Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,186 Year: 5,443/9,624 Month: 468/323 Week: 108/204 Day: 8/16 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 9 of 170 (601867)
01-24-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Noitartst
01-24-2011 4:53 PM


Most of all, what comes to mind for me is the speed of light. Its speed has been observed to be slowing consistently since first observed in the 19th century, (as has the rate with which it's done so) ...
You're wrong about everything, including your claim that the speed of light was "first observed in the 19th century".
Which leads me to wonder --- exactly how long did you spend trying to check whether what you wrote was true before you posted it? It would have taken mere seconds to google on such phrases as "measurement of the speed of light" and find out about the history of such measurements. It's not as though they're a big secret.
Here's some historical measurements of the speed of light.
* 1675 Rmer: 200,000 Km/sec
* 1728 Bradley: 301,000 Km/s
* 1849 Fizeau: 313,300 Km/s
* 1862 Foucault 299,796 Km/s
* 1879 Michelson 299,910 km/s
* 1883 Michelson 299,853 km/s
* 1906 Rosa and Dorsey 299,781 km/s.
* 1935 Michelson, Pease & Pearson 299,774 km/s
* Present day: 299792.458 km/s
(Figures from here and here.)
Cherry-pick the right ones and you could pretend it's slowing down. Cherry-pick the right ones and you could pretend it's speeding up. In both cases, you'd have to ignore the inaccuracies inherent in the measurements.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Noitartst, posted 01-24-2011 4:53 PM Noitartst has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 14 of 170 (674233)
09-27-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 4:09 AM


Re: Present is key to the past. This assumes that everything has a constant.
No.
Extrapolation this is.
Yoda you are?
One should not use extrapolation, it relies too much on assumptions.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:09 AM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:31 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 41 of 170 (674516)
09-29-2012 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 7:10 PM


You seem to have come up with an argument that the universe must be older than cosmologists think, are you sure you want to do that? Most creationists want it to be younger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 7:10 PM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 170 (674552)
09-30-2012 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by LimpSpider
09-29-2012 9:07 PM


Actually, I was pointing out the Horizon Problem. Which is basically a light-travel-time problem.
But consider the nature of the problem. If there really is a problem (i.e. if the Inflationary Hypothesis is false) then the universe has to be older then 14 billion years --- unless the speed of light can vary, in which case it could be a mere 14 billion years old.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by LimpSpider, posted 09-29-2012 9:07 PM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 6:48 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 170 (674594)
09-30-2012 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by LimpSpider
09-30-2012 6:48 PM


If the speed of light is variable, why can it ONLY be 14 billion years, why can't it go above c?
It's conceivable, but the argument from the horizon problem doesn't suggest that the universe is younger than 14 billion years. You'd want to find a different argument.
Otherwise it gets a bit convoluted. "Most of the evidence shows that this man is twenty-five. But he has gray hair and wrinkles. One explanation for this is that he has some genetic condition which causes accelerated aging. In which case he might only be eight years old!" But the appearance of greater age than can be accounted for is hardly an argument for greater youth than is supported by the evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 6:48 PM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 9:17 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 65 of 170 (674614)
10-01-2012 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by LimpSpider
09-30-2012 6:48 PM


I'm not saying the Inflationary Hypothesis is false.
Well, what you wrote was: "It could not have possibly taken 14 billion years. It is known as the horizon problem." Which does implicitly assume that the I.H. is false, because if it's true the radiation could have become uniform in the given time. If it comes to that, it also implicitly assumes that the speed of light can't vary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by LimpSpider, posted 09-30-2012 6:48 PM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 1:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 170 (674617)
10-01-2012 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 1:14 AM


Your misrepresentation is rather interesting.
And non-existent. Perhaps that's the most interesting thing about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 1:14 AM LimpSpider has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 8:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 170 (674703)
10-01-2012 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by LimpSpider
10-01-2012 8:56 PM


You mixed up the horizon problem and the solution.
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by LimpSpider, posted 10-01-2012 8:56 PM LimpSpider has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
(1)
Message 92 of 170 (674791)
10-03-2012 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by foreveryoung
10-03-2012 12:25 AM


The fact of the matter is ...
I like the way you say that as though you possessed actual knowledge. It doesn't convince me, of course, but try it on another creationist and he might well fall for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by foreveryoung, posted 10-03-2012 12:25 AM foreveryoung has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
(1)
Message 103 of 170 (674896)
10-04-2012 1:47 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by foreveryoung
10-03-2012 11:38 PM


Yes there is. The earth is orders of magnitude younger than 4.56 billions years old ...
That's not evidence, that's assertion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by foreveryoung, posted 10-03-2012 11:38 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 131 of 170 (675224)
10-09-2012 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-07-2012 3:24 AM


Re: Gibberish
Well, there is little point in pointing out what everybody and his dog agrees on anyway. The point is though that time is a strictly local measurement of distance which escapes the attention of those who persist in the belief that there could be some universal arrow of time. If that holds then the universal arrow of time is physically impossible in principle just like the whole idea of time zero and big bang creation.
Is there a reason why this particularly applies to "time zero" and to the event known as the big bang rather than, for example, last Wednesday and the event known as me eating a hotdog?
If so, could you explain why the former is "physically impossible in principle" and the latter is not, since both refer to particular events happening at particular times?
If not, then apparently you can only deny that the big bang occurred at "time zero" in the same sense that you can deny that I ate a hotdog last Wednesday, i.e. in a really stupid sense which is contrary to fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-07-2012 3:24 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 4:48 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 141 by onifre, posted 10-09-2012 3:01 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 396 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 133 of 170 (675226)
10-09-2012 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-09-2012 4:48 AM


Re: Gibberish
Because cosmologically a particular time is a relative notion meaning a particular distance from a place to place while universally any location is as good as any other which implies that the cosmetologists might as well study your last Wednesday instead of projecting it 13.7 billion light years away from here.
Your post is lame, Inadequate. What facts you are blabbering about? Let's face it, you go round being snide and deriding theists for their silly notions but your own beliefs when examined are the same absurdity squared, cubed and squared again, Inadequate.
So, you are unable to answer my question.
Y'know, you could have communicated your inability to answer my question equally well by not posting anything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-09-2012 4:48 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024