[El Scorcho]

So, how do you folks feel about the theory of general relativity?

I was just reading an article about another (rather large) confirmation of the theory (article here: http://tr.im/SiYj) and became curious. Since the time that I actually understood it (which was much later than the time when I was first taught it), I've always been fine with it. Never occurred to me to be otherwise.

However, it does seem that agreeing with general relativity is not in line with "our" views on science. So. Anyone reconciled this one? Lil' help here...

[ATrain]

I don't even understand how that article isn't in line with "our views," of science. Dumb it down for me, please. I know we as Christians believe in absolutes, but I'm not quite sure how this would contradict that as there are some things that are relative, and heck, in West Virginia it's all relative.

[El Scorcho]

I don't even understand how that article isn't in line with "our views," of science. Dumb it down for me, please. I know we as Christians believe in absolutes, but I'm not quite sure how this would contradict that as there are some things that are relative, and heck, in West Virginia it's all relative.

Um, this is about gravity. Not morality. Different kind of relativity.

I'd start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introducti ... relativity

As for the conflict with our views, among other things, general relativity was the gateway to the big bang theory.

[ATrain]

Well that helped some, but I never took a physics class beyond the 8th grade. There is a reason why I took biology as my science elective. Is it possible for it to be true on a small scale but not the massive scale they are proposing, similar to micro v. macro evolution???

[El Scorcho]

Is it possible for it to be true on a small scale but not the massive scale they are proposing, similar to micro v. macro evolution???

No, that was the gist of the article I linked to in my first post. Basically that general relativity has been tested and confirmed at the largest scale possible, even though it's been pretty well fleshed out long before now. This was Einstein's biggest contribution to society, even if it's not what he's most famous for.

[RubberMallet]

will read and respond when i have some time (aka at work on the crapper)....i'm looking forward to the article.

[ALUmnus]

I think this is Scorcho's last desperate shot in the dark. If he can't get an intelligent response or discussion out of this, he's done with this board.

[LUconn]

This isn't a General Relativity kind of board. My understanding of the subject is that the Simpson's 3D halloween episode explained it when the universe collapsed on itself.

[El Scorcho]

I think this is Scorcho's last desperate shot in the dark. If he can't get an intelligent response or discussion out of this, he's done with this board.

I hadn't really thought it out that way, but after you said it, yeah. Something like that.

This isn't a General Relativity kind of board.

I realize that, but I didn't post here hoping to talk physics. I mean, I did, but I was hoping to get perspective on it in a way that is more of what this board is about. I posted it here for a reason. That's the best way I know to say it, I suppose.

[ALUmnus]

Would I be wrong to say that general relativity could be entirely true while the big bang theory is not? The theory of general relativity has lead people to believe that the big bang explains the universe's origin, because that's what it seems to point to, but it doesn't necessarily prove it.

God has done a lot of things that we don't understand that science would deem impossible. All things are from Him, including science, right? So I, personally, don't see anything in science, a vast majority of it theoretical, that would cast doubt on what I believe the Bible says. I know that seems like a cop-out and insufficient for a lot of people, that God can do anything therefore any reason I give is possible, but you would have to seriously limit God to place Him and all He's done inside the box of science (or even the smaller box of man's knowledge of science).

[RubberMallet]

plus we are having to reevaluate the length of time the red shift actually represents. they used to think it was constant but now believe it fluctuates.

[GoUNCA]

God has done a lot of things that we don't understand that science would deem impossible. All things are from Him, including science, right? So I, personally, don't see anything in science, a vast majority of it theoretical, that would cast doubt on what I believe the Bible says. I know that seems like a cop-out and insufficient for a lot of people, that God can do anything therefore any reason I give is possible, but you would have to seriously limit God to place Him and all He's done inside the box of science (or even the smaller box of man's knowledge of science).

Setting an argument up by circular reasoning for the win.

[LUconn]

God has done a lot of things that we don't understand that science would deem impossible. All things are from Him, including science, right? So I, personally, don't see anything in science, a vast majority of it theoretical, that would cast doubt on what I believe the Bible says. I know that seems like a cop-out and insufficient for a lot of people, that God can do anything therefore any reason I give is possible, but you would have to seriously limit God to place Him and all He's done inside the box of science (or even the smaller box of man's knowledge of science).

Setting an argument up by circular reasoning for the win.

Or, apparently, debating rules.

[Hold My Own]

I must say I've learned a lot reading those articles and reading some of the posts... unfortunately I'm unable to speak intellectuality about this topic....yet

Although I did learn a lot from LUconns example and some youtubing of that episode


I really do want to learn more about this though

[RubberMallet]

start here.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

[LUconn]

I hate that video. I only understand like every 2 dimensions beyond the 3rd. Which doesn't even make sense since they're built on top of each other.

[RubberMallet]

i know...and i guess it really doesn't have alot to do with the topic at hand. i just like posting it when i can.

[El Scorcho]

Would I be wrong to say that general relativity could be entirely true while the big bang theory is not?

I'm certainly no physicist, but based on what I've studied, yes. The two are pretty inextricably linked.

The theory of general relativity has lead people to believe that the big bang explains the universe's origin, because that's what it seems to point to, but it doesn't necessarily prove it.

I do concede that you have a point here. General relativity did not and does not prove the big bang theory. It did, however, lead to a lot of things that did solidify the big bang theory as part of the standard model. That's why I was asking to reconcile general relativity with "our" views on science instead of something like the cosmic microwave background radiation. I don't think there's any reconciling that. At least nothing I've seen so far attempts to touch it.

God has done a lot of things that we don't understand that science would deem impossible. All things are from Him, including science, right? So I, personally, don't see anything in science, a vast majority of it theoretical, that would cast doubt on what I believe the Bible says. I know that seems like a cop-out and insufficient for a lot of people, that God can do anything therefore any reason I give is possible, but you would have to seriously limit God to place Him and all He's done inside the box of science (or even the smaller box of man's knowledge of science).

I really appreciate this. I genuinely mean that. (And I really appreciate replying in general.) But yeah, this doesn't really work for me. It's fine from a theological perspective, but so far as science and logic goes, it doesn't really mean anything. Skeptics and scientists would be quick to point this out as a "God of the gaps" argument. As much as that upsets us folks, they have a point. We on the side of Christianity have had a habit of using this argument for a very long time, and 100% of the time it's come back to make us look like fools. I mean, we (the church) made Galileo spend the last ten years of his life under house arrest instead of acknowledging his proof that the Earth revolved around the Sun instead of the other way around. We kind of have a long history of that sort of thing based on the argument that we can't explain the things of God. So, please understand that I mean no offense at all, I just can't accept that as an answer. I firmly believe that we can understand the mechanics of our world with quite a bit of certainty. God gave us a pretty incredible tool inside of our heads.

plus we are having to reevaluate the length of time the red shift actually represents. they used to think it was constant but now believe it fluctuates.

I haven't encountered anything about this. Do you have any links? I'd be very interested to read them. Thanks.

[RubberMallet]

i watched a video in regards to it. i will look for the author of the video online if i can remember it. it was fascinating. he was dismissed by his collegues but others have brought it back up.

[LUconn]

Well, here's an excerpt that's glossing over some theories in a book. It's from our good buddy Ken Ham. I know you're rolling your eyes because he writes things in layman's terms if said layman were a 37 year old housewife who's trying to debate her atheist housewife friend, but it's a decent idea worth chewing on.

1. Like 'big bang' theory, the Humphreys cosmology accepts that the gravity theory called general relativity is essentially correct (minus some of the accompanying philosophical 'baggage'), having been experimentally verified numerous times.

2. 'Big bang' theory indeed flows naturally from the equations of general relativity, but only if a particular starting assumption is made, one which leading cosmologists admit is totally arbitrary and ideological, namely that the universe is unbounded—that is, having no edge and thus no centre.

3. When this is replaced by the opposite assumption (which, though equally arbitrary, seems more in line with biblical presuppositions), namely that the universe is finite and bounded, the same equations of general relativity produce a radically different result.

4. In such a bounded universe, provided only that one accepts the observations that it has expanded somewhat as God stretched out the heavens (as Scripture affirms [e.g. Isaiah 42:5], though Humphreys is not postulating some tiny starting point as 'big bangers' do), it is the experimentally proven time-distorting effects of gravitation which solve the problem for the Bible-believer, and show up the hollowness of the Ross claims. The results indicate, without any 'twiddling of knobs' or massaging data, that with the entire universe being made in six ordinary Earth-rotation days, Adam could have looked up on the sixth day at stars actually many millions of light-years away and observed light which actually left those stars—all without having to assume any change in the speed of light (c).

Interestingly enough, the answer I've always given myself as to how this happens, is how the majority of young earthers probably do. Something about God creating everything "with age". But of course, that would be a deception. I hadn't ever really thought about that, as it wasn't really all that important to me.

[RubberMallet]

Well, here's an excerpt that's glossing over some theories in a book. It's from our good buddy Ken Ham. I know you're rolling your eyes because he writes things in layman's terms if said layman were a 37 year old housewife who's trying to debate her atheist housewife friend, but it's a decent idea worth chewing on.

1. Like 'big bang' theory, the Humphreys cosmology accepts that the gravity theory called general relativity is essentially correct (minus some of the accompanying philosophical 'baggage'), having been experimentally verified numerous times.

2. 'Big bang' theory indeed flows naturally from the equations of general relativity, but only if a particular starting assumption is made, one which leading cosmologists admit is totally arbitrary and ideological, namely that the universe is unbounded—that is, having no edge and thus no centre.

3. When this is replaced by the opposite assumption (which, though equally arbitrary, seems more in line with biblical presuppositions), namely that the universe is finite and bounded, the same equations of general relativity produce a radically different result.

4. In such a bounded universe, provided only that one accepts the observations that it has expanded somewhat as God stretched out the heavens (as Scripture affirms [e.g. Isaiah 42:5], though Humphreys is not postulating some tiny starting point as 'big bangers' do), it is the experimentally proven time-distorting effects of gravitation which solve the problem for the Bible-believer, and show up the hollowness of the Ross claims. The results indicate, without any 'twiddling of knobs' or massaging data, that with the entire universe being made in six ordinary Earth-rotation days, Adam could have looked up on the sixth day at stars actually many millions of light-years away and observed light which actually left those stars—all without having to assume any change in the speed of light (c).

Interestingly enough, the answer I've always given myself as to how this happens, is how the majority of young earthers probably do. Something about God creating everything "with age". But of course, that would be a deception. I hadn't ever really thought about that, as it wasn't really all that important to me.

the more and more that i read, the more and more i have no problem with the old earth theory and it fitting into my christian theology. do i believe in it? i don't know. i haven't seen enough info for me to make a 100% sure decision.

A priveledged planet is a phenominal book and is worth a read. these guys do a good job explaining alot of cosmological ideas.

[LUconn]

I should clarify that is not Ken Ham's theory, it's Dr Russell Humphreys who wrote "Starlight and Time"


Available on Amazon today! http://www.amazon.com/Starlight-Time-So ... 0890512027

The reviews are kinda funny because the guys who disagree 1 star it and the folks who agree 5 star it.

[RubberMallet]

most christian books that involve science or "does God exist" type books always are full of 1 star "didn't read teh book" reviews.

[El Scorcho]

The reviews are kinda funny because the guys who disagree 1 star it and the folks who agree 5 star it.

As a side bar, I'd like to say I've noticed this is becoming completely typical of all Internet reviews. One extreme or the other. It's making product ratings almost worthless anymore. Frustrating.

[LUconn]

I firmly believe that we can understand the mechanics of our world with quite a bit of certainty. God gave us a pretty incredible tool inside of our heads.

Why? There's tons of stuff we can't understand. How can Jesus be 100% man and 100% God? That defies logic and mathematics. Same with something from nothing. What is it about the mechanics of creation, that makes you think we should be able to figure it out?