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

[Soul Searcher]

Soul Searcher, think of it like this.

Whatever speed light was when the star went supernova, the ring is 8 months travel by light away from the center, since its light fluctuations lag consistently 8 months behind the fluctuations of the center. So we'll call the radius 0.87 LY.
We can see how much of the sky the supernova takes up in arc seconds, and it's not much of a stretch to convert it into an angle.
Now draw a triangle with one point at the ring's edge, one point in the center and one point at Earth. By trigonometry, the distance to supernova 1987A is equal to 0.67ly*cos(angle)/sin(angle). This means that the distance from Earth to supernova 1987A is directly proportional to the speed of light when the supernova occured; no matter how fast light was travelling it has to have taken the same amount of time to get here.

Yes I understood once it was pointed out that the size was measured in LY as well.

 

[dad]

DAD! It seems that your faith is wavering. Hold on because I depend on your ability to adhere to your faith. Keep it up and I may let you see the evidence of when writing was first invented. Of course the final permission will have to come from God. I promise to put in a good word for you thus securing permission for you to see the evidence!

Right. Keep googling, you may find something you think is worth posting on that.

 

[dad]

Soul Searcher, think of it like this.

Whatever speed light was when the star went supernova, the ring is 8 months travel by light away from the center, since its light fluctuations lag consistently 8 months behind the fluctuations of the center. So we'll call the radius 0.87 LY.

Now, I like to check homework sometimes. I notice in your little explanation you left out a method of cross checking the time the ring lights up, as concerns light. I would assume they can do that much??? Hopefully this whole thing is not based on simply assuming light travels at a certain speed, therefore it must be .87 LY away??

[edit; Oh my, I looked at wiki, and they are also void of any proof of the claim that is at the heart of the issue here!!!! Have I been hitting at a strawman here??

SN1987A distance and the speed of light

The three bright rings around SN 1987A are material from the stellar wind of the progenitor. These rings were ionized by the ultraviolet flash from the supernova explosion, and consequently began emitting in various emission lines. These rings did not "turn on" until several months after the supernova, and the turn-on process can be very accurately studied through spectroscopy. The rings are large enough for their angular size to be measured accurately: the inner ring is 0.808 arcseconds in radius. Using the distance light must have traveled to light up the inner ring as the base of a right angle triangle, and the angular size as seen from the Earth for the local angle, one can use basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to SN1987A, which is about 168,000 light-years.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_1987A#SN1987A_distance_and_the_speed_of_light

Do I sense an achilles heel here??]

By the way, dad, the post you just made is arguing about how SN1987A was formed, not how long ago it was formed. Even if it did come about differently then current scientific theory says it should that is something altogether different from the subject at hand.

Hey, it was worth a mentch, how wrong they were. And, remember, with a different light, at the time of the event, unless we can lock it into a present state universe, it is meaningless.

 

[Patashu]

Now, I like to check homework sometimes. I notice in your little explanation you left out a method of cross checking the time the ring lights up, as concerns light. I would assume they can do that much??? Hopefully this whole thing is not based on simply assuming light travels at a certain speed, therefore it must be .87 LY away??

If it takes light 0.67 of a year to travel from the core to the ring's edge then it must be a distance of 0.67 light years, no?

I'm not even putting an actual distance on that. However fast the light is going, it's 0.67 of those light years. We are defining the unit 'light year' here as how far light travels in a year.

 

[sinan90]

Well, it now has a finite velocity, because we live in a finite state. Assuming that into infinity is wrong.

So you like to presume things that have no factual evidence rather than accept the limit of the speed of anything set by Special Relativity? Come back with your own hypothesis which would have consequences which could be investigated. If there's no evidence for such a difference in C then it didn't happen.Like I said before if it can't be measured directly or indirectly then it doesn't exist.

 

[dad]

If it takes light 0.67 of a year to travel from the core to the ring's edge then it must be a distance of 0.67 light years, no?

No. Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you have evidence that the light traveling from core to ring is at our speed? Do you really know how big the rings are? (and don't play ring around the rosy here with circular reasoning, saying we know, because light takes so long to get there)

I'm not even putting an actual distance on that. However fast the light is going, it's 0.67 of those light years. We are defining the unit 'light year' here as how far light travels in a year.

Well, you need to put a distance to it, and tell us how you cook up that distance. After all, that is the point A and point B from which you claim light travels, that is the heart of the claims here.

 

[dad]

So you like to presume things that have no factual evidence rather than accept the limit of the speed of anything set by Special Relativity?

Well, not really. But if you claim that something moves at the speed of SR, why, you do need to prove it. This is news?

Come back with your own hypothesis which would have consequences which could be investigated. If there's no evidence for such a difference in C then it didn't happen.Like I said before if it can't be measured directly or indirectly then it doesn't exist.

But it is not C I see a difference in. C is the difference from what was, and it wasn't C, and had nothing to do with special in box relativity.

 

[Patashu]

No. Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you have evidence that the light traveling from core to ring is at our speed? Do you really know how big the rings are? (and don't play ring around the rosy here with circular reasoning, saying we know, because light takes so long to get there)

The distance between the core and the ring of SN1987A is 2/3rds of however long one light year was when that particular star went supernova. I'm trying very very hard to make this clear to you, dad. I'm not ascribing any specific number to this; it's however long a light year was back then times 0.67.

Would you agree, dad, that if light takes 2/3rds of a year to go from point A to point B then it's speed could be said to be 2/3rds of a light year? (Can you even deny tautologies?)

 

[sinan90]

Well, not really. But if you claim that something moves at the speed of SR, why, you do need to prove it. This is news?

Special relativity doesn't set the speed of light, it just states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light we currently see. If you wish to find a hole in this century old theory be my guest.

 

[FishFace]

[SIZE=-1]The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

[/SIZE]

Thanks for that - knowledge attained through study or practice. Knowledge covering general truths/laws ... through scientific method.
The "and concerned with the physical world" bit is in an "esp." clause, hence not necessary to the definition.

You have no knowledge of a same state past or future universe. Period.

You don't either - you don't even know what it was, or when or whether it existed.

I offered Dodwell's curve recently. That takes historical data, and observations of stars, and where they were, basically in various phases of our past. The data puts the change that happened about that very time. I also have often shown how the bible tells of differences that mandate a different state in the future and past.

Do you have a link to a scientific paper, or some actual data. Is the split observable and testable? Then we can work it out with scientific method. If not, then why should we ever believe it happened?

Yes, it clearly tells of a fairly abrupt change, and when.

Of course it does, dad.

 

[FishFace]

I wonder if the universe change would leave light, at various speeds it may have been moving, all at the present light speed? If so, that means that present light speed is no indication of past speed. Amazing. In other words C is not = to L (where L is the true state light)

In light of this, SN is simply pretty, and a good lesson in man not knowing what he is talking about, and not predicting what came about, and having what they did predict be shown false!!!! What a scream. Welcome to the new math, Fishface.

I told you already, maths depends only on rational thought - something that doesn't depend on the state of the world.

Here is one fellow that seems to think they were less than bang on!

"On the contrary, Supernova 1987A illuminates only how poorly the theory of supernova explosions fits the observations.

The official explanatory illustration above is conjectural and relies (again) on invisible matter that the star is supposed to have conveniently pre-released in just the right places and filamentary form to produce the observed effects. To say, "the predicted spectacular brightening of the circumstellar ring" is disingenuous. Neither the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring was predicted from theory. "The Hubble images of the rings are quite spectacular and unexpected," said Dr. Chris Burrows of the European Space Agency and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, when first discovered. "This is an unprecedented and bizarre object. We have never seen anything behave like this before." The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front.

There is a more fundamental problem with SN1987A. The star at the center was found to have been a "blue supergiant." But a supernova explosion is thought to require a ten-times bigger red supergiant star. There is no evidence that SK-69 was a red supergiant star, emitting a massive stellar wind. The history of the star is not based on observation, it is a fabrication required by the theory. "
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1
(although the site in general seems to have a point to try and prove, I doubt this bit is far off the mark?)

This is so easy.

Pity it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question in hand.

 

[dad]

The distance between the core and the ring of SN1987A is 2/3rds of however long one light year was when that particular star went supernova.

Well, assuming the universe was different back then, the question must be, how long was that then?? We all know how long it is now. By determining the precise real distance, we could gauge that speed. We can't assume the speed, to gauge the distance!!?? If it cannot even be established that light far away moves at our speed, why, we cannot proceed as if it did. I always assumed it did. But let's make it real clear here, for the sake of lurkers, IF indeed you know!

I'm trying very very hard to make this clear to you, dad. I'm not ascribing any specific number to this; it's however long a light year was back then times 0.67.

Bingo! But that really says nothing if light could travel from 1mph, to near infinite speeds, now does it?? If you can't establish this, you just cannot claim a ring light speed.

Would you agree, dad, that if light takes 2/3rds of a year to go from point A to point B then it's speed could be said to be 2/3rds of a light year? (Can you even deny tautologies?)

Yes. But, we should be sure that the universe is all the same state at the moment, as I think we both assume it is. How, then can we know the speed of light from core to ring?

 

[dad]

I told you already, maths depends only on rational thought - something that doesn't depend on the state of the world.

I see. So, give us the number for infinite. Add that to eternity. Divide that by the number of stars in the sky. And do make it to the highest Power. Show us the formula for light that is not a fixed speed, in a forever universe.
Unless all you want to talk about is man's in box math. That may be reasonable in the box, but, so is a teddy bear. So??

Pity it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question in hand.

Well, looking at the failed predictions, and after the fact slapping together of explanations, and patching up old theories, does go to casting doubt on the ones claiming stuff.

 

[dad]

Special relativity doesn't set the speed of light, it just states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light we currently see. If you wish to find a hole in this century old theory be my guest.

The theory is only good in this physical universe state. If we can show that the speed of light is the same in the SN, then we can apply that. So far all you offer is that it takes 8 months for the rings to light up.

 

[sinan90]

The theory is only good in this physical universe state. If we can show that the speed of light is the same in the SN, then we can apply that. So far all you offer is that it takes 8 months for the rings to light up.

And you offer what to show that there was another physical state of the universe?

 

[dad]

[/size][/font]Thanks for that - knowledge attained through study or practice. Knowledge covering general truths/laws ... through scientific method.
The "and concerned with the physical world" bit is in an "esp." clause, hence not necessary to the definition.

We can disagree. Many told me science doesn't do ghosts. It deals only in the physical, and present natural.

You don't either - you don't even know what it was, or when or whether it existed.

Yes I do. Plenty. I do not have it by science, I can tell you that. That is like asking a toddler about E=MC2
What you mean, is YOU don't have it.

Do you have a link to a scientific paper, or some actual data. Is the split observable and testable? Then we can work it out with scientific method. If not, then why should we ever believe it happened?

It is not a toddler toy, that present science can play with. They must stick to their PO blocks!
But, I have pointed out history goes back about to the right time. Also, Dodwell's curve data puts it right where I said it was, this change.

 

[Patashu]

Actually, if ghosts do exist then they can be scientifically studied. As long as they make any statistically significant, observable effect on the reality we live in then they are open for scientific examination.

 

[sinan90]

The theory is only good in this physical universe state. If we can show that the speed of light is the same in the SN, then we can apply that. So far all you offer is that it takes 8 months for the rings to light up.

The thing is if the "rules" of the universe were any different we wouldn't be here to see it. All the interactions that go on at the most basic levels wouldn't exist. If you like we only see what we do becasue its one of the few "settings" that would allow our existence to measure it.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes, there were dragons, I would think. There still is at least one dragon, the devil, but he seems to possibly be in heaven a lot of the time accusing us before God.

I give up.

 

[BrainHertz]

Wow.... after being away for a few days, I didn't expect to find this thread still going when I got back.

Well, assuming the universe was different back then, the question must be, how long was that then?? We all know how long it is now. By determining the precise real distance, we could gauge that speed. We can't assume the speed, to gauge the distance!!?? If it cannot even be established that light far away moves at our speed, why, we cannot proceed as if it did. I always assumed it did. But let's make it real clear here, for the sake of lurkers, IF indeed you know!

The whole point of the OP is that the argument doesn't depend on what the absolute size is.

The size is determined in light years at whatever the speed of light years was at the time. No assumption is made as to what that light speed is or what the absolute size therefore is.

If the light speed was higher in the past, that means that a light year was larger in the past and the structure is larger than a constant light speed would suggest. In turn, that faster light speed would imply that the object must be much further away from us in order to appear the size it does as observed from Earth.

If light speed was constant at its current value, that would imply the light having left the object 168,000 years ago. If light speed was higher in the past as postulated, that would imply the light leaving the object 4,000,000 years ago.

None of your hadwaving has addressed this.