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

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.

...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?--Percy

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. The idea could be taken on faith only and therefore any evidence suggested for its physical reality is to be treated with an expanding grain of salt.

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

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.

I think a more direct approach to moving the discussion forward would be to repeat your question, perhaps at greater length since Al may have ignored it because he failed to grasp its significance or relevance.--Percy

Sure. My question again. 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.

Evasion and gibberish is an answer to your question. What you are looking for is some sort of admission from AM that you are right. I don't think it is reasonable to expect that.

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.

Your argument pretty much boils down to: "fuck science, math, physics and all your fancy numbers."As a comedian, I thank you for that.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Sorry, Nuke, Inadequate's question was loaded with suggestion that the Big Bunk creation event of 20th century scholastics was as factual as his consuming a hot dog last Wednesday. The feline can ask loaded questions too. One of these events is impossible, which one do you think that is?

Yes there is. The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old, therefore there has been accelerated radioactive decay.You seem to have arrived at your conclusion in advance of the facts.

Hi Al,It takes two to tango. Since this digression onto the Big Bang is becoming much more lengthy than it could have been, it is probably best to drop the topic. The topic of this thread is whether light might have had different properties in the past than it does today.Since most of what I seem to be doing in this thread is seeking clarification and suggesting that people focus on the topic, I'm switching to my moderator role.