[_ Old Earth _] Speed of Light changes???

[jasoncran]

you say you have a right to exist based on what? you. you exist because you want to exist, so you are self-existing and dont die?
interesting a god.

indeed you do have faith, dont want to admit it, but that is what you say. i think therefore i am. and i am because i think.

 

[coffeeelover]

you say you have a right to exist based on what? you. you exist because you want to exist, so you are self-existing and dont die?
interesting a god.

indeed you do have faith, dont want to admit it, but that is what you say. i think therefore i am. and i am because i think.

You can read. I never said I have a right to exist. In fact that is twice now I have said it. Yes I am a self existing organism, and hope to stay one until I die.

I think therefore I am. You want to say I have faith. I have faith I am alive, and the world isn't the matrix, but I can't be too sure.

There is plenty of real knowledge in the world, and plenty of people who want to spread an easy answer. Promising happiness in the next life if you do something for them in this life. It is a scam.

 

[jasoncran]

You can read. I never said I have a right to exist. In fact that is twice now I have said it. Yes I am a self existing organism, and hope to stay one until I die.

I think therefore I am. You want to say I have faith. I have faith I am alive, and the world isn't the matrix, but I can't be too sure.

There is plenty of real knowledge in the world, and plenty of people who want to spread an easy answer. Promising happiness in the next life if you do something for them in this life. It is a scam.

how so, parents do that all the time, they reward good behavior and punish bad. that is no different

so you dont think that your murder should be punished for killing you? as you said that you have no right to exist?

 

[coffeeelover]

how so, parents do that all the time, they reward good behavior and punish bad. that is no different

so you dont think that your murder should be punished for killing you? as you said that you have no right to exist?

What are you talking about? Lets pick a subject to discuss and stick to it. You keep jumping around all over the place.

If you want to discuss how human ethics and morals evolved, and how civilization formed and evolved we can, but it has nothing to with speed of light, or about how science is the source of real knowledge,and religions dogma is not. At least about the mechanics of reality, and the age of the earth, the speed of light etc.

 

[Sparkey]

What are you talking about? Lets pick a subject to discuss and stick to it. You keep jumping around all over the place.

If you want to discuss how human ethics and morals evolved, and how civilization formed and evolved we can, but it has nothing to with speed of light, or about how science is the source of real knowledge,and religions dogma is not. At least about the mechanics of reality, and the age of the earth, the speed of light etc.

Prior to appointing oneself as the spokesperson for "science" there should at least be some attempt to understand what "science" is. Let's start by trying to agree what it is not. Science is not truth. Science is not alive. Science is not the source of knowledge. C'mon now. Making such statements can severely limit your credibility.

Science isn't scholasticism which, for the most part, involved logical deductive reasoning -- either from principles supplied by Aristotle (as example) or from Scripture. Scholasticism is top down reasoning.

Modern Science, in contrast, involves "bottom up" thinking where one observes nature and forms guesses (or hypotheses, if you'd rather) that are confirmed by other observers and/or experimentation. This "bottom up" process works from basic observation or experiment towards generalization and forms the principles or theories thereby.

Saying "science is the source of real knowledge" is hogwash, hooey and more poppycock that only serves to alienate those who actually would like to increase knowledge. Seems that your hostility is showing. There is no opposition to the various methods. God has not lied and I am certain that this fact will be borne out to even greater degree as mankind continues to unite in our common and curious race to understand.

 

[coffeeelover]

Prior to appointing oneself as the spokesperson for "science" there should at least be some attempt to understand what "science" is. Let's start by trying to agree what it is not. Science is not truth. Science is not alive. Science is not the source of knowledge. C'mon now. Making such statements can severely limit your credibility.

Science isn't scholasticism which, for the most part, involved logical deductive reasoning -- either from principles supplied by Aristotle (as example) or from Scripture. Scholasticism is top down reasoning.

Modern Science, in contrast, involves "bottom up" thinking where one observes nature and forms guesses (or hypotheses, if you'd rather) that are confirmed by other observers and/or experimentation. This "bottom up" process works from basic observation or experiment towards generalization and forms the principles or theories thereby.

Saying "science is the source of real knowledge" is hogwash, hooey and more poppycock that only serves to alienate those who actually would like to increase knowledge. Seems that your hostility is showing. There is no opposition to the various methods. God has not lied and I am certain that this fact will be borne out to even greater degree as mankind continues to unite in our common and curious race to understand.

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. You challenge this in the face of observation, and logic. The formulas work, and technology works.

The world isn't 6000 years old.

 

[Sparkey]

The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. You challenge this in the face of observation, and logic. The formulas work, and technology works.

The world isn't 6000 years old.

: Who said anything about 6000 years other than you? Certainly the Bible didn't. Science doesn't. Why do you have your dog in that fight? And why bring it here to this thread?

Regarding the actual thread topic? Suffice it to say that your beliefs are diametrically opposed to the articles that I have previously posted from such august authorities as Cornell University and Cal-Tech. It would be easy to find many, many more but all I did was a simple google search from home. I'll be back in school tomorrow and can deluge this thread with further evidence that real science does not operate in absolutes but since you've stumbled on what has already be presented it would be mean. The moderators would be right to throw a red flag for "piling on". Let's just leave it, shall we?

~Sparrow

 

[coffeeelover]

: Who said anything about 6000 years other than you? Certainly the Bible didn't. Science doesn't. Why do you have your dog in that fight? And why bring it here to this thread?




~Sparrow

Well the only people who I have heard arguing that the speed of light is not constant are the young earthers. They propose that light has slowed down to account for light from distant galaxies being able to get here in 6000 years.

Also, you never bothered to explain how if the speed of light isn't a constant how it works in formulas, and in turn the technology that relies on those formulas also works.

 

[Sparkey]

You state that I have never bothered to explain... but what I understand you to say is that you have never bothered to read the links that I've previously provided. What does my opinion matter? I'm no scientist.

What I find more interesting is the dynamic that goes on between us.
Used to be that reasoning would go like this:
Hmmm...
I know that "God is Light"
and I also know that God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow...

THEREFOR...

Do you not appreciate the irony in the juxtaposition of such?

 

[coffeeelover]

You state that I have never bothered to explain... but what I understand you to say is that you have never bothered to read the links that I've previously provided. What does my opinion matter? I'm no scientist.

What I find more interesting is the dynamic that goes on between us.
Used to be that reasoning would go like this:
Hmmm...
I know that "God is Light"
and I also know that God never changes, He is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow...

THEREFOR...

Do you not appreciate the irony in the juxtaposition of such?

I appreciate it, but I don't understand why you posted the article or what the purpose of the thread is.

 

[Sparkey]

I appreciate it, but I don't understand why you posted the article or what the purpose of the thread is.

Purpose? I like science. Taking words at their face value is okay too, you know? Anyway, to get back to the thread topic (if we can) it is of interest (to me) to notice changes.

It's okay to think that I've got an axe to grind or something, many do. Check out the articles that I posted sometime (if you want to) and I'd welcome your contributions to the thread. Pretty interesting things going on. Actually I was rather disappointed recently because the year 2009 was supposed to be the "Year of Astronomy". That whole thing fizzled some but I continue to look for advances in knowledge.

 

[coffeeelover]

Purpose? I like science. Taking words at their face value is okay too, you know? Anyway, to get back to the thread topic (if we can) it is of interest (to me) to notice changes.

It's okay to think that I've got an axe to grind or something, many do. Check out the articles that I posted sometime (if you want to) and I'd welcome your contributions to the thread. Pretty interesting things going on. Actually I was rather disappointed recently because the year 2009 was supposed to be the "Year of Astronomy". That whole thing fizzled some but I continue to look for advances in knowledge.

I read the article. It was about the reinterpretation of some old study that leads someone to think Alfa may have changed because some other constant might have change which would lead to possibly c changing. Other articles regarding the subject says it never paned out any results. I certainly haven't seen another article since this one in 2004 in regards to the author replicating any results.

As for astronomy there have been great strides in astronomy in the last two years. We have discovered many new planets. Some could be earth like and exist in the what many people consider the habitable zone.

 

[Deavonreye]

SparrowHawke, . . . what is your opinion/belief of how old the earth is, as well as the universe? Coffeeelover's point about the change in the speed of light DOES usually get brought up BY YEC promoters.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, Deavonrye.

Thank you. I'll reply in a PM.

 

[coffeeelover]

Why not just say how old you think the earth is in the thread. That is what the thread was about. To try and put doubts about the scientific view of the how the universe works?


Your stock answer is to say "I don't know", and claim knowledge is an illusion. Lets just discuss things openly and honestly.

 

[Deavonreye]

I personally don't see the speed of light changing. By physics, light does what it does [to put it in the most simple way]. I think it is just a case of intellectual honesty to state that the speed of light IS constant. No deception by those in the scientific community.

 

[Sparkey]

Why not just say how old you think the earth is in the thread. That is what the thread was about. To try and put doubts about the scientific view of the how the universe works?


Your stock answer is to say "I don't know", and claim knowledge is an illusion. Lets just discuss things openly and honestly.

Okay, hold it right there, bub!
You profess to know what I think and what my purpose is.

Hold this conversation with yourself, the "ignore" button is too handy.

Show where I have claimed that "knowledge is an illusion". I know where you have accused me of such, but point to the post and cite my words exactly or retract your lie.

I'm about done with you.

 

[Sparkey]

I personally don't see the speed of light changing. By physics, light does what it does [to put it in the most simple way]. I think it is just a case of intellectual honesty to state that the speed of light IS constant. No deception by those in the scientific community.

Thanks for the comment, but I never intended to suggest that there was any "deception" that would be found in the scientific community. Did you note the quote from Einstein? He (not I) used the word "blunder". Of course, since then, his theories have been established and accepted by many.

The point that I make though is that those inside the sphere of actual science do NOT make the same types of declarations that the casual student does. Oftentimes the dogmatic statements asserted by the lazy are never supported nor (upon investigation) have they even been said. When the sources of their generalization is questioned the typical reply ignores the request as if it had not been made.

It's as if the author wants to say, "Because I believe it, it must be true." Such self-aggrandizement amounts to folly in my view.

 

[Deavonreye]

I'm just making a point of saying that it is the general conclusion of the scientific community, who tests things such as the speed of light, that it [speed of light] is a constant. I choose to take their word and work for lack of any other credible information. I'm fine with that. . . . and suppose that this is about all I can say about the topic.

 

[coffeeelover]

I

Okay, hold it right there, bub!
You profess to know what I think and what my purpose is.

Hold this conversation with yourself, the "ignore" button is too handy.

Show where I have claimed that "knowledge is an illusion". I know where you have accused me of such, but point to the post and cite my words exactly or retract your lie.

I'm about done with you.

Ok sorry if I miss understand. What is the point of this thread?