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

[FTPolice]

I'm laughing at you. No, not dad. You. The people responding to him.

To quote someone else:

In an argument between two rational reasonable sane people, each side would explain their views, then the other side would point out perceived errors, and this would go back and forth until one side's view is shown to be unsupported or absurd, and the other guy would win the point.

But with an argument with a [dad], the other side can point out as many errors or absurdities as he wants, but the [dad] doesn't even realize he is in the middle of the debate and freely admits that his views are unsupported, but also that he wins the argument by default.


An MIT physicist could sit down with dad, go over every painful detail of how we know what we know, and it would just go in one ear and out the other and he would continue to babble incoherently, quoting from Dad's big book of make believe physics on split universe state jesus mechanics.

No amount of evidence is good enough for him, and as you can see, he just waves his hand at any evidence you present to him then proceeds to respond with something along the lines of "Ahhh, yes, that makes sense. UNLESS... magical fairies changed how the universe worked at some point and all that data then becomes meaningless"

"Well, uhh... That seems pretty unlikely, I mean... Do you have any proof that happened?"

"No, but do you have any proof it didn't? HA! I didn't think so, clearly we are on equal ground when it comes to truth, so why argue?"

 

[dad]

I'm laughing at you. No, not dad. You. The people responding to him.

Great, we all need a good laugh, and anyone slightly familiar with the creation evolution debate knows there is a lot to work with there.

To quote someone else:

In an argument between two rational reasonable sane people, each side would explain their views, then the other side would point out perceived errors, and this would go back and forth until one side's view is shown to be unsupported or absurd, and the other guy would win the point.

Sorry you are a late comer, that is old history here now. In the absence of a solid science case, posters have had to resort to desperate grasping at straws. There is no way that the same past universe state can be supported by science.
But I try to let them have a little dignity in defeat.

But with an argument with a [dad], the other side can point out as many errors or absurdities as he wants, but the [dad] doesn't even realize he is in the middle of the debate and freely admits that his views are unsupported, but also that he wins the argument by default.

Not this dad. His views are biblically supported, as well as in agreement with evidence.

An MIT physicist could sit down with dad, go over every painful detail of how we know what we know, and it would just go in one ear and out the other and he would continue to babble incoherently, quoting from Dad's big book of make believe physics on split universe state jesus mechanics.

Well, speaking of incoherent babble, your pretend case, where someone is so smart, and wins the debate with dad hasn't yet happened. No doubt, such a mighty MIT man, a victim of antiChrist indoctrination, might spell Jesus with a little j. That would clue us in to where he is coming from. I won't get into the 'and going to' bit.

No amount of evidence is good enough for him, and as you can see, he just waves his hand at any evidence you present to him then proceeds to respond with something along the lines of "Ahhh, yes, that makes sense. UNLESS... magical fairies changed how the universe worked at some point and all that data then becomes meaningless"

They can't wave away the bible, thank God. They can't support the same state past myth either. But, lighten up, neither could you or your imaginary friend!!!

"Well, uhh... That seems pretty unlikely, I mean... Do you have any proof that happened?"

That is what I ask, yes, and of course their deep past or future claims are found wanting.

"No, but do you have any proof it didn't? HA! I didn't think so, clearly we are on equal ground when it comes to truth, so why argue?"

Don't flatter yourself. You are not on equal ground, if you accept the silly, godless, and baseless assumed same state of the past and future universe, that so called science is solely based on.

 

[FTPolice]

Great, we all need a good laugh, and anyone slightly familiar with the creation evolution debate knows there is a lot to work with there.


Sorry you are a late comer, that is old history here now. In the absence of a solid science case, posters have had to resort to desperate grasping at straws. There is no way that the same past universe state can be supported by science.
But I try to let them have a little dignity in defeat.

Not this dad. His views are biblically supported, as well as in agreement with evidence.


Well, speaking of incoherent babble, your pretend case, where someone is so smart, and wins the debate with dad hasn't yet happened. No doubt, such a mighty MIT man, a victim of antiChrist indoctrination, might spell Jesus with a little j. That would clue us in to where he is coming from. I won't get into the 'and going to' bit.



They can't wave away the bible, thank God. They can't support the same state past myth either. But, lighten up, neither could you or your imaginary friend!!!

That is what I ask, yes, and of course their deep past or future claims are found wanting.


Don't flatter yourself. You are not on equal ground, if you accept the silly, godless, and baseless assumed same state of the past and future universe, that so called science is solely based on.

It's not so much that users have had to resort to making things up as they just don't have the required physics background. I'm not a physics man myself, so I'm not harping on anyone. But it's a very complex science and as most, if not all people arguing about this stuff in this forum are lay people, they're all bound to make serious mistakes and just honestly not know the answer to something.

And since I jumped in, could you explain what exactly all these odd terms your using mean? All this universe state, split, etc. stuff

Yea, but the thing is, biblically supported doesn't count for much, especially if you take it literally and you're provided with evidence of fallacies in the bible. Even if you want to say it isn't conclusive, it's still something. While the bible is an old book of fables relevant to a culture from 2,000 years back.

That's the thing. No one can win a debate with you. It's akin to us arguing about whether two plus two was really four and you were going off about "Ahh, but what if that really isn't two? What if two was at one time not two, but some undetermined number we can't even comphrehend?" It is outright impossible to win a debate with you in your eyes. I have no problem with that. I'm pretty young, but I'm old enough that I don't feel the need to convince everyone to agree with me.

Again, what is this about same state past and all this? I'm not even trolling, you're just going to have to break this all down for me. I made the mistake of trying to wade through the first 8 pages or so and you keep using these terms I've never heard anyone use before.

 

[dad]

It's not so much that users have had to resort to making things up as they just don't have the required physics background. I'm not a physics man myself, so I'm not harping on anyone. But it's a very complex science and as most, if not all people arguing about this stuff in this forum are lay people, they're all bound to make serious mistakes and just honestly not know the answer to something.

Some claim they are scientists, geologists, and etc. I have found out that it doesn't much matter anyhow, the so called smart ones really are not that clever as you might suspect.

And since I jumped in, could you explain what exactly all these odd terms your using mean? All this universe state, split, etc. stuff

Well, my position is the the state of the universe is not the created state. We are in, as the bible says, a temporary state, that will pass away. The split is just a name to denote the time that it changed.

Yea, but the thing is, biblically supported doesn't count for much, especially if you take it literally and you're provided with evidence of fallacies in the bible.

Never have been provided with that yet, so it doesn't mean much.

Even if you want to say it isn't conclusive, it's still something. While the bible is an old book of fables relevant to a culture from 2,000 years back.

No, science is not only not conclusive about the future and far past, it knows squat.

That's the thing. No one can win a debate with you. It's akin to us arguing about whether two plus two was really four and you were going off about "Ahh, but what if that really isn't two?

No, it is akin to you not really having a position you can defend, and laughing at others, because they got whumped.

What if two was at one time not two, but some undetermined number we can't even comphrehend?" It is outright impossible to win a debate with you in your eyes.

That would be your eyes, not mine. I happen to know that 2 and 2 is four.

I have no problem with that. I'm pretty young, but I'm old enough that I don't feel the need to convince everyone to agree with me.

I can understand that. Perhaps as you age, you might get some supportable position. meanwhile, I suppose, laughing is fun.

Again, what is this about same state past and all this? I'm not even trolling, you're just going to have to break this all down for me. I made the mistake of trying to wade through the first 8 pages or so and you keep using these terms I've never heard anyone use before.

I think I covered it here, it isn't real complicated. Just realizing that we live in a temporary universe state, that is the only natural we know. Since there is more, we can't base everything on that.

(this should cover it. http://geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip )

 

[FishFace]

Well, does it not still DEPEND on the time light took to get to the ring?

No. If you go out into the street and look at a house or, then take a piece of card and mark a point on one side. Put this point up to your eye, look at the object, and mark on the sides of the object. If you measure the angle between the two lines you just created, that's what I'm talking about.

You go ahead and limit gravity, and time if you wish! Not sure who you think will obey the little edict, however.

I don't see why it wouldn't, and that's good enough - it has obeyed for as long as anyone's been able to check.

I would suggest that the assumption that gives the size of one side of the triangle, namely, the time it took for the ring to get light, is in need of support.

No, because, as I've told you more than ten times, you can change the speed of light you assume, increase the size of that side of the triangle, and it doesn't help.

Even if you ever could get that, which apparently looks unlikely, the PO state of the SN light would be no great shocker to me! But you ain't there yet, by a long shot.
See, the ring to core line on the triangle??? All that is used to come up with it is the assumed speed of light.

Wrong. We know the angle at the point of the triangle - at earth. That's a plain old fact. We also know that we can talk about the size of the edge opposite the point in terms of the speed of light, whatever we assume that to be. But for an isosceles triangle (which this is), you can work out every size and angle in the triangle from just this information.

If, indeed.

So go ahead and work it out!

Either way. the present light speed is no limit! Because it happened before there was present light.

Prove it.

Doesn't matter, use any ones you like.

No, I'm not going to test every single possibility just to see whether one of your crackpot fantasies is any good. As far as I know, most such random bunches of numbers are rubbish, so I'm going to go ahead and assume yours are just as rubbish. If you want to prove otherwise, you've got work to do.

 

[FishFace]

And since I jumped in, could you explain what exactly all these odd terms your using mean? All this universe state, split, etc. stuff

If you just replace each word with "something(s) I made up" then you're not far wrong.

 

[Allegory]

And now I know how they figure out how far away supernovas are...Thanks, YouTube!

 

[Danyc]

It was a universe state and light that allowed light to boogie around the universe at speeds unbounded by what we know from our present light. What else do we need to know????

Well, the first thing we need to know if how you know this.

Let me get straight to the bottom of this: Where in the bible is your position supported? You keep saying that the Bible clearly says this, but I'd like to see some passages that detail what you're talking about.

You need to know that this universe state was the same! That is a sure thing, but you don't! Therefore all claims based on that flimsy notion are meaningless. Worthless. Useless. Bogus.

Well, many of those worthless, useless, meaningless, bogus claims make my life comfortable and keep my world from being thrown out of whack. Also thrown into the sun, I'm quite sure.

They haven't the tiniest clue!! They merely waste our time, and spew out bible opposing concepts, based on nothing, that can only truly, and specifically, and rightly be called myth.

You think they are Bible-opposing, but they really aren't. Why can an old earth view not coincide with Christianity? Please tell me.

 

[FTPolice]

If you just replace each word with "something(s) I made up" then you're not far wrong.

Oh, I know. I'm just curious as to what he thinks they mean.

Dad. basically, what standard of proof do you require in a debate? Is anything other than someone directly witnessing an event good enough?

 

[sinan90]

I still don't think you've come up with anyhting tackling the fact there would be different observations now if the speed of light changed in any way, such as changing rates of refraction and diffraction to some extent of the wave like behaviour of light.

Any ideas on how to explain that dad?

 

[NailsII]

I'm laughing at you. No, not dad. You. The people responding to him.

The reason people respond to him, is not to change his mind. Such posts are not wasted effort; these threads may well be witnessed by others who don't have enough knowledge to contribute but will benefit from the points raised.
Personally, I enjoy the intellectual banter.
To counter an argument, I often have to re-read my old text books/study notes (the few I have left) or do a little research. So I gain something, even if I cannot win anything.
And to me, that is much more important.

 

[dad]

No. If you go out into the street and look at a house or, then take a piece of card and mark a point on one side. Put this point up to your eye, look at the object, and mark on the sides of the object. If you measure the angle between the two lines you just created, that's what I'm talking about.

Do you really think that applies to a star, without the third line in the triangle, for reliable distance?

I don't see why it wouldn't, and that's good enough - it has obeyed for as long as anyone's been able to check.

Not very long, which is the point. Don't go beyond that.

No, because, as I've told you more than ten times, you can change the speed of light you assume, increase the size of that side of the triangle, and it doesn't help.

It doesn't hurt, either. Point is, that that line is part of the much touted trigonometry, is it not?? See, if the core to ring light is not the same as the star to earth light speed, you have no case. I ask how you know it is, and you cannot answer, save to note how long it takes for the rings to light up. Think about it.
The speed and nature of light, of course did change, but the only question left here, is, does that include the ring light or not, and how do you know??!!! The surprising answer, at least to me, so far, is that you clearly don't. But I suppose being part of a myth based theory that predicted a neutron star that is missing in action, and then a black hole that is also MIA, and only realized the rings were there after the event, why, I guess I should have expected it.

Wrong. We know the angle at the point of the triangle - at earth. That's a plain old fact. We also know that we can talk about the size of the edge opposite the point in terms of the speed of light, whatever we assume that to be.

Ha! You can talk all you like about 'whatever you assume it to be' but don't be surprised if others reserve that same right. You can't so much as clock the speed of the light that makes up one of the fundamental lines in your claim!!! Sad.

But for an isosceles triangle (which this is), you can work out every size and angle in the triangle from just this information.

Right, but since it is mere assumption, I suppose you might as well say the tooth fairy drew the missing line!!

So go ahead and work it out!

If the light was slower from core to ring, then it would appear to us to take longer to get there than we would expect, no? But that doesn't matter, since you just have no radar cop on the block, that can clock the speeder. Face it. You just look at speeders here, and assume that all galaxies are guilty.

Prove it.

I think whatever speeds of light are involved, most of us can safely say that the star is more than 4400 ly away. That means beyond the observation of mankind. That means that it goes beyond the known state of the universe. Period.

Your black holes, neutron stars, and trigonometry line is missing, missing, missing. That means there is not just gaping holes in your claims, but that you have no claim at all.

Gotcha.

 

[dad]

Well, the first thing we need to know if how you know this.

Let me get straight to the bottom of this: Where in the bible is your position supported? You keep saying that the Bible clearly says this, but I'd like to see some passages that detail what you're talking about.

The differences in both Eden, and heaven, and creation week, and even the flood time are pronounced. For example, the stars were made for us, including Adam, so he saw them.
(here again, is a short pdf on the topic http://geocities.com/lovecreates/split.zip )

Well, many of those worthless, useless, meaningless, bogus claims make my life comfortable and keep my world from being thrown out of whack. Also thrown into the sun, I'm quite sure.

No, that is simply the laws of our universe, our temporary universe. You have no idea how long this state was in place.

You think they are Bible-opposing, but they really aren't. Why can an old earth view not coincide with Christianity? Please tell me.

It can, in that a Christian is merely one that believes in Jesus. Not one that believes the bible muchly, or even knows much about it.

 

[dad]

Dad. basically, what standard of proof do you require in a debate? Is anything other than someone directly witnessing an event good enough?

Depends on what we are debating. If it is out of the range of known science, and laws, why, we just need to do the best we can, with what we got.

 

[dad]

I still don't think you've come up with anyhting tackling the fact there would be different observations now if the speed of light changed in any way, such as changing rates of refraction and diffraction to some extent of the wave like behaviour of light.

Any ideas on how to explain that dad?

Yes, lots of them. But, before I need bring out the artillery, you need to get it together to have a target. Light never changed, in my opinion, at least very much. So I don't look for it's refractions and whatnots to reflect a change.
If we look at redshifting, of course, light is affected! But I would suspect that reflects a change in universe state, to our state, and our light, rather than some change in our light.

 

[dad]

To counter an argument, I often have to re-read my old text books/study notes (the few I have left) or do a little research. So I gain something, even if I cannot win anything.
And to me, that is much more important.

Glad to hear that. Knowing where one went wrong is a first step.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Glad to hear that. Knowing where one went wrong is a first step.

Am I reading this right? Did you just decree "learning" as where Nails "went wrong"?



I guess that does make sense, though.

 

[dad]

Am I reading this right? Did you just decree "learning" as where Nails "went wrong"?



I guess that does make sense, though.

He talked about " even if I cannot win anything."


Knowing you can't make a case is learning. What's wrong with that??

 

[sinan90]

Yes, lots of them.

Where?

But, before I need bring out the artillery, you need to get it together to have a target. Light never changed, in my opinion, at least very much. So I don't look for it's refractions and whatnots to reflect a change

You're stating that there was a different speed of light in the past, show the observations now that demonstrate it.
.

If we look at redshifting, of course, light is affected!

There's lots of things which affect the speed of light. But the speed of light in a vacuum is always constant.

But I would suspect that reflects a change in universe state, to our state, and our light, rather than some change in our light.

If you don't understand what the evidence shows why don't you go and read something about the matter rather than leaving it to suspecting things and assumptions.

 

[thaumaturgy]

...