Summations Only

Where did western California come from? It migrated down the coast as a long island. The rocks on the western side of the San Andreas match coastal rocks far to the north. In that case the Cascadian trench is a stretch feature as the Earth grew in size as the oceans continued to spread out. The Bible states three times that the earth spreads out in unbroken continuity (in Hebrew that is).http://www.godsriddle.info/...tern-california-come-from.html

Sure there is. Just measure the speed of light and then determine how far light would travel in a year. The math is quite simple.For Supernova 1987a we can check our math using simple observations and trigonometry. So far, you have not shown how these calculations are in error. I can only conclude that you agree that the speed of light has not changed in the last 170,000 years since the explosion of Supernova 1987a.

Wrong. Western California is moving north.From Wiki: "All land west of the fault on the Pacific Plate is moving slowly to the northwest while all land east of the fault is moving southwest (relatively southeast as measured at the fault) under the influence of plate tectonics. The rate of slippage averages approximately 33 to 37 millimetres (1.3 to 1.5 in) annually across California." Since western California is moving north, not south, perhaps you would like to revise that statement? So?(See signature, below.)

Hi again godsriddle,Thanks. Light-year - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A light-year, also light year or lightyear (symbol: ly) is a unit of length, equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres (or about 6 trillion miles). As defined by the International Astronomical Union (IAU), a light-year is the distance that light travels in a vacuum in one Julian year.[1]

​

Numerical value

​

1 light-year = 9,460,730,472,580,800 metres (exactly)

---

It is a defined distance not a measured one. If you are squirrelly on lightyears then you can convert it to meters or kilometers.Now your previous response Message 51 said: Resulting in my little board game that shows the distance to the star can be determined by simple trigonometry from measured data, and you now seem to agree (although the distance is in lightyears (or meters if you insist) not in days.Now that we have established that the distance is calculated accurately regardless of the speed of light, we now turn to the question of the speed of light.There are several aspects of this supernova that correlate with the speed of light, and these have to do with the timing of departures from the star.First we go back to that simple board game in Message 72, except that here we stay on the "A" train:

    START   B   B   B   B   RING
​
      A                      B
​
      A                     B
​
      A                    B
​
      A                   B
​
      A                  B
​
      A                 B
​
      A                B
​
      A               B
​
      A              B
​
      A             B
​
      A            B
​
      A           B
​
      A          B
​
      A         B
​
      A        B
​
      A       B
​
      A      B
​
      A     B
​
      A    B
​
      A   B
​
      A  B
​
      A B
​
      AB
​
     EARTH

We assume a six fold faster speed at the start than at the end, just for this example:The first marker leaves the star and advances 6 places. Then the second (delayed) marker leaves the star and both advance 6 places. The speed of light changes to 5, and both markers advance 5 places. The speed of light changes to 4, and both markers advance 4 places. the speed of light changes to 3 and both markers advance 3 places, the speed of light changes to 2 and both markers advance 2 places. The speed of light changes to 1 and both markers advance 1 place.The first marker has moved 27 places and the second marker has moved 21 places. The delay between them is now 6 places instead of 1 (as would occur if the speed of light did not change).To get from the star to earth in 10,000 years the speed of light would have to average 168,000/10,000 or 16.8 times the current speed of light, as a minimum. This means a 16.8:1 increase in the time between the first marker and the second when observed here on earth compared to when they left the star.Now we look at how this compares to observed data:

Light Frequency and Absorption Lines

Different elements radiate and absorb light at different frequencies, frequencies that are specific to each element due to the atomic structure of each element. The frequencies are measured in wavelengths, but the waves are composed of particles, photons, that are emitted from the star in question.Emission spectrum - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The emission spectrum of a chemical element or chemical compound is the spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the element's atoms or the compound's molecules when they are returned to a lower energy state.

​

Each element's emission spectrum is unique. Therefore, spectroscopy can be used to identify the elements in matter of unknown composition. ...

---

Now the question is, what should we see if the speed of light was much faster when the supernova actually occurred.When we look at the peaks of wavelengths, the photons would be travelling much faster as they leave the star, but each new peak is delayed in departure compared to the previous one, as per the new board game above.The measured distance between peaks (ie wavelengths) from SN1984A is within the current visible spectrum:Echelle spectrum of SN1987A | ESO

quote:

---

... the supernova spectrum is divided into many individual parts (spectral orders, each of which appears as a narrow horizontal line) that together cover the wavelength interval from 479 to 682 nm (from the bottom to the top), i.e. from blue to red light. ...

---

For the wavelength at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to be within 479/16.8 = 28.5 nm to 682/16.8 = 40.6 nm - at the most - to appear to be within the visible spectrum when observed on earth. It would actually need to be less as this is based on the average speed of light and not any decay curve for the speed of light.No elements have been observed emitting light in wavelengths this short, so the physics of light emission need to be changed as well as the speed of light.Not only that it needs to be done so that each elements emission spectrum exactly matches what is observed today. For example, this is the emission spectrum of Iron: An Ultraviolet Spectral Atlas of Interstellar Lines toward SN 1987A - NASA/ADS

quote:

---

... Twelve high-resolution spectra were taken, evenly divided between the short- and long-wavelength cameras. The atlas extends from 1250 to 3200 . It includes almost 200 lines from 12 interstellar species, covering a wide range of ionization, namely: C I, II, IV; O I; Mg I, II; Al II, III; Si II, IV; S II; Cl I; Cr II; Mn II; Fe II; Ni II; and Zn II. Optical spectroscopy at very high resolution has shown the extraordinarily large number of interstellar components in this direction. ...

---

Nickel, argon and cobalt in the infrared spectrum of SN1987A: the core becomes visible | Nature

quote:

---

Nickel, argon and cobalt in the infrared spectrum of SN1987A: the core becomes visible

​

... The intensity of these lines and the abundances of the heavy elements inferred from them demonstrate that the inner regions of the supernova are just now becoming visible at infrared wavelengths. These regfons are expected to contain heavy elements produced by advanced nuclear burning stages in the progenitor star (Sk—69 202) and in the shock wave that ejected all material external to the iron core. ...

---

So there are a lot of emission spectrums that match those of elements on earth that need to be accounted for.Not only that, however, for if the star is still producing photons at these accellerated rates - and there is no reason to think otherwise if only the speed of light is changed - then as time passes we should see a blue shift in all stellar light. This has not been observed. Thus another mechanism is now needed to change the rate of photon emissions over time.

Radioactive Isotopes and Decay Rates

We can also see the production and decay of radioactive isotopes in SN1987A, such as:

quote:

---

One nice piece of evidence comes from Supernova 1987a, which was special because it was not very far away. Theory predicts that such a supernova would create about 0.1 solar masses of nickel-56, which is radioactive. Nickel-56 decays with a half-life of 6.1 days into cobalt-56, which in turn decays with a half-life of 77.1 days. Both kinds of decay give off very distinctive gamma rays. Analysis of the gamma rays from SN1987a showed mostly cobalt-56, exactly as predicted. And, the amount of those gamma rays died away with exactly the half-life of cobalt-56. For more details, read:

The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory, Neil Gehrels et al, Scientific American, December 1993, pp.68-77

​

SN1987a Light Curves, P. Whitelock et al., in Proceedings of the Tenth Santa Cruz Workshop in Astronomy and Astrophysics, Springer- Verlag, 1991.

---

Similar observations pertain to ⁵⁷Co and ⁴⁴TiAgain we have a pattern of light emitted after a delay from the initial light, and in this case the delayed photons are from the later decay of the radioactive materials.Again, the question is what should we see if the speed of light was much faster when the supernova actually occurred.When we look at the decay curve, the decay gamma rays would be traveling much faster as they leave the star, but each day of decay is delayed in departure compared to the previous one, as per the new board game above.For the ⁵⁶Ni → ⁵⁶Co at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur with a half-life of 6.1x24/16.8 = 8.7 hours - at the most - to appear to have a half-life of 6.1 days when observed on earth. For the ⁵⁶Co → ⁵⁶Fe at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur with a half-life of 77.1/16.8 = 4.5 days - at the most - to appear to have a half-life of 77.1 days when observed on earth.They would actually need to be less, however, as this is based on the average speed of light and not any curve of change for the speed of light. This means that you need to change the physics of radioactive decay as well as the speed of light in order to match the observed data.

Neutrino vs Photon wave delay

Neutrinos pass through virtually everything without noticeable effect, and a burst of neutrinos is produced during the collapse of a star.SN1987A - A Retrospective Analysis Regarding Neutrino Speed | Sciforums

quote:

---

So, the spread in arrival time of the neutrinos on Earth, measured at 13 seconds, is accounted almost entirely due to the time for the pair-production and cooling to be completed. In other words, all of the neutrinos that travelled those 168,000 light years travelled at exactly the same speed without regard to their energy to within 13 orders of magnitude.

---

Because neutrinos pass through matter unaffected, they leave the supernova virtually instantaneously with the collapse of the star.The photons, however, have to work they way through the outer shell of the star and are slowed by interactions with the matter there on the way, and so their departure is delayed compared to the neutrinos:

quote:

---

Approximately three hours before the visible light from SN 1987A reached the Earth, a burst of neutrinos was observed at those three separate neutrino observatories. This is due to neutrino emission (which occurs simultaneously with core collapse) preceding the emission of visible light (which occurs only after the shock wave reaches the stellar surface). At 7:35 a.m. Universal time, Kamiokande II detected 11 antineutrinos, IMB 8 antineutrinos and Baksan 5 antineutrinos, in a burst lasting less than 13 seconds.

​

In this respect, a point that deserves to be stressed is that all 3 detectors observed a relatively large number of events in the first one second of data-taking, about 40% of the total counts (6 events in Kamiokande-II, 3 events in IMB and 2 events in Baksan), while the remaining 60% were spread out over the course of the next 12 seconds.

​

In other words, these neutrinos travelled a total distance of 5.3 X 10^12 light seconds (168,000 light years), with almost half originating at roughly the same time (within about a 1 second burst of neutrino emission), and all arrived at earth (the light-transit time of earth's diameter is << 1 second and is not a factor due to the spacing of the detectors) within about 1 second of each other. In other words, they all travelled at close to the same speed to within nearly 13 orders of magnitude (5.3 X 10^12 seconds/1 second), far greater than any other measurement precision ever made for the speed of light. And, they all travelled at very close to the speed of light (travelling the same distance as the photons that reached Earth 3 hours later) at a speed consistent to c to within about 1 part per 500 million).

---

And once again, the question is what should we see if the speed of light was much faster when the supernova actually occurred.Both the neutrinos and the photons would be traveling much faster as they leave the star, but the photons are delayed in departure, as per the new board game above.The measured delay between neutrinos and photons was 3 hours, and this is consistent with modern physics calculations for the collapse of such a star:

quote:

---

While one might argue that it would take less than 3 hours for the core implosion energy to reach the surface of the star, and then start its race to Earth with the previously released neutrinos, I believe this has been fairly well presented previously in the astrophysics community to be a reasonable value.

---

For the photon delay at the star, due to the changes in the speed of light, this would have to occur within 3x60/16.8 = 10.7 minutes - at the most - to appear to take 3 hours when observed on earth. It would actually need to be less as this is based on the average speed of light and not any decay curve for the speed of light. This means that you need to change the physics of stellar collapse as well as the speed of light in order to match the observed data.

Conclusions

The conjecture that the speed of light was different in an early universe of 10,000 year age (+/- various creationist beliefs) results in either:

1. Predicted effects that do not fit actual observations:
   ​
   1. The measured wavelengths of light from SN1984A is within the current visible spectrum (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).
      ​
   2. There are a lot of element emission spectrums that were measured and accurately match those of elements on earth (rather than being "blue shifted" by a factor of 16.8 or more as would be predicted by faster light).
      ​
   3. The measured decay half-life of Nickel 56 was observed to be 6.1 days, justs as it is observed here (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).
      ​
   4. The measured decay half-life of Cobalt 56 was observed to be 77.1 days, just as it is observed here (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).
      ​
   5. The photon delay measured behind neutrinos was 3 hours, in accordance with the physics of stellar collapse (rather than 16.8 or more times longer as would be predicted by faster light).
   ​
   OR
   ​
2. Other aspects of reality need to be modified as well as just the speed of light:
   ​
   1. The wavelength of emitted light at the star, would have to be within 479/16.8 = 28.5 nm to 682/16.8 = 40.6 nm - or less - to appear to be within the visible spectrum when observed on earth. No elements have been observed emitting light in wavelengths this short, so the physics of light emission need to be changed as well as the speed of light.
      ​
   2. The emission spectrum of all elements at the star would have to be massively red-shifted by a factor of 16.8 or more to appear normal here on earth, so the physics of emission spectrum absorption would need to be changed as well as the speed of light.
      ​
   3. The frequency of photon emission from the elements involved at the star needs to change as well or the light from the star will be blue shifted as time passes. So the physics of light emission needs to change over time, as well as the speed of light.
      ​
   4. The radioactive decay rates need to be increased to make the half-lives 1/16.8 as long or less. This means changing the physics of radioactive decay as well as the speed of light.
      ​
   5. The collapse of a star needs to occur in 1/16.8 the time or less than current theory predicts, so this means changing the physics of stellar collapse as well as the speed of light.

In other words, either the variable speed of light is falsified, or additional things need to be changed in consort with the speed of light in a carefully managed manner.Each of these will result in other aspects of reality that need to be changed.At this point, with absolutely no mechanism for these additional changes, on top of the absence of any mechanism to alter the speed of light -- other than god/s -- the creationist have a problem: either come up with the mechanisms that explain all these aspects, play the god-did-it card, or admit that the concept is highly unlikely to be valid.Playing the god-did-it card also means acknowledging that god/s have faked the evidence, that all is a hoax, an illusion, and that anyone's concept of reality is as valid as the next. That way lies delusion.If we follow the evidence then the logical conclusion is that the speed of light has not changed significantly in the last 168,000 years.As such I can continue to ignore the rest of your posts until you can support your assertions with evidence.Enjoy.

With RAZD's excellent Tsunamic Wall of evidence, this is time to close this thread.Game over.godsriddle is either woefully undereducated* or just a troll. (s)he even had a blog exposing this foolishness so perpetrated here, but it has gone down probably due to too many hits.. i hope there is still sex for using these kind - (godsriddle) - kind of lines, but, please, not reproductive sex. Evolution is dumb, but not like this.sorry.
we shouldn't coddle this anymore. Apologies.....* there's still time to get up to speed, dude...i'm pulling for you still.

How do you extend the measurement of the number of modern days between the flash and the reflection at SN1987a to the notion that days and years have equal durations?Operational definitions can short circuit the brain. One can end up believing in the actuality of the thing defined with the procedure, even though it is completely undetectable. Just because scientists assume that atoms are perpetual motion engines and use this to define seconds does not mean that time has an actual existence.A light year is not a fixture of nature. It is a mathematical procedure based on the above assumption. No has ever sent beams of light to distant reflective targets (at various ranges) and counted the number of years before they were reflected back.It is impossible to support the notion that SN1987a is 168,000 light years distant since such a measurement is assumption dependent and the assumptions involved are visibly contradicted.1. Billions of galactic orbits are observed to accelerate, when we compare the shape of the most distant galaxies with closer ones at many ranges. We observe how small galaxies were ejected from active galaxies all over the universe. The Magellanic stream connects the MCs back to the MW, clear evidence that the same ejections occurred here. An ejection is an acceleration, not a clock - like orbit. (What we observe is not allowed in the scientific system, which is why scientific cosmic history is mostly about magic).2. Every atomic clock in billions of galaxies clocks a different frequency from modern atoms, and the differences often correlate with distance (dimness and morphological compactness).3. If the same laws are operating in the solar system as we observe in galaxies, then the ancient claim that the planets made close passages just a few hundred generations ago would be supported. Have you ever wondered why ancient astronomers kept measuring a decreasing solar parallax? Have you ever wondered why the earliest astronomical record showed Venus in a much different orbit than what it is in today? Have you ever wondered why the ancients, including the biblical authors, claimed that a planet was crushed in a collision a few millennia ago? Have you ever noticed the crushed planet pieces with volcanic and sedimentary rocks circling in the same direction in the asteroid belt? Seems like the stories of the ancients have more likely validity than the undetectable matter astronomers insist they measure.4. An empiricist might claim to measure unchanging gravity and clock like orbits. In countless examples at many ranges, we observe how galaxies grew into local growth spirals. The atomic clocks visibly accelerate along with the accelerating star streams.5. What causes orbits to accelerate outwards?We know that the "gravitational effect" does NOT propagate at infinite speed. This should produce a difference between the pull on the trailing side of the Earth as paraconical pendulums show. This should accelerate days and years together. You say, if that were happening we could measure it with clocks. Not if the observed acceleration of atomic clocks is the cause of the gravitational phemomena.The claim to measure how many years ago SN1987a occurred is unsupportable except with assumptions that are visibly contradicted in billions of galaxies.The scientific first principle is indeed the foundational assumption in scientific empiricism, yet there is no visible support for this premise anywhere in the universe.

I realise it is just one of many, many strange statements, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experimentEdited by Panda, : No reason given.

Just a reminder that this thread is still open and awaiting your input on the subject.

The speed of light is given is ~ 3E8 m/s. That means that light travels 300,000,000 meters in one second. Multiply this by whatever number of seconds you wish in order to figure out how far light will travel in that time frame. The math really isn't that hard. The speed of light is, as RAZD demonstrated with Supernova 1987a. Yeah, they have. They have found no invariance of the speed of light within the sensitivity of the experiments:Experimental Basis of Special Relativity What are the assumptions and how are they contradicted.

You're being wrong about the same things over and over and not producing a shred of evidence for anything you're saying.

The trigonometric determination of the distance to SN 1987A does not depend on a constant speed of light; the only assumption is that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time.

Exactly.We can then use the other observations to check this assumption. If the speed of light changed then we should see changes in the spectra, but we don't. We would also expect a measurable change in the decay of the cobalt isotopes, but we don't.All of the observations are consistent with a constant speed of light, something that godsriddle and foreveryoung need to deal with.

Hi JonF Correct, see Message 72, which shows that the distance calculation is independent of the speed of light (with the assumption " that c did not vary spatially so rapidly that the two beams were traveling at different speeds at the same time"), and then see Message 109 for how the data we see is dependent on a constant speed of light between the nova burst and today.Enjoy.

This was offtopic on your thread about tree dendrochronology correlations for the last 8000 years, so I copied it here to see what your reply is. This is what I was talking about in my thread about changing constants and physical laws. As steve shows, changing one constant, requires changing them all. He waves his hand and said people have considered the argument carefull and say it just doesn't work. Oh really? Does steve understand the underlying reality behind all the constants? Does he really understand what mass or energy is? Does he understand what time or space is? Is space merely a mathematical construct or does it have physical properties? If it is the latter, does steve understand what those properties are? If the vacuum of space and the energy associated with it can change, so can the constants. If the mass of sub atomic particles is dependent upon the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space, then their masses can also change. I don't think steve took the last two concepts into consideration when he said all the experts tried working the "changing physical constants" argument out, and found it unworkable.Edited by foreveryoung, : No reason given.

Change leaves evidence.Where is the evidenece of change?We covered changing mass back in Message 20. Have you read that post yet?