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

[dad]

but this speculation would be against your beliefs, because it's not in the bible and it would be sex that doesn't lead to reproduction - this is of course one of your reasons for hating gay sex, but I don't see the same venom.....

Not me. I don't like sodomy because God warned us not to. Sex is not against my beliefs, any of the bible greats, or Adam and Eve.

God hates sex, that much is pretty clear -

I disagree. I think He loves it. Why else would He make it, and have doing it as the first commandment??

so he only allows married couples who want to have children the pleasure.

You know, I really don't know. I have been of a different mindset on all that, but am reviewing my beliefs, at the moment.

So I would propose that your 'new' bodies you guys will recieve in heaven come without genitals.

So if a lion lay with the lamb, and a little child lead them, does a stork drop it??

 

[dad]

Great. But a formula gives you either a quantity or a vector. Or, in rather esoteric cases, some other mathematical object. However, light is not a mathematical object.

The speed of light is the topic here.

Sorry to disappoint you dad, but that's only what every single mathematician on the planet will tell you. And in this case, that does indicate the truth of the matter because it's a matter of definition.

Definition, which is by definition, limited to this universe. Gotcha.

Sure, when you say the word "infinity" you might mean what we mean when we say the word "monkey," or anything else, but that would be pretty foolish.
In English, infinity has a few well defined meanings, one of them being a behaviour (of which 1/x as x approaches 0 is an example), another being a size. A number is not one of those definitions though.

in·fin·i·ty
in·fin·i·ties 1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.\

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinity

It is a common mistake for young children and people who have no mathematical knowledge (like you) to think infinity is a number (as in your favourite phrase, "to infinity, and beyond" - contradicting the very meaning of infinity.)

Funny, I never thought of such a thing. Mistakes apparently are something you make as well as common folk.

Meaning is determined by how people use a word. That means I don't actually have to pay any attention to your opinion on this, since it is uninformed and pretty much useless.

Appeal to popularity.

They sure do! But when that stuff changes, nothing about the numbers changes. If I have one apple, and a put an apple next to it, there wasn't some object of "one"ness that changed into an object of "two"ness.
Numbers are abstract concepts, not objects in the world.

This is news??

Higher maths is just maths you study higher up the education system I'm afraid. Since you don't appeared to have studied (or at any rate, remembered) any maths at all, you wouldn't know what that was about.

No, higher baby maths was not what I referred to.

Uh, no. Abstract is not a comparative word - 'A' cannot be abstract from 'B.'

ab·stract .1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.
2. Not applied or practical; theoretical. See Synonyms at theoretical.

A maths student is kind of expected to know some maths.

Good. I like math.

Great. But all of maths is based on simple maths. That's what's so beautiful about maths. For example, the whole numbers, 0, 1 and so on can be defined completely in terms of sets, where a set is a collection of objects with a notion of size. In order to do this, We state that, intuitively, there is a set of no objects at all, called the empty set. We represent this as follows: {}. Then we say that:
0={}
1={0}={{}}
2={0,1}={{},{{}}}
And so on. In this manner, we can build up the whole of number theory purely on these kinds of simple ideas. That's what maths is about - you build the complex stuff out of simple stuff so that you are absolutely certain of the truth of it all.

Great. Good thing God made math. Some are more into it than others. But, on the bright side, He made a lot of stuff.

So if simple maths works in your alternative universe, then complex maths does as well.

That depends. With all the fun up there, who will you find to twiddle with complex numbers??

 

[dad]

Right, I'm seriously wondering if dad has any understanding at all of stellar evolution and what caused Supernova 1987A to explode in in the first place. I took a class in astronomy in both high school and college. All the claims that dad has made up to this point aren't based in reality at all, especially his claim that the earth stands still. I thought that was settled centuries ago where it was firmly established that we live in a heliocentric solar system, as are all of the extrasolar planetary systems which have been discovered since 1995. The sun, any sun, is the center...there's no variation in that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protostar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

The earth stands still????? Get a grip.

 

[mpok1519]

I haven't watched the movie yet, maybe later. As for light, it is not that our light was slower or faster, or in existence. The fabric of the universe was different, is the idea there, not that light changed after our light and universe state came to be.

whats the proof that the 'fabric' of the universe was different back then? give me samples of carbon from Adam and Eve's hay-day so we can study the molecular structure.

 

[dad]

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.

Well, If a universe change, left us with present light, how would that reflect the speed of the former light?? I mean if a river freezes, does that tell us how fast, on the surface, it used to run?

i'm not saying that your theories are impossible, just that they're wacky even by creationist standards

But you don't use creationist standards. You really mean they appear wacky to your PO standards. That is natural. God's word is also foolishness to the PO mind.

i'm picking up something on the ironimeter, whatever it is it's huge
it's getting closer
CLOSER
whew it's gone

Glad that earth is safe once again.

philosophy is more complicated than you give it credit for!

Well, I don't know. I think it is pretty complicated. But that is not a good thing.

you can even work in some facts and logic if you like

This we all ought to strive to do.

 

[dad]

DAD is probably the only evolutionist who believes in evolution in the same way as if it were a religion.
I say that DAD is the biggest enemy of creationists and YECs. He is our nuclear weapon so to speak. However I recommend we let him loose to wreak havoc in the Creationist camp.

ALL HAIL DAD

The traits of created creatures are part of creation.

 

[Mumbo]

Well, If a universe change, left us with present light, how would that reflect the speed of the former light?? I mean if a river freezes, does that tell us how fast, on the surface, it used to run?

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 by saying that the non-unifrom speed is no longer apparent due to the change in state, then that effectively kills your supernova explanation.

once again, you can't have it both ways.

But you don't use creationist standards.

never said i did. creationists do on the other hand, and if you're wondering why some of them don't stand by you, it may be because they're applying those standards

 

[dad]

i'll reiterate. you already suggested that the speed of the former light is not uniform.

I raised the possibility, yes, as it does make some sense, if God is in charge, and we are the cat's meow.

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.

In what way is photons connected to former light, now?? I thought that was present light?

if you change your story now by saying that the non-unifrom speed is no longer apparent due to the change in state, then that effectively kills your supernova explanation.

Well, no, not if the former light was not this light, and not just photons. Which is the point of different light.

once again, you can't have it both ways.

Of course I can. I can have it as it now is, and as it was. I will add to that, as it will be.

never said i did. creationists do on the other hand, and if you're wondering why some of them don't stand by you, it may be because they're applying those standards

You seem to think that a bunch of creationists ought to converge on this site, and take to spending time debating with, mostly atheists??
The few that are here have, apparently, their own ideas. They do the best they can with what they have.

 

[tanzanos]

The traits of created creatures are part of creation.

Defcon 2

Launch imminent.

Creationists are about to be blasted to oblivion by the DAD secret anti creationism disguised as pro creationism super secret evolutionist weapon.
ALLL HAIL THE DAD WEAPON

 

[dad]

Defcon 2

Launch imminent.

Creationists are about to be blasted to oblivion by the DAD secret anti creationism disguised as pro creationism super secret evolutionist weapon.
ALLL HAIL THE DAD WEAPON

I can see by the head on your sparrow, that evolving is important to you. With a different past, I have no need to deny any real evolving. A weapon indeed, but you missed where it was pointed.

 

[Mumbo]

In what way is photons connected to former light, now?? I thought that was present light?
Well, no, not if the former light was not this light, and not just photons. Which is the point of different light.

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.

You seem to think that a bunch of creationists ought to converge on this site, and take to spending time debating with, mostly atheists?? The few that are here have, apparently, their own ideas. They do the best they can with what they have.

okay

 

[dad]

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

OK, so you abandon attempts to hold the former light to being just photons. OK. If all speeds became the present light, in photon form, no less, how would you know what speed we were looking at in any sector, since all would now be present state light???

 

[Mumbo]

OK, so you abandon attempts to hold the former light to being just photons.

you're fully aware that i never posited that

If all speeds became the present light, in photon form, no less, how would you know what speed we were looking at in any sector, since all would now be present state light???

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 the point of this thread. i think that's the more pressing matter here

 

[dad]

you're fully aware that i never posited that

You posit what about the former state, then? That the light was more than photons????

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 the point of this thread. i think that's the more pressing matter here

Well, good point. But let's have a quick review. There is the issue of the rings. I have asked how we know that light went from the core to the ring, and saw no reply. I have asked how fast we observe core to ring light to be. No reply. So I raised the possibility that the ring light may have been an event that was carried to earth at greater than present speeds, as a result of the universe change. If that were the case, then the two need to be looked at separately. (ring light and sn to earth light.) That is because the split may have started in some places first, and took some time to be universal.
The other issue is whether or not we even are sure that the light there is present state? (I await the data that we have from core to ring, if any)
The other possibility is that the ring to core light may have been faster or slower, but now, all light appears the same, because it now is in this universe state. So, in fact, it does not defeat my point(s)

 

[FishFace]

The speed of light is the topic here.

Oh. So you want a formula for the speed of light. Why didn't you say so?
Well we already have plenty. For example, E=mc^2. So, if the speed of light were larger, stars would burn brighter and faster and die quicker. If it were much larger, then stars would just explode as soon as they started burning!

Definition, which is by definition, limited to this universe. Gotcha.

Sorry, how does a definition change if you change which universe you're in? Again, a definition is an abstract concept it doesn't exist in a universe, so it can't change between them.

in·fin·i·ty in·fin·i·ties 1. The quality or condition of being infinite.
2. Unbounded space, time, or quantity.
3. An indefinitely large number or amount.\

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinity

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/infinity

Oh, I thought we were dealing in mathematics here, not popular misconceptions. If infinity is a real number, please tell me which real number, or which subset of the real numbers, is infinity.
I'll prove this to you by contradiction. We suppose, for the sake of a contradiction, that infinity is a number. Now, it is a fundamental property of all numbers that if you take "a - a" you get 0 - if you disagree, you'll have to explain yourself, since that is basically the definition of the minus sign.
Also, we all know that if you add 1 to infinity you get infinity, because, if infinity is a number, then there certainly is no larger number. (However, if infinity is a size, there are larger sizes - but I don't expect you to understand that) So we have that:

∞ + 1 = ∞

Now, we are going to subtract ∞ from both sides.

∞-∞ + 1 = ∞-∞

As noted above, this is equivalent to:

1 = 0

So there are three options:

1. Infinity is not a number
2. 1=0
3. One of the fundamental rules of mathematics is wrong

If you pick two, you are insane, if you pick three, you'd better know just which one it is, and if you pick one, then welcome to grown up maths.

Appeal to popularity.

No, just a bit of philosophy of language. If you, one person, think the word "egg" means "a small piece of green putty I found in my navel one midsummer morning" then you are quite simply wrong. Why are you wrong? Because noone else uses egg to mean that.
Meaning is use (see Wittgenstein) and so popularity is basically all there is in the realm of definitions.

Of course I knew you wouldn't understand this - but you really ought to realise that "appeal to popularity" isn't a catch-all fallacy. Your use of it here is like crying "appeal to popularity!" when someone says, "Obama should win this state because he got the most votes!"

This is news??

Well you don't seem to get it.

ab·stract .1. Considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept.

So let's try and apply that. Numbers are apart from concrete existence from the universe.
Nope, still doesn't work.

Good. I like math.

Pity you don't appear to know any.

That depends. With all the fun up there, who will you find to twiddle with complex numbers??

Irrelevant. The only way to change complex mathematics is by changing the simple stuff. But the simple stuff is just that - simple. And you yourself admitted that wouldn't change.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I could either google it, or waste 10 years in school figuring that sort of thing out. But, since I find it a waste of time to get headaches over temporal bx math of no importance, why bother?

Well, for one it is interesting. For another, if you learn math, when you find yourself in a math discussion you look intelligent when discussing it.

Now this is a life lesson: when you find yourself in a discussion where you don't really understand the topic, you shouldn't get nasty toward the people who do.

But, as always you like to try to present yourself as clever, and leaned, and above us mere mortals.

Sorry to laugh, but really, if anything I'm revealing how un-clever I am! You see, "Bases" are something we are taught in elementary school. But it wasn't until I was older that it started to make sense to me. That's why I find it fascinating and fun. It really honestly is interesting stuff!

You obviously resent teaching and learning. It shows in how you post and how you present yourself on these boards.

But that's OK, we all kind of know what problems you have faced. "Tracking" is not necessarily a good thing for people like yourself because it kept you from meeting other people who might have been able to teach you that others know a lot of stuff.

But it probably helped you in that it did provide you with a comfort zone in which you could achieve to the level you were capable. It's a tough area of education.

And depending on how old you are, you might have seen it in a much harsher sense of a special school.

Can you explain how any of that matters in the least to anyone??

Well, considering you said:

Depends on the base system.

I thought someone might bring up something like that.

I thought maybe you were interested in this. Again, if you are not interested, you should not have responded.

Actually, I would say it makes them conceited, condescending pussheads, but, hey, what do I know??

Now, would your teachers like it when you call someone a "pusshead"? And just because they were attempting to provide you with some information?

That isn't nice at all.

 

[thaumaturgy]

No, I simply noted that a math wiz ought to be able to come up with some little formula for the non constant former light. In other words, using two stars, each with a different speed that day.

The phrase was used in context of a different state universe, and the differing speeds of two star's light.

Oh. So you want a formula for the speed of light. Why didn't you say so?

Fish, I think Dad might not be familiar with the terms of the discussion here. As you have deduced, he appears to be looking for a formula for the SPEED of light. It is hard to tell because as noted he originally asked for a "formula for the non constant former light", so it did sound like he was looking for a formula for light.

That would be covered by Maxwell's Equations.

But since Dad has shown repeatedly that the topics here (math) are not his strong suit, maybe he needs a description of what a "formula for the speed of light" would look like.

Here goes:
Dad,
Speed is technically the rate of change in position. Change in position of an object (a car, a dog, or even a photon) divided by change in time.

Now for waves it can be a bit more complicated but let's start with speed of an object:

DX/DT = V

DX : This is how a mathematician shows "change in position". The first character is from an older language called Greek. It is a Delta. That is how scientists and mathematicians denote "change" in an equation. Think of it as the difference in position between two points.

X[sub]2[/sub] - X[sub]1[/sub]

DT : This is how much time elapses (change in time).

V : Velocity (speed to you and me).

Now in the case of the speed of light think of it as how fast a photon (a bundle of energy) is moving through space. That V is what scientists call "C" (speed of light has a special symbol). It is 299[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]792[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE]458 m/s

Now if you think of light as a wave there is a way to calculate speed of a wave using it's wavelength and frequency:

V = f*l

f : frequency of the wave
l : wavelength of the wave

Since Einstein found that the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is constant we can set V=C (like we found above) and we get

C= f*l

So now from any frequency of radiation we can calculate its wavelength or vice versa!

Here's some places to look to learn more about this:
HERE
HERE
and HERE

Now you have some small introductory background to the equations for SPEED of a wave and SPEED of light, maybe you would like to further describe the changes in C with your distant past models?

 

[NailsII]

If the speed of light is not constant, then how come we can only measure it at one speed (dependant on the medium)?
I mean, take and object 6,000 light years away.
If light set off faster than c, why is it now only travelling at c?
Compare this with light from the edge of the visable universe, it is still travelling at c. How can they all slow daown at the same time, irrespective of how fast they were travelling before?

 

[dad]

Oh. So you want a formula for the speed of light. Why didn't you say so?
Well we already have plenty. For example, E=mc^2. So, if the speed of light were larger, stars would burn brighter and faster and die quicker. If it were much larger, then stars would just explode as soon as they started burning!

Right, that is a present age formula. Now, do you have any for the former state?

Sorry, how does a definition change if you change which universe you're in? Again, a definition is an abstract concept it doesn't exist in a universe, so it can't change between them.

Some will, some won't. Abstract still has a basis.

Oh, I thought we were dealing in mathematics here, not popular misconceptions. If infinity is a real number, please tell me which real number, or which subset of the real numbers, is infinity.

I don't know that it is a number. I don't even know that it can be represented by a number. We do know that we can't really do that in this temporal world we live in. At least I have never seen such a number. I think of infinity as lasting forever, and being beyond limits we know.

I'll prove this to you by contradiction. We suppose, for the sake of a contradiction, that infinity is a number. Now, it is a fundamental property of all numbers that if you take "a - a" you get 0 - if you disagree, you'll have to explain yourself, since that is basically the definition of the minus sign.

Well, that is all pretty complicated stuff. Let's look at a concrete example of how the spiritual works, in a local manifestation. What we would call a miracle. Jesus fed some 15 -20,000 people (5000 men plus women and children) on a few loaves and fishes. One kid's lunch, basically.
lets call the loaves A and the fish B. Now, when the first person grabbed a roll, and scarfed it down, that is A-A. Are you with me so far??? You claim that equals 0!! Well, no, in this case, another 19,000 people had one, two, or maybe 4 rolls each. They ate their fill.Same with the fish.
See, you better go back, and check your foundational assumptions, because your numbers are not even close to the data.

Also, we all know that if you add 1 to infinity you get infinity, because, if infinity is a number, then there certainly is no larger number. (However, if infinity is a size, there are larger sizes - but I don't expect you to understand that) So we have that:

Well, if there is no end to Infinity, how can there be an end of adding to it, if that could be done at all??

∞ + 1 = ∞

Now, we are going to subtract ∞ from both sides.

∞-∞ + 1 = ∞-∞

As noted above, this is equivalent to:

1 = 0

Hey, at least you aren't using big complicated numbers here. As explained above, that makes it easier for the average Joe to see where you go wrong.

So there are three options:

1. Infinity is not a number
2. 1=0
3. One of the fundamental rules of mathematics is wrong

I don't think it is a number, and, assuming that it could be represented, in the new heavens, by a number, your math doesn't add up anyhow. So, yes, something in your fundamentals is wrong, as applies to the forever state.

No, just a bit of philosophy of language. If you, one person, think the word "egg" means "a small piece of green putty I found in my navel one midsummer morning" then you are quite simply wrong. Why are you wrong? Because noone else uses egg to mean that.
Meaning is use (see Wittgenstein) and so popularity is basically all there is in the realm of definitions.

I don't do that, and even gave a dictionary definition for infinity. Guess that moots your point.

Of course I knew you wouldn't understand this - but you really ought to realise that "appeal to popularity" isn't a catch-all fallacy.

Of course not. When you try it, it is OK. Got it.

Your use of it here is like crying "appeal to popularity!" when someone says, "Obama should win this state because he got the most votes!"

Or, of the 43 million young unborn children in the world killed last year alone, he figures that isn't near enough?
No, infinity is a concept that is out of the fishbowl, that could be why it throws you so.

So let's try and apply that. Numbers are apart from concrete existence from the universe.
Nope, still doesn't work.

But one would think they should represent something? I mean if I say there are 12 apostles, or 2 apples, sort of thing. So, the real abstract numbers are meaningless beyond the limits of this universe state.

Irrelevant. The only way to change complex mathematics is by changing the simple stuff. But the simple stuff is just that - simple. And you yourself admitted that wouldn't change.

Well, as explained in the loaves and fishes example, present simple is not all it's cracked up to be when we add the forever state spiritual component to it. But, it still really isn't that complicated.

Hope you enjoyed your lesson in the new maths. Now, I think that is a bit off topic.

 

[dad]

Dad,
Speed is technically the rate of change in position. Change in position of an object (a car, a dog, or even a photon) divided by change in time.

Great, because a change in time is part of the fabric of a different universe, of course. How time is woven together with the rest of the universe, basically. Here, many call it the space time continuum. But, one also has to look at what you call the 'object'.
In this case, light. We would have to ascertain whether it was composed of all the same stuff, or somewhat different in nature. If, for example, it was different, then it might be a bit like comparing apples and oranges.

Now for waves it can be a bit more complicated but let's start with speed of an object:

DX/DT = V

DX : This is how a mathematician shows "change in position". The first character is from an older language called Greek. It is a Delta. That is how scientists and mathematicians denote "change" in an equation. Think of it as the difference in position between two points.

Well, maybe we ought to tell the Greeks that a wave on today's ocean, or space, for that matter, does not wash into the shores of eternity. Thanks for pointing that out. But, on the bright side, their little baby math terms and etc apparently are useful in this state universe. Be thankful for little things. No need to toss out the baby, with the bath water.

X[sub]2[/sub] - X[sub]1[/sub]

DT : This is how much time elapses (change in time).

Present time. Maybe we ought to qualify that a bit. Say, PTDT !!??

V : Velocity (speed to you and me).

So, PO V factors in here. Surprised, I am not. Just remember to keep the PO V in this universe state, now, at least.

Now in the case of the speed of light think of it as how fast a photon (a bundle of energy) is moving through space.

Present space. At a speed present photons can move through it. Of course. Go on.

That V is what scientists call "C" (speed of light has a special symbol). It is 299792458 m/s

Right, so POC is in your equation you are working up to here. OK.

Now if you think of light as a wave there is a way to calculate speed of a wave using it's wavelength and frequency:

V = f*l

f : frequency of the wave
l : wavelength of the wave

Well, I don't think of forever state light as a wave, is that OK?? But we can think of present light that way, long as we don't go getting into things quantum.

Since Einstein found that the speed of electromagnetic radiation in a vacuum is constant we can set V=C (like we found above) and we get

C= f*l

So, now we add in a PO vacuum. OK.

So now from any frequency of radiation we can calculate its wavelength or vice versa!

And we have fishbowl calculations. So??

Now you have some small introductory background to the equations for SPEED of a wave and SPEED of light, maybe you would like to further describe the changes in C with your distant past models?

Well, C comes from God. No wonder it is responsive to His will! That changes in many ways, largely for our good, as history teaches us. But, as for the temporal universe C, poor thing, as I have always said, I see no change in it. You might save yourself some time if you pay attention. Just a thought.