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

[dad]

So? Anything that can be represented as a mathematical object can be used as a variable in a function,

Really? OK, let's see you put this into numbers. The max speed God can travel, and how old He is.

and everything can be represented as a mathematical object. It might be very complex, but for lots of things, the most complex object you need is just a number.

Well, if you find you have any numbers for anything discussed, feel free to chirp in.

Uh... we didn't have the telescope, so we couldn't use it to take pictures - you need me to explain that to you?

No, but if it was a tiny hazy blob, maybe you better stick to what we knew about what was going on at the time. Not some years after the fact, as if you knew it was all like we saw it. You were missing a black hole, neutron star, and you never realized there were three rings, and had no explanation for them.

How does that affect the validity of the images captured once the telescope was up and running?

It isn't supposed to affect images years after, or years before. It affects your explanations of them.

You've still got the same 8 month time lag between the supernova brightening and the rings brightening, and that's all we need.

Maybe you can show us support for where you are here, and precisely which months, and lag, etc.

The real answer is - who cares? We've got what we need, the 8 month gap which tells us that the distance of line D in km is 8 months * c in km/month

Ah, so you mean the time that the rings took to light up. That you take to mean that light from the core went to the ring, and took 8 months. Apparently you have no support for this, other than the rings lit up. If so, do provide it. You then take it to mean that the light traveled at the known present C speed. Apparently you have no support whatsoever for that either. Then, you assume that the SN to earth light was precisely the same speed. Again, apparently no collaborating evidence.

Well, first of all, it doesn't matter one bit - for all I care the supernova could've looked like kermit the frog while we weren't watching - we still have the same time delay.

And it could be a sign in the heavens for this time, and you have no idea either.

No, you haven't outlined anything to invalidate that. We know that it line D is 8 * c, using appropriate units. Using trig, we can calculate that the distance to the supernova is 167 973 * c. Please tell me what step goes wrong, and why.

You know that D is
1) Light that traveled from the core area to the inner ring? If so, show us in 1987 documentation.

2) The precise speed that this core/ring light traveled? Who saw it when? Did you see it in 1987? Exactly what basis is the claim based on?? Who saw what when, where, how? (example mr Doe saw the core light up, 3 days after the neutrinos hit earth, hazy as it was, and we saw continuous light pushing out, till it hit that outer ring, 8 months later. ..etc)

Do you need a reason to accept it was the same? Why?

Because maybe the universe is not homogeneous after all? Maybe we are applying PO ideas to something else. Maybe we do not really know what we are seeing, because it doesn't work the same far away? I have assumed it does, but do have to insist that you evidence that, since you are basing stuff on it. Stuff that is full of holes.

Do you need a reason to accept that light from your headlights travels at the same speed as light in science labs? Why not?
How do you know?

No, because we have experiments here that cover all that to my satisfaction. I have no beef with reality.

What are those limits, and why are they limits? I don't believe they exist, and why should I? What's good for the goose is good for the gander - either we need a reason to believe light is travelling at the same speed or we don't.

There is no need to believe anything of the sort without evidence. We have that on earth, and in the realm of man. Apparently, it is not so clear far away. At least as far as the abilities of posters on this forum to support.

In the first case, you don't know the speed of light from car headlights.

We don't??? If we know the speed of the car, where is the problem?

In the second case, SN1987A is 168,000 light years away.

So it is claimed, based on that assumption about line D. An assumption, that lurkers might note you have failed miserably to back up.

 

[dad]

Then what the hell are you trying to prove here? What is your goal, if not to make us admit that we don't know? What do you want?

You already admitted that. If it was well known, the people that teach that stuff as science would have to stop.

Not really, I'm just heading in another direction. If we don't have to give you the evidence that we have for a same-state past, then it'll be much simpler. We won't have to try and pour water into a sealed receptacle.

You have to evidence your science claims. Sorry if that ruins your day, and spoils the fun.

 

[dad]

If this were true, we would observe no decay beyond ~6,000 years. This is not the case.

It is the case. Relax. If a material was decaying, and has daughter material, the daughter was there already when this state happened. No need to worry about frying the universe with fast decay at all. And we can take it to the heavens if you like, same sort of deal.

We observe nuclear decay going back some 4.6 billion years. You can't at the same time claim to say "no change" and "no decay before time X". The transition from no decay to decay is a change.

Show us a clear example, I call you out here, of nuclear decay going back 46 million years. You are misled.

 

[Chalnoth]

It is the case. Relax. If a material was decaying, and has daughter material, the daughter was there already when this state happened. No need to worry about frying the universe with fast decay at all. And we can take it to the heavens if you like, same sort of deal.

If this were true, then isochron dating would not work. Isochron dating uses measurements of three separate isotopes to correct for any differences in original composition. Isochron dating of different elements with different decay processes agree with one another. Isochron dating also agrees with other sorts of dating methods.

There are only two possible explanations that fit these data:
1. God is a deceiver who just likes to play tricks on us, creating things that have the appearance of both age and history without it actually being true.
2. The solar system really is 4.6 billion years old.

Show us a clear example, I call you out here, of nuclear decay going back 46 million years. You are misled.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
Among other things, we have found a large number of meteorites that all date to ~4.55 billion years old.

 

[SimplyNothing]

The solar system really is 4.6 billion years old.

The funny thing is... this still doesn't even conflict with the bible, which skips out on the formation of the Universe completely.

"In the beginning God made the heavens and the earth."

[Insert formation of trillions of stars, planets, and moons, plasmas, black holes, galaxies, dark matter, expansion of microwave background radiation, and expansion of this matter out into an undetermined amount of space... ... here.]

"Now the earth was formless and empty, and yadayadayada."

 

[dad]

If this were true, then isochron dating would not work. Isochron dating uses measurements of three separate isotopes to correct for any differences in original composition. Isochron dating of different elements with different decay processes agree with one another. Isochron dating also agrees with other sorts of dating methods.

Smoke and mirrors.
"
Basis for method

All forms of isochron dating assume that the source of the rock or rocks contained unknown amounts of both radiogenic and non-radiogenic isotopes of the daughter element, along with some amount of the parent nuclide. Thus, at the moment of crystallization, the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope of the daughter element to that of the non-radiogenic isotope is some value independent of the concentration of the parent. As time goes on, some amount of the parent decays into the radiogenic isotope of the daughter, increasing the ratio of the concentration of the radiogenic isotope to that of the daughter. The greater the initial concentration of the parent, the greater the concentration of the radiogenic daughter isotope will be at some particular time. Thus, the ratio of the daughter to non-radiogenic isotope will become larger with time, while the ratio of parent to daughter will become smaller."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isochron_dating#Basis_for_method

That means, in english, among other things, that they assume present state of decay existed. Otherwise, there would be no radiogenic stuff there to begin with. (if the sample was older than 4400 years old)

It is nothing more than a PO past assumption. Nothing at all.

There are only two possible explanations that fit these data:
1. God is a deceiver who just likes to play tricks on us, creating things that have the appearance of both age and history without it actually being true.

Whining nonsense. People that get deceived by assumptions that are really not founded on godly principles, can't blame God.

2. The solar system really is 4.6 billion years old.

No. Not unless you prove a same state past. Otherwise, you are simply misreading the data, to suit a myth!

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
Among other things, we have found a large number of meteorites that all date to ~4.55 billion years old.

The link didn't work. You are in no position to date anything anywhere, get over it. Your so called dates are mere prophesies of your foolish myth.

 

[Chalnoth]

That means, in english, among other things, that they assume present state of decay existed. Otherwise, there would be no radiogenic stuff there to begin with. (if the sample was older than 4400 years old)

The problem with your claim is that every time we date something using isochron dating, this assumption is tested. In this way, isochron dating is self-correcting: it is only possible to obtain certain configurations of isotopes if the assumptions made when using isochron dating are correct. Most configurations that might conceivably appear are ruled out: if any one of these other configurations appears, then the assumptions are wrong.

Why is it that isochron dating works at all, then? Why is it that the configurations seem to so frequently line up perfectly with what we expect from isochron dating?

 

[dad]

The funny thing is... this still doesn't even conflict with the bible, which skips out on the formation of the Universe completely.

I have heard that line, and, if I had to, that would be where I would resort. However, there is no need to at all. While it is somewhat of a gray area, overall, I think that the bible indicates that God made this universe at creation.

God mentions the hills, men, a tree, insects, stretching out the heavens, etc --then He says this.
Isa 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.

He does not suggest that the heavens were somehow created at some different time. Not at all.

Eph 3:9 - And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: All things do not include the stars?? The universe? You cannot support that. I kid you not."[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Genesis 2:1[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] Thus the heavens and the earth were finished…
Perfected and completed in the space of six days, gradually, successively, in the manner before related; by the word and power of God they were on the first day created out of nothing, but they were not perfected, beautified, and adorned, and filled, until all the creatures in the were made: [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] and all the host them,
of the heavens and the earth; the host of heavens are the sun, moon, and stars, often so called in Scripture, and also the angels; see (Luke 2:13"
http://www.studylight.org/com/geb/view.cgi?book=ge&chapter=2&verse=1

If He rested on the seventh day, and the sun and stars and earth were FINISHED in that week, it is reasonable to include them in creation.
I know many great men of God believed that it was just a renewal sort of thing, but I disagree. There is no need whatsoever to believe that.
Neither is there any science to say it is, by the way, unless they can prove a same state past, and future. They can't. I checked. I rechecked. I rechecked again. I double re checked, and triple checked. I went over it again hundreds of times. I asked people in almost all fields of study. They really can't.
Neither of course can they speak with knowledge on the new heavens coming, and what it will be like when this universe state ceases to exist.

[/FONT]

 

[dad]

quote=Chalnoth;45674884]The problem with your claim is that every time we date something using isochron dating, this assumption is tested.[/QUOTE] Show us one example! Since you seem to have missed the reason that cannot be true.

In this way, isochron dating is self-correcting: it is only possible to obtain certain configurations of isotopes if the assumptions made when using isochron dating are correct. Most configurations that might conceivably appear are ruled out: if any one of these other configurations appears, then the assumptions are wrong.

Blah blah baloney. Prove it. Show us what you got. Show us your example. You are simply wrong.

Why is it that isochron dating works at all, then?

Show me the example of it working? It might work inside your head.

Why is it that the configurations seem to so frequently line up perfectly with what we expect from isochron dating?

Perhaps you should raise the bar on your expectations? If you expect old ages, from filtering things through your myth, that is all you will ever see, at least, think you see. So??

 

[Chalnoth]

Show us one example! Since you seem to have missed the reason that cannot be true.


Blah blah baloney. Prove it. Show us what you got. Show us your example. You are simply wrong.

Show me the example of it working? It might work inside your head.


Perhaps you should raise the bar on your expectations? If you expect old ages, from filtering things through your myth, that is all you will ever see, at least, think you see. So??

Already did. You ignored it:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp

This link has not one, but a myriad of examples of how radiometric dating works, as well as tests of its reliability.

 

[dad]

Already did. You ignored it:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rn..._radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp

This link has not one, but a myriad of examples of how radiometric dating works, as well as tests of its reliability.

Well, mostly, it has preachy BS. Vague, and religious ranting. Since you refused to pick an example, guess I have to. I will use your link.

"One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula."


The iridium had two potential sources, and may have been near the time of the flood. Under the earth, and from above, space. It is NOT established that this was a meteor, even. The iridium is no evidence at all of that. So, if you want to make some case about how the quartz that was shocked from movement was not either from above or below, near the time of the flood, go ahead. Otherwise, all we have is either a fountain of the deep area, or an area that was impacted from above, around the time near the flood. Iridium we know is deep under the earth, as well as in space.

Your link is a shameless hodge podge of vague claims, lumping things together without getting down to nitty gritty detail. You should be ashamed.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, mostly, it has preachy BS. Vague, and religious ranting. Since you refused to pick an example, guess I have to. I will use your link.

Preachy? Religious? Well, I agree, in that religion is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs. The link I provided, however, is neither preachy nor religious: it is a frank examination of the evidence.

"One of the most exciting and important scientific findings in decades was the 1980 discovery that a large asteroid, about 10 kilometers diameter, struck the earth at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The collision threw many tons of debris into the atmosphere and possibly led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and many other life forms. The fallout from this enormous impact, including shocked quartz and high concentrations of the element iridium, has been found in sedimentary rocks at more than 100 locations worldwide at the precise stratigraphic location of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) boundary (Alvarez and Asaro 1990; Alvarez 1998). We now know that the impact site is located on the Yucatan Peninsula."


The iridium had two potential sources, and may have been near the time of the flood. Under the earth, and from above, space. It is NOT established that this was a meteor, even. The iridium is no evidence at all of that. So, if you want to make some case about how the quartz that was shocked from movement was not either from above or below, near the time of the flood, go ahead. Otherwise, all we have is either a fountain of the deep area, or an area that was impacted from above, around the time near the flood. Iridium we know is deep under the earth, as well as in space.

Nope, sorry, the dating's wrong. The iridium layer is 65 million years old. Now, if you want to somehow claim that the flood happened 65 million years ago, you might try to use this argument. But as it stands it's nonsense.

 

[dad]

Preachy? Religious? Well, I agree, in that religion is a bad thing that should be avoided at all costs. The link I provided, however, is neither preachy nor religious: it is a frank examination of the evidence.

Inasmuch as that it was not an honest attempt to answer what you were asked. Which was this
"Show us what you got. Show us your example. You are simply wrong.

Show me the example of it working? "
Rather than offer a rock, or something, and how many isotopes are in it, or some such, you toss up a bunch of stuff, loosely, or unrelated.
Nothing but a desperate appearing attempt to avoid the issue. Nothing in your obfuscation attempt is the least challenging, but in a discussion thread, one needs to focus.
I still await your clear example of your claims.

As in this little picture, we can see that it really depends on the daughter and parent amounts. If they were present already, for the most part, at the onset of this temporary state universe, what they do now (i.e decay) does not matter!
As in all your methods, the glaring fact remains that a same state past is REQUIRED for any so called dates. Until you prove there was one, which of course will be never, none of your 'dates' are anything but what if reverse imaginings of the limited scope mind.

Nope, sorry, the dating's wrong. The iridium layer is 65 million years old.

Easy to say. But that is simply not based on anything at all that can be supported.

" Dewey M. McLean and others argue that the iridium may have been of volcanic origin instead. The Earth's core is rich in iridium, and Piton de la Fournaise on Réunion, for example, is still releasing iridium today"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium

So, the jury is still out on the source of the iridium, and science does know it is below the earth as well. Try to deal in reality, and not put on that we know more than puny little man actually does know.

Now, if you want to somehow claim that the flood happened 65 million years ago, you might try to use this argument. But as it stands it's nonsense.

There is no dates for the rocks, or iridium, that matter in the least more than the same state past myth. That just does not matter to me at all, until you really prove within reason that there was such a thing. What nonsense. That is like saying that the future will always have our present temporary state universe, it is wild storytelling.

 

[Danyc]

You already admitted that. If it was well known, the people that teach that stuff as science would have to stop.

Answer the question. What would you have happen? What do you want?

And yes, I may have admitted it, but I didn't really mean it.

You have to evidence your science claims. Sorry if that ruins your day, and spoils the fun.

And you have to evidence yours as well. Why only us?

Even if you DO prove that we're wrong, you haven't proven that you're right. You have only proven that we're wrong. In the end, you'll still have to prove your side correct. You might as well start now.


And I would ask again, why are you not publishing a paper on this? Taking your ideas to universities? Challenging scientists in the field to support the "same-state past"?

Why don't you go prove it to everyone?

 

[dad]

Answer the question. What would you have happen? What do you want?

Maybe you to be honest.

And yes, I may have admitted it, but I didn't really mean it.

So, what clue should we look for to tell when you are telling the truth, exactly? Or is that too much to ask?

And you have to evidence yours as well. Why only us?

Evidence is not an issue, there is lots around. It is interpreting it. The evidence man has, and natural only science man has is simply not equipped to deal with the state of the future universe, and past. Just as even here, it cannot deal in spirits, just the natural. That is it's fishbowl, it's mandate, it's start, and it's finish.

Even if you DO prove that we're wrong, you haven't proven that you're right. You have only proven that we're wrong. In the end, you'll still have to prove your side correct. You might as well start now.

No. I do not need to prove a myth wrong, long as the fraudsters stop pawning it off on the innocents as science, I couldn't much care what they like to believe. They can worship stones and wood again, for all I care.

And I would ask again, why are you not publishing a paper on this? Taking your ideas to universities? Challenging scientists in the field to support the "same-state past"?

OK, scientists, you were challenged, and failed to support your claims because you cannot support a same state past. Feel better?

Why don't you go prove it to everyone?

Maybe I should cure cancer, bring world peace, and end poverty as well?
Finding the flaw in PO science does not mean I control the earth. Of course Jesus will use believers to rule with Him, so I suppose we do have a royal destiny. We are in school, for a forever job, that pays more than any man ever dreamed of in this earth, as well as a permanent appointment, and lots of perks.

 

[Chalnoth]

I still await your clear example of your claims.

And I've already given it. The age of asteroids (specifically carbonaceous chrondites). How do you explain that the same methods, using different isotopes, across different labs, and with different asteroids provide the same dates to within the experimental errors?

As in this little picture, we can see that it really depends on the daughter and parent amounts. If they were present already, for the most part, at the onset of this temporary state universe, what they do now (i.e decay) does not matter!

You're not getting it. If the assumptions were wrong, the dating method would tell us this, because the dates would not agree. Furthermore, with isochron dating, the ratios of the isotopes end up lying on a line in a 2D plot if the assumptions are correct. Why is it that these ratios so often end up on a line on a 2D plot?

Easy to say. But that is simply not based on anything at all that can be supported.

" Dewey M. McLean and others argue that the iridium may have been of volcanic origin instead. The Earth's core is rich in iridium, and Piton de la Fournaise on Réunion, for example, is still releasing iridium today"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium

So, the jury is still out on the source of the iridium, and science does know it is below the earth as well. Try to deal in reality, and not put on that we know more than puny little man actually does know.

This doesn't help your case. How do you explain that the layer is consistently dated to 65 million years old, everywhere on Earth?

 

[FishFace]

Really? OK, let's see you put this into numbers. The max speed God can travel, and how old He is.

Well, assuming there is no maximum speed, then we can see that God's maximum speed is infinite (a mathematical object) and, well, since I don't know his age, I can't really give it a number - or anything else. Perhaps if you told me some more info about God's age I'd be able to answer you.

Well, if you find you have any numbers for anything discussed, feel free to chirp in.

Have done, ta. We worked with my numbers, remember, and you didn't come out to well - in fact, you had 162,000 years of universe that you couldn't account for!
So, it's your turn.

Maybe you can show us support for where you are here, and precisely which months, and lag, etc.

What? That's the scientific data gathered. Once the telescopes were up there, and looking in the right direction, there was a consistent 8 month gap between the supernova brightening and the rings brightening.
Are you accusing the scientific literature of lying? Or is there something wrong with my interpretation of this? (Namely, that this implies light takes 8 months to get from the core to the rings) If so, what is wrong, and why?

Ah, so you mean the time that the rings took to light up. That you take to mean that light from the core went to the ring, and took 8 months. Apparently you have no support for this, other than the rings lit up. If so, do provide it. You then take it to mean that the light traveled at the known present C speed. Apparently you have no support whatsoever for that either. Then, you assume that the SN to earth light was precisely the same speed. Again, apparently no collaborating evidence.

The fact:

8 months after the supernova brightens, the ring brightens.

My inference:

Light takes 8 months to get from the supernova to the ring

Direct implication:

The distance from the supernova to the ring is 8 months * c in km/month. Remember the definition of speed is distance/time, and remember that we haven't said what c is yet.

What's your problem with all of this?


And it could be a sign in the heavens for this time, and you have no idea either.

You know that D is
1) Light that traveled from the core area to the inner ring? If so, show us in 1987 documentation.

2) The precise speed that this core/ring light traveled? Who saw it when? Did you see it in 1987? Exactly what basis is the claim based on?? Who saw what when, where, how? (example mr Doe saw the core light up, 3 days after the neutrinos hit earth, hazy as it was, and we saw continuous light pushing out, till it hit that outer ring, 8 monthslater. ..etc)

What? Why would we want to look in 1987 when we didn't have the equipment? The time gap is observed from the 90s onwards - it's still the same old 8 month time gap. Who cares that we got there a bit late?

... maybe ...

Maybe we're all brains in vats and this is just a dream. Sorry, mate - "maybe" isn't good enough. Get a better reason, or get real.

No, because we have experiments here that cover all that to my satisfaction.

Then your satisfaction is inconsistent. When do the "experiments here" stop working all of a sudden? Maybe the universe in front of your caris not homogeneous. You see, exactly the same reason you gave to me, works in this case.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[quoe]There is no need to believe anything of the sort without evidence.[/quote]

What evidence do you have that the speed of your car's headlights is the same as the speed of light in some scientist's laboratory in an experiment that probably hasn't been performed for several years!

We don't???

Well, you can't give any evidence at all for the speed of light coming from your headlights.

So it is claimed, based on that assumption about line D.

Yeah. If we assume that your car light travels at the same speed as the light in the experiments, we can assume the light from the supernova does too.

 

[Danyc]

Maybe you to be honest.

You know what I meant. Quit dancing around.

So, what clue should we look for to tell when you are telling the truth, exactly? Or is that too much to ask?

It was more of a hypothetical, really. I had great doubts that I could get to the heart of what you actually wanted unless I agreed with you that a 'same-state past' is an assumption. Even when I agreed with you, I didn't get an answer.

Evidence is not an issue, there is lots around. It is interpreting it. The evidence man has, and natural only science man has is simply not equipped to deal with the state of the future universe, and past. Just as even here, it cannot deal in spirits, just the natural. That is it's fishbowl, it's mandate, it's start, and it's finish.

So, in other words, you don't have to give evidence, because...you can't.

That's a little too convenient.

No. I do not need to prove a myth wrong, long as the fraudsters stop pawning it off on the innocents as science, I couldn't much care what they like to believe. They can worship stones and wood again, for all I care.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but until you prove it is a myth, it will be pawned off as science, as it rightly deserves to be called. It is science, not myth.

Until you prove it myth, it will be science. No way around it. So if you want anything changed, you'd better get to work.

OK, scientists, you were challenged, and failed to support your claims because you cannot support a same state past. Feel better?

Who are you talking to here?

Finding the flaw in PO science does not mean I control the earth.

Did we say it did? What you want to happen will never happen unless you prove it to be myth, or you suggest a more likely possibility. You have done neither.

 

[Chalnoth]

It was more of a hypothetical, really. I had great doubts that I could get to the heart of what you actually wanted unless I agreed with you that a 'same-state past' is an assumption. Even when I agreed with you, I didn't get an answer.

Well, technically, the same past state is an assumption. One that's been tested, and happens to actually be true.

 

[Danyc]

Well, technically, the same past state is an assumption. One that's been tested, and happens to actually be true.

I envy you so much, Chalnoth.

How do you remain sane when talking with people like Dad?

If I don't bow out soon my head's going to explode.