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

[acropolis]

His dripping condescension toward others in light of his "math skills" is so over-the-top that it does make you wonder what his motivations are.

I'm still trying to figure out if he's making fun of creationists by acting like a rabid caricature of the stereotypical YECist.

But I am finding it interesting to see how he has fielded the math questions so far. It is fascinating, and actually kind of sad.

It's fun to read those, who knows where he'll go next with them.

I really do need to just walk away from all this. I feel I'm becoming more and more cruel in continuing the debate. And that makes me feel bad about myself and my motivations.

Am I becoming a bully in the schoolyard picking on the kid with a learning disability?

That scares me.

Yeah, I know I should stop posting here and just leave it alone, but it's like a train wreck. Can't pull myself away.

He doesn't seem to be bothered by people talking down to him. He's so condescending to everyone else that he really doesn't have any right to complain, anyway. It probably just feeds into his righteous persecution complex or something.

 

[dad]

I have a math problem for you. I want to give 4 people 12 apples. How many apples do I need? (I'm not Jesus, last I checked, so I can'd perform the miracle of the sermon on the mount).

I don't want to do the simple baby math for you. If I do that, people might ask me to do the hard ones. But, since you clearly indicate that the numbers are firmly in the here and now, normal present math applies.
See, the issue on the thread with the math thing had to do with trying to apply it to the great hereafter state. That is where they run into problems, and needed to learn their limits.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I don't want to do the simple baby math for you. If I do that, people might ask me to do the hard ones. But, since you clearly indicate that the numbers are firmly in the here and now, normal present math applies.
See, the issue on the thread with the math thing had to do with trying to apply it to the great hereafter state. That is where they run into problems, and needed to learn their limits.

Dad, I'll line it out for you :

Two ways to look at the problem:

If you have 4 people who each want 12 apples that's 12 apples for each person.

12 apples for John
12 apples for Jane
12 apples for Joseph
12 apples for Ruth
___
12+12+12+12 = 48 apples

You can "shorthand" this process using what is called multiplication.

Instead of saying 12+12+12+12 you say "I have four 12's" or 4*12 (that's said "four times twelve") which equals 48!

Now, what if the question was: "How do I divide 12 apples among 4 people?"

Well that's a division problem.

John, Joe, Jane and Ruth all want equal numbers of apples and all you have is 12 apples. How many does each person get?

Well, if I have 12 apples and 4 people I can simply DIVIDE 12 by 4

One of the things you'll learn as you learn multiplication is that 4*___ = 12. You'll learn that 4*3 (or if you like, 4+4+4) = 12. So if you take 12 and divide it by 4 then you get 3!

So each person gets 3 apples!

But you'll want to check your work so go back and add up all the apples:

3 for John
3 for Joseph
3 for Jane
3 for Ruth

thats 3+3+3+3 = 12

Now you know! Math is fun.

 

[dad]

[/color]How do you multiply a star by a speed? What are the units of X here?

You don't, what we are looking at is the light from that star.

How do you then divide that by a will? What are the units of a will, or of God's will in particular?

You look at the speed of that star, and realize that speed is what it is that day, in that state, by the will of God.

How does "W FL" mean "Former light speed from X modified by W"

Easy, as I said, the W represented the will of God. The FL represented the speed of the light in the former state, from that star.

- first of all, how do you distinguish between the FL from X and the FL from some other star?

Well, you know the speeds of the light, and then figure the difference.

Then, if this is true, does "A B" for any A and B mean "B as modified by A?" Or does it mean "A times B" as in normal algebra and formulae?

Well, I think you guys are taking it a bit too seriously. Relax. The way I used the letters was in a way that the W set the speed of the FL. So whatever W was for that star that day, was what the light speed also was for that star that day. FL2 = W (in respect to the star we are looking at, for example, X)

It looks - and the reason it looks so is because that's what you're doing - as if you're just making stuff up.

Well, it would look that way from a present state only perspective. If we considered that light was not some constant speed, but the speed depended on the will of God, in the other state, then it looks like we need to apply math differently. One C does not fit all.

No, if X =/= Y then FL must be 0, under anything approaching normal algebra. (By the way, if you're not using normal algebra, then you shouldn't write it so it looks like normal algebra.)

Well, if the speed of light from star X is different than the speed of light from star Y, then, normal algebra is a little inadequate.

But since you're just making stuff up, it might be wise to inquire as to just what "A B" means, for example, "X FL" or "Y FL." What would "X Y" mean?

Did I write an X Y??? I think that would be you. I already explained the stuff I wrote.
I am almost beginning to think you really don't get it.

 

[dad]

Light is still a'Thing', not a quantity or a number.

It is being posited as something that had something other than a uniform speed for all the universe.

Remember, we are talking how the "rules" of Heaven math works here. Nothing has to be assigned to anything else. Just how the rules work.

Well, I think that would be you. Not me. I was trying to assign some simple numbers to some light speeds of some simple stars in the other state.

You know, dad, I actually took the time to GRAPH those numbers out to see if there was some sort of trend. This is what it looks like:

Well, why you would graph some example light speeds, I have no idea. It does look a teensy bit like the Big Dipper, I suppose. But, so what?

(X-Axis is the ordinal numbers 1-12, y-Axis is the factor you multiply the speed of light by)

I had to place it on a log-scale on the y-axis to show the whole set with sufficient detail).

At first I wondered, is Dad making some sort of funky clever point with the shape of the pattern? Or is he drawing up some sort of decaying series here? But you know, I can't figure it out.

Well, what is it you think could be figured out from some former universe light speed examples?? What are you looking for some uniform speed??

Did I miss something? What is the underlying pattern here?

Apparently you did. You seem to have missed the obvious point that the speeds were not the same as either present light, or light from other stars in that state.

 

[dad]

He's too far down the rabbit hole for any real debate. All he really does is discredit himself with his inconsistent, ad hoc, and at times incoherent arguments.

His dismissive and condescending 'style' would bother me, except his ramblings are so bizarre and poorly reasoned that it's entertaining.

Some do seem to have a comprehension issue. But that does not mean a different state universe is ad hoc, any more than a same state past. In fact, it has biblical support, and I think that says more than what you got.

 

[dad]

In this case, one has to wonder whether whatever we take as being analogous to disability in dad's case has so affected him as to render him unable to register not only reasoned argument, but also intellectual cruelty.

You seem to think either you or someone else has, or has had some sort of point. False. That moots your attempted wit.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well, why you would graph some example light speeds, I have no idea.

Graphing is something we learn in 7th grade, maybe earlier. It is quite useful in understanding numbers and their behavior.

Don't worry. When you get the multiplication and division stuff down, you can learn about cartesian graphing. You check it out here for a little teaser!

 

[dad]

Only the bible supports creationism, the evidence contradicts it. All of it.

What evidence? No one has been able to produce one speck of it yet.

Therefore I question your use of the term 'invincible' (unless you mean like the HMS Invivcible)

OK, so, go ahead and question, that's fine.

Real ones?

If a real unit is a quart of milk, The cow had to come from somewhere. The creator affected it.

 

[dad]

Nobody that actually thinks life got here by some flukefest, and that the universe was in a tiny soup speck, and that bases oodles of wild claims on a same state past they cannot prove, can talk down to me. If you think I should pretend they could, you have another think coming.
I expect reasoned, and solidly evidenced clear support for claims people make. When they fail to be able to do so, it is natural to try and make someone else seem to be the blame. I cannot be affected by such childish nonsense. As long as it is clear that all they have is empty bluster, my case stands tall, and smells like a rose.

 

[dad]

Graphing is something we learn in 7th grade, maybe earlier. It is quite useful in understanding numbers and their behavior.

Excellent, I guess drawing is also your cup of tea. Maybe scrawl us a little dipper this time.

 

[Adivi]

Excellent, I guess drawing is also your cup of tea. Maybe scrawl us a little dipper this time.

What thaumaturgy was trying to say is that graphing data often helps to show underlying patterns; he was trying to see the pattern in the light speeds that you gave, and failed to do so, as have I.

 

[FishFace]

You don't, what we are looking at is the light from that star.

You still can't multiply "light" by a speed. You could multiply the amount of light, or the intensity of light - what are you measuring that in? Candelas? Lux? Lumens?
The problem is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You could have made this an awful lot easier if, instead of just cobbling together some nonsense, you'd admitted that you didn't know any way of rigorously describing what you claim.

You look at the speed of that star, and realize that speed is what it is that day, in that state, by the will of God.

Arithmetic isn't to do with "realizing" things it's just to do with doing. For example, as thaumaturgy kindly taught you, if you want to multiply three by four, how you do that is by adding four copies of three together.
How do you divide something by a will, and what are you units in which you measure will? Or is will not a number but some other kind of mathematical object? In which case, you will need to define the object and define the division operation on that object.

Easy, as I said, the W represented the will of God. The FL represented the speed of the light in the former state, from that star.

That doesn't tell us what "W FL" means at all. I can know what "2" means and what "5" means but what does "2 5" mean? It means "2*5" which means "2+2+2+2+2."

Well, you know the speeds of the light, and then figure the difference.

If they're different, why are they both called FL? Is FL dependent on some other value? In which case you should indicate that dependence algebraically, e.g. by "FL(x)" to show that FL is a function whose output is determined by some mathematical object x.

Well, I think you guys are taking it a bit too seriously.

You mean you didn't expect us to scrutinize your made-up hodge-podge of mathematical-sounding nonsense?

The way I used the letters was in a way that the W set the speed of the FL. So whatever W was for that star that day, was what the light speed also was for that star that day. FL2 = W (in respect to the star we are looking at, for example, X)

What is FL2? How do you define "W sets the speed of FL" rigorously? You realise that if you just give a letter then that means it's either a constant, or a parameter allowed to vary arbitrarily?

Well, it would look that way from a present state only perspective. If we considered that light was not some constant speed, but the speed depended on the will of God, in the other state, then it looks like we need to apply math differently. One C does not fit all.

No, maths works fine with variables, and with values which depend on other things. You can't expect to just throw a bunch of letters at the page and have them mean whatever you want - in case you hadn't realised, algebra already sets the standard for what a lot of things mean in maths. If you use the same notation and mean something different, then you're begging for problems.

Well, if the speed of light from star X is different than the speed of light from star Y, then, normal algebra is a little inadequate.

You mean what you know of normal algebra is inadequate. Quite agree - that's why you should leave maths to people who know what they're talking about or, if you want to do it yourself, learn some stuff.

Did I write an X Y??? I think that would be you. I already explained the stuff I wrote.

No you didn't "explain" anything, you just put random letters in just as random a fashion and pretended it meant something. When asked what it meant you couldn't answer coherently.
The thing about mathematical notation is that it's general. I define what "a+b" means for any numbers a+b. If you want to introduce some new mathematical notation for your "W FL" thing then you have to tell us what it means, and that has to work if we put something else in there too. Maths wouldn't be very helpful if addition only worked for two numbers and no others.

I am almost beginning to think you really don't get it.

Your "formula"? No, no-one gets that - not even you, because you just made it up out of thin air!

 

[dad]

What thaumaturgy was trying to say is that graphing data often helps to show underlying patterns; he was trying to see the pattern in the light speeds that you gave, and failed to do so, as have I.

Nonsense. The pattern was that the former light was different speeds. How do you think you might find a pattern for what speed God willed?

 

[dad]

You still can't multiply "light" by a speed. You could multiply the amount of light, or the intensity of light - what are you measuring that in? Candelas? Lux? Lumens?
The problem is that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. You could have made this an awful lot easier if, instead of just cobbling together some nonsense, you'd admitted that you didn't know any way of rigorously describing what you claim.

Measure it any way you like. If light, was say, a billion times faster than ours, in one example, that means 100 times present C.

How do you divide something by a will, and what are you units in which you measure will? Or is will not a number but some other kind of mathematical object? In which case, you will need to define the object and define the division operation on that object.

I don't need to. I simply point out that that His will is what sets the speed. And that the speed can be beyond anything you dream of. You want to play around with baby math, that is up to you. God's will I would think is an intricate part of the created state. For example, He spoke, and there was light! He speaks, and matter either appears, or rearranges as needed. (as in the dividing of the waters from the dry ground)

That doesn't tell us what "W FL" means at all. I can know what "2" means and what "5" means but what does "2 5" mean? It means "2*5" which means "2+2+2+2+2."

It means whatever He wanted it to mean, and the light from the star, moves as He desires, in the true state, I would guess.

If they're different, why are they both called FL? Is FL dependent on some other value? In which case you should indicate that dependence algebraically, e.g. by "FL(x)" to show that FL is a function whose output is determined by some mathematical object x.

The light speed was, as clearly stated, posited to be determined by the will of God. If you want to reflect that with present math somehow, be my guest.

What is FL2?

Well, what is C2? Isn't that present light speed? If FL represented different state light speed, then FL squared means the same thing, in relation to itself.

How do you define "W sets the speed of FL" rigorously? You realise that if you just give a letter then that means it's either a constant, or a parameter allowed to vary arbitrarily?

His will can vary. Stick any letter you like in there for it.

No, maths works fine with variables, and with values which depend on other things. You can't expect to just throw a bunch of letters at the page and have them mean whatever you want - in case you hadn't realised, algebra already sets the standard for what a lot of things mean in maths. If you use the same notation and mean something different, then you're begging for problems.

When the poster offered the equation, and I simply make the numbers represent something, to test how it works, of course I can. And, the demo showed that things spiritual do not fit his limited concepts, and maths.

You mean what you know of normal algebra is inadequate. Quite agree - that's why you should leave maths to people who know what they're talking about or, if you want to do it yourself, learn some stuff.

If they want to know what they are talking about, they cannot apply the maths to spiritual things, and God's will, and the different universe state. This is news??

Maths wouldn't be very helpful if addition only worked for two numbers and no others.

Frankly, your present based, and bound fishbowl math is not really all that helpful as applied out of the fishbowl, don't flatter yourself.

Your "formula"? No, no-one gets that - not even you, because you just made it up out of thin air!

The formula is that in the forever state, light moves more freely, and unbound by fishbowl laws. The formula also includes God. No one made Him up, He made us up! Focus.

 

[Maxwell511]

<snip>

I love you Fishface (not in a gay way) but please don't use mathematics to prove a point. You would be acting very Demskish.

 

[FishFace]

I love you Fishface (not in a gay way) but please don't use mathematics to prove a point. You would be acting very Demskish.

When maths is on the table, maths is what you'll get! We asked dad to provide a model, a mathematical basis for his belief. The outcome was nonsense and I'm explaining why.

 

[thaumaturgy]

light, was say, a billion times faster than ours, in one example, that means 100 times present C.

Dad, 1 billion looks like this:

1,000,000,000​

1 hundred looks like this:

100​

"a billion times faster" than present C would look like this:

1,000,000,000 x C​

(because C means "speed of light")

 

[FishFace]

Measure it any way you like. If light, was say, a billion times faster than ours, in one example, that means 100 times present C.

1 billion times faster means 1 billion times faster, not 100 times faster. If you don't understand, read thaum's post.

I don't need to. I simply point out that that His will is what sets the speed. And that the speed can be beyond anything you dream of. You want to play around with baby math, that is up to you. God's will I would think is an intricate part of the created state. For example, He spoke, and there was light! He speaks, and matter either appears, or rearranges as needed. (as in the dividing of the waters from the dry ground)

It means whatever He wanted it to mean, and the light from the star, moves as He desires, in the true state, I would guess.

The light speed was, as clearly stated, posited to be determined by the will of God. If you want to reflect that with present math somehow, be my guest.

Dad, we asked you to give a mathematical model that we could use to build predictions or falsifications of your hypothesis. You seemed willing to do so, so forgive us when we interpret what you give us - which looks like maths - as being maths.
If you weren't actually talking about maths, then that's fine - you failed to provide the model we asked for, and so we can ignore you. But whyever did you pretend to know some maths, make some nonsense up that you thought looked like maths, and seem to expect us to go with that?

We actually know what we're talking about. Sorry if that harms your point.

Well, what is C2? Isn't that present light speed? If FL represented different state light speed, then FL squared means the same thing, in relation to itself.

C[sup]2[/sup] means C squared means C*C means C times C means C added to itself C times.

C2 means I don't know what.

If they want to know what they are talking about, they cannot apply the maths to spiritual things, and God's will, and the different universe state. This is news??
Frankly, your present based, and bound fishbowl math is not really all that helpful as applied out of the fishbowl, don't flatter yourself.

So why did you even bother making up this mathematical sounding nonsense if you knew it wouldn't work?

The formula is that in the forever state, light moves more freely, and unbound by fishbowl laws. The formula also includes God. No one made Him up, He made us up! Focus.

There is no formula. You just threw some letters at the page and hoped for the best. Better luck next time.

 

[dad]

1 billion times faster means 1 billion times faster, not 100 times faster. If you don't understand, read thaum's post.

Right, typo.

Dad, we asked you to give a mathematical model that we could use to build predictions or falsifications of your hypothesis. You seemed willing to do so, so forgive us when we interpret what you give us - which looks like maths - as being maths.

I simply tried to assign simple numbers to reflect that each star in a different state had different light speed. If you think you can do baby math better, go ahead.

If you weren't actually talking about maths, then that's fine - you failed to provide the model we asked for, and so we can ignore you. But whyever did you pretend to know some maths, make some nonsense up that you thought looked like maths, and seem to expect us to go with that?

I am not sure who thinks I claimed to be knowledgeable in baby maths. No one, actually. Get a grip.

C[sup]2[/sup] means C squared means C*C means C times C means C added to itself C times.

C2 means I don't know what.

Right, my mistake, I was thinking of Einstein's formula, and just used the last part. Of course to make the light speed relevant we need to have, for example, the M= in front of it, in the case of C. And, in the case of the letters we have been using to represent the different universe state light, we could use a W - W =FL2 in other words, the will of God determines the speed for the star light.

So why did you even bother making up this mathematical sounding nonsense if you knew it wouldn't work?

It works fine. Each star we assign a different speed to, not rocket science, that. I did it in the 12 star example.

That means that your maths don't and can't apply.


Now, it looks like you guys are waxing a little silly, and straining at nats, unable to really address the core issues. For example, the childishly simple notion that light was non homogeneous, and uniform. Not really even addressed, despite many many opportunities for you to do so.
Then, the questions were asked, about what cross checks you have for the ring light to core light directions and speed, (besides the time it takes to light up). No reply.

Your failed attempts to apply present math to the future, and spiritual were demonstrated.

Unless y'all have some substantive, and reasoned factual, and logical case to make, it looks like you are out of gas, out of steam.


"
Trigonometric Diagram of SN1987A and Earth Now let's plug everything in:

1. radius = 6.23 x 1012 km = 0.658 light-years [1]
2. angle = 0.808 arcseconds = 0.000224 degrees [1]
3. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ tan(0.000224)
4. distance = 0.658 ly ÷ 0.00000392
5. distance = 168,000 light-years

Note that taking the measurement error limits into account makes this value 168,000 light-years ± 3.5%.
For reference:
c (lightspeed) = 299,792.5 kilometers per second
1 arcsecond = 1/3600°
1 parsec = 3.26 light-years
1 light-year ~ 9.46 x 1012 km
1 light-year ~ 5.88 x 10^12 miles

[1] New Distance Determination to the LMC
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1998MmSAI..69..225P
The "height" (radius) of the primary gas ring around SN1987A is based on the observed time it took for the energy from the explosion to hit the ring (travelling at the speed of light), which was 0.658 years (i.e., almost two-thirds of a year)."

.."In actuality, the ring is tipped with respect to the earth, which means that with respect to the earth there is a "leading edge" (the closer half) and a "trailing edge" (the farther half). Because of this fact, what astronomers observed was the point on the ring closest to the earth lighting up first.."


http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/ancientproof/SN1987A.html

So, the claims are based, based based, apparently, on the time it took the rings to light up.

"Where did these rings come from? They must be related to the supernova because the supernova is at their center. But they could not have been ejected by the supernova explosion. In fact, if one divides the radius of the inner ring (6 x 1012 km, or 0.6 light-years) by the expansion speed (10 km/s, or 1/30,000 times the speed of light), one finds that the inner ring must have been expanding for 20,000 years to grow to this radius. Thus, the inner ring must have been ejected 20,000 years before the supernova explosion."

http://cosmos.colorado.edu/stem/courses/common/documents/chapter6/l6S6.htm

Very heavy laden with assumptions, obviously.