You seem to be getting frustrated, so I suggest taking a break from replying to IamJoseph. No-one will think less of you for not wanting to roll around with IamJoseph in his incoherent pit of ignorance, superstition and madness. Trying to pull meaning out of his paralogical spaghetti is a pointless task.
(I wonder how many people will have to criticise his language skills before he realises that he may have a problem...)
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.
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.
If it is a first product, it cannot be described by aligning it with other products: those never yet existed. One cannot speak of light or lemons here - these never existed yet - else you violate the finite factor of this universe. Is the message getting through at all!?
You forgot to mention jelly is also ageless and massless and how scientists measure light by it.
All we did was change your word 'light' to our word 'jelly' and repeat exactly you said. Do you not find it strange that you cannot actually argue against what we are writing? Instead you have to resort to ridicule.
Why not argue against our statements? Show them to be less evidenced than your statements - go on, I dare you. I bet you cannot.
Which is the first recording dealing with a finite universe? Which is the first recording Light was the first product in the universe? Which is the first recording which introduced the DAY & WEEK? Which is the first recording of life form groupings by category?
What is the creation science theory of the origin of light?