|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,482 Year: 3,739/9,624 Month: 610/974 Week: 223/276 Day: 63/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4444 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its not specific at all. Which part?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
IamJoseph writes:
All of it. Its not specific at all. Which part?quote:It sounds like a complicated sentence badly translated into Englsih by Babel Fish. But you need not re-word your post. Life is too short to spend it repeatedly asking you for clarification on what you think each word means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Now that'swhat I call specifically non-specific. If you understand my english.
quote: So you say these forces prevailed at the BBT? Was gravity prevailing before any mass existed? If not, then these forces were obviously later derivitives, no?
quote: You reject that gavity is the result of drag, an effect of mass spinage? Is it not similar to a car wheel spitting firey flecks on a ground, or electricity derived from similar drag movements, or fire from flint drag?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
As I said in my last post:
Panda writes:
Life is too short to spend it repeatedly asking you for clarification on what you think each word means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13023 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hello Everyone!
If I understand him correctly, IamJoseph makes these points in Message 185 and previous posts:
Though not in precise agreement with science, this doesn't seem that radical. Science postulates a quark soup at the beginning, and certainly electromagnetic radiation would have been part of that soup.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3735 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Admin writes:
Which I think IamJ addressed with:
Science postulates a quark soup at the beginning, and certainly electromagnetic radiation would have been part of that soup. IamJospeph writes:
*scratches head* The issue of electricity and magnetic forms of energy are later derivitive factors;*gives up and walks away*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: A soup? That does not sound like a start-up atom or singular product. Basically, anything, not just the EM force, can fit into that vague term 'soup' - it is hardly a scientific response. The fact is that light would be the first identifiable product by virtue of its transcendent velocity. And we don't measure the universe's age by any forces but exclusively by residual cosmic radiation [a form of light], which is accounted by blue shift. Genesis has really performed excellently here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Science postulates a quark soup at the beginning, and certainly electromagnetic radiation would have been part of that soup. Quarks preceded electrmagnetic radiation by some distance (as measured by energy scale, rather than the unimaginably small fraction of a second separating them), as the elctroweak symmetry breaking occurs at much lower energy than the quantum chromodynamic scale. And gravity precedes both. So light is actually the last on the scene.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I watched a documentary today which explored the possibility of an infinite universe. It postulated this would mean there are infinite universes and infinite versions of everything contained in the universe - even infinite number of Elvis'. It became bizarre and the interviewed scientists look somewhat embarrassed stating their scenario. However in the modst of the discussions, they showed how the universe is measured, and this was concluded as light being the first emmission. This aligns with Genesis being the first recording of the universe's primordial product. This makes segments of Genesis state of art science. My point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
The fact is that light would be the first identifiable product by virtue of its transcendent velocity. No, as I explained above, it is actually the last product. And its velocity was irrelevant as the density was so high that photons couldn't actually travel any measurable distance before colliding.
And we don't measure the universe's age by any forces but exclusively by residual cosmic radiation The earliest of which was emitted hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang. So that doesn't help you either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Quantumn only works with multiple, countless particles. It contradicts the premise of a first BANG. Quarks may be the smallest item known at this juncture of science only. We may yet discover a whole universe behind quarks, which has already happened partially. The closure stands with light as the only measurement of both the universe's age and its first identifiable product. I see no credible counter to it, so why fantasize?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
You are not in good scientist company here. If you could look at the BB occuring - you would first see a light. If you examine the speed of light, you can work out the age of the universe: that is how the 14B figure is arrived at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Quantumn only works with multiple, countless particles. No, it doesn't.
It contradicts the premise of a first BANG. No, it doesn't.
Quarks may be the smallest item known at this juncture of science only. No, they're not. And the "size" is irrelevant. Quarks don't appear before photons because they're "smaller"
The closure stands with light as the only measurement of both the universe's age and its first identifiable product. Nope - the neutrino background vastly pre-dates the electromagnetic background, so gives an earlier picture of the Universe. And as described, light is most certainly not the first identifiable product.
I see no credible counter to it, so why fantasize?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3665 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
You are not in good scientist company here. You're right. There's me, a scientist in the fields of cosmology and theoretical phyaics, and there's everyone else. But don't worry, I don't mind.
f you could look at the BB occuring - you would first see a light. No, you wouldn't (fogetting for the moment the completely non-sensical concept of being able to look at the BB occuring) as there would be no light. Light has not yet come into being.
If you examine the speed of light, you can work out the age of the universe: that is how the 14B figure is arrived at. The speed of light obviously has relevance, but no, that is not how we arrive at the 14B figure. Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3690 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: While that is to be respected, IMHO you have some glitches, specially in light being the true factor able to measure the universe age, thus the first universal product. Denying science because one appears to not acknowledge anything in Genesis as scientifically vindicated is in fact an unscientific disposition. It also shows poor math and physics: If we know the average luminosity of a star and its apparent brightness, we can calculate the distance to the star and thus its true brightness since brightness decreases as the square ofthe distance.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024