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

[dad]

Actually what Fish was alluding to is what is known as Fermat's Last Theorem. You may have not heard about it. It is well above "baby math".

OK, and does that say how to calculate what from everlasting to everlasting is??

Here's what I could find about the proof of the theorem. (Don't get confused by all the big words, it's pretty difficult stuff to understand.)[/quote]
"In 1985, Leonard Adleman and Roger Heath-Brown proved there exist infinitely many primes p such that if xp + yp = zp for some integers then xyz is divisible by p."
But what if xp and the rest are not divisible by p, if p is not always the same? And what is p compared to infinity? And even if they theorize infinity, they can't give us a number for it.
And what does any of that drivel have to do with light speed in the SN in the deep past?? Or it it all about you trying to sound clever now??

 

[dad]

Well go on!

Someone told me you were a math student.

Actually infinity is not real. (I'll leave you to work out what I mean.)

Yes it is.

Oh, we have the maths for infinity (though I doubt you'd understand.)

I didn't ask for maths. I asked for a number.

Nono, you can't add one thing to a completely different kind of thing. Adding the number infinity (which doesn't exist) to eternity It's like asking what's four plus an apple. Makes no sense.

To you. My point exactly.

If you don't even understand baby math, what does that make you.

A grown up.

Because they have been proven. For example, the prime numbers:
Consider any set of prime numbers. Multiply all the prime numbers together and add one. Dividing by any of the primes would leave a remainder of one (I can prove this too if you like) hence this new number is not divisible by any of the primes in the set. Every number can be decomposed into a product of prime numbers (I can prove that if you want) so either this new number is a prime we didn't have before, its prime decomposition requires a prime we didn't have before. Either way, we need a new prime, so all finite sets of primes are "missing" at least one prime. Hence there are infinitely many primes.

But you assume all numbers are finite?

This cannot be "unproven" by merely changing the facts of the universe.

Changing the finite universe changes the numbers.

Your maths lessons evidently didn't go much better did they!

On the bright side, they didn't last that long either.

 

[dad]

the moment you find real evidence for any of your theories, give me a call. make sure it isn't just speculation first though, you've been known to get the two confused occasionally

It is your theories that are myth, the bible is absolute. I found Dodwell's curve, and history as well. What more could one want??

i am questioning it, and you still haven't given an interpretable answer; if light used to move whatever speed it pleased, how is it that the universe looks so orderly? are we viewing it through gigantic corrective lenses?

If the stars we were supposed to see at the advent of the universe change were in the sky, how is it they would be disorderly??

a changed universe easily explains everything, and if it doesn't, you can always add a few more changes. the more convoluted the better, i say

A different universe really does explain things. We don't need to know it all at the moment, but that sure covers it all.
Ever notice that bible wizs don't bug me on the idea much?? There is a reason.

it's a bit late in the game for that, i've been confused into submission for a couple days now

There ought to be a diploma for that.

 

[dad]

My claim was if ghosts/spirits/whathaveyou exist they can be scientifically studied.

Prove that? It seems perfectly tautological to me. Science is about studying the reality we can observe and interact with, after all.

That doesn't include spirits, if you notice. Face it, science just knows squat about that, and is unable to get any sort of grip on them.

 

[dad]

I'm making stuff up? I'm speculating mindlessly? I'd hate to see what you'd call what you're doing. There's nothing spiritual about the universe, all our memories and experiences are just chemical and electrical changes in the brain. I can accept this and make the most of life knowing it. Why there's a need for something spiritual I don't unbderstand.

You were led down the garden path there. Christians have seen dead people talk, memories and all. Look at Moses and Elijah on the mountain. Or Jesus after He rose from the dead. No chemicals involved.

You still have no evidence of a split. Occam's Razor favours a continuance of the same laws of physics both into the past and future,

Only in the sense, that you don't have to think, then. But in fact, you need to think a whole lot harder, to cook up a creation from a hot little soup, and all life from a thermal vent, etc. About as far from the simplest logic as possible.

show me the consequences of a "split" and evidence showing this and I'll weight the two in my mind and consider which to take as the best hypothesis to describe our universe.

Shorter lifespans, different life processes, and evolving ability, different light, different languages, different atomic relationships like decay, different plants growth rates, climate, gravity, properties of matter (like cooling fast, in the continental separation), etc etc etc.
Oh, and the observations of real people over time on where the stars were, as in Dodwell's curve.

 

[sinan90]

You were led down the garden path there. Christians have seen dead people talk, memories and all. Look at Moses and Elijah on the mountain. Or Jesus after He rose from the dead. No chemicals involved.

And where is the proof of this outside the bible?

Only in the sense, that you don't have to think, then. But in fact, you need to think a whole lot harder, to cook up a creation from a hot little soup, and all life from a thermal vent, etc. About as far from the simplest logic as possible.

Actually I think a creator entity would be more unlikely, since they would have to have knowledge of all the laws of physics, which would support life which wouldn't etc, Then the biological knowhow to actually create living things. Spontaneously combining chemicals seem much more likely than that.

Shorter lifespans, different life processes, and evolving ability, different light, different languages, different atomic relationships like decay, different plants growth rates, climate, gravity, properties of matter (like cooling fast, in the continental separation), etc etc etc.

And your evidence for this being the case?

Oh, and the observations of real people over time on where the stars were, as in Dodwell's curve.

And those differences are already documented by the well known process of precession.

 

[dad]

And where is the proof of this outside the bible?

Well, such stories of life after death are worldwide. But I prefer the Christian record, I know I can trust. It was passed down to us in a sacred way.

Actually I think a creator entity would be more unlikely, since they would have to have knowledge of all the laws of physics, which would support life which wouldn't etc, Then the biological knowhow to actually create living things. Spontaneously combining chemicals seem much more likely than that.

God having know how versus billions of years of cosmic flukes that slap intelligent things together. What a contest.

And your evidence for this being the case?

Both the bible, and Sumerian records have long lifespans, add the Egyptian records for gods and spirit beings, but generally science can't do the past. The bible can, and does, and did, and it says it was quite a different place.

And those differences are already documented by the well known process of precession.

Dodwell's is based on hundreds of real historical observations.

"
J. N. Stockwell, in 1873, accurately calculated the history of the tilt of the axis for the last 70,000 years (assuming that history went back that far), based on all known forces. He also projected it for the next 70,000 years. These calculations were fit into an empirical formula and published by Simon Newcomb. Newcomb's formula has been accepted for many years as the international standard. Although Newcomb's formula accounts for all known forces, it ignores the data that have been gathered since antiquity. The data depart drastically from Newcomb's formula.
These data were recorded by a number of outstanding ancients. Among them were Thales, Hipparchus, Eudoxus, Ptolemy and Pythagoras. It has been easy for modern astronomers to examine one or another of the data, and to assume that the ancient measurement was crude enough to be in error. At first glance the "errors" seem small. Pythagoras measured the tilt in 515 BC as 24 degrees, 0 minutes, 0 seconds. Newcomb's formula gives 23 degrees, 45 minutes, 30 seconds. Indeed one could easily be misled into considering this difference of 0 degrees, 14 minutes, 30 seconds as being insignificant. But careful examination reveals that in measuring the sun's shadow, such an error would require Pythagoras to have made an error of 1.9 inches in 15 feet. Such a large error would have prevented him from confirming his famous Pythagorean Theorem, and is very unlikely.
In 1936 the late South Australian Government Astronomer George F. Dodwell made an amazing discovery. He examined hundreds of data, many of which were very ancient, and found that they correlated, giving a consistent pattern of history differing from Newcomb's formula. Rather than random departures, the data show a consistently greater angle of tilt in respect to Newcomb, the farther back in antiquity. (See Fig. 2) (These data were most recently reported by Barry Setterfield1 based on Dodwell's unpublished manuscript.)

These data are compelling. They represent a history of change in the tilt due to some force no longer present, and a recovery to the present behavior, equilibrium occurring about 1850.
It is highly inaccurate to depict the ancients as ignorant of the mechanics of the solar system. Not only were the measurements of the axis of the earth made on a regular basis in a wide variety of ancient cultures, but other important observations were made as well, leading to predictions of new moons, and to some degree, eclipses. For example, the circumference of the earth was measured to better than 25 miles of its presently-known value by Eratosthenes in 230 BC.
The first significance of these data is that they compel us to reject the idea that the earth's axis has followed a pattern based on all known forces (uniformitarianism). Rather, the axis has been recovering from a significant singular event, probably occurring at the time of the flood reported in the Bible, and associated with Noah. Some authors1 will attempt to explain the event that caused the disturbance. Perhaps that can be done. The important point is that we know it occurred. The data are compelling."



whttp://ww.tccsa.tc/articles/precession.html

 

[FishFace]

Someone told me you were a math student.

Correct! But you're the one claiming there is a "formula for light." I'm not.

Yes it is.

Really - it isn't!

I didn't ask for maths. I asked for a number.

But infinity is not a number; infinity is a behaviour and a size (depending on context.) Argue all you like: infinity just isn't a (real) number. If it were a real number then you would be able to find another real number larger than it. But infinity is by definition larger than all real numbers, so we have a contradiction - hence infinity is not a real number.

To you. My point exactly.

So what do you get when you do "four plus apple" on your calculator? Or on your fingers, or in your head, I don't care. Still makes no sense.

A grown up.

But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

Never mind. A grown up mathematician should still be able to understand baby maths - so you are neither.

But you assume all numbers are finite?

All numbers are finite by definition. You forget that in maths, the only assumptions are definitions. Your complaint is like saying, "but you assume that whenever you add two integers you get another integer!" No - that's part of what it means to be an integer.
Likewise, part of what it means to be a real number is to be finite.

Changing the finite universe changes the numbers.

Tell us how. What would happen in the universe to make 2+2 not equal 4?

On the bright side, they didn't last that long either.

That would explain something.

 

[SmurfsRcool]

Hi dad... Just wondering what your definition of a deceiver is?

 

[thaumaturgy]

OK, and does that say how to calculate what from everlasting to everlasting is??

No, it's a way to prove what Fish alluded to in his post. It's a big-boy and big-girl issue that people like Fish understand. You see, they go to school to get the training to help them understand that.

Remember when Fish said:

I already told you, maths is maths. You can't change the universe to make 2+2=5, and whatever happens to the universe, there will still be an infinite set of prime numbers, and there will be no integer solutions to the equation a^n+b^n=c^n for n>2.

And you responded with:

How would you know??? All you know is that you are stuck, and assume all will be forever. Not grounded in a lot, that.

Well, that's an answer as to how Fish knows that! Fish has gone to school to learn those important bits of information.

Now, I'll admit I don't much understand the detailed proof of Fermat's last theorem and it amazed me that it proved out using such advanced information when Fermat's note indicated he had a great proof for it way back in the 1600's! Yet it took more than 300 years to prove it out!

Isn't that interesting? Fermat must have been a very smart person. He lived a long time ago in a country called FRANCE. He was a lawyer and a mathematician.

(See, Fish, I told you you could sell out big time and be a lawyer!)

You don't have to understand it, but you did say:

Honestly, I tire of your baby math.

Which means that you must be beyond this "baby math". I was just giving you some big-person math that you could talk to Fish about. He could probably teach you quite a bit about this.

And what does any of that drivel have to do with light speed in the SN in the deep past?? Or it it all about you trying to sound clever now??

No, I'm simply trying to answer your questions. You asked how Fish knew about Fermat's last Theorem.

Remember, if you ask a question don't get mad if someone answers it for you. It's hurtful to call the answer you asked for "drivel". You can ask a lot of questions. That's a GOOD thing. But when someone answers them for you, please don't be a cranky boy. We are here to help you learn. I'm just answering your questions. The questions YOU asked.

Have a good day!

 

[tanzanos]

After proving to DAD that he does not believe in the validity of the bible; he leaves me no choice but to declare myself vindicated on the 5,000 year old written records.

Winning is a lot more than what they say

 

[dad]

Correct! But you're the one claiming there is a "formula for light." I'm not.

No, I simply noted that a math wiz ought to be able to come up with some little formula for the non constant former light. In other words, using two stars, each with a different speed that day.

Really - it isn't!

Is to, nya nya.

But infinity is not a number; infinity is a behaviour and a size (depending on context.)

A behavior?? Are you sure it might not be something more like a measurement of time, that is beyond our current ability to comprehend?

Argue all you like: infinity just isn't a (real) number.

How would you know, you don't so much as know what it is?

If it were a real number then you would be able to find another real number larger than it.

In box thinking. If i (infinity) = something that is beyond any number in our universe, how would you make a bigger one?

But infinity is by definition larger than all real numbers, so we have a contradiction - hence infinity is not a real number.

Maybe, but what is real in a temporary universe really can't hold infinity, now can it???

So what do you get when you do "four plus apple" on your calculator? Or on your fingers, or in your head, I don't care. Still makes no sense.

I don't do baby math.

But Jesus called the children to him and said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

Never mind. A grown up mathematician should still be able to understand baby maths - so you are neither.

A grown up person would recognize temporal state math as baby math. When I was a child, I acted as a child...

All numbers are finite by definition.

As defined by a finite thinker in the fishbowl of this finite universe state. So?

You forget that in maths, the only assumptions are definitions. Your complaint is like saying, "but you assume that whenever you add two integers you get another integer!" No - that's part of what it means to be an integer.

Integers are all fine and dandy, long as we realize they only calculate as far as the fringes of the box.

Likewise, part of what it means to be a real number is to be finite.

I understand you think so, naturally.

Tell us how. What would happen in the universe to make 2+2 not equal 4?

Relax, 2 = 2 is four. I simply wanted to see if that was any sort of stumper for you.

That would explain something.

Hey, it's what I do. Explain stuff.

 

[dad]

After proving to DAD that he does not believe in the validity of the bible; he leaves me no choice but to declare myself vindicated on the 5,000 year old written records.

Winning is a lot more than what they say

Not sure of the point here. You claimed that, I think it was, languages go back 5500 years, no??? You were asked to prove it, and could not. Instead you seem to insinuate that you lean to the bible record???
If you do, then realize that the tower of babel was not that long ago, and that is where languages began.

 

[dad]

No, it's a way to prove what Fish alluded to in his post. It's a big-boy and big-girl issue that people like Fish understand. You see, they go to school to get the training to help them understand that.

Right. Sure, big boy, now don't cry. Baby math is just fine in Romper Room.

Remember when Fish said:

Well, I understand what he said, and that he alluded to the obvious fact that 2+2 does not = 5. Glad you were real impressed by that.

And you responded with:


Well, that's an answer as to how Fish knows that! Fish has gone to school to learn those important bits of information.

Try and pay attention, Thau This is what I referred to, in the quote
"there will still be an infinite set of prime numbers"

Now, I'll admit I don't much understand the detailed proof of Fermat's last theorem

Great. Well, thanks for stopping by, and trying to make fun of others you think do not understand it either. As for me, I couldn't care less about either way. Will that help them when we order them to clean up the planet when the millennium starts?? I prefer baby knowledge to be at least useful.

and it amazed me that it proved out using such advanced information when Fermat's note indicated he had a great proof for it way back in the 1600's! Yet it took more than 300 years to prove it out!

Great, and so you still don't understand it you admit! Fat lot of good it seems to have done. Doesn't seem to take much to impress you.

Isn't that interesting? Fermat must have been a very smart person. He lived a long time ago in a country called FRANCE. He was a lawyer and a mathematician.

Oh, an honest lawyer, as well as one who likes puzzles that waste a lot of time? Great.

(See, Fish, I told you you could sell out big time and be a lawyer!)

Right, you are full of advice to. How nice.

You don't have to understand it, but you did say:



Which means that you must be beyond this "baby math". I was just giving you some big-person math that you could talk to Fish about. He could probably teach you quite a bit about this.

True. So? I can't deny being beyond baby math.

No, I'm simply trying to answer your questions. You asked how Fish knew about Fermat's last Theorem.

OK, so it is not topical. OK.

Remember, if you ask a question don't get mad if someone answers it for you. It's hurtful to call the answer you asked for "drivel".

Maybe you could concentrate on answering what is actually asked. The result, likely would be topical.

 

[Patashu]

Not sure of the point here. You claimed that, I think it was, languages go back 5500 years, no??? You were asked to prove it, and could not. Instead you seem to insinuate that you lean to the bible record???
If you do, then realize that the tower of babel was not that long ago, and that is where languages began.

What did they speak before the Tower of Babel?
Have any remanents of this been uncovered archaeologically?

 

[dad]

What did they speak before the Tower of Babel?
Have any remanents of this been uncovered archaeologically?

They all spoke the same language. That was right after the flood. I think some have guessed as to where in the historical area it was, that the tower may have been started.
But I consider the fact that Egypt resorted to basically communicating with pictures as proof.

 

[Patashu]

They all spoke the same language. That was right after the flood. I think some have guessed as to where in the historical area it was, that the tower may have been started.
But I consider the fact that Egypt resorted to basically communicating with pictures as proof.

I know the idea is that they all spoke the same language. What language was it?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I know the idea is that they all spoke the same language. What language was it?

Elvish of course.

 

[SmurfsRcool]

dad could I please have your definition of a deceiver please???

 

[thaumaturgy]

They all spoke the same language. That was right after the flood. I think some have guessed as to where in the historical area it was, that the tower may have been started.
But I consider the fact that Egypt resorted to basically communicating with pictures as proof.

The Egyptians were a highly developed society. They weren't just communicating with "pictures" any more than the Chinese just communicate with pictures. That's why it isn't immediately obvious what the text is just by looking at the pictures. That's why we needed to find the ROSETTA STONE to help us decipher heiroglyphics.

If it was just as simple as "communicating with pictures", you wouldn't need to "translate" it! I don't think it's like they degraded go communicating simple "bird hippo sun" when they wanted to talk to each other. It was one of the earlier written languages and most of the oldest ones evolve from pictographs. Even the LATIN ALPHABET like we use today has origins in Phoenecian pictograms if I recall my world history classes! I believe the letter A is an upside down representation of the phoenecian symbol for cow...which is what it kinda looks like if you turn it upside down! Check it out here (it's also related to the Hebrew letter aleph).

The Egyptians used pictographs, or heiroglyphics as you may have heard in school.

The heiroglyphics could stand for a person, concept or could be combined to form words. They also had SOUNDS associated with them much like letters in our language today.

Egyptian heiroglyphics are one of the oldest languages in the world!

The Egyptian language has almost 5000 more years of recorded history than any other human language(SOURCE)

You can learn more about HEIROGLYPHICS here.

There's a lot to learn out there! But we can't just say what we think is true without taking some time to pay attention to what experts in the field have learned from their many many years of study!

Learning is cool!