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

[dad]

That doesn't explain it, because the present state of decay predicts an age in the billions of years for some rocks. So, why does this relationship exist if the rocks aren't actually that old?

It doesn't. All that exists is your dreams of a past that never happened. What we do have is rocks with materials now in decay, that, if we wanted to look at as if they always were, would yield high imaginary numbers. At mo point does that intersect with reality of the actual past, you know squat about.

In short, why is it that the isotope ratios were, at this "split", exactly such that it appears that the rocks are this old, no matter which radioactive isotope you choose to measure?

They weren't. They looked perfectly normal. It is only when temporary state science came along, with the ability to look at the smaller materials, that they were deceived by their silly godless preconceptions.

 

[FishFace]

It doesn't. All that exists is your dreams of a past that never happened. What we do have is rocks with materials now in decay, that, if we wanted to look at as if they always were, would yield high imaginary numbers. At mo point does that intersect with reality of the actual past, you know squat about.


They weren't. They looked perfectly normal. It is only when temporary state science came along, with the ability to look at the smaller materials, that they were deceived by their silly godless preconceptions.

Please explain why we see the pattern we do.

An explanation is a set of propositions which lead to the conclusion of what needs explaining. Please provide such a set of propositions.

 

[dad]

All the details you need are right there. At some point in time, we observed that delay between the core and the ring lighting was 8 months.

Really? But you can't show us either the light traveling from the core, it's observed speed, how often this was supposedly seen, when, and by whom? Then, whatever they did see, was years after the fact, they never even realized there were the outer rings! Then they played around cooking up a PO possible explanation, and decided the rings were there already, long before science was a gleam in the devil's eye!
"one would have expected such a star to eject material in a more regular fashion, steadily expelling material in all directions, rather than puffing rings like a pipe smoker."
"observations of the star just prior to the explosion show that it was a blue supergiant. This was a puzzle in 1987, because up to that time theorists had believed that only red supergiants could explode as a supernova. Apparently the star was, until relatively recently, indeed a red supergiant, but over the millennia before the explosion, it shrank in size and its surface heated up gradually."
http://heritage.stsci.edu/1999/04/sn1987anino.html

So, red is blue now, they just make stuff up about an imaginary past, to suit their story, I see.

Then they find their predicted neutron star was a crock, and not there at all! False prophets, much???!

By the way, the observation at the hazy little blob phase apparently came from here
"The absolute size was determined by studying the observations taken one of Hubble's smaller predecessor satellites, the International Ultraviolet Explorer. IUE measured the time interval between the supernova explosion and the time the inner ring brightened up to be 0.66 years."

(-same link) This means that in 1987, there were no observations at all of the actual light, it's travel speed, direction, etc, apparently!!!! Nothing more than a time when the inner ring brightened!

I infer from this that the distance between the core and the ring is 8 * c, where c is the speed that light traveled at.

What proof, first of all, can you give us that the ring lit up from core light, in the way of observations?? Yes, we know the ring lit up after the 'exploding' star, but that alone really means nothing. That seems a small request, if you had a clue what you were talking about!?

Either tell my why this is wrong or tell me what information I need but haven't given, that means I can't make the inference.

Just did that. In the hazy little bob phase, prove that the light went in a certain direction, and speed. After all, the rings were said to be there already, so wouldn't it be a good cross check, to make sure that the direction on light was not first from there??

And I have no reason to accept that light travels at experimental speed from your car headlights - if the lab and your street are different, why would I apply experimental light speed to your car?

So you cannot accept science, and experiments as they apply on earth. OK. That is your prerogative.

There is no reason to believe there ever was a different state universe, dad.

There is no reason to believe there was a same state past universe. There is lots of reasons to believe that the future and past were different. You just need to look outside the box of present only nature science.

 

[FishFace]

What proof, first of all, can you give us that the ring lit up from core light, in the way of observations?? Yes, we know the ring lit up after the 'exploding' star, but that alone really means nothing. That seems a small request, if you had a clue what you were talking about!?

It is a reasonable inference - we observe one, then the other.
What proof do we have that the moon causes tides? Only that we observe that tides follow the path of the moon.

The only explanation is the one I've given - you've certainly presented nothing else.

Just did that. In the hazy little bob phase, prove that the light went in a certain direction, and speed. After all, the rings were said to be there already, so wouldn't it be a good cross check, to make sure that the direction on light was not first from there??

I don't need that information to infer that the distance was 8 * c. That's like saying we need to know a car's manufacturer in order to find its length - nonsense.
Disagree with me? Tell me why I need that info.

So you cannot accept science, and experiments as they apply on earth. OK. That is your prerogative.

And you cannot accept science, and experiments as they apply in space and in the past. OK. That is your prerogative - just so long as you understand that it is just as stupid as my prerogative.

There is no reason to believe there was a same state past universe. There is lots of reasons to believe that the future and past were different. You just need to look outside the box of present only nature science.

There are no good reasons whatsoever.

 

[dad]

It is a reasonable inference - we observe one, then the other.
What proof do we have that the moon causes tides? Only that we observe that tides follow the path of the moon.

Not true. There are many reasons. Nothing like yapping about some tiny star far beyond where man has ever gone. We sent people to the moon, and have some precise ideas about it's gravity.

The only explanation is the one I've given - you've certainly presented nothing else.

Then, thanks for playing, you have nothing! And the guesses, and assumptions cannot be taken as anything more than myth based.

I don't need that information to infer that the distance was 8 * c. That's like saying we need to know a car's manufacturer in order to find its length - nonsense.

But you do need that info to say that the light traveled from point a to b, at a certain speed. And that is what you are claiming.

Disagree with me? Tell me why I need that info.

Just did. Funny that such a lazy, and ignorant half baked attempt at defending some cosmological claim would not receive some help from someone on your side that had a clue. Maybe they have enough smarts not to dare, whereas you thought your faith was well founded?

And you cannot accept science, and experiments as they apply in space and in the past.

Sure I could, if there were any. You have nothing.

OK. That is your prerogative - just so long as you understand that it is just as stupid as my prerogative.

Great, we are getting somewhere. You admit that your prerogative is stupid. In accepting real science, that applies right here on earth, that is tested, I cannot say that I am stupid. That is ridiculous. It is not your science that is under question, in the 1987a affair, but your lack of it.

There are no good reasons whatsoever.

If you prefer to limit yourself to the failures, and dead ends of natural science, that is true. Science can't help, either way. In my case, however, that is a good thing, because that means it can't hurt either.

 

[FishFace]

Not true. There are many reasons. Nothing like yapping about some tiny star far beyond where man has ever gone. We sent people to the moon, and have some precise ideas about it's gravity.

What specific observations have we made that indicate that the moon causes the tides, other than that the tides follow the moon?

But you do need that info to say that the light traveled from point a to b, at a certain speed.

I'm not claiming any certain speed, you should know that by now.
I am claiming the light traveled from A to B, but you don't have any explanation for the observed evidence other than mine, so we can be pretty sure that's what happened.

Just did. Funny that such a lazy, and ignorant half baked attempt at defending some cosmological claim would not receive some help from someone on your side that had a clue. Maybe they have enough smarts not to dare, whereas you thought your faith was well founded?

Maybe they know you're an irrational zealot who doesn't understand the first thing about logic.

Great, we are getting somewhere. You admit that your prerogative is stupid. In accepting real science, that applies right here on earth, that is tested, I cannot say that I am stupid. That is ridiculous. It is not your science that is under question, in the 1987a affair, but your lack of it.

By proxy, you just admitted your prerogative was stupid. By accepting real science, that applies everywhere we know about, I cannot say that I am stupid.

If you prefer to limit yourself to the failures, and dead ends of natural science, that is true. Science can't help, either way. In my case, however, that is a good thing, because that means it can't hurt either.

There are no good reasons whatsoever, at least, none that you have ever presented.

 

[dad]

What specific observations have we made that indicate that the moon causes the tides, other than that the tides follow the moon?

"In 1959, at the enthusiastic urging of rocket pioneer Werner von Braun, a peculiar set of physics experiments first appeared in English as a four-part series in the journal Aero/Space Engineering. The author, Maurice Allais, was a skilled physicist with an interest in the behavior of Foucault's Pendulum. From 1954 to 1960 he made careful observations of the motion of glass and metallic pendulums with the hope he would discover some connection between gravity and magnetism. Despite years of careful work, he never succeeded in finding a link between those disparate forces, but he did observe something extraordinary. During the total eclipses of June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, he detected "anomalies in the movement of the ... pendulum" during the time when the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun were aligned."
http://cybercitycafe.com/explore/gravity.html

If the gravity of earth, and moon were not well known, they couldn't land a man on the moon, and back. I am not sure why you reject science that is actually real, and known. I suppose you think that you are cleverly equating real science, and evidence, with pure myth. No.

I'm not claiming any certain speed, you should know that by now.
I am claiming the light traveled from A to B, but you don't have any explanation for the observed evidence other than mine, so we can be pretty sure that's what happened.

Well, it is assumed to be light years as we know them, that is how the distance is figured, in case you missed that. But, let's look at what you do claim, for sure. You claim the light went from core to ring, rather than rings to core. Have you observations for that direction, if not speed, then, at least??!! Besides when the inner ring lit up? It seems all that is offered so far is that the core lit up first, and the inner ring in several months. I do have a few possible other explanations other than yours. But why use them if not needed? No sense calling in the calvary, when all that showed up in the field of battle so far is Mickey Mouse!

Maybe they know you're an irrational zealot who doesn't understand the first thing about logic.

Maybe. But they make sliced liver out of those here, and on other forums. There is enough real science, so that if someone claims something like slowing light speed, they get all over him like a pig on slop. But I haven't given them a false, or weak science claim, so what is required is to defend their own. If you are starting to get the gist of what science actually saw, you might realize that while they might be able to muster more than a Mickey Mouse claim, it would still be weak.

By proxy, you just admitted your prerogative was stupid. By accepting real science, that applies everywhere we know about, I cannot say that I am stupid.

One minute you question the tides, and light speed observed on earth, the next, you are the great disciple of all that falls from the lips of science, evidenced or not. make up your mind.

There are no good reasons whatsoever, at least, none that you have ever presented.

If you think present nature projections into the great beyond are all that could constitute good reasons to have a real clue about the future and past, it is no wonder you think there are none. Science has NO reason to claim a same state past, or future.
The records and documentation of the bible, and even history, to some extent, are real good reasons to posit a different state in the far past. You not realizing that, or accepting it cannot change it.
What you needed to do was present a solid and evidenced case that even this present universe is all same state. Forget the hard stuff, you had an easy job, and muffed it.
Trying to transport temporary present state nature into eternity, past and future is simply way way out of your league. Why not simply take God's word, we have in the bible, for it?

 

[Danyc]

Dad must be a troll. I cannot think of any other reason for it.

It's the only option that makes sense.

 

[Nitron]

Dad must be a troll. I cannot think of any other reason for it.

It's the only option that makes sense.

I wish.

Welcome to the internet.

 

[SimplyNothing]

I wish.

Welcome to the internet.

I loled when I saw the Tintin did it thing.

I remember seeing that show when I was like ten or something. T'was da bomb.

 

[Danyc]

I wish.

Welcome to the internet.

Kill me now

 

[SimplyNothing]

You're too young to die.

 

[Danyc]

You're too young to die.

Curse you, Father Time!

 

[SimplyNothing]

Curse you, Father Time!

Curse you Canadian Bacon!

 

[pgp_protector]

Dad must be a troll. I cannot think of any other reason for it.

It's the only option that makes sense.

Have you met Vet yet ?

 

[Danyc]

Have you met Vet yet ?

I'm afraid not (?) Or should I be glad?

 

[FishFace]

"In 1959, at the enthusiastic urging of rocket pioneer Werner von Braun, a peculiar set of physics experiments first appeared in English as a four-part series in the journal Aero/Space Engineering. The author, Maurice Allais, was a skilled physicist with an interest in the behavior of Foucault's Pendulum. From 1954 to 1960 he made careful observations of the motion of glass and metallic pendulums with the hope he would discover some connection between gravity and magnetism. Despite years of careful work, he never succeeded in finding a link between those disparate forces, but he did observe something extraordinary. During the total eclipses of June 30, 1954, and October 22, 1959, he detected "anomalies in the movement of the ... pendulum" during the time when the Earth, the Moon, and the Sun were aligned."
http://cybercitycafe.com/explore/gravity.html

If the gravity of earth, and moon were not well known, they couldn't land a man on the moon, and back.

If the rate of radioactive decay in the past were not well known, we couldn't analyse rocks and get the pattern that isochron dating gives us.

Anyway, you've done nothing to demonstrate how all we do is observe the orbit of the moon, and observe effects on earth, and assume that one causes the other.

It seems all that is offered so far is that the core lit up first, and the inner ring in several months.

Yup. That's generally how we work out causation.

One minute you question the tides, and light speed observed on earth, the next, you are the great disciple of all that falls from the lips of science, evidenced or not. make up your mind.

Look up parody or reductio ad absurdum somewhere, and maybe you'll understand.

What you needed to do was present a solid and evidenced case that even this present universe is all same state.

Why should I, if you can't even present a solid evidenced case that even this entire solar system, or this entire earth is all the same state?
All you can do is say we measured stuff in labs. That doesn't tell me the state of the universe here in my room, or out on the road, or for a satellite in orbit around the earth, or out towards Pluto, does it?

Dad, we have no reason to doubt that the earth is anything but one homogeneous state. We have no reason to believe the universe is anything but one homogeneous state.

 

[dad]

If the rate of radioactive decay in the past were not well known, we couldn't analyse rocks and get the pattern that isochron dating gives us.

True, you can't. So??? Is there a point there somewhere? All you must content yourself to do, is look at the materials left to us from whatever state the past was in. All you have sought to do, is assume this state of decay always was, and interpret it that way, which is myth. Obviously not science, since you have none to establish the state of the past.

Anyway, you've done nothing to demonstrate how all we do is observe the orbit of the moon, and observe effects on earth, and assume that one causes the other.

I chose to accept evidence, and that is enough for me, when it actually exists in a very reasonable way. Unlike your dreams of the future state. And, even, so far, your claims about light far far away.

Yup. That's generally how we work out causation.

Actually, that is how you assume. Finding cause involves knowing a bit about the thing going on.

Look up parody or reductio ad absurdum somewhere, and maybe you'll understand.

Oh, I understand you are trying to be clever. My point was that is was a lame effort, with the tactic of denying actual experiments, and solid science.

Dad, we have no reason to doubt that the earth is anything but one homogeneous state. We have no reason to believe the universe is anything but one homogeneous state.

You know, many people actually have reasons for claiming the universe is homogeneous. With them, I might be able to reason. With you, it seems it is just blind faith, you don't quite know in what, or why, even.

 

[FishFace]

True, you can't.

Except we do get the pattern. The only explanation is that radioisotope dating works.

I chose to accept evidence

Good job on not telling us how we know the moon causes tides - except by observing the orbit of the moon matching up with them.

Oh, I understand you are trying to be clever. My point was that is was a lame effort, with the tactic of denying actual experiments, and solid science.

Just like you do.

You know, many people actually have reasons for claiming the universe is homogeneous. With them, I might be able to reason. With you, it seems it is just blind faith, you don't quite know in what, or why, even.

As I thought - you've got no reason to think the universe isn't homogenous.

I have no more reason to believe the universe is inhomogeneous than to believe that the solar system, or the earth is inhomogeneous.
So either we believe that the speed of light is constant everywhere, or we believe it is constant only at the exact locations where we measured it.

 

[dad]

Except we do get the pattern. The only explanation is that radioisotope dating works.

Being focused only on the short sighted present decay, in no way explains it. Have you been around 4 billion years, to see how a rock actually would come out? No. Science has observed decay, and things of this temporary universe state for only a short while. Incredulity on your part, that there may have been anything else means nothing. It makes good sense that a forever process involved the same physical materials as exist now.
All correlations on your part are purest fantasy, such as how long you think present evolving would take to make all life. Utterly baseless, and unsupportable.
Decaying of parent to daughter may be a result of the pattern that was in place, if the past was different, just as if the past were the same, it would be a result of decay. Our knowledge is limited to the present state, so science has no clue at all. You just have gotten hotty totty about PO explanations, which are myth. Remember your limitations. Be honest.

Good job on not telling us how we know the moon causes tides - except by observing the orbit of the moon matching up with them.

You are welcome to question actual science. I don't find it reasonable to deny evidence.

Just like you do.

There is no science at all, forget solid science to prop up your imaginary same state past, you require, but cannot have. All can see that, - by your failure to begin to do so.

As I thought - you've got no reason to think the universe isn't homogenous.

Or, a lot of good reasons to assume it is. Have you any you can share with us here, to settle that part of the question??

I have no more reason to believe the universe is inhomogeneous than to believe that the solar system, or the earth is inhomogeneous.

Or that the far universe is, either way, apparently, so who cares what you believe? What matters is what proof you have, and what evidence for your claims, if you want to tie them into science at all.

So either we believe that the speed of light is constant everywhere, or we believe it is constant only at the exact locations where we measured it.

Some people don't go just by belief, they research, and make an evidenced case.
Remember,
"The Universe is most commonly defined as everything that physically exists: ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

"
The properties of homogeneity and isotropy assumed by the Cosmological Principle suggest that Earth is not at a preferred place (see the Copernican principle), and that at very large scales the Universe is smooth (i.e. not fractal).
One implication of the cosmological principle is that the largest discrete structures in the universe are in mechanical equilibrium. Homogeneity and isotropy of matter at the largest scales would suggest that the largest discrete structures are parts of a single indiscrete form, like the crumbs which make up the interior of a cake. At extreme cosmological distances, the property of mechanical equilibrium in surfaces lateral to the line of sight can be empirically tested; however, under the assumption of the cosmological principle, it cannot be detected parallel to the line of sight (see timeline of the universe).
Observations of the cosmos reveal a higher density and lower metallicity in the population of galaxies at further distances with respect to Earth.[1] To account for this scientists applying the cosmological principle suggest the unfalsifiable notion that a change in the population of galaxies along the line of sight translates into change of the homogeneous universe as a whole. Cosmologists agree that in accordance with observations of distant galaxies, a universe must be non-static if it follows the cosmological principle. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

Basically, they do not seem to know. Face it.