"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." — Hunter S. Thompson
I was trying to promote the premise it does not matter where a statement comes from, as long as it is scientifically debatable in a science thread. If, for example, one limits a scientific theory such as the universe is finite being unacceptable because it is from a document seen as a theology, then we have a one sided view of science. Consider that in a theological discussion someone mentions the first recording of Mount Ararat or Mount Nebo - and it is rejected as not theological but geographical; consider if one mentions the Philistines and it is rejected because it is not theological but historical? Is this not happening here when one argues Light as the first property emerging in the universe, and gives scientific reasoning why this is so, and how this is in fact backed by major science conclusions today?
I am not interested in theology; however if someone makes a statement from a theological document, and proves itself as viable today in scientific, historical and logical reasoning, I will accept it - whether it comes from Buddhism, Islam, Gospels or any other source. I have not witnessed such in most theologies other than in Genesis and I have looked for such alignments. Yet I also understand the monitor's problem here: theologies bind its followers in a straight jacket and a sane discussion is not feasible; and this also applies to non-theologists who deny blatant factual scientific recordings, such as the first record of species and evolution is in Genesis. Ultimately, we have to confront such denials and concur - because they are not deniable.
Light can be reasoned as the first product in the universe. Consider that the age of the universe is measured by light, such as the residual radiation speed derived time period; this says the universe is some 14B years; and that subsequently says light is the first product. Consider that light can be produced by stars and an AA torch battery, but these actions could not produce light if light was not already existing as a precedent factor per se. Consider that the BBT displays a BANG/EXPLOSION as the first action - this also says light was the first product, because no stars, radiation or torch batteries yet existed.
That this statement is first recorded in Genesis does not negate its value. Here is a link which is backed by the world's greatest scientists which denies a random universe, pre- and parallel universes [because that would violate this universe's finite factor], and that the universe appears a result of scientific step by step anticipatory laws and actions which result in specific products - this is also what is stated in Genesis, namely that life emerged after such specific anticipatory actions which cater only to forthcoming life: this can thus be seen as the proto-thesis of science. Check it out - this aligns only with Creationism, namely that the universe is the result of a universe maker - read, not by evolution:
This is an abuse of the proof criteria; however all descriptions of the BBT use the term BANG and EXPLOSION, which infers only a flash of light before any other result; namely because light has a transcendent velosity and will be seen/percieved before any other factor. Note:
The Big Bang model, or theory, is the prevailing cosmological theory of the early development of the universe. The theory purports to explain some of the earliest events in the universe. According to the theory, the universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly (a "Big Bang"). As there is little consensus among physicists about the origins of the universe, the Big Bang theory explains only that such a rapid expansion caused the young universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state. According to recent measurements, the original state of the universe existed around 13.7 billion years ago (see age of the Universe), to which some physicists refer as the time that the Big Bang occurred. Physicists have attempted to establish the theory's validity through scientific evidence and observations.
Georges Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe; he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom".
The last sentence, a 'primeval atom' is what I see as a scientific glitch - it is not possible to effect a result based on a singular atom [as in an indivisible and irreducible atom]. A singular atom can have numerous internal components, such as electrons, quarks, bison particles; these can harbour a directive program as in a mobile phone chip; this says subsequently that there are also no external factors at this point [e.g. evolution]. In fact, there is no 'ONE' in the universe; 'ONE' of itself cannot produce an action. This leaves no other alternative to an independent, precedent and transcendent force responsible for the universe, and this applies from a scientific, not a theological, premise. Genesis appears correct that light is the first product, and is backed by state of art science today.
quote:IamJoseph writes: Consider that the age of the universe is measured by light, such as the residual radiation speed derived time period
Do you consider all electromagnetic radiation to be light?
The issue of electricity and magnetic forms of energy are later derivitive factors; namely these are effects of actions measurable. The magnetic & electric forces depend on mass drag and interactions of later existing products, similar to the force of gravity which depends on mass [stars] acting in a mode [rotation drag] which causes fords and dips in space. So yes, I see light as precedent of these factors. Light is produced by numerous interactions. For sure, light prevailed at the beginning point - prior to the products mentioned.
Why is it an issue that light was the first primordial product? If we nominate forces instead, then light would not be existing unless those forces had other products to interact with - but this will negate any notion of a first atom; as well it will render an effect preceding the cause!
This is an abuse of the proof criteria; however all descriptions of the BBT use the term BANG and EXPLOSION, which infers only a flash of light before any other result; namely because light has a transcendent velosity and will be seen/percieved before any other factor.
Why make claims about what the BBT implies? Why not read what it actually says? So ... please provide a link to a source that says that the BBT involves an explosion.
After all, an explosion is a burst and the first product which is percieved here is the one which can travel fastest. In fact, one cannot percieve anything, not even radiation or explosions, without light per se being already an existing phenomenon.