NASA scientists discover the beginning of time. (Their description)

[John MacNeil]

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1996/01/image/a

Now this should make for an entertaining conversation on a rainy weekend. What is the plausibility that NASA has really found the beginning of time? That photograph is of the area of space at the extreme range of the HST. So what is past that place? Is it the galaxies which existed before the beginning of time? Now there's a paradox for you! Are they saying that they found the edge of the universe? And if not, how can they say they found the beginning of time? Clearly, someone is being disengenuous, or they're just plain stupid. I wonder which it is?

So that this is not just an opportunity to laugh at the ineptitude of the highly educated cosmologists at NASA in presenting their photgraphic evidence of what the HST sees, there is a very real topic in this which deserves discussion. Is light infinite, or does it have an active cycle after which it becomes dormant? Or we could stretch the topic somewhat and discuss whether or not it is possible to see back in time.

 

[Tyger]

They're being metaphorical

in talking about the beginning of time. They just mean as far back in time as we can see now. Yes, even scientists can be metaphorical or poetic at times. And the full resolution version is a spectactular photo, well worth a view. Look at all the different kinds of galaxies, and we still have no good explanation for their forms.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I really don't think questioning the intelligence of NASA is a good idea. I am sure that whatever they state is something that's agreed upon by a panel of the highest authority and knowledge.

Of course light doesn't have an active cycle.

No it is not possible to see back in time.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1996/01/image/a

Now this should make for an entertaining conversation on a rainy weekend. What is the plausibility that NASA has really found the beginning of time? That photograph is of the area of space at the extreme range of the HST. So what is past that place? Is it the galaxies which existed before the beginning of time? Now there's a paradox for you! Are they saying that they found the edge of the universe? And if not, how can they say they found the beginning of time? Clearly, someone is being disengenuous, or they're just plain stupid. I wonder which it is?

So that this is not just an opportunity to laugh at the ineptitude of the highly educated cosmologists at NASA in presenting their photgraphic evidence of what the HST sees, there is a very real topic in this which deserves discussion. Is light infinite, or does it have an active cycle after which it becomes dormant? Or we could stretch the topic somewhat and discuss whether or not it is possible to see back in time.

 

[Eh]

The article actually says the newly discovered galaxies date back to a billion years after the big bang. A billion years is hardly the beginning. Bad title for the article, I suppose.

And there doesn't seem to be anything mystic about seeing back in time. Since light travels at a finite speed, by the time it reaches us from some distant galaxy the image we perceive will be say, billions of years old. This just means the image is a snapshot of the galaxy from a long time ago. Even light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach our eyes. So in that sense, every time you look up at the sun, you're looking back 8 minutes in time.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

John - I hate to say it, but you bashing NASA, and then making it obvious to us that you know so little about cosmology makes you look negative.

The reason (as Eh said not so starkly) that it's looking back at time, is because the light in that photo is VERY VERY OLD in comparison to those objects. In other words, those objects could have long since moved or been demolished.

Next time don't insult the worlds largest and most intelligent cosmoligical group and miss such a fundamental point.

 

[John MacNeil]

Well, when they say they are looking back in time, they mean it literally. I could post a bunch of links to that, but their stance is so well known that anyone who doesn't know of NASA's belief in looking back on old light to see the past can do their own research and I'm sure you will quickly find references. They say that the light from twenty billion year ago is just reaching us now, and, as is noted, some of the things that light supposedly came from is not there anymore. If they are the top scientists, why would they not be presenting their knowledge in a scientific manner?

That brings up the question of how long does light exist? Do photons survive for infinity? Photons are the result of a physical interaction between particles, so how can you say they remain in their illuminated state forever? If you say that light doesn't have an active cycle, then explain how it is created and how it maintains it's illuminated condition after it has been created. If that can't be explained, then it must be assumed that light had a beginning and, conversely, that it must have an end.

And what's this about bashing NASA? Can't they stand a little criticism when they present stupid theories as bona fide and try to pass that off as legitimate research?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Again - you completely didn't have the knowledge to understand the article. It's you who proposed a "stupid" idea, not them.

Again you did it here. You said "how long does light last?"

Apprently you are unaware that light does not move at all through the time dimension.

The light from the big bang is still as it is today. It has absolutely positively never aged a single smallest unit.

That's what you mistook here. What you mistook earlier, I'll repeat, is that light takes time to get somewhere. The light from those pictures is old, and thus you are seeing the past.

If today aliens from those planets took a very very very highly detailed photo of the earth, they might see nothing but dinosaurs. Because the light they're getting now is light that left our planet eons ago.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Well, when they say they are looking back in time, they mean it literally. I could post a bunch of links to that, but their stance is so well known that anyone who doesn't know of NASA's belief in looking back on old light to see the past can do their own research and I'm sure you will quickly find references. They say that the light from twenty billion year ago is just reaching us now, and, as is noted, some of the things that light supposedly came from is not there anymore. If they are the top scientists, why would they not be presenting their knowledge in a scientific manner?

You are looking back in time, literally. That is, you are looking at an image from the distant past. What other meaning does it have? Think about it.

That brings up the question of how long does light exist? Do photons survive for infinity? Photons are the result of a physical interaction between particles, so how can you say they remain in their illuminated state forever? If you say that light doesn't have an active cycle, then explain how it is created and how it maintains it's illuminated condition after it has been created. If that can't be explained, then it must be assumed that light had a beginning and, conversely, that it must have an end.

Photons should stay in their current energy level until they act with charged particles. When a photon meets a charged particle, it is absorbed and the energy level of the particle increases. Because the universe is mainly a vacuum, photons from a distant star should have no trouble reaching us.

And what's this about bashing NASA? Can't they stand a little criticism when they present stupid theories as bona fide and try to pass that off as legitimate research?

Those theories are only stupid when you fail to understand the actual meaning.

 

[John MacNeil]

If aliens were taking pictures of our planet they would be seeing dinosaurs? So what you are implying is that light is reflected off of objects in continuously sustained holographic images that move through space forever? Wouldn't that glut of images tend to mix together as they continuously collided with all the other holgraphic images projected from every other object in space?

 

[chroot]

Yes, that's exactly what he said -- with the holographic images and collisions and all. You're spot on. When are you going to finally convince the world about the reality of the megastars, John? You're sitting on a powderkeg.

- Warren

 

[John MacNeil]

chroot...you don't need to exhibit your stupidity all the time. If you wish to discuss megastars, I've already brought that up in a different thread. If you wish, or are able, to contribute anything to this thread, please stay on topic.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

John - Yes. That's what I said. Dinosaurs, they would see dinosaurs John.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
John - Yes. That's what I said. Dinosaurs, they would see dinosaurs John.

Only if there were a bit more than 65 million light-years away. If they were four billion light-years away, they'd see algae.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
you don't need to exhibit your stupidity all the time.

Wait, wait -- who's stupid?

- Warren

 

[Eh]

I must say these are awfully powerful telescopes these aliens are using.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Eh
I must say these are awfully powerful telescopes these aliens are using.

Yeah but dude, they're aliens!

 

[John MacNeil]

Yes, but you didn't explain how they would see dinosaurs. For light to be seen moving through space, there must be one photon behind each photon in front of it in a continuous line from the emitter to the receptor. Since we know that a property of light is to scatter, then if the emitter died out and quit emitting, then the last emitted photons at the back of the light stream would have to follow the course of least resistence and start flowing back in the direction of it's original source. That dispersion of light would increase exponentially until it reached cascade and the entire of the emitted light stream dissipated. If that happened, it would be impossible to look back in time and see an object that no longer existed because the dissipation of the light stream would occur in all direction virtually simultaneously while your view of the light stream would be from a single direction.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Eh
The article actually says the newly discovered galaxies
date back to a billion years after the big bang. A billion
years is hardly the beginning. Bad title for the article,
I suppose.

I'm not sure John read anything beyond that...

btw, the known Universe's age is estimated at 13.7
billion years, so don't throw irrelevant figures around.

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

John - it's elementary. Them seeing dinosaurs is no different than you seeing yourself in the mirror.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Since we know that a property of light is to scatter...
flowing back in the direction of it's original source...
That dispersion of light would increase exponentially

And thus we see that John knows as much about optics as he does about the rest of physics!

- Warren

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Chroot - Why did I put you on ignore? I'm likely your attitude towards intellectualism without intelligence here?

Remind me please, I'm enjoying your posts!

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Chroot - Why did I put you on ignore... I'm enjoying your posts!

A logical contradiction: You are ignoring me, yet are reading my posts.

- Warren

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Thanks, that reminds me of why!

 

[John MacNeil]

13.7 billion year or 100 billion year, what's the difference? Putting an arbitrary age on the universe is a childish game, anyway.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Thanks, that reminds me of why!

You are welcome, my son.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
13.7 billion year or 100 billion year, what's the difference? Putting an arbitrary age on the universe is a childish game, anyway.

An arbitrary age would be childish, yes -- an age deduced by careful observation, not so.

- Warren

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
13.7 billion year or 100 billion year, what's the difference? Putting an arbitrary age on the universe is a childish game, anyway.

John- in your 24 posts here, I have yet to see anything purposefull. Everything you post questions proven things without evidence, makes mistakes that show your lack of knowledge on a subject, or worse is just crazy.

What exactly are you educated enough to speak about? How old are you?

You're the one putting arbitrary ideas out. It's spam.

 

[drag]

Please do understand us John, we do not like
to insult people unless these people are
already insulting themselves(in which case
we might as well have a little harmless fun, and
teach such a person a valuable lesson in the process).
If you do not know or understand something you should ASK,
not claim.

Peace and long life.

 

[FZ+]

For light to be seen moving through space, there must be one photon behind each photon in front of it in a continuous line from the emitter to the receptor.

Wrong.

Photon = discrete wave packet.
Within photon = mutually assisting electric/magnetic fields.
No requirement for line of photons.

Since we know that a property of light is to scatter, then if the emitter died out and quit emitting, then the last emitted photons at the back of the light stream would have to follow the course of least resistence and start flowing back in the direction of it's original source.

Wrong.

Very easy to demonstrate with a torch. Hardly rocket science.

That dispersion of light would increase exponentially until it reached cascade and the entire of the emitted light stream dissipated.

Wrong.

Reminder. Using long words do not make you right. Trying to sound knowledgeable doesn't make you knowledgeable.

If that happened, it would be impossible to look back in time and see an object that no longer existed because the dissipation of the light stream would occur in all direction virtually simultaneously while your view of the light stream would be from a single direction.

But that doesn't happen, so that post is complete trash. Hey, you may be right in another universe. But not in this one.

Sorry.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

FZ - HAHAHA! Laughing Out Loud here!


"Reminder. Using long words do not make you right. Trying to sound knowledgeable doesn't make you knowledgeable."

Hahahah! You made my day!

 

[John MacNeil]

If you fail to see anything purposeful in what I write, then perhaps you should remove the "Logical" braggidocio from your alias. I question the conventional view that is held by many people because a lot of it is obviously the result of stupid or sloppy thinking. So if I present ideas based on logic and physics, that is so discussion will be engendered that will investigate further the phenomena which is evident in the real world we live in, as opposed to the fantasy world that some people seem to inhabit. And isn't that the purpose of a physics based forum? Or do you regard this physics forum as just another chat room where you can try and sound intelligent and so you can brag to your mother that you belong to a physics forum?

Now when it is claimed that the universe is a certain age as determined by careful observation, that is pure baloney. Anyone on this planet who says that they know the age of the universe is either a nut, or a liar. The HST deep field view reveals that wherever they look with their ever increasing telescopic power, they continue to be amazed by the amount and type of galaxies at the extreme range of their view. So if the people who are at the forefront of cosmological science are still clueless about the size of the universe, then they sure don't have a clue as to it's age, other than to figure out that it's been going on for a long time.

And if you think you're a lot smarter than me because I use a larger vocabulary than you are familiar with, then perhaps you should sign up for an english class to go along with your high school physics.

By your silly definition of a photon being a discrete wave packet without the need of another photon behind it to reinforce it, then you would require that each photon contain a holographic image of whatever it was emitted from. If that were the case, then you would have to be able to see a single photon to determine what the image is, and that clearly is not the case. So there must be connectivity in order for the image to be transferred from the emitter to the receptor.

I also get the impression that the only thing you could demonstrate with a torch would be a forest fire.

Also, if you think I am insulted by your obvious lack of reasoning power, you couldn't be further from the truth. I wouldn't spank a child for being a slow learner.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Don't get emotional over your mistakes. You just have to admit them and move onward. You didn't understand the article, thought it was wrong and called it stupid. Then knowledgeable people here explained how you were wrong the article was completely right. Just give in man, don't fight the truth.

PS: John you're on block. Just so you know I won't see your messages. You're just way to far outside the box. In fact, you're in another box entirely...

Originally posted by John MacNeil
If you fail to see anything purposeful in what I write, then perhaps you should remove the "Logical" braggidocio from your alias. I question the conventional view that is held by many people because a lot of it is obviously the result of stupid or sloppy thinking. So if I present ideas based on logic and physics, that is so discussion will be engendered that will investigate further the phenomena which is evident in the real world we live in, as opposed to the fantasy world that some people seem to inhabit. And isn't that the purpose of a physics based forum? Or do you regard this physics forum as just another chat room where you can try and sound intelligent and so you can brag to your mother that you belong to a physics forum?

Now when it is claimed that the universe is a certain age as determined by careful observation, that is pure baloney. Anyone on this planet who says that they know the age of the universe is either a nut, or a liar. The HST deep field view reveals that wherever they look with their ever increasing telescopic power, they continue to be amazed by the amount and type of galaxies at the extreme range of their view. So if the people who are at the forefront of cosmological science are still clueless about the size of the universe, then they sure don't have a clue as to it's age, other than to figure out that it's been going on for a long time.

And if you think you're a lot smarter than me because I use a larger vocabulary than you are familiar with, then perhaps you should sign up for an english class to go along with your high school physics.

By your silly definition of a photon being a discrete wave packet without the need of another photon behind it to reinforce it, then you would require that each photon contain a holographic image of whatever it was emitted from. If that were the case, then you would have to be able to see a single photon to determine what the image is, and that clearly is not the case. So there must be connectivity in order for the image to be transferred from the emitter to the receptor.

I also get the impression that the only thing you could demonstrate with a torch would be a forest fire.

Also, if you think I am insulted by your obvious lack of reasoning power, you couldn't be further from the truth. I wouldn't spank a child for being a slow learner.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
Or do you regard this physics forum as just another chat room where you can try and sound intelligent and so you can brag to your mother that you belong to a physics forum?

I see...
(Well, at least I tried out the way of reason.)

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by drag
I see...
(Well, at least I tried out the way of reason.)

Live long and prosper.

Yeah Drag. Even I admit when I make stupid mistakes, just ask Mentat.

Yet this guy turns to insults when he's wrong!

 

[John MacNeil]

I am not one to begin slinging mud and if you don't like sharp retorts, then you should leave the character attacks out of your posts and stick to discussing the topic.

The contents of that article really matter less than the picture itself and the title which was presented as a description. And it was the idea expressed in the title that I was addressing. That is not the first instance of NASA having declared they could look back to the beginning of time. They used the same argument to get funding for the multi-billion dollar HST program and it is explicitly expressed in many other of their articles. Other people express the view that they can look back in time as well, and the illogic of that idea perverts science by having young, impressionable people thinking about nonsensical ideas that have zero chance of being correct.

Cartoon theories such as black holes, infinite density, big bangs and ten or twelve dimensional space, which all rely on physics not existing at some critical point for them to exist, are nothing more than a chimera. There are different reasons for people to present such fallacious theories, but none of the reasons will ever make any of that nonsense practical.

When you are discussing light, you should present your idea of how you think a photon travels through space. Your idea implies that each photon has an eternal momentum and an eternal life, when in reality nothing maintains a constant physical condition forever. Except maybe diamonds...or is that just a gimmick to get you to buy some overpriced stones?

Why you would mention that you are blocking me from sending you messages is a puzzle to me, and heart rending. When did you expect to get the first one? Anyway, if that's what you did, don't bother inviting me to your birthday party, either.