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

[dad]

W, the universal operator. Ugh.

Well, remember, He lets us operate stuff too. Masters of the universe type stuff. At least, so man does in the bible. Not like I make stuff up.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Nope. Did you think you did??

Actually I think I proved I might have.

Right, whether He wanted a star to shine on earth decided whether it shone or not, and at what speed. All things depend on W. All speeds are according to the will of God. No one speed is W, exclusively. His will might be different for different stars.

You really need to pay attention to what you say. You aren't even bothering to defend your own posts anymore. You tell me the speeds are "W" then you tell me W isn't a speed. What does that mean?

But I don't expect you to own up like a man to your errors. But what scares me is that you may not even understand what you yourself are saying. It's all word salad for you. You just make stuff up and move along.

Words have meaning my friend. They really do. You need to learn before you speak next time.

Well, sometimes he multiplies faster than others. So??

You aren't actually following along are you? I mean, you can read can't you? Is someone reading this stuff to you?

Thanks. I like math

Except you don't seem to understand it. You certainly haven't shown any real understanding of even simple algebra in this thread.

, I dislike 'geology'.

Remember, if you dislike something you should bother to understand it first.

But maybe blind dislike is what you're all about?

Of course, as is obvious, I don't know much about lower math, just higher math.

Is that why you just type random strings out and call it math?

Maybe that explains why your corrections are wrong!

Interesting that you can't really point out the actual error. I mean, I've had plenty of math courses. I can handle any math you could throw at me.

But again, as I've proven time and again, I'm a whole lot more honest about myself than some people.

My my, talent on loan from God? (gives little pat on back)

Oh good, you're a Dittohead! that might explain your attitude and your general grasp of "facts".

 

[Mumbo]

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

grammar is the least of our problems. let's move on

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.

you're clouding the issue. the ring looks like a part of the supernova, which means the light from it must be identical, at least for our purposes, to the light from the supernova. appearances are everything.

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?

you're saying that there was a PAST STATE? color me surprised

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!

that was a fun thread too. remember the rebuttal i gave about galaxies rotating backwards if you're right? not a bad argument in my opinion, but later i couldn't find anything indicating that scientists know why galaxies rotate the way they do. sort of undermined my point.

fortunately, it doesn't matter what's causing the light in this instance. could be the death of a star, could be the birth of one, could be that God left a strobe light on. doesn't matter. something is causing the rings to regularly brighten and dim, and it's the light we're concerned with. we need not worry about the cause.

now, since i know you're not about to allow this argument to stay unconvoluted, just explain why the cause of the light is important. until you've managed to prove that, put the speculation on hold.

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.

cool idea, you should put it in God's suggestion box after you move into your mansion

let's go down the process you've laid out so far. the moment you arrive in heaven, you exercise your quasi-omnipotence and make a star. by a staggering coincidence, it shows up in the night sky during modern times. a gaggle of astronomers just so happen to spot it awhile later, but because everything in the distant heavens is evidently backwards, they see it as a dying star that went supernova long ago, leaving a few rings of matter behind. after observing it for awhile the astronomers, who are also dabbling mathematicians, triangulate the distance to the supernova using some simple calculations involving its rings and light, and use their findings to prove that the universe can't possibly be younger than 6000 years old. everything around you disappears in a puff of logic, including your nice new mansion. God is really mad at you.

did i miss anything?

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

um, okay

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??

if a star shines in the sky, and no one's around to see it, is it visible?
you're quite a philosopher, dad

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

at the end of the day, i'm more willing to say that you're wrong than i am to admit that you might make sense

 

[FishFace]

OK, I suppose a lot of things

Yes you do. Unevidenced.

Well, I don't know.

Thanks. Then I will go talk to someone who does know - namely, some scientists. They will tell me what they know about light, and you, presumably, will carry on not knowing anything about it.

 

[dad]

Actually I think I proved I might have.

You think you might have shown that W, as it represents the will of God, is not a modifier, and real factor in the world to come. OK.

You really need to pay attention to what you say. You aren't even bothering to defend your own posts anymore. You tell me the speeds are "W" then you tell me W isn't a speed. What does that mean?

It means, as I said, W represented the will of God, so that determines the speed of light of any particular star at any particular time in the forever state. So all things move at the speed of W! Fast or slow, so it determines all speed, not just the speed of one star's light. But that light does move at the speed of W! because it is W that made it go that fast, or not.

Words have meaning my friend. They really do. You need to learn before you speak next time.

This is news? Words like the will of God, etc.

Except you don't seem to understand it. You certainly haven't shown any real understanding of even simple algebra in this thread.

I posted the math, so it is not I that misunderstood it.

Remember, if you dislike something you should bother to understand it first.

Not really, I might dislike using an outhouse. That does not mean I need to spend years in there watching how it all breaks down, and gaging the odor level.

Is that why you just type random strings out and call it math?

No, the X represented something, as did everything else in there. The relationship to each other is only comprehended out of the fishbowl math limiters.

Interesting that you can't really point out the actual error. I mean, I've had plenty of math courses. I can handle any math you could throw at me.

OK, try this one. What is 2 plus two?? Do you really believe it must be four??

But again, as I've proven time and again, I'm a whole lot more honest about myself than some people.

Right, so you keep saying. Don't forget to remind us frequently of how smart you also think you are now!

Oh good, you're a Dittohead! that might explain your attitude and your general grasp of "facts".

Having listened to Rush a few times in the past, I don't think makes one that. Wouldn't that be a frequent listener, and one that tended to agree with most he said?? I simply heard it long enough to borrow a phrase.

 

[FishFace]

Thanks. I like math, I dislike 'geology'. Of course, as is obvious, I don't know much about lower math, just higher math.

You like maths? That's great. So do I. How would you go about proving that any list of prime numbers doesn't contain all prime numbers? Please define the derivative, and then prove that the derivative of sin(2x*x) = 4x*cos(2x*x).

Just to check how much you actually do like maths...

 

[dad]

grammar is the least of our problems. let's move on

Grammar places us in the right universe. Always a good place to start if you want to learn stuff.

you're clouding the issue. the ring looks like a part of the supernova, which means the light from it must be identical, at least for our purposes, to the light from the supernova. appearances are everything.

No, it represents an event that likely happened pre split, I would tend to think now. (no need to have it in split process, if the light from the past was not all uniform speed.) Getting that event to earth through time had to involve a different universe state.

you're saying that there was a PAST STATE? color me surprised

Must have been on some state or other, like heaven has to be. You think there was and will be nothing else? Color me noting you can't prove it.

that was a fun thread too. remember the rebuttal i gave about galaxies rotating backwards if you're right? not a bad argument in my opinion, but later i couldn't find anything indicating that scientists know why galaxies rotate the way they do. sort of undermined my point.

They rotate the way they rotated, and we only see them rotate now as they once did. It doesn't come in real time in this state.

fortunately, it doesn't matter what's causing the light in this instance. could be the death of a star, could be the birth of one, could be that God left a strobe light on. doesn't matter. something is causing the rings to regularly brighten and dim, and it's the light we're concerned with. we need not worry about the cause.

OK, but we do need to worry about the time it flashed.

now, since i know you're not about to allow this argument to stay unconvoluted, just explain why the cause of the light is important. until you've managed to prove that, put the speculation on hold.

The time that the light did what it did is all important. If light could do what we see it do, in a far faster way, then the rings do not represent the speed of present light. All we are left with then, is worrying about the light from the SN event getting here, that included some fast ring light action.

cool idea, you should put it in God's suggestion box after you move into your mansion

Well, some do get mansions, yes. He's loaded.

let's go down the process you've laid out so far. the moment you arrive in heaven, you exercise your quasi-omnipotence and make a star.

Well, no. I said that men might affect the way it shines, not create it. One assumes that they were already created. I suspect we just control the light switch to the stars and sun.

by a staggering coincidence, it shows up in the night sky during modern times. a gaggle of astronomers just so happen to spot it awhile later, but because everything in the distant heavens is evidently backwards, they see it as a dying star that went supernova long ago, leaving a few rings of matter behind.

No coincidence at all. What do you think signs are for, other than
for seeing???

after observing it for awhile the astronomers, who are also dabbling mathematicians, triangulate the distance to the supernova using some simple calculations involving its rings and light, and use their findings to prove that the universe can't possibly be younger than 6000 years old.

They look at how far it is, and how fast light moves now. They are missing the important ingredient in the equation.

if a star shines in the sky, and no one's around to see it, is it visible?
you're quite a philosopher, dad

It is visible when we see it. If it is turned of, you might think it dark matter or some such. You are quite a PO guesser.

 

[dad]

Yes you do. Unevidenced.



Thanks. Then I will go talk to someone who does know - namely, some scientists. They will tell me what they know about light, and you, presumably, will carry on not knowing anything about it.

They will tell you what they know of the fishbowl we live in. The box. And that is all they will tell you unless they resort to making stuff up, and calling it science.

 

[dad]

You like maths? That's great. So do I. How would you go about proving that any list of prime numbers doesn't contain all prime numbers? Please define the derivative, and then prove that the derivative of sin(2x*x) = 4x*cos(2x*x).

Just to check how much you actually do like maths...

Well, I don't like them that much. But I see there was a "sin" in there. Now, maybe you can help the other poster with the 2 plus two.

 

[FishFace]

They will tell you what they know of the fishbowl we live in. The box. And that is all they will tell you unless they resort to making stuff up, and calling it science.

So who does it befall to tell us the limits of the "box," dad? Certainly not you - you have no good reasons to believe in any of the box boundaries you cite. You give this split nonsense, but there is no good reason to believe it happened.

The 'box' may well be there - but if it is there, then it is almost certainly not where you think it is. If it is, then I wonder why you can't raise any good reasons.

 

[FishFace]

Well, I don't like them that much. But I see there was a "sin" in there. Now, maybe you can help the other poster with the 2 plus two.

Oops - dad exposes one more thing he can't do but implies he can.

 

[dad]

So who does it befall to tell us the limits of the "box," dad?

Depends on what the box is. If it is used, as I use the word, to denote a limited area, as related to PO science, then the limits are clear. Science admits it only covers the natural, the physical. Those are the limits of your fishbowl, those are the limits of your box. Clear and defined, and present, and incontestable by science.

... but there is no good reason to believe it happened.

Depends what you call good. I think that the bible is a good book. Therefore I have good reasons. Add to that the clear limits of science on the state of the universe in the future or far past, and we have good reason. Real good reason.

The 'box' may well be there - but if it is there, then it is almost certainly not where you think it is. If it is, then I wonder why you can't raise any good reasons.

Now, now, you are fading here. Get a grip.

 

[dad]

Oops - dad exposes one more thing he can't do but implies he can.

I like math, more than divining the rocks. So?? I am not too crazy about complicated math, though. That is in box math!

 

[Mumbo]

Grammar places us in the right universe. Always a good place to start if you want to learn stuff.

stop

No, it represents an event that likely happened pre split, I would tend to think now. (no need to have it in split process, if the light from the past was not all uniform speed.) Getting that event to earth through time had to involve a different universe state.

so what? that doesn't invalidate what i keep telling you

Must have been on some state or other, like heaven has to be. You think there was and will be nothing else? Color me noting you can't prove it.

don't start that. if i've got little evidence, you've got even less.

They rotate the way they rotated, and we only see them rotate now as they once did. It doesn't come in real time in this state.

come again?

OK, but we do need to worry about the time it flashed.

as it relates to the average speed of light, yes

The time that the light did what it did is all important. If light could do what we see it do, in a far faster way, then the rings do not represent the speed of present light. All we are left with then, is worrying about the light from the SN event getting here, that included some fast ring light action.

yes, that is exactly what the video refutes. welcome back to square 1

Well, no. I said that men might affect the way it shines, not create it. One assumes that they were already created. I suspect we just control the light switch to the stars and sun.

aah, that explains it. i thought the idea of people creating stars was a touch unbiblical.

It is visible when we see it. If it is turned of, you might think it dark matter or some such. You are quite a PO guesser.

pot, kettle, black

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

What you are missing is the extrapolationg of the sleeve which envelops the arm of present past state split-o-rama wamma-lamma-ding-dong. Once you factor in the tilt of the fishbowl bubbler with the pull carb you are left with the unavoidable conclusion that Zeus really did use lightning bolts at a snails crawl. The evidence for this is the irridescence of the gasoline on the past split prism of histronics.

I mean, c'mon. DON'T YOU SEE THE TRUTH!! Deflouride your water NOW!!!!

 

[dad]

so what? that doesn't invalidate what i keep telling you

Of course it does, or why would I mention it? If the universe was interactive with us, how would light in a SN be expected to be an exception?

don't start that. if i've got little evidence, you've got even less.

Not really. You have none.

come again?

In the created state, we likely could see stars in real time. Like a live radio show. What we see now is a snapshot of the past.

as it relates to the average speed of light, yes

When it flashed light was not a constant speed, is the idea here. So, how long the rings take to light up doesn't matter.

yes, that is exactly what the video refutes. welcome back to square 1

The video refutes a different universe state, where light moves as fast as we want it to, ...how. exactly??

aah, that explains it. i thought the idea of people creating stars was a touch unbiblical.

I think you are right.

pot, kettle, black

Most of the universe is missing to science today, by their own admission. Maybe it is like looking at a sign where the words keep changing.

The dark are may be dark now, but when the words change, it may be a part that is lit up.

 

[dad]

What you are missing is the extrapolationg of the sleeve which envelops the arm of present past state ...

No, you simply may not fly back in time in your head, by rewinding a universe state you have no idea about whether it existed or not. If that is all that is up your sleeve, it is a magic act that is long since worn thin.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you simply may not fly back in time in your head, by rewinding a universe state you have no idea about whether it existed or not. If that is all that is up your sleeve, it is a magic act that is long since worn thin.

But I have the Ace of Spacetime. Globbermalkin told me the truth of the blowfish on the fishbowl of split spacetime continuum. I have the tru-th, the real split. I don't need the Hubble telescope of long exposures when I have the instant coffee of Folger's crystal truth.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course it does, or why would I mention it? If the universe was interactive with us, how would light in a SN be expected to be an exception?

Because the Window's media player is not TRULY USER FRIENDLY!!!!! You think that your split tracks are compatible only to find that Supernova 1987.m4a won't play on any reality MP3 players. DON'T YOU SEE!!!!!

Reality is solid state, not removable RAM.

In the created state, we likely could see stars in real time. Like a live radio show. What we see now is a snapshot of the past.

That's the TV playing in the fishbowl. Cuckooooooo.

I'm a good driver.

When it flashed light was not a constant speed, is the idea here. So, how long the rings take to light up doesn't matter.

But the onion has rings in two dimensions that are obscured by the split before the fryer.

The video refutes a different universe state, where light moves as fast as we want it to, ...how. exactly??

Poncho agrees. Our universe is much more pleasant.

A SPINNING KNIGHT!!! ATTACK!!!!

 

[dad]

But I have the Ace of Spacetime. ...

If all you have is science you know squat about spacetime out of the box. Deal with it. I am not saying it is a bad thing. Just the reality demonstrated by you and others here.