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

[dad]

Now, would your teachers like it when you call someone a "pusshead"? And just because they were attempting to provide you with some information?

That isn't nice at all.

That was in reference to a type of person. Did you think this was all about you??

 

[dad]

If the speed of light is not constant, then how come we can only measure it at one speed (dependant on the medium)?
I mean, take and object 6,000 light years away.

I would think it is constant at the moment, in this temporary universe. But, if that has only been here for, say, 4500 years, and the light before was not constant, why, all that we can say is constant is our present light.

If light set off faster than c, why is it now only traveling at c?

It was not our light, in a present state universe that set off.

Compare this with light from the edge of the visable universe, it is still travelling at c. How can they all slow daown at the same time, irrespective of how fast they were travelling before?

Well, one assumes that this universe has light that can travel at a certain speed, how would it matter what part of the universe?? What part of a universe would a universe change not affect???

But, I do notice that no one really got into proving that the rings light up as a direct result of the SN core?? That would be a simple cross check, that the far away universe operates the same. Otherwise, some may wonder if only part of the universe is as we claim and know.

 

[Mumbo]

You posit what about the former state, then? That the light was more than photons????

not important, drop it please

Well, good point. But let's have a quick review. There is the issue of the rings. I have asked how we know that light went from the core to the ring and saw no reply.

can you think of a better explanation for the systematic brightening and darkening of the ring? it's incredibly unlikely that light from the core is not responsible for this, even by your standards

I have asked how fast we observe core to ring light to be. No reply.

it appears to us to travel that distance in 2/3 of the year. the precise speed is irrelevant, for reasons that we've already discussed

So I raised the possibility that the ring light may have been an event that was carried to earth at greater than present speeds, as a result of the universe change.

which is precisely what the video discusses and disproves

If that were the case, then the two need to be looked at separately. (ring light and sn to earth light.) That is because the split may have started in some places first, and took some time to be universal.
The other issue is whether or not we even are sure that the light there is present state? (I await the data that we have from core to ring, if any)

this has a huge number of implications, which i can't even begin to wrap my head around. congrats dad, i didn't doubt you for a moment

The other possibility is that the ring to core light may have been faster or slower, but now, all light appears the same, because it now is in this universe state. So, in fact, it does not defeat my point(s)

again, this is precisely the condition that the video assumes

 

[dad]

not important, drop it please

can you think of a better explanation for the systematic brightening and darkening of the ring? it's incredibly unlikely that light from the core is not responsible for this, even by your standards

Well if the facts speak for themselves, there will be no need to think of a better explanation, now will there? It will pan out as being demonstrably PO state. Which is fine. You ain't even there yet.

it appears to us to travel that distance in 2/3 of the year. the precise speed is irrelevant, for reasons that we've already discussed

Well, no, it is relevant. Appears is a funny word. You need to do a lot better than that.

which is precisely what the video discusses and disproves

Well, then you can tell us why as we go along, from that video, no??

this has a huge number of implications, which i can't even begin to wrap my head around. congrats dad, i didn't doubt you for a moment

No problem. Implications are fun.

again, this is precisely the condition that the video assumes

Well, assume is a funny word. You will need to do better than that to establish this stuff as solid science. Remember, you are at a handicap here, because science messed it up so bad already on this, by not predicting, and predicting wrongly. They scrambled to cook up a cohesive explanation after the fact, but are still missing black holes and neutron stars, etc.
It isn't just a gaping shotgun hole in the heart of their theories here, it is a black hole. (however imaginary, they are the ones that put it there in their heads)

 

[thaumaturgy]

That was in reference to a type of person. Did you think this was all about you??

If you want to insult someone, Dad, be man enough to own up to it.

 

[dad]

If you want to insult someone, Dad, be man enough to own up to it.

If I want to insult you, you will be one of the first to know. But, of course, if the shoe fits, far be it from me to ask you not to wear it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Thanks for pointing that out. But, on the bright side, their little baby math terms and etc

"and etc" is redundant. The phrase "et cetera" means "and so forth" or "and other things", so to say "and etc" is to say "and and other things".

That's something else you could learn!

So, PO V factors in here. Surprised, I am not. Just remember to keep the PO V in this universe state, now, at least.

That's clever! I bet you are trying to make what is called a PUN on "point of view", or "POV". Very clever of you to see all those letters.

Of course that isn't what we are talking about here. You need to keep focused if you are going to learn.

Well, I don't think of forever state light as a wave, is that OK??

Then what is it? Why don't you think it is a wave?

(And another thing, in english when we end an INTERROGATIVE (a question) we normally use only one "?" mark. Now sometimes people use several to show that they are quite puzzled and almost shocked to ask.

You do it all the time, which is understandable because you don't seem to know much, so everything is new to you. Including english grammar!

There you go! One MORE thing to learn!

But we can think of present light that way, long as we don't go getting into things quantum.

If you have trouble with simple algebra don't get yourself too bogged down in quantum mechanics versus relativity. It is something you'll have to learn much later. That's really big math. The kind of stuff Fishface could probably teach you about.

But you need to be less condescending to people who try to teach you things.

You might save yourself some time if you pay attention. Just a thought.

Dad, I think you know that I and many on here know quite a bit. If you pay attention (and stop calling people "pussheads" and insulting them in every way you know how) you might be able to learn something.

At the very least we might be able to teach you the simple math you need to understand any higher math.

Like Fishface pointed out, all higher math is based on understanding the simple things. So you need to learn before you insult people.

When you find a disagreement, then by all means, debate them. But right now, you need to quiet down a bit and listen before yelling at others.

This is a big thing you need to learn.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If I want to insult you, you will be one of the first to know. But, of course, if the shoe fits, far be it from me to ask you not to wear it.

I think you know what you meant when you wrote it.

 

[NailsII]

I would think it is constant at the moment, in this temporary universe. But, if that has only been here for, say, 4500 years, and the light before was not constant, why, all that we can say is constant is our present light.


It was not our light, in a present state universe that set off.


Well, one assumes that this universe has light that can travel at a certain speed, how would it matter what part of the universe?? What part of a universe would a universe change not affect???

But, I do notice that no one really got into proving that the rings light up as a direct result of the SN core?? That would be a simple cross check, that the far away universe operates the same. Otherwise, some may wonder if only part of the universe is as we claim and know.

I appreciate that we cannot accurately measure the speed of light 6,000 years ago, and questioning the current understanding that the laws of the universe are constant can only be constructive.
All you need to provide is a little evidence, and you could be the next Einstein.
It would be the biggest shake up of science ever seen.
You know you are right, so if you don't have the evidence, all you need to do is point us all in the right direction and we will endevour to find it for you.

In short, how can you arrrive at this conclusion?

 

[FishFace]

Right, that is a present age formula. Now, do you have any for the former state?

Do you have any data?
Tells us what light was actually doing, and we'll have a go at working out formulae.

Some will, some won't. Abstract still has a basis.

Perhaps I should explain. The meaning you give to a word can change, but the original concept remains the same, and that's all that matters.

I don't know that it is a number. I don't even know that it can be represented by a number. We do know that we can't really do that in this temporal world we live in. At least I have never seen such a number. I think of infinity as lasting forever, and being beyond limits we know.

So it's not a number. Great.

Well, that is all pretty complicated stuff. Let's look at a concrete example of how the spiritual works, in a local manifestation. What we would call a miracle. Jesus fed some 15 -20,000 people (5000 men plus women and children) on a few loaves and fishes. One kid's lunch, basically.
lets call the loaves A and the fish B. Now, when the first person grabbed a roll, and scarfed it down, that is A-A. Are you with me so far??? You claim that equals 0!! Well, no, in this case, another 19,000 people had one, two, or maybe 4 rolls each. They ate their fill.Same with the fish.
See, you better go back, and check your foundational assumptions, because your numbers are not even close to the data.

Sorry, but you're now dealing with loaves and fishes, not with numbers. Suppose the person ate one fish. So we have A - 1. Now, what happened next? Did another fish appear? Then we have A - 1 + 1 = A - no problem. You haven't answered the infinity issue though.
Unfortunately, the fact that 'a - a = 0' is a basic axiom of mathematics. It is required for mathematics to work, and it defines the minus operation. Without it, maths just doesn't work. I ask you what's 5 - 5 and you say, what - it depends whether they're Jesus' fishes or not? Nonsense: 5 - 5 is always 0. Perhaps Jesus miraculously made some new fish, but 5 - 5 is still 0.

Well, if there is no end to Infinity, how can there be an end of adding to it, if that could be done at all??

This is meaningless.

Hey, at least you aren't using big complicated numbers here. As explained above, that makes it easier for the average Joe to see where you go wrong.

I don't think it is a number, and, assuming that it could be represented, in the new heavens, by a number, your math doesn't add up anyhow. So, yes, something in your fundamentals is wrong, as applies to the forever state.

I told you you have to know which fundamental. Go for it.

I don't do that, and even gave a dictionary definition for infinity. Guess that moots your point.

I'd rather go with mathematicians than a dictionary to be honest. As shown above, if infinity is a number, then 1 = 0. (And of course, you can prove that any number equals any other number.

Of course not. When you try it, it is OK. Got it.

Heh. Try understanding why argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, then you'll understand why it can't apply in matters of definition.

No, infinity is a concept that is out of the fishbowl, that could be why it throws you so.

Said the person who DOESN'T UNDERSTAND INFINITY?!

But one would think they should represent something?

It's abstract. Don't you even understand what that means? It can represent something but in no way does it happen.

Well, as explained in the loaves and fishes example, present simple is not all it's cracked up to be when we add the forever state spiritual component to it. But, it still really isn't that complicated.

Hope you enjoyed your lesson in the new maths. Now, I think that is a bit off topic.

Well, then, you really ought to go to a university and show them all how it's done - we're dying to know. So far, you've asserted that the fundamentals of maths are wrong, and not said anything else. I respectfully decline to share your delusion.

 

[Mumbo]

Well, no, it is relevant. Appears is a funny word. You need to do a lot better than that.

you're focusing on the wrong thing again. the distance from the ring to the core not only appears to be 2/3 of a lightyear, it is 2/3 of a lightyear. you dropped the idea that light moved a non-uniform speed, remember?

Well, then you can tell us why as we go along, from that video, no??

or you can watch the intro again. i'm in no mood to type it up verbatim

Well, assume is a funny word.

you and the video are assuming the same thing in this instance. you're just looking for excuses to grandstand, now that we're just about past the argument stage of things

You will need to do better than that to establish this stuff as solid science. Remember, you are at a handicap here, because science messed it up so bad already on this, by not predicting, and predicting wrongly. They scrambled to cook up a cohesive explanation after the fact, but are still missing black holes and neutron stars, etc.

and you will need to do better than inventing hypotheticals if you want to disprove science

It isn't just a gaping shotgun hole in the heart of their theories here, it is a black hole. (however imaginary, they are the ones that put it there in their heads)

i think that was the first thread i argued with you in. you failed to convince anyone then, so why do you take it for granted that you're correct now?

 

[dad]

I appreciate that we cannot accurately measure the speed of light 6,000 years ago, and questioning the current understanding that the laws of the universe are constant can only be constructive.
All you need to provide is a little evidence, and you could be the next Einstein.

Well, I simply set out to know the truth, and why science was so wrong. I don't need to be some great one.

It would be the biggest shake up of science ever seen.
You know you are right, so if you don't have the evidence, all you need to do is point us all in the right direction and we will endevour to find it for you.

Well, what about the dawn of history? Aside from decay dates, that coincides with the timing. What about Dodwell's curve?? That uses data to arrive at the time. What about the bible? Doesn't that count?? What about CMB, would not a universe change leave that?? What about the quantum world, does not that show that there has to be more than the laws we have assumed?? What about the spiritual, is that not a well known part of man's reality? Etc..

In short, how can you arrrive at this conclusion?

One can question what we really know, arrive at a dead end, and then look to God for a way out.

 

[tanzanos]

I have finally concluded and without a shred of doubt that:

DAD is a closet evolutionist who gives creationism a VERY BAD name!

Personally I find this type of covert debating style to be extremely useful. My only advice to DAD is "tone down the anti Bible diatribe, because the creationists might catch on to you. You must show more faith in the scriptures lest you be exposed".

AV1 and DAD are our two most valued anti creationist allies. Those two are an anathema to the bible thumping YECs and Creationists.

I say this not in jest but in sincerity for I have come to this conclusion after reading their many posts.

 

[dad]

Do you have any data?
Tells us what light was actually doing, and we'll have a go at working out formulae.

It was doing whatever God wanted. It was not limited by our present laws. The speed of God's will is not fixed, but depends on many things. Some say that, after death, they saw a great light, but it was not a burning light, the sort that hurts the eyes.

Perhaps I should explain. The meaning you give to a word can change, but the original concept remains the same, and that's all that matters.

And the meaning of infinity is beyond present description.

Sorry, but you're now dealing with loaves and fishes, not with numbers. Suppose the person ate one fish. So we have A - 1. Now, what happened next? Did another fish appear? Then we have A - 1 + 1 = A - no problem.

The fish was B. The loaves were A. We are not told the details. But, after all was said and done, there were 12 baskets full that were uneaten, left over. Let us say that there were 100 loaves, and 15 fish in each basket. That means we fed 20,000 people with 5 loaves and I think it was 2 fishes, and had about 1200 loaves, and 180 fish left over!!

You haven't answered the infinity issue though.
Unfortunately, the fact that 'a - a = 0' is a basic axiom of mathematics. It is required for mathematics to work, and it defines the minus operation. Without it, maths just doesn't work.

Well, we took about 21,200 a's from the 5 a's in the above example. And what was left was not )!!! It was 12 baskets full of leftovers. So, there is a higher math.

I ask you what's 5 - 5 and you say, what - it depends whether they're Jesus' fishes or not? Nonsense: 5 - 5 is always 0. Perhaps Jesus miraculously made some new fish, but 5 - 5 is still 0.

Nonsense, it depends. Normally, in this state universe math works. But in a local application of the spiritual, or in the future state, why, today's math is a joke.

This is meaningless.

Not really. But we can leave it.

I told you you have to know which fundamental. Go for it.

The fundamental that what exists in this temporary state is all there is or was, or will be.

I'd rather go with mathematicians than a dictionary to be honest. As shown above, if infinity is a number, then 1 = 0. (And of course, you can prove that any number equals any other number.

Well, maybe if we bend and contort a number in the box, it seems like it equals any number. But, 2 does not really = 12. Well, show us the number for infinity that leaves 1 as 0.

Heh. Try understanding why argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, then you'll understand why it can't apply in matters of definition.

Who says it does?

Said the person who DOESN'T UNDERSTAND INFINITY?!

Why, am I talking to the person that thinks he does???

It's abstract. Don't you even understand what that means? It can represent something but in no way does it happen.

What CAN happen in this state universe and what can happen in the forever state are not equal.

Well, then, you really ought to go to a university and show them all how it's done - we're dying to know. So far, you've asserted that the fundamentals of maths are wrong, and not said anything else. I respectfully decline to share your delusion.

When a university decides to progress from baby math that only includes this temporal state, why, we might talk. Meanwhile, if I want answers, that is the last place I would look.

 

[dad]

you're focusing on the wrong thing again. the distance from the ring to the core not only appears to be 2/3 of a lightyear, it is 2/3 of a lightyear. you dropped the idea that light moved a non-uniform speed, remember?

That does not answer the question. The fact that it takes 8 months means squat. Unless we see that the light starts at the core, and works out, for one thing. Then, we need to determine how big the rings are some other way, that how long we assume light took to get there from the core, if indeed it is proved that is where it started.

As for what speed light there went or not in some former universe state, why, let's not get ahead of ourselves.

or you can watch the intro again. i'm in no mood to type it up verbatim

I can't think of anything we haven't addressed yet. You?

you and the video are assuming the same thing in this instance. you're just looking for excuses to grandstand, now that we're just about past the argument stage of things

But I need evidence for assumptions, to elevate them into actual facts.

and you will need to do better than inventing hypotheticals if you want to disprove science

When science stops at the dead end, and only proceeds by hypotheticals, that are invented, nothing needs disproof. Not until first proven!

i think that was the first thread i argued with you in. you failed to convince anyone then, so why do you take it for granted that you're correct now?

Looking at the facts and comparing evidences is not trying to convince people. It is finalizing my own opinion, in a way that looks at both the bible, and all that science actually knows, and does not know.

 

[Patashu]

Jesus feeding the crowd isn't an example of math being broken since it was Jesus multiplying the fish and bread. 2x1000 = 2000.

 

[dad]

Jesus feeding the crowd isn't an example of math being broken since it was Jesus multiplying the fish and bread. 2x1000 = 2000.

And Jesus also affects things in the forever state.So, how do you carry over today's math there?? The missing fundamental is Him.

 

[Patashu]

And Jesus also affects things in the forever state.So, how do you carry over today's math there?? The missing fundamental is Him.

Again, it's not a difference in math. If, say, 2 = 1, then you can show that 3 also = 2 and every number equals every other number. This prevents matter from existing and energy and therefore life and everything. It's not a problem with math, it's just that God/Jesus is manipulating the universe. If I, somehow, construct a machine that creates twice the amount of energy I input I haven't proven 2 = 1 I've just manipulated the workings of reality to make extra energy.

 

[Mumbo]

That does not answer the question. The fact that it takes 8 months means squat.

it means everything, if the speed of light was uniform. the light can be moving at any speed at all, and it'll still only travel 2/3 of a lightyear in eight months. the distance that a lightyear measures depends on the speed that light travels at.

Unless we see that the light starts at the core, and works out, for one thing.

it does, because that's what we observe, and there is no other reasonable explanation. you keep disputing the fact, but i still haven't seen you explain why it matters

Then, we need to determine how big the rings are some other way

probably impossible because any measurement would require light in some fundamental way, but thankfully comlpetely irrelevant

that how long we assume light took to get there from the core, if indeed it is proved that is where it started.

you mean if the speed of light was different, the distance between the core and the rings would be different as well? fantastic point, dad! unfortunately, the video made it first

I can't think of anything we haven't addressed yet. You?

since you asked, i have a couple questions that are somewhat unrelated to all of this

for one, why do you postulate that the distant universe appears to us to move backward in time? if you intended for the idea to disprove something, then what?

and how would you reply to this: if the aforementioned is true, then how does light from the distant universe reach us? presumably past state light was affected by time, so if it appears to be going back in time, it'll never appear at all. the light would never reach us. i neglected to ask this in the appropriate thread because i thought i knew what your answer would be, but all this talk about light has made me curious

But I need evidence for assumptions, to elevate them into actual facts.

you agreed with the terms of the video, and the video says you're wrong. i don't see what this has to do with that!

When science stops at the dead end, and only proceeds by hypotheticals, that are invented, nothing needs disproof. Not until first proven!

you mentioned that creationists do the best with what the have; well, so does science. it bases its conclusions on evidence, and if no evidence is available, then no conclusions are made. every time you have accused a scientific theory of being without evidence, you have been wrong

Looking at the facts and comparing evidences is not trying to convince people. It is finalizing my own opinion, in a way that looks at both the bible, and all that science actually knows, and does not know.

all that you have ever managed to do is establish that scientific theories don't assume a past state, which is perfectly reasonable given that there is no evidence of one. meanwhile, you base your beliefs on the assumption of a 6000 year old universe, which you seem to take entirely for granted. i understand your reasons for doing so, but i don't think i can ever agree with them

 

[FishFace]

It was doing whatever God wanted. It was not limited by our present laws. The speed of God's will is not fixed, but depends on many things. Some say that, after death, they saw a great light, but it was not a burning light, the sort that hurts the eyes.

So you don't have any data at all. Mkay.

And the meaning of infinity is beyond present description.

Wrong - I've already given you its meaning. It is the behaviour of 1/x as x approaches 0. It is the size of the set of all numbers.

The fish was B. The loaves were A. We are not told the details. But, after all was said and done, there were 12 baskets full that were uneaten, left over. Let us say that there were 100 loaves, and 15 fish in each basket. That means we fed 20,000 people with 5 loaves and I think it was 2 fishes, and had about 1200 loaves, and 180 fish left over!!

Well, we took about 21,200 a's from the 5 a's in the above example. And what was left was not )!!! It was 12 baskets full of leftovers. So, there is a higher math.

No. If you remove or eat some fish, and then it turns out that there are more, then those more must have been added. That's fine.

Nonsense, it depends.

Dad, how much change do you give for a 2.95 item when given $5? "It depends?"

The fundamental that what exists in this temporary state is all there is or was, or will be.

That isn't a fundamental of mathematics.

Well, maybe if we bend and contort a number in the box, it seems like it equals any number. But, 2 does not really = 12. Well, show us the number for infinity that leaves 1 as 0.

Assume infinity is a number. Add one to infinity:

infinity + 1 = infinity.

Now, infinity is a number, by our assumption, so it must have an additive inverse. That's a fundamental property of all real numbers. (If you think it isn't, you're wrong. It is. By definition.) So we add this, representing it by -infinity:

infinity + (-infinity) + 1 = infinity + (-infinity)

Now, the additive inverse by definition is that number which, when added to the number of which it is an inverse, makes zero. So infinity + (-infinity) = 0:

0 + 1 = 0
1 = 0.

So, if you suppose that infinity is a real number, and if you accept the fundamental properties of real numbers, then 1 = 0. Of course, if you add any other number, 'x' you can prove in exactly the same way that x = 0. You could even do that with infinity, proving infinity = 0!
That, dad, is the problem with treating infinity like a real number.

Who says it does?

You did, when you said that my claim, "infinity is not a number because mathematicians have defined it to be something else" is an argument from popularity. Which is wrong, it's an argument from definition.

Why, am I talking to the person that thinks he does???

I know I do and I have demonstrated, not only that I do, but that you don't.

When a university decides to progress from baby math that only includes this temporal state, why, we might talk. Meanwhile, if I want answers, that is the last place I would look.

No, I'm suggesting you go tell them the answers, seeing as how you apparently know so much!

Just expect to actually give some proofs and and so on. Not that that should be hard for someone who likes higher maths!