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

I would like to point out a few things. I am a creationist, by the way.First of all, if the speed of light was decreasing, we would eventually not be able to see it. (Meaning that it disappears)Have you heard of the Carmeli-Hartnett Cosmological Model? It explains this problem quite easily (For those who don’t know, Carmeli proposed this as an alternative to FL models, only Hartnett’s version is creationist.)Re: Present is key to the past. This assumes that everything has a constant. Example, that if something is decaying at such a rate now, it was decaying at such a rate before. Extrapolation this is. One should not use extrapolation, it relies too much on assumptions.

quote:

---

No.

---

More accurately, uniformitarian.

quote:

---

Yoda you are?

---

I love Yoda. He’s cool. Although Kal Skirata didn’t think so...But that’s off topic.

quote:

---

So, presumably you tie yourself to the bed every night, in case gravity reverses direction while you're asleep and you fall up and break your neck on the ceiling.
Or do you just reject the use of "extrapolation" (or "the scientific method" as the rest of us call it) when it leads to answers you don't like?

---

I do not get you tie to the bed analogy. Can you explain? The scientific method is not extrapolation.
1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known;conjecture.
2.
Statistics . to estimate (the value of a variable) outside thetabulated or observed range.
3.
Mathematics . to estimate (a function that is known over arange of values of its independent variable) to values outsidethe known range.I guess you know what the scientific method is. What I’m saying is that extrapolation does not always lead to the correct answers. Perhaps the curve is like a rate of reaction-substrate concentration graph shape?

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?

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)

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

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.

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...

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

Different things, The cosmological statements have been signed by people who oppose the Big Bang model. It was not a creationist document in any way.

There will be. If only we religious people would stop being morons, yeah?

I support the statement, not necessarily the cosmologists. I don’t want to start a new topic, not now, anyway. (Too busy with off-forum stuff)

Actually, it has a light-travel time problem. Due to the CMB coming from all directions with a characteristic temperature. There's not nearly enough time for radiation to become so....uniform.

It could not have possibly taken 14 billion years. It is known as the horizon problem. Horizon problem - Wikipedia

Actually, I was pointing out the Horizon Problem. Which is basically a light-travel-time problem. It may not necessarily be older, actually. Which brings to mind that creationists have an answer to the light-time-travel problem. In the form of the Carmeli-Hartnett model. I don’t want to go into that now. I’m just noting it here.

Are you insinuating that I have not read it? How exciting!The following is from an article by Danny Faulkner....Being a wave phenomenon, light can be polarized. That is, light can vibrate in preferred directions. Most light is unpolarized, but various mechanisms can introduce some polarization. The matter clumping in the early universe ought to manifest itself to a degree in what physicists call E-mode polarization. WMAP has found evidence of this. However, B-mode polarization ought to arise from gravity waves resulting from inflation. Has WMAP found B-mode polarization? So despite the claim made by the press release and the website, there is no evidence of inflation. What is going on then?Cosmologists now regularly take data from very different experiments and combine them into a single result, though press results rarely discuss the input of the disparate data. An example of this was the February 2003 announcement of the latest 13.7 billion year age estimate of the universe, along with estimates of the percentages of mass distributed amongst lighted and dark matter and dark energy. Also left unsaid is how extremely model-dependent the conclusions are. That is, if we change the model slightly, the conclusions change as well. The recent claim of the discovery of evidence for inflation builds upon the earlier WMAP work, among others, and, like the others, is very model-dependent. For instance, how the observed E-mode polarization constrains the amount of inflation energy is model-dependent. The model dependence amounts to a type of circular reasoningcosmologists interpret the data assuming inflation, and then used the data to support inflation.It appears that the claim that we have found evidence of inflation is overstated. At best, the evidence is very indirect and to the point of being premature.So, why all the fanfare now? In a few years, new experiments currently underway ought to measure B-mode polarization directly. However, even if B-mode polarization is found, the conclusion that it must result from inflation will be model-dependent. Inflation is such a foundation for modern big bang cosmogony that it is almost unthinkable among cosmologists that it might not exist. Thus the claim of first discovery of evidence for inflation carries much reward when compared to the risk of eventually being proved wrong.Oh, and yes. I do understand what he is saying. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : More blank lines.