguing, but it wouldn't be proof of God; it would only be, at most, proof of a hole that God can still fill.

From what I was told in a conversation when he presented his theory at the science convention he did not mention God or Christians, but kept it within the framework scientists are used to hearing, and the 15 min presentation was well recieved. (they had put a time limit on the speakers).

However his radio show (on the air since the 1960s) is now about a mixture of religion, phychology, science, etc. Where he answers questions from caller or helps them with a problem they are having.

He is Jewish by birth and worked as a diamond cutter for his family, then he discovered a way to hypnotically help people to overcome hypnotical influences. He put it on a record you could play at home and opened up a shop in Texas where he would teach his stress reduction methodology which was effective in helping people overcome stress, personal problems, and stress-related illnesses. He got arrested and put into jail for giving "medical advice" because he was not a doctor. Then moved to California and went on a local radio show, it was a religious station where you pay for the time you use. The other preachers on the station attempted to get him kicked off the air after he started talking about the hypnotical influences of organized religion. But the owner allowed him to continue. As his program continued lots of people told him he was saying what Jesus had said but being Jewish he did not know anything about such teachings, so he finally looked into those teachings and was surprised how much he agreed with those teachings. He had a book out called "The Science of Life" and I went down to buy a copy (1966) and when I walked in the tiny place (Foundation of Human Understanding) I was looking at some manuscripts he had for sale. He came out of his office and walked directly to me and said "Young man, you will not find what you are looking for in my books, you can only find the answer within your self". So I left and and attempted to meditate instead. I nearly forgot about him until last weekend when someone mentioned him to me at my garage sale and about his new book. Although I never really forgot him or some of the things he said on his program.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Fangrim Regardless of whether they use God as the gap-filler, it's still a scientific endeavor to try to point out a gap in the first place. I would have preffered that they let it be unfilled, but we Christians are eager to go around to every pothole in the highway of science and fill it with holy water. It's possible that this author has found something intriguing, but it wouldn't be proof of God; it would only be, at most, proof of a hole that God can still fill.

What gap? Science has the theory of the Big Bang as the "orgins" idea to fill the gap. Along with other speculative ideas about the orgins of the universe. His science is suggesting another concept and likewise attempts to suggest why the Big Bang idea is not logical.

[ZNFYRH]

I've been thinking about this topic, and I came to something of a conclusion.

No matter who you ask, Creationists or Big-Bangers, they both say, basically...

"The universe started with X."

And when you ask:

"Well how did X do it? What made it happen?"

Both sides reply:

"What do you mean how? It just did!!! How can you not look around you at all the documentation and see how I am right?"

We haven't seen God. We haven't seen how he created the universe. Yet people point to something and say that it's proof that God created the universe. But they don't explain how.

We haven't see the Big Bang. We haven't seen how it created the universe. Yet people point to something and say that it's proof that the Big Bang created the universe. But they don't explain how.

Creationism is a definitive discipline. Physics is "in progress" as such that we're still learning.

The topic is saying, to me, "Understanding something definitive by using something that is still not completely developed."

That only makes sense in showing that there are many things we don't understand about physics and that it is possible that application of presently unknown physics principles made the universe.

To use an interesting paradox mentioned by Isherwood in another thread, what if certain aspects of the universe were created by another species of life?

If they can violate the human "laws" of science, where does that place God?

[rez]

Quote by: Technosoul Good. At least 15 people viewed this and NO ONE objected or found fault with the links. Normally any topic about "creation" brings the nay-sayers out in full force, but not this time. Must mean he is on to something that makes sense.

Technosoul this is not physics. This is a dude that is a Christian trying to sell books.

Quote by: wikipedia Peer review is a process of subjecting an author's scholarly work or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the field.

The same people who claimed they cloned a human and invented the hover craft never let other experts check out their claims. It was all a hoax.

In the dishonesty thread I constantly told you that if you want to accept the supernatural claims that Christans spew, then you are going to have to accept all the other religious supernatural claims out there. There is no evidence needed to support supernatural claims, so there is no way of rejecting a supernatural claim. So either accept all supernatural claims or reject all supernatural claims.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I've been thinking about this topic, and I came to something of a conclusion. No matter who you ask, Creationists or Big-Bangers, they both say, basically... "The universe started with X." And when you ask: "Well how did X do it? What made it happen?" Both sides reply: "What do you mean how? It just did!!! How can you not look around you at all the documentation and see how I am right?" We haven't seen God. We haven't seen how he created the universe. Yet people point to something and say that it's proof that God created the universe. But they don't explain how. We haven't see the Big Bang. We haven't seen how it created the universe. Yet people point to something and say that it's proof that the Big Bang created the universe. But they don't explain how. Creationism is a definitive discipline. Physics is "in progress" as such that we're still learning. The topic is saying, to me, "Understanding something definitive by using something that is still not completely developed." That only makes sense in showing that there are many things we don't understand about physics and that it is possible that application of presently unknown physics principles made the universe. To use an interesting paradox mentioned by Isherwood in another thread, what if certain aspects of the universe were created by another species of life? If they can violate the human "laws" of science, where does that place God?

Remaining open minded is the most secure way of not being wrong.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Technosoul Remaining open minded is the most secure way of not being wrong.

Some people have that opinion and perceive open-mindedness as weakness or cowardice.

In my life, I don't say something is blue unless I see it with my own eyes or unless it's seen by a pair of eyes I trust. And that number of trusted eyes isn't a big one.

If someone I trust makes up a story about something, I'm more prone to believe it.

If someone I don't know truly has an experience that is unusual, I'm more prone to not believe.

That's just the nature of the beast.

But I know enough about science to know that I don't know much of anything at all. I won't start using science as support for anything that can't be agreed upon even by those that believe in its existence.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: rez Technosoul this is not physics. This is a dude that is a Christian trying to sell books. The same people who claimed they cloned a human and invented the hover craft never let other experts check out their claims. It was all a hoax. In the dishonesty thread I constantly told you that if you want to accept the supernatural claims that Christans spew, then you are going to have to accept all the other religious supernatural claims out there. There is no evidence needed to support supernatural claims, so there is no way of rejecting a supernatural claim. So either accept all supernatural claims or reject all supernatural claims.

This is about physics. How can anyone write a book that has to do with science without knowledge of the phyics involved. How can he speak about the "missing relative" in the theory of relativity without knowing the math? And then present it at a science convention - not for a Christian convention?

To compare this writer with those other creationists is to greatly under-estimate his mind.

Unlike the other creationists organizations he is not just making a claim where they never published their theory to support such claims. He wrote it all down in his book, the logic and the science of it, and presented it to the "experts" for potential reviews. (peer reviews).

And if invited he would debate it with any qualifed forum of scientists.

What more can be expected?

[Zhavric]

The God-of-the-gaps argument is the target of frequent criticism, often over the fact that the so-called "explanation" it provides for unexplained phenomena is not really an explanation (particularly in the eyes of atheists), but rather an argument from ignorance. Such criticism is usually related to the use of the God-of-the-gaps-argument as proof of the existence of God. A common argument is that the lack of scientific knowledge about an unexplained phenomena does not mean that it is an act of God, but rather that scientific research has not yet found an answer. A commonly cited example is Thor, the Viking god of lightning. The Vikings believed that lightning was the path of Thor's hammer as he threw it across the sky at his enemies. Later on, however, scientists discovered that lightning is in fact the result of static charges building up between the Earth and clouds during a storm, resulting in movement of electrons to counteract the charge. Thor is not required to explain the existence of lightning. Other examples include disease (often thought to be punishment from a God for wrongdoing; it was later demonstrated to be linked to pathogens), the sun (often believed to be a god; later shown to be a star) and various other natural phenomena that were previously ascribed to divine intervention but were later shown to have purely natural causes. The lack of understanding about a phenomenon does not necessarily mean that a deity is responsible for its existence.

Source.

Like I said, Techno. I don't see anything in your argument beyond god of the gaps reasoning.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Zhavric The God-of-the-gaps argument is the target of frequent criticism, often over the fact that the so-called "explanation" it provides for unexplained phenomena is not really an explanation (particularly in the eyes of atheists), but rather an argument from ignorance. Such criticism is usually related to the use of the God-of-the-gaps-argument as proof of the existence of God. A common argument is that the lack of scientific knowledge about an unexplained phenomena does not mean that it is an act of God, but rather that scientific research has not yet found an answer. A commonly cited example is Thor, the Viking god of lightning. The Vikings believed that lightning was the path of Thor's hammer as he threw it across the sky at his enemies. Later on, however, scientists discovered that lightning is in fact the result of static charges building up between the Earth and clouds during a storm, resulting in movement of electrons to counteract the charge. Thor is not required to explain the existence of lightning. Other examples include disease (often thought to be punishment from a God for wrongdoing; it was later demonstrated to be linked to pathogens), the sun (often believed to be a god; later shown to be a star) and various other natural phenomena that were previously ascribed to divine intervention but were later shown to have purely natural causes. The lack of understanding about a phenomenon does not necessarily mean that a deity is responsible for its existence. Source. Like I said, Techno. I don't see anything in your argument beyond god of the gaps reasoning.

Here was the situation.

1. Science via physics came up with the Big Bang Theory. In that theory the universe began or exploded from one single point and then evolved from that point via random causes and effects. If one believes the physics cannot be disproved then where is the gap? The have stated it is the "first cause" if effect. A "missing link" in the theory of evolultion is not the same as a "missing beginning" for the Big Bang.

2. So the author (not me) demonstrates why that theory is logically and scientifically in error. With that theory disproved and "gone" we must have another theory to fill the Big Gap. And then the author presents another theory about how the universe began, which is (I think) the idea that space-time as a force field orginates from outside the this universe and that this momentum effected a pressure in the broundries of this universe to effect gravity. Time-space entered through a blackhole, or wormhole, whatever? The pressure of time-space then pushed things together to form matter. That is the best I can see it without reading his book and useing only parts of his webpage. The book contains the finer details about why that is scientifically possible. His new theory does not prove that God created the universe, he states the motion or momentum orginated from the unmoved or relative (absolute?) stillness.
However if this universe resulted from a factor outside of our three dimensional "contained" universe then that opens up another Big Gap for unknownable possiblities, for we cannot know what exists beyond or outside of this universe (at least not with telescopes and so forth).
Because we cannot know we can imagine the unknown is God.

This is a scientific theory to prove that the Big Gap exists, but falls short of proving what is in that Big Gap. And yet, it also demonstrates that science cannot fill that gap with the Big Bang. So now people cannot gripe about the "god-gap" because of the new theory of the Big Gap that was presented useing scientific evidence and logical speculations.

What an amazing idea. Scientific proof for the Big Gap (AKA - the Unknown). How that might "fit" the biblical explanation is more difficult to figure out and I would need to await for the anology that can make that link, or comparison.

Oddly some of his theory I likewise thought of and posted in other threads awhile back and they were debated. I forgot what the outcome of those debates were. But I had only the idea and not the scientific ablities to present the case properly.

[Technosoul]

[quote=Technosoul;395431]I posted a theory simular to one that has become the topic of a new book that is now out. My theory was posted here at volconvo but that was a while back. I lacked the knowdege of physics and so it was not well recieved by people who post in the science forum. But someone has done that part of the job, and this is what I was waiting for.

The idea is founded on the principle that gravity is not pulling things together from the center (re: center of earth - etc.) but rather that gravity is a force that pushes matter together from three dimensions. Motion being orginated by the unmoved, creates a force field called time-space which is a motion like a stream of water. The density of the water remains the same from the mountian spring to the oceans (etc.). Within that dense motion smaller whirlpools are effected that can resist the motion of the water that moves past the whirlpool. Because the spinning motion holds it in place with pressure (gravity) from all sides of its circular presesnce. The whirlpool was not effected by an explosive event in what is now it's center - as the Big Bang theory would suggest.

That anology is for the layman to concider because of it's logical nature of explanation. The new book goes into the physics involved for the theory as well as lots of additional scientific data that is supportive.
Already presented at a science convention and well recieved.

The energy force originates not from this universe but from outside of everything. Or 'apart from' the universe where-in time-space is in effect.
The new book provides scientific support for that principle as well.

No not be missled because this book is far-advanced of anything you normally hear from the mainstream 'creationist' organizations.

The new book can be downloaded or you can order a printed copy, those without funds to pay (tax-deductable donation) can request it for it for free as that is the standard policy at FHU. The first link is audio, the other link is readable.

Once the theory is fully comprehendable then science can invent a way to tap into the "pushing gravity force" for unlimited energy that can be employed for human useage.

I sent an e-mail requesting that someone from the FHU come here to add comments to this thread.

Meanwhile - if anyone would debate the ideas on this link that would be what this thread is all about.

Toward Discovery: Swirling out of Nothingness


Thanks.