 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > I am a Calvinist...can someone talk me out of it ? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 10/25/2001 7:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | POW,
I would answer you, but this is a forum about Calvinism.
Bob
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/26/2001 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Bob: It is called Mid-Acts Dispensationalism. I myself believe that the body of Christ church started with the salvation of the Apostle Paul.
Pot: So I guess the next question to ask, then, is what you make of Pentacost, in your belief?
Bob: ...this is a forum about Calvinism.
Pot: Having attended Calvinist churches for the last nineteen years I just wish to have a bit of a way to understand the things you are saying. (I think my question fits here just fine.)
I notice two things which seem to go together -- tell me if they do, please.
On the Baptism thread you show an emphasis on the Holy Spirit baptism to the exclusion of water baptism, despite how both historically have gone together (in Calvinism too). You say that the Church began with the conversion of St. Paul. Calvinists would say it began at Pentacost. (Calvinists care about the distinction you are making.)
ON THE BAPTISM THREAD I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE WHAT YOU EMPHASIZE REGARDING THE HOLY SPIRIT. I LIKE SOME OF WHAT I READ. Perhaps your denomination's emphasis at the exclusion of physicality (water baptism) is a reaction to too much physical/historical/authoritarian in the past? I AM IN FAVOR OF A "PNEUMATOLOGICALLY CONDITIONED CHRISTOLOGY."
. . . .
Also, Calvinism links the Church with Baptism:
(Heidelberg Catechism -- WITH scripture texts!)
quote:
Lord's Day 26
Baptism
Q & A 69
Q. How does baptism
remind you and assure you
that Christ's one sacrifice on the cross
is for you personally?
A. In this way:
Christ instituted this outward washing^1
and with it gave the promise that,
as surely as water washes away the dirt from the body,
so certainly his blood and his Spirit
wash away my soul's impurity,
in other words, all my sins.^2
^1 Acts 2:38
^2 Matt. 3:11; Rom. 6:3-10; 1 Pet. 3:21
Q & A 70
Q. What does it mean
to be washed with Christ's blood and Spirit?
A. To be washed with Christ's blood means
that God, by grace, has forgiven my sins
because of Christ's blood
poured out for me in his sacrifice on the cross.^1
To be washed with Christ's Spirit means
that the Holy Spirit has renewed me
and set me apart to be a member of Christ
so that more and more I become dead to sin
and increasingly live a holy and blameless life.^2
^1 Zech. 13:1; Eph. 1:7-8; Heb. 12:24; 1 Pet. 1:2; Rev. 1:5
^2 Ezek. 36:25-27; John 3:5-8; Rom. 6:4; 1 Cor. 6:11; Col. 2:11-12
Q & A 71
Q. Where does Christ promise
that we are washed with his blood and Spirit
as surely as we are washed
with the water of baptism?
A. In the institution of baptism where he says:
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit."^1
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,
but whoever does not believe will be condemned."^2*
This promise is repeated when Scripture calls baptism
the washing of rebirth^3 and
the washing away of sins.^4
^1 Matt. 28:19
^2 Mark 16:16
^3 Tit. 3:5
^4 Acts 22:16
*Earlier and better manuscripts of Mark 16 omit the words "Whoever believes and is baptized . . . condemned."
Lord's Day 27
Q & A 72
Q. Does this outward washing with water
itself wash away sins?
A. No, only Jesus Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit
cleanse us from all sins.^1
^1 Matt. 3:11; 1 Pet. 3:21; 1 John 1:7
Q & A 73
Q. Why then does the Holy Spirit call baptism
the washing of rebirth and
the washing away of sins?
A. God has good reason for these words.
He wants to teach us that
the blood and Spirit of Christ wash away our sins
just as water washes away dirt from our bodies.^1
But more important,
he wants to assure us, by this divine pledge and sign,
that the washing away of our sins spiritually
is as real as physical washing with water.^2
^1 1 Cor. 6:11; Rev. 1:5; 7:14
^2 Acts 2:38; Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27
PotOnWheel
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 10/26/2001 10:29:44 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
1way
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 299
| Posted 10/26/2001 8:43 PM (GMT -6) | | OrthodoxBerean - As to quote:
If it is illogical to say that God can make a rock so big that He can't move it what is the difference between that and saying that God could make a man so free that he can't move it.?
Your comparison is worded awkwardly, but I believe it conveys the intended point sufficiently. Consider the maxim,
"God can make a rock so big that He can't move it",
that it roughly translates into
"God can create something that exceeds His own ability".
That being a proper translation, I fully agree that such a statement is quite illogical.
Also, notice the phrase "being so free". Because of the corresponding analogy, this seems to be clearly in error. The rock was "so big", it implies an extent along a supposed ascending continuum of big-ness, that it was suggested to be too big for God. I believe that a being is either free or it is not free. There is no greater or lesser extent of such freedom. Either she's pregnant or she's not, no such thing as almost or partially pregnant. Defining freedom as the person's ability to accept or reject God and His ways (a free will moral agent), one is either free, or not free.
I affirm that God can not make a rock so big that He can't lift it, that is a statement concerning reality, and God's rationality, no one can do the illogical (or by definition, the impossible). - God makes good sense, no one or nothing is wiser and more meaningfully good.
- God's love is supreme over all. He is so loving, that He wrote, "God is love".
- Conversely, all "that is done without love", is (morally) void.
- God's word (and ways) doesn't return void.
I think that formula goes a long way in denying so much arbitrariness associated to God by Calvinistic theology. God acts according to His entire character and ways in fully consistency and faithfulness. He does not violate His love, He is meaningful and rational. God is not arbitrary or illogical, and our world in reality reflects all that as well.
I hope this helps. 
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." | | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 10/31/2001 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | OrthodoxBerean,
God made man so free that he could reject the love that the Father showed to the world when He sent His Son to die for their sins.
However, in man's state of sin, he is unable to do good. It's when we are saved that we are able to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 11/1/2001 7:37 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
OrthodoxBerean,
God made man so free that he could reject the love that the Father showed to the world when He sent His Son to die for their sins.
However, in man's state of sin, he is unable to do good. It's when we are saved that we are able to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Bob Hill
So in this sense you all are definitely not Arminians. You believe in Total Depravity? If we cannot believe until we are saved, then must everyone be saved in order to have a chance? I am sorta confused by this. This sounds like something a Calvinist would say, and in saying this affirm election, and irresistable grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 11/1/2001 9:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
quote:
So in this sense you all are definitely not Arminians. You believe in Total Depravity? If we cannot believe until we are saved, then must everyone be saved in order to have a chance? I am sorta confused by this. This sounds like something a Calvinist would say, and in saying this affirm election, and irresistable grace.
OB, I certainly will not pretend to speak for the dispensationalists here but as far as Open Theists like Boyd, YES, we affirm Total Depravity but we reject Irresistable Grace. Like Barth, in one sense, all are elect in Christ. Christ is the necessary precondition, the means, and the content of salvation. No one comes to the Father but through Christ. And Christ died for all. This satisfies the precondition. The means of salvation is proclamation and this too is Christ. The content has to do with the change in the believer and this too is Christ. Through baptism we are made one with Christ. We have no way of resisting the precondition, but we can reject the proclamation and/or be offended at the content. Barring these (rejection/offense) faith will emerge.
One could put it this way, Christ is both the precondition and the content of the proclamation.
"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kyle Essary
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 113
| Posted 11/1/2001 10:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey guys, can we keep this string for chat about Open Theism v. Calvinism? I truly am interested by Bob Hill's for of dispensationalism, but that discussion keeps distracting my thoughts on the other posts, hehe. In Fact, I will go start a thread for it under Theological Q & A.
Kyle Essary | | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 11/1/2001 5:07 PM (GMT -6) | | This came from a Calvinist, how would the open view respind?
"God created time. Time is not a part of God's essential being or essence. He is transcendent in His relationship to time. God created time when he created matter and space in the beginning.1 We call it the time-space-matter continuum. Time, space, and matter are inseparably connected to one another. Human existence cannot exist without all three elements. Motion is inter-dependent on time because actions, thoughts, and feelings cannot take place in this physical universe without it. To go from point A to point B requires a durative period of time. To think through a problem or about something also requires a durative period of time. Action is linear, not punctiliar. Motion is progressive. It requires time for it to be performed.
Time is part of God's creation, just as squirrels, trees, mountains, and people. Just as God interacts with the rest of His creation, He interacts with time. Because time is created, it precludes God from having His existence rooted in, and bound by time."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 11/2/2001 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Orthodoxberean,
“God is outside of time.” I have heard this from many sources, but there is no Scripture which states this. Those who have a high view of Scripture want to refer to the Bible. They sometimes refer to the following passages: 2 Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began. Tit 1:2 in hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began. Walvoord & Zuck wrote at 1 Co 2:7, “The message which Paul proclaimed was God’s secret wisdom, known only by God’s revelation (Matt. 11:25). At the heart of this wisdom is the plan of salvation intended for our glory, determined before time began (Eph. 1:4).” The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton, Ill: Scripture Press, 1985.
In each of these references, the Greek text does not substantiate a translation which says, before time began.
2 Ti 1:9 before time began. pro cronwn aiwniwn = before age times.
Tit 1:2 before time began. pro cronwn aiwniwn = before age times.
1 Co 2:7 prowrisen ho theos pro twn aiwnwn = God predestined before the ages
Since there is no evidence from Scripture, and the following article from The American Spectator shows that there are serious problems with relativity, I reject the ideas that God is outside of time.
Rethinking Relativity by Tom Bethell.
No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics journal just published an article whose conclusion, if generally accepted, will undermine the foundations of modern physics—Einstein’s theory of relativity in particular. Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the article claims that the speed with which the force of gravity propagates must be at least twenty billion times faster than the speed of light. This would contradict the special theory of relativity of 1905, which asserts that nothing can go faster than light. This claim about the special status of the speed of light has become part of the world view of educated laymen in the twentieth century.
Special relativity, as opposed to the general theory (1916), is considered by experts to be above criticism, because it has been confirmed “over and over again.” But several dissident physicists believe that there is a simpler way of looking at the facts, a way that avoids the mind-bending complications of relativity. Their arguments can be understood by laymen. I wrote about one of these dissidents, Petr Beckmann, over five years ago (TAS, August 1993, and Correspondence, TAS, October 1993). The present article introduces new people and arguments. The subject is important because if special relativity is supplanted, much of twentieth-century physics, including quantum theory, will have to be reconsidered in that light.
The article in Physics Letters A was written by Tom Van Flandern, a research associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland. He also publishes Meta Research Bulletin, which supports “promising but unpopular alternative ideas in astronomy.” In the 1990’s, he worked as a special consultant to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of satellites whose atomic clocks allow ground observers to determine their position to within about a foot. Van Flandern reports that an intriguing controversy arose before GPS was even launched. Special relativity gave Einsteinians reason to doubt whether it would work at all. In fact, it works fine. (But more on that later.)
The publication of his article is a breakthrough of sorts. For years, most editors of mainstream physics journals have automatically rejected articles arguing against special relativity. This policy was informally adopted in the wake of the Herbert Dingle controversy. A professor of science at the University of London, Dingle had written a book popularizing special relativity, but by the 1960’s he had become convinced that it couldn’t be true. So he wrote another book, Science at the Crossroads (1972), contradicting the first. Scientific journals, especially Nature, were bombarded with his (and others’) letters. (See sidebar on opposite page.)
An editor of Physics Letters A promised Van Flandern that reviewers would not be allowed to reject his article simply because it conflicted with received wisdom. Van Flandern begins with the “most amazing thing” he learned as a graduate student of celestial mechanics at Yale: that all gravitational interactions must be taken as instantaneous. At the same time, students were also taught that Einstein’s special relativity proved that nothing could propagate faster than light in a vacuum. The disagreement “sat there like an irritant,” Van Flandern told me. He determined that one day he would find its resolution. Today, he thinks that a new interpretation of relativity may be needed.
The argument that gravity must travel faster than light goes like this. If its speed limit is that of light, there must be an appreciable delay in its action. By the time the Sun’s “pull” reaches us, the Earth will have “moved on” for another 8.3 minutes (the time of light travel). But by then the Sun’s pull on the Earth will not be in the same straight line as the Earth’s pull on the Sun. The effect of these misaligned forces “would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years.” Obviously, this is not happening. The stability of planetary orbits tells us that gravity must propagate much faster than light. Accepting this reasoning, Isaac Newton assumed that the force of gravity must be instantaneous.
Astronomical data support this conclusion. We know, for example, that the Earth accelerates toward a point 20 arc-seconds in front of the visible Sun—that is, toward the true, instantaneous direction of the Sun. Its light comes to us from one direction, its “pull” from a slightly different direction. This implies different propagation speeds for light and gravity.
It might seem strange that something so fundamental to our understanding of physics can still be a matter of debate. But that in itself should encourage us to wonder how much we really know about the physical world. In certain Internet discussion groups, “the most frequently asked question and debated topic is ‘What is the speed of gravity?’” Van Flandern writes. It is heard less often in the classroom, but only “because many teachers and most textbooks head off the question.” They understand the argument that it must go very fast indeed, but they also have been trained not to let anything exceed Einstein’s speed limit.
So maybe there is something wrong with special relativity after all.
In The ABC of Relativity (1925), Bertrand Russell said that just as the Copernican system once seemed impossible and now seems obvious, so, one day, Einstein’s relativity theory “will seem easy.” But it remains as “difficult” as ever, not because the math is easy or difficult (special relativity requires only high-school math, general relativity really is difficult), but because elementary logic must be abandoned. “Easy Einstein” books remain baffling to almost all. The sun-centered solar system, on the other hand, has all along been easy to grasp.
Nonetheless, special relativity (which deals with motion in a straight line) is thought to be beyond reproach. General relativity (which deals with gravity, and accelerated motion in general) is not regarded with the same awe. Stanford’s Francis Everitt, the director of an experimental test of general relativity due for space-launch next year, has summarized the standing of the two theories in this way: “I would not be at all surprised if Einstein’s general theory of relativity were to break down,” he wrote. “Einstein himself recognized some serious shortcomings in it, and we know on general grounds that it is very difficult to reconcile with other parts of modern physics. With regard to special relativity, on the other hand, I would be much more surprised. The experimental foundations do seem to be much more compelling.” This is the consensus view.
Dissent from special relativity is small and scattered. But it is there, and it is growing. Van Flandern’s article is only the latest manifestation. In 1987, Petr Beckmann, who taught at the University of Colorado, published Einstein Plus Two, pointing out that the observations that led to relativity can be more simply reinterpreted in a way that preserves universal time. The journal he founded, Galilean Electrodynamics, was taken over by Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut (Physics), and is now edited by Cynthia Kolb Whitney of the Electro-Optics Technology Center at Tufts. Hayden held colloquia on Beckmann’s ideas at several New England universities, but could find no physicist who even tried to put up an argument.
A brief note on Einstein’s most famous contribution to physics—the formula that everyone knows. When they hear that heresy is in the air, some people come to the defense of relativity with this question: “Atom bombs work, don’t they?” They reason as follows: The equation E = mc2 was discovered as a byproduct of Einstein’s (special) theory of relativity. (True.) Relativity, they conclude, is indispensable to our understanding of the way the world works. But that does not follow. Alternative derivations of the famous equation dispense with relativity. One such was provided by Einstein himself in 1946. And it is simpler than the relativistic rigmarole. But few Einstein books or biographies mention the alternative. They admire complexity, and cling to it.
Consider Clifford M. Will of Washington University, a leading proponent of relativity today. “It is difficult to imagine life without special relativity,” he says in Was Einstein Right? “Just think of all the phenomena or features of our world in which special relativity plays a role. Atomic energy, both the explosive and the controlled kind. The famous equation E=mc2 tells how mass can be converted into extraordinary amounts of energy.” Note the misleading predicate, “plays a role.” He knows that the stronger claim, “is indispensable,” would be pounced on as inaccurate.
Is there an alternative way of looking at all the facts that supposedly would be orphaned without relativity? Is there a simpler way? A criterion of simplicity has frequently been used as a court of appeal in deciding between theories. If it is made complex enough, the Ptolemaic system can predict planetary positions correctly. But the Sun-centered system is much simpler, and ultimately we prefer it for that reason.
Tom Van Flandern says the problem is that the Einstein experts who have grown accustomed to “Minkowski diagrams and real relativistic thinking” find the alternative of universal time and “Galilean space” actually more puzzling than their own mathematical ingenuities. Once relativists have been thoroughly trained, he says, it’s as difficult for them to rethink the subject in classical terms as it is for laymen to grasp time dilation and space contraction. For laymen, however, and for those physicists who have not specialized in relativity, which is to say the vast majority of physicists, there’s no doubt that the Galilean way is far simpler than the Einsteinian.
Special relativity was first proposed as a way of sidestepping the great difficulty that arose in physics as a result of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887). Clerk Maxwell had shown that light and radio waves share the same electromagnetic spectrum, differing only in wave length. Sea waves require water, sound waves air, so, it was argued, electromagnetic waves must have their own medium to travel in. It was called the ether. “There can be no doubt that the interplanetary and interstellar spaces are not empty,” Maxwell wrote, “but are occupied by a material substance or body, which is certainly the largest, and probably the most uniform body of which we have any knowledge.” As today’s dissidents see things, it was Maxwell’s assumption of uniformity that was misleading.
The experiment of Michelson and Morley tried to detect this ether. Since the Earth in its orbital motion must plow through it, an “ether wind” should be detectable, just as a breeze can be felt outside the window of a moving car. Despite repeated attempts, however, no ethereal breeze could be felt. A pattern of interference fringes was supposed to shift when Michelson’s instrument was rotated. But there was no fringe shift.
Einstein explained this result in radical fashion. There is no need of an ether, he said. And there was no fringe shift because the speed of an approaching light wave is unaffected by the observer’s motion. But if the speed of light always remains the same, time itself would have to slow down, and space contract to just the amount needed to ensure that the one divided by the other—space divided by time—always gave the same value: the unvarying speed of light. The formula that achieved this result was quite simple, and mathematically everything worked out nicely and agreed with observation.
The skeptical, meanwhile, were placated with this formula: “I know it seems odd that time slows down and space contracts when things move, but don’t worry, a measurable effect only occurs at high velocities—much higher than anything we find in everyday life. So for all practical purposes we can go on thinking in the same old way.” (Meanwhile, space and time have been subordinated to velocity. Get used to it.)
Now we come to some modern experimental findings. Today we have very accurate clocks, accurate to a billionth of a second a day. The tiny differentials predicted by Einstein are now measurable. And the interesting thing is this: Experiments have shown that atomic clocks really do slow down when they move, and atomic particles really do live longer. Does this mean that time itself slows down? Or is there a simpler explanation?
The dissident physicists I have mentioned disagree about various things, but they are beginning to unite behind this proposition: There really is an ether, in which electromagnetic waves travel, but it is not the all-encompassing, uniform ether proposed by Maxwell. Instead, it corresponds to the gravitational field that all celestial bodies carry about with them. Close to the surface (of sun, planet, or star) the field, or ether, is relatively more dense. As you move out into space it becomes more attenuated. Beckmann’s Einstein Plus Two introduces this hypothesis, I believe for the first time, and he told me it was first suggested to him in the 1950’s by one of his graduate students, Jiri Pokorny, at the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics in Prague. Pokorny later joined the department of physics at Prague’s Charles University, and today is retired.
I believe that all the facts that seem to require special or general relativity can be more simply explained by assuming an ether that corresponds to the local gravitational field. Michelson found no “ether wind,” or fringe shift, because of course the Earth’s gravitational field moves forward with the Earth. As for the bending of starlight near the Sun, the confirmation of general relativity that made Einstein world-famous, it is easily explained given a non-uniform light medium. It is a well known law of physics that wave fronts do change direction when they enter a denser medium. According to Howard Hayden, refracted starlight can be derived this way “with a few lines of high school algebra.” And derived exactly. The tensor calculus and Riemannian geometry of general relativity gives only an approximation. Likewise the “Shapiro Time-Delay,” observed when radar beams pass close to the Sun and bounce back from Mercury. Some may prefer to try to understand all this in terms of the “curvature of space-time,” to use the Einstein formulation (unintelligible to laymen, I believe). But they should know that a far simpler alternative exists.
The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of general relativity, is worth a closer look. (The perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun.) Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury’s orbit, “he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him.... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein’s scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him.”
Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his general-relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in Annalen der Physik (the journal that had published Einstein’s relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”
If the general relativity method is correct, it ought to apply everywhere, not just in the solar system. But Van Flandern points to a conflict outside it: binary stars with highly unequal masses. Their orbits behave in ways that the Einstein formula did not predict. “Physicists know about it and shrug their shoulders,” Van Flandern says. They say there must be “something peculiar about these stars, such as an oblateness, or tidal effects.” Another possibility is that Einstein saw to it that he got the result needed to “explain” Mercury’s orbit, but that it doesn’t apply elsewhere.
The simplest way to understand all this “without going crazy,” Van Flandern says, is to discard Einsteinian relativity and to assume that “there is a light-carrying medium.” When a clock moves through this medium “it takes longer for each electron in the atomic clock to complete its orbit.” Therefore it makes fewer “ticks” in a given time than a stationary clock. Moving clocks slow down, in short, because they are “ploughing through this medium and working more slowly.” It’s not time that slows down. It’s the clocks. All the experiments that supposedly “confirm” special relativity do so because all have been conducted in laboratories on the Earth’s surface, where every single moving particle, or moving atomic clock, is in fact “ploughing through” the Earth’s gravitational field, and therefore slowing down.
Both theories, Einsteinian and local field, would yield the same results. So far. Now let’s turn back to the Global Positioning System. At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second—their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,” Van Flandern said. “They have basically blown off Einstein.”
The latest findings are not in agreement with relativistic expectations. To accommodate these findings, Einsteinians are proving adept at arguing that if you look at things from a different “reference frame,” everything still works out fine. But they have to do the equivalent of standing on their heads, and it’s not convincing. A simpler theory that accounts for all the facts will sooner or later supplant one that looks increasingly Rube Goldberg-like. I believe that is now beginning to happen. ‘
Dingle’s Question:
University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why special relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.
Dingle’s Question was this: Which clock runs slow? Physicists could not agree on an answer. As the debate raged on, a Canadian physicist wrote to Nature in July 1973: “Maybe the time has come for all of those who want to answer to get together and to come up with one official answer. Otherwise the plain man, when he hears of this matter, may exercise his right to remark that when the experts disagree they cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.”
The problem has not gone away. Alan Lightman of MIT offers an unsatisfactory solution in his Great Ideas in Physics (1992). “[T]he fact that each observer sees the other clock ticking more slowly than his own clock does not lead to a contradiction. A contradiction could arise only if the two clocks could be put back together side by side at two different times.” But clocks in constant relative motion in a straight line “can be brought together only once, at the moment they pass.” So the theory is protected from its own internal logic by the impossibility of putting it to a test. Can such a theory be said to be scientific?
In Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Magneton
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 11/2/2001 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | OB & Bob,
Interesting stuff. Why don't you join us on the "Relativity Theory and Sequencelessness" thread where we've been discussing some of these issues.
Magneton
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes." Pope John Paul II | | Back to Top | | |
|
rb1963b
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 93
| Posted 11/2/2001 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | "You believe in Total Depravity? If we cannot believe until we are saved, then must everyone be saved in order to have a chance?"
If you mean by total depravity that man cannot choose to believe he is totally depraved and needs a savior to save him, then NO we do not believe in total depravity.
"If we cannot believe until we are saved,"
No one said that, we must believe TO BE SAVED.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Belief and Faith are the same thing here. I think where you get messed up is that you think that God saves a man then gives him faith, but this is in opposition to scripture, for God MADE MAN A THING WITH FAITH, In Romans 12 Paul is addressing both saved and unsaved, he makes a peculiar statement in 12:3. When we are saved our minds are renewed, but in verse 2, he tells his audience to be transformed, this is an indication that not all were saved.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 11/3/2001 1:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Bob:
I don't know if it is necessary to deny special relativity in order to deny the "timeless" view of God (I'm starting to think not thanks to Magneton and Doc). However, I think it would be a mistake for Open Theists to allign themselves with fringe elements. It would certainly reduce their credibility, in my mind anyway. Professor Dingle's dissent is discussed fairly thoroughly in Paul Davies book "About Time". I'm no expert, but I think the author of the article you cite makes the mistake of trying to incorporate Newton's gravity with special relativity. You can't. This was the very reason Einstein formulated general relativity. It is an interesting article though I would like to hear a response from someone with a better understanding of relativity than myself.
God bless.
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
OrthodoxBerean
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 11/3/2001 10:09 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
OrthodoxBerean - As to quote:
If it is illogical to say that God can make a rock so big that He can't move it what is the difference between that and saying that God could make a man so free that he can't move it.?
Your comparison is worded awkwardly, but I believe it conveys the intended point sufficiently. Consider the maxim,
"God can make a rock so big that He can't move it",
that it roughly translates into
"God can create something that exceeds His own ability".
That being a proper translation, I fully agree that such a statement is quite illogical.
Also, notice the phrase "being so free". Because of the corresponding analogy, this seems to be clearly in error. The rock was "so big", it implies an extent along a supposed ascending continuum of big-ness, that it was suggested to be too big for God. I believe that a being is either free or it is not free. There is no greater or lesser extent of such freedom. Either she's pregnant or she's not, no such thing as almost or partially pregnant. Defining freedom as the person's ability to accept or reject God and His ways (a free will moral agent), one is either free, or not free.
I affirm that God can not make a rock so big that He can't lift it, that is a statement concerning reality, and God's rationality, no one can do the illogical (or by definition, the impossible). - God makes good sense, no one or nothing is wiser and more meaningfully good.
- God's love is supreme over all. He is so loving, that He wrote, "God is love".
- Conversely, all "that is done without love", is (morally) void.
- God's word (and ways) doesn't return void.
I think that formula goes a long way in denying so much arbitrariness associated to God by Calvinistic theology. God acts according to His entire character and ways in fully consistency and faithfulness. He does not violate His love, He is meaningful and rational. God is not arbitrary or illogical, and our world in reality reflects all that as well.
I hope this helps.
"If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
This response came from another discussion board ( www.delphi.com/christiantap/messages ) concerning your reply. Here it is ...
"So the response is essentially, "rock so big" involves a qualitative stance of degree, where as "freedom" implies an all or nothing amount. This has not been proved yet.
Furthermore, this comment, "God is not arbitrary or illogical, and our world in reality reflects all that as well" is inconsistent with the responder's position to begin with. God's acts are contingent upon the free acts of other free-moral agents, just as our acts are contingent upon the free acts of other free agents. We do not know what a free act is going to be of another free agent, hence our acts are arbitrary. Open theism denies molinism, and epistemic-detemination (Thomism); thus, God's acts are just as arbitrary as our's."
What do you think?
| | Back to Top | | |
| 38 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:51 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|