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.
But to establish that the ring to core speeds are the speeds of the SN to earth, would not some evidence be needed that the core to ring speed is the same light speed we know now??? And, also, it is a good cross check to know that the core was the origin of the light, and that the rings did not just light up, of some other exotic thing. Is it too much to ask you to cover the simple bases of your claims?? I like to see that before moving on.
it does, because that's what we observe, and there is no other reasonable explanation. you keep disputing the fact, but i still haven't seen you explain why it matters
Sounds like you simply are asking us to believe here, sigh unseen? have faithm brother, it has to be that way....
But I say slow down, and show us.
probably impossible because any measurement would require light in some fundamental way, but thankfully comlpetely irrelevant
So are you, then suggestin, that in your opinion, it is impossible to prove that the core to ring light moves at PO light speed??!!!!!
Interesting.
you mean if the speed of light was different, the distance between the core and the rings would be different as well? fantastic point, dad! unfortunately, the video made it first
Not really. I was thinking more that if the light was different in the core to ring event, then speed doesn't matter that much. All bets would be off anyhow. If that was the case, all we need to do is waft the event towards earth at faster than PO speeds.
since you asked, i have a couple questions that are somewhat unrelated to all of this
for one, why do you postulate that the distant universe appears to us to move backward in time? if you intended for the idea to disprove something, then what?
I don't, really. I have raised the question, but never really got into it. No one yet was able to push the evidence, and observations so far, as to require a fine tuning of the several possible alternatives.
and how would you reply to this: if the aforementioned is true, then how does light from the distant universe reach us? presumably past state light was affected by time, so if it appears to be going back in time, it'll never appear at all.
OK, so I generally assume that light comes at us, as it appears to. I have wondered if a time reversal effect could exist, but never really looked at that. But, very quickly, light would reach us, having been changed en route from former state light to present light. That is why enough of it remains to transmit information.
In any possible time reversal scenario, we would simply have the events coming at us in reverse, to our perception. So, if a star was created, and a ring was around it first, before the star appeared, we would see it rewound. Like a star exploding, and then a ring around it etc etc. But, as I say, with a different universe, there are many ways to explain things, no need to lock into the one. The sheer fact that former universe light could move at near unlimited speeds is enough.
the light would never reach us. i neglected to ask this in the appropriate thread because i thought i knew what your answer would be, but all this talk about light has made me curious
Well, if this is still in regards to that time reversal speculation, the light would reach us, because the event was meant to be seen on earth. So, the pre star creation rings would have been seen, just as they are now seen, but before the star was made!!! (You can see why I don't really want to get into it)
you agreed with the terms of the video, and the video says you're wrong. i don't see what this has to do with that!
Well, no. The video seems to do as you do, and assume a lot of things. For example, you say it is impossible to cover the basics of proving the speed of light in the SN.
you mentioned that creationists do the best with what the have; well, so does science. it bases its conclusions on evidence, and if no evidence is available, then no conclusions are made. every time you have accused a scientific theory of being without evidence, you have been wrong
Well, as we can see you can't seem to produce it, for the fundamental parts of the claim here. Strange that you would get to bragging after abject failure?
all that you have ever managed to do is establish that scientific theories don't assume a past state, which is perfectly reasonable
I think you mean DO assume?? And that is not reasonable, unless there was real reasons.
given that there is no evidence of one. meanwhile, you base your beliefs on the assumption of a 6000 year old universe, which you seem to take entirely for granted. i understand your reasons for doing so, but i don't think i can ever agree with them
Well, if we trust that there is a good God, with a good plan for man, and the universe, why believe myths that are opposed to that?