Peano and Hilbert developed the new science of axiomatics. Hilbert proved
that the original five axioms of Euclid would not lead to all the theorems
of Euclidean geometry. In fact, Hilbert had to consider 21 postulates in
order to logically derive all the theorems.
If this were not enough, consider Kurt Godel who proved that within a
formal system questions exist that are neither provable nor disprovable on
the basis of the axioms that define the system. This is known as Godel's
Undecidability Theorem. He also showed that in a sufficiently rich formal
system in which decidability of all questions is required, there will be
contradictory statements. This is known as his Incompleteness Theorem.
I have nothing to say about the specific topic of discussion, but the above
should be a sobering fact that we all should heed to.
Merry Christmas to all,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Bert Massie <mrlab@ix.netcom.com>
To: psiigii <psiigii@erols.com>; asa@calvin.edu <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Time
>Good luck with his book and as a physicist I am impressed with him but
>cannot determine whether to agree with him or not. However, his book is
>readable and certainly give one something to think about. Bert M.
>
>psiigii wrote:
>
>> Not being a physicist or having a background in cosmology, the
>> Humphries' idea sounds plausible on the surface. I appreciate your
>> insight as well as the others that were posted continuing this
>> discussion. I will have to get Schroeder's book.
>>
>>
>> Howard
>>
>> Bert Massie wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely not. Humphries book is considered scientific nonsense by
>>> most Christian and secular scientists inlcuding this one. Humphries
>>> argues whatever but offers no connection with observables and some
>>> feel that his work fails even in the mathematics much less the
>>> conceptual work or the Hebrew scholarship. . Schroeder would
>>> consider him beneth contempt.
>>> Bert M.
>>>
>>> psiigii wrote:
>>>
>>> > Very interested in getting this reference. >From what you're
>>> > saying, this idea seems to correspond to A YEC cosmology (Russ
>>> > Humphries' Starlight and Time outlines these ideas) which places
>>> > the earth at the epicenter of a "white hole" from which the known
>>> > universe was produced.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Howard Meyer
>>> >
>>> > Massie wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The problem with time is pointed out in detail by a brilliant
>>> >> scholar
>>> >> named Schroeder (sp?) from Israel.
>>> >>
>>> >> The problem is that clocks run at rates determined by the local
>>> >> gravity
>>> >> field. That is, a clock on the surface of a neutron star runs
>>> >> slower
>>> >> than one on Earth. This is a well verified consequence of the
>>> >> General
>>> >> Theory of Relatively, and no, it is not a plot against the YEC's.
>>> >>
>>> >> Where is the clock we use to measure the days of Genesis? This
>>> >> is one
>>> >> of the reasons that the debate over time makes no reason. Few
>>> >> seem to
>>> >> be aware of what every physisist knows, what clock where at what
>>> >> speed.
>>> >>
>>> >> What if the clock was one that was placed in the intense gravity
>>> >> field
>>> >> of the Big Bang? How many days would elapse for that clock
>>> >> since the
>>> >> Big Bang and now? You should read Schroeders book but he argues
>>> >> that it
>>> >> would be six days. There are a lot of details, see the book.
>>> >>
>>> >> Interested? Send me an email and I will look up the ISBN number
>>> >> and
>>> >> post it.
>>> >>
>>> >> Bert M
>>> >
>