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

[dad]

Where?

Anywhere needed.

You're stating that there was a different speed of light in the past, show the observations now that demonstrate it.

No, a different universe state, that included a different light.

There's lots of things which affect the speed of light. But the speed of light in a vacuum is always constant.

Present light, and how it works doesn't matter.

If you don't understand what the evidence shows why don't you go and read something about the matter rather than leaving it to suspecting things and assumptions.

I do see what it shows. Also, as importantly, what it does not show. It only shows this state. That ain't much.

 

[NailsII]

If we look at redshifting, of course, light is affected! But I would suspect that reflects a change in universe state, to our state, and our light, rather than some change in our light.

Whatabout blue-shifting light then?
Is this travelling backwards in time and changing from a present state to a previous state?

Glad to hear that. Knowing where one went wrong is a first step.

Am I reading this right? Did you just decree "learning" as where Nails "went wrong"?



I guess that does make sense, though.

It does, doesn't it.

 

[sinan90]

Anywhere needed.

Specific post numbers?

No, a different universe state, that included a different light.

So you don't dispute the fact that you're claiming that the speed of light was different in the past? If the universe had a different set of laws or constants then there would be observable phenomenon today.

Present light, and how it works doesn't matter.

Actually how light works is quite vital to the argument. If you don't know the laws which govern its behaviour even in a fairly brief and simple fashion how can you show any possible reasonable way of arguing of a different past state of light.

I do see what it shows. Also, as importantly, what it does not
show. It only shows this state. That ain't much.

*bangs head against brick wall*

 

[dad]

Whatabout blue-shifting light then?
Is this travelling backwards in time and changing from a present state to a previous state?

Well, I don't know that the state has anything to do with it turning blue. I would suspect that it would be the state change.
here are a number of ways it could come down. Depends on evidence, but I could throw out a possibility. They say, basically the red is going away, and the blue shifted coming at us. If light did move at different speeds, perhaps the faster stuff coming to exist as present light might blue shift, and visa versa. Or versa visa!
Or, if we needed to we could look at the movements that started as a result of being in a new state. (on the micro scale, for example, atoms spin, and various things revolve around other things. Take away or add an electron here and there, or a spiriton here and there, or a negative or positive charge here and there, and, why, the little thing might end up spinning somewhat differently! On the big scale, tweak gravity here and there, and a few things, and presto...)

 

[dad]

Specific post numbers?

If needed, possibly. What exactly were you trying to get at again??

So you don't dispute the fact that you're claiming that the speed of light was different in the past?

Yes I do. There was no present light. How could it be slower or faster??

If the universe had a different set of laws or constants then there would be observable phenomenon today.

Nope, our universe as is would be the observable phenomenon today, of course! How it used to be ain't observed at the moment.

Actually how light works is quite vital to the argument. If you don't know the laws which govern its behaviour even in a fairly brief and simple fashion how can you show any possible reasonable way of arguing of a different past state of light.

It is a different universe, that includes it's light. But, that is the point, how could one speak intelligently of how it worked, if one lived only in a temporary physical only universe??? Don't blame me.

 

[sinan90]

If needed, possibly. What exactly were you trying to get at again??

Evidence that shows a change in the speed of light in terms of refractions, diffractions and other wave phenomenon.

Yes I do. There was no present light. How could it be slower or faster??

You can't have something present with the verb was. The speed of light beign slower or faster seems to be your whole point through this thread.

Nope, our universe as is would be the observable phenomenon today, of course! How it used to be ain't observed at the moment.

But we would see things that would allude to a different speed of light or a different set of laws or constants in the past. There's indirect evidence as well as direct observation. For example they find non-charged particles in particle accelerators through measuring the momentum of various particles, since momentum is conserved in collisions and explosions they can work out from the trail of charged particles the presence of non charged particles. IE they don't measure it directly, but prove its existence through indirect means.

It is a different universe, that includes it's light. But, that is the point, how could one speak intelligently of how it worked, if one lived only in a temporary physical only universe??? Don't blame me.

It's not a different universe though, uyou keep changing you're arguments here. First it's the same universe but with different laws constants etc, but now we're talking about a totally new universe?

 

[dad]

Evidence that shows a change in the speed of light in terms of refractions, diffractions and other wave phenomenon.

How about blue/red shift?

You can't have something present with the verb was. The speed of light beign slower or faster seems to be your whole point through this thread.

No. Light, and the universe being different is the point. Not changes in the temporary universe.

But we would see things that would allude to a different speed of light or a different set of laws or constants in the past.

Not if it was not our light that changed, but the universe state. Even so, we do see the blue/red shift.

There's indirect evidence as well as direct observation. For example they find non-charged particles in particle accelerators through measuring the momentum of various particles, since momentum is conserved in collisions and explosions they can work out from the trail of charged particles the presence of non charged particles. IE they don't measure it directly, but prove its existence through indirect means.

They do that where? In this temporary universe! There are traits and trails here, no question. Try to follow them to eternity, and you have a problem!

It's not a different universe though, uyou keep changing you're arguments here. First it's the same universe but with different laws constants etc, but now we're talking about a totally new universe?

Different. Not our universe as we know it. For all intents and Po purposes, a new universe. In reality, it is merely the physical only part of the created universe. But, since it is all science, or us know, we think of this temporary state universe as "it".

 

[sinan90]

How about blue/red shift?

That doesn't prove a change in the speed of light. Red shift shows expansion of the universe, and blues hift would show contraction of the universe.

No. Light, and the universe being different is the point. Not changes in the temporary universe.

Everything is the universe. It's not a fishbowl as you continue to refer to it throughout this thread, it's everything that exists. Seeing light exists it is part of the universe.

Not if it was not our light that changed, but the universe state. Even so, we do see the blue/red shift.

Define change in state of the universe. There's no evidence which suggests that the laws and constants of the universe were any different. Any time the equations that govern phenomenon in the universe breakdown scientists accept the fact that the understanding isn't complete, eg with General Relativity and the aim of formulating a quantum model of gravity..

They do that where? In this temporary universe! There are traits and trails here, no question. Try to follow them to eternity, and you have a problem!

Eternity is a measure of time in this sense I presume, and since time and space are one, if there is no space there is no time, so the age of the universe is finite, there's no such thing as eternity in a practical sense. Since you accept the fact the universe has a beginning then it by definition can't be eternal. Eternal is generally defined as endless, if it has a start the it has at least one end, and therefore cannot be eternal.

Different. Not our universe as we know it. For all intents and Po purposes, a new universe. In reality, it is merely the physical only part of the created universe. But, since it is all science, or us know, we think of this temporary state universe as "it".

You still haven't come up with anything that shows the state of the universe was any different at any point in the past..You still can't accept that a different state of a universe would show itself in the universe today.

 

[Quantic]

Hi Sinan90,

That doesn't prove a change in the speed of light. Red shift shows expansion of the universe, and blues hift would show contraction of the universe.

Your point here is almost correct. When talking about an astronomical object, like a galaxy for instance, the red shift of the light is due to the galaxy moving away from the observer. The galaxy's velocity away from us is almost wholly due to the expansion of the universe.

When a galaxy's light is blue shifted, it means that the galaxy is moving toward the observer, not that the universe is contracting. Light from the Andromeda galaxy for instance is blue shifted because Andromeda and our own galaxy are approaching one another.

BTW, you have a lot of patience to try and hold a conversation with dad. He doesn't even understand what he types about.

 

[dad]

Hi Sinan90,



Your point here is almost correct. When talking about an astronomical object, like a galaxy for instance, the red shift of the light is due to the galaxy moving away from the observer. The galaxy's velocity away from us is almost wholly due to the expansion of the universe.
...

Besides just typing out the claim, I don't think you can support the expansion of the universe. Not that I expect you to understand it. It is a little taxing of the patience, though, you tapping on keys stuff you feel like claiming for no apparent reason.

 

[dad]

That doesn't prove a change in the speed of light. Red shift shows expansion of the universe, and blues hift would show contraction of the universe.

Says you. But does it really? How do you know that for sure?? Hopefully more than, 'gee, it must be racing away, because it is redshifted'!

Everything is the universe. It's not a fishbowl as you continue to refer to it throughout this thread, it's everything that exists. Seeing light exists it is part of the universe.

Everything?? Spirits? God? Other possible universes? Who made you the little judge of what everything is. and how would you have any clue??

The fishbowl refers to the present state of our temporary universe. It has, in other words, limits.

Define change in state of the universe. There's no evidence which suggests that the laws and constants of the universe were any different.

A separation of the spiritual, from the physical.

Any time the equations that govern phenomenon in the universe breakdown scientists accept the fact that the understanding isn't complete, eg with General Relativity and the aim of formulating a quantum model of gravity..

I agree, their grasp is far less than complete.

Eternity is a measure of time in this sense I presume,

Is it really, though? I am not sure. Eternity sounds bigger than time, at least the time as we know it, bound in the space/time continuum, or fabric of the present universe.

and since time and space are one, if there is no space there is no time, so the age of the universe is finite, there's no such thing as eternity in a practical sense.

No. Space and time are only 'one' in the fabric of the temporary state universe of ours. The created state relation of time and space, we are not in a position now to comment on.

Since you accept the fact the universe has a beginning then it by definition can't be eternal.

This state is not eternal, that is the point!! The evidence mounts.

Eternal is generally defined as endless, if it has a start the it has at least one end, and therefore cannot be eternal.

Eternity did not start at the creation of this universe 6000 years ago! It was here already, and when this heavens pass away, eternity will still be here! You cannot bind God, or eternity to this universe, even, I suspect, the forever true state it will be in one day.

You still haven't come up with anything that shows the state of the universe was any different at any point in the past.

You still haven't come up with anything that shows the state of the universe was the same at any point in the past. I therefore have every right to look to documents of antiquity.

.You still can't accept that a different state of a universe would show itself in the universe today.

You can't seem to show how it would!

 

[NailsII]

Or, if we needed to we could look at the movements that started as a result of being in a new state. (on the micro scale, for example, atoms spin, and various things revolve around other things. Take away or add an electron here and there, or a spiriton here and there, or a negative or positive charge here and there, and, why, the little thing might end up spinning somewhat differently! On the big scale, tweak gravity here and there, and a few things, and presto...)

You're just making this up as you go along.
If I didn't know better, I woud accuse you of Poeing.

 

[dad]

No, think

You're just making this up as you go along.
If I didn't know better, I woud accuse you of Poeing.

No, think about it. A different state of matter is required in heaven or in a different past. Same with light, or how else could we not need the light of the sun any more? How else could Adam see far stars?? How else could a planet's waters and land be separated, without great heat? Etc. We aren't playing tinker tinker here, but talking about virtually a different universe.

 

[NailsII]

No, think
No, think about it. A different state of matter is required in heaven or in a different past. Same with light, or how else could we not need the light of the sun any more? How else could Adam see far stars?? How else could a planet's waters and land be separated, without great heat? Etc. We aren't playing tinker tinker here, but talking about virtually a different universe.

But there is a far simpler explantion.
Invoke Occam's razor and answer our own questions agaon.

 

[dad]

But there is a far simpler explantion.
Invoke Occam's razor and answer our own questions agaon.

You cannot use the imaginary razor to cut away the spiritual, Occam never designed it for that at all. It may be simpler to stay in denial of the known spiritual, that most men know about, and always have, but in that case simple is not a good thing.
Neither is using the imaginary razor science, when you try to use it to cut things away that science can't cover, or deal with!!!

What is simple and logical, and right, is to prove the state of the past if you claim one! You can't do that. So you shouldn't knock the glorious, amazing actual trips some have made to the other side, as recorded in the book of books.
As hard as it may be to have to simply admit you are strictly limited to this temporary state universe knowledge, as well as any and all razors you have, real or imaginary!

 

[Quantic]

You're just making this up as you go along.

You're exactly right about that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You cannot use the imaginary razor to cut away the spiritual, Occam never designed it for that at all.

You are correct. Ockham felt thusly:

[Ockham's] skepticism appears in his doctrine that human reason can prove neither the immortality of the soul nor the existence, unity, and infinity of God. These truths, he teaches, are known to us by Revelation alone. (SOURCE)

However, the ideal of lex parsimoniae can be adequately applied to Uniformitarianism. In that unless and until you show an incontrovertible need to bend to breaking point and beyond, all known laws of physics going back into the distant past, it is far more parsimonious to assume they didn't change. Especially in light of things like Supernova 1987a. Especially in light of the fact we see, recorded in rocks, ancient structures that look exactly like modern structures forming today and in settings in which it is likely that they could have formed under similar conditions.

No one just takes occam's razor to anything without also taking into account the likelihood of alternative explanations. But it is a game of liklihoods. Unfortunately your posts are filled with so many hand-waivings and post hoc justifications and complete reworkings of all known physical laws that it becomes far less likely with each passing post.

As hard as it may be to have to simply admit you are strictly limited to this temporary state universe knowledge, as well as any and all razors you have, real or imaginary!

You are likewise limited. Remember, unless you make yourself like God, you are simply just another human limited in scope and understanding as are all humans.

Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

[bible]Luke 6:31[/bible]

 

[NailsII]

You cannot use the imaginary razor to cut away the spiritual, Occam never designed it for that at all. It may be simpler to stay in denial of the known spiritual, that most men know about, and always have, but in that case simple is not a good thing.
Neither is using the imaginary razor science, when you try to use it to cut things away that science can't cover, or deal with!!!

What is simple and logical, and right, is to prove the state of the past if you claim one! You can't do that. So you shouldn't knock the glorious, amazing actual trips some have made to the other side, as recorded in the book of books.
As hard as it may be to have to simply admit you are strictly limited to this temporary state universe knowledge, as well as any and all razors you have, real or imaginary!

Emphasis mine

The spiritual is not known, which is why it is unmeasurable. What you may describe as spiritual may be due to a pattern of neurons firing that you cannot pin down into conventional language - i am not a psychologist, so I can only speculate.

But I find it much more likely to be something you do not understand which you describe as spiritual. But I have never felt spiritual, so i don't really know what you are talking about.

Simple and logical - that is the whole point.
Your position is not simple, and appears far from logical. That is why I invited you to think of the razor (i was brought up to think along the lines of lex parsimoniae which is effectively the same) and think about what is not required for your ideas to work.
If you look at the laws we have observed in maths, biology, physics and chemistry, you will see that none of the principals or equations need a god or anything supernatural for them to operate.
This does not mean there is no god, I will freely admit that. But it suggests there is no need for an interventionist god, one who intervenes in order for the universe to operate.
Your ideas do however, and require one to continually alter the laws of physics in order to maintain an illusion of age and/or history.

So again, I will invite you to look at your position and see which is the most logical, fits the data and makes predictions.

 

[dad]

You are correct. Ockham felt thusly:

Great. Me and Occam are on the same page.

However, the ideal of lex parsimoniae can be adequately applied to Uniformitarianism. In that unless and until you show an incontrovertible need to bend to breaking point and beyond, all known laws of physics going back into the distant past, it is far more parsimonious to assume they didn't change.

You can apply whatever you like to the unknown, for all the good it'll do you! Some apply doubts. You try to apply some latin sounding concept. It can't fly, sorry. Only in your head. One can assume anything, unless one has proof, and observation, and testing, and such, why, one is wasting one's time.
Until then,
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

Especially in light of things like Supernova 1987a.

The missing black hole, neutron star, and third line of the trigonometry triangle really add up to Me fallit

Monstra mihi pecuniam.

Especially in light of the fact we see, recorded in rocks, ancient structures that look exactly like modern structures forming today and in settings in which it is likely that they could have formed under similar conditions.

Vague. Ne feceris ut rideam.

No one just takes occam's razor to anything without also taking into account the likelihood of alternative explanations. But it is a game of liklihoods.

Stop playing that game, and stick to what you think you know.
Sapere aude! Don't think that the Status quo is forever.

Unfortunately your posts are filled with so many hand-waivings and post hoc justifications and complete reworkings of all known physical laws that it becomes far less likely with each passing post.

Less likely to conform to a temporary state universe, and different present ,is not a measure of a past affected by a real God.
It is fiction to assume this state universe is a Virgo intacta.

You are likewise limited. Remember, unless you make yourself like God, you are simply just another human limited in scope and understanding as are all humans.

But not limited by mere physical only, natural science! We have access to real truths about the real past, and real future. No guessing needed. Yes, we only know a little about it, but that little is far far greater than the nothing of PO science.

 

[dad]

The spiritual is not known, which is why it is unmeasurable.

It is known to most men. The limited ability of natural only science to measure things not natural, is no measure of anything but their ability to measure.

What you may describe as spiritual may be due to a pattern of neurons firing that you cannot pin down into conventional language - i am not a psychologist, so I can only speculate.

So neutrons fired at Mary, and Jesus was born? Neutrons fired at Jesus, and He raised from the dead? Neutrons fired at prophesies in the bible, and they come true? Neutrons fired at Adam, and he came to life? Neutrons fired at the flood waters, and they went down? Neutrons fired at the temple in Jerusalem, and not one stone was left on another? Neutrons fired at the state of the past and future, and made them the same?? Get serious.

But I find it much more likely to be something you do not understand which you describe as spiritual. But I have never felt spiritual, so i don't really know what you are talking about.

That we can understand. You do not know.

Simple and logical - that is the whole point.
Your position is not simple, and appears far from logical. That is why I invited you to think of the razor (i was brought up to think along the lines of lex parsimoniae which is effectively the same) and think about what is not required for your ideas to work.

Better still think of what is not required to make yours work. Or what is required. Either way, they can't be proven, and they deny the known supernatural.
Fallaces sunt rerum species.

If you look at the laws we have observed in maths, biology, physics and chemistry, you will see that none of the principals or equations need a god or anything supernatural for them to operate.

And none apply out of the present. The future and past resides outside the present. You only try to address it by the present, that is why it eludes you.

This does not mean there is no god, I will freely admit that. But it suggests there is no need for an interventionist god, one who intervenes in order for the universe to operate.

The universe is set to operate without intervention. Autopilot, at the moment. But He can switch to manual, locally, if needed. But an intervention is needed to deal with this temporary state ending.

Your ideas do however, and require one to continually alter the laws of physics in order to maintain an illusion of age and/or history.

Not at all. The illusion only comes in the assuming the present represents the universe got here Per accidens, and was of the Eiusdem generis we now know.

So again, I will invite you to look at your position and see which is the most logical, fits the data and makes predictions.

Predictions are there for the bible. No missing neutron stars there. Denying God for no reason is not logical, when He is so well known. Assuming that this fine running universe happened along, and intelligent life, is not logical. It is the end of the road for dark godless ad hoc dreaming.