Science Museums Adapt in Struggle against Creationist Revisionism

Einstein invented photons. This is yet another example of the blatant dogmatism of science. Science is another word for dogma.

[.. Einstein invented photons. This is yet another example of the blatant dogmatism of science. Science is another word for dogma. ..]

Actually I like "science".. I am partial to fiction... of various types.. Its hard to remain vigilant of "my" observer problem.. but I am getting better at it.. Because of the "observer problem" most all observers are observing a kind" of fiction.. Photons may or may not exist..

"The difference between reality and fiction IS fiction HAS to make sense".. - Tom Clancy..
Reality has no predisposition to make sense.. i.e. "nothing to prove"..

Reality is meaningless. It is of no use and a waste of metaphysical work.

Baraminology has ALREADY backed it up Ed- go check it out for yourself if you don’t beleive me.

You've simply made a vague claim.

What, exactly is your claim?

[.. Reality is meaningless. It is of no use and a waste of metaphysical work. ..]

Your reality is meaningless?..
My reality may not be.. Reality is timestamped..
With a linear timestamp.. like a movie/play/dream..
Good for a space in time.. and a record for eternity..

The Players are metaphorical and vital for my qualifying tests..
i.e. The two commandments of Jesus, simplified metaphysical logic..

Truly, light can be perceived as an illusion, an annoyance – or conversely, as real - and moreover, the primary medium of reality whether mass, geometry, life or information.

In meditating on the latter speculation, we Christians may keep in mind that God is Light - and "let there be light" was His first command. Metaphor versus reality.

So, getting back to the speculations I’ve raised about light, life, mass, information and relativity, here is an article with a similar speculation which may help explicate some of the issues.

The author is retired from Cornell, his background, education and work history is in biology but his interest is cosmology, physics, metaphysics et al – so all of this should be seen as speculation (not peer-reviewed).

Or, if you want to "cut to the chase" of his speculation, you could take a peek at this gif chart: The Tetrahedron Model of Energy and Conservation Law

Narrative summary:

Extending Einstein's Equivalence Principle: Light "Transformed to Rest" (John A. Gowan, 3/2006)

Einstein's "Equivalence Principle"

"Big G" is the universal gravitational constant, familiar to us through Newton's famous formula for the gravitational force acting between two bodies: F = GMm/rr, where Mm is the mass of the respective bodies, and r is the distance between their centers. G is a never-varying constant or "gauge" of force.

"Little g" is the local intensity of the gravitational field; it measures the force or "weight" we feel standing on Earth's surface. "Little g" is much less on the surface of the Moon, but "big G" is the same everywhere. Little g is also equivalent to the inertial "g" forces of acceleration experienced in sudden starts, stops, and sharp turns (Einstein's "Principle of Equivalence" of gravitational and accelerated reference frames). The equivalence holds because as we stand on the surface of the earth, space accelerates through us toward Earth's center, while in the reciprocal situation (through the appropriate application of energy), we accelerate through space (in a "rocket ship", for example). "g" forces vanish in "free fall" (or orbit) because we become co-movers with the field. Similarly, acceleration forces vanish when we "turn off the engines" and drift freely in space with the metric's inertial field. An earlier version of the equivalence principle, attributed to Newton, noted only the unexplained correspondence between inertial mass and gravitational weight. It is readily seen that Einstein's equivalence principle includes and explains its predecessor.

Extension of the Equivalence Principle:

The extension of the equivalence principle does not directly involve gravitation, but the energetic equivalence of free and bound energy, also discovered by Einstein. This equivalence allows us to conceive of matter as an (asymmetric) form of light's energy transformed to rest, a notion which triggers Noether's theorem regarding the conservation of the symmetry attributes of free energy. The charges of matter are therefore seen as various conserved symmetry (and entropy) debts of light. Reversing the transformation by converting bound to free energy (as in the stars and Hawking's "quantum radiance" of black holes) pays (vanishes) all the symmetry (and entropy) debts of matter.

The Three Levels of the Equivalence Principle:

A) (Newton) Mechanical - The equivalence of inertial mass and gravitational weight

1) Inertial mass and gravitational weight are equivalent, so inertial mass can be measured by weighing objects against a standard in a gravitational field. The cause of this equivalence is unknown. The equivalence is invoked to explain why all things fall with the same acceleration in a gravitational field. (The inertial resistance to motion offered by any object's "mass" exactly counterbalances the attractive force of gravitation due to that object's "weight" - rendering all differences in weight irrelevant to the action of gravity.)

B) (Einstein) Geometric - The equivalence of the forces of gravitation and acceleration

1) The forces of gravitation and acceleration are equivalent, and "free fall", orbital motion, and "coasting" cause both to vanish: we deduce from this:

2) the force of gravity is actually the convergent, accelerated motion of spacetime, explaining the equivalence of gravitational weight and inertial mass;

3) Free fall, orbit, (or "coasting") is the condition of co-moving with the metric field, whether accelerated or not;

4) Since all falling, orbiting, (or "coasting") objects are co-movers with the metric field of spacetime, the fact that all objects fall with the same acceleration in a gravitational field becomes obvious. However, the reason why gravity accelerates spacetime (what is the conservation role of this force? - or equivalently: why must this force exist?) remains unknown.

C) (Einstein-Noether) Symmetric - The equivalence of free and bound energy: E = hv (Planck); E = mcc (Einstein); hv = mcc (DeBroglie); - The conservation of the symmetry of free energy: the symmetry as well as the raw energy of light must be conserved (Noether). Charge conservation, gravitation, and inertial force = symmetry conservation (in particles and the spacetime metric).

1) Free and bound energy are energetically equivalent: matter is created from light in the Big Bang; conversely, light is created from matter in stars and via Hawking's "quantum radiance" of black holes. Matter is an (asymmetric) form of light's energy transformed to rest.

2) The charges of matter are the symmetry/entropy debts of the light (free energy) which created matter. Converting matter back to light pays all symmetry/entropy debts.

3) Noether's theorem - the conservation of symmetry - is exampled by the forces of charge conservation, inertia, and the primordial form of entropy (the intrinsic dimensional motion of light as gauged by "velocity c"). The charges of matter are the symmetry debts of light. The entropy drive (intrinsic dimensional motion) and symmetry gauge of light are linked, common attributes of "velocity c", and therefore both are conserved by Noether's symmetry theorem. Charges produce forces which pay the symmetry/entropy debts they hold by returning the asymmetric bound energy system to its original symmetric free energy state (light). Time is an entropy and symmetry debt (charge) of light's broken non-local symmetric energy state which produces gravitation as a restorative or conservation force. All forms of energy originate as, and eventually return to, light. (See: "The Tetrahedron Model of Energy and Conservation Law".)

Explaining the Extension of the Equivalence Principle

We extend the "Equivalence Principle" in a new way (only indirectly involving gravitation) which embraces both free and bound energy, a necessity for any unification theory. The basis for this extension is again due to Einstein, through his most famous equation, E = mcc, establishing the energetic equivalence between free and bound energy. DeBroglie used Planck's equation for the energy content of light to make the equivalence of free and bound energy even more explicit: hv = mcc (where h = Planck's constant and v = the frequency of light). The next crucial step in this logical progression is provided by Noether's theorem, which states that not only the raw energy, but also the symmetry of light must be conserved if free energy is converted to bound form (mass-matter-momentum). To this, we add our own observation: the entropy drive of light (light's intrinsic motion) must also be conserved - but because both the symmetry gauge and the entropy drive of light are linked through "velocity c", the conservation of light's entropy (in transformations between free and bound energy forms) becomes an extension of Noether's symmetry conservation theorem. The entropy drive of free energy, the intrinsic motion of light as gauged by "velocity c", is transformed/conserved as the entropy drive of bound energy, the intrinsic motion of time, as gauged by "velocity T". The transformation is accomplished either quantum mechanically as a simple switch from implicit to explicit time, or gravitationally by the annihilation of space and the extraction of a temporal residue. (See also: "The Conversion of Space to Time" and "The Double Conservation Role of Gravitation".)

Einstein realized that the gravitational field could be "transformed to rest" in free fall - the basis of his principle of the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. Such a transformation is impossible, however, for the intrinsic motion of light - light cannot be transformed to rest because matter cannot travel at light speed. Leaving aside (for now) the possible exception of the black hole, we recognize two other "exceptions" to this rule: the creation of matter from light in the "Big Bang", and the absorption of light by the electron shell of an atom.

It is possible to think of matter itself as light transformed to rest in an asymmetric particle form, since matter is simply one-half of a particle-antiparticle pair, and such pairs are a normal material expression of light's energy (similarly, matter's entropy drive, one-way time, is 1/2 of a normal two-way spatial dimension). However, because the creation process is necessarily asymmetric (to escape an otherwise inevitable matter-antimatter annihilation), Noether's theorem comes into play requiring the lost symmetry of light to be conserved. The raw energy of light is conserved as the mass and momentum of particles. The conserved symmetries appear as the charges (and spin) of matter and as the inertial and gravitational forces of the metric. Noether's theorem is enforced through the well-known principles of charge (and spin) conservation, inertia and gravity. The spatial entropy or intrinsic motion of light is conserved by the gravitational conversion of space to time, producing matter's temporal entropy drive, the intrinsic motion of matter's time dimension. Time and gravitation therefore represent light's entropy drive (the intrinsic motion of light, gauged by "velocity c") conserved as matter's entropy drive (the intrinsic motion of time, gauged by "velocity T").

The rest of the article addresses the speculation wrt the absorption of a photon by the electron shell of an atom and time.

Any hoot, more food for thought…

Thanks for the info.. will study it as best I can..

Er, if I may, I'd like to add something to your discussion. You said:

As for the date of the global flood, this is what I base my estimate of 2350 BC/4350 years ago upon:

I agree with your estimate of the date for the Noah flood. Following is a summary of evidence for a world-wide (though localized to civilized areas around the world) catastrophe around that date:

COMETS AND DISASTER IN THE BRONZE AGE - British Archeology, Journal of the Council for British Archeology December 1997

At some time around 2300 BC, give or take a century or two, a large number of the major civilisations of the world collapsed, simultaneously it seems. The Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, the Old Kingdom in Egypt, the Early Bronze Age civilisation in Israel, Anatolia and Greece, as well as the Indus Valley civilisation in India, the Hilmand civilisation in Afghanistan and the Hongshan Culture in China - the first urban civilisations in the world - all fell into ruin at more or less the same time. Why? …

Some decades ago, the hunt for clues passed largely into the hands of natural scientists. Concentrating on the earlier set of Bronze Age collapses, researchers began to find a range of evidence that suggested that natural causes rather than human actions, may have been initially responsible. There began to be talk of climate change, volcanic activity, and earthquakes - and some of this material has now found its way into standard historical accounts of the period.

Agreement, however, there has never been. Some researchers favoured one type of natural cause, others favoured another, and the problem remained that no single explanation appeared to account for all the evidence….

The hunt for natural causes for these human disasters began when the Frenchman Claude Schaeffer, one of the leading archaeologists of his time, published his book ‘Stratigraphie Comparee et Chronologie L’Asie Occidentale’ in 1948. Schaeffer analysed and compared the destruction layers of more than 40 archaeological sites in the Near and Middle East, from Troy to Tepe Hissar on the Caspian Sea and from the Levant to Mesopotamia. He was the first scholar to detect that all had been totally destroyed several times in the Early, Middle and Late Bronze Age, apparently simultaneously.

Since the damage was far too excessive and did not show signs of military or human involvement, he argued that repeated earthquakes might have been responsible for these events. At the time he published, Schaeffer was not taken seriously by the world of archaeology. Since then, however, natural scientists have found widespread and unambiguous evidence for abrupt climate change, sudden sea level changes, catastrophic inundations, widespread seismic activity and evidence for massive volcanic activity at several periods since the last Ice Age, but particularly at around 2200BC, give or take 200 years.

Areas such as the Sahara, or around the Dead Sea, were once farmed but became deserts. Tree rings show disastrous growth conditions at c 2350BC, while sediment cores from lakes and rivers in Europe and Africa show a catastrophic drop in water levels at this time. In Mesopotamia, vast areas of land appear to have been devastated, inundated, or totally burned...

Yet what was the cause of these earthquakes, eruptions, tidal waves, fire-blasts and climate changes? By the late 1970s, British astronomers Victor Clube and Bill Napier of Oxford University had begun to investigate cometary impact as the ultimate cause. Then in 1980, the Nobel prizewinning physicist Luis Alvarez and his colleagues published their famous paper in ‘Science’ that argued that a cosmic impact had led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.. He showed that large amounts of the element iridium present in geological layers dating from about 65 million BC had a cosmic origin.

Alvarez’s paper had immense influence and stimulated further research by such British astronomers as Clube and Napier, Prof Mark Bailey of the Armagh Observatory, Duncan Steel of Spaceguard Australia, and Britain’s best known astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle. All now support the theory of cometary impact and loosely form what is now known as the British School of Coherent Catastrophism.

These scholars envisage trains of cometary debris which repeatedly encounter the Earth. We know that tiny particles of cosmic material penetrate the atmosphere every day, but their impact is insignificant.

Occasionally, however, cosmic debris measuring between one and several hundred metres in diametre strike the Earth and these can have catastrophic effects on our ecological system, through multimegaton explosions of fireballs which destroy natural and cultural features on the surface of the Earth by means of tidal-wave floods (if the debris lands in the sea), fire blasts and seismic damage…

The extent to which past cometary impacts were responsible for civilisation collapse, cultural change, even the development of religion, must remain a hypothesis. But in view of the astronomical, geological and archaeological evidence, this ‘giant comet’ hypothesis should no longer be dismissed by archaeologists out of hand.

I dunno, Sir Pipe, seems to me the transition speed of present to present is ‘c’. If photons can’t move faster, time slips along at ‘c’.

You lose- pay up. ... The onus isn’t on me to ‘back up the claim’ because Baraminolgy makes the claim and backs it up with facts.

You don't post any basis for the claim you made and yet, in your creationist way of thinking, I lose the bet that you can't back it up.

[.. I dunno, Sir Pipe, seems to me the transition speed of present to present is ‘c’. If photons can’t move faster, time slips along at ‘c’. ..]

If there is such a thing as eternity.. then it must start right now.. Bringing into question "speed".. Speed from where to where.. There are so many questions... If there are dimensions then what is speed in a house of mirrors..

The scientist will formulate his picture of reality, which is his intent, and then collect data. Reversing the procedure is a sure way to get old without geting anywhere. Reversing the procedure is a sure way to get old without geting anywhere.

If by "collecting data" you meant conducting a controlled experiment that can potentially falsify the picture of reality, then I'm with you. But to the extent that it might mean gathering existing data I must disagree.

In the latter case forming a hypothesis actually does put this in reverse. At that time the scientist comes up with an idea based at least in part on existing data as well as previous theory.

Approaching this from another angle: the scientist certainly can not and does not test his entire picture of reality, but only a specific subset of it. Being a mortal, there are some things he simply presumes and does not test.

All concepts begin with sensation.

I look forward to any comments you may have!

LOL Food for thought? You spread that feast before epicurean gluttons and call it mere food for thought? You have a gift for understatement, Girl.

interesting isn’t it? Had it sent to me in an email- kidna wierd how the mind just automatically interprets the words for most people

[[For lack of a better term, I think it’s anticipation of the familiar.]]

Yeah- probalby- but will try a more extreme example:

Thwe Xnephonoibc Xloyhpnoe mnirstel dbeukned thge tehory of the Pyholegtenic evloutoin of palecnatl ebmoirinc crdaaic vlavle prots wihch csuae cnortavnenig froecs to dsirput the stsyiloc persusre cdaenceis to fnutcoin poerply.

Bah I can’t think right now- but that looks a bit otugher to decifer

All concepts begin with sensation.

Most, but not all. A true skeptic would reject all such concepts anyway. All sensation could be an illusion or even a delusion. We may be something like a brain in a box controlled by a mad genius. In which case we need not necessarily a brain and all physics as we understand it could be totally wrong.

Any data from sensation must be taken on faith. All that we really know, is that we are something like a soul, mind, spirit, or some such. Which is a concept that does not begin with sensation.

Also there is mathematics, although admittedly some devices involving sensations are often an aid to understanding it.

As you know, I've used the notion of a wall inside a room, a wall that is one boundary of the room, and related our spcetime to the wall and the room to the volumetric spacetime we do not have access to but as a boundary wall we are a part of. A being of our brane/wall would not sense a being of greater spacetime volume except where that being intersected our brane/wall. In my book, that's the explanation I use in discussing the Daniel Chptr 5 handwriting incident. One could just as easily use the notion of a sphere as our brane and the tube for which the sphere represents the end of the tube, or a cube and the trunk for which the cube is the end of the trunk, it's just a matter of temporal reference frame.

I’ve been wanting to get back to you on your above speculation to explain how I am interpreting it.

Here is a great website which takes the reader through special relativity using animated graphics: starting point, postulates of special relativity

One of the postulates of special relativity is the space/time continuum – four dimensions, three of space and one of time. If you were to look at it at rest it would look like this:

Of course, the more expanded dimensions of space and/or time, the more complex the cube would be. And in general relativity it is warped, not smooth, with high gravity points/objects being indentations and negative gravity points/objects being outdents.

But space/time is not at rest. It doesn't "pre-exist" so that objects are stationary in space/time. It is expanding – which the measurement of the cosmic microwave background radiation showed us back in the 1960’s.

Moreover, our existence “in” space/time – as you suggest – is on a “plane” or “membrane” or “brane” moving in the hypercube of the whole of space/time. IOW, we are not at rest either.

So, following your speculation, the wall moving through the volume of the room represents a plane coming to the foreground in the animated hypercube as follows:

In other words, I’m very much “on board” with your speculation – but see it as a dynamic rather than a static situation.

Our plane is moving through whole which consists of past as well as future. Indeed, our senses are picking up information from the recent past. But our minds are processing on the plane which is the “present”.

Every field exists at all points in the hypercube - and thus we intersect all fields on the plane moving through hypercube.

The hand writing on the wall (disassociated from the body) is our mortal perceptible set of coordinates in the whole. All that we can perceive with our vision and minds is 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension - from the perspective of our space/time coordinates on our plane.

IOW, if we could see in more than 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension – we’d see a hand here, an arm there, etc. If we could move in more than those dimensions, we’d be able to remove the contents of a box without opening it.

Any hoot, that’s my “two cents”…

[[You don’t post any basis for the claim you made and yet,]]

oh but I did post the link to the explanations of Baraminology- which upon further research on your part will yield copious amounts of evidence backing up the claim that Baraminolgy is a predictive system which predicts that discontinuity, based on genetic profiles, can be observed. If you don’t wish to investigate the claims, that’s not my problem, but hte evidnece is freely available and contradicts your claim.

LOLOL! Thank you so much for your encouragements!