Big Bang

[Brian 2.0]

 

im·mu·ta·ble

iˈmyo͞otəbəl/

adjective

adjective: immutable

1.

unchanging over time or unable to be changed.

"an immutable fact"

synonyms: fixed, set, rigid, inflexible, permanent, established, carved in stone;

 

 

If he never changes, how can he respond to our prayers?

 

That is going from state 1- God before our prayer, to state 2- God after hearing our prayer and responding.

 

Going from state 1 to state 2 is a change.

 

So are you saying God does change over time because he is answering our prayers?  So by your definition God is ever-changing?

[ERayR]

Hah, I appreciate the humor. Not trying to be impatient it's just a character flaw of mine.

 

I see God as the creator of everything. Therefore, He has the ability to exist prior to the big bang. He then would have "held" for lack of a better term the universe in a point of singularity before the big bang. Even if He held it in existence for a millionth of a second, he created it. I guess my choice of word (hold) was not the best choice, which led to your comment.

 

 

My question to you.  What was before the big bang?

[ERayR]

This idea came up a lot in a recent Mormon Matters podcast regarding "Is Mormonism's God Worth of Worship".  One of the guests was arguing that if GtF is subject to these higher laws and if he violated them "would cease to be God" then really the focus of our worship should not be on GtF but upon those higher laws themselves... because they are what is "unchanging".   Almost like worshiping nature instead of God.

 

You may have listened to it, but your post reminds me a lot of the discussion there so I thought I'd pass it along.

 

http://mormonmatters.org/2013/08/17/182-183-is-mormonisms-god-worthy-of-worship/

 

Why they just are and need to be directed.  I reserve my worship for the one who has learned how to control these natural laws.

[Questing Beast]

I worship a much bigger concept: "God = Existence", and Creation is the result, infinite and therefore not comprehended by finite minds such as ours. I cannot imagine an advanced "man" such as myself even wanting to be worshiped in the first place. And worship to me is awe combined with gratitude, powered by endless questions....

[The Nehor]

Yeah, well my god can beat up your god.

[ERayR]

I worship a much bigger concept: "God = Existence", and Creation is the result, infinite and therefore not comprehended by finite minds such as ours. I cannot imagine an advanced "man" such as myself even wanting to be worshiped in the first place. And worship to me is awe combined with gratitude, powered by endless questions....

 

OK you know your limitations better than anyone else. 

[ERayR]

Yeah, well my god can beat up your god.

 

Careful you may get a super nova in your lap.

[mfbukowski]

So are you saying God does change over time because he is answering our prayers?  So by your definition God is ever-changing?

`We believe in eternal progression.  One cannot progress without changing.

 

But we believe that God now only progresses through the progression of his children- as we gain kingdoms powers and principalities, they increase his kingdom.  He will always be infinitely above us- we will never :"catch up"- and our accomplishments add to his.

 

So in one sense he doesn't get "more perfect", but in another sense, he progresses through us.

Edited August 30, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I worship a much bigger concept: "God = Existence", and Creation is the result, infinite and therefore not comprehended by finite minds such as ours.

Then it is not a "concept" and cannot be spoken about, so why not just meditate about it and stop speaking about what you say is unspeakable?

[Questing Beast]

Then it is not a "concept" and cannot be spoken about, so why not just meditate about it and stop speaking about what you say is unspeakable?

But I am speaking, so it is not unspeakable. But the actuality of the comprehension of Infinity is only "God's" purview, being the only One who possesses, or Is, an Infinite Mind. Being continually aware of the difference between the created and the Creator, is possibly the first step to true, eternally increasing enlightenment....

[rbwinn]

The question is not whether relativity exists.  Relativity means position relative to space and time.  The question is what equations describe relativity.  Until 1887 these were the equations that described relativity.

 

                                                          x'=x-vt

                                                          y'=y

                                                          z'=z

                                                          t'=t

 

After 1887 scientists were looking for equations that kept the speed of light at c = 186,000 miles per second in all frames of reference.  They settled for the Lorentz equations.

 

                                                      x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

                                                      y'=y

                                                      z'=z

                                                      t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

 

According to Einstein, the last equation means that a clock in a moving frame of reference is slower than a clock in a frame of reference at rest. 

After further consideration, I have concluded that the first equations are the correct ones for relativity.  They were derived by Galileo and are called the Galilean transformation equations.  If t is the time of a clock in the frame of reference at rest, then according to the Galilean transformation equations, t' is also the time of a clock in the frame of reference at rest, regardless of what any other clocks might read, meaning that in order to use these equations the times of any slower or faster clocks must be converted to the time of a clock in the frame of reference at rest before these equations can be used.  So how does the time of a clock that is faster or slower relate to this?

The time of any measurement of time can be used in the Galilean transformation equations.  If there is a slower clock in the frame of reference in motion, then all that needs to be done is to use the Galilean transformation equations again using the rate of that clock instead of the rate of the clock in the frame of reference at rest. 

 

                                                   x'=x - (v2)(t2)

                                                   y'=y

                                                   z'=z

                                                  (t2)' = (t2)

 

If (t2)' is the time of the slower clock in the moving frame of reference, then (t2) is the same rate of time being used in the frame of reference at rest, and (v2) is a faster speed than v. 

Now, supposing that scentists are correct about the Lorentz equation value of t' being correct, which I doubt very much, then in order to show how this time relates to Galilean relativity we will capitalize Galilean times so that we do not get them confused. 

 

                                                 x'=x-vT

                                                 T'=T

 

T in the Galilean transformation equations is the same as t in the Lorentz equations. 

 

                                                x'=x - (v2)(T2)

                                                (T2)'  =  (T2)

 

(T2)' in the Galilean transformation equations is the same as t' in the Lorentz equations.  Any rate of time can be used in this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations.  It shows that Newton's interpretation was correct; he just did not know that the transitions of a cesium isotope atom slow down when the cesium isotope atom is placed in motion.  Time based on transitions of a cesium isotope atom in motion are slower than transitions of a cesium isotope atom at rest, so time based on the cesium isotope atom in motion results in a faster speed between frames of reference than time based on transitions of a cesium isotope atom at rest.  Either rate of time will show light to be traveling at c=186,000 miles per second because light is energy that reacts with cesium isotope atoms and other elements at a rate of c as counted by a cesium isotope atom in any particular frame of reference.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The question is not whether relativity exists. Relativity means position relative to space and time. The question is what equations describe relativity. Until 1887 these were the equations that described relativity.

x'=x-vt

y'=y

z'=z

t'=t

After 1887 scientists were looking for equations that kept the speed of light at c = 186,000 miles per second in all frames of reference. They settled for the Lorentz equations.

x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

y'=y

z'=z

t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

According to Einstein, the last equation means that a clock in a moving frame of reference is slower than a clock in a frame of reference at rest.

After further consideration, I have concluded that the first equations are the correct ones for relativity. They were derived by Galileo and are called the Galilean transformation equations. If t is the time of a clock in the frame of reference at rest, then according to the Galilean transformation equations, t' is also the time of a clock in the frame of reference at rest, regardless of what any other clocks might read, meaning that in order to use these equations the times of any slower or faster clocks must be converted to the time of a clock in the frame of reference at rest before these equations can be used. So how does the time of a clock that is faster or slower relate to this?

The time of any measurement of time can be used in the Galilean transformation equations. If there is a slower clock in the frame of reference in motion, then all that needs to be done is to use the Galilean transformation equations again using the rate of that clock instead of the rate of the clock in the frame of reference at rest.

x'=x - (v2)(t2)

y'=y

z'=z

(t2)' = (t2)

If (t2)' is the time of the slower clock in the moving frame of reference, then (t2) is the same rate of time being used in the frame of reference at rest, and (v2) is a faster speed than v.

Now, supposing that scentists are correct about the Lorentz equation value of t' being correct, which I doubt very much, then in order to show how this time relates to Galilean relativity we will capitalize Galilean times so that we do not get them confused.

x'=x-vT

T'=T

T in the Galilean transformation equations is the same as t in the Lorentz equations.

x'=x - (v2)(T2)

(T2)' = (T2)

(T2)' in the Galilean transformation equations is the same as t' in the Lorentz equations. Any rate of time can be used in this interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations. It shows that Newton's interpretation was correct; he just did not know that the transitions of a cesium isotope atom slow down when the cesium isotope atom is placed in motion. Time based on transitions of a cesium isotope atom in motion are slower than transitions of a cesium isotope atom at rest, so time based on the cesium isotope atom in motion results in a faster speed between frames of reference than time based on transitions of a cesium isotope atom at rest. Either rate of time will show light to be traveling at c=186,000 miles per second because light is energy that reacts with cesium isotope atoms and other elements at a rate of c as counted by a cesium isotope atom in any particular frame of reference.

I think you might have the wrong message board...

[mfbukowski]

OK you know your limitations better than anyone else. 

[mfbukowski]

But I am speaking, so it is not unspeakable. But the actuality of the comprehension of Infinity is only "God's" purview, being the only One who possesses, or Is, an Infinite Mind. Being continually aware of the difference between the created and the Creator, is possibly the first step to true, eternally increasing enlightenment....

Twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky

 

Trust me, you have created your own universe, with no one else in it.  You ARE its creator.

[Calm]

Hmmm...looks like the Questing Beast found a quest he preferred to the board, almost a year now since he showed up apparently.