spiritman Posted October 25, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Spiritman, The speed of light has changed by less than 0.001% in the past 13 billion years. Scientists can test this. One method is by comparing the light of quasars for specific atoms to the light we can create from atoms today here on Earth. We got different answers in the past because we didn't have the technology to accurately measure the speed of light. For example, if we go back far enough, all the way to the ancient Greeks, we would know that there was no speed of light - it is instantaneous! What amazes me the most 9ner, is that despite evidence that I have presented to you, by your own scientific community, you choose to cling to some obsolete Ideal that the speed of light is constant. The fact is Light traveling on it's way to earth can pass through who knows what to effect it's speed by the time it gets here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted October 25, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 25, 2010 Spiritman, The speed of light has changed by less than 0.001% in the past 13 billion years. Scientists can test this. One method is by comparing the light of quasars for specific atoms to the light we can create from atoms today here on Earth. We got different answers in the past because we didn't have the technology to accurately measure the speed of light. For example, if we go back far enough, all the way to the ancient Greeks, we would know that there was no speed of light - it is instantaneous! What amazes me the most 9ner, is that despite evidence that I have presented to you, by your own scientific community, you choose to cling to some obsolete Ideal that the speed of light is constant. The fact is Light traveling on it's way to earth can pass through who knows what to effect it's speed by the time it gets here. D-9 likely understands that the actual value of c does not change but that light is absorbed and re-emitted by matter which then appears to slow it down. The actual speed of light does not change. If the value of c were to change then the energy output of stars in the past should by drastically different than the energy output today unless, of course, you're going to argue against E=mc^2. . .in which case all I can say is good luck with that. Lurker There have been new theories put forth in the last few years that challenge Einstein's theory....I know you have to be aware of this. From NewScientist magazine..... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 25, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Spiritman, The speed of light has changed by less than 0.001% in the past 13 billion years. Scientists can test this. One method is by comparing the light of quasars for specific atoms to the light we can create from atoms today here on Earth. We got different answers in the past because we didn't have the technology to accurately measure the speed of light. For example, if we go back far enough, all the way to the ancient Greeks, we would know that there was no speed of light - it is instantaneous! What amazes me the most 9ner, is that despite evidence that I have presented to you, by your own scientific community, you choose to cling to some obsolete Ideal that the speed of light is constant. The fact is Light traveling on it's way to earth can pass through who knows what to effect it's speed by the time it gets here. D-9 likely understands that the actual value of c does not change but that light is absorbed and re-emitted by matter which then appears to slow it down. The actual speed of light does not change. If the value of c were to change then the energy output of stars in the past should by drastically different than the energy output today unless, of course, you're going to argue against E=mc^2. . .in which case all I can say is good luck with that. Lurker Ok lurker, I guess I need to clarify my point a little more. Let's say that light leaves a star and is traveling at what scientists call light speed, what is that 186,000 miles/ps. Ok now this light interacts with something within a quarter of its traveling time from the star, this speeds it up to say 300 times the normal speed of light. the travel time would be greatly deminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted October 26, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2010 Ok lurker, I guess I need to clarify my point a little more. Let's say that light leaves a star and is traveling at what scientists call light speed, what is that 186,000 miles/ps. Ok now this light interacts with something within a quarter of its traveling time from the star, this speeds it up to say 300 times the normal speed of light. the travel time would be greatly deminished. That clears up nothing except that you clearly didn't understand the article you linked to which is discussing how the fine structure constant (alpha) may have varied slightly in the past which, in turn, could have had a slight effect on the speed of light. The underlying argument I am trying to convey is that everything in this universe is built upon physics, and if you mess with those physics you mess with the whole universe. Messing with the speed of light, for example, to try and get a young universe is going to cause some pretty catastrophic problems elsewhere. If you change the fine structure constant your going to change the strength of the force between all electrically charged particles, I'm really hoping you caught that "all", as in every freaking electrically charged particle in the universe. If you push that value over 4% in either direction stars are no longer physically able to sustain themselves so. . .once again. . .good luck with that. Additionally, you don't seem to realize that if these findings are accurate it would mean that the fine structure constant was 0.0006% smaller 9 billion years ago than it is today. If you're going to propose that light sped up beyond that amount you'll need to take all the findings you just cited and drop kick them into a black hole of confirmation bias. Lurker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 .... D-9 likely understands that the actual value of c does not change but that light is absorbed and re-emitted by matter which then appears to slow it down. The actual speed of light does not change. If the value of c were to change then the energy output of stars in the past should by drastically different than the energy output today unless, of course, you're going to argue against E=mc^2. . .in which case all I can say is good luck with that.... Sometimes You Feel Like A Nut .... Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured light speed in the late 17th century. Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years. The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available. Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower. What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:.... .... Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher – as much as 10 to the 10th power faster – in the early stages of the "Big Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of these researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer, biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a biblical worldview.) .... And Sometimes..... He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest treesong Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 .... D-9 likely understands that the actual value of c does not change but that light is absorbed and re-emitted by matter which then appears to slow it down. The actual speed of light does not change. If the value of c were to change then the energy output of stars in the past should by drastically different than the energy output today unless, of course, you're going to argue against E=mc^2. . .in which case all I can say is good luck with that.... Sometimes You Feel Like A Nut .... Early in 1979, an Australian undergraduate student named Barry Setterfield, thought it would be interesting to chart all of the measurements of the speed of light since a Dutch astronomer named Olaf Roemer first measured light speed in the late 17th century. Setterfield acquired data on over 163 measurements using 16 different methods over 300 years. The early measurements typically tracked the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter when the planet was near the Earth and compared it with observations when then planet was farther away. These observations were standard, simple and repeatable, and have been measured by astronomers since the invention of the telescope. These are demonstrated to astronomy students even today. The early astronomers kept meticulous notes and sketches, many of which are still available. Setterfield expected to see the recorded speeds grouped around the accepted value for light speed, roughly 299,792 kilometers /second. In simple terms, half of the historic measurements should have been higher and half should be lower. What he found defied belief: The derived light speeds from the early measurements were significantly faster than today. Even more intriguing, the older the observation, the faster the speed of light. A sampling of these values is listed below:.... [url=http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733].... Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work advocating their belief that light speed was much higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j102 Posted October 26, 2010 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 16 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 443 Content Per Day: 0.09 Reputation: 24 Days Won: 1 Joined: 09/08/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted October 26, 2010 even if it was proven for a fact that the universe is billions of years old, its still does not contridict the bible. scripture says "in the begining GOD created the heavens and the earth" notice it says heavens before it says earth- there had to be a universe before GOD made the earth-where else would he put planet earth then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted October 27, 2010 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.11 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted October 27, 2010 Obviously the speed of light stopped slowing down as soon as we developed the technology to accurately measure it. [/sarcasm] Lurker We expect no less of you, Lurker..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 27, 2010 Share Posted October 27, 2010 Obviously the speed of light stopped slowing down as soon as we developed the technology to accurately measure it....[/sarcasm] No Sarcasm And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 Technology Comes From The Mind Of Mortal Man Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! Matthew 18:7 Living Man Comes From The Breath Of God And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7 And The WORD Of Truth For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16 Comes From His Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17 Heart And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Mark 1:11 >>>>>()<<<<< No For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20 Respect Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11 Is To Be Found Within The Fables Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:6 And The Science Fictions Of False Teachers O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20 No Sarcasm Spoken And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9 Nor Intended And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: Revelation 10:6 >>>>>()<<<<< Jesus Is LORD For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 1:16-17 Jesus Is Risen And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. Mark 16:6 Believe Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: John 11:25 And Be Blessed Beloved And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Galatians 4:6 Be Blessed Love, Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spiritman Posted October 28, 2010 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 127 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,131 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 23 Days Won: 1 Joined: 04/22/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/25/1962 Share Posted October 28, 2010 Speed of light in vacuum is just a conversion factor. It translates space coordinates into time coordinates. To say that this is not a constant is as absurd as saying that the conversion factor between kilometers and miles is not a constant. Outside of the stuff in the paper I linked to, there's lots of hypotheses about the early universe that deal with very high values for c called VSL models. There is no consensus or majority that c was X amount higher or lower in the past, but scientists are clearly not ruling out the possibility and there is evidence that such may be the case. Here is an interesting article Alpha, it seems, has decreased by more than 4.5 parts in 108 since Oklo was live (Physical Review D, vol 69, p121701). That translates into a very small increase in the speed of light (assuming no change in the other constants that alpha depends on), but Lamoreaux's new analysis is so precise that he can rule out the possibility of zero change in the speed of light. "It's pretty exciting," he says. This goes against classical physics and such, but the great thing about science is that nothing is set in stone and it goes wherever the evidence leads. Right now it looks like the evidence suggests that c has changed over time. Our understanding of how the universe works is changing and as long as that change is based on evidence it should be pursued. Then Dner, the question begs to differ why are you holding on to scientific theories that are in conflict to each other? One scientist says one thing then another says something different. Sounds like a bunch of confusion to me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts