....I have no desire to tinker. I want it to "just work"......
There are two kinds of people that have a computer. The minority are those that like computers for their own sake. The do like to tinker with them, just as others like to tinker with cars.
The majority view their computers as tools to get work done or games played. The majority want their cars just to get them where they want to go.
Macs with their integrated OSX and certain useful programs are the computers for those who want to just get work done. However, those who want to poke around in the inner workings can also do so via the terminal. That makes the Apple product the best of both worlds.
Indeed seems foolish. Software is nothing more than giving instructions to a machine. If instructions to machines can be patented, why not all instructions, such as those to people? Maybe you can patent a new method of programming children to decode alphanumeric symbols applied to paper.
Maybe a chefs can get patents on a method for combining and heating various organic compounds for human consumption?
The possibilities of patenting instructions of various types are endless. Get to work all you imaginative people out there. Once you get your patent, you can sue all schools, restaurants and who knows else.
US laws that is. There are many places software to copy DRM protected content can be gotten, well outside of the US. If there are millions of ordinary citizens breaking a given law, it is time to change such a law. Prohibition anyone?
...while letting others continue to sing the praises both of Apple and its products.....
I suppose we'll see how well their policy works for them in terms of money they make. The old adage: "Money Talks" could also use your metaphor: "Money Sings". No matter how loud Apple fans sing, the money everybody, fan or not, throws at Apple will be much louder than all the carping critics put together. Considering that we're in a recession, Apple is still doing rather well. Maybe some of the IRS "stimulus" refund will even be used by some to buy iPods or iPhones. That means the Chinese who make them will have full employment.
....How dare Apple tell [i]me[/i] what I can't run on my device.....
Apple doesn't do that at all. You can do anything with it you want. Flush it down the toilet, run it over with a truck or install any software you are able to get running.
Just don't ask Apple to support or repair your broken device. From the Windows and general purpose computer mindset, software and hardware are though of as separate, semi-independent products.
Apple and Microwave oven makers don't think of it that way. They are selling you a hardware product that also happens to contain software. You are buying a phone or a microwave. Apple has decided to allow outsiders some limited access to make additional software. Microwave oven makers generally don't. Apple isn't obligated to do so either.They have, so be happy and write good software, according to the rules Apple has made.
...to open the interface completely to third party apps....
Does that mean it would also be completely open to malware, just like Windows computers?
Is the iPhone not primarily a phone which Apple wants to be sure it continues to work reliably as a phone? Is the iPhone a pocketable general purpose PC? Apple may think of it first and foremost as an appliance that its customers want to be reliable.
If the iPhone were completely open to any and all software, it would become less reliable as a phone and Apple would get the blame. Therefore, they will have to impose some rules. Not everybody will like those rules. Those discontents may hire lawyers to have them changed in the courts. Can the law be used to force Apple to cater to, not necessarily the needs of the customer, but the needs of others who want to make a buck from Apple's new toy?
Apple has justified fear that shoddy or malicious software will make their product less than what people are generally used to in their products. This would not only affect their phone business but also their Mac computers. Many I know have gotten Macs because of the virtually non-existent hassle with malware that plagues the majority Windows systems.
Apple may have to trample on a few would be hangers-on toes to ensure quality.
....The *definition* of c is the speed of light in a vacuum.....
And exactly what do we mean when we talk about "speed"? Is speed not a compound measure involving 2 more fundamental variables, ie distance/time? If you change either one, the speed will also change. If c were a dimensionless number, you might be able to call it a constant by definition. In order for c to remain constant, either both of the variables that make it up must remain constant OR these two components must change in opposite directions, in order to keep c constant.
Assuming that it is correct that the universe was very tiny at the beginning, light, even at its present "speed" could make it clear across the entire universe in a fraction of a second. Today, obviously it takes lots of time for light to propagate across the present size of the universe. So obviously, the furthest possible distance light could travel back then was much less than today. So we know that the maximum distance light could possibly travel definitely became greater.
The question now is: did time itself change, in order to ensure that the speed of light would be constant? If you can show that time itself compensated exactly, then I'd be willing to agree that c, even though a composite number, is a fundamental, unchanging "constant".
If time DID change, in order to keep the c constant, how then can we have a clock to measure time in order to do reliable dating? Maybe it is even correct to say that in order for c to remain constant time did have to change since distance increased. Maybe time and distance do change, such as to keep c constant. In any event, having a reliable clock to measure the age of things with is tricky.
.....Changing c from a numerical constant to a function....
We measure the speed of light at a certain value today. We know that light speed varies according to the medium it is transmitted through. When light moves through the medium of space, it's speed is also determined by the property of that medium.
What is it that determines the value of c in space? Why is it what we measure it to be? What is it that determines the value of c in water or glass? My whole point is that c varies according to the medium. That is a FACT. c is NOT an absolute constant. If the properties of the medium change, so will c.
Bringing Einstein into all of this is really IRRELEVANT. At any given point in the state of the universe, the properties of space are determined. As space changes, so will c. We can make the speed of light almost any value SLOWER than c in free space. The properties of space depend on the universe as a whole. We cannot mess with that, (thank God) so we can't make light go faster.
When the universe was small and hot, the properties of space were vastly different that today. Consequently, the speed of light was also different, namely much faster. The CMBR and the red shift give us some clues as to how much faster c must have been. Is that so hard to understand?
.....meaning there's no reason to believe that those equations are meaningful......
They would be just as meaningful to whatever state the universe was in at the time c is measured. If you had measured c 2000 years ago, it would have been different than today, but Einstein's discoveries would still apply to the universe as it was THEN, not necessarily to what it is today.
Einstein's equations relate time, space, matter-energy and their associated forces in special mathematical ways. These relationship ratios always hold, but the individual elements may change, and in some cases HAVE changed.
Take Einstein's most famous equation: e=mc^2
The energy equivalent of matter can change with either mass or the speed of light. Now speed always implies time. Now time must be MEASURED in some way in order to plug real numbers into this equation. So what clock do we use to measure time? If we use an atomic clock, we don't have an independent time measuring device since the atomic clock is dependent on c, the very quantity we want to measure.
Since the equations of gravity (at ordinary orbital speeds) do NOT contain a time dependent variable, such a timing device based on gravity can be used to measure c. The movement of the earth in its orbit is controlled by gravity.
Using gravity, we can obtain an independently measured number to plug into that equation. Next we need to pin down the mass. That is a fundamental property of matter, which again is independent of time. So now we can accurately calculate the energy equivalence at any given time.
Simply put: The speed of light as measured by the atomic clock has never changed, because the atomic clock is not independent. The speed of light as measured by the gravitational clock has decreased dramatically. The red shift and cosmic background radiation are powerful evidence for this.
Relativity itself is ALWAYS correct. Only when we plug numbers into the equations, we have to be sure those numbers reflect reality. The numbers we get today, reflect reality as it is today. This doesn't mean that the numbers we get today can be applied to reality as it was in the distant past.
...I've been reading the latest journals on the topic and none of them are satisfactory....
That's basically it. It just doesn't make sense that something as simple as a computer is designed and something as complex as a living cell came into existence by some nebulous, never seen process in the distant past. Behe's explanation of the design of that motor is more compelling and logical than any evolutionary explanation I have come across.
Natural selection, as theorized by Darwin is a valid, observed, process. However it is incomplete and cannot explain the existence of many complex systems we find in nature. There is more behind life than the Darwinian theory of evolution. It's not that Darwin was totally wrong. It's just that he did not have the tools we have today, to get a better glimpse of the incredible complexity of living things at the molecular level.
Science technology has progressed far beyond anything Darwin was ever able to observe or even imagine. That progress clearly shows that Darwin does not hold the complete answer to the mystery of life. Darwinian evolution is basically stuck in the 19th century, where given the then available data, it seemed reasonable to credit a mechanism such as natural selection as the SOLE driving force behind life. Today, especially in microbiology and genetic science we know that there additional requirements that Darwin's natural selection mechanism cannot adequately account for.
Only one of these is the immense information content stored digitally in the DNA structures. Where does this information come from? Where does the information stored in your computer come from? Is it possible that both sources of information come from a mind? If not where did it originate?
To me, ID and natural selection are both applicable in their respective domains. It's like the argument about whether light is particles or waves. We know that both apply.
....speed of light has been constant over time, to within the limits of our instruments......
That's exactly the problem. We are using a measuring stick that changes in the same way the quantity we are trying to measure.
(EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE STATES the speed of light is constant.)
ALL of Einstein's equations work EXACTLY the same, no matter WHAT value you put for the speed of light. He may have reflected the common thought that c was invariant, but none of his math REQUIRES this constancy. The same is true of the Lorentz transforms and Maxwell's math.
There is NOTHING in any physics that requires the speed of light to be constant. It all still works just as before. All spectral shifts are unaffected. All chemistry still works. Changing the numbers you plug into equations, NEVER change the equations themselves. Only our MEASUREMENT of TIME by atomic vibrations changes.
Whatever the exact quantitative nature of what the change is, may still be up for grabs. Alternate INTERPRETATIONS of the red shift indicate that there could have been a large drop in the speed of light from the distant past.
Einstein showed that time, space, energy-matter are all relatively connected. The speed of light is not a fundamental measure, but is a result of the properties of the above mentioned three constituents of the material universe we currently inhabit. Any change in these would also change the speed of light, which after all is only a number relating distance in space to time. (meter/second) is (distance/time)
The majestic opening verse of the Bible tells us some basic things: "In the beginning (time) God (the first cause) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter-energy).
It's called RELATIVITY because it's relative to the speed of light. It holds true, not matter WHAT the speed of light is. Light speed doesn't have to be constant nor absolute.
What causes the speed of light to be the particular NUMBER is not fundamental to light itself, but the nature of whatever it traverses, whether that be matter of space.
(..The speed of light is the fundamental constant in any relativistic field theory..)
The speed of light is the fundamental VARIABLE in any relativistic field theory. It is only a NUMBER, not a fundamental law unto itself. All the equations stay EXACTLY the same, only the NUMBERS change. These numbers have not changed a lot since we have been measuring them, but that have changed a little. They have changed a LOT since the beginning of time.
Rest assured, all of physics, including Einstein concepts, STILL work the same, except as they relate to time measurements. There is simply NO known law of physics that mandates that certain numerical relationships be forever invariant.
(..afoul of supernova light..)
Again here, the assumptions among others, (beliefs) are that gravity is the only force involved in supernovas. Since the electrical interaction is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, it is folly to assume electricity is not involved in these energetic outbursts. Most matter in the universe is not like neutral matter here on earth, but highly electrically charged, conducting matter. Gravity acts on all matter, neutral or not, but if even slight charge separations exist, it is overwhelmed by electrical phenomena. Without the consideration of electricity, our concepts of cosmology are very much incomplete.
(..Except atomic clock frequencies are sensitive to changes in c..)
Exactly right! So if you use the atomic clock to measure c, then you will never measure a change, when c changes, because they cancel.
(..emotionally important for you to believe..)
This has nothing to with emotions or belief. We see these changes in science and other areas of life. You change with time. Even rocks and mountains change. Change is part of life and science is part of life. Why do you insist that anything MUST stay constant over time? That belief is not borne out by your own experience.
...Maybe we should starve a few billion people in the interest of cleaner, organic food and healthier cats...
Maybe a few billion people will die early from the degenerative diseases caused or aggravated by the nutrient empty foods and massive use of expensive pharmaceuticals. Then those who do care what they put into their bodies will have enough room to continue to eat healthful, nutrient laden, unadulterated foods.
.....Things like preservatives and pasteurization don't make store-bought foods more profitable; they make it possible......
Why is it possible then for us to buy wholesome, unadulterated, organic foods from all over the planet? These cost more, considerably more, of course.
The end, the amount of money spent may be the same. Those who buy the more healthful unprocessed foods pay more up front, but save that money in medical costs. The bonus though, not financial necessarily, is better health. That may be worth more to some people, than a new, fancy large screen Hi-Def television.
(...to support the millions of city-dwellers..)
That is a major reason why we took a large cut in income and moved away from the crowded city. We can grow much of our own food here. If food companies and corporate agribusiness main motive were the health of the population, rather than profits, they could still feed everyone easily.
(..in the case of pharmaceuticals..)
It is not just the pharmaceutical companies that buy laws and regulations. The agencies may not be necessarily corrupt in the sense we normally think of corruption. Even right now, some food companies are lobbying the Agriculture Dept. to loosen the rules as to what may or may not be labelled "organic". If they don't get satisfaction from the applicable agencies, they'll use their armies of expensive lawyers to try and get what they want through the courts.
....Sure, it could have happened that way, but you didn't prove that it did.......
The point is that the key evolutionary mechanism of natural selection cannot account for this complex motor drive. Maybe there ARE other evolutionary ways it could be explained. However the design theory can elegantly explain the existence of the basic motor. Natural selection can then account for letting organisms with a "better" motor evolve. So far I have not heard of an evolutionary mechanism that could account for the existence of the basic motor itself.
It takes the code in DNA to make proteins, but DNA itself is mode of proteins. So which came first, the DNA that has the instructions or the protein that makes the DNA. It's like the chicken and the egg. Those of us who believe in God can assert that he made chicken which then lays eggs. At least that's what He reveals to us in the Bible. He also made the DNA, uploaded the code for making proteins and away it went ever since.
In studying nature, it is evident to me that there is a judicious combination of design and evolution involved. Evolution, as presently taught, all by itself, is not necessarily wrong, but very definitely incomplete.
....If you want to argue that there is experimental evidence that general relativity is wrong,......
This has nothing to do with relativity. Relativity is expressed in terms of c, but c in turn depends on the properties of space. The value of c is not an independent constant, but depends on space itself. It also has a time unit, meters/second. This means if time itself is not constant, then c must also change. We still know very little about the true nature of time, or even why it exists at all.
Einstein holds true, no matter what, even if c is slower or faster, relativity applies directly to the property of space as indirectly manifested by the speed of light in free space. Besides the electrical properties of space there is also its residual energy, known as zero point energy. The properties of space determine the speed of light, not the other way around.
(..You are basically proposing that the expansion of the universe underwent a radical change circa 1945..)
Not at all. Among other things, properties of space are related to the average density of matter within it. When the universe began, it was very dense. As the universe expanded, its volume and therefore density dropped in a highly non-linear manner. Few things in nature are linear.
As with sound, so too light goes faster through denser SPACE, not necessarily matter in space. The mechanism of propagation is different than sound, but the same principles hold.
The known, observed red shift is commonly INTERPRETED to be due to the doppler effect. If this shift is instead attributed to the slowing of light, then a curve can be calculated that shows light speed decayed in a cosecant squared decay. Today we are in the almost flat portion of this curve.
(..early experimenters were overconfident in their error bars..)
If over many measurements there is a steady drift in a particular direction, then even though there are large errors in the individual measurements, the general trend of the data must be real. Gathering together of many past measurements of light speed since the early 1600s clearly shows such a trend. We still have the record and methodologies of these measurements today and this decay trend superimposed on all the errors is very evident.
(..radical change circa 1945..)
Since 1945 or whatever, we have used the atomic clock to measure c. If your ruler changes its calibration at the same rate as the quantity you want to measure, you of course will see no change. What is 63 years compared to billions, millions or even only thousands of years? If a change over such a microscopic segment of time is too small to measure, does that mean we can now assume (believe) that it never occurred over these vast spans of time?
Modern space probes and new powerful telescopes clearly show that the solar system was a very violent place in the past. Bodies with little atmosphere show major scars of immense upheavals and great changes. On earth these evidences exist also, but are smoothed out by natural forces.
We humans don't like change, especially unpredictable or catastrophic change that shakes up our belief system. Nothing in nature is as constant as change.
....No, by that reasoning, an 8-cylinder engine is not irreducibly complex in that sense......
You can remove certain parts and it may still function. If you remove the crank or camshaft however it no longer works. If it no longer works it no longer is visible to natural selection and would in time be eliminated.
The key is that natural selection can ONLY work for a completed, working variation that confers a survival advantage. That is the very definition of natural selection, the driver of evolution. A partial change or mutation, like an inoperable flagellum, confers a DISadvantage and will be eliminated by this fundamental process.
The question then arises: How can such a complex motor come into existence by natural selection, a piecemeal fashion? It must be fully functional in ONE reproductively capable organism.
Only if the organism were DESIGNED with this fully operating motor, would natural selection then be able to propagate that whole organism. Natural selection might be able to select for organisms whose completed motor was more powerful or more efficient. The building of the motor itself, however, is beyond the capabilities of the natural selection mechanism.
...would seriously screw up all nuclear and atomic physics,....
Why should it? Basically what is changing here is Planck's "Constant" h, which is inversely related to c. We humans like the idea of the uniformly predictable. We are innately uncomfortable with the idea of change, especially fundamental, deep change. All the equations are the same, except value of this number.
Because of energy conservation laws, atomic behavior, such as the amplitude of the vibrations of atoms must be smaller at any given temperature to compensate for the faster vibrations. The EFFECTIVE spacing of the atomic centers however remains the same. Because of this, the cross section of atomic structures would have been smaller. This in turn decreased the likelihood of damage in all mater from energetic radiation. So even if the radiation were higher, the damage from it would be far less.
This would also imply less genetic damage and therefore a lower mutation rate. It COULD be a valid explanation of the centuries long life spans of early humans, as recorded in the Bible.
We KNOW from experiment that the light can be slowed WAY down. If we could change the properties of space itself, we could also speed it up. The properties of space itself appear to set the upper limit on the speed of light. Today the properties of space are still changing, but the change is very small, but measurable.
In 1967 scientists redefined the basis of time measurement from a gravitational to an atomic system. Since that time, it has been necessary to re-sychronize these super accurate clocks with the motion of the earth. These adjustments were not random, but the atomic clocks were and still are losing time in relation to the movement of our planet. It's a very tiny adjustment that will not make you late for for work.
Keep in this in mind: In nature, nothing is as constant as change. Things may seem constant over the short time we live here, but that doesn't mean they are over long time periods.
....The speed of light is constant in a vacuum.....
That would be true if "the vacuum" were an empty nothing, as it was thought of long ago. Space itself has definite electromagnetic properties that determine the propagation of radiation. Just ask any antenna designer.
We also know that these properties of space are affected by the density of matter in the Universe. Therefore the speed of light CANNOT be constant, if the properties of space change. One of the properties of space also crucial to this is the residual energy present at absolute zero temperature.
Since the Universe as a whole is still expanding, the properties of space are still changing slightly. This is reflected in the early measurements of the speed of light. These were consistently faster by a small amount, exceeding the possible error bars.
Google for the history of light speed measurements
....People didn't have less medical problems back then....
That's not true across the board. A hundred or more years ago more died from infections, but the many degenerative diseases that kill most people today did not exist. Obesity was not such a problem as today, with its attendant medical problems.
There is a direct correlation of the rise of these degenerative ailments with the rise of consumption of highly processed factory foods.
If you are interested in good nutrition here is a place to begin:
It's not only these chemicals in commercial milk that cause health issues, but also the fact that it is pasteurized and homogenized. Milk as it comes out of the cow contains enzymes that help make it digestible. These are destroyed by the high heat of pasteurization. That's why so many are allergic to milk products. They cannot digest them without the normally included enzymes.
The cream in the milk, as it comes from the cow, separates out on top. To prevent this, the milk is homogenized. This process breaks the fat particles up into very tiny globules, that remain suspended in the body of the milk. Unfortunately, they are then also small enough to pass undigested through the intestinal wall, directly into the blood stream. These free floating fats, help to clog arteries, leading to heart disease.
Cats fed only store bought, processed milk do not thrive and have reproductive difficulties within two or fewer generations. You can read about a summary of this here.
So much of the food sold today is processed by somehow by being "ized", as in pasteurized, hydrolyzed; "ated" as in hydrogenated. Fats are produced or extruded with extreme unnatural heat and pressure. Minerals and other components nature put in the original source are refined out of sugar plants by heat and high pressure. Cheaply manufactured substitutes made from corn are the main ingredient in soft drinks and other food products. The white flour baked goods no longer contain the nutrients formerly present in the grains. All sorts of additives and preservatives are found in the commonly available foods.
The reason for this of course is simple: The profits for the owners of the food factories. Natural, unadulterated foods spoil more quickly on the shelf and in the dairy case. That leads directly to lower profits for the makers and middle men in the food distribution system.
Food producers have not the slightest interest in our health, unless it directly affects their profits. Since the FDA gets much of their funding from these sources, they too don't have much real interest in protecting your health.
In the end, you will NOW spend your money either on more expensive, wholesome, organic foods, or you will spend it LATER on medical costs. I'd say the old adage: "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" applies. You have found part of the solution.
We are lucky, living in the country, in that we are able to buy milk from a neighboring small farmer. We get this fresh, just as it comes from the cows. A good rule of thumb for buying stuff at the grocery store: Look for the shortest ingredient list. Look for natural ingredients such as whole wheat, butter, virgin pressed olive oil among others. Avoid manufactured oils, such as soy, canola and other vegetable fats that have been subjected to high heat and/or pressure.
.....it always takes an infinite amount of energy to move heavy matter to the speed of light......
This is not about matter moving at or even near the speed of light. It is about light itself moving faster through space. We have an analogy of this with sound. We know that sound waves go faster in a denser medium like water or rock. In a sense, space itself was a denser medium at the beginning. Matter itself wasn't necessarily moving anywhere near the speed of light as it was then, even though there certainly was plenty of energy available in the "Big Bang". Even at the speed of light of today, it would get to the limits of the tiny Universe almost instantly. After that, the light would get "stretched" to the present day wavelength of the cosmic microwave background.
(..The faster you go the slower radioactivity occurs in an outside frame of reference..)
The frame of reference is not outside of anything, anymore than it is today. Time itself doesn't change as the speed of light changes. Time only changes for an observer getting near the speed of light, whatever it happens to be at the moment. Experiments have shown that light can be slowed to a crawl. If light can be slowed, then why should it be so surprising to speed it up also?
(..for matter moving faster to for the universe to expand as quickly as you say..)
The universe is pretty darn big presently. We see galaxies billions of light years from us, at the limit of our instruments. Therefore, matter got there somehow. Einstein told us, and experiments corroborate it, that time, space, matter, energy are all interrelated. As space expanded, of necessity, its properties changed and with it certain properties of the matter and energy within space. The speed at which light travels is only one of its properties.
...You are asserting that the physical properties (e.g. gravitation and atomic spin) are not reliable because they may have changed in the past....
The force of gravity is depends on mass and is indistinguishable from acceleration. Radioactivity depends on the properties of the atom, which in turn are related to the speed of light.
There is no law of physics that mandates a constant speed of light. We KNOW from experiments that the speed of light depends on the properties of the medium it traverses. That's how lenses work.
At Creation, the Universe and all of space was small and the electromagnetic propagation characteristics allowed light to travel at least 300 million times faster than today. It had after all to keep up with the rapid expansion of the Universe.
The alternate to the doppler INTERPRETATION of the red shift is that light slowed down. Since the atomic properties are tied to the speed of light, things like radioactivity also proceeded much faster than today. Since any volume expansion is a cubic function, it stands to reason that the properties of space would also change in a highly nonlinear way.
From the red shift it is also possible to get a good idea of that expansion ratio. Depending on when you start after the initial creation event, often called the "Big Bang", the speed of light should have been billions of times faster, in fact near infinite shortly after time=0. A ray of light could cross the entire small universe in an unimaginably small period of time.
Gravity and atomic time measurements are therefore related in a highly non-linear, but predictable way. Examining the exact properties of the red shift and other related cosmological data, will help quantify the exact relationship between these two time scales.
This is not likely to happen, as long as cosmologists stubbornly cling to the doppler interpretation of the red shift and the related cosmic background radiation.
Slashdot Mirror
....I have no desire to tinker. I want it to "just work"......
There are two kinds of people that have a computer. The minority are those that like computers for their own sake. The do like to tinker with them, just as others like to tinker with cars.
The majority view their computers as tools to get work done or games played. The majority want their cars just to get them where they want to go.
Macs with their integrated OSX and certain useful programs are the computers for those who want to just get work done. However, those who want to poke around in the inner workings can also do so via the terminal. That makes the Apple product the best of both worlds.
....Patents shouldn't apply to software....
Indeed seems foolish. Software is nothing more than giving instructions to a machine. If instructions to machines can be patented, why not all instructions, such as those to people? Maybe you can patent a new method of programming children to decode alphanumeric symbols applied to paper.
Maybe a chefs can get patents on a method for combining and heating various organic compounds for human consumption?
The possibilities of patenting instructions of various types are endless. Get to work all you imaginative people out there. Once you get your patent, you can sue all schools, restaurants and who knows else.
.....Nothing but the law.....
US laws that is. There are many places software to copy DRM protected content can be gotten, well outside of the US. If there are millions of ordinary citizens breaking a given law, it is time to change such a law. Prohibition anyone?
...while letting others continue to sing the praises both of Apple and its products.....
I suppose we'll see how well their policy works for them in terms of money they make. The old adage: "Money Talks" could also use your metaphor: "Money Sings". No matter how loud Apple fans sing, the money everybody, fan or not, throws at Apple will be much louder than all the carping critics put together. Considering that we're in a recession, Apple is still doing rather well. Maybe some of the IRS "stimulus" refund will even be used by some to buy iPods or iPhones. That means the Chinese who make them will have full employment.
....How dare Apple tell [i]me[/i] what I can't run on my device.....
Apple doesn't do that at all. You can do anything with it you want. Flush it down the toilet, run it over with a truck or install any software you are able to get running.
Just don't ask Apple to support or repair your broken device. From the Windows and general purpose computer mindset, software and hardware are though of as separate, semi-independent products.
Apple and Microwave oven makers don't think of it that way. They are selling you a hardware product that also happens to contain software. You are buying a phone or a microwave. Apple has decided to allow outsiders some limited access to make additional software. Microwave oven makers generally don't. Apple isn't obligated to do so either.They have, so be happy and write good software, according to the rules Apple has made.
.....What would you say about a computer manufacturer that voided the warranty if you install Linux?....
I'd say they'd be well within their rights to do that and you would be well within your rights not buy from them.
You don't have to buy a given product. Vote with your wallet.
...to open the interface completely to third party apps ....
Does that mean it would also be completely open to malware, just like Windows computers?
Is the iPhone not primarily a phone which Apple wants to be sure it continues to work reliably as a phone? Is the iPhone a pocketable general purpose PC? Apple may think of it first and foremost as an appliance that its customers want to be reliable.
If the iPhone were completely open to any and all software, it would become less reliable as a phone and Apple would get the blame. Therefore, they will have to impose some rules. Not everybody will like those rules. Those discontents may hire lawyers to have them changed in the courts. Can the law be used to force Apple to cater to, not necessarily the needs of the customer, but the needs of others who want to make a buck from Apple's new toy?
Apple has justified fear that shoddy or malicious software will make their product less than what people are generally used to in their products. This would not only affect their phone business but also their Mac computers. Many I know have gotten Macs because of the virtually non-existent hassle with malware that plagues the majority Windows systems.
Apple may have to trample on a few would be hangers-on toes to ensure quality.
....The *definition* of c is the speed of light in a vacuum.....
And exactly what do we mean when we talk about "speed"? Is speed not a compound measure involving 2 more fundamental variables, ie distance/time? If you change either one, the speed will also change. If c were a dimensionless number, you might be able to call it a constant by definition. In order for c to remain constant, either both of the variables that make it up must remain constant OR these two components must change in opposite directions, in order to keep c constant.
Assuming that it is correct that the universe was very tiny at the beginning, light, even at its present "speed" could make it clear across the entire universe in a fraction of a second. Today, obviously it takes lots of time for light to propagate across the present size of the universe. So obviously, the furthest possible distance light could travel back then was much less than today. So we know that the maximum distance light could possibly travel definitely became greater.
The question now is: did time itself change, in order to ensure that the speed of light would be constant? If you can show that time itself compensated exactly, then I'd be willing to agree that c, even though a composite number, is a fundamental, unchanging "constant".
If time DID change, in order to keep the c constant, how then can we have a clock to measure time in order to do reliable dating? Maybe it is even correct to say that in order for c to remain constant time did have to change since distance increased. Maybe time and distance do change, such as to keep c constant. In any event, having a reliable clock to measure the age of things with is tricky.
.....Changing c from a numerical constant to a function....
We measure the speed of light at a certain value today. We know that light speed varies according to the medium it is transmitted through. When light moves through the medium of space, it's speed is also determined by the property of that medium.
What is it that determines the value of c in space? Why is it what we measure it to be? What is it that determines the value of c in water or glass? My whole point is that c varies according to the medium. That is a FACT. c is NOT an absolute constant. If the properties of the medium change, so will c.
Bringing Einstein into all of this is really IRRELEVANT. At any given point in the state of the universe, the properties of space are determined. As space changes, so will c. We can make the speed of light almost any value SLOWER than c in free space. The properties of space depend on the universe as a whole. We cannot mess with that, (thank God) so we can't make light go faster.
When the universe was small and hot, the properties of space were vastly different that today. Consequently, the speed of light was also different, namely much faster. The CMBR and the red shift give us some clues as to how much faster c must have been. Is that so hard to understand?
.....meaning there's no reason to believe that those equations are meaningful......
They would be just as meaningful to whatever state the universe was in at the time c is measured. If you had measured c 2000 years ago, it would have been different than today, but Einstein's discoveries would still apply to the universe as it was THEN, not necessarily to what it is today.
Einstein's equations relate time, space, matter-energy and their associated forces in special mathematical ways. These relationship ratios always hold, but the individual elements may change, and in some cases HAVE changed.
Take Einstein's most famous equation: e=mc^2
The energy equivalent of matter can change with either mass or the speed of light. Now speed always implies time. Now time must be MEASURED in some way in order to plug real numbers into this equation. So what clock do we use to measure time? If we use an atomic clock, we don't have an independent time measuring device since the atomic clock is dependent on c, the very quantity we want to measure.
Since the equations of gravity (at ordinary orbital speeds) do NOT contain a time dependent variable, such a timing device based on gravity can be used to measure c. The movement of the earth in its orbit is controlled by gravity.
Using gravity, we can obtain an independently measured number to plug into that equation. Next we need to pin down the mass. That is a fundamental property of matter, which again is independent of time. So now we can accurately calculate the energy equivalence at any given time.
Simply put: The speed of light as measured by the atomic clock has never changed, because the atomic clock is not independent. The speed of light as measured by the gravitational clock has decreased dramatically. The red shift and cosmic background radiation are powerful evidence for this.
Relativity itself is ALWAYS correct. Only when we plug numbers into the equations, we have to be sure those numbers reflect reality. The numbers we get today, reflect reality as it is today. This doesn't mean that the numbers we get today can be applied to reality as it was in the distant past.
...I've been reading the latest journals on the topic and none of them are satisfactory....
That's basically it. It just doesn't make sense that something as simple as a computer is designed and something as complex as a living cell came into existence by some nebulous, never seen process in the distant past. Behe's explanation of the design of that motor is more compelling and logical than any evolutionary explanation I have come across.
Natural selection, as theorized by Darwin is a valid, observed, process. However it is incomplete and cannot explain the existence of many complex systems we find in nature. There is more behind life than the Darwinian theory of evolution. It's not that Darwin was totally wrong. It's just that he did not have the tools we have today, to get a better glimpse of the incredible complexity of living things at the molecular level.
Science technology has progressed far beyond anything Darwin was ever able to observe or even imagine. That progress clearly shows that Darwin does not hold the complete answer to the mystery of life. Darwinian evolution is basically stuck in the 19th century, where given the then available data, it seemed reasonable to credit a mechanism such as natural selection as the SOLE driving force behind life. Today, especially in microbiology and genetic science we know that there additional requirements that Darwin's natural selection mechanism cannot adequately account for.
Only one of these is the immense information content stored digitally in the DNA structures. Where does this information come from? Where does the information stored in your computer come from? Is it possible that both sources of information come from a mind? If not where did it originate?
To me, ID and natural selection are both applicable in their respective domains. It's like the argument about whether light is particles or waves. We know that both apply.
....speed of light has been constant over time, to within the limits of our instruments......
That's exactly the problem. We are using a measuring stick that changes in the same way the quantity we are trying to measure.
(EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE STATES the speed of light is constant.)
ALL of Einstein's equations work EXACTLY the same, no matter WHAT value you put for the speed of light. He may have reflected the common thought that c was invariant, but none of his math REQUIRES this constancy. The same is true of the Lorentz transforms and Maxwell's math.
There is NOTHING in any physics that requires the speed of light to be constant. It all still works just as before. All spectral shifts are unaffected. All chemistry still works. Changing the numbers you plug into equations, NEVER change the equations themselves. Only our MEASUREMENT of TIME by atomic vibrations changes.
....You're citing outdated mistakes...
Whatever the exact quantitative nature of what the change is, may still be up for grabs. Alternate INTERPRETATIONS of the red shift indicate that there could have been a large drop in the speed of light from the distant past.
Einstein showed that time, space, energy-matter are all relatively connected. The speed of light is not a fundamental measure, but is a result of the properties of the above mentioned three constituents of the material universe we currently inhabit. Any change in these would also change the speed of light, which after all is only a number relating distance in space to time. (meter/second) is (distance/time)
The majestic opening verse of the Bible tells us some basic things: "In the beginning (time) God (the first cause) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter-energy).
....postulate of relativity....
It's called RELATIVITY because it's relative to the speed of light. It holds true, not matter WHAT the speed of light is. Light speed doesn't have to be constant nor absolute.
What causes the speed of light to be the particular NUMBER is not fundamental to light itself, but the nature of whatever it traverses, whether that be matter of space.
(..The speed of light is the fundamental constant in any relativistic field theory..)
The speed of light is the fundamental VARIABLE in any relativistic field theory. It is only a NUMBER, not a fundamental law unto itself. All the equations stay EXACTLY the same, only the NUMBERS change. These numbers have not changed a lot since we have been measuring them, but that have changed a little. They have changed a LOT since the beginning of time.
Rest assured, all of physics, including Einstein concepts, STILL work the same, except as they relate to time measurements. There is simply NO known law of physics that mandates that certain numerical relationships be forever invariant.
(..afoul of supernova light..)
Again here, the assumptions among others, (beliefs) are that gravity is the only force involved in supernovas. Since the electrical interaction is 36 orders of magnitude greater than gravity, it is folly to assume electricity is not involved in these energetic outbursts. Most matter in the universe is not like neutral matter here on earth, but highly electrically charged, conducting matter. Gravity acts on all matter, neutral or not, but if even slight charge separations exist, it is overwhelmed by electrical phenomena. Without the consideration of electricity, our concepts of cosmology are very much incomplete.
(..Except atomic clock frequencies are sensitive to changes in c..)
Exactly right! So if you use the atomic clock to measure c, then you will never measure a change, when c changes, because they cancel.
(..emotionally important for you to believe..)
This has nothing to with emotions or belief. We see these changes in science and other areas of life. You change with time. Even rocks and mountains change. Change is part of life and science is part of life. Why do you insist that anything MUST stay constant over time? That belief is not borne out by your own experience.
...Maybe we should starve a few billion people in the interest of cleaner, organic food and healthier cats...
Maybe a few billion people will die early from the degenerative diseases caused or aggravated by the nutrient empty foods and massive use of expensive pharmaceuticals. Then those who do care what they put into their bodies will have enough room to continue to eat healthful, nutrient laden, unadulterated foods.
.....Things like preservatives and pasteurization don't make store-bought foods more profitable; they make it possible. .....
Why is it possible then for us to buy wholesome, unadulterated, organic foods from all over the planet? These cost more, considerably more, of course.
The end, the amount of money spent may be the same. Those who buy the more healthful unprocessed foods pay more up front, but save that money in medical costs. The bonus though, not financial necessarily, is better health. That may be worth more to some people, than a new, fancy large screen Hi-Def television.
(...to support the millions of city-dwellers..)
That is a major reason why we took a large cut in income and moved away from the crowded city. We can grow much of our own food here. If food companies and corporate agribusiness main motive were the health of the population, rather than profits, they could still feed everyone easily.
(..in the case of pharmaceuticals..)
It is not just the pharmaceutical companies that buy laws and regulations. The agencies may not be necessarily corrupt in the sense we normally think of corruption. Even right now, some food companies are lobbying the Agriculture Dept. to loosen the rules as to what may or may not be labelled "organic". If they don't get satisfaction from the applicable agencies, they'll use their armies of expensive lawyers to try and get what they want through the courts.
....Sure, it could have happened that way, but you didn't prove that it did.......
The point is that the key evolutionary mechanism of natural selection cannot account for this complex motor drive. Maybe there ARE other evolutionary ways it could be explained. However the design theory can elegantly explain the existence of the basic motor. Natural selection can then account for letting organisms with a "better" motor evolve. So far I have not heard of an evolutionary mechanism that could account for the existence of the basic motor itself.
It takes the code in DNA to make proteins, but DNA itself is mode of proteins. So which came first, the DNA that has the instructions or the protein that makes the DNA. It's like the chicken and the egg. Those of us who believe in God can assert that he made chicken which then lays eggs. At least that's what He reveals to us in the Bible. He also made the DNA, uploaded the code for making proteins and away it went ever since.
In studying nature, it is evident to me that there is a judicious combination of design and evolution involved. Evolution, as presently taught, all by itself, is not necessarily wrong, but very definitely incomplete.
....If you want to argue that there is experimental evidence that general relativity is wrong,......
This has nothing to do with relativity. Relativity is expressed in terms of c, but c in turn depends on the properties of space. The value of c is not an independent constant, but depends on space itself. It also has a time unit, meters/second. This means if time itself is not constant, then c must also change. We still know very little about the true nature of time, or even why it exists at all.
Einstein holds true, no matter what, even if c is slower or faster, relativity applies directly to the property of space as indirectly manifested by the speed of light in free space. Besides the electrical properties of space there is also its residual energy, known as zero point energy. The properties of space determine the speed of light, not the other way around.
(..You are basically proposing that the expansion of the universe underwent a radical change circa 1945..)
Not at all. Among other things, properties of space are related to the average density of matter within it. When the universe began, it was very dense. As the universe expanded, its volume and therefore density dropped in a highly non-linear manner. Few things in nature are linear.
As with sound, so too light goes faster through denser SPACE, not necessarily matter in space. The mechanism of propagation is different than sound, but the same principles hold.
The known, observed red shift is commonly INTERPRETED to be due to the doppler effect. If this shift is instead attributed to the slowing of light, then a curve can be calculated that shows light speed decayed in a cosecant squared decay. Today we are in the almost flat portion of this curve.
(..early experimenters were overconfident in their error bars..)
If over many measurements there is a steady drift in a particular direction, then even though there are large errors in the individual measurements, the general trend of the data must be real. Gathering together of many past measurements of light speed since the early 1600s clearly shows such a trend. We still have the record and methodologies of these measurements today and this decay trend superimposed on all the errors is very evident.
(..radical change circa 1945..)
Since 1945 or whatever, we have used the atomic clock to measure c. If your ruler changes its calibration at the same rate as the quantity you want to measure, you of course will see no change. What is 63 years compared to billions, millions or even only thousands of years? If a change over such a microscopic segment of time is too small to measure, does that mean we can now assume (believe) that it never occurred over these vast spans of time?
Modern space probes and new powerful telescopes clearly show that the solar system was a very violent place in the past. Bodies with little atmosphere show major scars of immense upheavals and great changes. On earth these evidences exist also, but are smoothed out by natural forces.
We humans don't like change, especially unpredictable or catastrophic change that shakes up our belief system. Nothing in nature is as constant as change.
....No, by that reasoning, an 8-cylinder engine is not irreducibly complex in that sense......
You can remove certain parts and it may still function. If you remove the crank or camshaft however it no longer works. If it no longer works it no longer is visible to natural selection and would in time be eliminated.
The key is that natural selection can ONLY work for a completed, working variation that confers a survival advantage. That is the very definition of natural selection, the driver of evolution. A partial change or mutation, like an inoperable flagellum, confers a DISadvantage and will be eliminated by this fundamental process.
The question then arises: How can such a complex motor come into existence by natural selection, a piecemeal fashion? It must be fully functional in ONE reproductively capable organism.
Only if the organism were DESIGNED with this fully operating motor, would natural selection then be able to propagate that whole organism. Natural selection might be able to select for organisms whose completed motor was more powerful or more efficient. The building of the motor itself, however, is beyond the capabilities of the natural selection mechanism.
...would seriously screw up all nuclear and atomic physics,....
Why should it? Basically what is changing here is Planck's "Constant" h, which is inversely related to c. We humans like the idea of the uniformly predictable. We are innately uncomfortable with the idea of change, especially fundamental, deep change. All the equations are the same, except value of this number.
Because of energy conservation laws, atomic behavior, such as the amplitude of the vibrations of atoms must be smaller at any given temperature to compensate for the faster vibrations. The EFFECTIVE spacing of the atomic centers however remains the same. Because of this, the cross section of atomic structures would have been smaller. This in turn decreased the likelihood of damage in all mater from energetic radiation. So even if the radiation were higher, the damage from it would be far less.
This would also imply less genetic damage and therefore a lower mutation rate. It COULD be a valid explanation of the centuries long life spans of early humans, as recorded in the Bible.
We KNOW from experiment that the light can be slowed WAY down. If we could change the properties of space itself, we could also speed it up. The properties of space itself appear to set the upper limit on the speed of light. Today the properties of space are still changing, but the change is very small, but measurable.
In 1967 scientists redefined the basis of time measurement from a gravitational to an atomic system. Since that time, it has been necessary to re-sychronize these super accurate clocks with the motion of the earth. These adjustments were not random, but the atomic clocks were and still are losing time in relation to the movement of our planet. It's a very tiny adjustment that will not make you late for for work.
Keep in this in mind: In nature, nothing is as constant as change. Things may seem constant over the short time we live here, but that doesn't mean they are over long time periods.
....The speed of light is constant in a vacuum.....
That would be true if "the vacuum" were an empty nothing, as it was thought of long ago. Space itself has definite electromagnetic properties that determine the propagation of radiation. Just ask any antenna designer.
We also know that these properties of space are affected by the density of matter in the Universe. Therefore the speed of light CANNOT be constant, if the properties of space change. One of the properties of space also crucial to this is the residual energy present at absolute zero temperature.
Since the Universe as a whole is still expanding, the properties of space are still changing slightly. This is reflected in the early measurements of the speed of light. These were consistently faster by a small amount, exceeding the possible error bars.
Google for the history of light speed measurements
....People didn't have less medical problems back then....
That's not true across the board. A hundred or more years ago more died from infections, but the many degenerative diseases that kill most people today did not exist. Obesity was not such a problem as today, with its attendant medical problems.
There is a direct correlation of the rise of these degenerative ailments with the rise of consumption of highly processed factory foods.
If you are interested in good nutrition here is a place to begin:
http://www.westonaprice.org/
You have to take your health into your own hands. The medical establishment or the government will not do this for you.
....These hormones and antibiotics are found ....
It's not only these chemicals in commercial milk that cause health issues, but also the fact that it is pasteurized and homogenized. Milk as it comes out of the cow contains enzymes that help make it digestible. These are destroyed by the high heat of pasteurization. That's why so many are allergic to milk products. They cannot digest them without the normally included enzymes.
The cream in the milk, as it comes from the cow, separates out on top. To prevent this, the milk is homogenized. This process breaks the fat particles up into very tiny globules, that remain suspended in the body of the milk. Unfortunately, they are then also small enough to pass undigested through the intestinal wall, directly into the blood stream. These free floating fats, help to clog arteries, leading to heart disease.
Cats fed only store bought, processed milk do not thrive and have reproductive difficulties within two or fewer generations. You can read about a summary of this here.
http://therawfoodsite.com/cats.htm
For more on this Google for "Pottenger".
So much of the food sold today is processed by somehow by being "ized", as in pasteurized, hydrolyzed; "ated" as in hydrogenated. Fats are produced or extruded with extreme unnatural heat and pressure. Minerals and other components nature put in the original source are refined out of sugar plants by heat and high pressure. Cheaply manufactured substitutes made from corn are the main ingredient in soft drinks and other food products. The white flour baked goods no longer contain the nutrients formerly present in the grains. All sorts of additives and preservatives are found in the commonly available foods.
The reason for this of course is simple: The profits for the owners of the food factories. Natural, unadulterated foods spoil more quickly on the shelf and in the dairy case. That leads directly to lower profits for the makers and middle men in the food distribution system.
Food producers have not the slightest interest in our health, unless it directly affects their profits. Since the FDA gets much of their funding from these sources, they too don't have much real interest in protecting your health.
In the end, you will NOW spend your money either on more expensive, wholesome, organic foods, or you will spend it LATER on medical costs. I'd say the old adage: "An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure" applies. You have found part of the solution.
We are lucky, living in the country, in that we are able to buy milk from a neighboring small farmer. We get this fresh, just as it comes from the cows. A good rule of thumb for buying stuff at the grocery store: Look for the shortest ingredient list. Look for natural ingredients such as whole wheat, butter, virgin pressed olive oil among others. Avoid manufactured oils, such as soy, canola and other vegetable fats that have been subjected to high heat and/or pressure.
.....it always takes an infinite amount of energy to move heavy matter to the speed of light......
This is not about matter moving at or even near the speed of light. It is about light itself moving faster through space. We have an analogy of this with sound. We know that sound waves go faster in a denser medium like water or rock. In a sense, space itself was a denser medium at the beginning. Matter itself wasn't necessarily moving anywhere near the speed of light as it was then, even though there certainly was plenty of energy available in the "Big Bang". Even at the speed of light of today, it would get to the limits of the tiny Universe almost instantly. After that, the light would get "stretched" to the present day wavelength of the cosmic microwave background.
(..The faster you go the slower radioactivity occurs in an outside frame of reference..)
The frame of reference is not outside of anything, anymore than it is today. Time itself doesn't change as the speed of light changes. Time only changes for an observer getting near the speed of light, whatever it happens to be at the moment. Experiments have shown that light can be slowed to a crawl. If light can be slowed, then why should it be so surprising to speed it up also?
(..for matter moving faster to for the universe to expand as quickly as you say..)
The universe is pretty darn big presently. We see galaxies billions of light years from us, at the limit of our instruments. Therefore, matter got there somehow. Einstein told us, and experiments corroborate it, that time, space, matter, energy are all interrelated. As space expanded, of necessity, its properties changed and with it certain properties of the matter and energy within space. The speed at which light travels is only one of its properties.
...You are asserting that the physical properties (e.g. gravitation and atomic spin) are not reliable because they may have changed in the past. ...
The force of gravity is depends on mass and is indistinguishable from acceleration. Radioactivity depends on the properties of the atom, which in turn are related to the speed of light.
There is no law of physics that mandates a constant speed of light. We KNOW from experiments that the speed of light depends on the properties of the medium it traverses. That's how lenses work.
At Creation, the Universe and all of space was small and the electromagnetic propagation characteristics allowed light to travel at least 300 million times faster than today. It had after all to keep up with the rapid expansion of the Universe.
The alternate to the doppler INTERPRETATION of the red shift is that light slowed down. Since the atomic properties are tied to the speed of light, things like radioactivity also proceeded much faster than today. Since any volume expansion is a cubic function, it stands to reason that the properties of space would also change in a highly nonlinear way.
From the red shift it is also possible to get a good idea of that expansion ratio. Depending on when you start after the initial creation event, often called the "Big Bang", the speed of light should have been billions of times faster, in fact near infinite shortly after time=0. A ray of light could cross the entire small universe in an unimaginably small period of time.
Gravity and atomic time measurements are therefore related in a highly non-linear, but predictable way. Examining the exact properties of the red shift and other related cosmological data, will help quantify the exact relationship between these two time scales.
This is not likely to happen, as long as cosmologists stubbornly cling to the doppler interpretation of the red shift and the related cosmic background radiation.