Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Kevin answers - the reprint - Why GA is not naturally produced information

This is a copy of the original post.  Commenter scohen can confirm that this is genuine as Kevin wrote this answer to both me and scohen and gave me the go to publish it on this site.  Since many commenters do not seem to comprehend search tools....

Thursday, March 03, 2011

Kevin answers the Hartnett Question...Who was wrong???!!! A look at the fourth dimension and the Creation Week

To set the scene, there was a post I made back in 2007 in which a hypothesis presented by one John G. Hartnett was presented along with a great deal of additional information. Afterwards there was a great deal of fuss about the math Hartnett presented.. mostly after I reposted the article in another context. I don't remember which post that one was, but I did first put the article up in 2007. More than one commenter but I believe primarily scohen criticized Hartnett's math and since I am a historic/forensic science buff who detests higher math, I could not be certain whether he was right or not. I assumed scohen probably knew what he was talking about.

So I did have some contacts who were capable of figuring it out but they were rather busy, one being not only an honors student at the time but the head honcho of a certain academic club I will not mention and also having become affianced, I did not bother him therefore. The other is also in the military, a Captain who has pulled three tours of duty as an IED hunter in and around Baghdad, is married, is in charge of a military base in terms of logistics currently while also doing extra duty and, when not otherwise employed, is a city planner. He sent me a note saying that the math worked and perhaps Hartnett made a notational error. I can imagine he was so busy that he didn't give it much thought and, knowing his life, it is understandable. He basically said Hartnett's equation was okay.

Commenters hated that answer and railed at me to get Hartnett to explain his mistake. I did contact Hartnett and he never replied. So then it occurred to me recently that I knew another math brain to whom I could go. I talked to him about it personally when he came up for a short weekend break to see his family and stop by church. He told me to send him an email with the formula(s) and he would determine whether they were right or wrong and if there were any constants being listed as variables or vice-versa. For the sake of context I sent him the entire article so he could be certain of what he was seeing. This is what I wrote and he was expecting it to come:


Would you look at the two equations on this post -

And see if a constant is being presented as a variable or vice-versa? That is the claim of my blog commenters? I am not good with advanced math I am more of a historic/forensic type scientist type of geek.

Thanks, hope you are having fun and learning lots of stuff!"

Now that post is the exact one I used on my site and it was the equations listed on the post (click on the link and read for yourself) that were questioned. In fact it was boldly stated that Hartnett was wrong and that I was a liar for posting his hypothesis. But Kevin is a math brain and an information specialist who could understand why I wanted an explanation that was more detailed than I had previously received and determined once and for all whether Hartnett or the commenters were correct. Now let me give you Kevin's answer:

"Hey Kimbal,

The first equation is simply defining a ratio of the passage of time in two locations with t_0 being a measure of time that passes on Earth (or whatever bubble around Earth had a slower clock) and t being a measure of time that passes elsewhere in the universe. He probably derived the ratio that he used (10^-13) based on the amount of astronomical time that he wanted to show could elapse within a day here (30 billion years), but these calculations were meant as an example, so that should be fine.

The integrals themselves are probably a more complicated way to convey his point than is necessary. Because we have defined a ratio of time here to time elsewhere, we can simply use that ratio to convert between different time 'units'. Essentially, the second equation converts from 1 day here (.003 years) to the equivalent number of years elsewhere by multiplying .003 years by the inverted ratio (to keep units correct). The only variable is the measure of time that we want to convert (.003 years in the example). Everything else is just a conversion factor (like 12inches/1foot).

The only criticism I could see about those equations is that time is typically the one variable that can be substituted freely among different equations because time is generally assumed to not slow down and speed up based on position, but that is the entire claim of this article. Anyone that has a problem with the equations has a problem with the claim of the article itself; the equations themselves work in the context of the claims of the article.

Personally, I think our inability to explain how the universe created can be attributed to our inability to understand the fact that God is timeless and the implications of that fact. He exists outside of time, so us trying to explain the events of the first 7 days in the context of time is futile. When God created the universe, He did not start with a chunk of matter and energy and sculpt it into galaxies and stars and planets. That would imply a sense of time (both in the time to sculpt and and a time at which the universe was created and started progressing through time). Instead, when God created the universe, he created what it was AND what it was going to be. Any (4th dimensional) object within this universe could be moved around (in the 4th dimension) within our own timeline. With that said, making the claim that the universe was created in 7 days is quite unimpressive because those 7 days are simply the points in our timeline that God chose to introduce these 4th dimensional objects, but he could have spent infinite 'time' creating those objects and could have introduced them into our timeline at any point in the objects own timeline. Our ability to explain the creation of the universe lies in our ability to explain the timeless nature of God, and I don't see how we could ever explain something that is impossible for us to understand, although it certainly is fun to try to.


Kevin is a smart guy and I knew he would come through for me if he understood that it was important, so I was happy that he responded in such detail. I had a "duh" moment as he explained it and it was clear as day. He said this:

"...Anyone that has a problem with the equations has a problem with the claim of the article itself; the equations themselves work in the context of the claims of the article..."

So now I get it...the commenters didn't read the entire post and analyzed the equations based on their own preconceptions. Anyone who has taken a physics course in the last fifty years would know that time/speed of light/etc. are not actually constants but can be variables under the right conditions. The event horizon of a white hole would, for instance, be a situation in which time there would vary widely from time elsewhere in the Universe...assuming you believe and understand to some extent Relativity Theory.

It should also be obvious from language and phrasing that Kevin is a real person who writes with a somewhat different style than mine and is far better at math than me. So much for you who claimed he is a mythical character. Isn't it interesting that scohen, now proved to be wrong, is afraid to give us his GA thoughts but Kevin has no problem sharing his opinion of the math and concept of Hartnett here on the blog?
The bottom line is that this was just another case of commenters not reading through the post, just skimming and then making their ignorant claims. Usually I spot them and point out that, if they had read the article, they would not ask those questions or make those statements. But this time they had me going and, if Kevin had agreed the formula(s) were wrong I was going to track Hartnett down. But now I do not have to and now I understand why he didn't explain his mistake. HE DIDN'T MAKE ONE!!!

"...Anyone that has a problem with the equations has a problem with the claim of the article itself; the equations themselves work in the context of the claims of the article..." - Kevin

““For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” - Isaiah 55:8-9
The above is the complete post made at the time Kevin wrote his email to me.  To borrow a quote from Ian Juby's blog:
 "That's the whole problem with science. You've got a bunch of empiricists trying to describe things of unimaginable wonder."
In fact, Carmelian Theory and proposals made more recently by Hartnett and Humphries take into account the apparent stretching out of the fabric of space, a fifth dimensional hypothesis that does not require fudge factors like Big Bang types need.   As it happens, Occam's Razor eventually winds up being true far more often than not.