Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA06106 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 1 Feb 2002 03:24:45 GMT Message-ID: <004001c1aacf$5b9f4000$be24f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <email@example.com> Subject: Re: Photons before the matter-energy Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 19:20:08 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> > Let me ask you this. If a theoretical "entity,"
> > capable of vision in the early universe, had been
> > looking around, what would this "eye" have seen?
> Assuming our eing was not turned into plasma as a
> result of the temperatures (greater than the surface
> photosphere of the sun).... i.e. a completely
> impossible "being" to have "eyes" but lets engage then
> in the virtual world. OK?
> It would be like being on the inside of a bright
> lightfilled fog, coming at you at every wavelength.
> Everything is there. Nothing is "not there".
So you're saying it would have been extremely bright in there.
> When we see the Cosmic Microwave Background what we
> are gazing at is the "edge" of this "fireball". After
> that point in time the universe went transparent -
How could the primordial universe have been bright at the same time it was
opaque? If something is opaque, then nothing can be seen in it. It's the
precise opposite of brightness. Not just dim but all the way black.
> electrons were bound around the nuclei to make atoms,
> and light was free to travel, uninterupted from the
> "edge" to the COBE observer
If photons were unable to travel in the early universe, how could they have
possessed *any* wavelength, much less "every wavelength," as you assert?
How can you use the term "light" or even radiation to describe a collection
of photons bound to electrons and therefore unable to strike them from a
distance and illuminate them? The whole proposition of light has been
thrown out the window. Nothing is left of the traditional meaning of the
term. It's not light. It's just photons. It's the particles which, when
assembled, will constitute light. To say an unformed set of photons
constitutes light is like saying a stack of bricks is a house.
> Does this help?
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 03:33:19 GMT