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

[Nitron]

You guys are almost as crazy as Dad for trying to argue with him.

 

[Patashu]

You guys are almost as crazy as Dad for trying to argue with him.

I don't mind; I got to brush up on my trigonometry.

 

[FishFace]

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.

First Commandment of the Religion of Science:

Thou shalt always state thy units.

 

[FishFace]

No, as usual, your parable is strictly in box. We observe light from here to there, not from a different universe to now.

So you think the camera has to be in the same universe do you, hmm? Unevidenced assumption!

No more silly than reading how Jesus and us will control the forces of the universe soon. There is no reason to assume that is not true created nature, is there??

There is no reason to believe you're chatting anything other than your usual nonsense.

Now now. Tut tut. I do not think our light, per se existed, or will exist as is. So why try to make it do stuff??

That explains absolutely nothing. We want details. We want to know how light worked, what it did, and what we should and shouldn't see because of that.
Details.

 

[FishFace]

My claim is also that it is impossible within the fishbowl of this present universe state, Fishface. We are close on this. What is missing is proof for your claim that all things continue as they were since time immemorial. You can't just say it, you need evidence.

No. Learn some epistemology. You are asking us all to prove a negative, and, as we know, you have consistently been unable to prove any negatives. So I claim that, since there is no reason to believe that things have or will change, they probably won't. Feel free to provide a reason to the contrary.

Well, I understand I maybe should have ratcheted it down a bit for some. But I am here for you, should you need help on any of the numbers.

I'm fine, thanks. Judging by your prowess in other fields, you'd probably do me more harm than good. And, you know, I need to pass my units this year to get into the next one.
Good luck on getting a decent mathematically grounded theory.

 

[FishFace]

For those with a bend to make things up, I think you could be right.

Said dad, the... well, if not the best, at least the most prolific conjurer of fabrications on the forum!

I, on the nice other hand base my ideas solidly on what we are told in the bible.

That's like saying you build your house solidly on sand.

Jesus really did calm the storm, speak the universe into existence, and etc. In the other state, the Lord's will is done. Really.

I'm not just going to take your word for it. Or even the word of lots of people. Really.
Really - you really need some evidence. And an actual theory. So go back to the drawing board, realise that you don't have a clue what you were thinking when you invented those joke "equations" and admit that you're just making stuff up.

 

[FishFace]

The silly thing is, that you try to make a PO uniform rule for each star in the forever state. That can't add up. Maybe that is why most of the universe is missing in action, and unknown to science, and predicted neutron stars and black holes are missing, and they end up with the whole thing in a speck o soup, at the end of the fantasizing day.

The silly thing is you pretending you have a clue what you're talking about, and then showing everyone how false that is by trying to do maths.

 

[Tammisto]

The silly thing is, that you try to make a PO uniform rule for each star in the forever state. That can't add up. Maybe that is why most of the universe is missing in action, and unknown to science, and predicted neutron stars and black holes are missing, and they end up with the whole thing in a speck o soup, at the end of the fantasizing day.

So you are saying that RX J1856.5-3754 does not exist?

 

[TroubleShooter43]

Dad, is it easier for you to make things up as you go along rather than accept reality? If this makes you feel more secure in your life, then fine. But do not pretend for even the tiniest moment that anything you say has any scientific value at all. Fantasy is the place where fundamentalists live: the rest of us choose reality. You accuse others of lying, but are oblivious to your own.

 

[Naraoia]

Well, I think we were looking at starlight in the created nature universe state. If, as I proposed, the forces of the universe were linked directly to the will of God, and His people to some extent, then it is not a one light speed fits all situation. I mean, it is a bit like saying how fast is the average speed angels fly!!?? It could range from hovering, to spanning the universe and beyond in a moment, one supposes.

Ah, so you are proposing infinite speeds.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Dad, Did I catch you in a MISTAKE???

You said:

So you added stuff in. OK. That makes it your puppy. The will of God is not a speed.

(Emphasis added)

But in your original post you said:

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)

(Emphases added)

Interesting. So you were wrong. You claim W is a speed or at least equivalent to a speed. You. Yourself.

That was the W if you recall that far back.

Ha ha! I recalled it better than you did. And it was YOUR OWN POST.

You'll note what I added was a "squared" term because you multiplied W by itself. I also added in "*" where it was missing (you only put the multiplier in in about half the times it was present...it is common in algebra to sometimes put two terms being multiplied side-by-side without the "x" or "*", but you apparently were doing it sometimes with and sometimes without.

The W affects the speed of light from the star, in the forever state. Or, maybe we also could do some of that. Maybe we can add a little 'm' in the mix, standing for the will of believers in the forever state.

You do math about as well as you do geology! It's a wonder to behold.

And the sad thing is, I'm the one correcting YOU. And I'll be the first to confess I'm not a great mathematician.

But in comparison I'm a genius!

And at least I'm able to keep track of your posts even if you aren't.

You're welcome.

 

[dad]

You guys are almost as crazy as Dad for trying to argue with him.

Didn't I get some reps from you, I think it was twice lately?? Thanks. But where does that leave you!!?

 

[dad]

First Commandment of the Religion of Science:

Thou shalt always state thy units.

Well, all units are connected to W. It can add, subtract, divide, and multiply stuff.

 

[Naraoia]

Well, all units are connected to W. It can add, subtract, divide, and multiply stuff.

W, the universal operator. Ugh.

 

[dad]

So you think the camera has to be in the same universe do you, hmm? Unevidenced assumption!

OK, I suppose a lot of things that will go on, or did, in a different universe are not evidenced. That is where it resorts to mere explanatory power, like science does.

That explains absolutely nothing. We want details. We want to know how light worked, what it did, and what we should and shouldn't see because of that.
Details.

Well, I don't know. No one knows. All we can deal with is what it is now like. But I realized something today, that I never thought of before. A real mind boggler. (drum role, please.....)

Someone mentioned stars that were not shining on earth, what happened to them? This was in regards to how stars may have shined as directed by God, or man, perhaps as well, in the different state universe of the past.
Well, maybe they did not shine, by and large? Now, we have, in this state MOST of the universe that is invisible, or 'dark'!! If the stars we see now were the ones that shined at the advent of the universe change, it seems natural, that they would pretty well remain all we see, since light in this state moves so slow!
Unless, of course, the curtain was about to be changed, and, we might say, already was, but it takes some time for us to see it. (The curtain meaning a big change in what stars would be visible from earth) The bible tells of signs in the heavens, like a third of the stars falling. It looks like a big curtain change, as it were, was done, and we will see it soon.

Now, as for SN, and other phenomena, one could look at these things in a new light. That is, that they represent some pre split signs in the sky!!!! Remember WHY the stars exist, and were made to begin with!! For signs for us!!! Now, in my PO thinking, like most folks, I assumed it must just be cycles of the moon, and sun, and possibly maybe some influences such as the astrology folks claim, etc??
But, in a living sky, with all stars hooked up to the will of God, why, the signss could be more like a computer billboard!!! Changing as needed, day to day even, or however required!!

 

[dad]

I'm not just going to take your word for it. Or even the word of lots of people. Really.
Really - you really need some evidence. And an actual theory. So go back to the drawing board, realise that you don't have a clue what you were thinking when you invented those joke "equations" and admit that you're just making stuff up.

Well, fair enough, you prefer to be in denial of the witnessed life of Jesus. Guess there was no Waterloo either?

 

[thaumaturgy]

W, the universal operator. Ugh.

Naraoia...it isn't just the universal operator...it can do the following:

Well, all units are connected to W. It can add, subtract, divide, and multiply stuff.

Did you read that carefully? It can "add, subtract, divide, and multiply stuff"!

STUFF! I mean, we are in the presence of mathematical greatness here.



(The really sad part in all this is that I'm no great shakes with math. I'll admit it. I'm not that smart. But this thread has taken a turn for the "awesome" lately!)

 

[dad]

Dad, is it easier for you to make things up as you go along rather than accept reality? If this makes you feel more secure in your life, then fine. But do not pretend for even the tiniest moment that anything you say has any scientific value at all. Fantasy is the place where fundamentalists live: the rest of us choose reality. You accuse others of lying, but are oblivious to your own.

The stars were made for signs. Look into it. Science has nothing to say about it, why pretend they have some opinion on the issue of any value whatsoever????? Be honest.

 

[dad]

Ah, so you are proposing infinite speeds.

Well, for spirits, yes, if we want to get technical, I suppose the speed of light in the true state need not be infinite, just pretty close. Remember, top speed does not mean only speed.

 

[dad]

Dad, Did I catch you in a MISTAKE???

Nope. Did you think you did??

You said:

"The will of God is not a speed. (Emphasis added)

But in your original post you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dad
OK. So, W is the will of God.

--

then either speed is W.

Right, whether He wanted a star to shine on earth decided whether it shone or not, and at what speed. All things depend on W. All speeds are according to the will of God. No one speed is W, exclusively. His will might be different for different stars.

You'll note what I added was a "squared" term because you multiplied W by itself. I also added in "*" where it was missing (you only put the multiplier in in about half the times it was present...it is common in algebra to sometimes put two terms being multiplied side-by-side without the "x" or "*", but you apparently were doing it sometimes with and sometimes without.

Well, sometimes he multiplies faster than others. So??

You do math about as well as you do geology! It's a wonder to behold.

Thanks. I like math, I dislike 'geology'. Of course, as is obvious, I don't know much about lower math, just higher math.

And the sad thing is, I'm the one correcting YOU. And I'll be the first to confess I'm not a great mathematician.

Maybe that explains why your corrections are wrong!

But in comparison I'm a genius!

Glad you think so.

And at least I'm able to keep track of your posts even if you aren't.

You're welcome.

My my, talent on loan from God? (gives little pat on back)