Jump to content


Photo

Universe


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
45 replies to this topic

#21 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:32 PM

Amazingly enough, banana sent me two threatening e-mails; which causes one to wonder about the honesty of this individual posts to begin with.


At least he didn't post any science, then we would have no choice but to threaten him. :lol:


It's sad but comical watching these atheists rage against the idea of a creator.



Enjoy.

#22 banana

banana

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 22
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Steiermark, Austria

Posted 06 November 2011 - 10:35 PM

Setterfield listed every measurement that can be found in the literature. That isn't typical of cherry picking and certainly not lying.

which literature? can you list the sources?

They were confident enough to include +/- errors to their calculations and hundreds of physicists over hundreds of years agree with their math. I find it incredibly unbelievable that you can prove them wrong by simply saying so.


not I but Goldstein and Trasco and everyone else

Except for the fact that we can show you the math that proves that radiocarbon half life is only 5568 years.

so how long does it take for the decay to finish?


As suggested, when the first two grossly in error calculations are deleted, then we clearly see a curve from 303-299 km/s. This isn't suggested as proof even by Setterfield, rather a confirmed prediction of a hypothesis.

ahh so the first two were errors the third we don't know when it was made and just 4 5, 6 and 7 are ok.
so you are constructing a curve of 6000 years based upon 4 values in the range of less then 200 years. values that you arbitrately have choosen. great

There are hundreds of journals (secular and creation) that deal specifically with cosmology, astronomy, and astrophysics. Wikipedia can be edited by anybody who cares to create an account and anti-creationists love to edit anything related to creation. It's akin to talkorigins.

now you are implying that i just edited wikipedia to make it look like that journal is really an important one.

you didn't read the article. it tells you how much he cheated. he even changed one original value of a measurement for his publication

come on even the institute of creation and research shows he is an idiot:
http://www.icr.org/i...ion=view&ID=283

and here the article of the astronomical journal (which i just invented)
you are the last one still riding on his legend

#23 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,140 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 07 November 2011 - 03:59 AM

So thank you for showing us this because i have the feeling that this is exactly how good are young earth creationists at using the methods of science to their own advantage.

For your information: Creationists started science and developed the scientific methods. So it shouldn't come as a surprise, when they use "the methods of science to their own advantage". You should actually do the same :D !

when they think that something fits their idea the method is good, when it does not, the method is bad. The problem in this case is the same method is used for determining the age of the rocks, which is bad for young earth creationism, so it is bad method,...

Rock age determination are often provenly inaccurate. Sometimes they do contradict each other. You tell me which ones are good and reliable, which ones are not and why.

... but when it is used to determine the decay of the speed of light which is good for young earth creationims, it suddenly becomes a good method. Even if the measurement of the radioactive decay is by far more precise then the measurement of the speed of light. Isn't that behing dishonest?...

I pointed out previously that I see some problems with extrapolating the changing speed of light. Just as I see some problem with using isotope presence for a measurement of "rock age".

#24 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 November 2011 - 07:46 AM

quote by banana
when they think that something fits their idea the method is good, when it does not, the method is bad. The problem in this case is the same method is used for determining the age of the rocks, which is bad for young earth creationism, so it is bad method,...... but when it is used to determine the decay of the speed of light which is good for young earth creationims, it suddenly becomes a good method. Even if the measurement of the radioactive decay is by far more precise then the measurement of the speed of light. Isn't that behing dishonest?...


This statement couldn't clearly prove a motive more clearly. You have no intention of scientific debate or discussion at all; Your simply trolling.

Accelerated nuclear decay was predicted by creationists, they took samples of known age from around the globe, and all of the samples gave ratios interpreted as being millions of years older than their known age Link. They then waited until direct confirmation from other experiments proved accelerated decay does occur and it wasn't just sample contamination.

Billion-fold acceleration of radioactivity demonstrated in laboratory
Experimental demonstration of the actual existence of bb decay, however, did not occur until the 1990s. 163Dy, a stable nuclide under normal-Earth conditions, was found to decay to 163Ho, with t½ = 47 days, under the bare-nucleus conditions of the completely ionized state. More recently, bb decay has been experimentally demonstrated in the rhenium-osmium (187Re-187Os) system. (The Re-Os method is one of the isotopic ‘clocks’ used by uniformitarian geologists to supposedly date rocks.) The experiment involved the circulation of fully-ionized 187Re in a storage ring. The 187Re ions were found to decay to a measurable extent in only several hours, amounting to a half-life of only 33 years. This represents a staggering billion-fold increase over the conventional half-life, which is 42 Ga! (Ga = giga-annum = a billion (109) years).

http://www.answersin...cceleration.asp
Piezonuclear neutrons from fracturing of inert solids

F. Cardone, A. Carpinteri, G. Lacidogna
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009)

Abstract: Neutron emission measurements by means of helium-3 neutron detectors were performed on solid test specimens during crushing failure. The materials used were marble and granite, selected in that they present a different behaviour in compression failure (i.e., a different brittleness index) and a different iron content. All the test specimens were of the same size and shape. Neutron emissions from the granite test specimens were found to be of about one order of magnitude higher than the natural background level at the time of failure.
Speeding-up Thorium decay

F. Cardone, R. Mignani, A. Petrucci
(Submitted on 26 Oct 2007)

Abstract: We show that cavitation of a solution of thorium-228 in water induces its transformation at a rate 10000 times faster than the natural radioactive decay would do. This result agrees with the alteration of the secular equilibrium of thorium-234 obtained by a Russian team via explosion of titanium foils in water and solutions. These evidences further support some preliminary clues for the possibility of piezonuclear reactions (namely nuclear reactions induced by pressure waves) obtained in the last ten years.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1969&view=findpost&p=71971


Then an empirical age was obtained for precambrian granites by helium diffusivity rates, which verify that 1.5 billion years of decay has occurred in the time frame of only 6,000 years.

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=283&view=findpost&p=2446


This is a perfect example of how science is employed by creationists.

1) A prediction is made.

2) Samples are taken and sent to a neutral lab for analysis.

3) Results are obtained that confirm the hypothesis.

4) Direct measurements from other experiments are made to rule out other possible causes.

5) Hypothesis is now elevated to the status of a scientific theory.


If you can't adhere to the above steps in the science forums, perhaps you should start a propaganda blog like Eugene Scott and others and pretend that telling people that creation isn't scientific is true because you told them so. B)




Enjoy.

#25 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 November 2011 - 08:29 AM

Jason777: There is not a shred of evidence that light has ever traveled faster than it does today. That graph you show is simply lying.


oh yeah they are not lies i never said that they are lies, just that they are not precise at all.




This is golden!!

#26 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:24 PM

I will try answer to everyone.

AFJ: I appreciate your humilty to admit your own ignorance in astronomy. But your humilty (not the ignorance) is definitively gone when you try to explain that the parallax method could be wrong. BTW there are so many other indipendent methods that all confirm the same (this is the beauty of science). The guy in the video himself states that the universe has a size of billion light years. And he admits that the measurements couldn't be so wrong. He also admits there is no evidence for a young universe, so why does he make this statement at all?

Banana,
I was not attempting to be either humble or arrogant. I was stating a fact of my knoweldge in astronomy. However, knowledge of parallax does not require one to be knowlegable in astronomy. Parallax happens everyday to all of us, and we do not need to look at the stars to experience it.

I didn't say parallax is wrong. I did not emphatically imply that the distances are wrong. And I know most creation scientists say this is not a good arguement. But, my statement is still valid, and can be demonstrated by a geometrical model. I said you can get the same parallax with something up close, as you can with something far, if there is proportional ratio in the distances. The barn and watertower IS parallax effect. And by the way, I have taken geometry, and always scored high on mechanical aptitude, which has everything to do with postional reference, and spatial movement, so I understand parallax effect. This requires no knowlege of astronomy.

What I'm saying is if the you have an infinite horizon around you, you can move 1000 feet to your right. From the point you moved, A, to the point you now stand, B, there is line segment AB. There will be ray C, perpendicular to line segment AB, going in the direction you are looking. Now there are two objects, a watertower on ray C, and a nearer barn which appears to have moved 10 degrees (hypothetically you have 180 degree peripheral vision). There is nothing you can see behind the far watertower, and it is far enough so that it appears to move with you, while the barn "moves" 10 degrees.

Now my question to you is this, and I would appreciate it if you would answer it. If I move on line segment AB 1000 feet, are the barn and watertower the only things on the infinite horizon that could move 10 degrees? I think not. You can not prove that this is so. There can be other sets of two objects that are at a proportional distance from line AB and from each other, that will have the same parallax as the barn and the watertower, though they are different in distance from line AB. Obviously, there must be some distance at which this will not work. Like if the barn and water tower were light years away, 1000 feet is insignificant, and there would be no detectable parallax.

I would be happy to email you a geometrical model that will demonstrate proportional parallax effect, whereby, viewing from both ends of line segment CD, if object sets (A,B ) and (E,F) are both at a proportional distance from each other, and from line segment CD, the parallax view from both ends of line segment CD will be the same.

#27 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 November 2011 - 06:38 PM

Ron don't you dare to delete it again! you will regret it!


This is the rational response from a rational person?

#28 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 08 November 2011 - 09:27 PM

The idea that light has slowed down enough to make the YEC timeline work can be shown to be incorrect. An exponentially slowing light speed as proposed by Setterfield would cause a slow motion effect that varied based on distance. The further away an event was, the slower it would look to us compared to how quickly it actually occured. One observation which can be used is that radioactive decay of particular isotopes such as cobalt-56 in supernova appears to occur at the same rate as here on earth, which indicates that the speed of light hasn't changed much since those stars exploded. A secondary effect from exponential c-decay would be that as time passed, events which we would initially see in slow motion would be gradually speeding up from the previously mentioned slow motion. The more rapidly c decreased, the more obvious this change in speed would be. Since there are extremely regular events in the universe such as massive stars rotating or orbiting each other that don't show any signs of getting faster this is another method of determining that light speed hasn't changed enough to make the universe young.

#29 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 08 November 2011 - 10:33 PM

1. The idea that light has slowed down enough to make the YEC timeline work can be shown to be incorrect. An exponentially slowing light speed as proposed by Setterfield would cause a slow motion effect that varied based on distance. The further away an event was, the slower it would look to us compared to how quickly it actually occured.

2. One observation which can be used is that radioactive decay of particular isotopes such as cobalt-56 in supernova appears to occur at the same rate as here on earth, which indicates that the speed of light hasn't changed much since those stars exploded.

3. A secondary effect from exponential c-decay would be that as time passed, events which we would initially see in slow motion would be gradually speeding up from the previously mentioned slow motion. The more rapidly c decreased, the more obvious this change in speed would be. Since there are extremely regular events in the universe such as massive stars rotating or orbiting each other that don't show any signs of getting faster this is another method of determining that light speed hasn't changed enough to make the universe young.


1. And?

Firstly I'm not sure if it was claimed to be exponentially slowing, just that it is slowing.

2. And how would you determine this? Care to provide some evidence?

3. So from a decreasing speed of light and a "slow motion effect" (which you claimed in point 1), somehow this creates speeding up.... Do you see the blatant contradiction.... Slowing down doesn't equate to speeding up.

#30 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 November 2011 - 10:52 PM

How did you determine that the speed of light would change decay rates? Even if it traveled twice as fast tomorrow, the decay rate of cobalt-56 would still be the same. :huh: That's like saying my car accelerating would also make my watch speed up.

The observed speed here, or even if it were in equilibrium across the entire universe, wouldn't change anything we observe; We would observe it at the rate that it is here - not there.



Enjoy.

#31 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 November 2011 - 11:11 PM

quote by banana
now you are implying that i just edited wikipedia to make it look like that journal is really an important one.

you didn't read the article. it tells you how much he cheated. he even changed one original value of a measurement for his publication

come on even the institute of creation and research shows he is an idiot:
http://www.icr.org/i...ion=view&ID=283


3 confirmed cases of misrepresentation in a single reply. Since your banned already, I'll pretend you never existed and we can discuss reality among ourselves. :blink:

Ron don't you dare to delete it again! you will regret it!


Actually, it's for your benefit to not allow people to see how foolish you were, but if that's what you want, then embarrass yourself. :lol:

#32 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 November 2011 - 04:32 AM

The idea that light has slowed down enough to make the YEC timeline work can be shown to be incorrect.


No more than the “ideas” that the speed of light has remained constant since creation, in spite of the differences in measurements since the measurements have been taken. Further, we have absolutely NO IDEA what happened in all the years prior to historical records. Therefore your uniformitarian “ideas” are no more sound than anyone else’s.

#33 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 09 November 2011 - 04:55 AM

no uh but i like that idea so that gods is a liar.

so they say and think.

#34 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 09 November 2011 - 06:04 PM

1. And?

Firstly I'm not sure if it was claimed to be exponentially slowing, just that it is slowing.

2. And how would you determine this? Care to provide some evidence?

3. So from a decreasing speed of light and a "slow motion effect" (which you claimed in point 1), somehow this creates speeding up.... Do you see the blatant contradiction.... Slowing down doesn't equate to speeding up.


1. And...there are observations that are inconsistent with the idea that such slow motion is in effect. Such as the observation that radioactive decay takes the same time as it does on earth. Additionally there are rapidly rotating stars observable from earth. There is a limit to how fast a object like a star can rotate before the rotation overwhelms gravity and tears it apart. If these stars were appearing to us in slow motion it would mean that they were actually rotating faster than they appear to and in some cases, rotating faster than physically possible.

The link presented was to Setterfield who suggests that light decayed at a exponential rate which is why I mentioned exponential decay. There would still be a slow motion effect with any type of decrease in light speed.

Imagine if light once traveled 1000 times faster than it does now. Imagine if a star sent two sets of photons heading to earth 1 second apart during that time. As light decreased in velocity, the distance between the photons would stay the same, but the time it takes to travel that distance would increase. By the time those photons reached earth, when light was traveling 1/1000th of it's original speed those photons would be separated by 1000 seconds. It would mean that whatever those photons showed the star doing would actually have happened 1000 times faster than how we'd see it.

2. Radioactive decay in stars can be detected by unique emission spectra. http://adsabs.harvar...ApJ...426L..89K
Decay rates correspond to the intensity and type of light received from supernova. http://lifeng.lamost...TML/AT32104.HTM (scroll down to the bottom)

3. Imagine you are watching a video on tv at 25% normal speed. Now imagine you increased it to 50% normal speed. Now imagine you increased it to 75% normal speed. You are still watching the movie in slow motion, but it's also speeding up. Same thing applies to what I said. There's no contradiction between something speeding up while still being in slow motion. The speed up effect occurs if the decrease in light speed is not linear (see response to jason below for example).


How did you determine that the speed of light would change decay rates? Even if it traveled twice as fast tomorrow, the decay rate of cobalt-56 would still be the same. :huh: That's like saying my car accelerating would also make my watch speed up.

The observed speed here, or even if it were in equilibrium across the entire universe, wouldn't change anything we observe; We would observe it at the rate that it is here - not there.


I didn't say slowing light change actual decay rates. I said it changes the appearance of decay rates. Lets stick with the tv analogy from above.

First lets see what things are like with a constant speed of light...
At 6:00 your favorite show comes on the tv. Light from the opening credits travels from the screen to your eyes. Lets pretend the tv is very far away and that the light reaches your eyes at 6:01. You therefore see the show start at 6:01. At 6:30 the show ends. The light from the closing credits travels from the screen to your eyes. If light speed hasn't changed, it'll take the same amount of time as the opening credits and you'll see the closing credits at 6:31. The show lasted 30 minutes (6:30-6:00) and you saw it last 30 minutes (6:31-6:01).

Now let's see what happens with a slowing speed of light
At 6:00 your favorite show comes on the tv. Light from the opening credits travels from the screen to your eyes. Lets pretend the tv is very far away and that the light reaches your eyes at 6:01. You therefore see the show start at 6:01. At 6:30 the show ends. The light from the closing credits travels from the screen to your eyes. If light speed has decreased by, lets say, half, it'll take twice as long to reach your eyes as the opening credits did. and you'll see the closing credits at 6:32. The show lasted 30 minutes (6:30-6:00) and you saw it last 31 minutes (6:32-6:01). That means what you watched was in slow motion.

For an explanation of the accelerating effect I mention, let's imagine you watch a second tv show right after the first. The show starts on the tv at 6:30. Light from the tv reaches your eyes at 6:32. The show finishes at 7:00, but this time light speed has only decreased by 25%, meaning it only takes 25% longer to reach your eyes than the opening credits did. You see the show end at 7:02:30 (2 minutes 30 seconds travel time). This means that while both shows are actually 30 minutes long, the first show you watched appeared 31 minutes long and the second appeared only 30 and 1/2 minutes long. Both shows are still in slow motion compared to their true duration but it appears as if they are getting faster. This effect occurs if the rate of slowdown is decreasing as Setterfield proposed.

To apply this to decay rates or any other sequence of events in space just think of a half life/stellar rotation/etc. as the time from opening credits to closing credits. If light is constant, the length of the half-lives we watch in space should match the length of half-lives we find on earth. If light slows down, the half-lives we watch in space will take longer than the half-lives we find on earth. The rate that light decreased determines the magnitude of the slow motion effect. If the rate of decrease is itself decreasing then we'll see a gradual speed up of events like decays or stellar rotations. For extremely regular events like pulsars or massive orbiting binaries, even a miniscule acceleration over a span of a few years would be detectable.

No more than the “ideas” that the speed of light has remained constant since creation, in spite of the differences in measurements since the measurements have been taken. Further, we have absolutely NO IDEA what happened in all the years prior to historical records. Therefore your uniformitarian “ideas” are no more sound than anyone else’s.


Is the light from stars that we are currently observing coming from events that occurred in "years prior to historical records"? (for this question it's irrelevant whether it's thousands of years or billions of years prior)

If you answer yes, doesn't that mean that looking at stars can provide us knowledge of what happened in years prior to historical records?
If you answer no, could you please explain what you think we are seeing when we look at stars.

#35 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 09 November 2011 - 06:19 PM

I didn't say slowing light change actual decay rates. I said it changes the appearance of decay rates. Lets stick with the tv analogy from above.


Alright, I thought you were going to hit me with some heavy physics stuff. :o

I think if light speed increased, then time would remain constant. Light speed has remained stable for many decades now since were at the linear edge of the curve calculated by Setterfield. To observe what your analogy is referring to, we would have to go back in time when light speed was dropping exponentially given the assumption that his hypothesis can be extrapolated back in time.



Thanks.

#36 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 November 2011 - 06:22 PM


The idea that light has slowed down enough to make the YEC timeline work can be shown to be incorrect.

No more than the “ideas” that the speed of light has remained constant since creation, in spite of the differences in measurements since the measurements have been taken. Further, we have absolutely NO IDEA what happened in all the years prior to historical records. Therefore your uniformitarian “ideas” are no more sound than anyone else’s.


Is the light from stars that we are currently observing coming from events that occurred in "years prior to historical records"? (for this question it's irrelevant whether it's thousands of years or billions of years prior)

The problem you’re having here is that you’re going to assume the untenable “uniformitarian” conclusion that the speed of light is, as it has always been, AND that there is absolutely nothing between those stars and us, that would affect the speed of light. Therefore your attempt at an irrelevance argument is itself irrelevant.

Having said that, yes, we are observing historical light from those stars; BUT we don’t know that history. Therefore, whatever numbers you attempt to promulgate are assumptive.


If you answer yes, doesn't that mean that looking at stars can provide us knowledge of what happened in years prior to historical records?

Yes, they can provide actual knowledge from our actual measured historical data. This, of course, shows an obvious change of speed for light. Now, can you tell me what the speed of light was prior to said historical data; or are you going to presume again?

If you answer no, could you please explain what you think we are seeing when we look at stars.

The above is moot…

#37 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 November 2011 - 07:08 PM

I'm kind of bowing out, physics does my head in.... I should stick to Biology :D


However considering our small amount of time to study stars and such, how would we be able to determine decay rates from super novas, without first making an assumption on what it "used" to be.


Yes something can be speeding up whilst at the same time is slowed down.. However if the speed of light is slowING (notice the present tense here) then it is a contradiction to say that it is speeding up at the same time that it is slowing down. Your analogy only applies if light was slowed down but then started to speed up again. This would only apply if the speed of light was a random variable, do you claim that the speed of light is a random variable?

#38 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 09 November 2011 - 09:11 PM

Alright, I thought you were going to hit me with some heavy physics stuff. :o

I think if light speed increased, then time would remain constant. Light speed has remained stable for many decades now since were at the linear edge of the curve calculated by Setterfield. To observe what your analogy is referring to, we would have to go back in time when light speed was dropping exponentially given the assumption that his hypothesis can be extrapolated back in time.


Thanks.

What time are you saying would remain constant? Remember the whole point of the c-decay idea is to come up with a way for light from distant stars emitted 6000 years ago to cross 12 billion light years of distance. The idea requires that the light we are seeing from the most distant stars was first sent on it's way back when light was travelling much faster, not when it was on the flatline part of Setterfield's curve. If the light from distant stars was emitted when lightspeed was stable then we'd be unable to see it since according to creationists 12 billion years hasn't passed. (Don't you think it's odd that light speed flatlines the moment we develop accurate ways to measure it?)

We don't need to go back in time at all. I'll step through the example, please identify where you think time travel is necessary or where I'm making some unjustified assumption.

step 1. Assume that at some point in the past light moved faster that it does now
step 2. A bit of light is emitted by the star in the past
step 3. This bit of light travels at the faster rate for 1 second.
step 4. A second bit of light is emitted by the star in the past
step 5. This second bit of light is some distance D behind the first bit of light where D = (fast speed of light per second) x (1 second).
step 6. Gradually the speed of light decreases, both bits of light get slower and slower.
step 7. The distance between the bits of light never changes because the speed of light is the same for both bits of light.
step 8. When the bits of light reach earth in the present, c has decayed to present day value. The first bit of light hits your eye.
step 9. The second bit of light hits your eye some time T later where T = D/(current speed of light).
step 10. T is greater than 1 second since T is simply the ratio of the starting speed to the current speed. T = (fast speed of light)/(current speed) x 1 second

For distant stars, this ratio needs to be exceptionally large in order for light to reach us in 6000 years, which means the slow down effect is correspondingly large.

The problem you’re having here is that you’re going to assume the untenable “uniformitarian” conclusion that the speed of light is, as it has always been, AND that there is absolutely nothing between those stars and us, that would affect the speed of light. Therefore your attempt at an irrelevance argument is itself irrelevant.

Could you please show where I've assumed that the speed of light is constant? If you look at my examples I've actually assumed the opposite. In the examples I start by assuming that light has not been a constant speed and then show how the consequences of that assumption are inconsistent with direct observations of both rotating stars and radioactive decay.

If there's something slowing light down between stars and us that just makes the problem of distant starlight worse for creationists. We can ignore the idea of some general thing that makes light faster in space but not on earth for several reasons. First because the burden of proof would be on the claimant and since nobody has produced any reason to think such a thing exists, that burden has not been met. Second because light that is reflected toward earth crosses distances from source to reflector at rates consistent with the current earth based speed of c. Such a concept is unrelated to c-decaying so I'm not going to spend too much time on it. If you want to propose something that makes c faster between stars but not on earth I'd be interested in seeing your evidence.

Having said that, yes, we are observing historical light from those stars; BUT we don’t know that history. Therefore, whatever numbers you attempt to promulgate are assumptive.

The light is the history, that's the whole point. If light slowed down, the rate at which the light from stellar events arrives at earth would be different in identifiable ways compared to the rate at which it would arrive if light were constant. To summarize the examples I've presented into a single testable statement, if lightspeed was fast enough in the past to allow light to cross the universe in 6000 years, it would be impossible for us to observe millisecond pulsars at far distances because it would mean they were actually spinning too fast to exist. We do observe millisecond pulsars at far distances.

However considering our small amount of time to study stars and such, how would we be able to determine decay rates from super novas, without first making an assumption on what it "used" to be.

The isotopes studied have half lives of days or weeks here on earth, we can watch the production and decay in stars over the course of a few months and verify that the rates look the same in space as they do on earth.

Yes something can be speeding up whilst at the same time is slowed down.. However if the speed of light is slowING (notice the present tense here) then it is a contradiction to say that it is speeding up at the same time that it is slowing down. Your analogy only applies if light was slowed down but then started to speed up again. This would only apply if the speed of light was a random variable, do you claim that the speed of light is a random variable?

It is not the speed of light that is speeding up, it is the events that light shows which are speeding up. We'd see a star spinning slightly faster every year, because there would be a shorter interval between the arrival of each batch of photons that show the star rotating. Each batch of photons would be moving at a slightly slower speed than last years batch (assuming c is continuing to decay), they'd just be a smaller distance apart than last years batch which means they'd hit your eyes at a faster rate.

Look at the example at the start of this post. D = (fast speed of light per second) x (1 second) and T = D/(current speed of light). In the past as the speed of light decayed, the 'fast speed of light per second' would get smaller. This means D would get smaller and means that T is smaller. Things would look like they are gradually happening faster because each photon we see started out slower than the previous one.

#39 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 10 November 2011 - 04:38 AM

The idea that light has slowed down enough to make the YEC timeline work can be shown to be incorrect. An exponentially slowing light speed as proposed by Setterfield would cause a slow motion effect that varied based on distance. The further away an event was, the slower it would look to us compared to how quickly it actually occured. One observation which can be used is that radioactive decay of particular isotopes such as cobalt-56 in supernova appears to occur at the same rate as here on earth, which indicates that the speed of light hasn't changed much since those stars exploded. A secondary effect from exponential c-decay would be that as time passed, events which we would initially see in slow motion would be gradually speeding up from the previously mentioned slow motion. The more rapidly c decreased, the more obvious this change in speed would be. Since there are extremely regular events in the universe such as massive stars rotating or orbiting each other that don't show any signs of getting faster this is another method of determining that light speed hasn't changed enough to make the universe young.

I don't agree that a slow motion effect would happen on things in movement, because light is still moving many times faster than the events. Only if light moved slower than the event would there be some kind of 'quantum' image, or a slow motion effect. The reason is if say an event took 1 minute by our eyes, the number of light waves would still be more than we could detect by eye or telescope. If you imagine a light wave as a film frame, it would be like film going through a projector at 100,000 miles an hour. Just because at one time it went million miles an hour, it's not going to cause a "slow motion effect."

The cobalt though does tend to rule out that light coming in from the stars is going slower than the light on earth. But it doesn't rule out that ALL light has slowed from creation until now. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter if the light had been traveling for a thousand years, or one second, it would be the same. If all light has slowed since creation, your proposed falsification would not be detectable.

#40 miles

miles

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • america

Posted 10 November 2011 - 06:02 PM

I don't agree that a slow motion effect would happen on things in movement, because light is still moving many times faster than the events. Only if light moved slower than the event would there be some kind of 'quantum' image, or a slow motion effect. The reason is if say an event took 1 minute by our eyes, the number of light waves would still be more than we could detect by eye or telescope. If you imagine a light wave as a film frame, it would be like film going through a projector at 100,000 miles an hour. Just because at one time it went million miles an hour, it's not going to cause a "slow motion effect."

The cobalt though does tend to rule out that light coming in from the stars is going slower than the light on earth. But it doesn't rule out that ALL light has slowed from creation until now. In the latter case, it wouldn't matter if the light had been traveling for a thousand years, or one second, it would be the same. If all light has slowed since creation, your proposed falsification would not be detectable.


Your film example is a bit flawed, the initial speed of light would be the rate at which the film is recorded. The final speed of light at the observation point (earth) would be the rate at which the film is viewed. If the recorded speed is greater than the viewed speed, that's the definition of slow motion.

I don't know what you mean by not ruling out all light slowing down. My examples apply to all light slowing down. It doesn't matter whether light moves faster than events, we could replace light speed with something moving at a literal snails pace and demonstrate the same effect.

Imagine you are standing 10 feet from away from your friend.
Your friend has a bucket of snails that are trained to always move at some speed limit which could be constant or variable.
Imagine your friend starts a snail crawling toward you every minute.
Lets say it takes 10 minutes for a snail to reach you. i.e. initial speed limit is 1 foot/minute

If the speed limit is constant:
After 10 minutes the snails will start to arrive at you, one reaching you every minute.
Your observations (one snail arrival per minute) will match reality (one snail released per minute).


I'm intentionally using variables for this next part so you can replace them with any numbers you'd like to prove to yourself this works for any case.
If the speed limit starts at some initial speed limit C and decreases at a constant rate of -X every minute:

The distance equation for this is D=(initial velocity)*(time)+ .5 * (acceleration)(time)^2
D=distance snail has traveled
time=minutes since snail is released
initial velocity=speed limit at time of release
acceleration= -X

0 minutes: The first snail starts moving at the initial speed limit toward you. Speed limit is C
1 minute: The second snail is released. The first snail is (C-.5X) in front of second snail. Speed limit is now (C-X) feet/minute, both snails are traveling at the speed limit.
...skipping repetitive parts
10 minutes: The first snail is still (C-.5X) feet in front of second snail. speed limit has become (C-10X) feet/minute, both snails are traveling at the speed limit.

To mimic the apparent halt in any decrease of light speed on earth in the present day, lets say the snail speed limit bottoms out at (C-10X) feet/minute.

The first snail arrives after the 10 minute mark. The second snail now has (C-.5X) feet to cover before it reaches you. The second snail is traveling at (C-10X) feet/minute.
time=distance/speed so...
the second snail arrives (C-.5X)/(C-10X) minutes after the first snail.

Since .5X <=10X that means that (C-.5X) >= (C-10X). It will always be the case that the second snail arrives greater than 1 minute after the first snail.

Your observation (snail 2 arriving more than 1 minute after snail 1) does not match reality (snails released every minute). It appears to you as if your friend is releasing snails at a slower rate than he actually is. You can plug in any initial velocity to prove that it doesn't matter whether light/snails are moving faster than the events we are watching.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users