1. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 May '06 08:041 edit
    The Young Earth Creationists of RHP have long been suggesting that light in the past moved at a different speed. Since they seemed to be making this suggestion only so that they could dismiss evidence they didn't like, and never offered any actual science supporting this idea, I and some others never really took this comment seriously. However, I just read this:

    Some physicists, notably João Magueijo and John Moffat, have proposed that in the past light travelled much faster than the current speed of light. This theory is called variable speed of light (VSL) and its supporters claim that it has the ability to explain many cosmological puzzles better than its rival, the inflation model of the universe. However, it has yet to gain wide acceptance.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

    Does anyone think this supports the possibility of an Earth and universe with an age of only a few thousand years as the YEC's claim? What are the consequences of this with respect to the YEC idea vs. the standard very old universe and very old Earth ideas?

    Here's the article about the VSL hypothesis itself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
  2. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52615
    06 May '06 16:591 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The Young Earth Creationists of RHP have long been suggesting that light in the past moved at a different speed. Since they seemed to be making this suggestion only so that they could dismiss evidence they didn't like, and never offered any actual science supporting this idea, I and some others never really took this comment seriously. However, I just out the VSL hypothesis itself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
    My problem with using a variable C to support the young earthers is this: The measurements of C in recent years has shown no variation or such a small variation as to be mainly experiment noise. In order for creationists to have a case, the amount of change that would happen in say, 10,000 years would still leave a changing C that would be readily measureable today. Most of the proported changes of C have been in the range of billions of years not a few thousand.
  3. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 May '06 18:17
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    My problem with using a variable C to support the young earthers is this: The measurements of C in recent years has shown no variation or such a small variation as to be mainly experiment noise. In order for creationists to have a case, the amount of change that would happen in say, 10,000 years would still leave a changing C that would be readily measureab ...[text shortened]... st of the proported changes of C have been in the range of billions of years not a few thousand.
    That assumes that the rate of change of c is constant. What if it's not?
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148424
    06 May '06 18:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The Young Earth Creationists of RHP have long been suggesting that light in the past moved at a different speed. Since they seemed to be making this suggestion only so that they could dismiss evidence they didn't like, and never offered any actual science supporting this idea, I and some others never really took this comment seriously. However, I just ...[text shortened]... out the VSL hypothesis itself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
    Who said that the speed of light has moved a different speeds?
    Kelly
  5. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148424
    06 May '06 18:41
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The Young Earth Creationists of RHP have long been suggesting that light in the past moved at a different speed. Since they seemed to be making this suggestion only so that they could dismiss evidence they didn't like, and never offered any actual science supporting this idea, I and some others never really took this comment seriously. However, I just ...[text shortened]... out the VSL hypothesis itself:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
    You can know the distance between the stars and earth, you can
    know the speed of light; however, that does not mean you know
    how old that light is! All the information you really have is the
    distance between the stars and earth, and the speed of light.
    Taking that for time assumes you know where the light striking
    the earth was at all times.

    If for example you saw a 50 hour candle burning and it was half
    way through, do you know how long that candle was burning? All
    you really know is just what I gave you, it is a 50 hour candle and
    it is currently burning. You do not when it was last lit, or how many
    times before the last time it had burned. It would be the same
    with the stars too, when did the light begin and from where?
    Kelly
  6. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 May '06 18:53
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Who said that the speed of light has moved a different speeds?
    Kelly
    All the speeds of electromagnetic movements are equivalent. If I asked you what photons are up to, what would you say?
  7. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148424
    06 May '06 19:091 edit
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    All the speeds of electromagnetic movements are equivalent. If I asked you what photons are up to, what would you say?
    Are not you the one who says others do not answer direct questions?
    Who at RHP has been saying that, "Who said that the speed of light
    has moved a different speeds?"
    I'd say I don't know what the photons are up to.
    Kelly
  8. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 May '06 19:36
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Are not you the one who says others do not answer direct questions?
    Who at RHP has been saying that, "Who said that the speed of light
    has moved a different speeds?"
    I'd say I don't know what the photons are up to.
    Kelly
    That's quite possibly the first direct answer I've ever seen from you. I had to write nonsense to get it. Very strange.

    Isn't it annoying when people don't answer direct questions but instead babble about something irrelevant or nonsensical?
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39559
    06 May '06 21:34
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    You can know the distance between the stars and earth, you can
    know the speed of light; however, that does not mean you know
    how old that light is! All the information you really have is the
    distance between the stars and earth, and the speed of light.
    Taking that for time assumes you know where the light striking
    the earth was at all times.

    If for ...[text shortened]... urned. It would be the same
    with the stars too, when did the light begin and from where?
    Kelly
    Brilliant!! You of course have no possible way of knowing that the light is REALLY coming from the stars!

    Are you really this stupid? The light came from the object giving it off. Stars don't turn themselves on and off like a "clap on" and light has a fixed rate of speed. So yes we know how "old" the light from the stars are IF we know how far away the stars are and the speed of light.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148424
    06 May '06 22:03
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Brilliant!! You of course have no possible way of knowing that the light is REALLY coming from the stars!

    Are you really this stupid? The light came from the object giving it off. Stars don't turn themselves on and off like a "clap on" and light has a fixed rate of speed. So yes we know how "old" the light from the stars are IF we know how far away the stars are and the speed of light.
    Did I say that light wasn't coming from the stars?
    Kelly
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148424
    06 May '06 22:05
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    That's quite possibly the first direct answer I've ever seen from you. I had to write nonsense to get it. Very strange.

    Isn't it annoying when people don't answer direct questions but instead babble about something irrelevant or nonsensical?
    When you ask direct questions I try to give them to you, when
    you ask questions that are not direct you may not get the type of
    answers your looking for. That may be because I don't understand
    your meaning for one reason or another.
    Kelly
  12. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148424
    06 May '06 22:07
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    That's quite possibly the first direct answer I've ever seen from you. I had to write nonsense to get it. Very strange.

    Isn't it annoying when people don't answer direct questions but instead babble about something irrelevant or nonsensical?
    Yep, but I understand what I mean and what another reads may
    not always be the same thing. That is true of us all, some of us
    just simply refuse to accept that. You have a answer for the
    direct question you acknowledge you recieved, or should I just
    simply accept this as your way to give as good as you claim you
    have recieved?
    Kelly
  13. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 May '06 22:162 edits
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yep, but I understand what I mean and what another reads may
    not always be the same thing. That is true of us all, some of us
    just simply refuse to accept that. You have a answer for the
    direct question you acknowledge you recieved, or should I just
    simply accept this as your way to give as good as you claim you
    have recieved?
    Kelly
    You have a answer for the direct question you acknowledge you recieved, or should I just simply accept this as your way to give as good as you claim you have recieved?

    Yes, and yes. There's no "or" about it.

    If you're trying to get me to answer this question

    Who said that the speed of light has moved a different speeds?

    Then the answer is "I don't remember". Maybe Darfius? Maybe you? If this was indeed what you wanted, it would have been far clearer for you to say "please answer my question about who claimed the speed of light had changed" or "I don't understand what you're trying to say" or something like that. Your post is very confusing, like most of your posts. I think part of the reason is that it's not grammatically sound.
  14. DonationPawnokeyhole
    Krackpot Kibitzer
    Right behind you...
    Joined
    27 Apr '02
    Moves
    16879
    06 May '06 22:18
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    That assumes that the rate of change of c is constant. What if it's not?
    Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe that the rate of change of the speed of light, as opposed to the speed of light, has changed? And why stop at the first derivative?
  15. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    06 May '06 22:20
    Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
    Is there any empirical or theoretical reason to believe that the rate of change of the speed of light, as opposed to the speed of light, has changed? And why stop at the first derivative?
    Not that I know of. I don't know much about VSL theory.
Back to Top