06 May 06
1 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
06 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMy 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.
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
06 May 06
Originally posted by sonhouseThat assumes that the rate of change of c is constant. What if it's not?
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.
06 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWho said that the speed of light has moved a different speeds?
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
Kelly
06 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou can know the distance between the stars and earth, you can
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
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
06 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre not you the one who says others do not answer direct questions?
All the speeds of electromagnetic movements are equivalent. If I asked you what photons are up to, what would you say?
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
06 May 06
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's quite possibly the first direct answer I've ever seen from you. I had to write nonsense to get it. Very strange.
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
Isn't it annoying when people don't answer direct questions but instead babble about something irrelevant or nonsensical?
06 May 06
Originally posted by KellyJayBrilliant!! You of course have no possible way of knowing that the light is REALLY coming from the stars!
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
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.
06 May 06
Originally posted by no1marauderDid I say that light wasn't coming from the stars?
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.
Kelly
06 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhen you ask direct questions I try to give them to you, when
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?
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
06 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYep, but I understand what I mean and what another reads may
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?
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
06 May 06
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayYou 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?
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
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.
06 May 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs 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?
That assumes that the rate of change of c is constant. What if it's not?