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

[thaumaturgy]

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

Actually it has gone on this long precisely because it was conducted without reference to THIS IMPORTANT NEWS STORY.

 

[FishFace]

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.

Please try to make sense. There is no "formula for light" in any universe. Infinity is not a number, and cannot be added to eternity.

Unless all you want to talk about is man's in box math.

I already told you, maths is maths. You can't change the universe to make 2+2=5, and whatever happens to the universe, there will still be an infinite set of prime numbers, and there will be no integer solutions to the equation a^n+b^n=c^n for n>2.

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.

Let's face it dad, you don't understand what you read.

 

[FishFace]

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

Are ghosts observable and testable?

Yes I do.

No. You think you do, but, when asked, you have no reason to believe it. So you don't know it, you're just deluded.

It is not a toddler toy, that present science can play with. They must stick to their PO blocks!

So there's no good reason to believe it. Right.

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.

Historians know about stuff that happened in human societies tens of thousands of years ago, and paleontologists know about stuff from millions of years ago! You only get history going back to the right time if you ignore anything you don't want to hear.

 

[sinan90]

Please try to make sense. There is no "formula for light" in any universe.

Actually:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/a/8/3a8df36e96f38aa0a4f2fce24fd9d2c3.png
is a formula for the speed of light, not really a formula for light, but for th speed of it. I'd post the actual image but I don't have enough posts to do it yet.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

This whole thread is dangerously close to being a Monty Python sketch.

 

[Loudmouth]

This whole thread is dangerously close to being a Monty Python sketch.

NO IT'S NOT.

I wanted Insult.

Oh, sorry mate. Down the hall and to the left.

 

[dad]

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.

Prove it. Let's see you grab a ghost, and show us it's belly button. Otherwise it is just empty boasts. You will have to come to grips with the stark reality that your poor little science can't so much as find a spirit, when most folks know they exist.

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it. Let's see you grab a ghost, and show us it's belly button. Otherwise it is just empty boasts. You will have to come to grips with the stark reality that your poor little science can't so much as find a spirit, when most folks know they exist.

 

[dad]

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.

Complete mindless speculation. That is like saying, if heaven has different rules, people there will implode. How can you say such silly things???? First of all, you know squat about the spiritual. So how can you speak to what this physical universe would be like if we added the spiritual together with it?? Of course it still exists. Jesus added the spiritual to His physical body, and was both. Evidence. The sort you lack altogether. Why make stuff up??

If you like we only see what we do becasue its one of the few "settings" that would allow our existence to measure it.

That is why the setting was left this way at the split. We were not supposed to explode, implode, or die, or disappear.
The evidence mounts.

 

[BrainHertz]

Prove it. Let's see you grab a ghost, and show us it's belly button. Otherwise it is just empty boasts. You will have to come to grips with the stark reality that your poor little science can't so much as find a spirit, when most folks know they exist.

No, people do not know ghosts exist. Some people merely think they do. Somewhere in the difference between the two....

oh, forget it.

 

[dad]

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



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.

If there was no constant light speed at the time, who cares what a constant light speed would suggest??? If there was, why can't you simply verify the basics here, and show how fast it moves from point a to point b??? Another important point, if you can do that (hint: trigonometry) --is what evidence do you have if any that the rings lit upp from the core light?? Do we see the light go from point a to b???
Heck, you got work to do, before trying to sound like you got a handle on it.

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.

Well, first things first. Then we can take the next turn.

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.

IF the light from the core to the ring traveled at the same speed as the light from the SN to earth. If you notice, that a big IF!

 

[dad]

Please try to make sense. There is no "formula for light" in any universe. Infinity is not a number, and cannot be added to eternity.

If light from one star could travel at a different speed than light from another star, any math wiz ought to be able to cook up some little formula. Infinity is real, so if you ain't got the math for it, how mickey mouse is that?? As far as adding to eternity, how long did God live before creation week???? If we add this universe to that, what do we have??? Honestly, I tire of your baby math.

I already told you, maths is maths. You can't change the universe to make 2+2=5, and whatever happens to the universe, there will still be an infinite set of prime numbers, and there will be no integer solutions to the equation a^n+b^n=c^n for n>2.

How would you know??? All you know is that you are stuck, and assume all will be forever. Not grounded in a lot, that.

Let's face it dad, you don't understand what you read.

Hey, you guys ought not to encourage the poor kid, when the inevitable comes, it seems to be getting a little hard on the guy.

 

[BrainHertz]

If there was no constant light speed at the time, who cares what a constant light speed would suggest??? If there was, why can't you simply verify the basics here, and show how fast it moves from point a to point b???

Uh, because the whole point of the exercise is to determine exactly that?

The point here is to evaluate the outcomes of all possible situations, of which the speed of light being the same then as it is now is one. Another is that the speed of light has exponentially decayed.

Please state an alternative if you have one, and please be specific.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Please try to make sense. There is no "formula for light" in any universe.

BEHOLD!

Infinity is not a number, and cannot be added to eternity.

Actually, Fish, Chuck Norris did that very thing. It's effectively an approximation of his upper body strength in ERRRRRGS.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I tire of your baby math.


How would you know??? All you know is that you are stuck, and assume all will be forever. Not grounded in a lot, that.

Actually what Fish was alluding to is what is known as Fermat's Last Theorem. You may have not heard about it. It is well above "baby math".

Here's what I could find about the proof of the theorem. (Don't get confused by all the big words, it's pretty difficult stuff to understand.)

Fermat's Last Theorem needs only to be proven for n = 4 and prime numbers greater than 2. If n > 2 is not a prime number or 4, it can be either a power of 2 or not. In the first case the number 4 is a factor of n, otherwise there is an odd prime number among its factors. In any case let any such factor be p, and let m be n / p. Now we can express the equation as (am)p + (bm)p = (cm)p. If we can prove the case with exponent p, exponent n is simply a subset of that case.
The research on Fermat's Last Theorem stimulated the development of a great deal of modern ring theory. In particular, the notion of an ideal and the ideal class group grew out of Kummer's work on the theorem, and his proof of it for regular primes.
In 1977, Guy Terjanian proved that if p is an odd prime number, and the natural numbers x, y and z satisfy x2p + y2p = z2p, then 2p must divide x or y.
In 1985, Leonard Adleman and Roger Heath-Brown proved there exist infinitely many primes p such that if xp + yp = zp for some integers then xyz is divisible by p.
The Mordell conjecture, proven by Gerd Faltings in 1983, implies that for any n > 2, there are at most finitely many coprime integers a, b and c with an + bn = cn.
The Taniyama–Shimura conjecture states that every elliptic curve can be parametrised by a rational map with integer coefficients using the classical modular curve; that is, all elliptic curves (over the rationals) can be described by modular forms.
On the other hand Ribet's theorem shows that for any nontrivial solution to Fermat's equation, an + bn = cn, the semistable elliptic curve of Hellegouarch and Frey, defined by
y2 = x(x − an)(x + bn), is not modular. Fermat's Last Theorem therefore follows from the Taniyama–Shimura conjecture.
The proof of this theorem for semistable elliptic curves by Wiles (and, in part, Taylor) uses many techniques from algebraic geometry and number theory, and has many ramifications in these branches of mathematics. As well as standard constructions of modern algebraic geometry, using the category of schemes and Iwasawa theory, the proof involved the development of ideas from Barry Mazur on deformations of Galois representations and contributed to the Langlands program.
(SOURCE)

 

[FishFace]

If light from one star could travel at a different speed than light from another star, any math wiz ought to be able to cook up some little formula.

Well go on!

Infinity is real

Actually infinity is not real. (I'll leave you to work out what I mean.)

so if you ain't got the math for it, how mickey mouse is that??

Oh, we have the maths for infinity (though I doubt you'd understand.)

As far as adding to eternity, how long did God live before creation week????

Nono, you can't add one thing to a completely different kind of thing. Adding the number infinity (which doesn't exist) to eternity It's like asking what's four plus an apple. Makes no sense.

Honestly, I tire of your baby math.

If you don't even understand baby math, what does that make you.

How would you know???

Because they have been proven. For example, the prime numbers:
Consider any set of prime numbers. Multiply all the prime numbers together and add one. Dividing by any of the primes would leave a remainder of one (I can prove this too if you like) hence this new number is not divisible by any of the primes in the set. Every number can be decomposed into a product of prime numbers (I can prove that if you want) so either this new number is a prime we didn't have before, its prime decomposition requires a prime we didn't have before. Either way, we need a new prime, so all finite sets of primes are "missing" at least one prime. Hence there are infinitely many primes.

This cannot be "unproven" by merely changing the facts of the universe.

Hey, you guys ought not to encourage the poor kid, when the inevitable comes, it seems to be getting a little hard on the guy.

Your maths lessons evidently didn't go much better did they!

 

[Mumbo]

Well, the speed of present light is frozen in comparison with what the created state light can do. Of course. It need not be going backward in time that was one scenario. Since time and space were affected, we can ask questions like that, according to the evidences we see.

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

It is not frozen, things still move. But, as I said, in comparison with created state light, it is frozen. The bits we do see, like SNs far far away, we can question the appearance of time that filters down to earth. Of course

i am questioning it, and you still haven't given an interpretable answer; if light used to move whatever speed it pleased, how is it that the universe looks so orderly? are we viewing it through gigantic corrective lenses?

But I raised a few examples, meant to show how a changed universe easily explains light, not locked into a certain position dogmatically on it.

a changed universe easily explains everything, and if it doesn't, you can always add a few more changes. the more convoluted the better, i say

But, for the guy that started the thread, one would expect a bit more depth from you

it's a bit late in the game for that, i've been confused into submission for a couple days now

condescending, vague

exhausted, exasperated

pretend questions.

"what?" is a not a pretend question :I

 

[Patashu]

Prove it. Let's see you grab a ghost, and show us it's belly button. Otherwise it is just empty boasts. You will have to come to grips with the stark reality that your poor little science can't so much as find a spirit, when most folks know they exist.

My claim was if ghosts/spirits/whathaveyou exist they can be scientifically studied.

Prove that? It seems perfectly tautological to me. Science is about studying the reality we can observe and interact with, after all.

 

[sinan90]

Complete mindless speculation. That is like saying, if heaven has different rules, people there will implode. How can you say such silly things???? First of all, you know squat about the spiritual. So how can you speak to what this physical universe would be like if we added the spiritual together with it?? Of course it still exists. Jesus added the spiritual to His physical body, and was both. Evidence. The sort you lack altogether. Why make stuff up??

I'm making stuff up? I'm speculating mindlessly? I'd hate to see what you'd call what you're doing. There's nothing spiritual about the universe, all our memories and experiences are just chemical and electrical changes in the brain. I can accept this and make the most of life knowing it. Why there's a need for something spiritual I don't unbderstand.

That is why the setting was left this way at the split. We were not supposed to explode, implode, or die, or disappear.
The evidence mounts.

You still have no evidence of a split. Occam's Razor favours a continuance of the same laws of physics both into the past and future, show me the consequences of a "split" and evidence showing this and I'll weight the two in my mind and consider which to take as the best hypothesis to describe our universe.

 

[dad]

Uh, because the whole point of the exercise is to determine exactly that?

The point here is to evaluate the outcomes of all possible situations, of which the speed of light being the same then as it is now is one. Another is that the speed of light has exponentially decayed.

Please state an alternative if you have one, and please be specific.

Great, and to do that, would we not start by seeing what speed light goes from core to ring, and indeed, if we are even sure it isn't visa versa or something!!??