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

[dad]

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

If, say, the universe, or heavens we live in pass away, in the way we know it, and new ones come to exist, one assumes that some change took place. That change we might call a process. Same idea in the far past. If the universe was different, it had to get this way somehow The split process, if you will.

if it's moving that fast, then the universe is very old indeed!

No, because the former state light could move across the universe fast. Ours cannot. No great time is involved at all.

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?

Why would there need to be an average light speed??? That is like saying an helicopter needs an average speed, without factoring in all the time is sits in the hangar.

 

[Steezie]

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.

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)

Again, you're giving variables but no numbers

 

[Patashu]

Why did the light travel from the super nova to its outer ring slowly but towards us ultra quickly?

 

[Mumbo]

If, say, the universe, or heavens we live in pass away, in the way we know it, and new ones come to exist, one assumes that some change took place. That change we might call a process. Same idea in the far past. If the universe was different, it had to get this way somehow The split process, if you will.

then this point is irrelevant, because regardless of all of this past and present state stuff, light can only travel at a single velocity at a time. of course, you can always argue otherwise.

No, because the former state light could move across the universe fast. Ours cannot. No great time is involved at all.

can you at least pretend that you understood the video? if light was faster, that means the supernova is farther away than it looks. and thanks to the supernova's ring shape, as well as our good friend trigonometry, we can use this to determine that the faster light travelled in your past state, the older the universe must be

Why would there need to be an average light speed??? That is like saying an helicopter needs an average speed, without factoring in all the time is sits in the hangar.

the fact remains that i can factor that time in. if a car sits at a standstill for 59 minutes then suddenly accelerates to 60 mph for one minute, it averaged one mile per hour. you're saying that it averaged sixty miles per hour, which is absolutely wrong

 

[Mumbo]

Why did the light travel from the super nova to its outer ring slowly but towards us ultra quickly?

no one is saying that it did

 

[dad]

Again, you're giving variables but no numbers

The numbers are relative to the state of the universe.

 

[dad]

then this point is irrelevant, because regardless of all of this past and present state stuff, light can only travel at a single velocity at a time. of course, you can always argue otherwise.

But at a time is a big concept, if it was locked not to a constant speed, but to the will of you or me or God.

can you at least pretend that you understood the video? if light was faster, that means the supernova is farther away than it looks.

No, if the former light could get here in hours or minutes or days, so distance matters not at all for time.

and thanks to the supernova's ring shape, as well as our good friend trigonometry, we can use this to determine that the faster light travelled in your past state, the older the universe must be

We can determine that the SN is a certain distance. As for the rings, and why they light up, do we really know that? Maybe you can start by telling us that.

the fact remains that i can factor that time in. if a car sits at a standstill for 59 minutes then suddenly accelerates to 60 mph for one minute, it averaged one mile per hour. you're saying that it averaged sixty miles per hour, which is absolutely wrong

So how would you know when the SN started moving in this state?

 

[Patashu]

no one is saying that it did

If dad is right then that must be what it's doing. And hell, at that point you may as well throw out all semblance of consistency or rationality about the universe, because it's gone.

We can observe the ring of the supernova brightening and dimming 8 months after the core brightens and dims. Matches up perfectly every time. Thus the light going from the core to the ring is constant.
So why is the light travelling from the core towards us going super duper fast? Why does that make any sense at all to have light go fast in some directions and slow in others?

 

[dad]

Why did the light travel from the super nova to its outer ring slowly but towards us ultra quickly?

That depends on what it is we are actually seeing. If it was the creation of a star, and we were seeing the 'movie' in reverse, for example, we would need to ask how long it took the creation rings to light up, till the star was created!? As it is translated in our space, and universe state, it appears as months. If, say, it really was minutes, or seconds, we might wonder why it appears like months to us. But if the universe itself changed, affecting time and space, and light, one might be able to conceive of a different real time.

Or, in another different past scenario, say, a star exploded in the split process itself. The space between there and here was not PO yet, as the SN was in an area first affected in the process. Therefore, the light from that event, or explosion got sent toward earth at speeds greater than PO speeds. In that scenario, we would have to ask why the rings reverberate at present light speeds. In this case, we might ask why time would not be affected in the universe change. If it were, then the relationship of ring to SN times need be questioned.

I could go on, but suffice it to say, that to assume some sort of PO constancy in that exotic past, you need a same state past. But you don't have one. Too bad for you, and your would be case.

 

[dad]

If dad is right then that must be what it's doing. And hell, at that point you may as well throw out all semblance of consistency or rationality about the universe, because it's gone.

Thank you. Was that so hard???

We can observe the ring of the supernova brightening and dimming 8 months after the core brightens and dims. Matches up perfectly every time. Thus the light going from the core to the ring is constant.
So why is the light travelling from the core towards us going super duper fast? Why does that make any sense at all to have light go fast in some directions and slow in others?

Now, it makes no sense. We need to ask about then. As outlined in the last post. You see, it shakes down a bit like this. The relation of the ring light to the core, need not be the same as the light from there to here. Not unless you provide to us forthwith a same state past. If you could do that, why, we would have to apply PO rules across the board.

 

[Mumbo]

But at a time is a big concept, if it was locked not to a constant speed, but to the will of you or me or God.

so the light was travelling at the speed of GOD
dude, you just blew my mind

sorry, but i don't see how this has any bearing upon what i said

No, if the former light could get here in hours or minutes or days, so distance matters not at all for time.

"but what if the light was really, really fast" isn't a valid argument, dad

We can determine that the SN is a certain distance. As for the rings, and why they light up, do we really know that? Maybe you can start by telling us that.

the video explains that perfectly. if you have an issue with its explanation or lack thereof, feel free to point it out. i'd rather not get sidetracked, if you don't mind

So how would you know when the SN started moving in this state?

i take it that you're referring to light from from the supernova, not the supernova itself. the answer to this is that it doesn't matter. velocity at certain points in time is inconsequential because we have the light's assumed average velocity

 

[dad]

so the light was travelling at the speed of GOD
dude, you just blew my mind

Thank you. The speed of the will of God was relevant in the forever state. Also, our will. And some thought free will was not important??? The evidence mounts.

sorry, but i don't see how this has any bearing upon what i said

"but what if the light was really, really fast" isn't a valid argument, dad

Neither is, 'but what if light and the universe were the same'!!!

the video explains that perfectly. if you have an issue with its explanation or lack thereof, feel free to point it out. i'd rather not get sidetracked, if you don't mind

Well, I do not doubt some mickey mouse PO explanation is given. Seeing you defend it is another matter!

i take it that you're referring to light from from the supernova, not the supernova itself. the answer to this is that it doesn't matter. velocity at certain points in time is inconsequential because we have the light's assumed average velocity

Well, who assumes it??? If it used to get here in minutes, and now takes millions of years, we need to ask how we know the light was the same, forget the velocity. If the light was not the same we can't lock in the present velocity.

 

[Naraoia]

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?

I get the horrible feeling that he's saying he doesn't even know what an average is

 

[FishFace]

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!

That's not a valid answer. Suppose I claim that the earth is flat. You counterclaim that we have cameras in space that can see the earth is round. I return fire with, "You miss the point. You are assuming light is entirely the same all the way from the earth to the camera! What if the light changed on its way to the camera to make it look round!"

You are being silly, and everyone can tell.

If you think light behaved differently tell us how it was different, what that means, and why you think it was different.
This is about you giving specific details. Put up or shut up.

 

[FishFace]

Well, am I really claiming anything here??

You are claiming that light was different and, furthermore, that it was different in such a way that allows the universe to only be 6,000 years old.
Our claim is that those things are impossible, so it's up to you to stop talking vague nonsense and get some details.

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.

But complete and utter hogwash. As far as maths goes, I'd recommend learning your times tables first!

 

[thaumaturgy]

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)

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W does not equal W*F[sub]L[/sub]

It equals X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W

W*F[sub]L[/sub] x W = W[sup]2[/sup] F[sub]L[/sub]

So the Will of God is now a squared term, so you have squared the will of God. Does that have any "actual meaning"?

IN ADDITION:
"Will of God" is not a quantity. It is a thing.
Y and X are "stars", again, things, not quantities.

If you are trying to make a symbolic logic syllogism you will need to use different types of symbols.

This appears to be neither math nor logic.

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

At what point was W=Y*F[sub]L[/sub] and W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]established? If that is the case then:

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W
and
W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]

Then you have effectively set up the equation:

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / X*F[sub]L[/sub] = 1.

I am unsure how meaningful it is to state that X*F[sub]L[/sub] = X*F[sub]L[/sub] But there you go.

So are you claiming the Will of God is a tautology? Or are you just saying "a thing is what it is"?

 

[FishFace]

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.

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)

OK, So S[sub]P[/sub] is the content of sense in post P of Dad's. Let D = the different past and Z = the split.
Then we have S[sub]P[/sub] = D(P)*Z(P) - R, the arbitrary constant of randomness.
We must then multiply by the coefficient of normality, giving us the following equation:

N[sub]D[/sub] = N(S[sub]P[/sub])

Substituting, we obtain:

N[sub]D[/sub] = N(D(P)*Z(P) - R)

However, we must take the limit as P tends to Dad's craziness factor - i.e. infinity. So:

lim[sub]P --> ∞[/sub] N[sub]D[/sub] = ?

Now, D(P) and Z(P) are increasing functions, but NR, the coefficient of normality multiplied by the arbitrary constant of randomness decreases with order O(A(n,n))
Hence, by L'Hôpital, we end up with a value for the limit of the negative square root of negative one, -i.
That in turn means i get to decide whether dad makes sense, and I say he doesn't.

That, by the way, dad, made as much sense, if not more than the stuff you came out with.

 

[FishFace]

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.

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)

Just reviewing this for a moment, I decided (graciously) to give a more detailed explanation of why this is bunkum.
If (X*FL)/W = W FL = (Y*FL)/W then we can multiply the leftmost and rightmost equations by W and we find that X*FL = Y*FL. Dividing by FL we find X=Y. So both stars are the same!
Alternatively, we find that by multiplying by W, X*FL = W*W*FL. Dividing both sides by FL, we get X=W*W.
X is the will of God squared? Like that makes sense.
Speaking of sense (see my previous post for a mathematical analysis of sense) What does it mean to multiply a star by a speed? What is 55km/h * Betelgeuse? pi m/s * The Sun? And whatever that means, what does it mean to divide by someone's will?

Don't answer, dad, just admit that you're talking nonsense, don't have a clue what you meant when you said that light behaved differently in the past, and that you didn't bother to try and understand the video either, so you're not actually qualified to talk about the age of the earth.

 

[Mumbo]

Thank you. The speed of the will of God was relevant in the forever state. Also, our will. And some thought free will was not important??? The evidence mounts.

and this is why i like talking with you

Neither is, 'but what if light and the universe were the same'!!!

i'm not saying that, i'm saying that light wasn't magically math-defying. until you can give a reasonable explanation for why that is incorrect, i'll continue to say that

Well, I do not doubt some mickey mouse PO explanation is given. Seeing you defend it is another matter!

i don't want to waste my time guessing what exactly you disapprove of. tell me what's wrong, then i can fix it! you're just assigning homework for no apparent reason.

Well, who assumes it??? If it used to get here in minutes, and now takes millions of years, we need to ask how we know the light was the same, forget the velocity.

until you manage to prove that it's relevant that light was "different," i don't need to forget the velocity

If the light was not the same we can't lock in the present velocity.

it's time for a review! i say that the average speed at which light travelled in the past state can be quantified, because I feel, maybe misguidedly, that light has to have a velocity at all times, whether it be negative, positive, or 0. you say the math won't work because the light moved at the speed of magic. i think this matter needs to be cleared up before we can go on

 

[thaumaturgy]

Just reviewing this for a moment, I decided (graciously) to give a more detailed explanation of why this is bunkum.
If (X*FL)/W = W FL = (Y*FL)/W then we can multiply the leftmost and rightmost equations by W and we find that X*FL = Y*FL. Dividing by FL we find X=Y. So both stars are the same!
Alternatively, we find that by multiplying by W, X*FL = W*W*FL. Dividing both sides by FL, we get X=W*W.
X is the will of God squared? Like that makes sense.
Speaking of sense (see my previous post for a mathematical analysis of sense) What does it mean to multiply a star by a speed? What is 55km/h * Betelgeuse? pi m/s * The Sun? And whatever that means, what does it mean to divide by someone's will?

Don't answer, dad, just admit that you're talking nonsense, don't have a clue what you meant when you said that light behaved differently in the past, and that you didn't bother to try and understand the video either, so you're not actually qualified to talk about the age of the earth.

Actually, Mumbo is quite right on this. Drawing Dad out into this type of conversation is enlightening on so many levels.

Not the least of which is "math". It is refreshing to see Dad actually post the equations he's working off of.

I am with Fish on this one, though, I'd really need to see what the units are on some of these terms. Especially the God's Will units squared.