|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4421 days) Posts: 415 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the creation science theory of the origin of light? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Its not specific at all. Which part?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Now that'swhat I call specifically non-specific. If you understand my english.
quote: So you say these forces prevailed at the BBT? Was gravity prevailing before any mass existed? If not, then these forces were obviously later derivitives, no?
quote: You reject that gavity is the result of drag, an effect of mass spinage? Is it not similar to a car wheel spitting firey flecks on a ground, or electricity derived from similar drag movements, or fire from flint drag?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: A soup? That does not sound like a start-up atom or singular product. Basically, anything, not just the EM force, can fit into that vague term 'soup' - it is hardly a scientific response. The fact is that light would be the first identifiable product by virtue of its transcendent velocity. And we don't measure the universe's age by any forces but exclusively by residual cosmic radiation [a form of light], which is accounted by blue shift. Genesis has really performed excellently here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I watched a documentary today which explored the possibility of an infinite universe. It postulated this would mean there are infinite universes and infinite versions of everything contained in the universe - even infinite number of Elvis'. It became bizarre and the interviewed scientists look somewhat embarrassed stating their scenario. However in the modst of the discussions, they showed how the universe is measured, and this was concluded as light being the first emmission. This aligns with Genesis being the first recording of the universe's primordial product. This makes segments of Genesis state of art science. My point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Quantumn only works with multiple, countless particles. It contradicts the premise of a first BANG. Quarks may be the smallest item known at this juncture of science only. We may yet discover a whole universe behind quarks, which has already happened partially. The closure stands with light as the only measurement of both the universe's age and its first identifiable product. I see no credible counter to it, so why fantasize?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
You are not in good scientist company here. If you could look at the BB occuring - you would first see a light. If you examine the speed of light, you can work out the age of the universe: that is how the 14B figure is arrived at.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: While that is to be respected, IMHO you have some glitches, specially in light being the true factor able to measure the universe age, thus the first universal product. Denying science because one appears to not acknowledge anything in Genesis as scientifically vindicated is in fact an unscientific disposition. It also shows poor math and physics: If we know the average luminosity of a star and its apparent brightness, we can calculate the distance to the star and thus its true brightness since brightness decreases as the square ofthe distance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: QM is the expected probability factor of a mechanism of actions. The BBT relies on one action.
quote: That goes against your own disputation: you are also saying that photons [light particle] being smaller 'predate' quarks. My point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: 'Visible' light is open to many variant scenarios. Some life forms see light when we do not; this is limited to the structure of the eye mechanism itself. I refer only to light per se. Here, the subject's abilities must not be factored in.
quote: Yes. Basically, Genesis is saying, which I fully agree with as a logical process, is that at one time there were no laws or science - evidenced by the stars and planets, as well as gases and complex products also never existed at one time; this is vindicated by the fact the universe itself never existed at one time, thus the laws which allowed it to happen, and its products, also never existed at one time. This demands the question at what point did the laws usher in; this unique question is answered only in Genesis V 2, namely pointing to the event when science itself emerged. Since stars never existed at one time while the universe did, it stands to reason that the laws which allowed stars to happen never existed, then they existed, by virtue of the first star estimated as 400K years after BB point. This vindicates the Genesis provision that at one tme the universe existed, but it did not contain any identifiable products and was a mush/void [everything was one material; nothing was a separate individual product]. Thereafter, an array of products are listed as examples, in a cherent, patterned and imacting order: Light [unversal impact]; day/night ratio [of our solar system impacts]; water separation from land [of our earthly impacts]. These appear fundamental factors for the emergence of the universal products, earthly products and of life itself on this planet, via anticipatory requirement and evidenced protocols; life would not happen without any of those factors and without those exacting protocols. Whether one agrees or disagrees has no impact on this being a coherent scientific explanation. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I honestly cannot fathom what is confusing here. Obviously, it refers to what will be the first image/entity confronted if the BB point was approached or seen. It does not have to be a human 'seeing' - its only meant to be metaphorical and a means to prove what the first product in the universe was. I believe this is light, which emerged from a whole of matter, and thereafter other products also emerged out of that matter. Here, light is one of the first emerging products separated from the whole. Nothing else makes sense how it must have happened, and yes I got this from giving Genesis serious thought.
quote: I don't believe one can define light by its properties, any better than say a human can be determined by listing properties. There are many variant descriptions what light per se is, aligning this with heat and energy. So whatever one defines as light may not align with a process of current knowledge. My own personal view/conjecture is that light is independent of energy and heat, predating these, but becoming active when heat and energy is combined in a certain mode. I also see photons as a later development and perhaps being aligned with luminosity [vision friendly light]. However, these are only personal summations. I see problems associating energy and heat as the producer of light and all things in the universe.
quote: The notion of building and knowledge are also post-uni products; these never existed at one time. Finite means absolutely finite. Now we're getting warmer.
quote: By products I mean identifiable, separate and independent items which emerged from the lawless matter [the mush]. Thus light is the first separated product and the first law-based one out of the lawless mush. This is what Genesis is saying, and whether one agrees or not this happened, it is a scientific premise and it could have happened that way.
quote: Yes I can, but I do not wish to press the issue with any theological stuff. Everyone is aware Genesis V2 says everything was a void w/o form, and then products emerged via the action of laws and separations.
quote: The first star is estimated to have formed 400K years after the BB point. Light pre-dated this event. Obviously, like all other products, certain actions are required to activate them. Stars, flint sticks and an AA battery can activate light, which would not be possible if light was not already existant. I thus do not confuse activating and actual pristine creation of light per se.
quote: Star light can only tell us the distance of that star. The background cosmic radiation is said to still linger from the BB point, and this is used to calculate the universe age. Thus light is the factor which emerged first - else why use light?
quote: That is the correct question. I won't use terms such as God, so how about an indefinable and indescribable source, as in precedent and transcendent with ultimate wisdom? Yes, I see no alternative to life on this planet without specific and critical actions which anticipated forthcoming life; no random or auto selection jargon applies. I see the earth rotations and revolutions, its tilted angle and distance from the sun, as focused, critical actions paving the way for life. How else!? This is what I see as the meaning of measured separations of the DAY [LIGHT] and NIGHT [DARKNESS] -as irrefutable conditions for life, and the same applying with the separation of water from land, as we get closer to earth. It appears the earth was once covered with water, then portions of the sea bed rose above the water levels as mountains and plains, catering to the manifold life forms anticipated; thus 'separating the water from the land'. Such actions are not negotiable and directly aligned with earth being life friendly. Atheism will deny it forever, but Darwin/ToE has major probelms in its omissions of these actions.
quote: But life did happen. And exclusively via the conditions you deny, exclusively on earth amongst all we can see in the known universe for 14B years.
quote: Yes and no. It would be equally less than satisfactory if we had a backyard which was immediately conquerable. It is also possible that the stars and galaxies play a pivotal role in keeping the earth balanced and in place, in the space bed it is emersed in, as well as the critical light and gas mix required. We cannot postulate too much in this regard. Humans may well be the most powerful entity in the universe, possessing the most powerful weapon: speech. The imprints of 14B years say there is no life out there; the correct math says the vastness favors no life outside earth as well.
quote: The reverse applies. A universe maker for a universe is a scientific premise; in fact it is questionable if there is any science outside this premise. What you are accusing me of doing is in fact the problem with ToE: it is observing things and not providing anything else aside from the observances and their process of actions - this is certainly not proof of a ficticious deity called NATURE. IMHO, complex actions and products, such as a car or PC align only with a car and PC maker; it is a powerful and cognigent scientifically based premise against ToE. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
No contest. My 400K figure could be mistaken. It seems too small, and I recall only the term 400 - this could be millions or light years.
Recap Re Light. I see the means of testing if light was the first product by asking the correct questions. It is even a relevant issue because it is first declared in what is the world's most believed, impacting and debated document humanity possesses, for the longest period of time. My position is to examine this from a scientific POV, which is only possible if taken up seriously and honestly and with an open mind. Comparisons with other theologies or as just another theology is a grotesque error - no other document discusses such issues or posits any answers here: its NOT another theology but the first writings which can be discussed, debated, affirmed or faulted scientifically. We simply have nothing else to test against science: remember we are quoting the only ancient document which discusses the universe's beginnings [cosmology] and which never said the earth is flat! Of course, I don't mean to disrupt a scientific thread. If it does not belong here, then it should be given an opportunity elsewhere. I understand it may be relocated. The Q: IS LIGHT THE FIRST PRODUCT IN THE UNIVERSE? Genesis says light is the first product which emerged from the mush [formless void; before the advent of other laws impacting or before any other law based products emerged]. Its a reasonable scientfic premise, one worth debating. This premise says light predates everything else, including eneregy and heat [which science sees as the cause of light] - a grueling scientific wrestle here. Of note we measure the universe's age by light residues; it has a transcendent velosity of all moving products; is ageless [oldest?] and massless [before anything else emerged?]. Protons are said to be massless, but I am unsure if invisible light [earliest background cosmic radiation] contains photons. These kind of questions determine the veracity or lacking in this document, or where science has made errors. Its a credibility factor, measurable by the correct and/or incorrect other statements stated in the same document; if for example it prevails over any current premise held by science, then extremely high points must be allocated; if it makes a first claim verified by current science, again extremey high points must be allocated. This is the only meaning of being scientific, honest and open minded. The issue becomes naturally extended, larger and mostly into a cursory, unending circular debate because we also have to ask the following relevant issues which critically impact: Q2: WERE SCIENTIFIC LAWS ALWAYS RELAVENT OR DID THEY HAVE A START-UP POINT AND NEVER EXISTED BEFORE?. Q3: IS THE UNIVERSE [ABSOLUTELY] FINITE OR INFINITE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Photons, unlike quarks, are massless. This defies the notion of aging a product; e.g. we cannot measure the age of something which is massless; it is seen as ageless. The other issue is, if quarks predate photons, which I am not contesting either way, then it also says there was no first entity in the universe, a first entity being a singular indivisible and irreducible product. This says that the universe began with a multiple of products simultainiously [a constuct]. This is the reason I question if photons are a later embellishment, which makes light vision friendly and more aligned with luminosity than light per se. There is no question light has properties not just varied from all others, but is unique and transcendent of all other products, e.g. its velosity and massless attributes. This says light is not a combination of other products because no other products display the same attributes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Anyone can quote a dictionary [light makes things visible; light is energy; etc]. However, if light is the first product, it cannot be defined in terms of subsisting courtesy of other products. You cannot define light based on its being the first product in the universe; not even photons can apply. In fact even the term 'first' is incorrect, because first infers one of many. Note that in Genesis the first day is called DAY ONE; while the next days are called SECOND DAY and THIRD DAY - this is not an error or a superfluos entry. Technically, Genesis is correct in an advanced mode. Perhaps you are not understanding or confronting what a first ever product is? Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I have not done that. Instead, I gave valid scientific reasons why light can be the first product; the only reference with Genesis is it is the first recording of this premise and thus a significant factor of merit. The issue is that no one has countered with an alternative, namely what can be the first product, nor have I seen any understanding what the first product must demonstrate - namely, this must be an indivisible and irreducible entity, also the ambition of science with its GUT quest. I'll say it again. The flat earth premise was not dislodged by Galeleo merely by saying so - it had to be countered with proof of an alternative, which was performed. This has not happened here. The inferred allocation of heat and energy cannot apply as a candidate in this scenario. Heat is the absence or polar opposite of cold, and it cannot subsist without drag and interaction with other products; thus it cannot also be the first product. I have offered the premise a star cannot produce light uness this was already subsisting, and showed also that light can be produced by a number of methods, none of them being its actual creation. Further, that the age of the universe is measured by residual light, not heat or energy. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3668 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: At least you agree there is a first product. So which is the first three prior to light?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024