Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
539 online now:
DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 536 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,808 Year: 21,844/19,786 Month: 407/1,834 Week: 407/315 Day: 3/82 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 196 of 297 (626694)
07-30-2011 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Panda
07-30-2011 10:37 PM


quote:
How are they problematic?
The specific issue is your poor grasp of English.

Its not specific at all. Which part?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 10:37 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 11:49 PM IamJoseph has responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 197 of 297 (626706)
07-30-2011 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by IamJoseph
07-30-2011 10:49 PM


IamJoseph writes:

Its not specific at all. Which part?


All of it.
quote:
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!


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2011 10:49 PM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:19 AM Panda has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 198 of 297 (626712)
07-31-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Panda
07-30-2011 11:49 PM


quote:
All of it.

Now that'swhat I call specifically non-specific. If you understand my english.

quote:

The issue of electricity and magnetic forms of energy are later derivitive factors; namely these are effects of actions measurable.

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:

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.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Panda, posted 07-30-2011 11:49 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 12:27 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 199 of 297 (626715)
07-31-2011 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 12:19 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 12:19 AM IamJoseph has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12653
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 200 of 297 (626743)
07-31-2011 6:20 AM


Moderator Comment
Hello Everyone!

If I understand him correctly, IamJoseph makes these points in Message 185 and previous posts:

  1. His views are consistent with science.

  2. Light came into existence before anything else in the universe.

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.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 9:31 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 203 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2011 10:02 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 204 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:07 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2049 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 201 of 297 (626765)
07-31-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Admin
07-31-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
Admin writes:

Science postulates a quark soup at the beginning, and certainly electromagnetic radiation would have been part of that soup.


Which I think IamJ addressed with:

IamJospeph writes:

The issue of electricity and magnetic forms of energy are later derivitive factors;


*scratches head*
*gives up and walks away*

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 6:20 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:02 AM Panda has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 202 of 297 (626771)
07-31-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Panda
07-31-2011 9:31 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
quote:
Science postulates a quark soup at the beginning, and certainly electromagnetic radiation would have been part of that soup.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Panda, posted 07-31-2011 9:31 AM Panda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2011 10:08 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 203 of 297 (626772)
07-31-2011 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Admin
07-31-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 6:20 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:12 AM cavediver has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 204 of 297 (626774)
07-31-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Admin
07-31-2011 6:20 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Admin, posted 07-31-2011 6:20 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 205 of 297 (626775)
07-31-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 10:02 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:02 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:16 AM cavediver has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 206 of 297 (626778)
07-31-2011 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by cavediver
07-31-2011 10:02 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2011 10:02 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2011 10:20 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 207 of 297 (626780)
07-31-2011 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by cavediver
07-31-2011 10:08 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2011 10:08 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2011 10:25 AM IamJoseph has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 208 of 297 (626783)
07-31-2011 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 10:12 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:12 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 5:48 PM cavediver has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1979 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 209 of 297 (626785)
07-31-2011 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by IamJoseph
07-31-2011 10:16 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 10:16 AM IamJoseph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2011 5:41 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 210 of 297 (626865)
07-31-2011 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by cavediver
07-31-2011 10:25 AM


Re: Moderator Comment
quote:
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.


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 of
the distance.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by cavediver, posted 07-31-2011 10:25 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019