God created the sun on both the 1st day and the 4th day! ???

[strikeviperMKII]

What's the big deal about "Let there be light" in the Genesis account of Creation? The first verse says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." When was the "beginning?" For us, nobody has the right answer. To God it could have been trillions of light years ago or just yesterday, considering that God is eternal and that there is no time in eternity. Then, before God proclaimed the famous "Let there be light," darkness was upon the face of the deep. This means that darkness was in the universe. Then, the Genesis account of Creation is metaphorical. The whole thing an allegory, according to the famous Scholar Moses Maimonides in his opus prima, "The Guide for the Perplexed."
Ben

I'm going to assume this is a typo and let you correct yourself.

 

[Meow Mix]

I'm going to assume this is a typo and let you correct yourself.

He meant trillions of meters ago! No, twenty thousand fathoms! I mean... haha, just kidding

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Bad idea. Unless you've discovered time travel.

It would be a stretch.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'm going to assume this is a typo and let you correct yourself.

No, it was not a "typo". Just my way to say that millions of years or just a few days is the same when we are talking about eternity.
Ben

 

[Muffled]

Oh, it's there. You just have to enter the hole to see it.

That is my understanding also. The black hole keeps light in by intense gravity. Since it does not allow light to travel to earth then the area is considered to be dark. I don't know where the "hole" concept comes from. Anything drawing substance into itself by gravity would not be a hole but an object.

 

[PolyHedral]

The hole idea comes from the fact that the "object" in question is infinitely dense and has zero volume. This scares the physicists, to say the least.

 

[Muffled]

Those damned ignorant translators.:slap: Who let them near a Bible?

It appears to be a tempest in a teapot. God speaks things into existence. I doubt very much that God is making light out of existing substance. The idea of ex nihilo is frightening to the nth degree. It does not register with our understanding of things.

 

[Muffled]

The hole idea comes from the fact that the "object" in question is infinitely dense and has zero volume. This scares the physicists, to say the least.

Is it that there is no volume or simply that the third dimension can't be seen? Density must be inferred by the fact that the gravity is so strong ie. gravity would pull things closer together. I think a more perturbing question would be whether gravity could increase to the point where atomic integrity is compromised. What is the logical result, fusion? Given enough fusion would not that result in an unstable element as in Uranium and thereby promote fission?

 

[PolyHedral]

Is it that there is no volume or simply that the third dimension can't be seen? Density must be inferred by the fact that the gravity is so strong ie. gravity would pull things closer together. I think a more perturbing question would be whether gravity could increase to the point where atomic integrity is compromised. What is the logical result, fusion? Given enough fusion would not that result in an unstable element as in Uranium and thereby promote fission?

Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. This is because there are several forces that keep particles "discreet" and distinguishable.

The first is electromagnetic repulsion. When you touch an object, what stops your hand merely passing straight through is the fact that the electrons in your hand, which are negatively charged, are repelled by the electrons in the object, which are also negatively charged.

The next is something called the "Pauli exclusion principle," which is the fancy quantum mechanical version of "Two things can't occupy the same space at the same time."

However, in a black hole, both of these forces are overcome, and there is no longer any force stronger then the gravity of the object, and so it collapses down into a single point. Thus, a black hole has zero volume, but still has mass. (Since it is conserved, and there's nowhere for the mass to go.)

 

[Meow Mix]

Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. This is because there are several forces that keep particles "discreet" and distinguishable.

The first is electromagnetic repulsion. When you touch an object, what stops your hand merely passing straight through is the fact that the electrons in your hand, which are negatively charged, are repelled by the electrons in the object, which are also negatively charged.

The next is something called the "Pauli exclusion principle," which is the fancy quantum mechanical version of "Two things can't occupy the same space at the same time."

However, in a black hole, both of these forces are overcome, and there is no longer any force stronger then the gravity of the object, and so it collapses down into a single point. Thus, a black hole has zero volume, but still has mass. (Since it is conserved, and there's nowhere for the mass to go.)

But black holes only have singularities because of the way we describe them; there is likely no such thing in real life and they're expected to leave theory once we conquer quantum gravity... mostly because relativity assumes continuous space but uses discrete geodesics.

I submit that the problem isn't the geodesics, it's the assumption that space is continuous. Since we're on the subject of black holes, black holes also hint at the possibility that spacetime is discrete by the fact that they can only contain finite information before their event horizon has to grow: that shouldn't be expected if they truly had infinite density in their cores. Bekenstein's bound is also found in principle (though discovered independently) in all attempts at quantum gravity so far including loop quantum gravity and string theory: it appears all of them are telling us that either we're totally off our rockers or spacetime is discrete on some fundamental level.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I don't know where the "hole" concept comes from. Anything drawing substance into itself by gravity would not be a hole but an object.

Physcisists seem to pride themselves on their unique humor when it comes to naming things.

 

[PolyHedral]

But black holes only have singularities because of the way we describe them; there is likely no such thing in real life and they're expected to leave theory once we conquer quantum gravity... mostly because relativity assumes continuous space but uses discrete geodesics.

Well, can you make Relativity work on Z^4? Because although you could argue that a black hole has a cubic Planck length of volume, I think you still end up with ridiculousness, if not outright impossibilities.

I submit that the problem isn't the geodesics, it's the assumption that space is continuous. Since we're on the subject of black holes, black holes also hint at the possibility that spacetime is discrete by the fact that they can only contain finite information before their event horizon has to grow: that shouldn't be expected if they truly had infinite density in their cores. Bekenstein's bound is also found in principle (though discovered independently) in all attempts at quantum gravity so far including loop quantum gravity and string theory: it appears all of them are telling us that either we're totally off our rockers or spacetime is discrete on some fundamental level.

IMO, information isn't a particularly good "measure" of volume. After all, if I have a system with 3 stable atoms in it, the amount of information I need to describe the system is constant no matter how far apart the atoms are. Also, I think making spacetime discrete makes velocity become discrete, and that causes all sorts of problems when you apply time dilation.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, can you make Relativity work on Z^4? Because although you could argue that a black hole has a cubic Planck length of volume, I think you still end up with ridiculousness, if not outright impossibilities.

IMO, information isn't a particularly good "measure" of volume. After all, if I have a system with 3 stable atoms in it, the amount of information I need to describe the system is constant no matter how far apart the atoms are. Also, I think making spacetime discrete makes velocity become discrete, and that causes all sorts of problems when you apply time dilation.

Hey, I'm not saying I'm going to solve quantum gravity or anything... that's not even my field ;P

But that is sort of one interpretation of bekenstein's bound though. Why should the event horizon of a black hole expand by dropping more information into it if infinite density is allowable? Yet that's the case.

As for discrete spacetime causing problems with time dilation, we already have problems with relativity and lorentz contraction: is the Planck scale absolute or not? QM says yes, relativity says "depends on how relativistic your velocity/acceleration is"

 

[ellenjanuary]

There's a one-many inversion at the Planck lengths. The entire universe is twisted inside to outside like a Klein bottle; and the smallest possible measurement is going to contain all the information in the continuum.

 

[Valjean]

OK, the math and physics are all very interesting, but we're getting away from the OP's point (see how I avoided throwing "tangent" in there?).

And just how exactly were the writers of the old testament supposed to know about this 'modern science'? It didn't exist until quite recently.

Exactly! It's all metaphor. The writers didn't have the slightest concept of modern science. They never expected all this to be taken literally.

The Bible's full of errors and outright contradictions. You can find whole catalogs of them with a google search.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

No, it was not a "typo". Just my way to say that millions of years or just a few days is the same when we are talking about eternity.
Ben

Light-years is a measure of distance. Year is a measure of time.
You said 'light-years'

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Exactly! It's all metaphor. The writers didn't have the slightest concept of modern science. They never expected all this to be taken literally.

The Bible's full of errors and outright contradictions. You can find whole catalogs of them with a google search.

I find it very interesting that people do take it literally. It shows an incredible lack of faith in my opinion.

 

[Meow Mix]

I find it very interesting that people do take it literally. It shows an incredible lack of faith in my opinion.

You may want to define your use of the word "faith" for the 99% of English speakers who haven't been exposed to your unique semantics before to avoid confusion.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

You may want to define your use of the word "faith" for the 99% of English speakers who haven't been exposed to your unique semantics before to avoid confusion.

The way I am using it here, it means an ability to let go. To learn not to try and make it all 'work out'.

Faith in this sense, is equal to your 'trust' definition. Though, because we are trusting in something that is irrational, you somehow believe this to be different.

 

[Meow Mix]

The way I am using it here, it means an ability to let go. To learn not to try and make it all 'work out'.

Faith in this sense, is equal to your 'trust' definition. Though, because we are trusting in something that is irrational, you somehow believe this to be different.

Of course it's different, since irrational things aren't checked for internal or external consistency or even cognitive consistency. I doubt you'll find many people who are interested in being blatantly irrational.