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

I don't understand why your message received a jeer and I felt obligated to give you an offsetting cheer. Nothing wrong with citing the Cosmological Statement IMO.But it isn't a convincing argument in my opinion. There are of course scientists, engineers and physicists even who reject the Big Bang Theory, but I don't find it all that impressive to list them. I'll also note that the list includes a number of people known to be cranks, some of whom cling to ideas related to cosmology or relativity that can easily be demonstrated to be wrong. I don't much care about what anyone on the list other than the physicists and some of the mathematicians think anyway.Known cranks that I recognize from a quick perusal of the list and have discussed here in previous threads.Halton Arp
Paul Marmet
Tom Flandern
John Hartnett
Paul LaVioletteOf course my argument does not prove that these guys are wrong about the Big Bang theory being wrong, but neither does a relatively short list of objectors provide any argument that they are right. My point is that you cannot add support for a theory by giving a short list of scientists and engineers, but that this particularly list has some issues.

I think this is begging the question. Frequency and wavelength are inversely related given that the propagation velocity is constant. Edited by NoNukes, : remove erroneous stuff.

I have no idea what your position is. Why did you ask us questions about c changing?

Do you know me well enough to have a guess about what I may have considered?If you do some reading, you'll find that we've had any number of threads here in which we've discussed the ramifications of a changing speed of light. So no, you aren't asking any new questions.If you have an argument to make about properties in the light in the past, and how they may have been different than today, why don't you get to it? Don't worry about whether I can keep up.

The problem, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is that changing all of those other 'constants' does have ramifications for life in the universe and life on earth. But it seems that once the discussion turns to discussing those ramifications, and the fact that those changed constants lead to results we ought to be able to observe, you lose all interest in the discussion. It's as if Devil Woman had never been written.For example, are you seriously suggesting that changing the charge on a proton will have no affect on nuclear fusion? Aren't you going to have to change even more constants to get that to work out?

I've never really understood this argument. We might measure the speed of light in furlongs per fortnight. But we also would not expect anything regarding how the universe operates to change because we have done so. Or because we use the English system rather than the metric system, or because we use units based on the orbital rotation of Zormicron and the length of an Acron's nose. The values of those non-fundamental constants includes their units, and we can readily convert from any one set to another using well understood methods.

I appreciate your patience, but I am still struggling with this idea. I see a distinction between c being 3.0 * 10^8 in MKS units and being 6.0 * 10^8 in the same units, because that change would have an affect on matter/energy equivalency. On the other hand, the fact that c is also about 186,282 mi/sec does not have that same effect.In what sense are the two type of "changes" in the speed of light indistinguishable? Or alternatively where can I find these ideas presented?

removed to avoid dogpileEdited by NoNukes, : Better explained by others.

It would not be a simple matter to show generally what you require, but we do know that the attempts to show some kind of changing in tandem constants have been dismal failures. Plugging up your own ears and losing your temper when those failures are discussed doesn't make the failures go away.And besides all that, have you forgotten that you do want the changes in constants to have had an effect. You want the speed of light to have been greater in the past, and you also want the rate of radioactive decay to have been greater in the past so that your interpretation of Genesis can be correct. It's just that you don't want these macroscopic changes in reality to have left any discernable effects. You want a universe which appears to be like this one, but is actually different.If you want to convince someone that you are correct, then the responsibility for putting together a persuasive post is yours. Stringing together a bunch of assertions, as you do here, and connecting them with "the fact of the matter" isn't going to persuade anyone.

You are always welcome to ignore me. But you've admitted in this thread that part of the reason for losing your temper is the audience having their fingers in their ears. In other words, because your ideas are not given what you consider to be proper consideration.Here is some truth for you. You start a thread in this forum with the title "Debunking Setterfields Speed of Light Model". After stating that you wished to discuss Jellison's rebuttal of Setterfield's model, you made a single post indicating that you had only read parts of the article you wanted to discuss, and despite the fact that any number of people did read the article and posted substantive remarks, you never got around to engaging any discussion. My own post Message 7 which was quite earlier in the thread, contains disagreement with you but no sarcasm. My remaining posts were not even addressed to you, but to others because you didn't even bother participating. Once the physics starts being discussed, you are always long gone.And it isn't just sarcasm or condescension that makes you blow up. You've blown up at least once simply because nobody would take you seriously without seeing some evidence.Piling on? The record shows that you received only 5 responses to your two posts in the Setterfield thread.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your posts are being read and responded to. So we are listening. But by and large your posts are not persuasive. So if it is indeed not being listened to that makes you angry, then you ought to be down right cheerful every time you see a post that is completely responsive to your posts.But that is not what I see happening. Do I really need to cite examples?In this case, it is clear that you are being listened to. There is no question IMO, that the people who are asking you to anchor your position by telling us the reasons for pegging the earth's age at orders of magnitude less than a billion years, or who are asking for your reason for believing that geological ages are all wrong have listened to your arguments. Are you going to address those arguments.Edited by NoNukes, : Add some on topic content.

You understand of course that this sentence is demonstrably false. A moments thought ought to convince you of that.

Regardless of whether there ever was a big bang or not, the sentence that I quoted is absolute rubbish. It is a trivial mater to select points and locations for which the statement is untrue.

quote:

---

Remember any location on that sphere is separated not only from your present location but also from any other location at the same distance from you

---

Speaking of not even being wrong, how is that definition of energy coming along?

Sure. That's pretty easy to grasp. Now can you picture a situation where John and Mary are each 1500 meters (or any other distance) away from you and yet the two are in contact with each other? Because that arrangement would also meet the description in your sentence. Below, I quote that sentence for the third time, this time with emphasis added by me. Condescension only works when you are right about something.

Sure dude. That's exactly what you meant when you gave your example of people on opposite sides of the sphere surrounding you. If instead you are simply saying that two objects cannot occupy the same point, then you needn't have discussed the sphere at all, right?I should know by now that discussion with you is not productive. I've got some code to write, so I'm gonna get back to it.