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

[dad]

Hi everyone, I've been following this thread with some interest, and have a couple of observations.

Firstly, to dad - the re-orientation of the geomagnetic field is not a shocking thing; there are several computer models which show how and why it happens. If you want to know more you will HAVE TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH and probably spend 3 years studying geology. I'll give you a pointer though, search Nature.com for "geomagnetic field" - you'll find plenty of stuff there. You might not understand it all, but it IS there.

Well, actually it is a little more interesting than that. The fading magnetic field may not be all they thought it was, and the reversals, etc have nothing to do with their old age dreams. I would recommend not wasting years on that.

Secondly, again to dad - you can't go saying "light was different back then, as was the fabric of the universe". Well no that's not true, because you have been.

Prove it. I can say it meanwhile, like the bible indicates all I like. It's easy. The universe was different. The universe was different. The universe was different. The universe was different. The universe was different. The universe was different. It's easy.

The problem is things like that leave a mark on the universe, which has not been seen.

So, changing the state of the universe from spiritual and physical leaves a mark, eh??/ Can you tell us about what sort of mark we should look for????

And at no point has God tried to hide his marvels and workings, so I don't understand why you insist on behaving the way you do unless you're in favour of excluding some people from this "new heaven" or whatever.

How would realizing that God says the heavens will be different, is that excluding anyone??? Precisely??? You are starting to sound a bit weird.

Also, and I know this is tiresome, in order to disagree with something you MUST understand it. This is one of the main reasons why non-Christians of a scientific bent get so angry with you guys.

Have you ever considered we get angry at them as well? So, pick a side, now will you, and let's finish this thing.

I don't sit about slagging off biblical scholars because I'm no theologist and don't have the tools or information to make any meaningful conclusions.

Glad to hear that. Not everyone admits so quickly and clearly that they don't know what they are talking about. I like that.

I do, however, have experience of physics, mathematics and astronomy and can tell you that a number of Christian physicists I know find your views not just unscientific but downright confrontational.

But they can't discuss it, and prove their opinions??? What, I should care about some sulkers??

There's no particular reason why a devout Christian can't see the elegance, beauty and power of God's creation within the framework of real science and real mathematics.

I do. But I realize it is a much smaller frame than so called science thought it was! I also see the beauty and power of God's creation within the framework of His Own word!!! The fact it is not a bunch of fables, as the small minded would have had us believe.

What I'm saying is, I won't try and tell you the theological meaning of the Book of Job if you won't try and tell me that the very nature of the universe was altered at some point even though the structures and mechanisms of that universe were not.

No deal! You already admit knowing nothing about theology, I think, in this thread! You also know nothing about the state of the universe in the future. Or deep past, if the state was not the same. Do you??!! If so, clear it all up, and show your stuff. Otherwise, you are hereby demonstrating to all that you also know nothing about that. So, if you know neither, you aren't in a great position to talk with authority, now are you??!

Try that approach with your tax return! Interestingly though, you seem (without realising maybe) to be proposing that the nature of the universe changed at a distinct point in time. Sounds like the Big Bang to me, and if you'd have posited your theory in those terms then you might have got a little more constructive discussion.

The big bang is a fantasy that is nothing more than rewinding the way the present universe works ad absudium.

The laws of physics do seem to break down at the point of the Big Bang just as they do inside the event horizon of a black hole, but your timings are way, way, way off and the implications of this are vastly different to your ideas. Let me give you a hint - form a theory which fits the observable data and start a dialog. I'd rather be told I'm wrong a million times and get it right in the end than hold my hands over my ears and say "LA LA LA NO I AM RIGHT! CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA LA LA!" and look a fool.

Except, you forget that you have no proof that the universe was the same state. Do you??

To everyone else, I personally don't believe in God, but I have the politeness to still spell it with a capital G. WE know that dad is wrong, most likely HE knows that he's wrong, but no matter what he says and how he says it, it's still his right to articulate his views, opinions and theories here. You also have the right to rebuttal, but from what I've seen you shouldn't expect logic, mathematics, data, or the scientific method to figure in his working out. There's a powerful method for sorting the wheat from the chaff, and that's the phrase "CITATION NEEDED"! Could be that dad will never change his position, but WE will know what's what and can form our world-view accordingly

For your same past, there is a CITATION NEEDED. You will not produce it. Lurkers watch, and see.

One other tiny point about our old friend C - it's taken to refer to the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light is massively variable according to what it's passing through (Einstein-Bose condensates for example can reduce the speed of light to a relative crawl - have a google for Snell's Law) but this in and of it's self doesn't change the nature of the universe.

If you paid attention, you may have noticed that the nature of this temporary state universe is the change, and no change in it is an issue. Maybe get some help from your physics buddies, your first post here was a little weak. But, hey, you tried.

 

[dad]

Very interesting. I was unaware of the Newcomb or the more modern "Lieske" calculations of the obliquity of the ecliptic. I ran across something called Lockyer's Table of Obliquities (here)

From that link

"....Archaeoastronomy thus joins archaeological findings and radiocarbon dating to arrive at the same dates for the construction of the various phases of Stonehenge, the three separate methods corroborating each other. With such a convincing determination of Stonehenge's dates, the question regarding the builders becomes more poignant. Who, circa 2900/2800 B.C., possessed the knowledge of astronomy (to say nothing of engineering and architecture) to build such a calendrical "computer," and circa 2100/2000 B.C. to rearrange the various components thereof and attain a new realignment? And why was such a realignment required or desired?"




" He believed that Stonehenge was a temple and that the ruined stone structure we see today is the remains of a much older temple built to celebrate the ancient Celtic festival of Beltane (May Day)."
http://witcombe.sbc.edu/earthmysteries/EMLockyer.html

 

[Inan3]

there you go. that's it case closed. i love how creationists try to explain away evidence that debunks their ideas by supposing a universe in which those rules dont apply. The problem is that there would still be consequences. if there are no consequences then it's just omphalos.

That is what evolutionists do all the time. You should be used to it.

 

[FishFace]

Well, to look at that, first we would need to know something about what goes on there now.

How can we? It's too far away - we only know what's going on there whenever the light that is reaching us now left. According to a combination of science and simple mathematics, that is 168,000 years ago.
The time taken for the light to reach the ring is clearly 8 months, since that's the delay between the two lighting up.

Well,
"
infinity

In general, infinity is the quality or state of endlessness or having no limits in terms of time, space, or other quantity. In mathematics, infinity is the conceptual expression of such a "numberless" number."

"Having no limits" - indeed. That describes exactly the behaviour of 1/x as x tends to 0. In fact, when talk about infinity as a behaviour we mean precisely that:

For any M > 0, there exists an e > 0, such that whenever the distance between x and 0 is less than e, 1/x is more than M.

I.e. if you pick a number, no matter how big, you can always bring x closer to 0 and 1/x will get bigger than that number. That is - 1/x is without limit as you get x closer to 0.
The definition I just quoted, as it happens, is the definition of saying that "the limit of 1/x as x tends to 0 is infinity" - limit being a mathematical term. Of course, what it turns out the definition amounts to is that there is no limit.

Plus women and children, remember. If the average family then was 4 kids, that means that we may have had 30,000.

Well, I just listened to a commentary where they suggest that the baskets contained whole uneaten leftovers, from the way the words were used, etc. No need to get into that too deep here, but I assume now, that it was whole loves and fishes that were not eaten.

Well, no. It was not chunks left over, apparently, in the learned opinion of some bible scholars. Therefore, how would we know that each time a loaf was taken one loaf replaced it?? If that was the case, there would not be the 1200 leftover rolls.

I don't care what fantasy you subscribe to. The point is that, if a bread roll is taken and, as it is taken, some more bread is created, then you can't only subtracted one bread roll, but you have also to add the amount of bread created.

In the context od normal shopping in a temporary state normal store, with present money, I think giving change for a five dollar bill is pretty simple math. So??

Dad: What is five minus five?

A numberless number gets added to now???? What do we add, another numberless number?? I guess the answer would be some ghostly non number as well??

You know why the definition you gave said infinity was "the conceptual expression of such a "numberless" number."? Because infinity is a concept, not an actual number. How can you have an actual number that is numberless? You can't But you can have a concept which is sort of like a number, but which is numberless.

Don't blame me.

Except that you were the one who suggested that infinity could be a number, or have a number assigned to it. So yes, I will blame you.

I grabbed a new definition, that is just as good, already in this post.

Not only just as good, it is pretty much equivalent! It's just couched in layman's terms, that's all. So, I think my definition (as defined by mathematicians) is pretty good.

In regards to university, I was thinking more of the paleo hoaxes that are called part of science, and PO geology, and etc. Math is fine, long as we keep it real, and relevaent to the actual universe we apply it to!

Wrong. Maths isn't limited to relevance. Someone might come up with some relevance later on, but really, mathematicians are doing maths for the fun of it. (e.g. in recent years, number theory started having very important applications in cryptography. The way this forum stores your password relies on some relatively recent mathematics)
Keeping maths real is pointless, as well - although I don't expect you to get that little joke.

 

[Inan3]

i'd like to know your thoughts on this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y&feature=related

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.

now this sort of thing might defeat the average young-earth creationist, but i'm sure you have a rational explanation! which one would you like to use? does your belief that time in deep space appears to be moving backward muddle things up a bit? did math work differently before the present state? whatever your answer is, i'm sure it's interesting!

Perhaps before we allow ourselves to be so "wowed" over the numbers here we should remember the old adage "Figures don't lie but liars figure". Here is an article that that should also, be read, and it's not written by a Creationist as far as I know.

When Numbers Lie
http://www.notrain-nogain.org/Train/Res/Num/lie.asp

 

[dad]

How can we? It's too far away - we only know what's going on there whenever the light that is reaching us now left. According to a combination of science and simple mathematics, that is 168,000 years ago.

Well, if it is too far away for your science and abilities, start acting more like it. The SN to earth stuff is easy to refute, as it is baseless. A mere assumption of a same state since the light started out. It is only the core to ring (if indeed you can even show that much?) stuff that is a little exotic.

The time taken for the light to reach the ring is clearly 8 months, since that's the delay between the two lighting up.

meaningless, unless we know the speed of light there. Is there some indication it is the same?? That is the place to start, and proceed from there. If you can't do that much, you just can't progress.

"Having no limits" - indeed. That describes exactly the behaviour of 1/x as x tends to 0. In fact, when talk about infinity as a behaviour we mean precisely that:

If there are, then no limits, how are you going to tack something on that???

For any M > 0, there exists an e > 0, such that whenever the distance between x and 0 is less than e, 1/x is more than M.

We need some concrete points of refernce there, and more than that if you you want to go to infinity, and beyond with those numbers.

I.e. if you pick a number, no matter how big, you can always bring x closer to 0 and 1/x will get bigger than that number. That is - 1/x is without limit as you get x closer to 0.

Any number we know about. Does that really say all that much??

The definition I just quoted, as it happens, is the definition of saying that "the limit of 1/x as x tends to 0 is infinity" - limit being a mathematical term. Of course, what it turns out the definition amounts to is that there is no limit.

Well we think there is no limit. Maybe you are right. I guess we can say there is no limit to that little numerical scenario that we know of. So??

I don't care what fantasy you subscribe to. The point is that, if a bread roll is taken and, as it is taken, some more bread is created, then you can't only subtracted one bread roll, but you have also to add the amount of bread created.

You need to know how much that was first. If a roll was made every time someone in the next row eyeballed the basket, why, how would we count it all up, and subtract heaven knows what from heaven knows what?? Math deals in absolutes, I would think. The numbers have to represent something to have real meaning. We need to know what and when and where they represent stuff for that to happen! This way, we give meaning to math, and not just waste years crunching dumb, useless meaningless numbers.

Dad: What is five minus five?

For all intents and present purposes, unless a local intervention of the spiritual takes place, it is 10. But we would need to be aware that our normal is not the real eternal normal!

You know why the definition you gave said infinity was "the conceptual expression of such a "numberless" number."? Because infinity is a concept, not an actual number.

At present, it is that way, possibly due to our limitations.

How can you have an actual number that is numberless? You can't But you can have a concept which is sort of like a number, but which is numberless.

How can you have infinity?? All you are saying is, in effect, you don't know. We agree, I know you don't know.

Except that you were the one who suggested that infinity could be a number, or have a number assigned to it. So yes, I will blame you.

Not in this universe! I suggest that POSSIBLY in the true universe state, we might have some number that represents the actual reality of infinity.

Not only just as good, it is pretty much equivalent! It's just couched in layman's terms, that's all. So, I think my definition (as defined by mathematicians) is pretty good.

Well, OK. It still leaves you as not knowing, as we explored here, of course.

Wrong. Maths isn't limited to relevance. Someone might come up with some relevance later on, but really, mathematicians are doing maths for the fun of it.

That is their problem! Unless it hits the real world someplace, it is pie in the sky.

(e.g. in recent years, number theory started having very important applications in cryptography. The way this forum stores your password relies on some relatively recent mathematics)

I know of no passwords out of this universe, do you??? Why wouldn't our numbers cover them??

Keeping maths real is pointless, as well - although I don't expect you to get that little joke.

Well, this temporal universe runs pretty good on present real math.


"It appears to us that the universe is structured in a deeply mathematical way. Falling bodies fall with predictable accelerations. Eclipses can be accurately forecast centuries in advance. Nuclear power plants generate electricity according to well-known formulas."

--patterns of form, number, shape and movement in the world around us. His examples range from water dripping slowly from a tap to the symmetries of molecules, viruses and galaxies and from a snail's spiral shell to biological evolution and the dynamics of solar systems."
http://www.amazon.com/Natures-Numbers-Reality-Mathematics-Science/dp/0465072739

 

[Naraoia]

That is what evolutionists do all the time. You should be used to it.

*raised eyebrows*

Examples please?

 

[Naraoia]

Perhaps before we allow ourselves to be so "wowed" over the numbers here we should remember the old adage "Figures don't lie but liars figure". Here is an article that that should also, be read, and it's not written by a Creationist as far as I know.

When Numbers Lie
http://www.notrain-nogain.org/Train/Res/Num/lie.asp

From just the first few paragraphs, the article is about statistics. The video in the OP has nothing to do with statistics as far as I remember. (And the exact numbers don't matter. You could probably do the whole thing with xes and ys and arrive at the same conclusion.)

 

[FishFace]

Perhaps before we allow ourselves to be so "wowed" over the numbers here we should remember the old adage "Figures don't lie but liars figure". Here is an article that that should also, be read, and it's not written by a Creationist as far as I know.

When Numbers Lie
http://www.notrain-nogain.org/Train/Res/Num/lie.asp

You couldn't address the science and maths, so you posted a rather irrelevant link slating all use of numbers in support of any argument.
You are truly an excellent creationist!

 

[FishFace]

Well, if it is too far away for your science and abilities, start acting more like it. The SN to earth stuff is easy to refute, as it is baseless. A mere assumption of a same state since the light started out. It is only the core to ring (if indeed you can even show that much?) stuff that is a little exotic.

We've been through this already.
We assume that the light is in the same state since it started from the supernova.
We assume that the light from other stars has been in the same state.
We assume that the light from the sun has been in the same state
We assume that the light from the moon has been in the same state
We assume that the light from the other side of the room has been in the same state

- we assume all these things for light, that it hasn't changed at all on its path from start to finish. So tell me: which of these are valid and why.

meaningless, unless we know the speed of light there. Is there some indication it is the same?? That is the place to start, and proceed from there. If you can't do that much, you just can't progress.

What? No, it's not meaningless: Light takes 8 months to get from the supernova to the ring. That means something, quite obviously.

If there are, then no limits, how are you going to tack something on that???

You can't, that's exactly what I've been telling you all along.

We need some concrete points of refernce there, and more than that if you you want to go to infinity, and beyond with those numbers.

For any M > 0, there exists an e > 0, such that whenever the distance between x and 0 is less than e, 1/x is more than M.

This is true. I'm pretty sure I had to prove it for homework a couple of weeks back. "Concrete reference" is just nonsense here.

Well we think there is no limit. Maybe you are right. I guess we can say there is no limit to that little numerical scenario that we know of. So??

So, that's exactly what infinity is.

You need to know how much that was first. If a roll was made every time someone in the next row eyeballed the basket, why, how would we count it all up, and subtract heaven knows what from heaven knows what?? Math deals in absolutes, I would think. The numbers have to represent something to have real meaning. We need to know what and when and where they represent stuff for that to happen! This way, we give meaning to math, and not just waste years crunching dumb, useless meaningless numbers.

I think we've successfully dispatched with your rather silly notion that creating extra bread constitutes breaking mathematics.

For all intents and present purposes, unless a local intervention of the spiritual takes place, it is 10. But we would need to be aware that our normal is not the real eternal normal!

"What is 5 minus 5"
"[...] it is 10 [...]"

Baby maths indeed.

Never mind. The answer is 0. That is the definition of "minus 5" - the number which, when you put it together with "5," makes 0. So you're just plain wrong.

At present, it is that way, possibly due to our limitations.

No, that's just the meaning of the thing.

How can you have infinity??

You can certainly have a concept of infinity.

Not in this universe! I suggest that POSSIBLY in the true universe state, we might have some number that represents the actual reality of infinity.

Not if the word infinity means the same thing. But even then, that's just like switching the labels on things. The thing that we used to label as "infinity" would still be the same old concept, and that would still not be a number.

Well, OK. It still leaves you as not knowing, as we explored here, of course.

Quite clearly, dad, I know a bit more about infinity than you do.

That is their problem! Unless it hits the real world someplace, it is pie in the sky.

Sorry, dad, but you know absolutely squat about mathematics. You have no say in what is pie in the sky or not. As it happens, pure maths can have no relation to the world whatsoever, but we can know it with more certainty than we know the sun will rise tomorrow.

Well, this temporal universe runs pretty good on present real math.

Actually imaginary numbers come in pretty useful in the wave equation and in electronics as I remember.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That is what evolutionists do all the time. You should be used to it.

Actually Inan, it is precisely what scientists don't do. That's what is called Falsification Criteria. It is how we can tell Creationism is non-science (because it has no falsification criterion, no means by which it could ever be proven false if they ever got their act together and bothered to collect any data).

When people like Dad come on here and every single point that is raised is responded to by "you don't know, it might have been a completely different state back then and every rule was different!" well, that's a game-killer.

Unfortunately it kills everything. I believe the phrase I heard Fishface use in reference to another issue, but applies here equally well, is "epistemological atomic bomb".

And like an atomic bomb you can't avoid blow-back. When Dad wishes to use this epistemological atomic bomb it will ultimately destroy even his own points. Because in eliminating our ability to posit models that explain the unexperienced past he eliminates all ability to know anything (that's what makes this part of philosophy, Empiricism, a very dodgy issue when it comes up against deductive and inductive reasoning.)

Now, of course, Dad doesn't understand the subtleties, but that's OK, he's not on here to learn or discuss. But please do be aware that evolution is a part of science and as such must abide by the rules.

Will people, when pushed, and without data, come up with "guesses"? Sure, that's human. Even "evolutionists" will do that. But those "guesses" carry no official weight in science. It isn't until the guesses are fully vetted by repeated observation and supporting evidence that they carry any "epistemic weight".

Note how the various famous "hoaxes" perpetrated against science, no matter how attractive to science, were ultimately jettisoned by scientists. They were outted, revealed, and cast aside by scientists.

That's how the system works, and its how the game is played. Without rules, well, science becomes just....faith.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Perhaps before we allow ourselves to be so "wowed" over the numbers here we should remember the old adage "Figures don't lie but liars figure". Here is an article that that should also, be read, and it's not written by a Creationist as far as I know.

When Numbers Lie
http://www.notrain-nogain.org/Train/Res/Num/lie.asp

An even better adage that I've heard in my stats classes:

"It's easy to lie with statistics, but it's a lot easier to lie without them."

In a very real sense the article and the book it talks about is a valid point. It is easy to significantly overwhelm people with numbers. I've got 3 and a half books on statistics in my car and at my desk and find I am constantly resorting to online help with the SAS software as I muddle through learning the black arts of statistical analysis of data. I'll admit it's kind of overwhelming to realize that statistics is this unseen, slumbering giant out there that even those of us in the hard sciences, just barely tickle at times.

Most places hire a professional statistician...and sadly ignore him or her in a tiny corner unless something blows up in our faces and we have to deal with it. Statistics is an extremely powerful subject with a HUGE amount of background to it. I know I'll never be a true statistician, I will attempt to use it as a tool, but what I have learned is that the statistics don't lie, it's how the results are presented or how the data is chosen that can lead to misinterpretation.

It's something that Creationists can learn from. It's the humbling experience of having pride stripped away. I know that sounds ironic, but I see in many Creationists this enormous ego and a pride that is dazzling to look at. They seem to act as if their "glancing sub-literacy" in any of the given sciences related to evolution or the history of the planet is all you need. All you need to make a valid point.

Unfortunately we scientists learned long ago that no one ever knows enough. The issue around Statistics and data presented to the public should help us all see that there are huge fields that, even if you started to work at it today, you'd take years before you came up to an understanding sufficient to "topple it".

That's also why you'll notice scientists like myself and the many others on here seldom if ever make universal claims without caveat. The most universal claims I ever see are from the non-scientists. The truth is black-and-white and easy to see for them. Mysteriously. Because it isn't for those who work in the requisite fields.

 

[dad]

We've been through this already.
We assume that the light is in the same state since it started from the supernova.
We assume that the light from other stars has been in the same state.

Really? I thought it was a little stronger than that. I was told we know the universe is homogeneous. I also seem to remember something about how we know more than was mentioned in this thread about the rings, and light. Maybe I was gullible there, so I better look into it a little deeper. If you were right, I think that getting this stuff out of the schools would only be a hair away.

- we assume all these things for light, that it hasn't changed at all on its path from start to finish. So tell me: which of these are valid and why.

All things we actually measure, like the moonlight, etc seem perfectly valid to me. If, as you believe, we are not able to do that for distant SN, why, we would have to really ask what we do actually know there. and not get to making stuff up.

What? No, it's not meaningless: Light takes 8 months to get from the supernova to the ring. That means something, quite obviously.

Well, it means that the event, as filtered through our fabric of space time, is relayed in such a way as to appear to take that long. But, I still await the evidence for the basics here, such as that the light originated at the core, that lit the rings. Is that asking too much? Also, a cross check as to the size of the rings, and actual speed of light, wherever it is observed to start. Such basics are required before venturing an educated guess as to what was going on there, and in what state that may have been,

For any M > 0, there exists an e > 0, such that whenever the distance between x and 0 is less than e, 1/x is more than M.

This is true. I'm pretty sure I had to prove it for homework a couple of weeks back. "Concrete reference" is just nonsense here.

Well, if the numbers don't relate to a thing in this world, maybe we are getting too far out??

So, that's exactly what infinity is.

Well, as we imagine it, of course, from this temporal state.

I think we've successfully dispatched with your rather silly notion that creating extra bread constitutes breaking mathematics.

You have shown you do not know how to add the loaves and fishes, because the remainder doesn't jive with your proposed math.

"What is 5 minus 5"
"[...] it is 10 [...]"

Baby maths indeed.

Never mind. The answer is 0. That is the definition of "minus 5" - the number which, when you put it together with "5," makes 0. So you're just plain wrong.

Where those numbers represent realities, uninterfered with in this present state, why, yes, of course. Fishbowl math is important stuff.

No, that's just the meaning of the thing.



You can certainly have a concept of infinity.

You can try. Just as one can imagine going to infinity and beyond, I suppose.

Quite clearly, dad, I know a bit more about infinity than you do.

I see.

Sorry, dad, but you know absolutely squat about mathematics. You have no say in what is pie in the sky or not. As it happens, pure maths can have no relation to the world whatsoever, but we can know it with more certainty than we know the sun will rise tomorrow.

Nope. Your math is fishbowl related only. The sun is forever. To infinity, and beyond, in a very real way.

Actually imaginary numbers come in pretty useful in the wave equation and in electronics as I remember.

Great. Long as the waves stay in the fishbowl, I agree.

 

[AstronomyMike]

The paucity of logic in dad's posts speaks for it's self. I don't particularly care what he thinks, or even if he thinks he's won the argument. I will not feed his delusions any longer. If he wants to think himself superior to both science AND scripture, then good luck to him.

Regards,
Mike

 

[dad]

The paucity of logic in dad's posts speaks for it's self. I don't particularly care what he thinks, or even if he thinks he's won the argument. I will not feed his delusions any longer. If he wants to think himself superior to both science AND scripture, then good luck to him.

Regards,
Mike

Oh darn. You mean you are finally going to slow the fount of knowledge, and science and reason that has emanated from you thus far??? Oh well, I guess we will have to try the best we can to deal in the loss. We did care what you thought. (Whatever it may have been, I think you forgot to mention it)
Cheers.

 

[FishFace]

I'll admit it's kind of overwhelming to realize that statistics is this unseen, slumbering giant out there that even those of us in the hard sciences, just barely tickle at times.

Most places hire a professional statistician...and sadly ignore him or her in a tiny corner unless something blows up in our faces and we have to deal with it. Statistics is an extremely powerful subject with a HUGE amount of background to it.

And yet... statistics is still somehow distasteful to me!

That's also why you'll notice scientists like myself and the many others on here seldom if ever make universal claims without caveat. The most universal claims I ever see are from the non-scientists. The truth is black-and-white and easy to see for them. Mysteriously. Because it isn't for those who work in the requisite fields.

Mathematicians, on the other hand... ;-)

 

[FishFace]

Really? I thought it was a little stronger than that. I was told we know the universe is homogeneous. I also seem to remember something about how we know more than was mentioned in this thread about the rings, and light. Maybe I was gullible there, so I better look into it a little deeper. If you were right, I think that getting this stuff out of the schools would only be a hair away.

No. You still don't get it. We assume all of these things, and that's just fine. As we shall see:

All things we actually measure, like the moonlight, etc seem perfectly valid to me. If, as you believe, we are not able to do that for distant SN, why, we would have to really ask what we do actually know there. and not get to making stuff up.

We can measure light coming from the moon, and the sun, and the supernova. But how are we supposed to know that the light has been in the same state all the way from the supernova, or all the way from other stars, or all the way from the sun, or the moonlight?

Presumably you believe that it has been in the same state for at least one of these claims - so what's the difference - why can't we assume that light has been in the same state all the way from the supernova, but we can assume that for light from the moon? We measure the same thing in both cases.

Well, it means that the event, as filtered through our fabric of space time, is relayed in such a way as to appear to take that long. But, I still await the evidence for the basics here, such as that the light originated at the core, that lit the rings. Is that asking too much?

First the core lights up, then the ring lights up, 8 months afterwards. Nothing else lights up, or does anything. So there's the evidence that the light comes from the core.

Also, a cross check as to the size of the rings

You've not been paying attention - although as thaumaturgy says, you're not here to learn. We don't need to check the size of the ring. We know it's angular size - that is, if you take two pointers, and point one at one side of the ring and the other, at the other, the angular size is the angle between the two pointers.
What we do is we note that light takes 8 months to get from core to ring, which means that the distance is c*8 months, where c is whatever the speed of light is, or was. I've already done the rest of the calculations in this thread for you.

Well, if the numbers don't relate to a thing in this world, maybe we are getting too far out??

Not really. We still need something to say what happens to 1/x as x approaches 0, and infinity is what that is.

Well, as we imagine it, of course, from this temporal state.

A concept is, as I have said, an abstract thing. A concept doesn't have a real existence, so that existence cannot change. A concept is more like a hypothetical entity that we posit to make it easier to talk about things. As such, concepts can't be changed by anyone or anything, you can only replace them with some different concept.

You have shown you do not know how to add the loaves and fishes, because the remainder doesn't jive with your proposed math.

If you take a loaf, and someone miraculously causes there to be bread leftover, then the miracle was adding bread.

Where those numbers represent realities, uninterfered with in this present state, why, yes, of course. Fishbowl math is important stuff.

Numbers don't have to represent anything, that's the entire point. They can, but they in no way depend on representation for their definitions. As such, the way a number behaves simply cannot depend on the representation, because if I ask you, "what's five minus five" those fives don't even have to be referring to anything. The answer will be the same either way.

You can try.

Dad, were you not listening when I gave you (one of) the actual mathematical definition(s) of infinity? Or did you just skip over it because you didn't understand it?

Nope. Your math is fishbowl related only. The sun is forever.

What does "five" refer to? Nothing, or anything. There's no such thing as fishbowl mathematics, there's mathematics, plain and simple.
The sun isn't forever. That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you meant that the sun will last forever.

Great. Long as the waves stay in the fishbowl, I agree.

It's so funny to hear people agreeing with you when they have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[dad]

We can measure light coming from the moon, and the sun, and the supernova. But how are we supposed to know that the light has been in the same state all the way from the supernova, or all the way from other stars, or all the way from the sun, or the moonlight?

You can't if the light takes longer than observations of man evidences, unless you had a same past state.

First the core lights up, then the ring lights up, 8 months afterwards. Nothing else lights up, or does anything. So there's the evidence that the light comes from the core.

OK, now, a link??

We don't need to check the size of the ring. We know it's angular size - that is, if you take two pointers, and point one at one side of the ring and the other, at the other, the angular size is the angle between the two pointers.
What we do is we note that light takes 8 months to get from core to ring, which means that the distance is c*8 months, where c is whatever the speed of light is, or was. I've already done the rest of the calculations in this thread for you.

So all you use for that is how long it takes the ring to light up, according to you. Fine. That is not enough.

Not really. We still need something to say what happens to 1/x as x approaches 0, and infinity is what that is.

Meaningless.

A concept is, as I have said, an abstract thing. A concept doesn't have a real existence, so that existence cannot change. A concept is more like a hypothetical entity that we posit to make it easier to talk about things. As such, concepts can't be changed by anyone or anything, you can only replace them with some different concept.

Concepts only work for the universe we live in, unless you prove they apply to the forever state.

If you take a loaf, and someone miraculously causes there to be bread leftover, then the miracle was adding bread.

We don't know that. Maybe each loaf duplicated as required. Everything is a miracle outside the natural, so if you want to apply numbers there, you can't pretend all is present nature only.

Numbers don't have to represent anything, that's the entire point. They can, but they in no way depend on representation for their definitions. As such, the way a number behaves simply cannot depend on the representation, because if I ask you, "what's five minus five" those fives don't even have to be referring to anything. The answer will be the same either way.

If it refers to nothing, then we can't check your work.

Dad, were you not listening when I gave you (one of) the actual mathematical definition(s) of infinity? Or did you just skip over it because you didn't understand it?

I don't define infinity in terms of math. Our math doesn't even cover it. Attempts to treat it like a number are ill conceived.

What does "five" refer to? Nothing, or anything. There's no such thing as fishbowl mathematics, there's mathematics, plain and simple.
The sun isn't forever. That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps you meant that the sun will last forever.

Right, it will. If you think present nature math is all there is, you are welcome to think so. Just keep your math relative to this state universe.

It's so funny to hear people agreeing with you when they have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, what are you talking about?? Some waves that are beyond science and present nature??

 

[Mumbo]

But to establish that the ring to core speeds are the speeds of the SN to earth

since when do they have to be the same? the video assumes the two speeds to be different, and things turn out alright

i'm not entirely sure if i'm missing something here, but i'm going to go ahead and apply this to your concept of multiple spreading present states. i said earlier that there were too many implications to consider, but because average speeds are assumed in the video i don't think that numerous state changes would pose a threat to its assumptions in most cases

not all cases though, unfortunately. if the area around the supernova is actually shifted to the present state while the majority of the space between it and the Earth is not, then a 6000-year-old universe might be conceivable. it's awfully unlikely, but i don't recall that ever stopping you before, so i'll go ahead and chalk up a point in your favor

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.

every part of the ring brightens at nearly the same time every eight months. that implies that something in the center of the ring is the cause, and that we should expect its activity to go through an 8-month cycle. and wouldn't you know it, there just so happens to be something there that fits the bill: the core of the supernova

there are only two other options the way i see it
1. the ring is lighting itself, or something found throughout the ring is lighting/dimming the ring at 8-month intervals. this is ridiculous. please don't say this.
2. something very close to the core is lighting the ring. unlikely, and i don't see how it would cause any problems

Sounds like you simply are asking us to believe here, sigh unseen? have faithm brother, it has to be that way....

i'm asking you to be reasonable

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 still believe that that matters, even though the video assumes a non-PO speed?
Interesting.

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.

"different," huh? so, if light is changed in a way that makes me wrong, you're right. yet another amazing logical breakthrough you've made here, dad

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.

just something to quiz people on, then?
i'd wager that enough is known about stellar evolution to make it possible to tell if nearby stars are proceeding down the main sequence in the same direction as distant stars, despite the large timespans involved. i'll have to ask someone who actually knows something about astronomy though

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.

i was expecting something like "some quality of past-turned-present state light makes things appear backwards," but i don't think that "near unlimited speeds" ought to be that quality. it's not vague enough

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!!!

that's better; the light reaches us because God has no trouble bending the laws of physics for a better view

(You can see why I don't really want to get into it)

not really, you already use this reasoning fairly often

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?

neither the video nor my thoughts constitute scientific theory, dad. you picked the wrong spot to start dishing out the burns

I think you mean DO assume??

no

And that is not reasonable, unless there was real reasons.

there is no evidence of a past state, so why should one be assumed? i know you like to turn this sort of statement on its head and say "why should we assume that there ISN'T a past state?" but you have to realize by now that this rings hollow

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?

because one assumption doesn't excuse another


my replies have been few and far between, and they'll likely stay that way. lately i can only find time to reply past midnight, and i'd like to get a good night's sleep now and then :I

 

[FishFace]

You can't if the light takes longer than observations of man evidences, unless you had a same past state.

What? Come on, more detail please. How is it that we don't know the light has been in a constant state between the supernova and the earth, but we do know it's been in a constant state between the moon and the earth.
What piece of reasoning are you carrying out here?

OK, now, a link??

Here's one. It says the actual delay is 0.66 years which is 7.92 months, to be precise.

So all you use for that is how long it takes the ring to light up, according to you. Fine. That is not enough.

What is not enough for what?

Meaningless.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's meaningless. The function 1/x has a well understood behaviour as x approaches zero - it goes off to infinity. Mathematicians just define exactly what that means.

Concepts only work for the universe we live in

Concepts don't "work" they just are. They might apply to things but, as I've been saying for ages, they don't have to. I can have a concept of a green cloud - that concept doesn't apply to anything, but it's still a perfectly fine concept.

so if you want to apply numbers there, you can't pretend all is present nature only.

The point is nothing has to apply to numbers because numbers are abstract.

If it refers to nothing, then we can't check your work.

Perhaps you can't check my work, but I can prove mathematical theorems without resorting to any real-world reference. For example, you can prove that two consecutive triangular numbers add together to make a square number in two different ways. If you draw the two triangles next to each other you make a square, that's one way.
But you can also prove it using just the definition of a triangular number. And that doesn't require reference to real triangles or squares or anything. Nonetheless, once you've proved it, it's true if you do reference real things.

I don't define infinity in terms of math. Our math doesn't even cover it. Attempts to treat it like a number are ill conceived.

Right, wrong and right. You don't define infinity at all - because you have no idea what it is. Maths covers infinity perfectly well, whether you understand it or not, and attempts to treat it like a number are bound to fail, as I've been telling you for ages.

Right, it will. If you think present nature math is all there is, you are welcome to think so. Just keep your math relative to this state universe.

Maths is absolute, not relative. I just told you, 5 minus 5 will always equal 0 unless you change the meaning of 5, minus, or 0. But that's just changing the words, not the underlying concepts. Those concepts put together in the same way would still produce the same other concept, whether we use the same words or not.

Well, what are you talking about?? Some waves that are beyond science and present nature?

No.