Search results

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created. The old thread automatically closed is here: "the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you"

a month since my last post, and i finally have both the time and the willpower to reply again! the video assumes that the core-to-ring speed is not the same as the supernova-to-Earth speed whatever you prefer. either way you end up being correct, provided you use your imagination. well no, it...

since when do they have to be the same? the video assumes the two speeds to be different, and things turn out alright i'm not entirely sure if i'm missing something here, but i'm going to go ahead and apply this to your concept of multiple spreading present states. i said earlier that there...

it means everything, if the speed of light was uniform. the light can be moving at any speed at all, and it'll still only travel 2/3 of a lightyear in eight months. the distance that a lightyear measures depends on the speed that light travels at. it does, because that's what we observe, and...

you're focusing on the wrong thing again. the distance from the ring to the core not only appears to be 2/3 of a lightyear, it is 2/3 of a lightyear. you dropped the idea that light moved a non-uniform speed, remember? or you can watch the intro again. i'm in no mood to type it up verbatim you...

not important, drop it please can you think of a better explanation for the systematic brightening and darkening of the ring? it's incredibly unlikely that light from the core is not responsible for this, even by your standards it appears to us to travel that distance in 2/3 of the year. the...

you're fully aware that i never posited that i imagine that one wouldn't know, but that's a complete non-issue. "if all speeds became the present light," as you're now suggesting, that would make you incorrect regarding your explanation for the distance of the supernova, which i believe is still...

it can be pixie dust for all i care. the only thing that matters is that whatever it was didn't have a uniform speed. don't bother addressing the unimportant stuff. okay

i'll reiterate. you already suggested that the speed of the former light is not uniform. what this implies for us observers is that different photons of light from the same source can reach us at different times. this is how you explained away the supernova problem. if you change your story now...

you're not very familiar with dad, are you

yes, but it wouldn't appear uniform because it predates your state change. thus far, you've agreed that the distant universe is a window of sorts to your past state. you can't have it both ways. i'm not saying that your theories are impossible, just that they're wacky even by creationist...

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 according to you, light at the "advent of...

the moment you find real evidence for any of your theories, give me a call. make sure it isn't just speculation first though, you've been known to get the two confused occasionally i am questioning it, and you still haven't given an interpretable answer; if light used to move whatever speed it...

i had a feeling you'd say that. fine anytime now! i don't think i'll enquire further on this one so the night sky is partially a moving frozen picture with blinking lights that appears to be going backwards in time. got it. wait, no i don't. explain how time can appear to be both backwards...

dunno, but we've already established that the supernova is in your past state, so we don't need to worry about that on second thought, now that we've come full-circle, the last thing i need is more things to argue about. gonna chicken out on this one, if you don't mind got it. out of curiosity...

i'm not saying that it's an exception, i'm saying it doesn't matter! i can quote talkorigins at you if you like ;) come again? you're saying that light had many speeds before the split? that one photon of light could travel at one speed and another photon could move at another? if that's...

stop so what? that doesn't invalidate what i keep telling you don't start that. if i've got little evidence, you've got even less. come again? as it relates to the average speed of light, yes yes, that is exactly what the video refutes. welcome back to square 1 aah, that explains it. i thought...

grammar is the least of our problems. let's move on you're clouding the issue. the ring looks like a part of the supernova, which means the light from it must be identical, at least for our purposes, to the light from the supernova. appearances are everything. you're saying that there was a PAST...

you're saying that it is. i'm saying that it isn't. since you already know this, let's pretend this part of the discussion didn't happen fine, i'm tired of squabbling over this bit your original question: we know the distance of the ring because light from it is assumed to be identical to...

and this is why i like talking with you i'm not saying that, i'm saying that light wasn't magically math-defying. until you can give a reasonable explanation for why that is incorrect, i'll continue to say that i don't want to waste my time guessing what exactly you disapprove of. tell me what's...