Posted on 02/24/2005 3:54:37 AM PST by PatrickHenry
>> Hubble's law predicts that galaxies beyond a certain distance, known as the Hubble distance, recede faster than the speed of light. For the measured value of the Hubble constant, this distance is about 14 billion light-years.
If Hubble's "Law" is correct we will never see those galaxies because they are moving away from us faster than their light is moving toward us. That would be strange, indeed, except for the fact that the speed of light is nothing to our all-powerful God -- He who created the heaven and the earth and all its host -- He whose power is beyond our comprehension since we are mere men with no power, to speak of. Hubble's "Law" is certainly possible. Of course, if the appropriately named Hubble Telescope or some future device proves Hubble wrong, then maybe his calculations were wrong -- maybe he meant 20 billion light years, give or take a few, or a bunch. Or maybe he was a mere dreamer who had no clue about the creation of the universe, though he pretended so and wanted so much to be right. But, no matter, he was certainly fascinated by its incredible beauty and unimaginable vastness, as am I.
You're talking out of your hat. Cause and effect necessarily take place in a specified time sequence, which doesn't necessarily apply before the Big Bang. (Nothing is south of the south pole.)
Moreover, there are events that occur in real time that are demonstrably uncaused. Subatomic decays are a whole class of examples. If they were caused by some undiscovered mechanism, pairs of decays would have to obey Bell's inequality. (Look it up if you're unfamiliar with it.) But it's an irreducible experimental fact that some decays violate Bell's inequality.
So either the events are uncaused, or there is some sort of faster-than-light signal that causes the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations that violate the inequality. But faster-than-light signals ipso facto violate causality: if two events have a spacelike separation, the order of the events is frame-dependent (i.e., you can always find a physical frame in which the effect precedes the cause).
The mere existence of EPR correlations is an experimental proof that cause-and-effect cannot be universal.
Yeah, read my follow-up. I was shooting from the hip, responding to PH's post before I read the article.
If it did, then it is an effect of something (of God, or the Big Bang etc)
Evolutionists blame the hearers.
What the real problem is is that the hearers are listening for facts, and what they are hearing is supposition and conjecture, mixed with alot of faith.
Oh, without question the Universe is much stranger then any scientist can imagine.
They haven't even gotten near the Third heaven, throne of God Himself.
It doesn't surprise me you refuse to actually learn anything.
That logic is simply wrong on its face. Causality, as you lay it out, is a consequence of time. But time is a physical property of the universe and exists within it. The universe does not exist in time.
Once again, the north-south coordinate has a definite beginning and a definite ending, but this doesn't imply that anything lies south of the south pole. At the south pole, all possible directions point north, including directions that lie at right angles to each other. Similarly, at the Big Bang, in the simplest (Friedmann-Robertson-Walker) model, all possible directions point towards the future. If there's geometrically no past, there can't be a prior cause.
This is a very good point. Time being, in essence, a knowable dimension.
If there's geometrically no past, there can't be a prior cause.
I understand the conclusion of this statement, but I can't grasp the meaning of a "pior cause." Do you mean outside of time?
Will you please elaborate, thanks.
You may be correct in general terms, but there are many things I've seen that science has discovered which are at the very least a pin hole's view towards God.
Furthermore, Science might not discover it all, but in the scriptures themselves the clues are enormous for science to use to discover more.
Evolution is not a science.
No, evolution is not a FACT!
see post 113. Learning is the responsibility of the learner and no one else.
No. I said that if time doesn't exist before the Big Bang, there can't be a prior cause. "Prior" means "at an earlier time", and "cause" means a specific event at a well-defined place and time. To have a prior cause, there has to be a time at which it occurred.
That's not to say that it's impossible to construct models in which the Big Bang happens in a larger context (i.e., in which the Big Bang can be said to have a cause). Chaotic inflation, for example, has a gigantic number of Big Bangs, each giving rise to many more. Each of those cosmoses can be said to have a cause. My point was that there is no mathematical or philosophical requirement that such an outside context exist, although it may.
Printed this out for Sir SuziQ. He LOVES this stuff!
I did learn something, I learned that the universe In the beginning there were grapefruit and since the grapefruit were abundant, that was good.
Your reading comprehension is horrible. Your ability to grasp analogies is equally horrendous. And yet, you seem unnaturally proud of your ignorance.
Darwin Central is in a continuous war with agents of the Impervium.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.