Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
 3 online now: Newest Member: sirs Post Volume: Total: 917,652 Year: 4,909/9,624 Month: 257/427 Week: 3/64 Day: 1/2 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Science Forums Big Bang and Cosmology

# What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?

Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 16 of 170 (674242) 09-27-2012 9:39 AM Reply to: Message 15 by LimpSpider09-27-2012 9:31 AM

More accurately, uniformitarian.
What?
I do not get you tie to the bed analogy. Can you explain?
Well, you're extrapolating the direction of gravity tonight based on your experience so far.
The scientific method is not extrapolation.
Well, the scientific method involves taking something to be true if it's always true when you check. If the speed of light in a vacuum always seems to be c, then we are obliged to think that that's always and everywhere the speed of light in a vacuum unless and until we find evidence to the contrary. Not only science, but everyday life, would become impossible without this principle.

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:31 AM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 18 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

 (2)
 Message 17 of 170 (674258) 09-27-2012 11:59 AM Reply to: Message 15 by LimpSpider09-27-2012 9:31 AM

LimpSpider writes:
The scientific method is not extrapolation.
The scientific method is extrapolation with feedback. You extrapolate/hypothesize from what is known and you test the extrapolation/prediction to see if it matches what is known/observed.
That's how we know what is constant and what is not.

 This message is a reply to: Message 15 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:31 AM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 19 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:18 PM ringo has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4268 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 18 of 170 (674299) 09-27-2012 6:48 PM Reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate09-27-2012 9:39 AM

quote:
what?
Sorry, that was me mixing things up. Explanation to follow.
Assuming that the present is the key to the past is assuming that everything stays the same. That includes the fluctuation of things. For example, we see a sine graph, a part of it, maybe one whole oscillation. We think, reasonably, that it continues onward in this manner. But what if what we see is not a sine graph but has the shape of a sine graph? WHat about an inflexion point where we only see the first bend?
quote:
Well, you're extrapolating the direction of gravity tonight based on your experience so far.
This is not extrapolating actually. I gave you the definition of extrapolation. This is within the given range. Predicting that I would stick to my bed due to Earth’s gravity and be unable to rise is an extrapolation.
quote:
Well, the scientific method involves taking something to be true if it's always true when you check. If the speed of light in a vacuum always seems to be c, then we are obliged to think that that's always and everywhere the speed of light in a vacuum unless and until we find evidence to the contrary. Not only science, but everyday life, would become impossible without this principle.
Once again, it fits the data. Extrapolation requires we have something that does not fit into the range of data. If we find data for it, well and good.
Does that explain?

 This message is a reply to: Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 9:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 7:45 PM LimpSpider has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4268 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 19 of 170 (674309) 09-27-2012 7:18 PM Reply to: Message 17 by ringo09-27-2012 11:59 AM

I think I replied somewhat to this in my response to Dr.. Anyway, Yes, that’s my point. But, for me, in addition to that, there are many things that we can’t observe, or gather data from. Have you ever heard of constant change? (I’ll elaborate if you haven’t)

 This message is a reply to: Message 17 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 11:59 AM ringo has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 26 by ringo, posted 09-28-2012 12:27 PM LimpSpider has replied

Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 20 of 170 (674317) 09-27-2012 7:45 PM Reply to: Message 18 by LimpSpider09-27-2012 6:48 PM

This is not extrapolating actually.
Yes it is. If we measure x to be have a certain value every time we look, then it is indeed extrapolation to say that x will most likely have the same value tomorrow.
Extrapolation requires we have something that does not fit into the range of data.
I have no idea what you can possibly have been thinking when you wrote that.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 18 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 6:48 PM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 21 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4268 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 21 of 170 (674320) 09-27-2012 7:50 PM Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate09-27-2012 7:45 PM

It was the same value yesterday, and the day before, so it's not extrapolation to say that tomorrow should be the same.
What was I thinking of? The definition of extrapolation which I have already given

 This message is a reply to: Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 7:45 PM Dr Adequate has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:07 PM LimpSpider has not replied Message 23 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 8:48 PM LimpSpider has replied

Member (Idle past 372 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006

 Message 22 of 170 (674324) 09-27-2012 8:07 PM Reply to: Message 21 by LimpSpider09-27-2012 7:50 PM

It was the same value yesterday, and the day before, so it's not extrapolation to say that tomorrow should be the same.
That's exactly what it is.

 This message is a reply to: Message 21 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:50 PM LimpSpider has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 (1)
 Message 23 of 170 (674328) 09-27-2012 8:48 PM Reply to: Message 21 by LimpSpider09-27-2012 7:50 PM

LimpSpider writes:
It was the same value yesterday, and the day before, so it's not extrapolation to say that tomorrow should be the same.
So if it was 5 the day before yesterday and 6 yesterday and 7 today, extrapolation says it will be 8 tomorrow.
But if it was 5 the day before yesterday and 5 yesterday and 5 today, extrapolation says it will be 5 tomorrow.
Extrapolation in this context just means the use of simple math to project forward in time. This is just basic terminology. You might want to question whether you have the necessary background to be discussing this.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 21 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:50 PM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 24 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 8:52 PM Percy has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4268 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 24 of 170 (674330) 09-27-2012 8:52 PM Reply to: Message 23 by Percy09-27-2012 8:48 PM

Percy, are you talking about time? We appear to be using different definitions of extrapolation. In this context that you have just mentioned, I have no objection.

 This message is a reply to: Message 23 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 8:48 PM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 25 by Percy, posted 09-27-2012 9:13 PM LimpSpider has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 (2)
 Message 25 of 170 (674338) 09-27-2012 9:13 PM Reply to: Message 24 by LimpSpider09-27-2012 8:52 PM

LimpSpider writes:
Percy, are you talking about time?
Are you kidding? This is what you said:
LimpSpider in Message 21 writes:
It was the same value yesterday, and the day before, so it's not extrapolation to say that tomorrow should be the same.
It wasn't me that started talking about time, it was you. Just what did you think you were referring to when you talked about yesterday and the day before and tomorrow if not time?
We appear to be using different definitions of extrapolation.
No. *I* appear to be using the definition of extrapolation. You appear to have no clue.
In this context that you have just mentioned, I have no objection.
In this context? Are you daft? It's your context. You said yesterday and the day before and tomorrow, and so did I. I did not change context on you. Is English your first language?
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 24 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 8:52 PM LimpSpider has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 499 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005

 (1)
 Message 26 of 170 (674393) 09-28-2012 12:27 PM Reply to: Message 19 by LimpSpider09-27-2012 7:18 PM

LimpSider writes:
But, for me, in addition to that, there are many things that we can’t observe, or gather data from.
Anything that we can't observe or gather data from is outside the sphere of science. You can't throw out science - e.g. evolution or Big Bang - based on something we can't observe or gather data from.

 This message is a reply to: Message 19 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 7:18 PM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 27 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:08 AM ringo has replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4268 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 27 of 170 (674455) 09-29-2012 7:08 AM Reply to: Message 26 by ringo09-28-2012 12:27 PM

quote:
Anything that we can't observe or gather data from is outside the sphere of science. You can't throw out science - e.g. evolution or Big Bang - based on something we can't observe or gather data from.
But from something we can observe, yeah? Have you seen the cosmological statement?
By the way, though I disagree with evolution and the Big Bang, I do find the idea cool. Not like I'm a bigot...

 This message is a reply to: Message 26 by ringo, posted 09-28-2012 12:27 PM ringo has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 28 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 9:09 AM LimpSpider has replied Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 09-29-2012 9:09 AM LimpSpider has replied Message 35 by ringo, posted 09-29-2012 1:06 PM LimpSpider has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22622
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.7

 Message 28 of 170 (674468) 09-29-2012 9:09 AM Reply to: Message 27 by LimpSpider09-29-2012 7:08 AM

LimpSpider writes:
But from something we can observe, yeah? Have you seen the cosmological statement?
Here's a link to what you're referring to: Cosmology Statement
But I think you'd be drifting way off topic if you got into that. It doesn't even mention light. Why don't you propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics if that's what you want to talk about.
--Percy

 This message is a reply to: Message 27 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:08 AM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 30 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:18 AM Percy has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9283
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.1

 Message 29 of 170 (674469) 09-29-2012 9:09 AM Reply to: Message 27 by LimpSpider09-29-2012 7:08 AM

Do you mean Cosmological argument?
Do you know what it is?
ABE
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

 This message is a reply to: Message 27 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:08 AM LimpSpider has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 31 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:20 AM Theodoric has not replied

LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 4268 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012

 Message 30 of 170 (674471) 09-29-2012 9:18 AM Reply to: Message 28 by Percy09-29-2012 9:09 AM

No, I don't really want to talk about that, not now.

 This message is a reply to: Message 28 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 9:09 AM Percy has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 32 by Percy, posted 09-29-2012 9:29 AM LimpSpider has replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)