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

[acropolis]

Let me know if you need me to spoon feed you the rest here.

Do this.

Also include units on the will of God.

 

[dad]

I agree with pretty much everything that thaum says (except I think he means inductive, not deductive reasoning).
...

Glad you two get along so well. I can see you have a lot in common.

 

[thaumaturgy]

"OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.

X x FL divided by W = W FL" (One star in the former universe state times the speed of the light from that star,

This came up earlier, but we are talking math here, so I'll ask it again, what do you mean multiplying a number by a "star"? That, simply put, doesn't even make sense. Not grammatically, not conceptually, not anything. Please, define the term "star". Remember, we have to be able to calculate something using math.

as set by the will of God, equals W FL. (In case that last few letters still was too much for you, that means, the former light speed of the light from said star, as modified by the will of God)
You follow so far??

No. When you multiply two numbers together and then divide by a third number, you get X*FL/W NOT W*FL.

Explain how that operation works in "Heaven Math". Because it doesn't make sense.

Are you simply saying "The speed of light set by God is equal to the speed of light set by God"? Because that is what your WORDS said, but not what the EQUATION says.

"Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)"
Let me know if you need me to spoon feed you the rest here. I am not without patience.

Please do spoon feed me. Because you aren't even making sense. Remember, this is an idea you apparently are able to use to do calculations in "heaven math", so in order for it to be useful to others, it has to be teachable to others.

It has to have INTERNALLY CONSISTENT LOGIC THAT CAN BE USED TO MAKE THE SYSTEM WORK.

Now, if you don't know those rules then by all means admit you don't and we won't make you explain it. But we will have to ask you to stop spouting it as if you do know it.

IF you DO know the rules, then please explain them. Remember, you have on the line here, several people with college degrees. We are not stupid.

Maybe if I asked you a simple question first it would help you:

If I want to multiply X*Y and then divide this by Z what will the answer be in "Heaven math"?

Right now you have indicated that:

X*Y/Z = Z*Y

But in "earth math" (also known as 7th grade algebra)

X*Y/Z = X*Y/Z

For example:

12*3/4 = 36/4 = 9

But in "Heaven math" apparently by your earlier example:

12*3/4 = 3*4 = 12

Do you see the confusion your "Heaven Math" has created?

What happens in the following equations in "Heaven Math"?

36/9 = ______

12*4 = ______

16*3/4 = ______

 

[dad]

Do this.

Also include units on the will of God.

Can you think of any units the will of God might not cover???

 

[acropolis]

[/color]No. When you multiply two numbers together and then divide by a third number, you get X*FL/W NOT W*FL.

It works if X = W^2. Looks like you need two gods to multiply, then they have enough will to make a star.

 

[dad]

[/color]

This came up earlier, but we are talking math here, so I'll ask it again, what do you mean multiplying a number by a "star"?

As I indicated, the FL, was what, class???? A star??? No. The light from a certain star in the former state??? Very good. Hope you got that now.

That, simply put, doesn't even make sense. Not grammatically, not conceptually, not anything. Please, define the term "star". Remember, we have to be able to calculate something using math.

Look at what I just wrote. The particular star doesn't matter, it could be billions of present light years away. The LF is the speed that it then traveled, as per the will of God.

No. When you multiply two numbers together and then divide by a third number, you get X*FL/W NOT W*FL.

The W was not a number it was the force that decided the speed of LF. Put the will of God together with the light from the star, and you get the speed it went. The W needs to be included, yet it is not in any of your sets or numbers. Adding the higher power is higher math.

Explain how that operation works in "Heaven Math". Because it doesn't make sense.

Just did, hope you caught it this time.

Are you simply saying "The speed of light set by God is equal to the speed of light set by God"? Because that is what your WORDS said, but not what the EQUATION says.

The speed of light in the former universe that light from that particular star moved was determined by W. It was a product of, we might say, the will of God.


Maybe if I asked you a simple question first it would help you:

If I want to multiply X*Y and then divide this by Z what will the answer be in "Heaven math"?

No can do, unless we knew what the speed of X, and the speed of W was. We don't. We could grab an example, for the sake of bringing it down to baby math level, perhaps, that is, the measure of a man!
Let's say that star X that day, had it's light travel at 12 billion times the speed of present light. And star Y that day, had it's light saunter along at 1.9 times the speed of present light.
I don't recall what yoour Z was supposed to be, so you can do the math from what we now know, and include your Z if you like.




What happens in the following equations in "Heaven Math"?

36/9 = ______

12*4 = ______

16*3/4 = ______[/quote]

OK, lets grab the middle one here. 12 times 4. let the 12 represent 12 stars, and let star 12 = 12.7 billion times PO light speed.
11 = 14 billion times PO light speed
10 = 3.4 billion times PO light speed
9 = 37 million times PO light speed
8 = 8 million times PO light speed
7 = 4.6 times PO light speed
6 = .03 times PO light speed
5 = 77 times PO light speed
4 = 74 thousand times PO light speed
3 = .47 PO light speed
2 = .973 PO light speed
and star 1 = 12,000 mph


Now, all you need to do is times all that by 4!

 

[Adivi]

OK, lets grab the middle one here. 12 times 4. let the 12 represent 12 stars, and let star 12 = 12.7 billion times PO light speed.
11 = 14 billion times PO light speed
10 = 3.4 billion times PO light speed
9 = 37 million times PO light speed
8 = 8 million times PO light speed
7 = 4.6 times PO light speed
6 = .03 times PO light speed
5 = 77 times PO light speed
4 = 74 thousand times PO light speed
3 = .47 PO light speed
2 = .973 PO light speed
and star 1 = 12,000 mph


Now, all you need to do is times all that by 4!

But what if those numbers aren't referring to stars at all? What if they refer to 12 milliliters of water being decanted at 4 milliliters per second?

 

[dad]

But what if those numbers aren't referring to stars at all? What if they refer to 12 milliliters of water being decanted at 4 milliliters per second?

They represent something. Maybe you prefer to give us some numbers for bacteria doing the twist in a primordial rock crack.
Meanwhile, I thought I would answer an actual question here, on the topic of the thread, if that is OK with you. Or not.

 

[Adivi]

They represent something. Maybe you prefer to give us some numbers for bacteria doing the twist in a primordial rock crack.
Meanwhile, I thought I would answer an actual question here, on the topic of the thread, if that is OK with you. Or not.

He didn't say anything about what 12 and 4 represent, though. You're making an unwarranted assumption.

 

[dad]

He didn't say anything about what 12 and 4 represent, though. You're making an unwarranted assumption.

I said what they represented. Using a concrete example, to test the math. So, in the example I gave, baby math doesn't apply as any great limiter.

If you want to use an example where the numbers represent sets, or things strictly in the temporary state, that is fine as well. In fact, baby math is pretty simple there.

 

[Adivi]

I said what they represented. Using a concrete example, to test the math. So, in the example I gave, baby math doesn't apply as any great limiter.

If you want to use an example where the numbers represent sets, or things strictly in the temporary state, that is fine as well. In fact, baby math is pretty simple there.

I have a math problem for you. I want to give 4 people 12 apples. How many apples do I need? (I'm not Jesus, last I checked, so I can'd perform the miracle of the sermon on the mount).

 

[FishFace]

"OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.

X x FL divided by W = W FL" (One star in the former universe [X] state times the speed of the light from that star [FL], as set by the will of God [W], equals W FL.
(In case that last few letters still was too much for you, that means, the former light speed of the light from said star [FL], as modified by the will of God [W])
You follow so far??

How do you multiply a star by a speed? What are the units of X here?
How do you then divide that by a will? What are the units of a will, or of God's will in particular?

How does "W FL" mean "Former light speed from X modified by W" - first of all, how do you distinguish between the FL from X and the FL from some other star? Then, if this is true, does "A B" for any A and B mean "B as modified by A?" Or does it mean "A times B" as in normal algebra and formulae?
It looks - and the reason it looks so is because that's what you're doing - as if you're just making stuff up.

"Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)"

No, if X =/= Y then FL must be 0, under anything approaching normal algebra. (By the way, if you're not using normal algebra, then you shouldn't write it so it looks like normal algebra.)
But since you're just making stuff up, it might be wise to inquire as to just what "A B" means, for example, "X FL" or "Y FL." What would "X Y" mean?

Let me know if you need me to spoon feed you the rest here. I am not without patience.

Nor are we, but you're going to have to a lot more explaining. So far you've not so much spoon fed as just put some stuff on a spoon and poked it at our faces.

 

[thaumaturgy]

As I indicated, the FL, was what, class???? A star??? No. The light from a certain star in the former state??? Very good. Hope you got that now.

Light is still a'Thing', not a quantity or a number.

No can do, unless we knew what the speed of X, and the speed of W was.

Dad, honestly, have you ever had a math class at all?

Remember, we are talking how the "rules" of Heaven math works here. Nothing has to be assigned to anything else. Just how the rules work.

We don't. We could grab an example, for the sake of bringing it down to baby math level, perhaps, that is, the measure of a man!
Let's say that star X that day, had it's light travel at 12 billion times the speed of present light. And star Y that day, had it's light saunter along at 1.9 times the speed of present light.
I don't recall what yoour Z was supposed to be, so you can do the math from what we now know, and include your Z if you like.

As I feared, Dad may not have had any math class at all.

12*4 = ______

OK, lets grab the middle one here. 12 times 4. let the 12 represent 12 stars, and let star 12 = 12.7 billion times PO light speed.
11 = 14 billion times PO light speed
10 = 3.4 billion times PO light speed
9 = 37 million times PO light speed
8 = 8 million times PO light speed
7 = 4.6 times PO light speed
6 = .03 times PO light speed
5 = 77 times PO light speed
4 = 74 thousand times PO light speed
3 = .47 PO light speed
2 = .973 PO light speed
and star 1 = 12,000 mph


Now, all you need to do is times all that by 4!

You know, dad, I actually took the time to GRAPH those numbers out to see if there was some sort of trend. This is what it looks like:

(X-Axis is the ordinal numbers 1-12, y-Axis is the factor you multiply the speed of light by)

I had to place it on a log-scale on the y-axis to show the whole set with sufficient detail).

At first I wondered, is Dad making some sort of funky clever point with the shape of the pattern? Or is he drawing up some sort of decaying series here? But you know, I can't figure it out.

It almost looks, gasp, like you, just threw some numbers up. Numbers that sounded impressive to you because they spanned a big range from billions down to 1/100ths.

Did I miss something? What is the underlying pattern here?

Like I said before, I'm no math whiz, but this just seems, well, kind of strange and a bit unsettling. Maybe you are some math genius that is playing with us, so please reveal the truth. Otherwise it looks almost indistinguishable from just some little kid throwing out numbers in an effort to sound like a smart person.

You seem to be just spouting stuff without comprehension. But again, I could be grossly in error.

Please correct me here. Please show me the underlying pattern. Is this some fourier-transform of some complex number expression? What is it?

Adivi? Fish? Any idea what Dad's post means in terms of math?

 

[FishFace]

Adivi? Fish? Any idea what Dad's post means in terms of math?

Well, after considered analysis, checking the supremum and infimum of the set, calculating the average and standard deviation, performing a couple of different regressions, I come to the conclusion that the answer almost certainly begins with "bull" and ends with "faeces."
Could be wrong, could be wrong...

 

[Naraoia]

I think you gave up too easily.
By debating someone with an opposing point of view, I found that I have learned more myself.

I'm really not in the mood to debate civilly with someone like dad. He's not the only one on this board who's quite pointless to argue with, but his style... I'm pretty much allergic to it.

 

[acropolis]

I'm really not in the mood to debate civilly with someone like dad. He's not the only one on this board who's quite pointless to argue with, but his style... I'm pretty much allergic to it.

He's too far down the rabbit hole for any real debate. All he really does is discredit himself with his inconsistent, ad hoc, and at times incoherent arguments.

His dismissive and condescending 'style' would bother me, except his ramblings are so bizarre and poorly reasoned that it's entertaining.

 

[thaumaturgy]

He's too far down the rabbit hole for any real debate. All he really does is discredit himself with his inconsistent, ad hoc, and at times incoherent arguments.

His dismissive and condescending 'style' would bother me, except his ramblings are so bizarre and poorly reasoned that it's entertaining.

I'm with Naraoia on this. His style is allergenic, but unlike some when I'm allergic to something I just scratch the itch. It becomes obsessive.

At this point I think I'd set up a paypal account for Dad just so I could pay to see him retract a comment or admit he's not sure of something, or gasp, that he might be wrong on some point!

His dripping condescension toward others in light of his "math skills" is so over-the-top that it does make you wonder what his motivations are.

But I am finding it interesting to see how he has fielded the math questions so far. It is fascinating, and actually kind of sad.

I really do need to just walk away from all this. I feel I'm becoming more and more cruel in continuing the debate. And that makes me feel bad about myself and my motivations.

Am I becoming a bully in the schoolyard picking on the kid with a learning disability?

That scares me.

 

[FishFace]

Am I becoming a bully in the schoolyard picking on the kid with a learning disability?

That scares me.

In this case, one has to wonder whether whatever we take as being analogous to disability in dad's case has so affected him as to render him unable to register not only reasoned argument, but also intellectual cruelty.

 

[NailsII]

I'm really not in the mood to debate civilly with someone like dad. He's not the only one on this board who's quite pointless to argue with, but his style... I'm pretty much allergic to it.

I appreciate that you have much more important things to spend your time on, like studying.....
Or if you are anything like I was as a student, 'socialising' and holding down two jobs to pay for the bloody text books....
And more socialising, of course.

He's too far down the rabbit hole for any real debate. All he really does is discredit himself with his inconsistent, ad hoc, and at times incoherent arguments.

His dismissive and condescending 'style' would bother me, except his ramblings are so bizarre and poorly reasoned that it's entertaining.

What bothers me is that he thinks he is right and has evidence to back it up wit....

I'm with Naraoia on this. His style is allergenic, but unlike some when I'm allergic to something I just scratch the itch. It becomes obsessive.

At this point I think I'd set up a paypal account for Dad just so I could pay to see him retract a comment or admit he's not sure of something, or gasp, that he might be wrong on some point!

His dripping condescension toward others in light of his "math skills" is so over-the-top that it does make you wonder what his motivations are.

But I am finding it interesting to see how he has fielded the math questions so far. It is fascinating, and actually kind of sad.

I really do need to just walk away from all this. I feel I'm becoming more and more cruel in continuing the debate. And that makes me feel bad about myself and my motivations.

Am I becoming a bully in the schoolyard picking on the kid with a learning disability?

That scares me.

I too feel the need to scratch.
And as for the maths, the best I did was stats for biologists so I try and stay away from it as much as I can. Don't want to end up embarrasing myself.
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with admitting you are out of your depth in one area of a debate and concentrating on what you know best.
So I'll leave the maths to you guys, OK?

 

[NailsII]

Nails, note that dad said Creation stands unchallengeable. This seems like a clear statement of non-falsifiability.

So if it cannot be challenged, then it has no technical value. Only claims which carry with them a means by which one can challenge them, even if they are found to be flawless, have any real value to science.

One can learn nothing from something that is "unchallengeable".

Yes, you are quite right.
I fluffed that one a little.

Right, the bible case you and others made here is astounding. Too bad y'all forgot to include one. The science you offer is so lacking, it brings a tear of joy to the eye.

The same science that offers you medicine (includin vets for your pets and the meat that we eat), fertiliser to increase crop yields, ( and pesticides/insecticides etc ), computer technology.... Need I continue?

No, the bible supports it, as does all properly interpreted evidence. It is invincible.

Only the bible supports creationism, the evidence contradicts it. All of it.
Therefore I question your use of the term 'invincible' (unless you mean like the HMS Invivcible)

Can you think of any units the will of God might not cover???

Real ones?