Relativity, Quantum Physics and String Theory | Science

Einstein's theory of general relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics are two widely accepted and experimentally verified theories of physics. There's only one problem. They contradict each other!

General relativity deals with physics on the macro scale of massive gravitational fields warping the space-time continuum. Quantum mechanics is useful in the description of particle physics and the interactions of matter and energy on extremely small scales.

General relativity describes a smooth continuum of space-time but quantum physics describes distortions of space-time in "quantum foam." Thus these well tested theories mutually exclude one another.

General relativity is used in describing gravitational fields on large scales and so in research it seldom collides with quantum mechanics. An exception to this is black holes where gravity is so strong as to collapse a powerful gravitational field to the micro level.

In the study of black holes the equations of general relativity are joined to those of quantum mechanics and give nonsensical answers.

To resolve this conflict the new and as yet experimentally untested theory called string theory has been advanced.

A thumbnail sketch of string theory is that it maintains that subatomic particles such as electrons are not mere points but are oscillating strings. This assumption, by a bizarre set of steps, eliminates quantum foam.

String theory also contains the unproven idea that the universe consists of nine or ten spatial dimensions in addition to the dimension of time. These extra dimensions are called the hidden dimensions.

Some scientists have unwisely taken opportunity with this developing theory to formulate a theory of cosmology that eliminates the need for God as Creator. Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil G. Turok have developed a theory that claims to show that the universe always existed and is therefore uncreated.

Steinhardt and Turok's complicated theory which I will not describe here does not surmount a fundamental flaw. Their theory ignores the Second Law of Thermodynamics, also called the Law of Entropy.

The Law of Entropy is firmly established in physics and maintains that any isolated system must tend over time to become more disordered and randomized. Thus if the universe were infinitely old it would now be infinitely randomized and disordered and would have suffered heat death trillions of years ago.

Scientists who deny creation will occasionally attempt to second guess or ignore the Second Law but no self respecting physicist will openly deny the Second Law. When cornered they must capitulate and admit that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is operative even in extreme circumstances.

As strange as this may seem, the way unbelieving scientists avoid conflict with the Second Law is to assume that the universe is self created. In other words they believe in spontaneous generation in which something came from nothing without cause.

This denial of causality was first proposed in the eighteenth century by Scottish philosopher David Hume who was one of the boldest skeptics of the Enlightenment.

Scientists, including many 'Big Bang' theorists, who propose that the universe came out of nothing sidestep any conflict with the Second Law of Thermodynamics but fall into a much bigger hole. That hole is "spontaneous generation."

Spontaneous generation is absurd. For the universe to create anything it must first exist. For the universe to create itself it must exist and nonexist at the same time and then bring itself into existence. The logical contradiction is obvious and fatal to spontaneous generation.

Given the implications of the Second Law of Thermodynamics we must conclude that if anything exists now it means that something has always existed.

It is therefore rational to believe that there is one entity that has always existed and therefore is self-existent. This self-existent being is what the Bible calls God.

God has contacted humanity by revelation contained in the Bible, the book that He inspired.

God explained how He created the universe in the first book of the Bible called Genesis. In addition to the creation account the Bible contains thousands of predictive prophecies whose fulfillments prove to rational people that God did indeed inspire the writing of the Bible.

God sent His Son to redeem humanity from sin. Jesus, the Son of God, came in fulfillment of over 300 predictive prophecies. No other religious figure or wise man, whether Confucius or Mohammed or Zoroaster or anyone else that could be named came in fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies written centuries before his birth.

Jesus Christ stands alone in all history as the one vindicated by God. All nations must turn to Him to receive forgiveness.
More information, please visit ;  www.gracelawandsonship.com or

Leadership Theory

Leadership theories can be distinguished between who gets to be a leader and a follower. There are quite a number of leadership theories, it is very important for an individual to understand each leadership theory and note how it affects their individual lives. Mentioned under are some these leadership theories.

The great man theory

This theory basically tries to imply that leadership is hereditary. It tries to show that regardless of what great leaders are born like that and not made. This theory makes leadership look more of a male affair and it was a theory that was used back in the day. Individuals who were born of a strong father figure were expected to live up to the same expectations.

The trait theory

This theory implies that individuals will always have the same traits of there hereditary fathers in them. This will generally border around personality and behavior. This is more like the great man theory although it has been witnessed that not all those who have this traits end up being leaders.

Contingency theory

This type of leadership is usually done depending on a particular environment. This will be done depending on what measures need to be taken. It will basically mean that leadership styles are different a good leader should know when to apply what style.

Situational theories

This theory just as the name implies will be done according to the situation an individuals finds themselves in. a good leader will be able to access the situation before they determine the type of leadership style to use.

Behavioral theories

Just like the great man theory this theory means that great leaders are born and that good leaders will always make decisions based on their personal intuition and how they feel about the situation they are in. it also tries to show however that individuals can learn how to behave through learning through training and observation.

Participative theories

This theory will try to incorporate all the members of an organization. It seeks to make evry body a part of making decisions in the organization. A good leader in this type of leadership will listen to all the employees before making the final decision.

Management theories

This type of leadership focuses on organization and group leadership. In this system employees are rewarded according to how they are performing in the organization. They are also in line for punishments according to their performances individually. This type of theory is aimed at making all individuals responsible and accountable for all of their actions in the organization.

Relationship theories

This leadership theory is based on how the leader works with his or her followers. This type of leadership makes the employees more productive as the leader will be focused on their individual growth. It helps build strong groups for collective success. Leaders in this type of leadership are usually very ethical and moral standards are supposed to be very high. This is because although the main aim is to ensure all individuals in this groups gets to grow.Leadership styles are different to all individuals and a good leader regardless of which type of leadership should have the power to know what will best suit his organization.
More information, please visit :

Before the Big Bang | Religion

The concept of the universe originating from a singularity seems to be the accepted theory describing the occurrence of the Big Bang.. However, this theory does not consider possible conditions existing before the Big Bang.

The question that needs to be answered is: 'how can the existence of this singularity be explained? ' When and how did it come to be formed?

If we try to compare this point of origin of our universe to a known concept, of particular conditions existing at this time, the closest we can come is to compare it to a singularity now existing at the center of a black holes.

Thus, It is suggested that the origin of our universe began with a very massive black hole, rapidly expanding as the energy contained within was released.

It is known that massive dying stars end their lives by the formation of black holes. So, we might consider it a possibility that entire galaxies suffer the same fate, only on a much grander scale. Could we even go a step further and consider that clusters of galaxies also eventually undergo a similar fate?

After the 'Big Bang' had occurred, at the beginning of the formation of the early universe, some form of primordial matter may have come into existence. Massive amounts of hydrogen and helium then could have been formed from this primitive matter. Star formation would follow from gravitational condensation of clouds of hydrogen and other material, during this stage of development. Eventually, galaxies could form as a result of a gathering of stars into localized groups. Black hole forming at the center of galaxies could start this process again, as all matter in the galaxy eventually is drawn into the vicinity of the ever-growing black hole.

Thus, we could conceive of the formation of our known universe as arising from the remains of a pre-existing one that collapsed into an incredibly massive black hole, which then underwent a sudden expansion, forming the particles that began to form a new universe.

I have written several articles about evolution and some about science subjects. These articles are posted on the website:
authorsden.com/davidhamilton
More information, please visit :

Radiation From the Big Bang

Genesis Chapter 1 Verse 1 states that "In the beginning, God." This statement confirms that a beginning points to God. Scientist calls the beginning the "Big Bang." The Bible calls it the "beginning." Either way you look at it all points to God. Because we know nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever could. We must acknowledge that a supernatural work was performed at the beginning, the beginning of the universe.

Atheists and the like do not like proofs that point to God. Instead they are willing to suppress any truth or simply deny any facts that relates to truth. But either way you look at it. The "Big Bang" was indeed a miracle of all miracles. Why is it a miracle? Because nothing could never create something from nothing. This is what evolutionary scientist believes in. This is a miracle that nobody can deny. You either believe that the "nothing god" created the universe or you believe that God created the universe. Both are simply miracles and will always continue to be miracles.

Because we know that a "beginning" points to God. All we need to do is give proof that the universe had a beginning. Indeed there are five proofs that the universe had a beginning. 1) The Second Law of Thermodynamics 2) The Universe Is Expanding 3) Radiation from the Big Bang 4) Great Galaxy Seeds and 5) Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

In this discussion we are going to look at proof that the Radiation from the Big Bang points to a beginning of the universe and ultimately points to God.

The Radiation from the Big Bang was discovered on accident in 1965. This discovery eventually led two Bell Lab scientists to win the Nobel Prize. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson found strange radiation on their antenna at Bell Labs in Holmdel, New Jersey. This mysterious radiation remained no matter which way they turned their antennas. They thought it might have been bird droppings, but they cleaned it off and the radiation was still there.

This "cosmic background radiation" is basically afterglow from the light and heat from the initial explosion of the Big Bang. This light is no longer visible because its wavelength has been stretched by the expanding of the universe. But the heat can still be detected. In 1948, three scientists predicted that this radiation would be out there if the Big Bang is true. Indeed, the universe had a beginning. Therefore the beginning points to God.
More information, please visit :

Theories on Inflation | Economics

One theory of inflation is called monetarism. This theory says that inflation is always present and that it is a monetary problem. This theory also says that the amount of money that exists will determine the amount of money that people spend. The idea is that the price of items will go up only if the supply of the items is lower than the demand for the items. The price of items will also go down if the demand for the items is higher than the supply of the items.

This theory also says that since the amount of spending is determined by the amount of money in circulation the demand for items can be determined by calculating the amount of money in existence. Because of this theory, one could assume that if the amount of money in circulation goes up so does the amount of spending and so does the demand for consumer goods. Using this theory, the only reason that prices would go up is if the amount of money in circulation goes up.

Another theory of inflation is called the rational expectations theory. This theory says that inflation has to be looked at as a long-term projection and not just due to the here and now. Although it is a lot like monetarism the rational expectations theory believes that the monetarism theory reacts too quickly to what is occurring now and that what happens down the road is more important. One reason that the rational expectations theory wants to avoid reacting too quickly to slight changes in inflation is that when people react too quickly they often cause drastic changes in inflation simply by trying to avoid them.

The Austrian theory of economics says that as people will spend more money as they get more money to spend. This is kind of a spend what you earn philosophy. The lifestyle and spending habits of people are equal to their disposable income. This theory is different from the others because it doesn't believe that the production of goods will increase in order to meet an increase in demand. This theory believes that these kinds of changes in the economy don't happen as quickly as some of the other theories believe they do. And this theory also believes that the distribution of goods and money will not always seek to achieve some sort of balance.

The Marxist theory of economics says that the value of money is determined by the relationship between those that produce the goods and those that buy the goods. This theory says that it is the value of the labor required to produce the goods and not the price of the goods themselves that determines the real cost of the goods. This theory also says that the only important factor in the cost of goods is how the cost of labor goes up and down compared to the demand for the product.

Rebecca J. Stigall is a full-time freelance writer, author, and editor with a background in psychology, education, and sales. She has written extensively in the areas of self-help, relationships, psychology, health, business, finance, real estate, fitness, academics, and much more! Rebecca is a highly sought after ghostwriter with clients worldwide, and offers her services through her website at http://www.forewordcommunications.com/

More information, please visit :  

Theory of The Garden of Eden

I have spent a considerable bit of time preparing a Sunday School lesson this week on the Garden of Eden. My inspiration comes from two sources: 1)The recent collector's edition, "Secrets of the Bible", from U.S. News & World Report, and 2) the even better book by Eric H. Cline, "From Eden to Exile." I do not intend to regurgitate them. Rather, they form the basis of this article. If you want to check them out, please do so. There are no "hyperlinks" here to follow!

There has been considerable effort placed into the task of trying to "locate" the Garden of Eden. There are many theories that can take one on a grand journey from the Nile River in Egypt, through Arabia, southern Turkey, Iran, and yes Iraq. On a wild ride, one could even come to Jackson County Missouri, not far from my beloved home in the Ozarks! Being Celtic in background, I personally would have placed the garden in Ireland!

As far as location goes, I have been quite fine approximating the location of the Garden somewhere along the path of what has been called "the fertile crescent." Cline makes some good argument to me for postulating the location there. Early archaeological evidence has shown us that this was one of the first places on earth to: domesticate animals, plants grain crops, develop towns and cities. Personally, I would also add the development of fermented beverages to the list\, lest we allow the Egyptians all the credit!

At the end of the articles and book, we are left we the same question: "where is it?" As the old television commercial used to say, "the world may never know!" We simply cannot pin down the actual location of the garden with any certainty. Anyone surprised?

Why do we need to know "for sure?" It has nothing to do with "story" of the garden. Like many oral traditions, including modern ones, the story is a blend of myth and fact, pseudo evidence, that aims at making a point. In this case, we are to learn lessons about trust, relationships, truth telling, and the like. There is a lesson about "the sinful nature of humanity" here as well. We all have to face our Jungian "dark side." How did we get so sinful? Has God truly condemned us? These type of questions are the "meat and potatoes" of the story. I am not at all surprised that one can find parallels to the story in cultures all around the fertile crescent.

To need to "know for sure" that the garden existed is part of what I call a "doubting Thomas theory" to theological understanding and true biblical faith. It is as though we have this need to prove to the world that Christianity was right! Considering the fact that even Jesus did not convince everyone of his purpose, one may be in for long ride---trying to prove to the world the "truth' of the Bible, or the stories contained there in.

What is truth? Who is right? I am not qualified to answer that question. I can find enough source of truth, for me, in the what the ancient stories of the Garden of Eden are attempting to teach. One can learn much from history. After all, humanity has been making history for a very long time.

Monetary | Inflation Theory

One theory of inflation is called monetarism. This theory says that inflation is always present and that it is a monetary problem. This theory also says that the amount of money that exists will determine the amount of money that people spend. The idea is that the price of items will go up only if the supply of the items is lower than the demand for the items. The price of items will also go down if the demand for the items is higher than the supply of the items.


This theory also says that since the amount of spending is determined by the amount of money in circulation the demand for items can be determined by calculating the amount of money in existence. Because of this theory, one could assume that if the amount of money in circulation goes up so does the amount of spending and so does the demand for consumer goods. Using this theory, the only reason that prices would go up is if the amount of money in circulation goes up.

Another theory of inflation is called the rational expectations theory. This theory says that inflation has to be looked at as a long-term projection and not just due to the here and now. Although it is a lot like monetarism the rational expectations theory believes that the monetarism theory reacts too quickly to what is occurring now and that what happens down the road is more important. One reason that the rational expectations theory wants to avoid reacting too quickly to slight changes in inflation is that when people react too quickly they often cause drastic changes in inflation simply by trying to avoid them.


The Austrian theory of economics says that as people will spend more money as they get more money to spend. This is kind of a spend what you earn philosophy. The lifestyle and spending habits of people are equal to their disposable income. This theory is different from the others because it doesn't believe that the production of goods will increase in order to meet an increase in demand. This theory believes that these kinds of changes in the economy don't happen as quickly as some of the other theories believe they do. And this theory also believes that the distribution of goods and money will not always seek to achieve some sort of balance.

The Marxist theory of economics says that the value of money is determined by the relationship between those that produce the goods and those that buy the goods. This theory says that it is the value of the labor required to produce the goods and not the price of the goods themselves that determines the real cost of the goods. This theory also says that the only important factor in the cost of goods is how the cost of labor goes up and down compared to the demand for the product.