Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 9:32 AM
391 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,713 Year: 10,319/21,208 Month: 3,406/2,674 Week: 822/961 Day: 25/109 Hour: 6/14

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15793
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 166 of 170 (675379)
10-10-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-10-2012 12:36 PM


Re: Evidence
Oh, that, Inadequate. You mean mathemagicians? Because in physics space is but an abstract relation not a substance that can expand. But in mathemagic they use the trick of multiplying zero by zero while introducing all kinds of fractions by sleight-of-hand. The fractions multiplying imitate a meaningful physical activity. They imagine all kinds of lines stretching. Vectors, tensors, lines of force and suchlike and then forget to tell the public that the lines exist only on paper. That's how it's done in a nutshell.

So, to summarize: the big bang is not impossible to conceptualize because as you know perfectly well lots of people are perfectly able to conceptualize it; but rather than admit this you would prefer to spout a lot of crazy bullshit about a subject (mathematics) of which you possess no actual knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-10-2012 12:36 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1351 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 167 of 170 (675380)
10-10-2012 6:52 PM


Relevance of the alleged bunk to the history of light.
The issue of bang is highly relevant so there is no digression. If the concept of bang is accepted at face value then the bang is the ultimate source of all light in the single common for all the existence past. A single location for the origin of light. No way to compare and verify its properties therefore we are forever in the dark unable to answer the question in the OP. Whereas what I was proposing in accordance with relativity of simultaneity was that light comes here from multiple pasts and countless locations and directions and the properties of light coming from one location can be easily verified by and compared to the same properties of radiation signals arriving from all other directions and locations in the cosmos.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2012 7:05 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15793
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 168 of 170 (675382)
10-10-2012 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-10-2012 6:52 PM


Re: Relevance of the alleged bunk to the history of light.
The issue of bang is highly relevant so there is no digression. If the concept of bang is accepted at face value then the bang is the ultimate source of all light in the single common for all the existence past. A single location for the origin of light.

So, not stars then? I thought it was stars. I thought that the only "light" from the Big Bang was the cosmic microwave background, and all the other light came from stars. For example, there's this star called "the sun", perhaps you've heard of it, and I'm fairly sure I'm typing by the light of the sun rather than by the light of this big bang you keep talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-10-2012 6:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-10-2012 7:23 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 1351 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 169 of 170 (675384)
10-10-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Dr Adequate
10-10-2012 7:05 PM


Re: Relevance of the alleged bunk to the history of light.
No, so called CMB radiation would be no exception. When I say light I do not mean only the visible range of radiation signals. I mean any radiation. So that radiation of that wavelength would be coming from different pasts and locations just like any other. The Earth is then its source too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-10-2012 7:05 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12436
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 170 of 170 (675385)
10-10-2012 7:29 PM


Topic Reminder
The topic is whether light in the past might have had different properties then it has today. Please stop discussing the Big Bang except in contexts where it bears on the topic.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
RewPrev1
...
7891011
12
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017