Limits of Science

There are a number of ways to directly measure certain physical constants from the past.The main one that springs to mind is the study of distant stars and galaxies.We can measure the light frequencies and a number of other properties that tell us without a shadow of a doubt that when the light was emitted from the distant star/galaxy, it was created under identical physical conditions to the ones we see today on Earth.This light is reaching us in the present but was created in the distant past so it fulfills all the criteria.Of course you have to accept that these stars and galaxies really are millions of light years away and aren't simply painted on the inside of a giant sphere that surrounds us (or some other such strange concept). And also that the laws of physics apply equally to all parts of space at any given time.I am not an expert in cosmology though. There are some here who could explain it better.

Awww.You went and said it so much better than I did.

You seem to be missing the point here.
If you accept that the evidence we can directly measure from distant stars (today) shows that the light that we see (today) was generated under identical conditions to those we observe (today) and you also accept that the speed of light is constant (today) and has been so for at least a few thousand years then how did the light from these distant stars (millions of light years away) reach us?If the universe changed to the way it is now only a few thousand years ago then that light could not possibly be here yet. That means that the light started its journey longer ago than a few thousand years right?
Since we can directly measure the physical conditions in the star at the time the light was originated, this means that the universe has to be older than a few thousand years. The only other explanation is that the photons of light were deliberately created already in transit to us with the intent to simulate great age.
That just makes no sense.

I'm afraid you are simply wrong here. It was generated under the same conditions we have here right now. We can tell that because the way stars work at a quantum level is intimately related to the speed of light. Specific frequencies in the light tells us the exact conditions under which the light was (not is right now) generated. No we can't! It is impossible to say any such thing. For all we know the localized physics where the star is right now could have changed completely (assuming that such a thing is possible). We can say absolutely nothing about the way it is right now because we can only see what happened waaaaaay back when the light was formed. Naah!! I don't buy that. It was the time warp fairies that put the photons there about 6000 years ago and gave them a smack in the right direction.When measuring the conditions in a star, we are not assuming anything. We are in actual fact taking a direct measurement of conditions in the distant past.
If the speed of light had changed in any way during the trip, we would detect dopler shifts in the frequencies. The light we see from stars of every distance show very very clearly that nothing has changed for many millions of years. In fact it is remarkably consistent right back to the very first stars that formed, billions of years ago.You asked for proof. I gave you some. End of story.

Dude! Have you never heard of Doppler shift
You can quite easily measure stretched light and even tell how much it's been stretched by.Besides which the space fighters in the star wars universe don't follow any known laws of physics anyway. They change direction in a vacuum by using wings instead of retro rockets. That's just plain weird.

Rarely in all my life have I heard such a bunch of nonsensical ravings. The sad thing about it is that I think you actually believe it.The light that we see came from a star. If that star was "spiritual" then why does it have an identical signiture to a physical star under todays physical laws.That light tells us very specific things about the physics of that star at the point of the creation of the light. If the light had come from a non physical "spiritual" version of a star then the signature would have absolutely no reason to conform to the known laws of physics today and the light from more distant stars would be measurably different than that from closer stars whose light originated since your hypothetical change.If the "change" as you put it took place a few thousand years back then the only stars that should behave normally are ones close enough for the new physical light to reach us in the necessary time scale. Your theory cannot account for distant stars showing identical physics to close stars.Your theory simply doesn't hold up in light of the very real evidence.I tend to agree with catholic Scientist. You are just pulling this crap out of thin air as you go along.You have absolutely no reason to suggest these bizarre stories and absolutely no evidence to suggest that there is one shred of truth to any of them.Its a bit like the kid who's caught with one hand in the cookie jar, crumbs all over the place and chocolate on his face who then makes up some unbelievable story about a monster from under the bed who actually ate the cookies. As his mom pokes holes in his story, he just keeps making up more and more far fetched stories to explain away the obvious evidence.I see that AddminNosy has done exactly as the kids mom would have done too so i guess you won't be around to answer this post. Shame really.

Hi Iano.I'm doing fine thanks. How about you?It just frustrates me when people choose to utterly ignore the evidence that is freely available and then come up with some cockamamy story that has absolutely nothing going for it whatsoever. Anybody can just make up excuses as they go along. It doesn't make them true.In a science thread they need to explain what it is that makes them think that way, not just make up ridiculous rubbish and present it as unsubstantiated fact. Even the bible doesn't back up his theory.

Nice try but if you know the least little thing about physics then you will know that the instant of change from one frame to another would leave a telltale signature in the emissions from the star. We would have noticed this by now and guess what. We haven't.
Light effectively changed speed in this scenario. That makes for a pretty hefty dopler shift. So the star was both physical and spiritual? Is that what you are saying? yet you seem to be claiming that light transmission was almost instantaneous in those days. That means that light speed in the physical component was not the same as it is now. For that reason it would display a completely different signiture. Again we do not see this in reality. No it didn't. All I can put this down to is an unfamiliarity with physics making him think it did. I'm sorry but physics just doesn't work that way. I can and did back it up with science. Besides which this is a science forum and the bible is inadmissable as evidence here. Anyway the bible doesn't even suggest such a strange theory so I don't even know where the idea was originated.Let's look at the scenario in a bit more detail.Simple claims that light before the change was near instantaineous. note it could not have been fully instantaneous otherwise after the change there would be no light in transit so we would not see distant stars at all.From this we can infer that at the moment of change, the space between us and a star contained light that had previously been generated by the star, spread (very thinly) across a great distance.
Why very thinly?
Because as you and Simple both admit, the physical conditions in the star were the same as they are now so we can very easily calculate the rate of generation of photons of light per second. If this were to change then the signature would change and as it hasn't then we know this is true.
At the moment of change, light speed slows down so all the widely spaced photons continue their travel at a much slower speed. new photons generated in the star are now sent out into space much more densely (by the same mechanism as before and at the same rate of production as before. they are just moving slower)So what would we expect to see from this scenario? In other words what does your theory predict?If you are right then the light from distant stars should be many many orders of magnitude dimmer than that from closer stars since we are seeing a very many fewer photons (regardless of their signiture). At a point where the light that was generated since the change, reaches us, the star should suddenly get a whole lot brighter as we get a much denser bunch of photons getting here.Do we see this?
Have you ever observed a star suddenly gain hundreds of orders of magnitude of luminosity when the elapsed time since your change reaches the exact same value as the light time from the star to us?
Has anyone?The simple answer is no.The luminosity of incredibly distant stars can be predicted based on their emission signiture and the theory of relativity. When measured, the luminosity is a pretty darn close match for the predicted value.
Your thoery predicts otherwise so it is well and truly busted.

Aw nuts!!Now he can't try to explain his way out of the dilema that I left him with in my last message.Ah well.