Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist model
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 166 of 242 (448323)
01-12-2008 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by IamJoseph
01-12-2008 10:36 PM


IamJoseph
Chapter 1/1 is the beginning chapter which describes creation, catering to its fundamental factors. Light is well catered to as one of the primal entities, precedent of the stars. Light and fire are very closely related. When one examines the premise, stars could not produce light unless it was a precedent and independent entity, at least in its essence form
Light {electromagnetic waves} were not a part of the universe immediately upon its formation and it was not until approximately 380,000 years of age when the temperatures had cooled enough electrons and nuclei to combine and radiation to escape. This point is what is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
Stars produce all forms of electromagnetic waves from gamma through radio and include that thin slice of the electromagnetic spectrum we know as visible light.
Fire produces light through the change in energy levels in the electrons of the combustible material as it burns. Light itself is not like fire in any other way and stars themselves do not produce light as fire does.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by IamJoseph, posted 01-12-2008 10:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 01-12-2008 11:39 PM sidelined has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 167 of 242 (448327)
01-12-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 166 by sidelined
01-12-2008 11:29 PM


quote:
Light {electromagnetic waves} were not a part of the universe immediately upon its formation and it was not until approximately 380,000 years of age when the temperatures had cooled enough electrons and nuclei to combine and radiation to escape. This point is what is known as the Cosmic Microwave Background.
I see no contradiction with light being a primal entity. The photon content is a later action, which makes light vision friendly [luminosity], as opposed to the essence of light. Light has a transcendent velosity, which is not explainable by any less transcendent entity, such as a star. Thus the essence of light preceded the sun and moon, as the essence of H2O preceded the tap which produces water.
The premise of temp and electrons is not the factor which rules here, by the precedent program which allows both the temp and electon factors conform to its end product. Nothing happens without a precedent intergrating mechanism: temp variances and electrons won't produce light from a pineapple.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by sidelined, posted 01-12-2008 11:29 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 12:14 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 169 by sidelined, posted 01-13-2008 12:20 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 168 of 242 (448333)
01-13-2008 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
01-12-2008 11:39 PM


I see no contradiction with light being a primal entity.
How can you not see a problem with this? You are asserting that light came before the wave, before the photon?
The photon content is a later action
How? Its the photon moving in a wave at 400-700 nm that makes light. No wave means no light, bigger or smaller waves means no light. Light is simply a wave with the correct hieght for our eyes to interpret it. You are trying to say that our interpretation of a certain wavelength came before the wave itself? That absurd.
which makes light vision friendly [luminosity]
Incorrect. Luminosity is a wavelength of 400-700 nm.
as opposed to the essence of light.
There is no essence. Its a smaller wave than a radio wave, a larger wave than a gamma ray. Its the same thing only a different size.
Light has a transcendent velosity
If light is transcendent then so is every other wave
Thus the essence of light preceded the sun and moon, as the essence of H2O preceded the tap which produces water.
Thus your talking nonsense. New York does not precede the Earth, the internet does not precede the computer, light does not precede the wave.
Nothing happens without a precedent intergrating mechanism
Right. No wave, no light - you got it backwards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 01-12-2008 11:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 3:43 AM Vacate has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 169 of 242 (448335)
01-13-2008 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by IamJoseph
01-12-2008 11:39 PM


IamJoseph
Light has a transcendent velosity, which is not explainable by any less transcendent entity, such as a star. Thus the essence of light preceded the sun and moon, as the essence of H2O preceded the tap which produces water.
What do you mean a transcendent velocity IaJ? You are claiming an essence but not explaining what an essence is.And the essence of H2,O means what?
Nothing happens without a precedent intergrating mechanism: temp variances and electrons won't produce light from a pineapple.
Ok now you have drifted into the realm of nonsense and I would ask that you come down to a level where you are clearly communicating what you are attempting to describe OK ?
What is the precedent integrating mechanism?

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by IamJoseph, posted 01-12-2008 11:39 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 3:23 AM sidelined has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 170 of 242 (448355)
01-13-2008 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by sidelined
01-13-2008 12:20 AM


quote:
What do you mean a transcendent velocity IaJ? You are claiming an essence but not explaining what an essence is.And the essence of H2,O means what?
Transcendent because its speed is greater than all else; and this is not accounted for by the inergy input. The speed is not subsequent of its energy boosting, and the latter only acts as a triggering. By essence I mean its core, original first factor. Water can be said to have H2O as its precedent factors, and each of those gasses can be further reduced.
Similarly, we can speak of light before the stars appeared. The aspect of luminosity has no operative factor other than being vision friendly [gravity operates in the dark too], while we can say there are no superfluous factors in a critically operating universe. A photon does not make light, but triggers an action; the proton and the light enjoy a reciprocal interaction. Stars do not produce light until they surpass an enbryotic stage and reach a critical mass; some stars do not attain this stage. Light is also producable independently of stars.
quote:
Nothing happens without a precedent intergrating mechanism: temp variances and electrons won't produce light from a pineapple.
-----------------
Ok now you have drifted into the realm of nonsense and I would ask that you come down to a level where you are clearly communicating what you are attempting to describe OK ?
What is the precedent integrating mechanism?
The precedent intergrating mechanism can be seen all places, eg: the precedent intergration of H2 & O, which results in water. When one disregards that both those gasses enjoy an interactive receptability, they can get lost only in the minutae peripheral equation, and neglecting the matrix of interaction in display here. Why is it that we cannot produce water from two other gasses?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by sidelined, posted 01-13-2008 12:20 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2008 3:56 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 171 of 242 (448357)
01-13-2008 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by Vacate
01-13-2008 12:14 AM


The wave is pervasive and generic, and represents a +/- duality factor underlying all actions. Rather than allocating a photon to light, it is more correct to allocate this to a pre-set interaction facility: any tinkering with the photon or the nm, will negate this pre-set interaction mechanism.
Different conclusions are derived, depending on the preamble criteria. Genesis subscribes itself to the universe being finite; all works are intergrated; and that the universe is created in wisdom. Science allocates the manifest complexity of gravity to 'nature', as opposed to the controverisal term of wisdom [wise workings], for its internal doctrinal factors and PC reasonings. However, when one zooms out the picture, they have to be impressed with both the manifest display of wisdom and of the hovering interaction here, which must be accounted for. I mean, what is this thing called 'NATURE' - there is no such thing - actually! But there is manifest works of wisdom and manifest intergration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 12:14 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 4:13 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 172 of 242 (448360)
01-13-2008 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 3:43 AM


The wave is pervasive and generic, and represents a +/- duality factor underlying all actions. Rather than allocating a photon to light, it is more correct to allocate this to a pre-set interaction facility: any tinkering with the photon or the nm, will negate this pre-set interaction mechanism.
I am not sure that I am understanding you correctly. Could you possibly reword it? (Duality factor, pre-set interaction facility?)
Different conclusions are derived, depending on the preamble criteria.
I agree, but in this case you are incorrect. Light cannot precede the wave. Light is nothing but a wave of a certain height. If the effect (light) precedes the cause (wave) then you need to explain why light is somehow special while all other waves are not. It would also help to explain how this is even possible.
Science allocates the manifest complexity of gravity to 'nature', as opposed to the controverisal term of wisdom.
When testing nature you will find that you have put the cart before the horse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 3:43 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 5:06 AM Vacate has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 173 of 242 (448363)
01-13-2008 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Vacate
01-13-2008 4:13 AM


(Duality factor, pre-set interaction facility?)
The genesis model subscribes to all things being created in a duality, that there is no ONE per se in creation. Eg: heaven/earth, light/darknes, day/nite, male/female, etc. Here, two is the minimum requirement for any action. Interaction is that a particular receptivity is and must prevail between two partys, and the resultant premise is its effect; so the interaction facility is precedent. Eg: a car is made to cater to a driver, and the driver's traits are factored in - but this is not the case where a precedent interactive facility was not factored in. Thus the interaction is precedent. Similarly, and subsequently, H interacts with O to produce water when combined in a certain pre-established order.
quote:
Light cannot precede the wave. Light is nothing but a wave of a certain height.
This shows the light follows the wave provisions, thus it is subsequent of it. A wave represents a duality.
quote:
If the effect (light) precedes the cause (wave) then you need to explain why light is somehow special while all other waves are not. It would also help to explain how this is even possible.
These reflect the wave input, eg. Radio waves have different wave lengths, again signifying the wave rules, and this precedent. IOW, the light is doing what the waves tell it.
quote:
When testing nature you will find that you have put the cart before the horse.
There is no such thing as nature. Examine what happens when this term is eliminated.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 4:13 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 5:27 AM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 174 of 242 (448364)
01-13-2008 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 5:06 AM


The genesis model subscribes to all things being created in a duality
Ok. I understand that. You said however that "The wave is pervasive and generic, and represents a +/- duality factor underlying all actions". I don't understand where you see a duality in a wave.
This shows the light follows the wave provisions, thus it is subsequent of it
This is opposite of your previous claim that light precedes the wave. If you are now agreeing with me perhaps the discussion has come to an end?
the light is doing what the waves tell it
Not really. We are just interpreting that specific wavelength. There is no light, simply our interpretation of the wave.
There is no such thing as nature
Lets not quibble over the small stuff. How about when testing reality then?
Examine what happens when this term is eliminated.
I am all for picking another. I believe it was your choice of wording in the first place?
ABE: Sorry I missed a portion of your post.
so the interaction facility is precedent. Eg: a car is made to cater to a driver, and the driver's traits are factored in
I believe that you are trying to say that our vision was prededermined before the creation of light? Is this correct? Even if true, how does this impact your argument? I still claim that the wave precedes the light, your orignial claim was that light precedes the wave...
Similarly, and subsequently, H interacts with O to produce water when combined in a certain pre-established order.
H20 is not a good analogy for what you are trying to say (I don't think). It leaves the impression, to me, that you think light is something that its not. Its simply a wave, stretch it and it will become a radio wave, shrink it and it becomes a gamma ray. Its not like water at all. There is nothing pre-established about light, its simply a word we have created to describe a wave of a certain height (400-700 nm)
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 5:06 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 6:10 AM Vacate has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 175 of 242 (448367)
01-13-2008 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Vacate
01-13-2008 5:27 AM


quote:
I don't understand where you see a duality in a wave.
One tail end is negative, the other a positive polarity; eg: up/down, where the ascent is one direction, and the descent is its opposiite. Ultimately, the wave represents the duality, and is not a ONE.
quote:
This shows the light follows the wave provisions, thus it is subsequent of it.
-------
This is opposite of your previous claim that light precedes the wave. If you are now agreeing with me perhaps the discussion has come to an end?
The wave represents the underlying workings of the light, and is not itself light. The whole point is, there are unending layers of structurisms
The wave represents the underlying workings of the light, and is not itself light but is part of the blueprint. The whole point is, there are unending layers of structurisms, and these are based on a definitive matrix of directives.
quote:
the light is doing what the waves tell it
Not really. We are just interpreting that specific wavelength. There is no light, simply our interpretation of the wave.
We see the criteria of the wave input which directs the resultant types of light, and its manipulation gives different forms of light.
quote:
I believe that you are trying to say that our vision was prededermined before the creation of light? Is this correct? Even if true, how does this impact your argument? I still claim that the wave precedes the light, your orignial claim was that light precedes the wave...
Yes, vision has no relevence aside from enabling another entity [eyes] to connect with it. This means the eye and the visible light were created with counter receptive traits.
What I said was that light per se preceded stars.
quote:
It leaves the impression, to me, that you think light is something that its not. Its simply a wave, stretch it and it will become a radio wave, shrink it and it becomes a gamma ray. Its not like water at all. There is nothing pre-established about light, its simply a word we have created to describe a wave of a certain height (400-700 nm)
Stretching the wave = manipulating the conrol factor. Thus the wave rules, or better, a duality which is adaptive to a pre-established directive. The macro and micro reflect the same laws; the seen reflects the unseen.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 5:27 AM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 9:41 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 176 of 242 (448528)
01-13-2008 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 6:10 AM


The wave represents the underlying workings of the light, and is not itself light.
There is no light. Don't you see? A wave is not the underlying workings of anything, light is simply a word we have come up with to explain a certain wavelength.
We see the criteria of the wave input which directs the resultant types of light
No, we invent criteria to describe a certain wavelength that we are quite familiar with and interact with to understand our surroundings. This interaction can be described as "vision", in something else it could be described as "heat". Other wavelengths that we are familiar with have different uses and in an attempt to describe them we apply different criterea.
This means the eye and the visible light were created with counter receptive traits.
No, this means that the human eye has three cones that are stimulated by certain wavelengths.
S Cones 400-500 nm
M Cones 450-630 nm
L Cones 500-700 nm
Our brains interpret this stimulous and convert it into what we see as light and color. Some humans have defective cones and are therefore colorblind. Some animals respond to different wavelengths and "see" in the ultra violet or infared. Light is simply a description of a certain wavelength.
You are essentially saying that light was made for the eye, but if this is true then 1 meter waves were made for television, 1 cm waves were made for warming up food, 1 nm waves are made to look at bones, and 1 pm waves are made to give us cancer.
So if 400-700 nm waves are special in that they stimulate cones in your eye, what makes those waves more special then the 1 pm waves that stimulate cells mutate and divide?
What I said was that light per se preceded stars
I know you said that. Hence why I disagree with you. You first need to explain what emitted the 400-700nm wave when there where no stars. Before stars there was no light.
Thus the wave rules, or better, a duality which is adaptive to a pre-established directive
I will leave it to you to explain why cancer preceded the 1 pm wave, or why microwave dinners preceded the 1 cm wave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 6:10 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by IamJoseph, posted 01-15-2008 2:13 AM Vacate has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 177 of 242 (448640)
01-14-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by IamJoseph
01-13-2008 3:23 AM


IamJoseph
Transcendent because its speed is greater than all else; and this is not accounted for by the energy input.
Actually it precisely accounted for by the formula E=hf. A quantum of light {photon energy} is equal to planck's constant times the frequency of the electromagnetic event of each photon.
Water can be said to have H2O as its precedent factors, and each of those gasses can be further reduced.
Water is H2O. 2 hydrogen atoms in chemical bond with a single oxygen atom. And no,Hydrogen and oxygen cannot be further reduced as they are elements of nature.
It is the change in energy management that accounts for the hydrogen gas and oxygen gas to chemically bond as a liquid at the correct temperature. Since the chemical bonding affects the way in which the electron configuration operates an new substance with different properties emerges.That new property manifests itself in the qualities of water.
The precedent intergrating mechanism can be seen all places, eg: the precedent intergration of H2 & O, which results in water.
This does nothing to explain what the integrating mechanism is.
. When one disregards that both those gasses enjoy an interactive receptability, they can get lost only in the minutae peripheral equation, and neglecting the matrix of interaction in display here.
I do not know what you are getting at here. Please try to clarify.
Why is it that we cannot produce water from two other gasses?
Because we get a different reaction between the electron energies that make up the bonds between other different elements and thus,produce different qualities.
Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

"Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere."
Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by IamJoseph, posted 01-13-2008 3:23 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by IamJoseph, posted 01-15-2008 2:47 AM sidelined has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 178 of 242 (448750)
01-15-2008 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Vacate
01-13-2008 9:41 PM


quote:
This interaction can be described as "vision", in something else it could be described as "heat". Other wavelengths that we are familiar with have different uses and in an attempt to describe them we apply different criterea.
My position is that criticality impacts here. We can only see light when it is within certain margins of criticality: too much heat or too liittle = no vision. This, to me, shows that both items were afixed with a fore thought; both being receptive to each other, in a critical mode. This is an inescapabale factor, and renders it varied from man belatedly naming something. IOW, light [or heat if you like], and vision - are intergrated, a factor which transcends time, distance and evolutionary impacts. Adaptation is only relative in a life form, and have no impact on mountains and stars.
quote:
This means the eye and the visible light were created with counter receptive traits.
No, this means that the human eye has three cones that are stimulated by certain wavelengths.
That answer has no bearing here, except it confirms the criticality premise. If the length of the wave length impacts, and so does the eye, we have a corresponding interaction, namely an intergrationary phenomenon. The naked eye does no see radio waves, again by a criticality factor, namely the wave length.
quote:
Our brains interpret this stimulous and convert it into what we see as light and color. Some humans have defective cones and are therefore colorblind. Some animals respond to different wavelengths and "see" in the ultra violet or infared. Light is simply a description of a certain wavelength.
Our brains would have no impact, unless its caperbility is factored in a corresponding object. My position is, our brains do not interpret stimuli, unless the object is stimuli friendly.
quote:
You are essentially saying that light was made for the eye, but if this is true then 1 meter waves were made for television, 1 cm waves were made for warming up food, 1 nm waves are made to look at bones, and 1 pm waves are made to give us cancer.
So if 400-700 nm waves are special in that they stimulate cones in your eye, what makes those waves more special then the 1 pm waves that stimulate cells mutate and divide?
The criticality factor. You are proving my case here.
quote:
I know you said that. Hence why I disagree with you. You first need to explain what emitted the 400-700nm wave when there where no stars. Before stars there was no light.
I did state, not all stars achieve light production, and none when they first emerge. The force which propels light is not even a wave: we know that no energy can produce the transcendent velosity of light, whereby this velosity is more than the energy input: an AA battery will produce a ray which travels 186K MPS, which means there is a seperate inherent force in light which transcends any power in the universe.
Fact is, we do not know the origin of anything, and light is certainly in this category, even more so that matter, because light displays a power which is greater than matter [transcedent velosity] and is, unlike matter, ageless. The notion stars produce light, is only akin to a factory producing nuts and bolts, a process which can be emulated elsewhere.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2008 9:41 PM Vacate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by Vacate, posted 01-15-2008 3:22 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 179 of 242 (448754)
01-15-2008 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by sidelined
01-14-2008 3:56 PM


quote:
Actually it precisely accounted for by the formula E=hf. A quantum of light {photon energy} is equal to planck's constant times the frequency of the electromagnetic event of each photon.
This affirms a criticality factor.
quote:
Water can be said to have H2O as its precedent factors, and each of those gasses can be further reduced.
Water is H2O. 2 hydrogen atoms in chemical bond with a single oxygen atom. And no,Hydrogen and oxygen cannot be further reduced as they are elements of nature.
It is the change in energy management that accounts for the hydrogen gas and oxygen gas to chemically bond as a liquid at the correct temperature. Since the chemical bonding affects the way in which the electron configuration operates an new substance with different properties emerges.That new property manifests itself in the qualities of water.
Here we see that more than the equations apply, there is a recepticity and reciprocity at work of both the H and the O, which feat cannot be performed elsewhere by other gasses. The equations factor tells how how it works, but it does not account for the reciprocity - so this requires some hovering thought what is happening here.
quote:
The precedent intergrating mechanism can be seen all places, eg: the precedent intergration of H2 & O, which results in water.
This does nothing to explain what the integrating mechanism is.
I agree. But there is clearly one, is the first point.
quote:
Why is it that we cannot produce water from two other gasses?
IMHO, it is obviously because of a critical intergration at work here, which points to a precedent, hovering control factor. This means, IMHO, there is no adaptation: the environment we prevail and survive in, is precedent and anticipatory of our prevailing therein. 'THE DINNER TABLE IS READY FOR THE GUESTS' applies.
The ToE view of adaptation is deficient, namely saying we enter the scene after we can adapt, as opposed the environment and us both enjointly enter the scene, not by their chronological emergences, but by the cirteria seen in each counterparts, namely a critical reciprocity on display here. Lets analogise, which came first, a chipmunk or the walnut, or the chipmunk's ideal environment - or the chip? Why?
quote:
Because we get a different reaction between the electron energies that make up the bonds between other different elements and thus,produce different qualities.
But do you see criticality and intergration here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by sidelined, posted 01-14-2008 3:56 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 180 of 242 (448759)
01-15-2008 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by IamJoseph
01-15-2008 2:13 AM


Making waves
We can only see light when it is within certain margins of criticality: too much heat or too liittle = no vision. This, to me, shows that both items were afixed with a fore thought
You certainly could be correct. Its unprovable with evidence, but you could be right. This does not show that light precedes the wave however, this only shows that the thought preceded the implimentation.
This, to me, shows that both items were afixed with a fore thought
Clever, possibly true, and unprovable.
This is an inescapabale factor
Waves first, eyes later. My assertion cancels yours. Done.
are intergrated, a factor which transcends time, distance and evolutionary impacts.
Its so tantilizingly possible... but sadly no way to prove it.
The criticality factor. You are proving my case here.
I am not proving it, I may agree that you could be correct, but thats not proof. I am pointing out the illogical aspect of your assertion. That being:
vacate writes:
You are essentially saying that light was made for the eye, but if this is true then 1 meter waves were made for television, 1 cm waves were made for warming up food, 1 nm waves are made to look at bones, and 1 pm waves are made to give us cancer.
In addition to that I would add red shift. Given enough shift you could say that cancer waves can eventually become food warming waves. Though it is possible that this was the creators intent from the start, it will be difficult to find any proof. (In the OT or science)
I will ask again: What makes light special from any other wave?
I would add: What makes vision any more special than all the other uses we have for light? Can you prove the creator did not make light so we could have faster internet?
The force which propels light is not even a wave: we know that no energy can produce the transcendent velosity of light, whereby this velosity is more than the energy input
My knowledge is much too limited to enter this type of discussion. I would like to say simply "your wrong", but I am at work and limited on reading time. I concede this point to you and simply hope that others on the board and willing to discuss this. Perhaps you are correct - what do I know?
Fact is, we do not know the origin of anything, and light is certainly in this category
The origin of light is a wave. If you change your wording I would accept that we do not know the origin of the 'idea' of light. Your still going to have some serious trouble attempting to include this in a scientific model of the universe.
The notion stars produce light, is only akin to a factory producing nuts and bolts
Exactly. Stars produce light like a factory makes nuts. Now is the maker of the factory knowable, testable, and therefore within the realm of science? This is a good first step in the making of a model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by IamJoseph, posted 01-15-2008 2:13 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024