Issues of light

Have you considered the possibility that the universe is finite but unbounded? This particular point of view is one proposed by and, I believe, still by defended Stephen Hawking.>
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com[This message has been edited by John, 04-19-2003]

quote:

---

Hey isn't stephen hawkings wife a christian now?

---

I don't know for sure but I think she always has been.

quote:

---

Interesting that his own wife isn't onside with him.

---

Yeah, she went and made up her own mind. Don't you hate that?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Can you, please, elaborate on this? What is meant by "unbounded"?

---

"Unbounded" meaning "no edges", like the surface of a sphere-- finite but there are no edges.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

But they do not explain its EXISTENCE.

---

Assuming you means something metaphysical, of course not. Science doesn't even try. One can describe the generation of light, though. Uranium makes light all the time. It isn't visible to us, but is light nonetheless.

quote:

---

1) Describe the outer-darkness-hell it would be without light.

---

Assuming that something could live in a universe without radiation, that something wouldn't know it was missing.

quote:

---

2) Describe the beginning of the creation when all things were without form and void, as they were SANS light.

---

I can describe it just as you did. And the explaination will be just as vacuous. What is the point?

quote:

---

3) Describe how light really animates the world around us in chemicals, physics, and biology.

---

Define 'really.' I ask that because you must know basics of radiation, and apparently feel this is inadequate.

quote:

---

4) Tell me what a photon really is (besides a unit of light).

---

Shorthand for a set of observations.

quote:

---

5) Describe color theory with all noteworthy beauty and excellency you and I blindly take for granted.

---

Why?

quote:

---

6) Describe something (anything) without light first being in your brain (electromagnetic waves), in your mind, psyche, body, soul, and/or strength.

---

So... describe something without using your brain to do it? Lol...

quote:

---

Light will always elude science

---

You know this how? My crystal ball ain't so crystal clear. Can you tell me where you purchased yours, so that I may get one too?1) Yes. And?
2) What is fearful about light?
3) I wouldn't trust a scientist who said this about anything.
4) I have a feeling you've defined 'really' so as to make this impossible.
5) Yes. And?
6) Study is useless? Maybe you want to rethink that.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

What do you speculate? 1%, 1.5%, peradventure 2%.

---

I'd guess far higher than that-- say, 80%. Light just isn't that mysterious. I say that I'd guess, however, because there is no way to actually figure out what percentage we know right now, without knowing what constitutes 100% knowledge of light. You can't decide how many people in a room are single unless you know how many people are in the room, right?

quote:

---

Thus, this shere magnitude and quality of men's knowledge of light (miniscule as it is) nonfallaciously proves (to me) that the supernatural ID is inherent per se.

---

Why light? There are things we know a lot less about. Why not say the supernatural ID is inherent in neutrinos? Perchance because the Bible doesn't say, "I am the way, the truth, and the neutrinos."?

quote:

---

On the other hand, for me limit Christ to a mere quantum state of the so-called particle and/or wavelength nature of light would be fallacious.

---

You think Christ is literally light-- physical light?------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

This is what Schroeder is doing. He sends out an imaginary signal (say each second) and during this time, the universe is expanding, so the signal has further to travel.

---

This looks squirrelly ( hmmm... ispell says that is spelled correctly. ) to me. What you are actually talking about is 6½ days equalling 15 billion minus 6000 years, yes? In other words, this expansion stopped a few thousand years ago.Ok. Problems:1) This rapid expansion stopped a few thousand years ago-- our perspective. There is no mechanism other than divine intervention. Why did it stop, and what drove the expansion to start with?2) The 6½ days is God's time, yes? For us this looks like 15 billion years? Well, you have... ... on the third day. Relatively speaking, this would put complex life on Earth a couple of billion years before the Earth formed. The third day God's time would be about six or seven billion years ago from our perspective; and from our perspective the Earth is only about five billion years old. Life didn't pop up for another couple of billion, and complex plant life didn't arrive until 500 million years ago or so.3) Expansion at this rate would overtake gravity. Things like stars and planets wouldn't form-- the molecules would be pulled apart faster than they could coalesce.4) As I understand it, expansion doesn't alter the speed of light, it stretches the wavelength. We couldn't miss that effect. It would not look like a slow expansion.That's my off-the-top-of-my head list. I'm sure others have better things to contribute.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com