Hopefully some scientific minded reader will see this post and provide some answers to a layman’s questions. Any takers? Please respond.
When the traffic cop shoots his radar at your car as you come whizzing by, there are assumptions that must be made that need consideration, for instance, was he sitting still? If so, then whatever the display showed would be your speed relative to his – in this case, zero. If he was moving, his computer has to know what his speed was relative to yours – if he was moving towards you, his speed relative to the speed limit sign (ground) must be subtracted from the radar total, which the patrol car’s processor can easily do. I guess the point my premise which will be of significant importance to this discussion, is that speed can only be determined, or assumed, by relativity of two points. The object moving and a separate object of reference that determines the apparent speed the moving object is going.
All my life I’ve heard that Albert Einstein produced those cosmic speed limit signs posted throughout space that say the speed of light cannot be exceeded. Mr. Einstein was undoubtedly a brilliant mathematician, and I would never attempt to debate his propositions, but there are nevertheless some questions.
1st question: You are travelling through space minding your own business at say, 99.99% of the speed of light (relative to an imagined “stationary” point in space). One of Einstein’s stellar traffic cops is whizzing in the opposite direction towards you at the same speed, relative to the same presumed stationary spot. The only way your speed and his can be determined is by their relativity to each other, because in reality that stationary point doesn’t exist. If the actual speeds of both objects relative to each other was measured without subtracting his own speed, what does his radar readout say? Put another way, if you had a head-on collision with him, what would the impact velocity be? Are you, relative to him, exceeding Einstein’s cosmic speed limit, and if so, how is this possible?
We have no way of knowing how fast nor in what direction our universe is going – the whole thing. Scientists are discovering that space itself is expanding, and that all points in the universe are moving away from all other points. (Let that sink in – according to this theory every point in space is the center of its own universe). Some objects in the deep universe appear to be moving away (from us) at speeds exceeding the speed of light – if this is so, how do we see them? Maybe we’re just seeing where they were billions of years ago, but if that’s the case, how do we know where they are now? If we don’t know where they are now, how do we know how fast they’re going? If the whole universe is moving, how can any speed of any object in the universe be determined with no stationary point with which to reference it? We can only determine cosmic speeds of objects as the results of their relativity to other objects. If you are cruising through space at what you think is 99.99% of the speed of light and your drag racing buddy is cruising along at 99.98%, will you overtake him and wave as you go by? After all, you only know your and his speeds relative to each other. In reality you might be going as slow as snails, with no other reference point than each other. Or you might be going a thousand times the speed of light!
As the universe expands, what is filling the void that is being created at some unimaginably phenomenal rate? I’ve not read of any discoveries of new matter appearing to fill these, so one would presume empty space is being created, but then empty space is something. Right? How, then, is something being created from nothing? Distance, at the very least, is being created if the expansion theory is correct. The known observable universe is thought to already be in the neighborhood of 90 odd billion light years across, so if we assume the expansion theory is correct, some scientists believe there will come a time somewhere down the road when no objects, not even atoms, will be within billions of light years of each other. Now if you have bothersome neighbors like some of us, that might not seem like such a bad thing, but borrowing a cup of sugar is going to be a real pain.
I guess the whole premise of this post is just to point out that though we have been nurtured to believe in the infallibility of science, unfortunately due to the new revelations they discover almost every day – revelations that often refute the “laws” they held dear, indeed revelations that absolutely disprove the “laws” of physics as we have believed them to be, then how on earth (there’s a pun there somewhere) can they be so absolutely sure that our God doesn’t exist? Wouldn’t that be a much simpler explanation for how things can be created from nothing? Why couldn’t “Let there be light” account for the sacred “big bang”? And no, “What was going on before the big bang?” is not an invalid question – that’s a weak cop out of an answer.
These science guys are undoubtedly some brilliant people, but I believe that when they get to the point (which they invariably do) where they begin to argue against the existence or the Supremacy, of the Almighty God, their theories come unraveled. I also believe this will continue to be the case. I also believe there are many in the scientific community who do actually believe in God, but even many of them have determined (imagined) that using their science, they might be able to develop ways to undermine Him – see folkpotpourri post on CERN.
In the grand scheme of things, science, improperly applied, can just be another of the many tools of Satan. The apostle Paul uses the terminology, “science, falsely so-called”, to describe those scientific efforts that attempt to disprove or defy, or even to put man on some kind of equal footing with God. The sad part is all of those brilliant minds being wasted pursuing nonsense that could be applied to doing the work of Jesus Christ. What an army that could be gathered to resolutely affirm and spread knowledge of the divinity of our Creator! If only they could open their eyes and see how they could direct their efforts to the benefit of mankind by – among other things – improving the moral foundations of humanity.
As it stands, science and technology have become a kind of sorcery, the understanding of which only comes by years of study, and at intervals throughout, accepting “laws” and doctrines that seem to invariably be disproven somewhere down the road. In the end, the Almighty God will show His Omniscience, and I do not relish the idea of eventually being an ignorant old hillbilly in a position to say I told you so, for then it will tragically be too late for so many smart people.
There may be perfectly reasonable answers to the queries this post postulates, and if so, please respond. Although by design, there are no logical scientific explanations, neither is there an argument (at least for us believers) that Jesus Christ is who He says He is, and that our God created this universe. If there was any valid argument to disprove that, it would have already been made long ago. Outside of that absolute truth, that void being created by the expansion of space could well be filled by my own ignorance of science. But then, maybe that’s a good thing.
May God bless all.
MK