Issues of light

I respond to you because you seem fairly coherent in discussing relativistic issues of light at least. You or anyone are welcome to rebut/respond-to the following. Note: To you all that profess yourselves to be wise: Realize these are wild speculations (like yours). Also, please excuse any crudeness of language. (I find every one of you crude in language, too)(YECs like myself desperately do attempt to support the Biblical framework without violating science. Metaphysically, a YEC-God is hypothesized if only because that type of God seems to consistently answer his/her prayer(s), provide a reason for this scientific madness, and/or be consistent with prophecy, promises of redemption, etc., etc.).The following "what-ifs" come to mind (pick one or two):What if most (honest) YECs do indeed "desperately" try to speculate relativistic schemes to fit their 6-day hypotheses? As for myself I do desperately speculate several scenarios: e.g., that orbital clocks may be dilated to accommodate eons of radiometric clocks in days 1, 2, and possibly 3 and/or 4 of Genesis. What if this YECs speculation is (desperately) based on complex Newtonian, Relativistic, and/or Quantum theories of light?What if I speculate that higher elements (e.g., Cesium, Argon, etc. (and their isotopes) were created by day 1 (i.e., and not later by supernovas). What if God did stretch them out in His Mind, possibly BEFORE He stated "let there be light" and/or again on the second day. (That is Day 2 is the stretching out of the firmament/heaven) Might I thus apologize for my suspicions concerning Genesis?What if gravity and light are inextricably bound in a viable field theory as Einstein may have eluded to? In other words, what if gravity goes far beyond our Newtonian concepts, i.e., into quantum-like and/or relativistic-like concepts of light? Do we really understand and know gravity enough to handwave it out of our light theories?What if you, Einstein, and I really have clue to what light really is? Should I profess myself to be wise (in any wise) about issues of light and time?What if the earth's (and other planets) higher elements were captured ad-hoc by God say on the 3rd day of creation. Then their radiometric clocks could be different from the earth's orbital clock of "evening and morning".What if the Ancient of Days spoke time into His creation? Would that make God an OEC and a YEC? Methinks, that is plausible.What if the big bang/creation was galaxy-centric, geo-centric, and/or centered about the sun? What would be the implications (if any) on light and time as we SEEM to know it?What if light was different on the 1st vs. 4th day of Creation as scriptures do seem to indicate? In other words, what if light was changed in its quantum, Newtonian, and/or relativistic properties once the sun moon and stars were formed? Would this not both violate and support our present theories?What if radiometric time went on and on while as yet orbits of time were not yet formed? From God's view an evening and morning of time may account for eons, i.e., without His conceiving or creating time beyond an "evening and morning"/day.What if most scientists coolly (in a non-desperate hypothetical manner) deal with light as a strictly materialistic phenomenon? Did these puny mortals really crack the case concerning the mystery of light? Should we trust what millions of scientists have accumulated over the years as the Gospel truth of light?What if a Gospel truth of light eludes brilliant scientists, who while professing themselves to be wise have really become fools in this matter? Take proud old dead Einstein, for example. What relativistic revelations of his could possibly be worth a rat’s ass to anyone trying to find hope in a Gospel of redemption, that is What if light really is Christ, even in some sort of a pantheistic manner, perhaps?What if light were taken out of the creation: e.g., outer-darkness. What a hell of waste and void there would be, no? Where would our Newtonian and/or evolutionary concepts be then?Many other what-ifs will always deride Evos and YECs alike, especially concerning light. ThusWhat if one dogmatically speculates that we are ALL desperate fools concerning issues of light and radiometric time? Your scientific evidences and mine seem scanty, based on minimal unacceptable (black box) data. What vanity and vexation, then remains in this discourse.Whose foremost speculations on light should I really confide in as a working hypothesis: Biblical YEC, OEC, theistic-ToE, or atheistic-ToE? Methinks, the issue of light is a profound mystery, as profound as it gets, and thus never should be dogmatically abused by Evos and Creationists in radiometric dating.Methinks it behooves us to remove much of our radiometric dating and stellar dating from our scientific texts.

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.

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).

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]

What, someone out there knows more than 1% of what there is to know about light? Perhaps all the books written about light may amount to almost 1% of what there is to know?What do you speculate? 1%, 1.5%, peradventure 2%.Don't get me wrong, men may collectively hold perhaps even billions of speculations in the literature concerning light, optics, field theories, quantum theory, and relativity, and information concerning light in atomic, subatomic, microscopic, astronomical, and cosmogenic studies, to say the least.Thus, this shere magnitude and quality of men's knowledge of light (miniscule as it is) nonfallaciously proves (to me) that the supernatural ID is inherent per se.On the other hand, for me limit Christ to a mere quantum state of the so-called particle and/or wavelength nature of light would be fallacious. (Sorry if I'm perhaps a bit redundant here)

Gee Karl,Haven't we circled with this G-O-G Evo-logic a thousand times before? That metaphysical accusation plagues Evo's thousands of times over YECs and you know it.I've got ONE G-O-G fallacy (e.g., "in the beginning God") and you've got at least a billion G-O-G fallacies in the supposed stellar formation(s) of higher elements and hopeful (yet impossible) raw (e.g., chromosomal) mutations.What compulsively histerical nonsense! It's like we don't even want to appreciate the exceedingly excellency of light in the arts and sciences. Why don't I just gouge my eyes out and be blind to light's extensive excellencies?Instead, don't you think we false-scientists might jump the mega-ToE ship for a minute. Open my eyes in awesome-wonder (AKA mind-boggling appreciation) concerning these complex issues of light?Scientific folks, please stop hand-waving these elusive issues of light. Retract your deluded oversimplified dogmatic speculations and hypotheses. Conclude that it's a great mystery worthy of our deepest metaphysical and scientific inquiry. Thank you?Blessings and utmost illumination unto you all,Philip