Tag Archives: Space

A Recent Debate with an Atheist

 

Me:

Here is a link below:

Here I give reference to my article ‘ Is “Fine Tuning” Actually Required For Proving The Existence Of God?’

One can go through this link and decide for oneself whether there is any God or not.

Atheist:

” During these one billion years of earth’s time it will be in a spaceless and timeless condition, because the distance between the star and the earth has become zero for it and time has also stopped.”That is complete nonsense. At any point during those one billion years, it will be at a certain point in space between that star and Earth. There is no point at which the distance between the star and earth becomes zero. And as time, distance and speed are related (speed = distance/time), that photon of light is still very much in the realm of space-time by travelling from the star to Earth. Your first premise is completely incorrect and unfortunately it then completely undermines your entire subsequent argument.”Then it will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth.”Photons are energy packets, they energy is transferred to something else. It does not ‘cease to be’ – such a thing would be a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.”So light originating within space and time goes beyond space and time, because space and time become non-existent for it.”Again, that is completely false as I explained above.”And we cannot claim that this is without any cause. “We actually can. There are a number of physical phenomenon that happen (especially at the quantum level) without cause, such as radioactive decay. How have you demonstrated that this (even if it were true) doesn’t fall into this category.”But whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time; it is impossible.”Why not?”A cause that lies within space and time is a natural cause, but a cause that lies beyond space and time is not a natural cause; it is a supernatural cause.”Why? Sorry, but that article of yours is complete word salad. You have made any number of baseless assumptions to try and explain a premise that is demonstrably false to begin with.

Me:

From your reply it appears that you know nothing about the special theory of relativity and its two features of length contraction and time dilation. So please read about these subjects in Wikipedia and then make a fresh comment.

Atheist:

Contraction and dilation are not ‘removal from’. There is no point at which the photon is outside the realm of space and time. I suggest you go and actually study quantum physics, ideally at at least A Level, preferable BSc, rather than read lay summaries from Wikipedia and then make a fresh comment.

Me:

Distance from the star to the earth is one billion light-years if seen from earth’s reference frame. So there is a space gap of one billion light-years between the earth and the star. Do you mean to say this space-gap remains the same for light also, if contraction does not mean ‘removal from’? Please make this point clear first. Then I can proceed further.

Atheist:

Yes, if the distance between the star and the earth is 1 billion light years, then the distance the light photon has to travel is… 1 billion light years!

Me:

“Yes, if the distance between the star and the earth is 1 billion light years, then the distance the light photon has to travel is… 1 billion light years!”

So you are saying that the distance between the earth and the star remains the same for us as well as for the light photon, because as per you light photon will have to travel a distance of one billion light years, and not zero distance as per the equation of special theory of relativity. If what you are saying is accepted as correct, then that will only mean that space and time are absolute, not relative. But this directly goes against the findings of one well-established theory of science. So do you want to challenge the special theory of relativity?

Atheist:

No… I think you are just misunderstanding the theory of relativity. You are aware that the very term ‘light year’ is defined as the distance travelled by a photon of light in a year, right? So if the star is 1 billion light years away, then the photon of light has to travel… wait for it… 1 billion light years! By definition! Perhaps you are thinking of the how the relative mass of an object gets heavier as it approaches the speed of light – with the resulting time dilation effects you previously mentioned. However, light photons have no mass and so aren’t affected by this rule. In fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant – one of the most fundamental constants in all of physics! So the light photon has to travel 1 billion light years, by definition, at the speed of light, by definition. Meaning by the simple equation speed=distance/over time, at any given point in space, it will have been travelling for a certain amount of time, or at any time, it will be at a given point in space. At no point will it be in a timeless, spaceless conditions – it remains fully within the bounds of space and time. You are just flat out wrong here.

Me:

Again I am asking you the same question. From our reference frame the distance between the star and the earth is one billion light years. From light’s own reference frame what is the distance between the star and the earth?

Atheist:

Surprisingly enough… 1 billion light years!

Me:

Thank you a lot for this answer. This answer of yours clearly shows that for you space and time are absolute. So I have nothing more to say here. I am quitting.

Atheist:

No, you are just some purveyor of woo who likes big scientific words in their arguments without understanding what they mean. First up, relativity applies to moving objects. For instance, if I am travelling in a car at 50 mph and a car overtakes me at 70 mph, from my frame of reference, the car is doing 20 mph. However, seen from a static observer, the car is still doing 70 mph. That’s relativity in a nutshell. Now, if I am on top of a mountain A and you are on top of another mountain B and the distance between them is 10 miles, it doesn’t matter whether it is from mine or your perspective, the distance between the two peaks is 10 miles. So the distance between the earth and star is 10 billion light years – that IS absolute! How long it will SEEM, depends on the size, mass and speed of the object travelling between them. Except photons HAVE no mass or size when travelling through a vacuum, because their wave-particle nature is entirely wavelike and will not change until they meet an object. Which is why the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant – 2.998 x 10^8 metres per second squared. So we have a total distance of 10 billion light years which is the equivalent of 9.46 x 10^25 metres. By the simple equation speed=distance/time, rearranged to give time=distance/speed we get a total travelling time of 3.16 x 10^17 seconds, or 5.26 x 10^15 minutes, 8.77 x 10^13 hours, 3.65 x 10^12 days, or 10 billion years! So the distance has a value, the speed is a constant and the resulting time for the photon to travel ALSO has a value. NONE of these values is 0 so your assertion, therefore, that from travelling between the two points the photon has is in a spaceless, timeless condition is WRONG!!! Demonstrably so, run the maths yourself if you don’t believe me! You will NEVER get one of those value to zero!

Me:

Please send your new theory of light to some well-reputed scientific journal for peer review. If your theory gets accepted, then who can say that you will not get a Nobel Prize in future for your new theory of light?

Advertisements

Will there ever be any physical explanation for ‘X’, if ‘X’ is not physically real?

In a debate between Dr. William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith on March 22, 1996 Dr. Craig has thus given a theistic notion of God in his opening arguments:

“And then on the rest of the page it’s fairly obvious how I deduce the remainder of these attributes which form the central core of the theistic notion of God: a personal Creator, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, enormously powerful, and intelligent. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, this is what everybody means by God.”1

Here it has been mentioned that God is spaceless and timeless. Not only in the three major religions originating from the Middle East, but in the eastern religions also God has been repeatedly mentioned as spaceless and timeless. Actually the two most common attributes of God that can be found in various religions throughout the world are his spacelessness and timelessness. Now by very simple reasoning it can be shown that the existence of a spaceless and timeless being in this universe implies the relativity of space and time. We say God is spaceless and timeless, which means for God space and time are non-real, non-existent, whereas for us human beings they are very much real, existent. So if God is really there, then in that case the same space and time will have two different values for different beings: For God they will have null values, whereas for us human beings they will have non-zero values. So if God is really there, then in that case space and time cannot be absolute, because for those two to be absolute they must have to have the same values for everybody. Thus the presence of such a God will make space and time relative, and science has also shown that space and time are indeed relative. If this reasoning is correct, then I think that there is no justified ground for discarding mystical experience as a mere hallucination. This is one point.

The second point is that if God is really there, then in that case there will be a permanent state of timelessness in this universe, because we say God is timeless. God does not exist will then mean there is no such state of timelessness. God does not exist therefore means no need is there for science to show how a state of timelessness can be reached or attained, because there is no such state in this universe that requires an explanation from science. But despite that science has shown how a state of timelessness can be reached, because in special theory of relativity it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops. If there is no state of timelessness in the universe, then why was it at all necessary for science to show as to how that state could be reached?

If the scientific community throughout the world thinks that this timeless state has no physical reality, then we can put the following question to them: “Will there ever be any physical explanation for ‘X’, if ‘X’ is not physically real?”

 

Ref:

  1. http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-the-craig-smith-debate-1996#section_1

 

Is “Fine Tuning” Actually Required for Proving the Existence of God?

It is not actually necessary that “fine tuning” of certain parameters will have to exist in reality for proving the existence of God. I think light with its very peculiar properties is sufficient for that purpose.

Light originates within space and time but it goes beyond space and time. A photon coming from a star lying at a distance of one billion light-years from earth will take one billion years of earth’s time to reach the surface of the earth. During these one billion years of earth’s time it will be in a spaceless and timeless condition, because the distance between the star and the earth has become zero for it and time has also stopped. So it will be neither in space nor in time during the total period of its existence. Then it will cease to be by being absorbed by something or someone on earth.

So light originating within space and time goes beyond space and time, because space and time become non-existent for it. And we cannot claim that this is without any cause. As light is not a conscious entity, so neither can we claim here that light has the capability of deciding its own fate that it will go beyond space and time. So this must have been caused by something else. But whatever may be the cause of it, this cause cannot lie within space and time; it is impossible. Let us suppose that this cause is A and that it lies within space and time. We can now ask two questions about A:

1) Are space and time non-existent for A also?

2) Or, are they not non-existent for A?

If 2), then how can A cause space and time becoming non-existent for light when they are not non-existent for A itself? But if 1), then we will have to ask the same question about A that we were earlier asking about light: what causes space and time becoming non-existent for A, when we know very well that A lies within space and time? So we see that A cannot be the ultimate cause that makes space and time non-existent for light, because here we will have to find out again the cause that makes space and time non-existent for A itself. In this way it can be shown that there will be an infinite regress, and that there is nothing within space and time that can be this cause. So ultimately we will have to go beyond space and time in search of this cause. A cause that lies within space and time is a natural cause, but a cause that lies beyond space and time is not a natural cause; it is a supernatural cause. So the cause that makes space and time non-existent for light is a supernatural cause.

Now one can raise an objection here that it cannot be the case that light is neither in space nor in time, because we can see the star and therefore the photon must have existed in some space-time during its transition from the star to the earth. But in which space and for how long did it exist during this transition? This is because the equations of SR show that both the travel time and the travel distance have become zero for light. So if SR as a theory is correct, then light cannot, and does not, exist in any space for any time.

Some may also think that SR is a bad theory and that it requires immediate replacement, because the conclusions that can be drawn from this theory are so counter-intuitive and contradictory to our commonsensical and everyday notion of existence. Here anybody can offer a better theory if he/she thinks so and get it accepted by the peers before challenging a well-established theory of science.

About light one can also read the article “The Fundamental Nature of Light” by Dr. Sascha Vongehr in Science 2.0 (February 3rd, 2011)1

Ref:

  1. http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/fundamental_nature_light-75861