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

[BrainHertz]

Great, and to do that, would we not start by seeing what speed light goes from core to ring, and indeed, if we are even sure it isn't visa versa or something!!??

So you're suggesting that the light is actually produced by the ring and subsequently arrives at the star 8 months before it left?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Try and pay attention, Thau This is what I referred to, in the quote
"there will still be an infinite set of prime numbers"

I thought you were questioning Fermat's Last Theorem.

Great. Well, thanks for stopping by, and trying to make fun of others you think do not understand it either.

I am not making fun of you! Please understand. I am hoping only to help answer your many questions. You see, as I said earlier, I am not here to argue with you anymore. It is cruel and unfair to you.

The posts you made on math earlier showed you were not up to the math, and it convinced me the best thing I can do is answer your questions as you ask them. I will attempt to help you learn.

As for me, I couldn't care less about either way. Will that help them when we order them to clean up the planet when the millennium starts??

Now, now, Dad. It isn't healthy to you to fantasize about subjugating other people. Turning other people into your servants isn't a nice dream to have. Remember, everyone is a worthwhile person and you should remember that. Even when you get mad at someone.

Great, and so you still don't understand it you admit!

The first step to learning is to admit when we don't fully understand something! It's very freeing!

Honesty is the best policy I find.

And you know, sometimes it shows great strength. To know you are strong enough to reveal a weakness!

It's OK to show some weakness once in a while. Usually when someone treats others weaknesses with disdain and never admits their own weaknesses it means they are secretly very weak themselves.

Fat lot of good it seems to have done.

But it did some good! I was able to post some useful information about how people have proven Fermat's Last theorem which was part of Fish's post!

So we can all work toward learning new things!

Doesn't seem to take much to impress you.

That's kind of hurtful, Dad. I know that's probably what you wanted, but remember, if we work together we can all learn.

Oh, an honest lawyer, as well as one who likes puzzles that waste a lot of time? Great.

Fermat didn't waste a lot of time! The man is responsible for the foundations that lead to calculus. That has been one of the greatest advances in mathematics and how we are able to do so much of what we do today in science! The Calculus underlies a HUGE portion of science!

Right, you are full of advice to. How nice.

Don't worry about that. That was a note for Fishface. It wasn't aimed at you or meant to hurt you in any way.

Maybe you could concentrate on answering what is actually asked. The result, likely would be topical.

I think you know that I have, over the course of the past year or so, posted a lot of really topical spot-on science in direct response to your questions. In this case I was responding to what I assumed was your question to Fishface about Fermat's Last Theorem.

Now the fact that you were unclear what part you were addressing in that post doesn't mean you should be insulting to me. I was attempting to help you learn. As I hope to learn in life.

You ask so many questions and when those questions are answered you seem to get very angry and insulting to the people who are trying to answer them for you.

That's not nice. I think maybe you'll understand that in time.

In the meantime I'm going to continue to try to answer your questions in as friendly a manner as I possibly can. Please don't get mean or nasty when I answer your questions or provide you with some more information!

 

[Mumbo]

It is your theories that are myth, the bible is absolute. I found Dodwell's curve

another threadful of assumptions

and history as well.

well, you found some of history anyway. there's still an awful lot left prior to 4400 B.C. that you haven't come to terms with yet. that's a topic for another time, though.

What more could one want??

nothing, i know better than to ask for much :I

If the stars we were supposed to see at the advent of the universe change were in the sky, how is it they would be disorderly??

according to you, light at the "advent of the universe," as well as in the now-distant universe, moved however fast it liked. this was your way of explaining away the supernova, remember? trouble is, direct observation suggests that that light moved at a uniform pace; the distant universe isn't a jumbled mess.

saying that we are "supposed" to see the distant universe as being orderly doesn't excuse this. if God is micromanaging the light to make it orderly, that implies that He is manipulating the speed of that light to make it uniform, which only serves to undermine your point. if He is only making the speed of the light appear to be uniform when it is actually moving at any given speed, then He's deceiving mankind for the sake of aesthetics, or worse, because He feels like it. and that's ridiculous!

i'm eagerly awaiting your entirely plausible explanation for this

A different universe really does explain things. We don't need to know it all at the moment, but that sure covers it all.
Ever notice that bible wizs don't bug me on the idea much?? There is a reason.

i always assumed that they distance themselves from you because you make them look insane by association :I

There ought to be a diploma for that.

you should look into philosophy, a couple of the guys i'm reading right now for my ethics course are almost as mindbending as you

 

[tanzanos]

Not sure of the point here. You claimed that, I think it was, languages go back 5500 years, no??? You were asked to prove it, and could not. Instead you seem to insinuate that you lean to the bible record???
If you do, then realize that the tower of babel was not that long ago, and that is where languages began.

So you do refute the validity of the Bible. Well Don't say I did not try. Perhaps you will be forgiven for your transgressions.
I pray for you Brother!

 

[dad]

I know the idea is that they all spoke the same language. What language was it?

Likely, it was no language that came after. What changed, in my opinion, was the universe, which affected the brain of man, and the way he processes information. I read how, when the spiritual was added again, in the book of Acts, all men heard the apostle in their own tongue. (or thought they did)

 

[dad]

dad could I please have your definition of a deceiver please???

Why? Is there something I, or someone else said that you feel is somehow off the mark?

 

[dad]

The Egyptians were a highly developed society. They weren't just communicating with "pictures" any more than the Chinese just communicate with pictures. That's why it isn't immediately obvious what the text is just by looking at the pictures. That's why we needed to find the ROSETTA STONE to help us decipher heiroglyphics.

Don't think I think man was stupid before the flood, or the split. If anything we devolved some since then. But they did use pictures to communicate. I hear that the origianl meanings may have changed as time went on, for the pictures? If so, why, we might even ask if the Rosetta stuff was from a later take on the pics.

Even the LATIN ALPHABET like we use today has origins in Phoenecian pictograms if I recall my world history classes! I believe the letter A is an upside down representation of the phoenecian symbol for cow...which is what it kinda looks like if you turn it upside down! Check it out here (it's also related to the Hebrew letter aleph).

Language progressed since the early days. This is news??

Egyptian heiroglyphics are one of the oldest languages in the world!

My point, exactly.

 

[dad]

So you're suggesting that the light is actually produced by the ring and subsequently arrives at the star 8 months before it left?

Not really, I was asking what we actually know. Or something.

 

[dad]

I thought you were questioning Fermat's Last Theorem.

I don't usually question what I couldn't care less about.

Now, now, Dad. It isn't healthy to you to fantasize about subjugating other people. Turning other people into your servants isn't a nice dream to have. Remember, everyone is a worthwhile person and you should remember that. Even when you get mad at someone.

Call the bible anything you like. That's the way it is.

But it did some good! I was able to post some useful information about how people have proven Fermat's Last theorem which was part of Fish's post!

Yes, glad to hear, after 300 years, you still don't get it.

So we can all work toward learning new things!

Great, maybe ride the horse head stick around the room a bit to, fun is OK.

Fermat didn't waste a lot of time! The man is responsible for the foundations that lead to calculus. That has been one of the greatest advances in mathematics and how we are able to do so much of what we do today in science! The Calculus underlies a HUGE portion of science!

Hopefully they understand some of that.

In the meantime I'm going to continue to try to answer your questions in as friendly a manner as I possibly can. Please don't get mean or nasty when I answer your questions or provide you with some more information!

No worries, I can see you can use a little space. Good idea to stay calm.

 

[dad]

another threadful of assumptions
well, you found some of history anyway. there's still an awful lot left prior to 4400 B.C. that you haven't come to terms with yet. that's a topic for another time, though.
nothing, i know better than to ask for much :I

An awful lot dated falsely, but that means nothing.

according to you, light at the "advent of the universe," as well as in the now-distant universe, moved however fast it liked. this was your way of explaining away the supernova, remember? trouble is, direct observation suggests that that light moved at a uniform pace; the distant universe isn't a jumbled mess.

Well, I raised a few ideas of how the former state may have worked. As I said, no need to lock into one claim, since you know nothing about anything but the fishbowl. But, if light was non uniform in speed, and the new state came, why, it would then be uniform, would it not? One, then can't look at the uniform light, and declare it had to also be uniform then, unless one proved a same state past.

saying that we are "supposed" to see the distant universe as being orderly doesn't excuse this. if God is micromanaging the light to make it orderly, that implies that He is manipulating the speed of that light to make it uniform, which only serves to undermine your point.

No, we are in this state now, it is a uniform light, as far as we can tell. Although, listening to posters here so far, I am beginning to wonder.

if He is only making the speed of the light appear to be uniform when it is actually moving at any given speed, then He's deceiving mankind for the sake of aesthetics, or worse, because He feels like it. and that's ridiculous!

Well, no. If the universe was changed, and light here is constant, no one is deceiving anyone, but themselves, by assuming this state always was.

i always assumed that they distance themselves from you because you make them look insane by association :I

Well, if you knew a bit about it, why you might realize that mounting a bible case against the concept is pretty well near impossible, far as I can tell.

you should look into philosophy, a couple of the guys i'm reading right now for my ethics course are almost as mindbending as you

Wild ideas don't interest me, what interests me is facts, and evidence, and bible basis. Monks arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin, or philosophers arguing over how many singularities can fir on the head of a pin I find silly, and time wasting.

 

[dad]

So you do refute the validity of the Bible. Well Don't say I did not try. Perhaps you will be forgiven for your transgressions.
I pray for you Brother!

No idea what you are talking about.

 

[tanzanos]

They all spoke the same language. That was right after the flood. I think some have guessed as to where in the historical area it was, that the tower may have been started.
But I consider the fact that Egypt resorted to basically communicating with pictures as proof.

They spoke English! When will you all accept the FACT that God spoke English? God specifically stated that only WASPS will ever go to heaven. DAD you should know better.

As for the Egyptian pictures they are called Hieroglyphs and are a written language. Dad you should not have dropped out of primary school. Erudition would have been a great help to you. You would have been able to comprehend the world around you.

 

[tanzanos]

No idea what you are talking about.

Play the fool all you want; but, your transgressions will not go unnoticed by the lord! You have transgressed against the bible innumerable times. Profess not your guilt to me for you shall be judged on a higher plane.

 

[dad]

As for the Egyptian pictures they are called Hieroglyphs and are a written language....

 

[dad]

Play the fool all you want; but, your transgressions will not go unnoticed by the lord! You have transgressed against the bible innumerable times. Profess not your guilt to me for you shall be judged on a higher plane.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

An awful lot dated falsely, but that means nothing.

You have never shown any evidence that standard archeological dates are off by the thousands of years you need them to be off for your mythology to be correct.

Well, I raised a few ideas of how the former state may have worked. As I said, no need to lock into one claim, since you know nothing about anything but the fishbowl. But, if light was non uniform in speed, and the new state came, why, it would then be uniform, would it not? One, then can't look at the uniform light, and declare it had to also be uniform then, unless one proved a same state past.

No, we are in this state now, it is a uniform light, as far as we can tell. Although, listening to posters here so far, I am beginning to wonder.


Well, no. If the universe was changed, and light here is constant, no one is deceiving anyone, but themselves, by assuming this state always was.


Well, if you knew a bit about it, why you might realize that mounting a bible case against the concept is pretty well near impossible, far as I can tell.


Wild ideas don't interest me,

What a statement to come from a guy who says there was no gravity before the flood, talks about time running backwards, posted a thread on the earth not rotating and expects to spend eternity in a city of transparent gold boiking Marilyn Monroe and other famous beauties and says that Elvis may be residing in the moon. You have nothing but wild ideas and have never backed up any of them. No wonder some people still think you are an "evolutionist" trying to make YEC look silly. Whether you are trying or not you are certainly succeeding.

 

[SmurfsRcool]

Why? Is there something I, or someone else said that you feel is somehow off the mark?

We will get to that can you answer my question first?

 

[Patashu]

Likely, it was no language that came after. What changed, in my opinion, was the universe, which affected the brain of man, and the way he processes information. I read how, when the spiritual was added again, in the book of Acts, all men heard the apostle in their own tongue. (or thought they did)

So, what language was Genesis originally written in?

 

[FishFace]

No, I simply noted that a math wiz ought to be able to come up with some little formula for the non constant former light. In other words, using two stars, each with a different speed that day.

Perhaps you need to explain what a "formula for light" is? Is that something to do with baby milk?

Is to, nya nya.

Well, I guess you would know... Oh wait.

A behavior?? Are you sure it might not be something more like a measurement of time, that is beyond our current ability to comprehend?

No. It is a behaviour. It describes the behaviour of the function 1/x as x approaches zero. The behaviour being, precisely, that for any number you pick, no matter how large, you can always get 1/x to be bigger than that number by picking x close enough to zero.

How would you know, you don't so much as know what it is?

I do know what it is - I've just described one definition, right there.

In box thinking. If i (infinity) = something that is beyond any number in our universe, how would you make a bigger one?

i = (-1)^(1/2), actually.
The problem is, dad, that numbers aren't in our universe. Numbers aren't anywhere. You can't change numbers by changing the universe.

I don't do baby math.

And that's exactly what such nonsense is!

A grown up person would recognize temporal state math as baby math.

Maths is maths.

As defined by a finite thinker in the fishbowl of this finite universe state. So?

So the only way to get an infinite real number is by changing the definition. But the definition is not something in the universe. It is an abstract construct.

I understand you think so, naturally.

And you would kn-- oh, yeah, once again, you see - you wouldn't.

Relax, 2 = 2 is four. I simply wanted to see if that was any sort of stumper for you.

The point is that 2+2 can never not equal four.

Hey, it's what I do. Explain stuff.

No, dad, you explain nothing.

 

[FishFace]

Yes, glad to hear, after 300 years, you still don't get it.

The proof of Fermat's Last Theorem takes 100 pages of solid mathematics. You couldn't understand even if you studied it for the rest of your life, I'd wager.
Thaum and I know what mathematicians call a sketch of a proof. Probably more than you'll ever know.