This question: How is it possible that we see light from shortly after the big bang? originally presented a wrong theory bordering on nonsense, and asked "what's wrong with this theory". no complaints, this is a tough call what to do with this stuff, but I thought this edit might work, and you locked the post before I had a chance to do it:

Title: Is the idea of a point explosion generating everything consistent with big-bang cosmology?

I thought of the big bang as a point of infinite energy, which I theorize about using something I call "m" point. As "energy" is lost from this point, a bang occurs, converting lower forms of energy into matter.

At this instant the "energy"at lower levels moves faster than "light as light has no mass. In-turn this bang creates a "slope of increasing mass"(space) moving in all directions(over time). I believe this explains both why we "see" light from the past from the same event that created us as light moved slower (was less likely to move away from the central point of energy than lower forms of energy that create mass.

Is this consistent with what is known?

This question is borderline, since the theory has no merit, but explaining why the idea has no merit allows you to explain some misconceptions about the light from the big bang. The question as rewritten does not get the main misconception across, it just asks "how can we see light from the explosion that created us?"

I could be ok with the rephrased question, but what's up with the quick locking? The edit to the short question changed the subject entirely, and made my answer a non-sequitor.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh, on reviewing the edit history, I see Argus actually did it first... sorry--- it happened so quick, and while I was composing my answer. No complaints. But perhaps you can unlock and let Argus choose if he wants the more speculative stuff or the more mainstream question. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 3:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ locking is not as dire as "closing". The original can be seen in the revisions history, and it is not acceptable imo. What you propose is a different question. $\endgroup$ – anna v May 8 '12 at 4:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @annav: Technically closing isn't supposed to be 'dire' either. It's just a improve-this-timeout. $\endgroup$ – Manishearth May 8 '12 at 7:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Manishearth: It's not good to repeat sillyness that social collectives say--- the point of closing is censorship, and this site has had a good policy due to David's non-interference policy. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 15:50
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Uh... Locking a question effectively closes it - no new answers can be posted when locked. Also, no one gets a vote to "unlock". The biggest advantages of locking over closing are 1) prevents modifications, 2) can automatically time out. The biggest down-side? Locking also prevents improvements. $\endgroup$ – Shog9 May 8 '12 at 16:15

Quick locking is standard procedure in the case of an "edit war" as they're called. The intent is that we come to meta and work things out, exactly as we're doing.

Anyway, I don't think the edit you're proposing would be appropriate, precisely because the theory it presents is not defined well enough to be evaluated. Basically, it's still a nonsensical question. As I said, if you'd like this question to appear on the site, you can ask it yourself (phrased in such a way that it is a sensible question, of course).

I will note that Argus edited his question down from the original version posted, which reflects his intent not to ask for a review of his original theory anymore, but rather to ask a simpler question which may help in understanding - as seen in revision 3 of the edit history. That simpler question is definitely much closer to being acceptable, and I thought it could be perfectly fine with basically just a change to the title and tags, and a grammar fix or two. That's the extent of the edits I made.

After the lock expires, then if Argus wants to revert the question to the original form, he's free to do that, though if that happens I would vote to close it. (I wouldn't "block" your edit in that case.) Bottom line, though, it needs to be Argus's decision.

  • $\begingroup$ One can ask "Is the big bang be an explosion of mass and light from a point?" without going into details of the theory. The guy doesn't know how to write, but I tend to be generous on this stuff. I would never ask such a question, as I don't think the idea has merit, but lots of people come in with this type of misconception about the big bang, and one can put these to rest with a simple "the light isn't coming from one point." Which is the basic wrong idea this question is based on. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 4:08
  • $\begingroup$ Yeah, I didn't see revision 3 at first, I was trying to make it acceptable by a less extreme whittling down. But I think he can just ask "Is the big bang a point-explosion", we can answer "no", and that's that. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 4:09
  • $\begingroup$ (2 up) Sure, and if someone comes in and decides to ask that question as you've phrased it, it would be fine. That is not this question, though. (Not unless Argus decides to edit it to be that.) $\endgroup$ – David Z May 8 '12 at 4:10
  • $\begingroup$ I doubt Argus is coming to meta, so why not just unlock it, let him edit it to a normal question of the sort you suggest, or I suggest, and let the answers stand. I would vote to close too if I didn't see what the guy was thinking--- he thinks we need to come out of the big bang faster than light in order to see the big bang's light. I guess that's still there in the rephrased question. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 4:15
  • $\begingroup$ It will unlock itself in a little while, and then things can proceed as you've said. Let me just make sure this one point is clear (I think it is already, but to be sure): the decision on which version the question should be needs to come from Argus. If he edits it back to the original version (revision 1 or 2, or any of your edits that are based on that), then you're clear to go ahead and edit it as you wanted to. If that doesn't happen, though, then just leave it alone. $\endgroup$ – David Z May 8 '12 at 4:24
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I agree with you--- I didn't see that he edited the question to the short form until after I started mucking around, if I did, I wouldn't have touched it. I also believe the OP's intention is most important to respect. Also, thanks for doing a great job of diamond modding. I didn't fully appreciate your fair-mindedness and general competence until I saw what diamonds do on other sites here. $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 8 '12 at 4:42
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, David is a very nice big great gem diamond :-) $\endgroup$ – Dilaton May 8 '12 at 8:34

@Ron Maimon, As I have recently learned how to ask for help before asking questions to prevent myself from seeming like a looney tunes character.

my original was asked correctly but under the wrong conditions it should be:

How can we see light from the explosion that created us?

To specify please do not give me the opposite answer: such as you can not detect light from the creation event because etc. etc..

Would this be a reasonable and acceptable question?

If so, would I edit the original or have to open a new question

  • $\begingroup$ Would it be better to say "how would we be able to", in place of "how can we" $\endgroup$ – Argus May 10 '12 at 3:52
  • $\begingroup$ You don't seem crazy, just out of touch. The physicists generally have a way of speaking that is precise, and one should try to be as precise is possible. "How can we see light from an explosion that created us?" is fine (and is your question now, and its open and answered). $\endgroup$ – Ron Maimon May 11 '12 at 5:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .