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

[dad]

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.

Again you miss the point. It was many speeds, and any speed all at the same time, depends on our will, and need, and God's will. It was made to respond to us![example, one star maybe was supposed to shine on earth this year, another one, just as far, maybe was not, so only the light of the one got here!] Why do you think the devil is so jealous and hates mankind so???? We were made to rule the universe with Him. He put us over this creation.
Look at the two witnesses in Rev 11, they have power, like Jesus has power over the earth, and sea, and rain, and etc!!! Jesus calmed the sea, for example. That is the sort of thing that man also was meant to do. We were truly robbed, and sold a horrible false bill of goods, by the enemy of our souls.

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).

No, there are a few ways to fit it in to a different state universe, no problem at all.
The only ones with a problem, are the poor dolts that expected a black hole, or neutron star!! It ain't there!!!! Proof their stories are a lie.

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?

No, we can have a universe state change, that includes light and have the whole event carried towards earth at speeds that the present light simply could never attain. Or, we could likely do a few other things, either way, unless you have a locked in present state in the past, you certainly have no case at all. In case you are not yet aware, you do not have that, and never will.

 

[dad]

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?

Yes, light travels at a certain speed, and we know what that is. All you miss is the different universe of the past, when this universe state was not in existence. If you want to apply events from long ago to today, under today's rules, why, of course you need to prove the universe was the same back then. Good luck with that.

 

[BrainHertz]

Yes, light travels at a certain speed, and we know what that is. All you miss is the different universe of the past, when this universe state was not in existence. If you want to apply events from long ago to today, under today's rules, why, of course you need to prove the universe was the same back then. Good luck with that.

You seem to have completely ignored the premise of the OP, which investigates what we would observe if the speed of light is assumed to be variable over time.

Did you actually watch the second half of the video yet?

 

[Mumbo]

this thread has an awful habit of taking off without me

brainhertz is right in his last point, anyway. the speed of light could have changed constantly in the past state, but that doesn't matter. average speed is what matters, and as long as the speed of light did have an average during that time period, the math works out just fine.

 

[Mumbo]

The only ones with a problem, are the poor dolts that expected a black hole, or neutron star!! It ain't there!!!! Proof their stories are a lie.

that thread was a lot of fun. i recall our talk culminated with you saying that alpha particles present in the aftermath of a supernova must be emitted by God, because radioactive isotopes can't possibly be the cause

 

[Patashu]

Okay, now dad is denying that light has had a set speed at any given point in time. (Or something like that.) So, why doesn't the speed of light fluctuate under lab experiment except when we'd expect it to, passed through a material or otherwise impeding medium?

Also, we definitely can't will or want or wish the speed of light to change; c is constant no matter how much of humanity's willpower happens to be put towards making it different, and light is only observed to slow down under conditions which would not require an observer (ie passing through a medium) (and this still isn't changing c, it's just delaying light locally)

 

[Mumbo]

Okay, now dad is denying that light has had a set speed at any given point in time. (Or something like that.) So, why doesn't the speed of light fluctuate under lab experiment except when we'd expect it to, passed through a material or otherwise impeding medium?

dad is saying that in the past state, light could move at whatever speed God pleased. don't think that a lab experiment could prove otherwise

 

[Steezie]

dad, can you demonstrate what you're claiming in mathematical terms? Can you spell out what you claim in a mathematical equation?

 

[dad]

You seem to have completely ignored the premise of the OP, which investigates what we would observe if the speed of light is assumed to be variable over time.

Did you actually watch the second half of the video yet?

Well, I thought I would do baby steps. The claim that far away is long away I challenged. Why look at a house built on that foundation, if it can't be supported?
I do not assume that the speed of light was variable, not our light. Do I??

 

[dad]

this thread has an awful habit of taking off without me

brainhertz is right in his last point, anyway. the speed of light could have changed constantly in the past state, but that doesn't matter. average speed is what matters, and as long as the speed of light did have an average during that time period, the math works out just fine.

Well, did it have an average?? If one star's light could get here in a day, and another star's light not at all, because it was not supposed to shine on earth, how do you average that? Especially if in a few years after that, maybe it was the other way round!!!!!! maybe the visible stars are just a snapshot, almost frozen in time, so to speak, of what was shing on the day of the split!!! maybe, if the fornmer light were still here, the whole sky would be different the next day!!!????
Science is so small.

 

[dad]

that thread was a lot of fun. i recall our talk culminated with you saying that alpha particles present in the aftermath of a supernova must be emitted by God, because radioactive isotopes can't possibly be the cause

Say what??? Well, we may have delved into one possibility of how the former light worked there, I don't recall.

 

[dad]

dad, can you demonstrate what you're claiming in mathematical terms? Can you spell out what you claim in a mathematical equation?

Well, am I really claiming anything here?? I simply raised a new idea on how the light of the former universe may have worked. Under that concept, of a variable former light potential speed. it becomes more like a quantum probability almost. What determined the outcome was what the will of God was, and maybe even the will of man. Putting numbers to that is easy. Where X = the star that was not supposed to shine that day, the speed of the light from x = 0 The light from the Y star, that was supposed to reach earth that day moved at infinite speed, or whatever portion of that speed was required to get it done!!!
Simple.

 

[dad]

dad is saying that in the past state, light could move at whatever speed God pleased. don't think that a lab experiment could prove otherwise

Good point. Unless we set the lab up in Eden, or in the future, and asked God for a demo. Science will be real fun in the world to come!

 

[Mumbo]

Well, did it have an average?? If one star's light could get here in a day, and another star's light not at all, because it was not supposed to shine on earth, how do you average that? Especially if in a few years after that, maybe it was the other way round!!!!!! maybe the visible stars are just a snapshot, almost frozen in time, so to speak, of what was shing on the day of the split!!! maybe, if the fornmer light were still here, the whole sky would be different the next day!!!????
Science is so small.

that's very interesting dad, and it might all be true, but it doesn't matter in the least. what we're concerned with at the moment is how long it took for the light from a single supernova to reach earth. anything at all could happen to that light; it could stop, it could move backward, it could even be blotted out by God entirely. but as long as it has some measure of velocity at some point, it has an average velocity as well. and since the universe only began 6000 years ago, and the supernova is many more thousands of lightyears away, it must have been moving pretty fast for a substantial portion of that time!

and, of course, if it did move faster, the math doesn't add up. try again, dad.

 

[Steezie]

Well, am I really claiming anything here?? I simply raised a new idea on how the light of the former universe may have worked. Under that concept, of a variable former light potential speed. it becomes more like a quantum probability almost. What determined the outcome was what the will of God was, and maybe even the will of man. Putting numbers to that is easy. Where X = the star that was not supposed to shine that day, the speed of the light from x = 0 The light from the Y star, that was supposed to reach earth that day moved at infinite speed, or whatever portion of that speed was required to get it done!!!
Simple.

That isnt math, you just defined variables

I want a system of equations using existing laws of physics of motion to describe the acceleration of light as a wave. What you have here is the variable X defined as one star, the other star defined as Y. These are variables, I want to see them in an equation.

 

[dad]

that's very interesting dad, and it might all be true, but it doesn't matter in the least. what we're concerned with at the moment is how long it took for the light from a single supernova to reach earth. anything at all could happen to that light; it could stop, it could move backward, it could even be blotted out by God entirely. but as long as it has some measure of velocity at some point, it has an average velocity as well.

No need for it to be one velocity. There could have been several, for example, inside a split process, or universe change. Not to mention before the split. All we can detect now is the current light, and how it trickles in.

and since the universe only began 6000 years ago, and the supernova is many more thousands of lightyears away, it must have been moving pretty fast for a substantial portion of that time!

Doesn't matter at all, if the former light could traverse the universe in an hour.

and, of course, if it did move faster, the math doesn't add up. try again, dad.

It did not exist per se. What we had was the former light and former universe. The math of our light only applies to our light.

 

[sinan90]

So basically we're trying to dispute the factual basis of Einstein's Special Relativity?

There's only ever going to be one winner unless there's some kind of mathematical device that will give testable predictions, which I can see from this argument that there won't be, so why should it even matter?

 

[dad]

That isnt math, you just defined variables

I want a system of equations using existing laws of physics of motion to describe the acceleration of light as a wave.

That would only apply in the present universe, one would assume that the SN originated in the former state, or at least the changing universe process.

What you have here is the variable X defined as one star, the other star defined as Y. These are variables, I want to see them in an equation.

OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.

X x FL divided by W = W FL
Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)

 

[dad]

So basically we're trying to dispute the factual basis of Einstein's Special Relativity?

Not at all, I am simply saying it is relative to this present state only!

There's only ever going to be one winner unless there's some kind of mathematical device that will give testable predictions, which I can see from this argument that there won't be, so why should it even matter?

It isn't about winning or losing, it is about you claiming present rules apply beyond the present universe state. It is about you not knowing how long it has been here. That's what it's all about.

 

[Mumbo]

No need for it to be one velocity. There could have been several, for example, inside a split process, or universe change. Not to mention before the split. All we can detect now is the current light, and how it trickles in.

we're obviously getting somewhere, because this is absolutely incomprehensible. what do you mean by "split process" and "universe change?"

Doesn't matter at all, if the former light could traverse the universe in an hour.

if it moved that fast, then the universe is very old indeed!

It did not exist per se. What we had was the former light and former universe. The math of our light only applies to our light.

so you're saying that past state light did something so utterly miraculous and unimaginable that if i tried to calculate the average, i'd get a divide by zero error?