ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Philosophy

The Nature of the Universe, 7 Einstein’s Error

Updated on February 2, 2015

Time

Einstein’s naturalistic worldview allows nothing supernatural or metaphysical, only random firings of synapses caused by purposeless chemical evolution.

Einstein claimed that, in the presence of gravity (close proximity to a strong gravitational field) that time would speed up. Once you enter the event horizon of a black hole, for instance, clocks tick differently. But that is because physics of space have been altered. His theory only works and is only applicable in a gravitational environment, but there are additional difficulties.

Here I am using "clock" to represent all atoms, let’s say that we make up the measuring device we call a clock, but it is true with all other atoms as well, and their response to gravity. In a dense universe atomic particles and their reactions speed up. It is believed that if you were present in such an environment you would notice nothing at all; the entire system including your thinking would simply speed up.

Einstein came from a naturalistic philosophy, but he especially should have understood that if you had a clock in a gravitational free-fall (i.e. falling to a gravitational center or suspended in an anti-gravity field) then it becomes weightless and will tick differently than even on, say, halfway to the moon because that clock is still in a gravitational field. When gravity is removed the clock still ticks. Clocks are one type of a display of time, but they are all physical devices, ergo all would respond to a strong of weak gravitational field in the same manner other atoms responded.

But in observing light move around large masses in the universe Einstein concluded that, as opposed to the light simply moving through space at a faster rate of speed (he had a vested interest in light moving at a constant speed, did he not?), he concluded time had been altered, or warped.

However, again, without luminiferous aether (Dark Matter) he had no way to speed up the light because, he thought, it was not traveling through a medium which could 1) be compressed in a gravitational field, and 2) this change in density would result in light traveling faster.

Please be mindful that I know physics had not yet figured out that this Dark Matter is in fact luminiferous, that is, the medium through which light passes. But now they have a vested interest in ignoring the effect of this on a double slit experiment, it would mean that a hundred years of experimentation and mathematics trying to explain why light does not travel in a medium is, in fact, false.

Does it help to go one hundred and twenty years?

God and Time

God experiences all the physical dimensions (how he interacts with them I don’t know) but he may have different ones than we do (i.e. the “spiritual domain”) or the items there may be of a different sort than ours. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are not in the “physical domain,” the second member of the trinity, as of his birth in 0 BC (Julian Calendar, probably between March and May) added those physical properties to his other properties so he is in “both” domains, but so are we, since, as tripartite beings (body, souls, spirit) it was our spirit component that died at the fall of man, is restored at salvation, and continues on after death (Ref: tens of thousands of near death experiences).

I am going to argue that the spiritual domain is the one where all domains exist and we can classify our space-time as a sub-domain, just like we can classify a sub-domain of time-frequency for radio waves.

Lewis

Let’s visit C.S. Lewis’ argument from desire which claims that every natural desire of man has its means of fulfillment. I desire to eat, and there is food to eat. It would be odd to find we had the desire for eating, that is, ingesting food via the alimentary channel, but found we were autotrophs, that is, like a plant simply make our own food from sunlight and absorption of nutrients through our skin. We have a natural sexual desire, and there is sex to meet that desire. We have the desire to sleep, and there is sleep. We desire drink, there is drink. We desire socialization, there are gatherings of people. However, we also have a natural desire to commune in some manner with God. It seems reasonable then that we can expect there is a God to commune with. This is part of the nature we live in.

We exclude from this argument desires conditioned by our world. I have the desire to eat pizza, but that is only after I know pizza exists and have experienced eating of pizza. I may desire to visit Disneyland but only after I have heard a description of the man-made location. I can also control, and must control my desires. I desire to eat, but if I eat too much I can eat myself to death, just as if I eat too little either by control or by disease or disorder, but these are not normal, they are abnormal.

It is that spiritual entity the Bible claims died in the garden.

It is that spiritual component which is regenerated by God at salvation, and it is that component, the human spirit that goes to heaven when we die. At this writing, a good family friend is just about to take that journey. When his body stops functioning in a few days, his spirit, possibly his soul (according to how you define each) will go to meet God in heaven and he will be given some spiritual covering or cloak so he can be seen and understood by others (say, a temporary body?). His final destination is the new earth where we will all receive new bodies very similar and familiar to this one.

Lots of hymns claim we are not of this world, in fact currently there is a marketing of that term itself (“Not of This World”) but if we are not of this world, why did God create us here and make our systems work so well in it? Why is there this hope of a “New World?” (I take this to mean a remodeled earth, not a new planet.)

“Spiritual” beings interact with our 4D world periodically and sometimes we can see them, though I have not, and that is an exceptionally rare event.

Spiritual beings don’t have physical mass that we can measure. However, logic demands they have some type of volume or mass in the spiritual domain, not necessarily subject to gravity (but then, why wings?) which is a strong force in the physical domain, but there also must be a parallel set of laws that govern that kind of being or we would not be able to differentiate the various beings or components. However, when seen these spiritual beings are never described in terms that can relate to weightlessness, that is, they are not floating around as if unaffected by gravity, rather they are standing on the ground as if affected by gravity, they have wings, they use the wings, and so forth.

Ask yourself, what is the teleological reason for the wings (their purpose)? Think about this before creation of the earth. God does make beautiful things, but the beauty always has function, nothing is wasted. The fluid beauty of a Jellyfish turns out to be extremely efficient at moving and collecting food. Even the bumps of a whales fin help it to glide more efficiently through the water, they help it swim with greater efficiency. The beauty of an animal attracts its mate. The beauty of a flower attracts a pollinator. So what of the wings?

Don’t default to false Greek philosophies reducing God to a mind floating around in nothing. That isn’t the Biblical model.

Anti-Gravity and Time

It is physically possible to build an anti-gravity unit (spin a light mass very fast around a central spot and that spot will produce an area in the center where the effects of gravity are nullified, at least in theory). If we built one and placed a clock in it and watched that clock we could see God’s time, or truly universal time, that is, how does this, say, rubidium oscillator clock act in this field and how is it different from a clock outside this field, that is, one in normal earth gravity?

Now, our clocks would run differently than that, and one in an event horizon would also run differently, one on a light planet, say the plutoid dwarf planet Haumea (a dwarf planet outside of Neptune, Google it) would also run differently. Time continues as normal, but the density of the universe changes the way matter acts in different gravitational fields and effects the running of the physical device.

Three people sitting on each of the three clocks would all experience sequencing the same but events seen from one clock would take more/less time according to which clock you were viewing from and which clock the sequencing happened in, but all would experience the sequence of events because they all exist, that is, have duration, and time is the metric we use to measure duration.

This would be similar to the Star Trek where something caused some of them to speed up into hyper speed and when they slowed way down it was like a buzzing bee to the slow normal speed people. They accomplished huge amounts of things in seconds measured by the slow clock time.

Even this, though, this idea that God’s time is different from ours is tenuous since Daniel prayed and the angel took twenty one days to arrive because of the fight he experienced before he could get to Daniel to answer his prayer.

The twenty one day time period indicated tells us several things: 1) Angels know about earth time “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days” Dan 10:13 (KJV), and 2) Angels move from location to location: “Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia” (ibid).

Did God create an Earth Time Clock and hang it on the wall of heaven? I don’t think so, I just know the angel was aware of the number of earth days it took him to get from heaven, fight, and arrive on earth. I also know Daniel’s prayer was answered.

In Revelation John describes duration measured in time in heaven. He also describes the sequencing of events, or passage of time. If heaven exists, then it has duration and time is the applicable metric to measure segments of that duration.

In short, Newton was right (time is absolute) and Einstein was right (time is relative) but with limits, as Einstein was talking about the speed of clocks being subject to changes in gravitational fields, not duration of events or time itself.

I wish he had dealt with a clock in a gravitational free fall or zero gravity. His theories of relativity are only relatively true, that is, partly true where there is a field of gravity.

Einstein’s Aether Mistake

Since we know, and Einstein correctly predicted that the various and sundry response times of matter will speed up in a gravity dense area of the universe, and now we know that he was wrong about light traveling through nothing, rather, as stated correctly in ether theory and yet to be announced in Aether Theory II, that the medium that particles of light travels through (now called dark energy and dark matter) can also become denser, then light also would speed up in that dense universe.

Huston, we have a problem. . .

If the speed of light is more rapid in a dense universe and Hubble is correct, as everyone now believes, and as Isaiah told us 2800 years ago that the universe is expanding, then the speed of light is slowing down ever so slightly.

However, since all our measurements are also affected by the change in density we would be hard pressed to notice even if it were, say, half the speed. And, if we could measure the speed slowing it would take generations to notice, not hours, days, or even years. But, the direct rational and inescapable implication is that in the past when the universe had higher density, things happened more rapidly, light traveled more quickly in the gravitationally dense early universe.

Mach and Einstein erred in those naturalistic assumptions and the dichotomy trying to determine if light is a particle or a wave is bogus, it is a particle traveling, as all particles do, through a media which generates a wave. The media was called aether, not it is called dark matter/dark energy.

The double slit experiment shows this clearly and a century later “science” is still trying to prove the wrong theory and claiming intellectual primacy.

Comments

Submit a Comment

No comments yet.

working