the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[Nitron]

I get what he's saying.

However, I still watch creationist videos and they fit with what he was saying.

 

[RichardT]

like the professional Hovind debates? his entire position is ad hominem and strawman.

When I said amateur, I meant Creationist and Evolution alike. The videos that I like watching on youtube are Carl Sagan, AronRa, potholer, that thunder guy and some others. If someone uploaded videos by Dr. Bouw (I wish someone would), I would certainly watch them.

 

[lemmings]

When I said amateur, I meant Creationist and Evolution alike. The videos that I like watching on youtube are Carl Sagan, AronRa, potholer, and that thunder guy. If someone uploaded videos by Dr. Bouw (I wish someone would), I would certainly watch them.

Did you ever watch this one?

 

[BrainHertz]

When I said amateur, I meant Creationist and Evolution alike. The videos that I like watching on youtube are Carl Sagan, AronRa, potholer, and that thunder guy. If someone uploaded videos by Dr. Bouw (I wish someone would), I would certainly watch them.

So Dr. Bouw fits into your definition of professional? Okay. Whatever.

Did you have a response to the argument presented? Or have you not watched it yet?

 

[TimmyPage]

So Richard, you are absolutely unwilling to even watch or consider the video merely on the budget of how it was made, or by whom, despite the obvious research and complete mathematical correctness?

 

[dad]

You're right. It wasn't corduroy, it was linen fabric. Must be fun to simply pick out a term and throw it in where ever it sounds good. I'd ask you explain what this "fabric of the universe is" but am afraid of the answer.

The fabric of the universe is the laws that work together in our universe, and forces. For example, the weak nuclear force. The space time continuum, and that sort of thing. This is news??

 

[dad]

Oh! That explains everything!

Now tell us exactly how it was different, why we should be believe it was different and what (and why) exactly that predicts.

Whatever you believe matters little. It is what you can prove, and not prove that matters. My post was not meant to explain everything. It was meant to set the stage.

 

[dad]

I personally really don't like amateur youtube videos. The only videos I actually like that deal with Creation and Evolution are the more professional ones.

Well, that main thing is the basis for them. Or not.

 

[PacificPandeist]

Fits fine with PanDeism -- whatever science reveals about the nature of the Universe reveals God's mechanism of Creation!!

 

[dad]

yeah.. is that even an answer to anything?
funny that you never have any evidence to support your nonsense, but expect people to accept your nonsense

No,it is not an answer to everything. It was a first reply to a question about ancient light. Focus.

 

[dad]

The speed of light is rather tightly built into present physical models.

While the speed of light can probably change a little bit without causing too many problems, a very large change in the speed of light would either result in atoms not being able to exist, or (at the very least) severe changes in the way electrons are bound to nuclei.

This last would probably result in observable optical effects for distant objects (i.e. the emitted and absorbed colors would be very very weird).

28c is probably ridiculous when this is considered. At best it probably would result in severe and noticable distortion, at worst, instability of matter altogether.

Creationists should remember arguments about how "finely tuned" the physical constants are coming from their camp. Screwing with the speed of light this much would completely destroy that fine tuning.

No. Because our light was not here at creation, and on up till after the flood. After that, there is no need to mess with it.

 

[PacificPandeist]

PanDeism logically teaches that God Created the Universe by becoming the Universe!!

 

[dad]

Fits fine with PanDeism -- whatever science reveals about the nature of the Universe reveals God's mechanism of Creation!!

The best they could hope for is revealing a bit about creation. The only other recourse is making stuff up. I would be onto them if they tried that.

 

[FishFace]

Whatever you believe matters little. It is what you can prove, and not prove that matters. My post was not meant to explain everything. It was meant to set the stage.

Great! Go away then, since you can't actually refute anything in the video.

 

[TimmyPage]

Whatever you believe matters little. It is what you can prove, and not prove that matters.

And there lies the issue. The concept has been proven mathematically within the video, and you are trying to undermine it with mere belief.

"I believe that the Bible is entirely correct, and thus this math MUST be wrong".

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The best they could hope for is revealing a bit about creation. The only other recourse is making stuff up.

Another irony meter busted by dad-hoc who has been doing little besides "making stuff up" and totally absurd stuff at that for more than 11,000 posts now.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

No. Because our light was not here at creation, and on up till after the flood. After that, there is no need to mess with it.

I have no idea what you could possibly mean by this.

Do you care to elaborate?

 

[BrainHertz]

for the benefit of those who don't want to watch the video, here's the argument in a nutshell:

We have two independent observations of supernova remnant 1987A, both of which depend only on the speed of light:

1. By measuring the angle subtended by the disk, we can determine how far away it is in light years.

2. By measuring the time between brightness fluctuation events in the central star and corresponding brigtness fluctuation events in the disk, we can determine the size of the disk (also in light years).

The first observation depends on the mean speed of light since the light left the object. The second observation depends on the speed of light at the time the light left the object (about 20 years after the supernova occurred).

If you assume that the speed of light has been constant at its present value, you can deduce that the supernova occurred about 168,000 years ago.

If, on the other hand, the speed of light was larger in the past than it is now, that implies that the object would be larger and further away than we would otherwise deduce. Using the specific case of exponentially decaying light speed as postulated, the video shows that the supernova would have occurred about 4,000,000 years ago.

I can post the working here on request.

Anybody feel like explaining why that doesn't work?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Whatever you believe matters little. It is what you can prove, and not prove that matters.

Let's start answering dad's posts with his own posts!

Let me remind you that unless you make a cohesive case, you can't expect me to address your silliness.

Or when Dad says:

My post was not meant to explain everything. It was meant to set the stage.

We can merely respond with one of these!

But it is doo doo, what about that did you miss?

Great, so what are they, and how does it relate to anything??? Or do you just like to hear yourself talk??

Hey, you are off your rocker if you believe that.

So, make sure to note these gems whenenver Dad tells you you need to provide explanations or proof for your points but he fails to do so for his.

Becaue we all "know" Dad loves him some Mr. Jesus
[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]

 

[thaumaturgy]

Another irony meter busted by dad-hoc who has been doing little besides "making stuff up" and totally absurd stuff at that for more than 11,000 posts now.

Hey, Frumy, you'll enjoy THIS POST of Dad's from the Carboniferous thread.

Note how he, in one sentence, decrees part of earth sciences to be "doo doo" and in the next sentence rolls out a howler showing his failure to understand common first or second year terminology in earth science!

It's classic.

(This is posted more to show that in some cases, when Dad is dismissive about some science he is doing so largely out of blatant ignorance of that science. That of course, would cause some people to question what he really understands about anything he posts on. Note in this case how in subsequent posts 435 he tries to pull the discussion away from admitting he was completely wrong by bringing about some unrelated concept...and then in post 441 where he tries to repeatedly link stable isotopes to dating methods!)

It goes to show how much integrity Dad has in any of these debates.

I just thought you and some of the other geo folks on here would enjoy that particular exchange.

ETA: You know, as I've said about a billion times on this board, I honestly would be OK if Dad and others didn't know any geology or be scientists but they take their ignorance as an aggressive virtue!!

That's what I find painful, annoying and basically causes my blood to boil. I get so tired of aggressive bully-semiliterates telling me my field is feces or that I need to defend the science against their aggressive ignorance.