What does 3D mean? It refers to the three dimensions, but what is a dimension? Dictionary.com says it is “a property of space; extension in a given direction.” So consider this straight line:
_____________________________________________________
That line travels in a single dimension. If our whole world was just 1 dimension, then we could travel left and right and that would be it. We couldn’t pass anyone. There would be no “up” to go over the top of the other person. Okay, what is the next dimension?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Either that is the up-down dimension, or that is a bunch of I’s. You decide. The final dimension is what people really mean when they say something is 3D. The text you see now is 2D. If it could pop out at you, then it would be 3D. It’s the difference between Zelda on Nintendo and Zelda on N64. So why talk about this? Well, the next dimension is time. Objects can move along in time just like the other dimensions. Well, sort of. We can, at this point, only go in one direction with time. Have you ever heard that real estate is about location, location, location? Well, that is true, but it is true in “space-time” (which is another way of speaking about location in terms of the 4 dimensions rather than just the 3). If my family had bought some nice real estate on Bates Road in Haines City back in the year 2000, it would have taken just a few years for that investment to pay off. However, if we had bought it in 1950, it would have taken way too long to pay off. What is wrong here? The location is fine, as we know now. Well, the location would not have been fine in 1950 because location involves time, not just the other 3 dimensions. As time went by (moved), it became a good investment. “Space-time” is thinking of our world in terms of length, width, height, and time.
So if all the other dimensions can be traveled back and forth, why not time? Well, many “scientists say” (yes, I see the irony), that we theoretically can. It’s just a matter of speed. The faster an object travels, the slower time appears to go by for those observing. However, for the person going fast, time carries on as normal. You wouldn’t notice anything different, but if you could travel near the speed of light, then you would gain time (apparently to others). This begs the question, wouldn’t you still age the same? If that is true, then you may have “traveled back in time” to those around you, but it seems your “body age” would remain the same. So, you didn’t reverse time for yourself. To people on earth, you went forward in time (because now you have gray hair). To you, they went back in time (because they didn’t age like you). There is another way to time travel by using worms holes…but I don’t think we’re going there.
This whole concept of time being relative is apart of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. There are particles called (I think it is spelled this way) neuons. They don’t exist for very long. I forgot where they came from (again, I’m just a dude, not a scientist). They travel nearly at the speed of light. These neuons are so distant that they should dissipate before ever reaching the earth. So how do we know about them? We know about them because they do make it here. How is that possible? Well, they travel so fast that time, in a sense, slows down for them. Relatively, time slows for them to get here despite the fact that there shouldn’t be enough time. If time were constant, it wouldn’t work. If time were relative, then this would explain why it works. This is part of why time is not thought to be constant anymore. It is a dimension that can be traveled “left (past) or right (future).” Well, so the theory goes.
Okay, that had to be the worst explanation of the relativity of time in the history of mankind. However, when I’m in my 90’s and time travel becomes practical, I’ll just go back and rewrite it. You won’t even know that I wrote it so poorly.
While we’re on this subject, though, we should look at why there are massive problems with time travel. The major problem with traveling back in time is “causality.” This problem is often illustrated with the “Grandfather Paradox.” This states that time travel shouldn’t be possible because otherwise you could travel back in time and shoot your Grandfather before you were ever conceived. If you did this, did you do it? If you kill your Grandfather, then don’t you automatically disappear? If you disappear, then who shot your Grandfather? See the problem? Your Grandfather then, doesn’t die and then does have you. You then, in turn, do go try and kill him. The circle of impossibilities continues. This is part of why some scientists believe in “parallel universes.” These are basically every single possible world that coexists with ours but in another universe. It is what that old show “Sliders” was based on. I don’t want to go into parallel universes (nor do I believe in them). The problem of causality is so strong, that time travel is probably impossible even if the science appears to allow for it currently.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Time, Part 2: The Prime Mover
I left you with an extremely brief explanation of the Big Bang. Let’s go back. This tiny, infinitely dense item spontaneously expanded. There are three important questions. 1.What is it? 2.Where did it come from? 3.And finally, how could matter the size of the entire universe be packed into that small of an area? 1. It is the primitive universe packed into an immensely dense ball. The way it fits into this ball is intense pressure. Where this pressure comes from is unknown but may be like a black hole. In a black hole, the larger the mass, the greater the intensity of the gravitational pull. Gravity is the attraction of objects to mass (i.e. mass to mass). So infinite mass would have infinite gravity causing huge pressure on itself (or so the idea goes).
I think I sort of answered numbers one and three above but let’s consider number two. Where did this come from? Another way to ask that is, “why does this matter exist?” Science’s way to answer the question why is only Newton’s 3rd law or “cause and effect.” Cause and effect either breaks down with the origin of this atom (because where did it come from…what is it’s cause?). Some say it is the result of the last Big Bang where things expanded and then contracted back on itself leading to “our” eventual Big Bang (meaning Big Bang’s have happened before and will happen again). This answer, though, only delays the question’s answer. Where did the first atom come from to explode? Where does matter come from? Either something has always existed or things appeared out of nothing.
Something has always existed, whether its some form of mass or energy or God is debatable. Nothing + Nothing = Nothing (0+0=0). There is an idea within Christianity that teaches “creatio ex nihilo” (creation out of nothing). This says that the substance from which everything exists is out of just God’s spoken word. God didn’t cut a piece of himself off and then create (panentheism). Christianity has an answer for where the original things came from. This problem has been known for centuries. Whatever got things started has been known as “first cause” or if you believe it was a being it can be called “The Prime Mover.” Either you admit a God created things or you’re saying that things have always existed. Which is easier to say: God has always existed or matter has always existed? The choice is obvious to me.
So could “let there be…” actually be the Big Bang? Could God have chosen to create this way? I think he actually did. However, the Big Bang theory is just the current idea. Who knows if it will be “correct” in thirty years? As of right now, I think it is what God did. The fact that it took billions of years to get to where we are now is not a problem. God exists outside of time (except in the Incarnation), so it’s not like he was sitting around staring at his watch yelling, “Are we there yet?” If you think that God just created it as it is now, then how does light get to us from billions of light years away? A light year is the distance light (which travels at theoretically the fastest speed possible) travels in a year. If something is a billion light years away, then it takes a billion years to get to our eyes. So if we see it, then it had the time to get here. The only way around this, is to say well God created things in motion or mid-process. (I’ve talked about this before. It’s my idea that just like Adam was created fully-grown [meaning he didn’t experience childhood yet his body appeared to have been normal and gone through those processes], so too was the earth created. So the earth was created mid-process meaning it had oil, oceans, mountains, etc. These are all things that the earth brings about naturally, but if made “brand new” like a baby, then it wouldn’t have these things). So for scientists to say the earth is billions of years old only makes sense just like if they had examined Adam, he would have looked 20 years old (or whatever he was). So if you argue that that is also true for why light has had time to get here, then fine. But if you don’t, and you insist that everything is literally 10,000 years old and there was no “mid-process” work going on, then light shouldn’t have had time to get here from distant stars.
The universe isn’t constant. It had a beginning, and isn’t it interesting that we already knew that?
So why such a large universe then? God really only needed the sun, moon, earth, and stars. The sun was needed for light and warmth. The moon effects our tides, provides light at night by reflecting the sun’s light, and we don’t know what future benefit it will provide. The earth was needed for reasons I can’t explain, but maybe Captain Obvious could help you with that one. Finally, the stars aided navigation and provided some light at night. So, I believe the universe is as large as it is because it’s a demonstration of who God is. Just like humans tell us a lot about who God is, so to does the rest of his creation. The universe is unimaginably large. It shows us that every time we think we’ve got things figured out, we learn that God is bigger and greater than we thought. We may even get to explore the universe in the next life. After all, we’ll have the time.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Time, Part 1: Science vs Theology & The Big Bang Theory
A teacher once said, after struggling over his material, “Where should I begin?” A wise person in the room called out, “at the beginning.” That wise person’s name was Captain Obvious. So today, we shall start “at the beginning.” But there is a significance to this that must not be overlooked. There was a beginning. Theology teaches “in the beginning.” Science teaches there was a beginning to our world. In theology, it’s God’s spoken words; in science it’s the Big Bang theory.
Now, I typically take a view towards science that is much different than most conservative Christians. God created this world, so how could learning about it be bad? The typical Christian move is to view science in opposition to Christianity. It’s funny though, because these are the same people who embrace science when they find evidence “for the flood.” Now, this doesn’t mean that science is my God or that science = truth. Do you realize that that is exactly the way we view science? Think about how many sentences start with “scientists say….” Science isn’t truth; science is a method to get to truth. It’s method is empiricism (which is knowing things by the 5 senses [taste, smell, hear, see, feel]). Theology isn’t truth either. Theology systematizes our limited understanding of God, who is truth. Theology fails, but theology has no hubris. The theologian knows God is too far above us to fully be understood. We know only what he reveals. Science, though, tends to say that everything is already revealed by the discovery of the senses. In every age, scientists think that they know everything. They love to hold this knowledge over us in the “dumb public.” “Oh great scientist, please tell me EXACTLY how the world works.” Mr. Scientist might be so benevolent to us and our feeble minds if we’re lucky. After all, scientists throughout history have known everything right? Oh wait; it appears “truth” changes. It appears scientists realize they got some things wrong. If science would just admit that it is “an attempt” to understand our natural world, the people like me would leave it alone. Where it goes wrong is the prideful grasp it holds over truth. The smartest ancients thought the earth was the center of the universe (not just religious people). The Romans thought the last planet was Jupiter. Well, we found more planets. We later found out that the world was larger than just our galaxy. Hubble (whom the Hubble telescope is named after) discovered that our galaxy is just one of many. The size of our known universe was infinitely larger than we ever thought. And it was this discovery that was the root of the eventual Big Bang Theory.
The discovery of multiple galaxies was a complete shock, but not as much as what these galaxies were doing. The galaxies were not static but were moving away from each other. Now, what does this matter? Well, taking all 3 of Newton’s laws of motion into consideration shows us that if something is acted upon causing it to move, then we can measure its trajectory. If we can measure where it’s going, then we should be able to measure where it came from. The only difference is looking back rather than forward. Throw a baseball straight up into the air. It will travel up, stop, and then down. The fact that galaxies are moving away from each other seems to show that they were once close. If we go back in time, then, we would see the galaxies together just like when the hand was about to release the ball. If movement is known (train leaves Chicago at 7:00 AM headed 50 mph), then we can measure the time it would take to get to “x.” However, if it has already arrived at “x,” then we could tell when it left “y” (e.g. The train left Chicago traveling 50 mph and arrived at New York at 12PM. From that we could calculate backwards to know it left Chicago at 7 AM.)
So, if everything was once close, how close? The Big Bang Theory states that everything was infinitely close and infinitely small. Everything in the whole universe was about the size of an atom. This atom spontaneously explodes, and over time, our world formed. The lightest element like helium fused under great pressure and heat to form heavier elements like hydrogen. This process of fusion (which humans, so far, cannot replicate) is what lead to progressively heavier elements.
Now immediately, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “well where did this tiny atom come from?” This is where the writer halts to leave the reader in suspense….
Now, I typically take a view towards science that is much different than most conservative Christians. God created this world, so how could learning about it be bad? The typical Christian move is to view science in opposition to Christianity. It’s funny though, because these are the same people who embrace science when they find evidence “for the flood.” Now, this doesn’t mean that science is my God or that science = truth. Do you realize that that is exactly the way we view science? Think about how many sentences start with “scientists say….” Science isn’t truth; science is a method to get to truth. It’s method is empiricism (which is knowing things by the 5 senses [taste, smell, hear, see, feel]). Theology isn’t truth either. Theology systematizes our limited understanding of God, who is truth. Theology fails, but theology has no hubris. The theologian knows God is too far above us to fully be understood. We know only what he reveals. Science, though, tends to say that everything is already revealed by the discovery of the senses. In every age, scientists think that they know everything. They love to hold this knowledge over us in the “dumb public.” “Oh great scientist, please tell me EXACTLY how the world works.” Mr. Scientist might be so benevolent to us and our feeble minds if we’re lucky. After all, scientists throughout history have known everything right? Oh wait; it appears “truth” changes. It appears scientists realize they got some things wrong. If science would just admit that it is “an attempt” to understand our natural world, the people like me would leave it alone. Where it goes wrong is the prideful grasp it holds over truth. The smartest ancients thought the earth was the center of the universe (not just religious people). The Romans thought the last planet was Jupiter. Well, we found more planets. We later found out that the world was larger than just our galaxy. Hubble (whom the Hubble telescope is named after) discovered that our galaxy is just one of many. The size of our known universe was infinitely larger than we ever thought. And it was this discovery that was the root of the eventual Big Bang Theory.
The discovery of multiple galaxies was a complete shock, but not as much as what these galaxies were doing. The galaxies were not static but were moving away from each other. Now, what does this matter? Well, taking all 3 of Newton’s laws of motion into consideration shows us that if something is acted upon causing it to move, then we can measure its trajectory. If we can measure where it’s going, then we should be able to measure where it came from. The only difference is looking back rather than forward. Throw a baseball straight up into the air. It will travel up, stop, and then down. The fact that galaxies are moving away from each other seems to show that they were once close. If we go back in time, then, we would see the galaxies together just like when the hand was about to release the ball. If movement is known (train leaves Chicago at 7:00 AM headed 50 mph), then we can measure the time it would take to get to “x.” However, if it has already arrived at “x,” then we could tell when it left “y” (e.g. The train left Chicago traveling 50 mph and arrived at New York at 12PM. From that we could calculate backwards to know it left Chicago at 7 AM.)
So, if everything was once close, how close? The Big Bang Theory states that everything was infinitely close and infinitely small. Everything in the whole universe was about the size of an atom. This atom spontaneously explodes, and over time, our world formed. The lightest element like helium fused under great pressure and heat to form heavier elements like hydrogen. This process of fusion (which humans, so far, cannot replicate) is what lead to progressively heavier elements.
Now immediately, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “well where did this tiny atom come from?” This is where the writer halts to leave the reader in suspense….
Time: Introduction
I’ve decided to do a new series. Time is one of my favorite subjects. I’ve always found it interesting. I promise, there will be no crazy conspiracies in this one. At church, we’re studying a book called “Driven by Eternity.” The series has been good so far, but it’s not really what inspired me to write about time. That is about time in relation to heaven and hell. This is about time in relation to the past, our current world and theoretical possibilities. Recently, the science channel (yes, I love the science channel), had 4 hour long shows on time. I like science a lot. Anytime I watch science shows, I’m continually thinking about what they’re saying in terms of Christianity. Well, that is exactly what this series will be about. It isn’t science. It isn’t theology. It is somewhere in between. I have nothing more than a high school education regarding science, so you know…uh…I’m not an expert. What I will do is discuss some of the major problems and interesting things about time. By the way, did you know that “science” comes form Latin meaning “I know”? It is also why, based on that definition, theology used to be called “The Queen of the sciences.” Theology was supposed to be about knowing God. Isn’t that ironic?
Okay, so what in the world am I going to talk about? Okay, allow me at this point to stop worrying about grammar. Time is a dimension (the 4th). Ever wanted to know why old people drive slowly? Ever wanted to know if that old wives tell about time slowing down during a near-death experiment was true or not? Ever wonder if we could live longer than we do and why the Bible says that some people lived nearly 1,000 years? Is time travel possible? How old is the universe and the earth really? What does the Big Bang theory really say? Is time internal or external? Is it relative? Was time invented with a watch? Is time just change? If time travel were possible, wouldn’t that cause problems? Wouldn’t we already have those “time travel visitors” here? Why is Einstein known as such a brain? What is the theory of general relativity?
Now, I’m not going to answer these questions. I’m going to talk about the problems and interesting ideas/solutions. Pack your bags. This is going to be a trip.
Okay, so what in the world am I going to talk about? Okay, allow me at this point to stop worrying about grammar. Time is a dimension (the 4th). Ever wanted to know why old people drive slowly? Ever wanted to know if that old wives tell about time slowing down during a near-death experiment was true or not? Ever wonder if we could live longer than we do and why the Bible says that some people lived nearly 1,000 years? Is time travel possible? How old is the universe and the earth really? What does the Big Bang theory really say? Is time internal or external? Is it relative? Was time invented with a watch? Is time just change? If time travel were possible, wouldn’t that cause problems? Wouldn’t we already have those “time travel visitors” here? Why is Einstein known as such a brain? What is the theory of general relativity?
Now, I’m not going to answer these questions. I’m going to talk about the problems and interesting ideas/solutions. Pack your bags. This is going to be a trip.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Bridezilla
Why is it that women are completely irrational and illogical. Or maybe more accurately, why is that they hit a switch and turn into this? I was flipping the channels tonight and came across Bridezilla. The woman on there was crazy. All sense of perspective and logic had deserted her. She got angry at her fiance because he was having fun at his bachelor party and she wasn't having fun yet at her bachlerette party. Bridezilla's perspective = Her bridesmaids didn't call her! Reality = Her phone was dead. Bridezilla = They were horrible and she wasn't going to go out no matter what. Reality = She later went out and danced. Bridezilla = Her boyfriend was a jerk for not calling her to see how her day was going. Reality = He didn't call the moment her day went south and he was having fun at his party (which involved no strippers). She later gets ahold of him and of course is angry. He left his party and came over to her hotel room where she yelled about her day which, of course, was his fault. He, of course, did what every guy would do and say stuff about how simple the issue was...how ludicrous it was for her to be upset over the situation. He told her all the ways to solve the problem and continued to not understand why he was to blame.
Why is it that we see the world so differently? How can logic not matter?
This week, I heard a woman tell a story about her and her husband. She told a story about how her husband did something horrible. Of course, I listen to the story and think, that's exactly what I would have done.
I think her husband's parents were going to come over. The husband tells them this isn't a good idea because the house is a wreck. (This is the part that I would have done. If the house isn't clean, then I would just say that). However, she got EXTREMELY mad at him because he told his parents this. Why? To the husband, all he did is state a reality. All he did was present the problem to the idea and the solution (which was to go somewhere else). As the woman was telling the story, I thought, that is exactly what I would have said, but then it hit me why she was mad. She was mad because, to most women, their house is a reflection of them. So a beautiful, well decorated house is a beautiful woman, wife, and mother. To a man, it's a dirty house...nothing more. The man wasn't saying "my wife doesn't clean our house...she's a horrible wife" but you can bet that that is exactly how her female mind translated "the house isn't clean." Men don't translate what women say into "what they really mean." I think this is nearly all that women do. You don't have to decode us...we'll say what we mean. We'll always just solve the problem you're telling us about even though you don't want us to solve it. Which then, we'll think, why did you act like you needed help with the problem then? They just wanted talk to you about what happened to them. Which we then think, "who cares? Stuff happened to me all day and I just solved it. Do you want to hear about how I took out the garbage but the cans were overflowing?"
So how do people get together? Hmm...I have a feeling this blog might get me into trouble. Maybe you women should "just talk this problem out with your husbands and then solve it yourselves instead of listening to what he says.
Why is it that we see the world so differently? How can logic not matter?
This week, I heard a woman tell a story about her and her husband. She told a story about how her husband did something horrible. Of course, I listen to the story and think, that's exactly what I would have done.
I think her husband's parents were going to come over. The husband tells them this isn't a good idea because the house is a wreck. (This is the part that I would have done. If the house isn't clean, then I would just say that). However, she got EXTREMELY mad at him because he told his parents this. Why? To the husband, all he did is state a reality. All he did was present the problem to the idea and the solution (which was to go somewhere else). As the woman was telling the story, I thought, that is exactly what I would have said, but then it hit me why she was mad. She was mad because, to most women, their house is a reflection of them. So a beautiful, well decorated house is a beautiful woman, wife, and mother. To a man, it's a dirty house...nothing more. The man wasn't saying "my wife doesn't clean our house...she's a horrible wife" but you can bet that that is exactly how her female mind translated "the house isn't clean." Men don't translate what women say into "what they really mean." I think this is nearly all that women do. You don't have to decode us...we'll say what we mean. We'll always just solve the problem you're telling us about even though you don't want us to solve it. Which then, we'll think, why did you act like you needed help with the problem then? They just wanted talk to you about what happened to them. Which we then think, "who cares? Stuff happened to me all day and I just solved it. Do you want to hear about how I took out the garbage but the cans were overflowing?"
So how do people get together? Hmm...I have a feeling this blog might get me into trouble. Maybe you women should "just talk this problem out with your husbands and then solve it yourselves instead of listening to what he says.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)