Welcome back Rod
now on to my replies.
theropod wrote:This thread has become tedious and boring. Have fun all. I've had enough.
Don't give up quite yet. His mental wall of contradictions has to be forming in on himself.
Agrippina wrote:It would help if Rodcarty actually kept off with the thread instead of disappearing for days at a time and then discussing posts that are long forgotten, and then answering them with "presupposition" and "fallacy of my own invented interpretation of a fallacy" I agree. SO to Rodcarty, just ignore all the previous pages and please reply to only the last two, let's get back on track or you'll end up fallaciating yourself.
He won't do that until he gets to this page. I do wonder what caused the slowdown in posting though.
rodcarty wrote:A gravity well slows down the speed of light. A gravity well makes light outside the gravity well appear to move faster due to time dilation for the observer within the gravity well. Simple physics. There are two theories that I know of which address the apparent problem of the maximum speed of light. One is In the book Starlight, Time, and the New Physics by Dr. John Hartnett, pub. 2007 he suggests that all stars were much closer together initially, then God stretched out the universe and all the stars went along for the ride. The stretching part is actually what is said in the Bible, stretching it out as one does a tent. This means the light from the stars didn't have far to go to reach Earth at first so would have reached here very quickly. there would have been a lot of redshift during the stretching process, and now we only see the amount that is part of the natural repulsion of matter away from all other matter. The other is Dr. Jason Lisle's theory, the anisotropic synchrony convention.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v3/n1/anisotropic-synchrony-convention
Rod, you have got to be shitting me. Light travels at the same speed no matter what it passes by. Would you care to refute Einstein, Hubble, Feynman, and others? AiG knows shit about physics and you reply here reeks of blatant ignorance and lies. Oh ya, you didn't claim light slows down, your source did but you are using your source to argue against a point. Sheesh, read a physics book. This is getting stupid funny know. What next? Rod you are being deliberately misleading now with your assertions and all of us can clearly see that you are parroting known falsehoods even to yourself. Do you not remember my post on what it would mean if the speed of light changed? Stop asserting shit, that's what AiG is, shit and more shit.
by the way, John Hartnett and Jason Lisle have had their theories ripped to shreds because they don't conform to the laws of physics. Since you don't like to click on links...
The speed of light in vacuum, usually denoted by c, is a physical constant important in many areas of physics. Its value is 299,792,458 metres per second, a figure that is exact since the length of the metre is defined from this constant and the international standard for time. In imperial units this speed is approximately 186,282 miles per second.
According to special relativity, c is the maximum speed at which all energy, matter, and information in the universe can travel. It is the speed of all massless particles and associated fields—including electromagnetic radiation such as light—in vacuum, and it is predicted by the current theory to be the speed of gravity (that is, gravitational waves). Such particles and waves travel at c regardless of the motion of the source or the inertial frame of reference of the observer. In the theory of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence E = mc2...
Ole Rømer first demonstrated in 1676 that light travelled at a finite speed (as opposed to instantaneously) by studying the apparent motion of Jupiter's moon Io. In 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed that light was an electromagnetic wave, and therefore traveled at the speed c appearing in his theory of electromagnetism. In 1905, Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light with respect to any inertial frame is independent of the motion of the light source, and explored the consequences of that postulate by deriving the special theory of relativity and showing that the parameter c had relevance outside of the context of light and electromagnetism. After centuries of increasingly precise measurements, in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a relative measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre...
The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905, after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether; it has since been consistently confirmed by many experiments. It is only possible to verify experimentally that the two-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a mirror and back again) is frame-independent, because it is impossible to measure the one-way speed of light (for example, from a source to a distant detector) without some convention as to how clocks at the source and at the detector should be synchronized. However, by adopting Einstein synchronization for the clocks, the one-way speed of light becomes equal to the two-way speed of light by definition. The special theory of relativity explores the consequences of this invariance of c with the assumption that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. One consequence is that c is the speed at which all massless particles and waves, including light, must travel in vacuum.
γ starts at 1 when v equals zero and stays nearly constant for small v's, then it sharply curves upwards and has a vertical asymptote, diverging to positive infinity as v approaches c.
The Lorentz factor γ as a function of velocity. It starts at 1 and approaches infinity as v approaches c.
Special relativity has many counterintuitive and experimentally verified implications. These include the equivalence of mass and energy (E = mc2), length contraction (moving objects shorten),[Note 3] and time dilation (moving clocks run slower). The factor γ by which lengths contract and times dilate, is known as the Lorentz factor and is given by γ = (1 − v2/c2)−1/2, where v is the speed of the object. The difference of γ from 1 is negligible for speeds much slower than c, such as most everyday speeds—in which case special relativity is closely approximated by Galilean relativity—but it increases at relativistic speeds and diverges to infinity as v approaches c.
The results of special relativity can be summarized by treating space and time as a unified structure known as spacetime (with c relating the units of space and time), and requiring that physical theories satisfy a special symmetry called Lorentz invariance, whose mathematical formulation contains the parameter c. Lorentz invariance is an almost universal assumption for modern physical theories, such as quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, the Standard Model of particle physics, and general relativity. As such, the parameter c is ubiquitous in modern physics, appearing in many contexts that are unrelated to light. For example, general relativity predicts that c is also the speed of gravity and of gravitational waves. In non-inertial frames of reference (gravitationally curved space or accelerated reference frames), the local speed of light is constant and equal to c, but the speed of light along a trajectory of finite length can differ from c, depending on how distances and times are defined.
It is generally assumed that fundamental constants such as c have the same value throughout spacetime, meaning that they do not depend on location and do not vary with time. However, it has been suggested in various theories that the speed of light may have changed over time. No conclusive evidence for such changes has been found, but they remain the subject of ongoing research.
It also is generally assumed that the speed of light is isotropic, meaning that it has the same value regardless of the direction in which it is measured. Observations of the emissions from nuclear energy levels as a function of the orientation of the emitting nuclei in a magnetic field (see Hughes–Drever experiment), and of rotating optical resonators (see Resonator experiments) have put stringent limits on the possible two-way anisotropy.
According to special relativity, the energy of an object with rest mass m and speed v is given by γmc2, where γ is the Lorentz factor defined above. When v is zero, γ is equal to one, giving rise to the famous E = mc2 formula for mass-energy equivalence. Since the γ factor approaches infinity as v approaches c, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light. The speed of light is the upper limit for the speeds of objects with positive rest mass.
Three pairs of coordinate axes are depicted with the same origin A; in the green frame, the x axis is horizontal and the ct axis is vertical; in the red frame, the x′ axis is slightly skewed upwards, and the ct′ axis slightly skewed rightwards, relative to the green axes; in the blue frame, the x′′ axis is somewhat skewed downwards, and the ct′′ axis somewhat skewed leftwards, relative to the green axes. A point B on the green x axis, to the left of A, has zero ct, positive ct′, and negative ct′′.
Event A precedes B in the red frame, is simultaneous with B in the green frame, and follows B in the blue frame.
More generally, it is normally impossible for information or energy to travel faster than c. One argument for this follows from the counter-intuitive implication of special relativity known as the relativity of simultaneity. If the spatial distance between two events A and B is greater than the time interval between them multiplied by c then there are frames of reference in which A precedes B, others in which B precedes A, and others in which they are simultaneous. As a result, if something were travelling faster than c relative to an inertial frame of reference, it would be travelling backwards in time relative to another frame, and causality would be violated. In such a frame of reference, an "effect" could be observed before its "cause". Such a violation of causality has never been recorded, and would lead to paradoxes such as the tachyonic antitelephone...
The finite speed of light is important in astronomy. Due to the vast distances involved, it can take a very long time for light to travel from its source to Earth. For example, it has taken 13 billion (13×109) years for light to travel to Earth from the faraway galaxies viewed in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field images. Those photographs, taken today, capture images of the galaxies as they appeared 13 billion years ago, when the universe was less than a billion years old. The fact that more distant objects appear to be younger, due to the finite speed of light, allows astronomers to infer the evolution of stars, of galaxies, and of the universe itself.
Astronomical distances are sometimes expressed in light-years, especially in popular science publications and media. A light-year is the distance light travels in one year, around 9461 billion kilometres, 5879 billion miles, or 0.3066 parsecs. Proxima Centauri, the closest star to Earth after the Sun, is around 4.2 light-years away.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_lightAlso I will add that to determine if the speed of light changed in the past, all you have to do is look at a supernova, measure it's distance and using spectral analysis, measure the decay rates observed and see if they differ than those observed here on Earth and you know what, there is no difference observed. That means that billions of years ago light traveled at the same speed it does today. I do find it funny that creationists are trying to slyly incorporate known science into their hackjob theories. Expanding universe? When did it change to that from static? Too much evidence made them change to try and look more legitimate? Come on Rod, you're getting more ridiculous now.
rodcarty wrote:Sovereign wrote:rodcarty wrote:Sovereign wrote:On genetics.. I know the Bible is authoritative to you on all topics so why do you not hold the Bible's position on genetics?
Genesis 30:25-43
So stop harping on about your version of genetics which isn't even accepted by the Bible.
Strawman. That passage is not about genetics, it's about God performing a miracle.
Strawman? That passage concerns breeding and phenotypes according to how the Bible thinks it should work. What is you proof that God performed a miracle and it wasn't their understanding of how they thought breeding worked? God never gave instructions to do that like he did with all the other miracles in Genesis. It was understood to be the case by the writer of that passage of how to breed various animals. Don't call a fallacy where you can't form a rebuttal.
The passage is clearly a way for God to supernaturally bless Jacob and not bless Laban. If this was a general principle that God wanted people to use whenever they were breeding animals then God would have made it instructions. As It was, God did not instruct Jacob to do this.
Rod, you keep doing this. You always keep editing out my quotes to make it seem that I'm saying something unsubstantiated and not addressing what I'm asking you to address. The part of my post you left out was this.
Sovereign wrote:Jacob's breeding practices are based on the ancient belief that what a mother experiences while pregnant is transmitted to the fetus. Jacob sets up tree branches that he has cut in order to expose their white center. The black goats look upon these branches while mating, and the white from the inner core of the branch is transferred to their offspring and so they produce speckled offspring. He makes white goats to look at the dark goats in order to achieve the same results. He purposely uses only the best of the flock for his selective breeding, leaving Laban with a flock of weak and inferior animals.
The Collegeville Bible Commentary: based on the New American Bible by Dianne Bergant and Robert J. Karris page 67
http://www.amazon.com/Collegeville-Bibl ... nskepti-20So you can buy it and look it up for yourself.
Now it is known that ancient peoples believed what is highlighted in red to be true, regardless of what they believed religiously. It is how they thought traits were passed on from mother to offspring. You can see this in many ancient cultures. The Bible stated this as true, a belief common to ancient man before the understanding of genetics. Will you address my post and stop editing them before replying?
by 
