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

[jasoncran]

not a personal attack at all.

you are mistundering that distance varation as whats to say that it wont occur again?

thus a cause should be found.

i used that to make a case. i have helped other pass the land navigation courses and do understand that even if you are off 100 to 200m you will not find that pole that you need to record the #'s on.

in the real use of that it might be a tank and or your buddy and you see him and he needs to get help but has no radio and has signaled you by other means and you have to guide someone there its at night

accuracy hence is needed.

in space that too one might think is just as needed.

 

[Deavonreye]

Okay. . . I know it's hard to convey state of mind with text. And I see the point you're trying to make.

 

[Sparkey]

Quote:

Good families --even great families -- are off track 90% of the time! The key is that they have a sense of destination. They know what the "track" looks like. And they keep coming back to it time and time again.

It's like the flight of an airplane. Before they plane takes off, the pilots have a flight plan. They know exactly where they're going and start off in accordance with their plan. But during the course of the flight, wind, rain, turbulence, air traffic, human error, and other factors act upon that plane. They move it slightly in different directions so that most of the time that plane is not even on the prescribed flight path! Throughout the entire trip there are slight deviations from the flight plan. Weather systems or unusually heavy air traffic may even cause major deviations. But barring anything too major, the plane will arrive at its destination.

Now how does that happen? During the flight, the pilots receive constant feedback. They receive information from instruments that read the environment, from control towers, from other airplanes --even sometimes from the stars. And based on that feedback, they make adjustments so that time and time again, they keep returning to the flight plan.

The hope lies not in the deviations but in the vision, the plan, and the ability to get back on track.¹



Footnotes /// Credits
¹ Covey, Stephen. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective Families. New York: Golden Books, 1997. pp 9-10. Print.

 

[jasoncran]

ok, i kinda stated that.

 

[Sparkey]

Re: The "constancy" of constants

Interesting article about the Hubble Constant from NASA
WMAP- Expansion of the Universe
http: <----> map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.html (minus the <---->)

Your take on this, pls?

 

[Physicist]

That was my point when I opened the thread. The bible clearly declares the mistake that people who think too highly of themselves make. They believe all things continue [today] as they were from the beginning. Now that is quite the assumption, especially when the only ONE who knows declares it otherwise.

[2 Peter 3:4 KJV] - [4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.

[Ephesians 3:9 KJV] - [9] And to make all [men] see what [is] the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

[1 John 3:8, 11 KJV] - [8] He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil. ... [11] For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
_________________________________________________

Does E=MC² reflect the truth if there is no "C" ??
I think no. Clearly, if there is no 'constant' - the theory fails.

~Sparrow

The best way to think of c is a units conversion factor in the same way that 0.393700787 converts centimeters to inches. In relativity theory, time and space become replaced by space time and energy and momentum are replaced by an energy-momentum tensor.

The energy equation is then written as (E/C)**2=(p)**2+ m0 where m0 is the rest mass.Some theoretical physicists have hypotheisized that c may have varied slightly, the equivalent of assuming that your rulers have changed. Such speculation is common in physics. There are proposals to have the gravitational constant vary, change the number of space dimensions, or have a set of mirror supersymmetric particles for the set of known particles.

These are all hypotheses that are yet to be tested.

 

[Sparkey]

The best way to think of c is a units conversion factor in the same way that 0.393700787 converts centimeters to inches. In relativity theory, time and space become replaced by space time and energy and momentum are replaced by an energy-momentum tensor.

The energy equation is then written as (E/C)**2=(p)**2+ m0 where m0 is the rest mass.Some theoretical physicists have hypotheisized that c may have varied slightly, the equivalent of assuming that your rulers have changed. Such speculation is common in physics. There are proposals to have the gravitational constant vary, change the number of space dimensions, or have a set of mirror supersymmetric particles for the set of known particles.

These are all hypotheses that are yet to be tested.

Physicist, thank you for the reply. I continue to read articles that are over my head while pondering things. There seems to be two differing methods for drawing conclusions about creation. The 'old", top-down deductive method considered by many religious and the 'scientific', specific-to-general method that is currently in vogue. It is my belief that our (mankind's) conclusions are suspect. Not 'science" nor 'God' but our unstable thinking. It is also my expectation that such things, over time, will resolve. Unity is more critical to advancement than quarrels.

Thanks again for your contribution,
~Sparrow

 

[Physicist]

Physicist, thank you for the reply. I continue to read articles that are over my head while pondering things. There seems to be two differing methods for drawing conclusions about creation. The 'old", top-down deductive method considered by many religious and the 'scientific', specific-to-general method that is currently in vogue. It is my belief that our (mankind's) conclusions are suspect. Not 'science" nor 'God' but our unstable thinking. It is also my expectation that such things, over time, will resolve. Unity is more critical to advancement than quarrels.

Thanks again for your contribution,
~Sparrow

I am quite confidant that our scientific models 200 years from now will be quite different than the ones we presently use. The real challenge, of course, is finding those better models.