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

[dad]

They would be, if infinity were a number!

Well, I don't really use it as a number, or pretend I can tack one on to it. Do you?

No. The "abstract" is abstract from any universe.

So now you think you are an authority on all universes. OK.

M doesn't have to represent anything, it's just a number.

Then it is useless. To give it meaning, I used an example. Your math never stood the test. Try and cope.

M is any number you care to give me. If you give me a huge number, I will show you that 1/x gets bigger than that number with the rule I told you for picking d.

Only fixed numbers, that are fixed in this universe state, and are presumed to have to remain fixed in some unknown infinity, and beyond. You best stick to the nitty gritty real world uses for baby math.

The point is to prove stuff in the most general case. This proof works whether numbers represent things or not.

If they don't represent anything, proving they work is tough. Proving they work on the other side is impossible! Work on that.

I don't, because 5 loaves and 39,777 loaves are not numbers! The distance between 5 and 39777 is 39772, however.

That is true, see baby math can be quite useful.

It doesn't, and if you actually thought it did, you are less intelligent than I thought - stop being purposefully ignorant.

But it does. Your numbers are fixed, and a 5 has to be a five. If numbers could change around wily nilly baby math would be useless.

I'll show you how it works. Give me any positive number you like. I'll show you that 1/x grows bigger than it with the rule I told you.

Define positive number.

Such a thing can't exist. As soon as you think of a number, you can immediately thing of another number - namely, that number plus one.

Where numbers don't represent anything at all, you could play that game, I suppose, if you have nothing better to do.

No, I just proved it!

No, you made up pretend scenarios, involving sets that must be from this state, with numbers that represent nothing!

I guess they weren't using strong encryption, such as the encryption that pure maths gives us.

I see. So, you think that we have arrived at the unbreakable encryption!? Or would that just be as far as most men know this year?

I don't believe you.

I tell you your gloom and doom won't happen, and you don't believe it. I told you it was you guys that were the gloom and doomers! Thanks for that demo.

 

[Naraoia]

Why can't I resist temptation?

I hereby officially declare that I will not respond to dad again.

Slap me if I do.

I truly admire some people's patience with dad. I think it's best if I leave him to those that have the patience and self-control I don't.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You are dreaming. If you paid attention you might notice I say the devil is the deceiver, as the bible indicates.

...

There is always the possibility some would believe the devil, and his bits of truth woven in to the big lie. They are tricked. But those that simply take His word need not be fooled, or deceived. He was right all along. To those who were fooled, and deceived, get mad about it! Then, get over it.

No idea where you get the idea the devil had the slightest thing to do with it?? God gave the 120 year warning, and He did it. Just like He did the flood around the same time. (a century or so before that)

Speaking of some connection to reality, your ridiculous devil did it theory is not in even a far orbit to any reality. Work on that.

This seems somewhat confusing. Would you like to expand on this concept? Did the devil cause any deception? Or no deception? Was the devil involved in any people assessing the data from something like supernova SN1987A, which seems reasonable to assume indicates a steady state going back a long long time in the history of the universe, and an all-knowing God would presumably know we would interpret this this way, then who is responsible for the "inducement" to interpret the data this way?

 

[NailsII]

No matter how fine you blend it, the stuff in the blender is much the same. I used to refer to evolution as the big bad thing, but was chastised so often by evo puritans, who indignantly pointed out that the pond story was not part of evolution officially, any more. They divorced the silly thing, and it has it's own name now. Don't blame them. But, if someone refers to the good old fashioned theory of evolution, they need to be clear about it, so they can be shown to have no proof at all for the first lifeform in a pond type lie.

Evultion by natural selection has never indicated the origin of life.
Clue is in the title of the book, On the origins of species.....
That good old fashioned theory is more or less the same nowadays, only stronger for having more supporting evidence - so that's more fossils than Darwin could have dreamed of, biochemical and genetic evidence which he most certainly wouldn't have dreamed about.

 

[dad]

Why can't I resist temptation?

I hereby officially declare that I will not respond to dad again.

Slap me if I do.

I truly admire some people's patience with dad. I think it's best if I leave him to those that have the patience and self-control I don't.

Hey, no problem, I think it is a sign of being a fast learner, that you realize that you really just cannot mount any sort of case, that leaves you looking somewhat like you know what you are talking about. Some, who, perhaps have more education seem to take a little longer to come to realize they can't defend what has been called science, falsely.

 

[dad]

This seems somewhat confusing. Would you like to expand on this concept? Did the devil cause any deception? Or no deception?

The goal of the devil is to wreck faith in God. If he knew that the universe changed, why he would seek to cook up other explanations for a changed universe, such as the big bang. Therefore, I would consider that the deceived are those that buy into anti biblical and anti God, anti creation stories.

Was the devil involved in any people assessing the data from something like supernova SN1987A, which seems reasonable to assume indicates a steady state going back a long long time in the history of the universe, and an all-knowing God would presumably know we would interpret this this way, then who is responsible for the "inducement" to interpret the data this way?

Well, this thread I thought was to look at what that data was. As for assessing it, that would come after. So far, people have avoided, or been unable to defend the claims. Simple cross checks, such as how can we be sure the core to ring speed is PO light speed? Or even, can we be sure that the core always lights up first, then the rings, so we even know the light comes from the core? Of course the so called core is missing what science predicted was supposed to be in there anyhow, can you blame me for asking for solid evidences, and observations, for each step of the way?
So far, I see a sign in the heavens, that may as well have happened in the one state as the other.

 

[dad]

Evultion by natural selection has never indicated the origin of life.

Thank you! Now, to the other poster that wasn't clear on that, pay attention.

Clue is in the title of the book, On the origins of species.....
That good old fashioned theory is more or less the same nowadays, only stronger for having more supporting evidence - so that's more fossils than Darwin could have dreamed of, biochemical and genetic evidence which he most certainly wouldn't have dreamed about.

Whatever he dreamed doesn't much matter. None of that then or now, in any way leads to the pond. It may indicate, as I have said, that the hyperevolution of the past was at work. Nothing more. Creation stands unchallengeable.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't even ridicule folks that can't make a case, and just complain, and insult.

You do ridicule folks that can and do make a case, though... *rolls eyes*

I meant that I don't ridicule cats.

Hey, no problem, I think it is a sign of being a fast learner, that you realize that you really just cannot mount any sort of case, that leaves you looking somewhat like you know what you are talking about. Some, who, perhaps have more education seem to take a little longer to come to realize they can't defend what has been called science, falsely.

Interesting.

"...looking somewhat like you know what you are talking about." An interesting phrase from a man who is debating mathematics with mathematicians when he himself thinks this is a reasonable mathematical equation:

OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.

X x FL divided by W = W FL
Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)

Now, of course he must be describing "out of the fishbowl" mathematics, but since this doesn't even make sense from a simple algebra stance you have to wonder:

Is there a difference between made-up ignororance and "out-of-the-fishbowl" "forever state" mathematics?

Who would know?

How do you differentiate raw unadulterated ignorance of the topic at hand with one in which only one party seems to know the 'rules' of this forever state outside of the box of "reality"?

Perhaps Dad needs to go back a step and describe the foundational assumptions of this "Forever State", Heavenly mathematics such that it can be learned by everyone else on the board.

If it has "rules" that Dad understands then it must have rules which can be understood and applied by any and all objective observers.

Please, lay out the rules for simple Heaven Mathematics.

 

[FishFace]

Well, I don't really use it as a number, or pretend I can tack one on to it. Do you?

I've told you from the beginning that it is not. You have said quite the opposite.

Then it is useless.

You're allowed to think it's useless, although physicists probably will disagree with you, as will accountants and economists and all kinds of people.
But if you think it's wrong then, well - you're wrong.

Only fixed numbers, that are fixed in this universe state, and are presumed to have to remain fixed in some unknown infinity, and beyond.

No, that's not what is presumed. Try to keep up.

If they don't represent anything, proving they work is tough.

No it isn't, because maths only has to work in the abstract case. You might at some point want to apply them to the real world, and that might be tough - but I don't need to worry about that.

That is true, see baby math can be quite useful.

It's amusing that you call it baby maths when you can't even understand it.

But it does. Your numbers are fixed, and a 5 has to be a five. If numbers could change around wily nilly baby math would be useless.

Good thing numbers don't change around willy nilly then isn't it.

Define positive number.

Any number greater than zero.
What is zero? The number such that any other number plus zero is that number.
What is a number? Depends which type. A natural number (e.g. 1, 2, 3...) is an intuitive notion, so you might think you can't define it. But you can - and we have, but obviously you weren't paying attention when we told you the stuff about {{},{{}}} etc.

Where numbers don't represent anything at all, you could play that game, I suppose, if you have nothing better to do.

Put it this way: what's the highest number you can think of.

No, you made up pretend scenarios, involving sets that must be from this state, with numbers that represent nothing!

I take it you didn't understand the proof. Give me a number, large as you like (although it would be handy if you could actually write it out in a post...)

I see. So, you think that we have arrived at the unbreakable encryption!? Or would that just be as far as most men know this year?

Well, if a quantum computer is built, then we'll need new stuff, because a large amount of modern cryptography is based on the difficult of prime-number factorization. As it stands, if you were to try and brute-force the problem with many powerful computers, you'd need billions of years to do it, by which time your credit card number wouldn't be very useful.

I tell you your gloom and doom won't happen, and you don't believe it. I told you it was you guys that were the gloom and doomers! Thanks for that demo.

Oh hah hah, very funny.

 

[NailsII]

Why can't I resist temptation?

I hereby officially declare that I will not respond to dad again.

Slap me if I do.

I truly admire some people's patience with dad. I think it's best if I leave him to those that have the patience and self-control I don't.

I think you gave up too easily.
By debating someone with an opposing point of view, I found that I have learned more myself.

 

[NailsII]

Whatever he dreamed doesn't much matter. None of that then or now, in any way leads to the pond. It may indicate, as I have said, that the hyperevolution of the past was at work. Nothing more. Creation stands unchallengeable.

Creation does not stand unchallanged, it stands unsupported.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Creation does not stand unchallanged, it stands unsupported.

Nails, note that dad said Creation stands unchallengeable. This seems like a clear statement of non-falsifiability.

So if it cannot be challenged, then it has no technical value. Only claims which carry with them a means by which one can challenge them, even if they are found to be flawless, have any real value to science.

One can learn nothing from something that is "unchallengeable".

 

[acropolis]

Nails, note that dad said Creation stands unchallengeable. This seems like a clear statement of non-falsifiability.

So if it cannot be challenged, then it has no technical value. Only claims which carry with them a means by which one can challenge them, even if they are found to be flawless, have any real value to science.

One can learn nothing from something that is "unchallengeable".

This is true.

This whole thread is like a train wreck, such a disaster that it's hard to look away. dad's position is so untenable that it's hard to resist going after it, but he's clearly convinced himself so much that it's no longer possible to reach him with anything outside his own theory. Even the Bible comes second to his vision.

Either that, or he's performing the best anti-creationism parody I've ever witnessed.

 

[thaumaturgy]

dad's position is so untenable that it's hard to resist going after it, but he's clearly convinced himself so much that it's no longer possible to reach him with anything outside his own theory. Even the Bible comes second to his vision.

You know, he starts off with an interesting point. As I've said before many times, it's like he sat in on the first 3 days of a philosophy class and then ran away without learning anything beyond it.

He starts off strongly behind the limitations to deductive reasoning that pure Empiricism engenders. Indeed, how do we "know" about the "unobserved". But sadly where Dad fails in this regard is he's more than willing to apply arbitrary limits on "how far back" into the past counts as the "unknowable past", and he's also more than willing to hypothesize all manner of alternative realities and never acquiesce that if he removes the ability for any of us to deduce the past from data, he is also equally limited.

Dad has declared a unilateral victory and by doing so effectively guts his own argument.

What makes it hard to ignore him is his bluster and snarkiness. His hubris to tell people to "deal with it", or "focus" or whatever other sneering snarky comment he can throw in there, really just gets under peoples' skin. It certain does mine.

But then when I started to realize that Dad may not really be able to understand the details of his own argument, where its inherent weaknesses are or even things like simple algebra I began to worry that it is actually kind of "cruel" to argue with dad.

But his sneering nastiness really has a way to make me bring out the big clubs sometimes.

Sadly, no amount of information presented to him will ever elicit a thoughtful response, let alone a pleasant comment in return. And that makes me wonder what type of Christian he is.

I don't believe I've ever seen Dad acquiesce that he could be mistaken on something. I could be wrong on that, but I sure don't recall ever seeing that. No caveats, no hedges, just all-truth, all-the-time.

 

[dad]

... it's no longer possible to reach him with anything outside his own theory. Even the Bible comes second to his vision.

Right, the bible case you and others made here is astounding. Too bad y'all forgot to include one. The science you offer is so lacking, it brings a tear of joy to the eye.

 

[dad]

...has a way to make me bring out the big clubs sometimes.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, they say. I am sure you wish you could really make some sort of case, although I suspect you realize it wouldn't be a winning case.

I understand. I once was a mere flood geology type of guy, and was happy to fight to a stalemate, on science issues. Been there done that, my sympathies.

 

[dad]

Creation does not stand unchallanged, it stands unsupported.

No, the bible supports it, as does all properly interpreted evidence. It is invincible.

 

[thaumaturgy]

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, they say. I am sure you wish you could really make some sort of case, although I suspect you realize it wouldn't be a winning case.

I understand. I once was a mere flood geology type of guy, and was happy to fight to a stalemate, on science issues. Been there done that, my sympathies.

Hey, instead of your usual dripping sarcasm, why not try and answer the question I asked earlier: explain the rules to your strange "Heaven Math" or "out of the fishbowl math" that you keep going on about.

Remember, you are teaching us your hypothesis so make sure to explain it using concepts we can all start from.

Start by explaining algebra and why it breaks down totally when you posted:

OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.

X x FL divided by W = W FL
Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)

In Post #78

I think we'd all be interested to learn your new math. If it has rules and has any meaning, and you know it, then surely others can know its rules and apply it.

Then give us a problem to solve with these rules.

 

[dad]

Interesting.

OK, since you dredged up my little example, of a possible ' get you to thinking', formula for forever state concepts, I might as well break it down a bit for you. You may as well understand what you missed, I suppose.

"OK. So, W is the will of God. X is one star, and Y is another. And FL is the former light speed.

X x FL divided by W = W FL" (One star in the former universe [X] state times the speed of the light from that star [FL], as set by the will of God [W], equals W FL.
(In case that last few letters still was too much for you, that means, the former light speed of the light from said star [FL], as modified by the will of God [W])
You follow so far??

"Y x FL divided by W = W FL
W FL x W = W FL
If W = Y FL, and W = X FL, and X does not = Y then either speed is W. (even if different)"
Let me know if you need me to spoon feed you the rest here. I am not without patience.

 

[FishFace]

I agree with pretty much everything that thaum says (except I think he means inductive, not deductive reasoning).

The reason dad is a compelling opponent is not a good one. It's simply that he is a pretty spiteful character, at least on here - slipping in his little (and not-so-little) insults whenever he can. He acts as if he knows everything, or at any rate that everything he doesn't care to study is utterly worthless. Of course, that doesn't stop him making sweeping statements about those fields.
I've certainly never noticed him retracting a statement, and even if he did his conduct so far seems to indicate it would hardly be graceful! All the while he diverts the thread into his little irrelevancies or silly pictures.

So yes, the prime reason for responding is that he is mildly irritating, and very persistent.