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

[FishFace]

I like math, more than divining the rocks. So?? I am not too crazy about complicated math, though. That is in box math!

Haha, I knew this would happen. Anything you claim or imply you have any prowess in, it turns out that your skill lies only "out of the box!" Hey, you know what - I can charm snakes... out of the box! Turns out that if you give me a snake in the real world i just get bitten but you'll just have to trust me on this one - I'm a real good snake charmer.

You like maths. Pfft.

 

[FishFace]

Well, you need a little more than that.

What are you talking about?! He's got better reasons to believe than you do! Did you hear about this Poncho guy, and the TV in the fishtank?

 

[FishFace]

You missed the point. The constants we know are the change, no change in them is required.

Which constant is that please?
(And what are its units)

 

[thaumaturgy]

I like math, more than divining the rocks. So?? I am not too crazy about complicated math, though. That is in box math!

Actually way back in Post 78 you showed a pretty alarming lack of even simple basic algebra. This is junior high level mathematics.

I fear that we have really gotten to a better understanding of you, Dad. Your thought that you can "convince" people you are clever or knowledgable or can bully your way through these debates fails when you can't even understand the simple things you are debating against.

Sure Fish brought up concepts like "derivatives" etc. But your original math was very much like what we see when a child wants to sound like they know math so they whirr up some of the math words.

I posted the math, so it is not I that misunderstood it.

Actually Dad, you didn't post math. You posted symbols and letters without any real understanding. Then you tried to use big math words and equations. Most of which didn't even follow simple multiplication and division rules.

X x FL divided by W = W FL

Do I really need to point out that A*B/C does not equal C*B? That's simple algebra. You clearly don't understand it.

W FL x W = W FL

Does it matter to you that you just said:
A*A*B=A*B?

Please, dad, learn some of the concepts before posting. We can all see exactly how much you like math and how skilled you are in math in general.

(Oh, and if there's anything in the PO universe that would reflect the "mind of God" or some transcendent "super-reality" OUTSIDE of the "Fishbowl", it would be mathematics. The most pure form of reasoning. Without it, then you are as lost as any of us stuck in the fishbowl.)

 

[Naraoia]

Naraoia...it isn't just the universal operator...it can do the following:



Did you read that carefully? It can "add, subtract, divide, and multiply stuff"!

STUFF! I mean, we are in the presence of mathematical greatness here.

How could I be so blind?

Do you think it can multiply an orange with a neutrino, then? What's the result? (Dad, I'm intrigued!)

(The really sad part in all this is that I'm no great shakes with math. I'll admit it. I'm not that smart. But this thread has taken a turn for the "awesome" lately!)

...

I'm more inclined to call it awful.

 

[Naraoia]

Well, for spirits, yes, if we want to get technical, I suppose the speed of light in the true state need not be infinite, just pretty close. Remember, top speed does not mean only speed.

How can something be "pretty close" to infinite?

 

[Naraoia]

Depends what you call good. I think that the bible is a good book. Therefore I have good reasons.

So dragons are real, too?

I mean, A Song of Ice and Fire is a rare good book series. And hey, it has dragons in it! So I guess I have good reasons to believe in dragons.

(Bah, Fish beat me.)

 

[FishFace]

Sure Fish brought up concepts like "derivatives" etc.

The mathematical bogey-man!

 

[thaumaturgy]

Do you think it can multiply an orange with a neutrino, then? What's the result? (Dad, I'm intrigued!)

I suspect that is precisely the flavor of the top-selling soda in the Forever State of the New Heaven!

...

I'm more inclined to call it awful.

Actually the recent posts by Dad have got me a bit ill at ease. I make it a policy to:

1. Never discuss politics or religion with children

2. Never knowingly debate the mentally challenged

3. Try to not engage a POE

Unfortunately with Dad I'm afraid I might be either violating 1 or 2. In all honesty, and I'm being extremely honest here, I do fear that Dad is more than just what I originally thought he was; a crank. Now I fear maybe Dad is either mentally challenged or didn't (couldn't?) make it through school (even up to junior high here in the U.S. where algebra is introduced).

I don't actually want to insult people like Dad if he's seriously incapable of this type of debate. It is unfair to him and it is something I don't want to do. It is too dark an aspect of human nature to needlessly attack the weak.

If Dad is actually just some underaged dude on here talking well above his grade level then I am similarly bothered.

The topics in this discussion, while easy to make light of, really do devolve down to very important topics in science, religion and in some cases politics. These are not to be taken lightly at all times.

And if I did find out that I was getting bent and displaying anger toward someone who was retarded or simply didn't have the opportunity to get the education yet necessary, I'd feel quite bad about my behavior.

I think I'm going to have to disengage from this debate. It isn't fun when Dad suddenly reveals that simple algebra is beyond him, and he is either willfully ignorant or is simply incapable of understanding that he not only is, but blatantly appears to be ignorant of the simple stuff.

If, on the other hand, Dad is a POE he is the longest running, most "In-the-Character" POE I can imagine. I don't want to ever accuse someone of open dishonesty, so I will defer that either Dad is extremely uneducated or possibly incapable of learning (mentally challenged).

At least in those instances I can take responsibility for my bad behavior in this light and bow out with my sincerest apologies to anyone who has ever had a family member who thus struggles.

 

[thaumaturgy]

The mathematical bogey-man!

Frankly, not half as scary as his scary older brother; the triple-integral.

Like I said, I bow in awe of those for whom math is an easier task. Anyone who can major in math in college has my respsect.
I find I love the mathematical concepts and have some slight facility with the ideas (for instance I feel quite at home with fourier transforms of various signals and what it tells us about periodic fluctuations vs random noise), but I am slow at making change at the grocery store.

I'm currently torn at my job; I am getting more involved in statistical design of experiment and I'm having a ball with this. The logic underlying how data is not only assessed but how decision points are made. That foray into analytics has really spurred my recent interest in going back for a law degree (believe it or not, this all aligns). In the sciences I've been working for several years on the edges of patent reviews. And lately that's gotten me more involved in patent law issues. To the point I recently enrolled in a patent law class.

I was talking a friend of mine the other day about how scientists and lawyers view the same data set. We both ideally dip into the same well of logic and inference, but we wind up drawing to the surface somewhat different "liquids" if you will. When a scientist first meets with a lawyer about a patent on some of the scientists' work, it is the most confusing day of any scientists' life. But given enough time the two rivers can be brought together. Even if you have to do it Fitzcarraldo-style and haul that ship up over the isthmus.

And in the end these deep-dives into logic, definition, math and inference are some of the most amazing times I've had. While I don't feel my brain has the facility for it, I am not unlike a terrier and will dog it non-stop until I force-fit it into my tiny braincase.

And that's also why I find discussions with people like Dad so frustrating. At first, when I seriously thought he was on here to engage in discussion, I couldnt' understand why he seemed to be like teflon and nothing, no concepts beyond his initial digestion of semi-philosophy, would stick.

I may not have a mind like steel trap, but I certainly hope it's sticky enough to capture things if enough stuff is thrown at it and with enough force.

(PS: Fish, with a co-degree in Philosophy and Mathematics, you could probably make a pretty decent living as a Patent Attorney (once you get your JD or the English equivalent). In the states Patent law takes in a LOT of scientists and almost all (if not all) patent agents have science or technical degrees, and probably most patent attorneys. So, if you want to sell-out big time, join the Law!)

 

[tanzanos]

By the power vested in me by his almighty FSM, I hereby declare DAD to be the looser of this debate.

 

[Soul Searcher]

you say that the speed of light, among other things, was different before the fall of man, yes? specifically, it was FASTER!!!, which explains why the universe appears to be billions of years old when it is only 6000 or so. the upshot of this, however, is that this would make the supernova featured in the video much farther away than it appears, even if you factor in the changes that may have happened to the speed of light over time. the faster lightspeed gets, the older the universe gets.

Perhaps I am missing something here but I do not see how a faster speed of light means that objects are more distant or that the universe is older.

Objects would be the same distance regaurdless of the speed of light [though the measure in light years would be different] Logically if object x is at y position in space and given a light speed of 186kmps it is 1b light years then if the speed of light were faster then it would be <1bly if the speed were slower would be >1byl No matter what the distance would be the same.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't for one second buy into the dad theories but it does not make sense to me to say that if light were faster the universe would be older since our estimate of age is based on the time it took light to get here at the speed of 186kmps. If the light was moving twice as fast as we think then it would seem to point to a younger universe rather than an older one.

 

[Patashu]

i had a feeling you'd say that. fine

Actually, Supernova 1987A didn't just turn on; if we looked at that spot in the sky before then we would have seen a star. No supernova blinking into existance. So dad's completely wrong there, we didn't just see the light from it in 1987, 1987 was only when the post-supernova light reached us.

 

[Patashu]

Perhaps I am missing something here but I do not see how a faster speed of light means that objects are more distant or that the universe is older.

Objects would be the same distance regaurdless of the speed of light [though the measure in light years would be different] Logically if object x is at y position in space and given a light speed of 186kmps it is 1b light years then if the speed of light were faster then it would be <1bly if the speed were slower would be >1byl No matter what the distance would be the same.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't for one second buy into the dad theories but it does not make sense to me to say that if light were faster the universe would be older since our estimate of age is based on the time it took light to get here at the speed of 186kmps. If the light was moving twice as fast as we think then it would seem to point to a younger universe rather than an older one.

It's got to do with this specific supernova, 1987A. We can see light going sideways as well as towards us so we can do a tricky trick to find out exactly how old the light is.

Read from the top of http://christianforums.com/t6849800&page=6 where I explain how you'd calculate it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I suspect that is precisely the flavor of the top-selling soda in the Forever State of the New Heaven!



Actually the recent posts by Dad have got me a bit ill at ease. I make it a policy to:

1. Never discuss politics or religion with children

2. Never knowingly debate the mentally challenged

3. Try to not engage a POE

4. Try not to argue with schizophrenics who think they are Elvis. No evidence will every convince them that they aren't Elvis. dad is the schizo, and "Da' Split" is Elvis.

 

[sinan90]

Perhaps I am missing something here but I do not see how a faster speed of light means that objects are more distant or that the universe is older.

Objects would be the same distance regaurdless of the speed of light [though the measure in light years would be different] Logically if object x is at y position in space and given a light speed of 186kmps it is 1b light years then if the speed of light were faster then it would be <1bly if the speed were slower would be >1byl No matter what the distance would be the same.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't for one second buy into the dad theories but it does not make sense to me to say that if light were faster the universe would be older since our estimate of age is based on the time it took light to get here at the speed of 186kmps. If the light was moving twice as fast as we think then it would seem to point to a younger universe rather than an older one.

We see it because the light is reaching us from however light yeas it may be away. Like anything, it takes the light time to travel since it has a finite velocity. If the speed of light was farther it'd be the same amount of light years away, but it'd be more miles away, since the light year depends on the speed of light if the speed of light changes so does the length of a light year. However if the speed of light changed then the total expansion would be different, and would so require a different time span for it to occur. We only sense the speed of light we do becasue it is one of the few speeds that will allow the interactions that go on the universe to create life. Ie if it was a different speed of light, we wouldn't be around to measure it so it might as well not exist. Which links on to a fundamental practice in QM that if it can't be measured in some way directly or indirectly it doesn't exist.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

4. Try not to argue with schizophrenics who think they are Elvis. No evidence will every convince them that they aren't Elvis. dad is the schizo, and "Da' Split" is Elvis.

So you're saying that dad has a "split" personality.

 

[Soul Searcher]

It's got to do with this specific supernova, 1987A. We can see light going sideways as well as towards us so we can do a tricky trick to find out exactly how old the light is.

Read from the top of http://christianforums.com/t6849800&page=6 where I explain how you'd calculate it.

OK.. yes if the size is so large that it can be measured in LY then I can see the point faster light would mean it was larger and thus farther away.

 

[Soul Searcher]

We see it because the light is reaching us from however light yeas it may be away. Like anything, it takes the light time to travel since it has a finite velocity. If the speed of light was farther it'd be the same amount of light years away, but it'd be more miles away, since the light year depends on the speed of light if the speed of light changes so does the length of a light year. However if the speed of light changed then the total expansion would be different, and would so require a different time span for it to occur. We only sense the speed of light we do becasue it is one of the few speeds that will allow the interactions that go on the universe to create life. Ie if it was a different speed of light, we wouldn't be around to measure it so it might as well not exist. Which links on to a fundamental practice in QM that if it can't be measured in some way directly or indirectly it doesn't exist.

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense as an explaination.

The other poster who answered used the diameter of the nova in light years to show that if light was faster then it would be larger and therefore even more distant. That makes more sense.

 

[sinan90]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense as an explaination.

The other poster who answered used the diameter of the nova in light years to show that if light was faster then it would be larger and therefore even more distant. That makes more sense.

I basically said the same thing but without actually linking it directly to the example lol.

I basically said that if the speed of light increases then the distance must increase since distance = speed * time.