Re: entropy and bio-evo


"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dc2uka$230m$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "g" <gillawton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dc1enl$1g6t$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 1. A. Einstein figured out that the only way the speed of light is
>> found
>> to be the same in any frame of reference is because time, itself,
>> inflates/deflates to fit each frame of reference. (Will challenge the
>> concept of "space-time," inflation, as opposed to simply "time"
>> inflation/contraction" another day.)
>>
>> 2. Add to that fact the fact that Earth's finest telescopes (using the
>> word loosely to include all technology for sensing electromagnetic
>> frequencies arriving here after traveling from the so-called "first
>> stars."
>>
>> 3. Add to that the fact that the universe is estimated by cosmologists
>> to
>> have been not more than a few hundred million meters in diameter when
>> light
>> arriving at Earth now left its source.
>>
>> 4. Add to that the question of why -- if we were not more than a few
>> hundred million light years from the farthest
>> side of the universe the light leaving the "first stars" then would not
>> have
>> reached us within a few hundred million years... rather than roughly 13.8
>> billion years later. (In trying to compute how this could be possible,
>> one
>> must avoid using any figure greater than the speed of light to explain
>> it.
>> Earth could not have "outrun" the light trying to reach it, while tens of
>> billions of years lapsed.)
>>
>> 5. The only logical answer explanation for how light could only now be
>> reaching earth, some 13.8 billion years after it left something that was
>> only a few hundred million light years away from Earth when that light
>> departed the
>> "first stars," would share with economic theory the meaning of "dollars"
>> at
>> two different times in history. If your
>> income dollars were 1905 dollars, for example, rather than 2005 dollars,
>> you
>> would be a very wealthy man. By
>> the same token, if ABB year (after-big-bang year) light years were the
>> same
>> as ABB year 13.8 billion, then that light
>> (always traveling at the same distance in the same time) would not have
>> been
>> traveling in the same time-frame when
>> the universe was, say, a tenth its current size, as it is traveling now.
>>
>> 6. There is only one possible way of explaining why light that left
>> the
>> "first stars" when the bulk of the mass that now constitutes Earth was
>> only,
>> say, 200 million light years away from those "first stars" would have
>> taken
>> 13.8 billion years to reach us is because light waves/photons when they
>> left
>> those "first stars" were traveling in a time
>> frame which -- relative to ours, now -- was relatively compressed to what
>> would be too small by an enormous order
>> of magnitude than the frame in which our 'telescopes' are now receiving
>> them.
> [snip]
>
> There is another possible way of explaining it. Perhaps you simply
> misunderstood what the cosmologists were saying back in step #3.
>
> See, for example, this:
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae38.cfm
>
(snip)

I have studied the link above and Dr. Davis, in his reply, does not even
address
all the issues involved that I addressed.

This is not to say he COULD not have.

What he has done is little more than restate the "problem," without making
any attempt to answer the main question, which is: "How does light, which
ALWAYS travels at the speed of light, in each and every frame of reference,
NOT
reach us where we were when we were within a mere few hundred million miles
of it, or DID it?"

If you read all my messages relating to "chaos" theory (as a sub-category of
thermodynamic theory), you will see that I have addressed the issue of
microcosmic expansion and macroscopic expansion.

I may have thought through a lot more than you realize, and condensed many
issues down to barely a mention, to keep to as few words as possible.

Upon return from a trip a week or two from now, I shall review some of the
things Dr. Davis did not even bother to
deal with in his reply aimed at the level of perhaps a nine year old.

Again, I do not mean to say he could not have blown away a PhD with his
answer. I merely am saying that he didn't
pull out all the stops. Succinctly put, his "response" was so simplistic as
to be a non-answer. But it is a place for
us to back up to and cover some of the bases he did not. Also, meantime,
perhaps you might ask the same question again and ask for more advanced
response.

Be back in a week or two.

g


.

Relevant Pages
Loading