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

[thaumaturgy]

i don't want to waste my time guessing what exactly you disapprove of. tell me what's wrong, then i can fix it! you're just assigning homework for no apparent reason.

I think we need to get a handle on the units in Dad's equations first. Homework is always easier when you have the units he's working with.

The velocity*will units are still kind of fuzzy.

because I feel, maybe misguidedly, that light has to have a velocity at all times, whether it be negative, positive, or 0. you say the math won't work because the light moved at the speed of magic. i think this matter needs to be cleared up before we can go on

You are zeroing in on the key when you mention the "speed of magic". That's probably within the ballpark here.

I wish Dad would better outline what are now becoming famous (dare I say t-shirt worthy?)

Equations of Dadism:

X * FL/W = W*FL
Y * FL/W = W*FL
W*FL * W = W[sup]2[/sup]*FL
If W = Y*FL,
and W = X*FL,
and X <> Y
then either speed is W. (even if different)

(NOTE: I added in some of the apparently unstated operators there in the W FL terms, because Dad appears to prefer the multiplication operand occasionally but not consistently present. And I corrected the dropped "squared will" term.)

 

[RichardT]

nm (I now know how to do subs on CF)

 

[dad]

I get the horrible feeling that he's saying he doesn't even know what an average is

I do. I also know how it is determined. When there are too many unknowns, we cannot cook up an average. Why guess?

 

[dad]

That's not a valid answer. Suppose I claim that the earth is flat. You counterclaim that we have cameras in space that can see the earth is round. I return fire with, "You miss the point. You are assuming light is entirely the same all the way from the earth to the camera! What if the light changed on its way to the camera to make it look round!"

No, as usual, your parable is strictly in box. We observe light from here to there, not from a different universe to now.

You are being silly, and everyone can tell.

No more silly than reading how Jesus and us will control the forces of the universe soon. There is no reason to assume that is not true created nature, is there??

If you think light behaved differently tell us how it was different, what that means, and why you think it was different.
This is about you giving specific details. Put up or shut up.

Now now. Tut tut. I do not think our light, per se existed, or will exist as is. So why try to make it do stuff??

 

[dad]

You are claiming that light was different and, furthermore, that it was different in such a way that allows the universe to only be 6,000 years old.
Our claim is that those things are impossible, so it's up to you to stop talking vague nonsense and get some details.

My claim is also that it is impossible within the fishbowl of this present universe state, Fishface. We are close on this. What is missing is proof for your claim that all things continue as they were since time immemorial. You can't just say it, you need evidence. Otherwise the bible, and God are the default belief for hundreds and hundreds of millions of people. I kid you not.

But complete and utter hogwash. As far as maths goes, I'd recommend learning your times tables first!

Well, I understand I maybe should have ratcheted it down a bit for some. But I am here for you, should you need help on any of the numbers.

 

[dad]

That, by the way, dad, made as much sense, if not more than the stuff you came out with.

For those with a bend to make things up, I think you could be right. I, on the nice other hand base my ideas solidly on what we are told in the bible. Jesus really did calm the storm, speak the universe into existence, and etc. In the other state, the Lord's will is done. Really. That necessitates the spiritual also being there, of course.

 

[dad]

Just reviewing this for a moment, I decided (graciously) to give a more detailed explanation of why this is bunkum.
If (X*FL)/W = W FL = (Y*FL)/W then we can multiply the leftmost and rightmost equations by W and we find that X*FL = Y*FL. Dividing by FL we find X=Y. So both stars are the same!
Alternatively, we find that by multiplying by W, X*FL = W*W*FL. Dividing both sides by FL, we get X=W*W.
X is the will of God squared? Like that makes sense.
Speaking of sense (see my previous post for a mathematical analysis of sense) What does it mean to multiply a star by a speed? What is 55km/h * Betelgeuse? pi m/s * The Sun? And whatever that means, what does it mean to divide by someone's will?

Don't answer, dad, just admit that you're talking nonsense, don't have a clue what you meant when you said that light behaved differently in the past, and that you didn't bother to try and understand the video either, so you're not actually qualified to talk about the age of the earth.

The silly thing is, that you try to make a PO uniform rule for each star in the forever state. That can't add up. Maybe that is why most of the universe is missing in action, and unknown to science, and predicted neutron stars and black holes are missing, and they end up with the whole thing in a speck o soup, at the end of the fantasizing day.

 

[dad]

So the Will of God is now a squared term, so you have squared the will of God. Does that have any "actual meaning"?

No, making it square is not what I have done. That would be you.

IN ADDITION:
"Will of God" is not a quantity. It is a thing.
Y and X are "stars", again, things, not quantities.

Where a quantity is a PO quality, one cannot expect the different universe to conform to those mores.

If you are trying to make a symbolic logic syllogism you will need to use different types of symbols.

This appears to be neither math nor logic.

Then it has a lot in common with whatever you just said.

At what point was W=Y*F[sub]L[/sub] and W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]established?

That depends what it is. What is it?

If that is the case then:

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / W
and
W=X*F[sub]L[/sub]

That's nice.

Then you have effectively set up the equation:

X*F[sub]L[/sub] / X*F[sub]L[/sub] = 1.

I am unsure how meaningful it is to state that X*F[sub]L[/sub] = X*F[sub]L[/sub] But there you go.

So are you claiming the Will of God is a tautology? Or are you just saying "a thing is what it is"?

[/QUOTE]
The will of God is a real part of the fabric of the forever state universe. Be sure of that. 'Thy will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven'.

 

[Loudmouth]

The silly thing is, that you try to make a PO uniform rule for each star in the forever state.

Is it hard to type with a straightjacket on?

I don't know if I should laugh or be very concerned for your mental health. But just for fun, pull the other one.

 

[dad]

and this is why i like talking with you

i'm not saying that, i'm saying that light wasn't magically math-defying. until you can give a reasonable explanation for why that is incorrect, i'll continue to say that

You are not saying light wasn't magically math-defying?? Then who is??? And what are you saying??

i don't want to waste my time guessing what exactly you disapprove of. tell me what's wrong, then i can fix it! you're just assigning homework for no apparent reason.

I see. Well, tell us what is right, and we won't need to focus on what is wrong.

until you manage to prove that it's relevant that light was "different," i don't need to forget the velocity

If light was different, and corresponded to the will of man and God, of course it is relevant. If you can establish a same state past, then it becomes irrelevant. Until then, you need to do more than imagine a uniform velocity across the universal sky.

it's time for a review! i say that the average speed at which light travelled in the past state can be quantified, because I feel, maybe misguidedly, that light has to have a velocity at all times, whether it be negative, positive, or 0.

Oh, I see. You FEEL, so the history of the universe needs to be rewritten accordingly? If a star was not supposed to shine on earth, how would we know that it still didn't shine somewhere?? If so, it had velocity. We need to have more than a hunch, and feeling from you.

you say the math won't work because the light moved at the speed of magic. i think this matter needs to be cleared up before we can go on

The true nature is like magic to the temporary PO nature. But different rules do not mean no rules. We simply need to add the rules of the Ruler into the mix.

 

[dad]

.. I'd really need to see what the units are on some of these terms. Especially the God's Will units squared.

Get out more.

 

[dad]

then either speed is W. (even if different)

(NOTE: I added in some of the apparently unstated operators there in the W FL terms, because Dad appears to prefer the multiplication operand occasionally but not consistently present. And I corrected the dropped "squared will" term.)

So you added stuff in. OK. That makes it your puppy. The will of God is not a speed. That was the W if you recall that far back. The W affects the speed of light from the star, in the forever state. Or, maybe we also could do some of that. Maybe we can add a little 'm' in the mix, standing for the will of believers in the forever state.

 

[dad]

Is it hard to type with a straightjacket on?

I don't know if I should laugh or be very concerned for your mental health. But just for fun, pull the other one.

I take it you think that either there was and will be no true nature created state, or, that you feel it works differently than I surmise.

The straitjacket of this temporary state is what you are restrained by, apparently. Get yourself free, and look at how eternity is different than this, in the word of God.

 

[Mumbo]

You are not saying light wasn't magically math-defying?? Then who is??? And what are you saying??

you're saying that it is. i'm saying that it isn't. since you already know this, let's pretend this part of the discussion didn't happen

I see. Well, tell us what is right, and we won't need to focus on what is wrong.

fine, i'm tired of squabbling over this bit
your original question:

We can determine that the SN is a certain distance. As for the rings, and why they light up, do we really know that? Maybe you can start by telling us that.

we know the distance of the ring because light from it is assumed to be identical to light from the supernova itself in terms of velocity. since the ring appears to us as being a property of the supernova, this has to be true. if you think otherwise, you have some explaining to do.

the ring lights up because supernova-ing stars are pretty bright. fluctuations in the luminosity of the star apparently cause the brightening and dimming of the ring. your thoughts?

If light was different, and corresponded to the will of man and God, of course it is relevant. If you can establish a same state past, then it becomes irrelevant. Until then, you need to do more than imagine a uniform velocity across the universal sky.

getting a little murky here

so if light "corresponds to the will of man and God," that means it has math-defying speed?

at the end of the paragraph you seem to forget that we're concerned only with average velocity, not uniform or fixed velocity. stay on track please.

Oh, I see. You FEEL, so the history of the universe needs to be rewritten accordingly? If a star was not supposed to shine on earth, how would we know that it still didn't shine somewhere?? If so, it had velocity. We need to have more than a hunch, and feeling from you.

what happens to light when it's "not supposed to shine on earth?" if you're saying that it still has a velocity, which is what you appear to be doing, then it certainly has an average velocity. i think you're confusing yourself.

The true nature is like magic to the temporary PO nature. But different rules do not mean no rules. We simply need to add the rules of the Ruler into the mix.

you're missing the point. right now, your explanation for why there can't be an average velocity is "because that would make me wrong, and that's impossible." i'd like you to go a little bit more in-depth.

 

[Naraoia]

I do. I also know how it is determined. When there are too many unknowns, we cannot cook up an average. Why guess?

But so long as we have a bunch of finite numerical values we can be certain that an average exists.

Of course you'd have a hard time averaging infinity, if that's what you're trying to explain

 

[Naraoia]

Well, I understand I maybe should have ratcheted it down a bit for some. But I am here for you, should you need help on any of the numbers.

Just so you know, FishFace is a maths student

 

[dad]

you're saying that it is. i'm saying that it isn't. since you already know this, let's pretend this part of the discussion didn't happen

No I am not saying it is. You should know that. It was, as was all the universe of the day.

we know the distance of the ring because light from it is assumed to be identical to light from the supernova itself in terms of velocity. since the ring appears to us as being a property of the supernova, this has to be true. if you think otherwise, you have some explaining to do.

Assumed to be really just doesn't mean much. A neutron star was assumed to be appearing, but never did. Something is rotten in Denmark. I separate the ring light from the SN light. There is no need for them to be the same. One could be affected by the universe change, or both. Only after the split do we need a uniform light speed. If the ring formed either in the split process, or before, then the light cannot be expected to be uniform with anything else.

the ring lights up because supernova-ing stars are pretty bright. fluctuations in the luminosity of the star apparently cause the brightening and dimming of the ring. your thoughts?

What is a SN, really?? We have an explanation that it is a star exploded. If that is what it is, then possibly that is what causes the rings to flare up. But remember that they are far away, and it happened long ago. If the universe was different at the time, then, the exploding star maybe could have flared up the ring, say in hours. By the time we get the event here centuries later, having gone through a universe state change, it is not unreasonable to assume that those hours now are months, as we see it here. No?
If we wanted to imagine a created star scenario, we could envision the creation rings sort of imploding, or forming the star, and a time reversal effect was what we were seeing, as a result of the universe change? In that scenario, the ring light need not be the same either. And so on. Without a same state universe to lock in light uniformity, and speed, why, the PO explanations can't wash. And the honest observer can start to realize why the neutron star, or black hole never showed up as predicted!

getting a little murky here

so if light "corresponds to the will of man and God," that means it has math-defying speed?

It means this. Say you are saved, and in the future. Say you wanted a star to appear that was not seen since, say, you got married. You look up, and simply speak it into appearing. And there it is. The created state universe responds to the will of His people, and His will. Not just light, but the fundamental forces of the universe will likely be in sync with His will. It isn't that all stars in the sky whether or not they are visible that day to man, have some uniform speed. They do what we want, as fast as we want, sort of thing.

at the end of the paragraph you seem to forget that we're concerned only with average velocity, not uniform or fixed velocity. stay on track please.

The velocity is like the gas pedal of the car, it depends how fast you want it to go!

what happens to light when it's "not supposed to shine on earth?" if you're saying that it still has a velocity, which is what you appear to be doing, then it certainly has an average velocity. i think you're confusing yourself.

Ah, I don't know. I would guess that it either would shine somewhere else, maybe your wife was on the far side of the universe, and wanted to see the star you didn't!! Or maybe no one really needed to see it, so why shine at all that day??

you're missing the point. right now, your explanation for why there can't be an average velocity is "because that would make me wrong, and that's impossible." i'd like you to go a little bit more in-depth.

Trying to lock the forever universe into this temporary universe state rules can't work. You should know that.

 

[dad]

Just so you know, FishFace is a maths student

That can't help him with non PO math.

 

[dad]

But so long as we have a bunch of finite numerical values we can be certain that an average exists.

Of course you'd have a hard time averaging infinity, if that's what you're trying to explain

Well, I think we were looking at starlight in the created nature universe state. If, as I proposed, the forces of the universe were linked directly to the will of God, and His people to some extent, then it is not a one light speed fits all situation. I mean, it is a bit like saying how fast is the average speed angels fly!!?? It could range from hovering, to spanning the universe and beyond in a moment, one supposes.

 

[Patashu]

What is your explanation for the ring of the supernova brightening and dimming 8 months after the supernova's center brightens and dims every single time, dad?