Issues of light

Every "what if" on my part is mere hypothetical speculation; none of which is worthy of calling scientific theory.I merely infer that all camps (Evos and Creas) are just making educated guesses based on the data.Light is mind-boggling, who can know it?[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-12-2003]

Light and time are related, e.g., in special relativity, Newtonian sciences, and in quantum theories, too.Common sense discussions about light seem really common stupidity discussions. Every honest scientist would tell you both quantum theories on light and relativistic ones defy commnon (i.e., Newtonian) sense on the subject.I propose you and I re-think light beyond our common sense and/or parsimonious conclusions. No one really has a handle on light, especially as it relates to radiometric dating and the "what-if" fallacies I just mentioned.Presently, radiometric dating seems to me to be way beyond the scope of true science due to these and other issues of light. Doubtless, you or I could mention other what-if scenarios that would utterly defy radiometric dating in our limited understanding of light.What if the behavior of light (time) changes in a compressed/compressing vs. expanded or expanding universe universe?What if the c constant is allowed to fluctuate as some astronomers speculate?Now every one is guilty of metaphysical bias, fallacies, and sins, myself foremost. Now, if I'm the chiefest of sinners in this matter and not to be trusted, how can I trust anyone else's common-sense conclusions regarding light and time?Because I don't trust myself in this elusive matter, I certainly won't trust any other so-called scientist out there. We're all quacks (it seems perhaps to me) when it comes to light and time.
anyone else with their gospel of light.

There is very good, very firm physics which understand light very well indeed. Just because you don't understand doesn't mean it isn't understood. Some of both quantum theory and relativity is, however, mind-boggling for sure.Indeed, none of your speculation has any merit nor any bearing on the issue of radiometric dating.So why bother with it.

I would like to back up NosyNed on this topic. Light behaves exactly as predicted/explained by current theories of optics, quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics and relativity. There is no room left for metaphysics to get involved.If one insists on attaching metaphysical theories to sciences, rather than just saying 'we don't know yet', there are one or two grey areas where one might get away with it.
One is Why the universe should exist, and why it should have its particular laws? Why does an electron weigh as much as it does? Would the universe work with other laws or fundamental constants? And could life exist in such a universe?The origin of space and time, as tackled by Stephen Hawking, is still speculation.There are some mysteries in the distant universe. Galaxies don't behave as they should gravitationally. Either General Relativity is not quite correct over large distances, or there is a lot (and I mean LOT) of dark matter in the galaxies that we know nothing about yet.Red shifts of distant galaxies do not make sense. Centres of large galaxies show different redshifts from their surrounding spirals! Galaxcy clusters show higher redshift for most of their members than for the central supergalaxy, where statistically they should be distributed around that of the central galaxy.Origin of life on Earth. One can never go back to check out the theories. Science can just show what could have happened, not what did happen. But there are very few mysteries left, and they are on the run.Consciousness. I cannot concieve how a neuron could be conscious. I also cannot see how a group of neurons could have the unity of my experience of consciousness. Also, where does the colour red exist when I look at a red object? Some sort of field theory of consciousness required?So maybe there are still areas where you can stick in your metaphysics, but please read up on the science first.Mike.

Citation or link? Maybe a new thread on this? It sounds like something Halton Arp would say.

Hi Coragyps, Yes, it is based on Halton Arp's research. You could refer to 'Seeing Red' by Arp, or 'A Different Approach to Cosmology' by Hoyle, Burbridge and Narlikar. There are many web sites - here are two:
http://www.members.aol.com/arpgalaxy
Halton Arp's official website
The latter is Arp's personal website.I don't think this is a topic for another forum, as it has nothing to do with Creationism or Evolution (but may be related to the age of the universe).Mike.

quote:

---

Consciousness. I cannot concieve how a neuron could be conscious. I also cannot see how a group of neurons could have the unity of my experience of consciousness. Also, where does the colour red exist when I look at a red object? Some sort of field theory of consciousness required?

​

So maybe there are still areas where you can stick in your metaphysics, but please read up on the science first.

---

A lot of Christians do, but personally it sounds like a God of the gaps to me. The mechanism may be unknown, but that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain seems to me to be the obvious conclusion from the effects physical and chemical actions on the brain can have on it.Personally, given that the Christian hope is in resurrection (with a new body and therefore new brain), not mere survival of death, I would have expected Christians to be perfectly happy with a physical source of consciousness, soul etc.[This message has been edited by Karl, 05-14-2003]

Yes, Karl, I agree. I am just suggesting some areas to Philip where there is still scope for metaphysics. But it is 'metaphysics of the gaps'. Philip is trying to fill gaps where they don't exist!I am an atheist and scientist, but I still feel there are some mysteries around for which science has no answers yet. And I hope it will always be that way. That, incidentally, is why I like Arp's ideas - they would open up whole new vistas for science to explore.
Mike.

quote:

---

Common sense discussions about light seem really common stupidity discussions. Every honest scientist would tell you both quantum theories on light and relativistic ones defy commnon (i.e., Newtonian) sense on the subject.

---

Newtonian physics is taught mainly in highschool and makes no real attempt at an explanation of light. I think you'll find, if you study a bit further, that it gets a wee bit more complicated and weird than the classical 19th century view of physics. I doubt that any 'common sense discussion' would result in any real understanding of light, the ideas are quite complex. Perhaps you should study a bit further.

Why are you preaching to the choir? I already have studied enough physics and chemistry on light, electromagnetic radiation, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc., (not to mention a personal post-graduate Associates of Applied sci. in EET) to know it's extremely complex beyond my doleful comprehension of it.Your and my (so-called) empirical comprehension of light may suit you (and others here). But it doesn't satisfy me to tell lies that such a partial (empricial) understanding of these light-issues is sufficient. Sure I believe in quantum theory and relativity to explain EFFECTS of light. But they do not explain its EXISTENCE.Nor can you or I explain what life would be like without light. Thus you and I are truly blind to what light really is. Give up the empirical pride, that you and I somehow really know light; you and I don't.You and I bathe in light every day and take it for granted, then we have the dogmatic audacity to say we know it. Like love and life we don't know light. Albeit we relish it, utilize it, and abase it by our sciences.Other examples:
1) Describe the outer-darkness-hell it would be without light.
2) Describe the beginning of the creation when all things were without form and void, as they were SANS light.
3) Describe how light really animates the world around us in chemicals, physics, and biology.
4) Tell me what a photon really is (besides a unit of light).
5) Describe color theory with all noteworthy beauty and excellency you and I blindly take for granted.
6) Describe something (anything) without light first being in your brain (electromagnetic waves), in your mind, psyche, body, soul, and/or strength.Light will always elude science, albeit science helps us dominate it. So lets be honest and confess/conclude:
1) Light is mind-boggling, a great and wonderful mystery to be explored and admired.
2) Light is a fearful excellency on all levels of reality. Light will never be quenched up into puny men's meager understandings despite their puny science degrees.
3) Never trust a scientist who states we can know light just because we know a small fraction of its curious effects.
4) Scientific speculations concerning light (and time), no matter how empirically dogmatic, will never give a true glimpse of its existential meaning in cosmology.
5) Metaphysical inquiry is mandatory.
6) Studying light further and further to explain it, is just vanity and vexation, pointless and useless, and STILL "makes no real attempt at an explanation of light" (your own words).

It just sounds like you're asking "can we know light in it's true light-ness?" Which begs the question if it is even possible to truly know the essence of something in it's self-ness. I doubt it is so I don't find your questions very fruitful.I can come up with models to explain the data from my senses but I can't ever experience reality devoid of the filter of perception. So why bother referring to the basic self-ness of anything? Doubtless there's better philosophy to explain what I'm talking about, but maybe I'm coming through with this anyway.

quote:

---

But they do not explain its EXISTENCE.

---

Assuming you means something metaphysical, of course not. Science doesn't even try. One can describe the generation of light, though. Uranium makes light all the time. It isn't visible to us, but is light nonetheless.

quote:

---

1) Describe the outer-darkness-hell it would be without light.

---

Assuming that something could live in a universe without radiation, that something wouldn't know it was missing.

quote:

---

2) Describe the beginning of the creation when all things were without form and void, as they were SANS light.

---

I can describe it just as you did. And the explaination will be just as vacuous. What is the point?

quote:

---

3) Describe how light really animates the world around us in chemicals, physics, and biology.

---

Define 'really.' I ask that because you must know basics of radiation, and apparently feel this is inadequate.

quote:

---

4) Tell me what a photon really is (besides a unit of light).

---

Shorthand for a set of observations.

quote:

---

5) Describe color theory with all noteworthy beauty and excellency you and I blindly take for granted.

---

Why?

quote:

---

6) Describe something (anything) without light first being in your brain (electromagnetic waves), in your mind, psyche, body, soul, and/or strength.

---

So... describe something without using your brain to do it? Lol...

quote:

---

Light will always elude science

---

You know this how? My crystal ball ain't so crystal clear. Can you tell me where you purchased yours, so that I may get one too?1) Yes. And?
2) What is fearful about light?
3) I wouldn't trust a scientist who said this about anything.
4) I have a feeling you've defined 'really' so as to make this impossible.
5) Yes. And?
6) Study is useless? Maybe you want to rethink that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Are you trying to say that our present inability to develop a complete understanding of light means that light therefore has some supernatural secret? Sounds a bit loopy to me.

Seems to me you've all (deliberately and willfully) oversimplified your appreciation of light issues.You may excuse yourselves in this matter but that does not make your dogmatic speculations valid.Of course I'm saying light has some supernatural secret and will be never understood by puny liars like you and I. Quit playing like you even have a 1% understanding of light with its field effects, etc. You don't. No one does.Professing to be wise methinks we've become fools.[This message has been edited by Philip, 05-29-2003]

Philip, your declaration of ignorance appears well placed. Your resorting to "supernatural" factors when the limits of your knowledge are exceeded is disingenuous. Perhaps you should accept that a number of people know and understand much more about the nature of light than you do and there has been no resort to calling in god or supernatural forces to increase understanding of the nature of light.