Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8936 total)
31 online now:
AZPaul3, ringo (2 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,637 Year: 16,673/19,786 Month: 798/2,598 Week: 44/251 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 134 of 170 (675227)
10-09-2012 5:34 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-09-2012 4:48 AM


YES or NO
In an attempt to stop you from posting endless incomprehensible bullshit, I shall put this in the form of a yes-or-no question.

According to your ideas about time, it seems that it is "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that a big bang happened approximately thirteen billion years ago.

According to your ideas, is it also "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that I ate a hotdog last Wednesday?

This is a YES-or-NO question, and I would like you to answer it as such. I would be willing to wager a small sum that you won't, 'cos you're such a bullshitter, but it is after all a YES-or-NO question, so if you are still clinging to a shred of intellectual honesty, you will answer it YES or NO.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 4:48 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 146 of 170 (675287)
10-09-2012 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-09-2012 6:13 PM


Re: Thanks for your input...
What does it mean exactly - light of millennia past?

What does it mean exactly --- the hotdog that I ate last Wednesday?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 6:13 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-10-2012 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 152 of 170 (675304)
10-10-2012 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-10-2012 8:54 AM


Re: Thanks for your input...
Inadequate, your attempts at defensive humour are pathetic. Go treat your snide self to another dog.

Apparently humor is one more thing you don't know about. I shall not even speculate as to how the adjective "defensive" got attached to the noun.

There is no humor intended. I have asked you a serious question, which so far you have evaded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-10-2012 8:54 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 155 of 170 (675325)
10-10-2012 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Percy
10-10-2012 9:24 AM


Re: On behalf of all participants in this thread...
...I'd like to ask that anyone receiving a cryptic or evasive response could nonetheless reply constructively, perhaps with further clarification or whatever else might help the discussion move forward?

Well, what would help the discussion move forward would be for him to answer my question. I can't do that for him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Percy, posted 10-10-2012 9:24 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-10-2012 12:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded
 Message 159 by NoNukes, posted 10-10-2012 12:33 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 156 of 170 (675326)
10-10-2012 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-10-2012 11:24 AM


Re: Evidence
No, Coy, you don't get it. Claims for both the Bunk to have occurred and leprechauns to have existed fail on the conceptual level first and the Bunk's failure is far more dismal than that of leprechauns. That is because the leprechauns' hypothesis proposes hypothetical objects hiding pots of gold which are quite conceivable objects whereas the bang concept operates with the idea of space expanding into itself which is a more twisted proposal impossible to visualise or conceptualise in any way, shape or form.

If it is impossible to conceptualize in any way, how is it that all those physicists manage to conceptualize it?

It may be true that you personally find it impossible to understand, but this disability is far from being universal, and the nature of the cosmos is fortunately not limited by by the deficiencies of your intelligence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-10-2012 11:24 AM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-10-2012 12:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 158 of 170 (675330)
10-10-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Percy
10-10-2012 12:08 PM


Re: On behalf of all participants in this thread...
Sure. My question again.

In an attempt to stop you from posting endless incomprehensible bullshit, I shall put this in the form of a yes-or-no question.

According to your ideas about time, it seems that it is "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that a big bang happened approximately thirteen billion years ago.

According to your ideas, is it also "physically impossible in principle" to correctly assert that I ate a hotdog last Wednesday?

But I don't think that repeating it really moves the discussion forward, it's more like jogging on the spot.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Percy, posted 10-10-2012 12:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16099
Joined: 07-20-2006


(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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019