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

[dad]

It's a little thing called math. Perhaps if you'd actually read the article, you might understand by now.

Math is meaningless unless it represents something. Maths that only connect to your dream world past same state are a part of your fantasy. What you need to make them real, and meaningful, is a same state past, where this decay we know now existed. Don't spout off dream numbers as if it did, show us it did first, or keep your silly anti god concoctions.

Here's how it works, basically:
1. Find three isotopes. One is a radioactive element. One is the decay product of this radioactive element. The third is another, stable isotope of the same element of the decay product.

If there was no decay, why would what is now radioactive matter ,if we are not talking about now???? If the so called decay product was there already, and is only a decay product in your imagination, and fairy tales, you just can't use it for your purposes.

2. As the object ages, the radioactive element decays into its product, while the alternative isotope remains constant. This process happens in the same way no matter how much of the radioactive isotope and daughter isotope there were to begin with.

It never aged save the thousands of years. Therefore, the evidence says that the materials hgad to be there already, UNLESS a same state past existed. You are welcome to prove it did, and win the day here. But you cannot pretend there was one, and take it for granted as some sort of reality! That is all you have been doing. First things first.

3. We then measure the enrichment of the various minerals in different locations in a rock. If the ratios of the isotopes forms a straight line, then we can be reasonably confident that our assumptions were correct.

Tell us about this so called enrichment. Is it not basically looking at what now goes on, like a parent decaying into a daughter, and acting as if that always was the case, i.e. a same state past?!!

In short, dad, your objections are meaningless because these assumptions are tested. If all dates past ~4400 years are really meaningless, then we would never expect to see these points line up. But we do. Again and again.

As outlined here, what is observed and tested in no way is the far past state. Just the materials in a present state rock! Big difference. The proof you need is not in the rock. All you do there is try to explain what now is, with your myth.

And so here you are, flatly denying that any such evidence exists, when it is manifestly obvious that you don't understand the evidence in the first place.

The rock exists, the isotopes exist, decay exists, I deny nothing at all, but the fantasy you cannot support, the same state past and future. Face it. Your denial is wearing thin.

 

[Chalnoth]

The rock exists, the isotopes exist, decay exists, I deny nothing at all, but the fantasy you cannot support, the same state past and future. Face it. Your denial is wearing thin.

I've asked you to explain, and you keep ignoring it, why these isotope ratios lie on a line. Why do they?

 

[FishFace]

How do you know that it also did the same in the years before it stopped being a tiny, hazy little blob?

I don't know - I mean, it probably did, but I don't know for sure, and I. Don't. Care. Why are you off chasing red herrings?
Deal with the facts, when we observed them - it took 8 months delay. What do you have to say about that?

The researchers say their model is testable since it predicts mass and chemical differences between the three rings that could become apparent in future decades when debris from the supernova blast catches up with material in the ring
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070222_sn1987a_model.html
Ha. So, most observations were created in their own computers, or, in the case of the rings, imagined to have already been there. Etc.

BTW. that prediction has, more recently, been vindicated. The blast started to hit the ring material in 2000 - it was predicted to hit in 1993, plus or minus 3 years.

1.understood without being openly expressed; implied: (dictionary.com)

And I openly expressed that I didn't know and didn't care. Thanks.

I will have to leave you in denial in the lab on that one. I linked actual experiments. Too bad you don't have anything similar for the SN light. Such is the real world.

Uh, what? You linked real experiments in the lab. I have those experiments too, remember? But you claim lab experiments don't transfer to outer space. I claim they don't transfer to another state or country.
Prove me wrong.

 

[dad]

I've asked you to explain, and you keep ignoring it, why these isotope ratios lie on a line. Why do they?

They actually lie inside the rock, if you think about it. If we take out the ratios, and put them on paper, then we have a pattern, left over from what was. If that pattern comes from a different past, with no decay, then the libne and pattern has noting to do with so called dates. If the past state was the same, then, it represents dates.
The questions becomes what state of the universe was the rock in. Once you establish that, the rest will follow. Until then, you are simply imposing your myth on evidence in an arbitrary way, and, unless you prove the same past state foundation, a dishonest way.

 

[dad]

I don't know - I mean, it probably did, but I don't know for sure, and I. Don't. Care. Why are you off chasing red herrings?
Deal with the facts, when we observed them - it took 8 months delay. What do you have to say about that?

I have to say, when was that, and how often was it observed, by whom? When you know, get back to us, otherwise, you are whistling in the dark.

BTW. that prediction has, more recently, been vindicated. The blast started to hit the ring material in 2000 - it was predicted to hit in 1993, plus or minus 3 years.

Support? Show us the prediction, and the basis for it. I think also, we might need to be careful saying it was a blast, even, with all you have given so far. If, for example, all we did was assume it was a blast, and run computer models till we were blue in the face, till something close to what we see after the fact finally appeared, that would be religion. Since you seem incapable of mounting a supported informed case on the whole issue, you better give it a rest.

And I openly expressed that I didn't know and didn't care. Thanks.

Right. I think your lack of knowledge on the issue you push here is fairly evident by now.

Uh, what? You linked real experiments in the lab. I have those experiments too, remember? But you claim lab experiments don't transfer to outer space. I claim they don't transfer to another state or country.
Prove me wrong.

I did not say they did not apply to the universe at present, I pointed out that we do not know, apparently. We do know about earth, however, and near space, like the solar system. Light speed experiments are well known. You did say you went to school somewhere, didn't you?

 

[dad]

I don't know - I mean, it probably did, but I don't know for sure, and I. Don't. Care. Why are you off chasing red herrings?
Deal with the facts, when we observed them - it took 8 months delay. What do you have to say about that?

I have to say, when was that, and how often was it observed, by whom? When you know, get back to us, otherwise, you are whistling in the dark.

BTW. that prediction has, more recently, been vindicated. The blast started to hit the ring material in 2000 - it was predicted to hit in 1993, plus or minus 3 years.

Support? Show us the prediction, and the basis for it. I think also, we might need to be careful saying it was a blast, even, with all you have given so far. If, for example, all we did was assume it was a blast, and run computer models till we were blue in the face, till something close to what we see after the fact finally appeared, that would be religion. Since you seem incapable of mounting a supported informed case on the whole issue, you better give it a rest.

And I openly expressed that I didn't know and didn't care. Thanks.

Right. I think your lack of knowledge on the issue you push here is fairly evident by now.

Uh, what? You linked real experiments in the lab. I have those experiments too, remember? But you claim lab experiments don't transfer to outer space. I claim they don't transfer to another state or country.
Prove me wrong.

I did not say they did not apply to the universe at present, I pointed out that we do not know, apparently. We do know about earth, however, and near space, like the solar system. Light speed experiments are well known. You did say you went to school somewhere, didn't you?

 

[Chalnoth]

If we take out the ratios, and put them on paper, then we have a pattern, left over from what was. If that pattern comes from a different past, with no decay, then the libne and pattern has noting to do with so called dates. If the past state was the same, then, it represents dates.

Where does the pattern come from in this "different past" of yours? Specifically? Why is it that of all patterns possible, this particular one appears?

 

[dad]

Where does the pattern come from in this "different past" of yours? Specifically? Why is it that of all patterns possible, this particular one appears?

Well, if you knew anything about it, you would be able to answer that, but you don't. That is why you have attempted to look just at the temporary universe state we live in, as a model to explain all things. The fact is, you can't put this temporary state back there, so neither can you put it's rules, and decay.
Neither can you put it into the future. That does not mean that you can wave away the new heavens, and that different universe state coming, in any way, shape, or form. Neither does it mean you can understand it. All it means if you try to apply our soon not to exist state there, is that you are dreaming, it has no bearing on any reality whatsoever.

We do not have the science, either to understand the details of the different state in the past, any more than the future. Or even to tell there was the one state or the other, for that matter.
Therefore assigning dates to a pattern of isotopes that was left is not possible. - Any more than going back, and learning the details of a different state.

Why would there be the ratios of parent to daughter in a different state? Because both were present, in some capacity, other than the present relationship.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, if you knew anything about it, you would be able to answer that, but you don't.

Stop right here. We're talking about your model. Why on Earth should you expect me to be better-versed in your model than you are?

How, specifically, does your model predict that we should see these isotope ratios lie on a line? That is, how do we go from the assumptions you use in your model to the conclusion that these isotope ratios should lie on a line?

 

[FishFace]

I have to say, when was that, and how often was it observed, by whom? When you know, get back to us, otherwise, you are whistling in the dark.

I don't care. Deal with the delay, it doesn't matter when we observed it. You can imagine we observed it in the last two years if it makes you happy. (Perhaps we did - I don't care!)

Support? Show us the prediction, and the basis for it.

This isn't directly related to the thread. Google for "SN1987a blast ring" or something like that.

Right. I think your lack of knowledge on the issue you push here is fairly evident by now.

We do know about earth, however, and near space, like the solar system. Light speed experiments are well known.

Sorry, they took place inside labs, not out on the streets. How do we know the apply to elsewhere on earth? We don't - that is my claim. So if you want claim light travels at the same speed all over earth, you will please provide proof that those experiments apply - all over earth, and the same for the solar system.

 

[FishFace]

Stop right here. We're talking about your model. Why on Earth should you expect me to be better-versed in your model than you are?

How, specifically, does your model predict that we should see these isotope ratios lie on a line? That is, how do we go from the assumptions you use in your model to the conclusion that these isotope ratios should lie on a line?

I assume you already know that dad doesn't actually understand how prediction works. If he attempted this challenge he would, of course, mutter something about patterns and think that's that.

 

[Chalnoth]

I assume you already know that dad doesn't actually understand how prediction works. If he attempted this challenge he would, of course, mutter something about patterns and think that's that.

Oh, of course. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. My point is to try to find new ways to show how his claims are completely without merit. Naturally, in doing so I open up the possibility, however remote, that he may prove me wrong, were he to actually have an answer to my questions. But I'm sure he doesn't, which is really too bad. It's always nice to learn new things.

 

[FishFace]

Oh, of course. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. My point is to try to find new ways to show how his claims are completely without merit. Naturally, in doing so I open up the possibility, however remote, that he may prove me wrong, were he to actually have an answer to my questions. But I'm sure he doesn't, which is really too bad. It's always nice to learn new things.

Oh, of course, you see, for me, the only way to make any headway (as if even that was possible) with dad is to ignore whatever else is going on around you; otherwise you get distracted, put off, depressed and eventually commit suicide due to the insanity of him.
As such, I don't really know much anyone has dealt with the guy. Was it you - ah, no, I think it was thaum - who made the analogy about pencils in factories. The point being that we observe this amazing pattern whereby we see a particular kind of factory today, and all of these factories produce pencils, pens, lids and ink at different but constant rates. We also find that the vats of the various products, when divided by their respective rates, all give an identical time to the start of production.

Even when given it this simply, dad was unable to comprehend what we wanted him to do when we said, "explain the pattern."

 

[Chalnoth]

Oh, of course, you see, for me, the only way to make any headway (as if even that was possible) with dad is to ignore whatever else is going on around you; otherwise you get distracted, put off, depressed and eventually commit suicide due to the insanity of him.
As such, I don't really know much anyone has dealt with the guy. Was it you - ah, no, I think it was thaum - who made the analogy about pencils in factories. The point being that we observe this amazing pattern whereby we see a particular kind of factory today, and all of these factories produce pencils, pens, lids and ink at different but constant rates. We also find that the vats of the various products, when divided by their respective rates, all give an identical time to the start of production.

Even when given it this simply, dad was unable to comprehend what we wanted him to do when we said, "explain the pattern."

Yeah, that definitely wasn't my analogy.

Here's another fun one, though:
Why is it that the nerves in the human face take such torturous, illogical paths? Why, for example, do the nerves that go to two of the bones of our middle ear take entirely different paths than the nerves that go to the third bone?

Evolution explains this, of course. The torturous paths came about because the structure of our face today is vastly different from the structures that it evolved from (the gills of fish). The morphing of our own gill slits that we have as embryos to the various components of our face causes the torturous paths of these nerves. Two bones in the middle ear have nerves that take different paths than the third because the two different sets come from different gill slits. The third bone was once a jaw bone, while the previous two were in the middle ear for much longer.

 

[dad]

double post

 

[dad]

Stop right here. We're talking about your model.

No, we are talking about your model, and lack of proof for any past or future universe state.

Why on Earth should you expect me to be better-versed in your model than you are?

You need to be able to defend your claims, since they are so called science based.

How, specifically, does your model predict that we should see these isotope ratios lie on a line?

The isotopes are predicted to be there. How they form a pattern is beyond your science to tell, as it is strictly limited to this nature, this state. There is no need to predict how they look in a kine we draw up. They do look like they represent a pattern, so we can deduce intelligence.

That is, how do we go from the assumptions you use in your model to the conclusion that these isotope ratios should lie on a line?

Well, you drew the line, and you never even presented it, how would I be expected to explain it for you?
Guess I will have to provide the line myself for you.

Now, what part of this line do you feel is some mystery, or something only your model covers? What determines that the original composition was a certain way, precisely?? Seems to me that is derived from looking at the present composition. What, are you assuming that what is now daughter materials were put there by decay??? If so that means, you guessed it, a same state past. Prove it! Don't just cook up lines based on assuming it was!!!!

You are busted.

 

[Chalnoth]

Now, what part of this line do you feel is some mystery, or something only your model covers? What determines that the original composition was a certain way, precisely??

Yes, this is something only the current scientific model explains.

The original composition is a straight line because the formation of the rock depends upon chemistry: different isotopes of the same element are evenly-mixed throughout the rock. This is what happens, for example, if we take the same rock, melt it, and let it solidify all over again.

Seems to me that is derived from looking at the present composition.

Ah, yes, but that's the question. Why is the present composition like this in your model? Why do the samples lie on a straight line?

 

[dad]

I don't care. Deal with the delay, it doesn't matter when we observed it. You can imagine we observed it in the last two years if it makes you happy. (Perhaps we did - I don't care!)

No imagining needed, we know when Hubble started sending pictures of it back. So, whatever your claims are based on, you need to show us. You already had the questions, now you need the answers.

This isn't directly related to the thread. Google for "SN1987a blast ring" or something like that.

Then why make claims you know are off topic, that you neither can, nor intend to back up?

Sorry, they took place inside labs, not out on the streets. How do we know the apply to elsewhere on earth?

There are labs at more than one location on earth. I have no reason to question observations that were tested, and repeated here. If you do, go ahead, that is your hang up, not mine. I simply ask for proof, if we want to apply the truths of earth far far away, and long long ago.

 

[dad]

..the structure of our face today is vastly different from the structures that it evolved from (the gills of fish).

May I propose the obvious here, that the reason it is different from the gills of fish, is because we did not evolve from them, as you assume.

The morphing of our own gill slits that we have as embryos to the various components of our face causes the torturous paths of these nerves. Two bones in the middle ear have nerves that take different paths than the third because the two different sets come from different gill slits. The third bone was once a jaw bone, while the previous two were in the middle ear for much longer.

We might ask how the spiritual that is part of the eternal body we were created with affected the nerves. Perhaps the third nerve or some of the others used to have a function working with the now separated spiritual. Who knows? But to assume we spawned from fish, really is natural minded folly, at it's height.

 

[dad]

Yes, this is something only the current scientific model explains.

Great, get to it, then.

The original composition is a straight line because the formation of the rock depends upon chemistry:

Does it, now? Says who, and what chemistry, under what universe state, and laws, and how would you know? The so called original composition was long ago, so you really were not there to see it.

different isotopes of the same element are evenly-mixed throughout the rock. This is what happens, for example, if we take the same rock, melt it, and let it solidify all over again.

That may be similar to what happens in this state if we melt it, and solidify it. But, unless you had a present state universe when the rock was originally made, that cannot apply at all. Therefore, something else was responsible for the even mix of isotopes.

Ah, yes, but that's the question. Why is the present composition like this in your model? Why do the samples lie on a straight line?

Well, we have what we have, because it was left that way, from when it was made. The daughter isotopes all working together in harmony, nice and evenly mixed, together with the spiritual, and the past universe state, and laws. Like a beautiful symphony, nicely arranged. After the spiritual aspect was gone, and it came to exist in this universe state, there was still the materials in the rock, now slaving away in the new state, decaying, and all the things they now do. All you have done, is come along, and try to assume everything got there by the present temporal arrangement, and processes, that we now observe as part of our nature.
Not having ever seen anything else, and having a present nature only science and laws to work with, that was the best they could come up with, in a pathetic attempt to explain things far higher than their pee wee minds dared guess.
The only real line is the actual one representing the present.

-the dark line. The shaded little imagined, twilight zone conception of what was the original composition has no bearing on anything but myth.