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

What? Well, you're extrapolating the direction of gravity tonight based on your experience so far. 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.

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.

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)

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. I have no idea what you can possibly have been thinking when you wrote that.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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

That's exactly what it is.

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

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.

Are you kidding? This is what you said: 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? No. *I* appear to be using the definition of extrapolation. You appear to have no clue. 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

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.

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...

Here's a link to what you're referring to: Cosmology StatementBut 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

Do you mean Cosmological argument?Do you know what it is?ABEOops. I see Percy posted about this at same time. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

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