What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?

Sorry, bigbangism is metaphysics so has nothing to do with any evidence. Such issues are examined on conceptual merits first and only after passing that test any evidence may become relevant. Otherwise, this whole evidence worship is modern idiocy. The feeling is that everybody is eager and ready to believe any nonsense as long as they heard that there was some evidence voted to be reliable by some reputable majority.
They say: we don't believe your proposition not because it is a clear contradiction in terms - that is fine by us- we don't believe it because we never heard there was any evidence for it. Just give us some evidence and we'll gladly join your faith.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

What aspect of the Big Bang theory is a contradiction in terms?(This might be too off-topic, if so I will stop discussing it.)

Well, the topic is whether light could have had different properties in the past. I examine the hidden contradiction in the question itself. It could be met with another question. Which past exactly? Light comes from every relative direction. Time is a measure of distance and distances have different directions so the assumption that it is one and the same past all light is coming from is a contradiction here.

How about we nail the the term "past" down to mean six to ten thousand years ago as measured from any place in the Middle East that you care to name. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Speak for yourself, Nuke and suit yourself. If you want to stick to linear universal calendar, you might as well do that. Then Bible, Friedman, Lemaitre and Guth will help you with the choice of magnitudes. If you don't want that, then we can discuss relativity of simultaneity. Otherwise, light coming pretty much the same from every past may strongly indicate it's constant everywhere and when.

For god sake I hope this is only an analogy! Please tell me you didn't actually eat a disgusting hotdog?! Have almonds in your analogy instead, they are better source of nutrition. We should all be trying to promote a healthier lifestyle.- Oni

Finally we manage to get an on topic, fairly gibberish-free response from you. Nice one.

Well, I might have used some other threads just to remind you folks that a very strong rational opposition to the currently assumed bigbangist wisdom in cosmetology does indeed exist, but the present topic has not been one of such occasions.
Here, all I did was investigate the very meaning of the question posed. What does it mean exactly - light of millennia past? Unlike the Universe which takes no plural by definition, cosmologically past should take no singular. Time and its direction is a strictly local measure relative to the local frame of reference and each of it spatial planes. Any instant of it is simultaneous with a particular relative location only, so to speak. If light is the only a constant standard of measure, then that should hold on ordinary scales too. Mary five meter to the left of you and John five meter to the right are both in your relative past. Is that exactly the same past the three of you should agree on? The cat thinks not. In that case, of course, the reciprocal delay is infinitesimal, yet the effect must exist necessarily. Negligible for all practical intents and purposes. In day to day affairs perfect simultaneity with one's neighbours is taken for granted without a second thought. Not so for the intents and purposes of physics though. The discrepancy grows as a function of distance and on the intergalactic scales lets itself be known in no uncertain terms. Thank you.

If you really believe this then this isn't the website for you. This is from the Forum Guidelines:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

But a discussion about how one supports positions if not with evidence would be fascinating, and if you propose such a thread over at Proposed New Topics then in my moderator role I'll give it a look as soon as I can.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix typo.

It is, eh?Well, if you don't like evidence I suppose then you rely on magic, superstition, wishful thinking, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, Ouija boards, anecdotes, Da Vinci codes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, primitive calendars, sore bunions, black cats, divine revelation, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, ancient tribal myths, numerology, divination, faith healing, miracles, palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, magic tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo and all that other weird stuff?Thanks, I'll stick to evidence.

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

From what I know about QED you can fit in a thimble. I understand when you take the electric charge to be anything other than the bare (charge in the absence of interaction) you are suggesting a scale of interaction. In the case of applying the renormalization recipe to electric charge, you are inferring a change of scale. In high-energy situations, very short scales are relevant. You again can avoid those nasty infinities by asserting renormalization. I can barely say it removing infinities by subtracting themouch!In essence, the renormalized calculation becomes a function of the original bare values after applying a large momentum cutoff, the relationship is then inverted between the bare values and the renormalized ones. In case of electric charge, the expression parameter becomes the renormalized constant for electric charge.None of this would matter except to say that there is a real constant of the electron charge and it becomes a fundamental parameter to renormalized charge. I thought it would be helpful to explain it in this way to promote a later point.Situation Quantum Gravity is in the gravest of circumstances. There comes a nock at the door; who could this be, a savior of kind? Alas, it is only renormalization and all is lost.Zaius137 What is not in QED or QFT? What? Alpha radiation is uniquely dependent on the depth of that potential energy barrier (strong nuclear force). Lower that barrier and the probability of tunneling goes up. Try reading my citation, which covers the points I am defending.

quote:

---

Quantum mechanical calculations are presented giving the decay constant for α-decay and its variation with depth of the nuclear potential well. http://www.icr.org/...d-Decay-Theoretical-Considerations.pdf

---

quote:

---

Reasons will be given why the weak interaction coupling constant may also have changed, but not as much as the strong coupling constant. http://www.icr.org/...d-Decay-Theoretical-Considerations.pdf

---

By the way, I am not talking about altering the weak force to any great degree. I do not need to alter the carbon 14 process simply because that after a few thousand years it is completely inaccurate unless recalibrated by known dates. I must again refer you to the citation.. Maybe I am getting too picky here but you claimed it was a fundamental constant not a fundamental parameter. The definition is not equivalent in mathematics or physics. Refer to my opening argument. This is simply not true about the giant gas cloud collapsing and heating to the point of nuclear fusion. Since James H. Jeans first examined the event, it has failed adequate explanation. Computer simulations can only simulate the event with parameters that are far from reality. You can suppose all kinds of shock waive scenarios from super Nova but try to claim those in the first star formations. The problem lays in the Ideal gas law. Take anything to the extreme and you will produce extreme results. Those are not the positions of the Creationist. There obviously lay a discreet cutoff to variations of the weak force that will no longer permit fusion.

Maybe not a contradiction in terms except it was not a Bang Here are some regurgitated problems Where would you start?Horizon problem for CMB
Flatness problem
Where is all the Antimatter?
Energy polarization of Quasars
Quantized Red shifts
Type III stars are missing in early universe
Metals and heavy elements are far too abundant in early universe
Galaxy evolution does not match predictions.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy are not directly observable
Microwave anisotropy lacks predicted Quadrupoles
BB Inflation near or exceeding speed of light (Special Relativity objections)
The Higgs Boson does not impart mass to most of ordinary matter or black holes.
CMB fails the shadow test for background radiation
Expansion of the universe seems to have a general orientation of galaxies and implies a universe center. (Cosmological Principle is wrong).
Computational models applying Jeans length have failed to produce the more massive stars, which are more numerous than our sun.Delayed stellar synthesis from new Vacuum energy addition (inflation on Jean’s diameter)Just for shock effect. KABLAM

What is your actual objection here? Yes, where "completely inaccurate" means 'requires a 20% correction for dates up to 24000 years in the past'. Let's also remember that carbon dating is useless beyond about 50,000 years in the past, and is not used for such dates.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This list would have only a remote connection to anything in this thread, but it would be fair to note that the list contains things discussed in other threads. I would ordinarily suggest starting a thread, but in this case, such a suggestion would require pretending that you had not already received answers for many of these questions from Son Goku (See Message 60) "Every single one of your objections is false:" and others. It would also require disregarding that you gave a rather poor account of yourself when you were challenged to defend other points on this list.