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

[Mumbo]

dad, you've been a bit vague so far. in your next post, please explain your entire position on why the math involved in the argument is either incorrect or ill-founded.

everyone else, if you want to gang up on dad, do it in another thread. I just want to chat :I

 

[thaumaturgy]

dad, you've been a bit vague so far. in your next post, please explain your entire position on why the math involved in the argument is either incorrect or ill-founded.

everyone else, if you want to gang up on dad, do it in another thread. I just want to chat :I

Mumbo,
No doubt you've experienced Dad's version of "chat". That is precisely my point. He is a killer of discussion. His agressive brand of ignorance is beyond the pale of mere "disagreement".

The reason I'm "ganging up" on him and cross-posting is precisely to either get him to stop his usual approach or more preferably to actually bother to post substantive science points.

I for one would be glad for a real discussion with any of the creationists. But what I feel is killing this forum (at least for me) is that their ignorance is often their badge of honor. No learning is possible when they actively despise the science against which they debate.

I don't know what Dad knows about the speed of light, but from what I've seen him say against geology (a much simpler science) indicates that his version of the debate is about as meaningless as it can be.

Why engage him? Why insist on a debate with a man who openly calls a field of science feces and in the next breath indicates his lack of knowledge of even simple terms within that same field?

So by all means, engage him. We all do. I suspect we all do it because we can't actually believe someone would seriously behave like Dad does. But I will continue to cajole him and point out where he is grossly misinformed in science in general.

If that is what it takes to get him to step up to the same plate he demands others step up to, then so be it.

 

[RichardT]

I watched a bit of the video before I stopped. It's the same old argument, nothing new here.

 

[Mumbo]

Mumbo,
No doubt you've experienced Dad's version of "chat". That is precisely my point. He is a killer of discussion. His agressive brand of ignorance is beyond the pale of mere "disagreement".

The reason I'm "ganging up" on him and cross-posting is precisely to either get him to stop his usual approach or more preferably to actually bother to post substantive science points.

i understand, but you're one of many people in here doing this. i want dad's opinion on something, and i'd rather he not get chased away by a horde of angry unbelievers.

I for one would be glad for a real discussion with any of the creationists. But what I feel is killing this forum (at least for me) is that their ignorance is often their badge of honor. No learning is possible when they actively despise the science against which they debate.

you'd be better off discussing matters with someone else. you should be familiar enough with dad by now to know that he's not about to change his mind or his methods.

I don't know what Dad knows about the speed of light, but from what I've seen him say against geology (a much simpler science) indicates that his version of the debate is about as meaningless as it can be.

that's half the fun!

Why engage him? Why insist on a debate with a man who openly calls a field of science feces and in the next breath indicates his lack of knowledge of even simple terms within that same field?

in a word, masochism

So by all means, engage him. We all do. I suspect we all do it because we can't actually believe someone would seriously behave like Dad does. But I will continue to cajole him and point out where he is grossly misinformed in science in general.

If that is what it takes to get him to step up to the same plate he demands others step up to, then so be it.

i can't very well engage him if the entire forum criticizes every statement he makes. keep the cajoling to a minimum here.

 

[Mumbo]

I watched a bit of the video before I stopped. It's the same old argument, nothing new here.

alright then, what's wrong with this old argument?

 

[BrainHertz]

I watched a bit of the video before I stopped. It's the same old argument, nothing new here.

So how far did you get, and what was wrong with the math?

 

[dad]

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

Do you care to elaborate?

Well, I mean that the light that was here was able to get here in creation week from far stars. Our light cannot do that, it had to be different light. Not only that, the bible also seems to indicate the universe itself was different. Our laws were not here.

 

[dad]

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".

Oh, hec no. The math is wrong. I'll explain that in another post in a minute.

 

[dad]

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



Or when Dad says:


We can merely respond with one of these!








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]

Thanks for the publicity here, and cheerleading, I don't feel I deserve it. Really.

 

[dad]

dad, you've been a bit vague so far. in your next post, please explain your entire position on why the math involved in the argument is either incorrect or ill-founded.

everyone else, if you want to gang up on dad, do it in another thread. I just want to chat :I

OK, so I looked at the video, but had to pause it. It claimed that the universe had to be 168,000 years old. No. That is wrong. What I agree with is that the thing is 168,000 present light speed years away. That cannot relate to real time. Not if the universe was different back then. All that denotes, is the time present light, in this present universe would take at it's present speed to get here from there. Meaningless. Get it?? Should we move on in the video now, to the next point it will raise? Or do you contest this??? If so, you need to defend it. Be my guest. I have gone to the mat with this sort of thing with some people that give 'educated doubt' a new meaning. They could not prevail.

 

[Patashu]

OK, so I looked at the video, but had to pause it. It claimed that the universe had to be 168,000 years old. No. That is wrong. What I agree with is that the thing is 168,000 present light speed years away. That cannot relate to real time. Not if the universe was different back then. All that denotes, is the time present light, in this present universe would take at it's present speed to get here from there. Meaningless. Get it?? Should we move on in the video now, to the next point it will raise? Or do you contest this??? If so, you need to defend it. Be my guest. I have gone to the mat with this sort of thing with some people that give 'educated doubt' a new meaning. They could not prevail.

Did you watch the rest of the video? It explains why the speed of light couldn't have been any faster at the time the supernova occured.

We can see that the ring of the supernova brightens/dims 8 months after the core does. That means it's 0.67ly in radius. The number of arc seconds it takes up in the sky along with trigonometry can be used to calculate the distance it is from the Earth.
HOWEVER, if the speed of light was faster when the supernova occured, that means that the ring is actually 0.67 of faster-light years in radius. Whatever number the light speed was multiplied back then, suddenly the distance from Earth it is is multiplied by the same number. It has to be this old.
(In addition, we'd expect to see the pulsing slow down as we started seeing slower and slower light, and we'd also expect to see objects moving slower the further from Earth we look, etc)

 

[dad]

Did you watch the rest of the video? It explains why the speed of light couldn't have been any faster at the time the supernova occured.

We can see that the ring of the supernova brightens/dims 8 months after the core does. That means it's 0.67ly in radius. The number of arc seconds it takes up in the sky along with trigonometry can be used to calculate the distance it is from the Earth.

Distance from earth is not an issue.

HOWEVER, if the speed of light was faster when the supernova occured, that means that the ring is actually 0.67 of faster-light years in radius. Whatever number the light speed was multiplied back then, suddenly the distance from Earth it is is multiplied by the same number. It has to be this old.

Distance does not matter.

Whatever speed light moved at, the whole event seems to have been carried to us.

 

[BrainHertz]

OK, so I looked at the video, but had to pause it. It claimed that the universe had to be 168,000 years old. No. That is wrong. What I agree with is that the thing is 168,000 present light speed years away. That cannot relate to real time. Not if the universe was different back then. All that denotes, is the time present light, in this present universe would take at it's present speed to get here from there. Meaningless. Get it?? Should we move on in the video now, to the next point it will raise? Or do you contest this??? If so, you need to defend it. Be my guest. I have gone to the mat with this sort of thing with some people that give 'educated doubt' a new meaning. They could not prevail.

Maybe you should watch the rest of the video.

It starts out by showing the supernova event occuring 168,000 years ago in the case of constant light speed, and then goes on to show what would be the conclusion if you assume a light speed larger in the past than it is now. Specifically, the result is that the implied age of the event is older than 168,000 years. That's sort of the point of the video.

If you disagree, please show where you think the math is wrong.

(edit) Just to be direct to your point, no, I do not contest that the 168,000 years number is based on a constant light speed. It's just that it isn't meaningless because that isn't the only case it covers.

 

[Patashu]

Here is an illustration of what I'm talking about. If we wanted to find the distance to the supernova by using trigonometry we're looking at something like:

A the angle is constant, since it's the angle it makes in the sky between the ring's edge and the core.
Note that the supernova's radius and the supernova's distance from Earth are directly proportional. That means that if light speed was twice as fast when this supernova occurred then the ring radius is twice as big (since it's taking 0.67 of these 2x light years to get from the core to the ring's edge) and thus by trigonometry distance is actually twice as far, so the same amount of time must elapsed!

You can't get around this one, dad. The supernova IS as old as we say it is.

 

[dad]

Maybe you should watch the rest of the video.

It starts out by showing the supernova event occuring 168,000 years ago in the case of constant light speed, and then goes on to show what would be the conclusion if you assume a light speed larger in the past than it is now. Specifically, the result is that the implied age of the event is older than 168,000 years. That's sort of the point of the video.

If you disagree, please show where you think the math is wrong.

We have only seen the event unfolding for some 21 years. You seem to assume a number of things, here are a few.

1) the universe and space were the same
2) That far away means long away.

Those premises can't be defended.

 

[BrainHertz]

We have only seen the event unfolding for some 21 years. You seem to assume a number of things, here are a few.

1) the universe and space were the same

That the speed of light might possibly have varied is specifically addressed. If you think some other parameter has changed, please state which and why this alters the conclusion.

2) That far away means long away.

Those premises can't be defended.

You're saying it's indefensible to state that something a long way away is a long way away? Please clarify.

 

[dad]

Here is an illustration of what I'm talking about. If we wanted to find the distance to the supernova by using trigonometry we're looking at something like:

A the angle is constant, since it's the angle it makes in the sky between the ring's edge and the core.

Hey, I know all about that stuff. The distance is no issue, even if it were 17 billion light years away! Really. No issue at all. Don't bother trying to prove distance.

Note that the supernova's radius and the supernova's distance from Earth are directly proportional. That means that if light speed was twice as fast when this supernova occured then the distance is actually twice as far, so the same amount of time must elapsed!

No, you assume that light is constant. I assume our light only is constant. The different universe state, and light of the far past does not follow those rules. Light could travel any speed it needed to! Now it has a set speed. See, the forever universe is in sync with God's will. Sometimes He wants some things to get around fast, other times, maybe not so. Like a living organism, the forever universe responds to His whims! Not onlty that, but, very likely, OURS as well!!! Adam, some feel was to be master of the universe.
Master of the elements, the sun, the stars, the wind, etc.

With 1987a we simply see an event that was sent on it's way to earth, scheduled to arrive in 1987.

You can't get around this one, dad. The supernova IS as old as we say it is.

Of course I can, and climbed that ant hill long ago. Piece of cake.

 

[dad]

That the speed of light might possibly have varied is specifically addressed. If you think some other parameter has changed, please state which and why this alters the conclusion.

No, you don't get it! I mean that light was not at a set rate at all in the former state, that we know of! Some light got here, maybe other stars were not supposed to yet. It does not have to be that we had a certain speed for all light in the past. It depends on what was wanted, and needed! remember, this universe, and all stars were made for us!!! We are the reason they shine as they do today. They are a week's work from God, to us!!! Forget a diamond ring, God has real class!! Mind boggling.

You're saying it's indefensible to state that something a long way away is a long way away? Please clarify.

No, of course things are a long way, billions of light years in some cases. No problem. The former light could get here in jig time, distance was no problem at all.

 

[Patashu]

I'm not assuming that light is constant at all. I explicitly handled cases in which the speed of light had varied in the past. If it was 10 times as fast when supernova 1987A had happened, for example, the ring radius is actually 6.7ly and by our trigonometry the distance is now 1,680,000 light years, which the 10x speed light would travel along in 168,000 years.
It's even worse if the light has been slowing down since then, since that'd mean the ring distance stays as it's observed while the distance takes even longer to travel (since the light's been slowing down in the mean time).
The only way to reconcile this is to postulate light that's been not slowing down but speeding up since supernova 1978A or since sometime before it happened. Do you have any evidence for this, perhaps?

 

[BrainHertz]

No, you don't get it! I mean that light was not at a set rate at all in the former state, that we know of! Some light got here, maybe other stars were not supposed to yet. It does not have to be that we had a certain speed for all light in the past. It depends on what was wanted, and needed! remember, this universe, and all stars were made for us!!! We are the reason they shine as they do today. They are a week's work from God, to us!!! Forget a diamond ring, God has real class!! Mind boggling.

Ah, I see. So light always travels at a speed x, where x is defined as whatever it needs to be in order to account for all of the observations whilst being consistent with the universe being no more than 6000 years old. In the event of no such number existing to actually account for the observations, it does anyway, due to some unspecified and probably unknowable branch of mathematics.

Did I miss anything?