Jesus; How Does He Do It…Is Science Involved?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In the Scriptures Jesus (even while mortal) “disappeared from a mob”, after his resurrection he just appeared to his Apostles. As “flesh and bone” he ascended into heaven. A previous post spoke of the size of the universe. Other stars are hundreds of light years from us…Joseph Smith said that before Moroni appeared a conduit of light preceded him. Elijah (which while reading this made me think of this topic) was taken into heaven by what is described as a “Chariot of Fire’. Unless heaven is very close, this would require one to travel faster than light…squared a thousand times.

I have a serious question; would it diminish your view of God, if modes of travel; appearing and disappearing were done by means other than supernatural? My son once asked me how Christ was able to just “appear” or “walk though walls” when he appeared to his Apostles. I told him “because he knew how”.

Serious comments would be preferred, but you can fun with this as well. Have any scientists ever explored how this could be done? Even the resurrection I imagine would require some of our DNA.

[scooby]

If Jesus permitted scientists to observe and document his powers, then those powers would become science, even if those powers operated on nothing more than Jesus' will. I'd suspect that, in such a circumstance, Jesus' will would become a property of the universe like gravity or something in scientific theory.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

Any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to us to be magic.

He was probably "Hiding in Plain Sight". Remember that Jesus had to be pointed out by Judas to the mob that came to arrest him.

I know of no science that recognizes the Resurrection. That is a religious belief not science.

It wouldn't effect my beliefs. IE; No one know exactly what electricity is, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, and very useful.

Edited December 21, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa:

Any technology sufficiently advanced would appear to us to be magic.

He was probably "Hiding in Plain Sight". Remember that Jesus had to be pointed out by Judas to the mob that came to arrest him.

I know of no science that recognizes the Resurrection. That is a religious belief not science.

It wouldn't effect my beliefs. IE; No one know exactly what electricity is, but that doesn't mean it isn't real, and very useful.

Since I am an electrician and teacher of electrical theory I am more thankful than most for its use. Interesting that you would use that example...it also is an "unseen" power.

[thesometimesaint]

Pa Pa:

Living in southern California there are plenty of times when I can see the normally "unseen" air.

But to the point. Science is about what can be measured. While electricity is invisible(It is highly unlikely we will ever literally see an electron) we do measure its effects all the time.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa:

Living in southern California there are plenty of times when I can see the normally "unseen" air.

But to the point. Science is about what can be measured. While electricity is invisible(It is highly unlikely we will ever literally see an electron) we do measure its effects all the time.

My body has measured it effects too often. To extend the example it is a power source that cannot be seen only felt. Sound Familiar?

[Rob Osborn]

I guess one could ask- are the laws of nature governed by God or is God governed by that law? For instance- Jesus walking on water goes against every "known" law that we currently know about and experiment with. If God is the governor of law, then perhaps he can modify the peameters of the law according to his will such as to allow one to walk on the water. You could call it all "scientific" as nothing really is pure magic.

I see God as the one who created the laws of nature to begin with- they are governed by him- he beingt he very author of them. He thus know how to modify, change and enhance or do away with altogether the laws according to his will and pleasure as he sees fit. This though is because of his advanced knowledge into such matters.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I guess one could ask- are the laws of nature governed by God or is God governed by that law? For instance- Jesus walking on water goes against every "known" law that we currently know about and experiment with. If God is the governor of law, then perhaps he can modify the peameters of the law according to his will such as to allow one to walk on the water. You could call it all "scientific" as nothing really is pure magic.

I see God as the one who created the laws of nature to begin with- they are governed by him- he beingt he very author of them. He thus know how to modify, change and enhance or do away with altogether the laws according to his will and pleasure as he sees fit. This though is because of his advanced knowledge into such matters.

But does he do so by knowing how to work with natural law or because it (nature) is subject to him? Why did Elijah need a craft of some kind, but no mention of Christ needing one. Also according to scripture Moses and Elijah are still alive; how could this be?.

[Freedom]

There is no such thing as the supernatural. All is governed by natural laws, even God. He did not create the laws. He could not have created them, they exited before he was a God. Theoretical physicists acknowledge that we know virtually nothing of the world around us and what we do know is based on mathematical models rather than observation.

We observe time as one dimensional however it is actually conceived as 4 dimensions. Since we can only perceive it as linear, we cannot property perceive space. Both particle physics and cosmological physics considers the existence of energy streams in space that allow infinite travel at infinite speeds. The speed of light is finite but relative.

[Mariner]

Pa Pa,

If you are really interested in the opinion of a professional scientist (and I doubt that you really are) then the answer is that the supernatural feats that Jesus is said to have performed are the stuff of misunderstanding, myth and legend. No real physical scientist, when asked to speak as a scientist, would take seriously the claims of supernatural feats by Jesus, or anyone else.

And it is a good thing too, if professional scientists really believed that the world operated by magic and the supernatural, we would be in deep trouble as a civilization.

[Mariner]

There is no such thing as the supernatural. All is governed by natural laws, even God. He did not create the laws. He could not have created them, they exited before he was a God. Theoretical physicists acknowledge that we know virtually nothing of the world around us and what we do know is based on mathematical models rather than observation.

We observe time as one dimensional however it is actually conceived as 4 dimensions. Since we can only perceive it as linear, we cannot property perceive space. Both particle physics and cosmological physics considers the existence of energy streams in space that allow infinite travel at infinite speeds. The speed of light is finite but relative.

Freedom,

I was hoping that you could provide some references for this new physics. Is there a name for it yet?

[Tarski]

The speed of light is finite but relative.

No. The speed of light is absolute. That, together with a very general principal of the equivalence of inertial frames is the main starting point of relativity that leads naturally to Lorentz geometry. The light cone is left invariant under a Lorentz transformation --the velocity of light is the same in all inertial frames.

We observe time as one dimensional however it is actually conceived as 4 dimensions.

It is spacetime that is 4-dimensional. An inertial coordinate system will parameterize spacetime with three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.

A particle's proper time (with respect to a choice of units and reference event) is also given by a single real number parameter analogous the arc length of a path.

Your statement suggests confusion.

Theoretical physicists acknowledge that we know virtually nothing of the world around us and what we do know is based on mathematical models rather than observation

No mathematical model is accepted without plenty of observational support. Plenty of mathematically elegant theories have ended up in the trash because they didn't match observation.

Science is based on observation.

He did not create the laws. He could not have created them, they exited [sic] before he was a God.

Now this is a mere assertion unsupported by either observation or theoretical concepts.

Both particle physics and cosmological physics considers the existence of energy streams in space that allow infinite travel at infinite speeds

Really? What do you have in mind?

Edited December 21, 2011 by Tarski

[Freedom]

Read Joao Magueijo, Lee Smolin, Stephen Alexander, John Moffat and others. Well respected physicists. In cosmology and in particle physics, as well as string theory it is recognized that light is a constant from your perspective only in many instances.

"I found this exotic enough, but this "conservative" VSL theory would have even more startling implications. Once I realized that c could vary in space as well as in time, I set off to study what other kinds of spatial variations were possible. One in particular was mind blowing: "fast-tracks". These were objects that occur in some VSL field theories, taking the form of cosmis string along which the speed of light is much higher. Cosmic strings are hypothetical objects predicted by some particle physics theories. In fact they are not dissimilar in origin to the magnetic monopoles that so worried Alan Guth. But whereas monopoles are point-like, cosmic strings are line-like: They are long threads of concentrated energy extending across the universe. To this day, cosmic string - like black holes or monopoles - have yet to be observed, but they are a logical prediction of very successful particle physics theories. Faster then the speed of light, the story of scientific speculation by Joao Magueijo.

I have a lot of examples of research from world renown physicist that disagree with your perception of space-time and light. Theoretical physics by its very nature does not rely on observation alone. Much of it is based on advanced mathematics. Learn about monopoles and VSL and then you will know what I have in mind.

Mariner, for a self proclaimed scientists, you continually demonstrate that you are unfamiliar with what science is saying. By they way, you still have not told me what the current debate is about the Olmec language. Remember when you stated that what we know about the Olmec language proves that the Book of Mormon is not true?

So, I have provided a quote. It is now your job to research the person who said it and learn about VSL and other related theories.

.

[Freedom]

No. The speed of light is absolute. That, together with a very general principal of the equivalence of inertial frames is the main starting point of relativity that leads naturally to Lorentz geometry. The light cone is left invariant under a Lorentz transformation --the velocity of light is the same in all inertial frames.

Read Magueijo and Moffat and then you might have a different perspective on the Lorentz symmetry.

It is spacetime that is 4-dimensional. An inertial coordinate system will parameterize spacetime with three spatial coordinates and one time coordinate.

A particle's proper time (with respect to a choice of units and reference event) is also given by a single real number parameter analogous the arc length of a path.

Your statement suggests confusion.

It is not my statement. Read Smolin and Barrow.

No mathematical model is accepted without plenty of observational support. Plenty of mathematically elegant theories have ended up in the trash because they didn't match observation. Science is based on observation.

It is based on observation but not entirely built upon it. The models you adhere to are plagued with contradictions that theoretical physicists are trying to work out. Since we are very limited as to what we can observe, much research is based on models. The models predict certain outcomes which is then searched for. Many do end up in the trash bin, but that is the nature of all research. VSL has lasted the test of time and is one of many very viable options to explain the nature of our universe.

Now this is a mere assertion unsupported by either observation or theoretical concepts.

It is my understanding of LDS doctrine. Can you provide observation or theoretical concepts that prove otherwise?

Really? What do you have in mind?

As I stated, read the experts that I have listed and get back to me.

[Mariner]

Freedom,

Sorry. Not impressed with Joao Magueijo, et al.

And neither is the reviewer of his book, "Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation", who starts his review with the following passage: " Intriguing look at the cutting edge of science, but...", and if you will pardon the expression, it is a pretty big but. The title says it all and helps explain why this individual is mainly restricted to publishing his work via the internet on Science Commons.

The reviewer, who is an MD (I assume no credible physicist would even review the thing), continues:

The author is a cosmologist in England and his book is the story of his development of an idea, that the velocity of light (the `c' in E = mc-squared) is not constant but has varied during the history of the Universe. His contention is that if the value of c had been enormously greater in the extremely early universe (trillionths of a trillionth, etc., of a second after the start of the Big Bang), that may account for numerous curious attributes of the observable universe, including the so-called "flatness" and "horizon" problems as well as the origin of matter and the nature of Einstein's cosmological constant and the "dark energy" of the universe. Suggesting that the speed of light has not been an eternal constant is such anathema in physics that it is difficult to convey the magnitude of the heresy. It would be comparable to asserting to the Church that Jesus was not divine.

Now Freedom, don't tell me that a comparison like the latter one in this review doesn't give a religionist like yourself reason for pause.

And a "trillionth of a trillionth of a second? Are you kidding me? Even if true, how could this affect the speed of light and justify all of your confusing conclusions regarding the consequences of such differences in the contemporary universe?

Instead of reading and reciting these kinds of fringe theories and speculations, just because you don't have a basic understanding of physics, why don't you just get a good 100 level physics book, or better yet, something like the classical Lectures on Physics series by Richard Feynman? You should be able to find a set of these used for not very much money. They are excellent. I still have my set.

If you want to learn a bit about string theory from active credible string theorists, and to understand how it relates to what we can measure or can expect to be able to measure at places like CERN, for example, try The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene. (Tarski was not kidding about confirmation of theory by observation and measurement beng required to move science forward.)

Reading fringe stuff that has a hard time getting published in peer reviewed journals is a colossal waste of time - for you and for the rest of us as well.

Edited December 22, 2011 by Mariner

[Darth_Bill]

If jesus was here, and what he did was verifiable and repeatable, it would be science. Otherwise, what we have now isn't science.

[Freedom]

Freedom,

Instead of reading and reciting these kinds of fringe theories and speculations, just because you don't have a basic understanding of physics, why don't you just get a good 100 level physics book, or better yet, something like the classical Lectures on Physics series by Richard Feynman? You should be able to find a set of these used for not very much money. They are excellent. I still have my set.

Reading fringe stuff that has a hard time getting published in peer reviewed journals is a colossal waste of time - for you and for the rest of us as well.

His is one of many who have published in peer reviewed journals on similar theories. What I find interesting is not that you can challenge the theory but that it disagrees with your paradigm. They are not my theories, they are concepts being considered by many mainstream researchers. Regardless, we do not have all the answers and the existing theories are all problematic which is why people are experimenting with various models to try to figure out the mystery of the universe.

[Mariner]

If jesus was here, and what he did was verifiable and repeatable, it would be science. Otherwise, what we have now isn't science.

Two VERY BIG IFs.

[Rob Osborn]

How does one define "laws"?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

If you are really interested in the opinion of a professional scientist (and I doubt that you really are) then the answer is that the supernatural feats that Jesus is said to have performed are the stuff of misunderstanding, myth and legend. No real physical scientist, when asked to speak as a scientist, would take seriously the claims of supernatural feats by Jesus, or anyone else.

And it is a good thing too, if professional scientists really believed that the world operated by magic and the supernatural, we would be in deep trouble as a civilization.

Why do you speak as if you know me and what I am interested in...out of line, sir.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

IF confirmed(I'm not betting on it but) the c of Einstein is not constant.

Given the vast distances of space 60 nanoseconds is huge.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/110923-neutrinos-speed-of-light-particles-cern-physics-einstein-science/

[Mariner]

Why do you speak as if you know me and what I am interested in...out of line, sir.

Pa Pa,

Fair enough. My comment was out of line, given your OP.

It was motivated by the overwhelming impression one gets from reading here that most folks do not want to hear anything, whether opinion or fact, that runs counter to their faith.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

I have nothing against science, or even differing opinions as to what it all means. However claiming we know much of anything is profoundly silly. It is like the thimbles' worth of knowledge compared with the vast oceans of our ignorance.

[Wants2know]

I don't think miracles are bound by any law we know or can even begin to understand.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

Fair enough. My comment was out of line, given your OP.

It was motivated by the overwhelming impression one gets from reading here that most folks do not want to hear anything, whether opinion or fact, that runs counter to their faith.

On the contrary, I think this board more than most religious based websites in open to the ideas of science. Keep in mind Mormons are not “Young Earther’s” believing the earth to only be 6,000+ years old. Our very doctrine from the beginning is that the “universes” (are matter) is ageless and that God works within natural law. I for one spend most of my TV time watching programs about science and history.

Here is one of my favorites from my early years…

Or this...

Edited December 22, 2011 by Bill “Papa” Lee