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

[dad]

i had a feeling you'd say that. fine

anytime now!

i don't think i'll enquire further on this one


so the night sky is partially a moving frozen picture with blinking lights that appears to be going backwards in time. got it.

Well, the speed of present light is frozen in comparison with what the created state light can do. Of course. It need not be going backward in time that was one scenario. Since time and space were affected, we can ask questions like that, according to the evidences we see.

wait, no i don't. explain how time can appear to be both backwards and frozen simultaneously, please.

It is not frozen, things still move. But, as I said, in comparison with created state light, it is frozen. The bits we do see, like SNs far far away, we can question the appearance of time that filters down to earth. Of course. But I raised a few examples, meant to show how a changed universe easily explains light, not locked into a certain position dogmatically on it.

But, for the guy that started the thread, one would expect a bit more depth from you, than condescending vague pretend questions.

 

[dad]

By 3,000 BC the Greeks (including Minoans),Chinese, Mesopotamians, Hindus, Egyptians; all had developed writing.

Prove it. I say the dates are wrong. It is east to tell stories, but let's see the proof of the pudding.

 

[dad]

Wrong, actually. Science covers anything observable and testable. You have any reliable method for discerning facts about what isn't observable or testable?

All that is observable and testable to a science that deals only in the natural and physical, is, of course, within the scope of that puny mandate.

Even if I accepted what you claim are those limits, you still don't know where or when the box boundaries lie. You claim it was about 4,000 years ago. Evidence is needed.

The limist of a physical only, present natural box are clear. Observation in the past only goes back so far. I do know when that was.
By the way, I never said it was 4000 years ago. I estimated the universe change at about 4400.

I think the Lord of the Rings is a good book, but I don't believe in hobbits.

Great, I think the origin of the species is a lousy book, and I don't believe in the Pond. So??

 

[dad]

Haha, I knew this would happen. Anything you claim or imply you have any prowess in, it turns out that your skill lies only "out of the box!" Hey, you know what - I can charm snakes... out of the box! Turns out that if you give me a snake in the real world i just get bitten but you'll just have to trust me on this one - I'm a real good snake charmer.

You like maths. Pfft.

I never claimed you imagined prowess in math, especially of the kind you have in mind. I said, in comparison to geology, I like math. That was qualified in saying I dislike complicated math, but like simple math, and higher math. Where higher is the simple math beyond the limits of PO math.

 

[dad]

Which constant is that please?
(And what are its units)

I see no present universe state constants, such as gravity or light, that need to have been the same in the past. In other words, they came to exist as is in our universe state, when it came to be. No change is required since then. The problem is that you have assume this is the only nature, the only state of the universe there was or will be. (possible with the exception of the early big bang nonsense, where the laws of physics break down, as they fantasize so hard!)

 

[dad]

Actually way back in Post 78 you showed a pretty alarming lack of even simple basic algebra. This is junior high level mathematics.

You prefer to make W a PO quantity. So??? Tough.

I fear that we have really gotten to a better understanding of you, Dad. Your thought that you can "convince" people you are clever or knowledgable or can bully your way through these debates fails when you can't even understand the simple things you are debating against.

One need not be clever or knowledgeable to see the flaws in the claims of PO science. The fact you think anyone claims to be so, simply denotes a flawed perception. One, that usually includes a worshipping of education, and telling us how smart you think you are, I might add.

Sure Fish brought up concepts like "derivatives" etc. But your original math was very much like what we see when a child wants to sound like they know math so they whirr up some of the math words.

Well, how hard is it to assign a few stars a letter??? get serious.

Actually Dad, you didn't post math. You posted symbols and letters without any real understanding. Then you tried to use big math words and equations. Most of which didn't even follow simple multiplication and division rules.

They were meant to represent the heaven state of the universe, where light does not have a constant speed, and W is not behaving the way you want to crunch your silly numbers. Deal with it.

Do I really need to point out that A*B/C does not equal C*B? That's simple algebra. You clearly don't understand it.

Well, I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Is that OK?? My simple math represented some actual reality, and truth. Yours seems more like B*S

Does it matter to you that you just said:
A*A*B=A*B?

I said that? I think that is more of the above.

Please, dad, learn some of the concepts before posting. We can all see exactly how much you like math and how skilled you are in math in general.

I know you feel that ad hominem attacks are your only hope, but give the rest of the readers here a break, and deal in actual issues and points.

(Oh, and if there's anything in the PO universe that would reflect the "mind of God" or some transcendent "super-reality" OUTSIDE of the "Fishbowl", it would be mathematics. The most pure form of reasoning. Without it, then you are as lost as any of us stuck in the fishbowl.)

Really? I used to think something close to that till you opened your mouth. Now it is becoming clearer that your numbers can't add up.

 

[dad]

How can something be "pretty close" to infinite?

Well, where infinite speed means no time at all, pretty close to that means very little time at all. So, if something crossed the universe in a day, that would be pretty close to infinite speed, as I call it.

 

[dad]

So dragons are real, too?

I mean, A Song of Ice and Fire is a rare good book series. And hey, it has dragons in it! So I guess I have good reasons to believe in dragons.

(Bah, Fish beat me.)

Yes, there were dragons, I would think. There still is at least one dragon, the devil, but he seems to possibly be in heaven a lot of the time accusing us before God.

 

[dad]

Actually, Supernova 1987A didn't just turn on; if we looked at that spot in the sky before then we would have seen a star. No supernova blinking into existance. So dad's completely wrong there, we didn't just see the light from it in 1987, 1987 was only when the post-supernova light reached us.

Well, it turned on to our noticing it, like a sign is supposed to do. Besides, if it was the creation of a star in a time reversal event, we would expect to see the created star before!!!

 

[dad]

We see it because the light is reaching us from however light yeas it may be away. Like anything, it takes the light time to travel since it has a finite velocity. If the speed of light was farther it'd be the same amount of light years away, but it'd be more miles away, since the light year depends on the speed of light if the speed of light changes so does the length of a light year. However if the speed of light changed then the total expansion would be different, and would so require a different time span for it to occur. We only sense the speed of light we do becasue it is one of the few speeds that will allow the interactions that go on the universe to create life. Ie if it was a different speed of light, we wouldn't be around to measure it so it might as well not exist. Which links on to a fundamental practice in QM that if it can't be measured in some way directly or indirectly it doesn't exist.

Well, it now has a finite velocity, because we live in a finite state. Assuming that into infinity is wrong.

 

[FishFace]

Frankly, not half as scary as his scary older brother; the triple-integral.

I have yet to have the pleasure. Calculus is multivariable at the moment though, so...!

Like I said, I bow in awe of those for whom math is an easier task. Anyone who can major in math in college has my respsect.
I find I love the mathematical concepts and have some slight facility with the ideas (for instance I feel quite at home with fourier transforms of various signals and what it tells us about periodic fluctuations vs random noise), but I am slow at making change at the grocery store.

That afflicts all good mathematicians - although it's a necessary, not sufficient condition.

(PS: Fish, with a co-degree in Philosophy and Mathematics, you could probably make a pretty decent living as a Patent Attorney (once you get your JD or the English equivalent). In the states Patent law takes in a LOT of scientists and almost all (if not all) patent agents have science or technical degrees, and probably most patent attorneys. So, if you want to sell-out big time, join the Law!)

Our sell-out option is generally pushed as management consultancy. The only non-sell-out option I know of (apart from being an academic - and I doubt I'm clever enough) is teaching.

 

[FishFace]

Sorry but that doesn't make any sense as an explaination.

The other poster who answered used the diameter of the nova in light years to show that if light was faster then it would be larger and therefore even more distant. That makes more sense.

If the speed of light were faster, that means the distance from supernova to the ring of ejecta is greater (because it takes 8 months for the latter to light up after the former has - speed is distance/time, d = s*t, therefore increasing s increases d) however, we know the angle between the line drawn from the earth to the supernova, and the line drawn from the earth to the ring.
Now, if we make that distance larger, but we keep the angle the same, the only way of doing that is by making the other sides of the triangle longer.
Now, the video omitted the details of the trig: here we go!

The angle is 0.808 arcseconds. The distance from ring to nova at the current speed of light is d=s*t = 2.99 million m/s * 8 months = 6.3*10^15 m.
Now, we have an angle, the side opposite it, and we want to find the adjacent side.
tan(angle) = opposite/adjacent.
opposite/tan(0.808 arcseconds) = adjacent = 1.61*10^21 m. (170 000 light years, so not a bad calculation given the accuracy of the numbers we have)

OK, so suppose the speed of light were actually 30 times that. We perform the same calculation but the opposite side now measures 30*2.99 million m/s * 8 months. Do the calculation yourself - you'll get about 4.77 billion light years.

 

[FishFace]

All that is observable and testable to a science that deals only in the natural and physical, is, of course, within the scope of that puny mandate.

No, science deals with anything observable and testable. "Physical" and "natural" are unnecessary conditions.

The limist of a physical only, present natural box are clear. Observation in the past only goes back so far. I do know when that was.
By the way, I never said it was 4000 years ago. I estimated the universe change at about 4400.

Prove it.

Great, I think the origin of the species is a lousy book, and I don't believe in the Pond. So??

Actually it's entirely irrelevant - the Bible doesn't say anything about the split.

 

[FishFace]

I never claimed you imagined prowess in math, especially of the kind you have in mind. I said, in comparison to geology, I like math. That was qualified in saying I dislike complicated math, but like simple math, and higher math. Where higher is the simple math beyond the limits of PO math.

Maths is maths, dad. "PO" is physical-only, right? Sorry, but maths doesn't depend on physics. No matter what kind of la-la land you come from, maths is based on proof, proof based on reason, and reason doesn't change depending on whether you think out of the box or not.

 

[FishFace]

I see no present universe state constants, such as gravity or light, that need to have been the same in the past. In other words, they came to exist as is in our universe state, when it came to be. No change is required since then. The problem is that you have assume this is the only nature, the only state of the universe there was or will be. (possible with the exception of the early big bang nonsense, where the laws of physics break down, as they fantasize so hard!)

I asked what the constant was, and what the units were.
You didn't answer.
You lose.

 

[Soul Searcher]

I basically said the same thing but without actually linking it directly to the example lol.

I basically said that if the speed of light increases then the distance must increase since distance = speed * time.

You left out the size factor though which was key. The fact that the size was measured in LY means that if light is faster then the size is larger and that would place it farther away from us than we had thought. Which would mean it could still be the same number of light years away but the result would be more miles. However without the size factor we could not get that more distant value and would be left to assume that it was actually closer than we thought rather than more distant.

Does that make sense?

 

[dad]

No, science deals with anything observable and testable. "Physical" and "natural" are unnecessary conditions.

"
1. the systematic observation of natural events and conditions in order to discover facts about them and to formulate laws and principles based on these facts."

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/1122sciencedefns.html

Note below, nothing refers to anything spiritual.

"Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:

• Natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and
• Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
"
Science Definition

[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
The word [COLOR=blue ! important][COLOR=blue ! important]science[/COLOR][/COLOR] comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."[/SIZE]
http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

You have no knowledge of a same state past or future universe. Period.

Prove it.

I offered Dodwell's curve recently. That takes historical data, and observations of stars, and where they were, basically in various phases of our past. The data puts the change that happened about that very time. I also have often shown how the bible tells of differences that mandate a different state in the future and past.

Actually it's entirely irrelevant - the Bible doesn't say anything about the split.

Yes, it clearly tells of a fairly abrupt change, and when.

 

[dad]

If the speed of light were faster,...

I wonder if the universe change would leave light, at various speeds it may have been moving, all at the present light speed? If so, that means that present light speed is no indication of past speed. Amazing. In other words C is not = to L (where L is the true state light)

In light of this, SN is simply pretty, and a good lesson in man not knowing what he is talking about, and not predicting what came about, and having what they did predict be shown false!!!! What a scream. Welcome to the new math, Fishface.

Here is one fellow that seems to think they were less than bang on!

"On the contrary, Supernova 1987A illuminates only how poorly the theory of supernova explosions fits the observations.

The official explanatory illustration above is conjectural and relies (again) on invisible matter that the star is supposed to have conveniently pre-released in just the right places and filamentary form to produce the observed effects. To say, "the predicted spectacular brightening of the circumstellar ring" is disingenuous. Neither the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring was predicted from theory. "The Hubble images of the rings are quite spectacular and unexpected," said Dr. Chris Burrows of the European Space Agency and the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, when first discovered. "This is an unprecedented and bizarre object. We have never seen anything behave like this before." The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front.

There is a more fundamental problem with SN1987A. The star at the center was found to have been a "blue supergiant." But a supernova explosion is thought to require a ten-times bigger red supergiant star. There is no evidence that SK-69 was a red supergiant star, emitting a massive stellar wind. The history of the star is not based on observation, it is a fabrication required by the theory. "
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1
(although the site in general seems to have a point to try and prove, I doubt this bit is far off the mark?)

This is so easy.

 

[Patashu]

Soul Searcher, think of it like this.

Whatever speed light was when the star went supernova, the ring is 8 months travel by light away from the center, since its light fluctuations lag consistently 8 months behind the fluctuations of the center. So we'll call the radius 0.87 LY.
We can see how much of the sky the supernova takes up in arc seconds, and it's not much of a stretch to convert it into an angle.
Now draw a triangle with one point at the ring's edge, one point in the center and one point at Earth. By trigonometry, the distance to supernova 1987A is equal to 0.67ly*cos(angle)/sin(angle). This means that the distance from Earth to supernova 1987A is directly proportional to the speed of light when the supernova occured; no matter how fast light was travelling it has to have taken the same amount of time to get here.

By the way, dad, the post you just made is arguing about how SN1987A was formed, not how long ago it was formed. Even if it did come about differently then current scientific theory says it should that is something altogether different from the subject at hand.

 

[tanzanos]

DAD! It seems that your faith is wavering. Hold on because I depend on your ability to adhere to your faith. Keep it up and I may let you see the evidence of when writing was first invented. Of course the final permission will have to come from God. I promise to put in a good word for you thus securing permission for you to see the evidence!