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

[thaumaturgy]

...

 

[mpok1519]

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

No, its, not.

Its supported by FAITH. If it had any invincible evidence, most scientists wouldn't dispute it.

Its like you're calling incredibly smart people stupid because they're using their education for the furtherment of knowledge.

Trust me, if creationism was indisputable, why is it constantly disputed?

please dont use scripture to answer this. When people do that, it doesn't get anyone anywhere; its just a display of self-indulgence saying "I'm a real christian because I can copy and paste scripture which is supposed to make me look more pious than thou". That really gets on my nerves when someone uses the Bible for non-altruistic purposes.

 

[FishFace]

I simply tried to assign simple numbers to reflect that each star in a different state had different light speed.

Numbers don't change. Variables change. If all you know is that different stars sent out different speeds of light (not that that actually helps you at all with this particular problem of the supernova) then your position is untenable because it is unfalsifiable.

Right, my mistake, I was thinking of Einstein's formula, and just used the last part. Of course to make the light speed relevant we need to have, for example, the M= in front of it, in the case of C. And, in the case of the letters we have been using to represent the different universe state light, we could use a W - W =FL2 in other words, the will of God determines the speed for the star light.

W-W=0. That's the definition of "-"

It works fine. Each star we assign a different speed to, not rocket science, that. I did it in the 12 star example.

But your formula doesn't say that, not at all. It's just nonsense.

That means that your maths don't and can't apply.

Wrong. You say each star has a different speed of light. Well, then each star just has a different number associated with it - works fine.

For example, the childishly simple notion that light was non homogeneous, and uniform.

Non-homogenous and uniform? Doesn't work.

Then, the questions were asked, about what cross checks you have for the ring light to core light directions and speed, (besides the time it takes to light up). No reply.

I told you several times that we don't care about the speed. If you increase the speed, then trigonometry implies the star is further away, so much so that the light must have started out even longer ago.

Your failed attempts to apply present math to the future, and spiritual were demonstrated.

You've not given us anything to work with, so I don't know how you think you've demonstrated anything.

Unless y'all have some substantive, and reasoned factual, and logical case to make, it looks like you are out of gas, out of steam.

Look, dad, you can't expect us to respond to stuff and nothing with much! Give us some "substantive, reasoned, factual, logical" stuff to work with and we'll get back to you.
Like a good reason to believe the speed of light was different in the past. Or an answer to the supernova problem.

Trigonometric Diagram of SN1987A and Earth Now let's plug everything in:

1. radius = 6.23 x 1012 km = 0.658 light-years [1]
2. angle = 0.808 arcseconds = 0.000224 degrees [1]
3. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ tan(0.000224)
4. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ 0.00000392
5. distance = 168,000 light-years

Note that taking the measurement error limits into account makes this value 168,000 light-years ± 3.5%.
For reference:
c (lightspeed) = 299,792.5 kilometers per second
1 arcsecond = 1/3600°
1 parsec = 3.26 light-years
1 light-year ~ 9.46 x 1012 km
1 light-year ~ 5.88 x 10^12 miles

You do realise that if you assume an increased speed of light you get a larger distance, not a shorter one, as you want?

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1998MmSAI..69..225P The "height" (radius) of the primary gas ring around SN1987A is based on the observed time it took for the energy from the explosion to hit the ring (travelling at the speed of light), which was 0.658 years (i.e., almost two-thirds of a year)."

.."In actuality, the ring is tipped with respect to the earth, which means that with respect to the earth there is a "leading edge" (the closer half) and a "trailing edge" (the farther half). Because of this fact, what astronomers observed was the point on the ring closest to the earth lighting up first.."

Yep?

So, the claims are based, based based, apparently, on the time it took the rings to light up.

Correct. So?

"Where did these rings come from? They must be related to the supernova because the supernova is at their center. But they could not have been ejected by the supernova explosion. In fact, if one divides the radius of the inner ring (6 x 1012 km, or 0.6 light-years) by the expansion speed (10 km/s, or 1/30,000 times the speed of light), one finds that the inner ring must have been expanding for 20,000 years to grow to this radius. Thus, the inner ring must have been ejected 20,000 years before the supernova explosion."

No better explanation from you, I see.

 

[dad]

No, its, not.

Its supported by FAITH. If it had any invincible evidence, most scientists wouldn't dispute it.

Dispute what? The bible? You think most scientists dispute that??? Can you support that notion???

Its like you're calling incredibly smart people stupid because they're using their education for the furtherment of knowledge.

Right, I am. Because I read that the wisdom of man is foolishness. I couldn't care less about the 'furtherment of knowledge'. They already threaten to wipe us all out, and pollute us to death.

Trust me, if creationism was indisputable, why is it constantly disputed?

Depends what you mean by creationism. If you mean 'creation science' that is another matter. If you mean creation itself, why, you might as well dispute the nose on your face.

please dont use scripture to answer this. When people do that, it doesn't get anyone anywhere; its just a display of self-indulgence saying "I'm a real christian because I can copy and paste scripture which is supposed to make me look more pious than thou". That really gets on my nerves when someone uses the Bible for non-altruistic purposes.

Really???? Tough. What gets on your apparently creation questioning nerves is simply not my top priority. Is that OK with you??

 

[dad]

Numbers don't change. Variables change. If all you know is that different stars sent out different speeds of light (not that that actually helps you at all with this particular problem of the supernova) then your position is untenable because it is unfalsifiable.

Thanks. In other words, you can't say yeah or nay about it. Numbers may not change, but what they apply to sure does.

W-W=0. That's the definition of "-"

That's nice.

But your formula doesn't say that, not at all. It's just nonsense.

I said that, so any formula I say means that is great.

Wrong. You say each star has a different speed of light. Well, then each star just has a different number associated with it - works fine.

Point??

Non-homogenous and uniform? Doesn't work.

In other words, neither of those things. My, you are acting pretty desperate, at the degree of straining at made up nats here.

I told you several times that we don't care about the speed. If you increase the speed, then trigonometry implies the star is further away, so much so that the light must have started out even longer ago.

No, not if the speeds were not the same. It is not the speed of light from here to the star I am talking about, or concerned with. It is the rings.

You've not given us anything to work with, so I don't know how you think you've demonstrated anything.

I have disassociated your math, and present state chains from the event. What else matters?

Look, dad, you can't expect us to respond to stuff and nothing with much! Give us some "substantive, reasoned, factual, logical" stuff to work with and we'll get back to you.
Like a good reason to believe the speed of light was different in the past. Or an answer to the supernova problem.

You have no idea what the problem, or answers are, apparently, and cannot respond to some basic questions about the claims. It is not my problem, any more than the missing neutron star!

You do realise that if you assume an increased speed of light you get a larger distance, not a shorter one, as you want?

No. because as our state came to be, one assumes that all light would be affected, and operate at our speed. What I have been trying to get at here, with no help from you, is whether the ring light show was more affected, or less. To get near that one, we would need strong confirmation of the basics, I asked about, and no one can address.

Yep?

So, if we have the ring first lighting up, and no confirmation of the light source being the core yet, or how fast light travels from ring to core, or core to ring, save some months delay in lighting up, you have no case. I really thought there might be something worth responding to in the SN, and that a review of the facts was in order, to determine the real best explanation. But it seems we need a detective to find the facts, not sort them here so far!

Correct. So?

So that tells us next to squat.

No better explanation from you, I see.

Oh, there always seems to be that. But none is yet needed, as your act is fallen apart.

 

[FishFace]

Why are you still fixated on the speed of light in between the core and the ring? If you like, you can put in a faster speed of light, as you do for other stars, but it would just get further away. We know that the core is the source of light because every time the core lights up, the ring lights up about 8 months afterwards.

If you think the speed of light from the core to the ring is different from the speed of light from the ring to earth, then you need to back that claim up. It makes far more sense to have all the light speeds the same, so you can't just go around assuming these things willy-nilly.
So, first of all, you've got to have a good reason before this will help you. Then you need to show that it actually does help you. That is to say, you need to work out just what the speed of light from core was, and what the speed of light from the ring was.
Then, once you've worked out this stuff, you need to put it into the good old maths we know and love. It'll work fine, as long as you actually know some numbers, and aren't just making stuff up - we can even help you with this part!
Only then can we actually tell whether having different speeds actually does anything for you. Because otherwise we just have to take your word for it and, to be honest, that's not likely to happen.

So:

1. Give us a good reason to believe that the speeds involved (e.g. speed from the core, speed from the ring) were different
2. Work out what those speeds were
3. Work out the new distance of the supernova from earth (we'll help with this bit, as long as you can do 1 and 2)
4. See whether that works for you.

Simple - time to get cracking, eh, dad?

 

[dad]

Why are you still fixated on the speed of light in between the core and the ring?

Because it is an integral part of the claims in the thread here. If you don't really know what you are talking about, we need to add that to the mix.

If you like, you can put in a faster speed of light, as you do for other stars, but it would just get further away. We know that the core is the source of light because every time the core lights up, the ring lights up about 8 months afterwards.

Source?? Also, what evidence do we have that light goes in one direction there? Is it observed traveling from the core to the ring?? Or is it all just assumption, based on how long one lights up after the other??

If you think the speed of light from the core to the ring is different from the speed of light from the ring to earth, then you need to back that claim up.

Well, I don't know. Before considering that, even as a possibility, we need to see if the evidence rules it out. Why make stuff up??

It makes far more sense to have all the light speeds the same, so you can't just go around assuming these things willy-nilly.

If a universe change occred, it is hard to see a reason that all light now would not be the same speed. That is one reason I asked for reasons to rule out a possible different speed. Apparently man is too little for even that task. Guess he is too busy making stuff up, and predicting neutron stars that don't exist.

So, first of all, you've got to have a good reason before this will help you. Then you need to show that it actually does help you. That is to say, you need to work out just what the speed of light from core was, and what the speed of light from the ring was.

To do that, one supposes we would have to have some clue, it does go from the one to the other, and at what speed. I don't need help, either way! The explanatory power of a different universe would not break a sweat over such a mickey mouse event.

Then, once you've worked out this stuff, you need to put it into the good old maths we know and love. It'll work fine, as long as you actually know some numbers, and aren't just making stuff up - we can even help you with this part!
Only then can we actually tell whether having different speeds actually does anything for you. Because otherwise we just have to take your word for it and, to be honest, that's not likely to happen.

You seem to be looking for a one speed in the past fits all math there. Best to save that sort of thing for the present where we know it applies. (at least I thought we did, till I saw the abject failure of anyone here to show we do)

So:

1. Give us a good reason to believe that the speeds involved (e.g. speed from the core, speed from the ring) were different

I have no idea yet, where the light actually goes. You need to pony up on that. Then, as for what speed it is, and what speed it was, why, you would need real reason to make that the same.

1. Work out what those speeds were

Don't get ahead of yourself here, apparently you don't even know the fishbowl directions or speeds! Baby steps.

1. Work out the new distance of the supernova from earth (we'll help with this bit, as long as you can do 1 and 2)

No need, I accept the distance.

1. See whether that works for you.

2. The distance works fine. If the former light could get billions of light years in days, how would 70,000 ly matter???????

 

[Danyc]

Don't get ahead of yourself here, apparently you don't even know the fishbowl directions or speeds! Baby steps.

I guess you haven't noticed yet; these are steps for YOU to take, not Fishface and Thaum. Obviously YOU understand everything having to do with 'fishbowl speeds' and 'out-of-fishbowl speeds', so YOU do it, and show us.

 

[dad]

I guess you haven't noticed yet; these are steps for YOU to take, not Fishface and Thaum. Obviously YOU understand everything having to do with 'fishbowl speeds' and 'out-of-fishbowl speeds', so YOU do it, and show us.

Don't expect me to do your baby maths, or blow your nose, and wipe it for you. I have no claim about the created star we call SN1987a, I simply stand ready to dash so called science claims to pieces, should one dare to surface.
Looks like they are laying low at the moment.

 

[FishFace]

Don't expect me to do your baby maths, or blow your nose, and wipe it for you. I have no claim about the created star we call SN1987a, I simply stand ready to dash so called science claims to pieces, should one dare to surface.
Looks like they are laying low at the moment.

Dad, if you're not willing to pony up any good reasons to believe that the speed of light was different, and if you're not even willing to tell us what you think the various different speeds were, then we can't help you, and you can't help yourself. It's quite clear that you're just making up silly "what-if" stories. That's not good enough. I can "what-if" all day about any silly nonsense I care to, but it doesn't change anything. If "what-if"s actually did anything, I could "what-if" your very body out of existence! ("What if an evil demon or scientist were deceiving you into believing you had a body!")

As it stands, a "what-if" doesn't count for squat. You need to go ahead and tell us what did or does happen, not ask us about silly maybes. If you can come up with some actual claims, with good evidence, then maybe you have a point.

If all you've got is "what-if" whinging, then you're as dead as Descartes.

 

[dad]

Dad, if you're not willing to pony up any good reasons to believe that the speed of light was different, and if you're not even willing to tell us what you think the various different speeds were, then we can't help you, and you can't help yourself. It's quite clear that you're just making up silly "what-if" stories. That's not good enough. I can "what-if" all day about any silly nonsense I care to, but it doesn't change anything. If "what-if"s actually did anything, I could "what-if" your very body out of existence! ("What if an evil demon or scientist were deceiving you into believing you had a body!")

As it stands, a "what-if" doesn't count for squat. You need to go ahead and tell us what did or does happen, not ask us about silly maybes. If you can come up with some actual claims, with good evidence, then maybe you have a point.

If all you've got is "what-if" whinging, then you're as dead as Descartes.

The main what if, is what if you and science didn't really know what you were talking about? The proof would be in the pudding, and you have none.
What does happen is not the issue, what did happen is the issue.

If you think someone ought to tell you how fast angels can fly, of God can move, or light in a heavenly realm moves, you are kidding yourself.
We can say that Adam saw the stars, so that means it got here in hours or days. What more do you need to know? Compare days or hours to billions of years, and that is the difference in how fast present light can go compared to created state light.
The various speeds I have no idea about, or even if there were various speeds. Maybe there is a uniform forever state light speed?
I simply raise thoughtful questions, based on the bible, since science is so limited.

You guys cannot even talk about the present universe 70,000 ly away in a meaningful way! That means you can't play with the big boys yet.

If you cannot address the core issues raised about the real observations of real people, and real science, in this real universe, how do you expect to comprehend the mysteries of the forever state??? Know your limits. Stay within it. Be happy. Otherwise you just flop around like a fish out of water.

 

[FishFace]

The main what if, is what if you and science didn't really know what you were talking about? The proof would be in the pudding, and you have none.

And I already told you, "what-if"s are useless here. "What if" you're merely being dreamed by a supercomputer's idle processor cycles? Then neither you nor the world nor the supernova nor your God really exist! Oh my goodness!
Meanwhile, back in reality, get some evidence and we'll listen. Until then, your "what-if" is as good as any other "what-if," and just as likely as the one I just gave you.

The various speeds I have no idea about, or even if there were various speeds. Maybe there is a uniform forever state light speed?

Thanks for that. So I'll stick with the good old 3.00 million m/s (3 significant figures) that we've always observed, rather than your "I have no idea."

With that in mind, do you have any care to address the point of the OP? Because you still think it's reliant on the "present" (read: forever, since you can't come up with anything better) speed of light (it isn't) indicating you still don't understand.

 

[dad]

And I already told you, "what-if"s are useless here. "What if" you're merely being dreamed by a supercomputer's idle processor cycles? Then neither you nor the world nor the supernova nor your God really exist! Oh my goodness!
Meanwhile, back in reality, get some evidence and we'll listen. Until then, your "what-if" is as good as any other "what-if," and just as likely as the one I just gave you.

Anyone can have a what if. You say what if the light and universe state were the same. Yet you really can't even address the basics of the thread here, and the rings of the SN, etc.

Thanks for that. So I'll stick with the good old 3.00 million m/s (3 significant figures) that we've always observed, rather than your "I have no idea."

I have all the same old ideas you have for the present. I have the good sense not to pretend to fly them to infinity and beyond. I would not over rule God, on a whim, and a prayer, and call it science, as some do.

With that in mind, do you have any care to address the point of the OP? Because you still think it's reliant on the "present" (read: forever, since you can't come up with anything better) speed of light (it isn't) indicating you still don't understand.

Yes, I addressed it plenty. I asked to look at what we do know, as well as the bible. You look at what you don't know, and call it gospel.

 

[NailsII]

I simply raise thoughtful questions, based on the bible, since science is so limited.

But isn't that the core of the problem here?
Science is limited by what we know, what we can measure and the technology available to carry out these tasks. So far the ability to draw logical conclusions from research is not a limiting factor, however.
The bible however is incredibly limited; it serves to teach very little of substance or of real importance - especially in this day and age.
The bible is merely a collection of ancient books and stories, some based on fact and many based on pure fiction - which is why literal believers have so much trouble telling the two apart.
So the main reason you don't subscribe to the scientific method is because it counters your pre-conceived ideas which are not based on evidence.
Regarless of the true consequences of this decision - I will raise again the subject of science being the discipline behind modern medicine, computer technology and the space age (and of course, the nuclear age - for all its pros and cons).
So again I will suggest that your mindest is to cherry-pick, taking the pieces of scripture that you like and ignoring those contradictory - the same way you treat science.

 

[FishFace]

Anyone can have a what if. You say what if the light and universe state were the same. Yet you really can't even address the basics of the thread here, and the rings of the SN, etc.

Yep, anyone can have a what-if, that's why they're so useless. What if you don't actually exist? Prove I'm wrong.

I have all the same old ideas you have for the present. I have the good sense not to pretend to fly them to infinity and beyond.

13.7 billion years ago is not infinity, nor beyond.

Of course you have the same ideas for the present. But if you think a what-if is effective against the past, then there's no reason to suppose it's not effective against the present. What if you're not even real, dad? WHAT IF?

Yes, I addressed it plenty.

If you assume light speed was different, this little example shows that the universe must be even older than 168,000 years. You never addressed that with anything but silly what-ifs.

 

[dad]

Yep, anyone can have a what-if, that's why they're so useless. What if you don't actually exist? Prove I'm wrong.

If you don't exist, why bother??

13.7 billion years ago is not infinity, nor beyond.

And, so?? Do you think that is all there is, as far as distance goes, or something?

Of course you have the same ideas for the present. But if you think a what-if is effective against the past, then there's no reason to suppose it's not effective against the present. What if you're not even real, dad? WHAT IF?

You seem to have a problem knowing what is real. Not surprising, really, considered the years of indoctrination you apparently had to endure.

If you assume light speed was different, this little example shows that the universe must be even older than 168,000 years. You never addressed that with anything but silly what-ifs.

Why would the speed of light be different? I would think our temporary universe state needs a fairly constant light speed. Now, if you want to claim we are in the forever state, or only state, you are just whistling in the dark.
Some things are best admitted as unknown, in the little realm of PO science. Work on that.

 

[dad]

But isn't that the core of the problem here?
Science is limited by what we know,

Never seemed to stop some here from telling stories as if they know it all.

what we can measure and the technology available to carry out these tasks. So far the ability to draw logical conclusions from research is not a limiting factor, however.

No? So you have, what, unlimited capacity for so called logical conclusions based on fragmentary evidence now??

The bible however is incredibly limited; it serves to teach very little of substance or of real importance - especially in this day and age.

Someone pulled the wool over your eyes. That bears no resemblance to what the bible is.

The bible is merely a collection of ancient books and stories, some based on fact and many based on pure fiction - which is why literal believers have so much trouble telling the two apart.

Fiction??? Tell us, how do you think you know what is fact or fiction in the bible??

So the main reason you don't subscribe to the scientific method is because it counters your pre-conceived ideas which are not based on evidence.

No, it is because that little method only can subscribe to the fishbowl. I have other subscriptions, that deal in things beyond what that can do.

Regarless of the true consequences of this decision - I will raise again the subject of science being the discipline behind modern medicine, computer technology and the space age (and of course, the nuclear age - for all its pros and cons).

Blowing up life on earth is such a plus, I guess? As for 'space age', that is more like caveman age, compared to universal explorations that we would have done long long long ago, if man wasn't deceived, and listened to the father of lies, that hates men.

So again I will suggest that your mindest is to cherry-pick, taking the pieces of scripture that you like and ignoring those contradictory - the same way you treat science.

Nope. I look at the whole package. The savior and new heavens, and eternal life are things that run throughout the book. Godless science is hardly a drop in it's bucket.

 

[FishFace]

Some things are best admitted as unknown, in the little realm of PO science. Work on that.

I'll admit I don't know what light behaved like a few billion years ago if you admit you don't know you exist, okay? Because there's as much reason for each of them.

 

[acropolis]

I think it should be eminently clear that dad is impervious to any kind of reasoned argument, and will stick to his guns no matter how absurd those guns may be. This is just an endurance test at this point.

 

[dad]

I'll admit I don't know what light behaved like a few billion years ago if you admit you don't know you exist, okay? Because there's as much reason for each of them.

I know I exist. There was no billions of years ago for this universe. The very fact you read it that way yells out that you base it on the present state realities. Projecting them in your head to infinity and beyond.
Nothing actually say there are old ages, nothing at all.
Now, if you have nothing substantial about core to ring light speed observations, and direction, why this thread is bogged down. We can't even proceed to the former state explanations, since you got so little for this state.