| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Pahu" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2007 05:16:05 PM |
| Object: |
Science Disproves Evolution |
Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn't the Universe
Billions of Years Old? 3
No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant (6). Many
simply assume it is constant, and of course, changing old ways of
thinking is sometimes difficult. Russian cosmologist, V. S. Troitskii,
at the Radiophysical Research Institute in Gorky, is also questioning
some old beliefs. He concluded, independently of Setterfield, that the
speed of light was 10 billion times faster at time zero (7)!
Furthermore, he attributed the cosmic microwave background radiation
and most redshifts to this rapidly decreasing speed of light.
Setterfield reached the same conclusion concerning redshifts by a
different method. If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the
big bang theory will fall (with a big bang).
Other cosmologists are proposing an enormous decay in the speed of
light (8). Several of their theoretical problems with the big bang
theory are solved if light once traveled millions of times faster (9).
6=2E Light beams are considered to be traveling in a vacuum. Light
traveling through any substance-such as air, water, or glass-travels
at slightly slower speeds.
In two published experiments, the speed of light was exceeded by as
much as a factor of 100! The first experiment involved radio signals
which, of course, are a type of light. [See P. T. Pappas and Alexis
Guy Obolensky, "Thirty Six Nanoseconds Faster Than Light," Electronics
and Wireless World, December 1988, pp. 1162-1165.] The second report
referred to a theoretical derivation and a simple experiment that
permitted electrical signals to greatly exceed the speed of light.
This derivation follows directly from Maxwell's equations. The special
conditions involved extremely thin electrical conductors with very low
capacitance and inductance. [See Harold W. Milnes, "Faster Than
Light?" Radio-Electronics, Vol. 54, January 1983, pp. 55-58.]
Another phenomenon allows light to exceed slightly its normal speed.
[See Julian Brown, "Faster Than the Speed of Light," New Scientist, 1
April 1995, pp. 26-29. Also see Jon Marangos, "Faster than a Speeding
Photon," Nature, Vol. 406, 20 July 2000, pp. 243-244.] However, this
effect does not explain distant light in a young universe.
7=2E V. S. Troitskii, "Physical Constants and the Evolution of the
Universe," Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 139, No. 2, December
1987, pp. 389-411.
8=2E "We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a
resolution to the well-known cosmological puzzles." Andreas Albrecht
and Jo=E3o Magueijo, "A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to
Cosmological Puzzles," Physical Review D, 15 February 1999, p.
043516-9. [The authors state that light may have traveled thirty
orders of magnitude faster than it does today!]
"It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea [a decaying speed
of light] that has so many appealing consequences." John D. Barrow,
Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Astronomy Centre at the
University of Sussex, as quoted by Steve Farrar, "Speed of Light
Slowing Down," London Sunday Times, 15 November 1998.
"If light initially moved much faster than it does today and then
decelerated sufficiently rapidly early in the history of the Universe,
then all three cosmological problems-the horizon, flatness and lambda
problems-can be solved at once." John D. Barrow, "Is Nothing Sacred?"
New Scientist, Vol. 163, 24 July 1999, p. 28.
Two comments: First, each problem Barrow mentions is actually a
reason for concluding the big bang theory is wrong. Second, no
scientific law says the speed of light is a constant. It has only been
assumed to be such. In fact, today it is arbitrarily defined as a
constant. W.B.
9=2E For example, "the horizon problem" recognizes that opposite
extremes of the universe have the same temperature and laws of
physics. Why should this be? The universe isn't old enough for such
vastly separated regions to have ever had contact with each other.
Light doesn't travel fast enough-at least today.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#wp1621525
.
|
|
| User: "David Canzi -- non-mailable" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
26 Jul 2007 08:32:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1185488165.336100.261030@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote:
No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant (6).
And we are supposed to believe this solely on the authority of
somebody best known for having insisted that he was not a number,
but a free man?
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
27 Jul 2007 07:10:34 PM |
|
|
On Jul 26, 8:32 pm, (David Canzi -- non-
mailable) wrote:
In article <1185488165.336100.261...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant (6).
And we are supposed to believe this solely on the authority of
somebody best known for having insisted that he was not a number,
but a free man?
--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |
He's a prisoner to it....
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
30 Jul 2007 06:23:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:10:34 -0700, Budikka666 <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
[piggybacking]
On Jul 26, 8:32 pm, (David Canzi -- non-
mailable) wrote:
In article <1185488165.336100.261...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
Pahu <pah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant (6).
And we are supposed to believe this solely on the authority of
somebody best known for having insisted that he was not a number,
but a free man?
Are we supposed to believe this on the authority of someone who
believes that scientific law *requires*?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
26 Jul 2007 06:12:00 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 15:16:05 -0700, Pahu wrote:
No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant
No scientific "law" requires your god exist...
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Warned you we tried! Listen you did not! Now screwed
we will all be!"
http://www.sequentialpictures.com/moviestarwarsepisode3.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: The monkeys are loose in the library again Redux |
27 Jul 2007 02:56:26 AM |
|
|
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:1185488165.336100.261030@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com to
alt.atheism:
Ook!
They are getting tiresome.
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
"If you are informed by God, you can be misinformed by nobody" - Osama Bin
Laden
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" |
|
| Title: Re: Science Disproves Evolution |
26 Jul 2007 08:03:21 PM |
|
|
Pahu <pahu70@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1185488165.336100.261030@
22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn't the Universe
Billions of Years Old? 3
No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant (6).
Scientific laws don't require anything, they are merely our models of how
nature works. Any claim in science has to be backed up by evidence. The
current available evidence shows that the fine structure constant and by
inference the speed of light has changed by less than one part in a million
over ten billion years. This is a result consistant with no change at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant
Kalzmon.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
