If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]
The earth is billions of years old, speed if light has always been stable, isotope decay rate has always been stable, etc…
You know, the typical crap taught in public high schools.[/quote]
We are now able to observe through the Very Large Telescope that the speed of light may not have always been the same as it is now. We have also been able to observe the decay of radioisotopes from hundreds of millions of years ago and the decay rates are the same.
[/quote]
Does the VLT evidence support the idea that the speed of light has radically decreased?[/quote]
what do you mean by radically?
[/quote]
Light that appears to have taken billions of years to reach earth has really only taken a few thousand years radically.
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]
The earth is billions of years old, speed if light has always been stable, isotope decay rate has always been stable, etc…
You know, the typical crap taught in public high schools.[/quote]
We are now able to observe through the Very Large Telescope that the speed of light may not have always been the same as it is now. We have also been able to observe the decay of radioisotopes from hundreds of millions of years ago and the decay rates are the same.
[/quote]
Does the VLT evidence support the idea that the speed of light has radically decreased?[/quote]
what do you mean by radically?
[/quote]
Light that appears to have taken billions of years to reach earth has really only taken a few thousand years radically. [/quote]
Oh, nothing on that magnitude. I was confused by your question because any change in the speed of light is considered radical to us physicists. We have only noticed a very slight change in the speed of light, not even a single order of magnitude and nothing that wouldn’t cause any calculations involving the speed of light to be off by a percent or two. It may not even be accurate since a review of the procedures revealed a possible technical flaw in the calibration of the telescope. That is being investigated and possible corrections will be made. A lot of physicists are really excited about this since a changing speed of light could have a profound affect on modern physics.
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
What theory do you consider to be the conventional one? Be specific.[/quote]
The earth is billions of years old, speed if light has always been stable, isotope decay rate has always been stable, etc…
You know, the typical crap taught in public high schools.[/quote]
We are now able to observe through the Very Large Telescope that the speed of light may not have always been the same as it is now. We have also been able to observe the decay of radioisotopes from hundreds of millions of years ago and the decay rates are the same.
[/quote]
Does the VLT evidence support the idea that the speed of light has radically decreased?[/quote]
what do you mean by radically?
[/quote]
Light that appears to have taken billions of years to reach earth has really only taken a few thousand years radically. [/quote]
Oh, nothing on that magnitude. I was confused by your question because any change in the speed of light is considered radical to us physicists. We have only noticed a very slight change in the speed of light, not even a single order of magnitude and nothing that wouldn’t cause any calculations involving the speed of light to be off by a percent or two. It may not even be accurate since a review of the procedures revealed a possible technical flaw in the calibration of the telescope. That is being investigated and possible corrections will be made. A lot of physicists are really excited about this since a changing speed of light could have a profound affect on modern physics.
[/quote]
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
Demonstrate to me that you fully understand the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models and I will discuss the Razor.
[/quote]
First you get Ph.D’s in Physics and Astronomy from MIT so you can even understand my demonstration of the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models.
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
Demonstrate to me that you fully understand the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models and I will discuss the Razor.
[/quote]
First you get Ph.D’s in Physics and Astronomy from MIT so you can even understand my demonstration of the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models.[/quote]
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
Demonstrate to me that you fully understand the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models and I will discuss the Razor.
[/quote]
First you get Ph.D’s in Physics and Astronomy from MIT so you can even understand my demonstration of the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models.[/quote]
Are you saying that you have PhD’s in physics and Astronomy from MIT? If you are not, then are are trying to say you understand the material as well as someone with a PhD in it (I do happen to have a PhD in physics)? I would have to say that from your posts that you have no more than a high school education in the physical sciences.
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
Demonstrate to me that you fully understand the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models and I will discuss the Razor.
[/quote]
First you get Ph.D’s in Physics and Astronomy from MIT so you can even understand my demonstration of the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models.[/quote]
Are you saying that you have PhD’s in physics and Astronomy from MIT? If you are not, then are are trying to say you understand the material as well as someone with a PhD in it (I do happen to have a PhD in physics)? I would have to say that from your posts that you have no more than a high school education in the physical sciences.
[/quote]
You’ve missed the sarcasm of his post.
Push is telling him to prove something without having proved what he knows or his credentials on the subject.
So ranengin simply upped the ante, so-to-speak.
You’re new to internet forums aren’t you?
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
Demonstrate to me that you fully understand the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models and I will discuss the Razor.
[/quote]
First you get Ph.D’s in Physics and Astronomy from MIT so you can even understand my demonstration of the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models.[/quote]
Are you saying that you have PhD’s in physics and Astronomy from MIT? If you are not, then are are trying to say you understand the material as well as someone with a PhD in it (I do happen to have a PhD in physics)? I would have to say that from your posts that you have no more than a high school education in the physical sciences.
[/quote]
Hmm…
Are you saying that neither pushharder or I have sufficient level of expertise to come to any kind of informed conclusion concerning the age of the universe?
I don’t have a problem with that… methinks pushharder is cocksure about his sufficient level of expertise though.
If you compared the AOA model to the conventional model using Occam’s razor, which model yields the most likely explanation?
[/quote]
Demonstrate to me that you fully understand the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models and I will discuss the Razor.
[/quote]
First you get Ph.D’s in Physics and Astronomy from MIT so you can even understand my demonstration of the fundamental assumptions beneath the two models.[/quote]
Are you saying that you have PhD’s in physics and Astronomy from MIT? If you are not, then are are trying to say you understand the material as well as someone with a PhD in it (I do happen to have a PhD in physics)? I would have to say that from your posts that you have no more than a high school education in the physical sciences.
[/quote]
You’ve missed the sarcasm of his post.
Push is telling him to prove something without having proved what he knows or his credentials on the subject.
So ranengin simply upped the ante, so-to-speak.
You’re new to internet forums aren’t you?[/quote]
Yeah, I see that now. Sorry ranengin, I didn’t mean to insult you. I am not thinking straight right now. Really shitty day at the university, but that is no excuse.
[quote]Christine wrote:
^
Ha. I first read that as really shitty day in the universe.
[/quote]
HA! It may well have been, but I can only speak for my little part of the universe, [/quote]
Me too! LOL…[/quote]
Well, at least I wasn’t the only one :). I got stuck teaching a basic (100 level) physics course this semester and gave their first test today. Unfortunately, there were a lot of answers like this on it. I hate teaching the basic physics courses.
[quote]Christine wrote:
^
Ha. I first read that as really shitty day in the universe.
[/quote]
HA! It may well have been, but I can only speak for my little part of the universe, [/quote]
Me too! LOL…[/quote]
Well, at least I wasn’t the only one :). I got stuck teaching a basic (100 level) physics course this semester and gave their first test today. Unfortunately, there were a lot of answers like this on it. I hate teaching the basic physics courses.[/quote]
Unfortunately it doesn’t enlarge when I click on it. What does it say?
[quote]Christine wrote:
^
Ha. I first read that as really shitty day in the universe.
[/quote]
HA! It may well have been, but I can only speak for my little part of the universe, [/quote]
Me too! LOL…[/quote]
Well, at least I wasn’t the only one :). I got stuck teaching a basic (100 level) physics course this semester and gave their first test today. Unfortunately, there were a lot of answers like this on it. I hate teaching the basic physics courses.[/quote]
Unfortunately it doesn’t enlarge when I click on it. What does it say?
[/quote]
It is a simple work-energy spring problem where they were supposed to solve for the compression of the spring, but the student drew an elephant in the path and said it couldn’t be solved because an elephant was in the way. Normally I would just laugh at it, but the average grade on the test was 67% and it wasn’t that hard of a test. What messed up your day?
What does it say?