Jump to content


Photo

The One Way Speed Of Light

astronomy time distance light

  • Please log in to reply
342 replies to this topic

#21 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 September 2015 - 01:02 PM

ENOCH2021: Light Years is not a "TIME" measure..but a Distance.  To validate your clumsy claim here, please post the One-Way Speed of Light...?

 

 

I wondered about the "clumsy claim".

 

Allow me to explain it to you, then we'll reassess the "Clumsy-ness"

 

 

Does this look Familiar:  D = RT ??  What we want is Rate, correct?  So then we re-arrange: R = d/t.  It's the " t " that I'd like to focus on for a moment.

 

To figure out the One-Way Speed of Anything, you need a Distance and 2 CLOCKS that are SYNCHRONIZED, eh?  ahhh, duh?

 

According to Special Relativity, the instant you move that 2nd Clock....the CLOCKS, Errr....Aren't Synchronized.... anymore. ahhh, duh?

 

If your measuring equipment is not "Precise" what happens to the "Accuracy" of the Measure? 

 

As it turns out, the error correction factor needed for that 2nd Clock is; Drum Roll Please   :drums: ...

The ONE-WAY SPEED OF LIGHT !!!!!!!

 

Ergo........it's A Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO.  Einstein Agreed, speaking to the One-Way Speed of Light....

 

“It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical circle.”

A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), pp. 22–23.
 
Moreover, regarding the "One Way" Speed of Light, Einstein concluded....“is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity.”
A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p. 23.
 
If you need further clarification, just ask any random 3rd grader for assistance.
 
 
ProTip:  if it were me, I wouldn't be following the lead of a Science Professor that doesn't know how to conduct a Scientific Experiment and wouldn't be able to tell you what an Independent Variable was if it landed on his head and whistled dixie.  AS EVIDENCED BY:
 
 
 
regards


#22 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 September 2015 - 01:50 PM

Rule 15: Elephant hurling, such as providing a barrage of citations to give the illusion of weighty evidence.

 

Let's deal with Calypsis' elephant hurling first....  if it is not elephant hurling, Calypsis should explain why he produces 4 references to one scientific paper and 2 references that are actually the same article.

 

 

1. This is an older post...Since you posted it before your Experiment/Independent/Dependent Variable FIASCO posts, so this gets a pass.

 

2. Calypsis didn't Elephant Hurl ya nitwit.   Posting numerous CITATIONS isn't Elephant Hurling, if it was 99.8% of all Scientific Research would be Elephant Hurling.  But since we confirmed you're Absolutely Clueless concerning "Science" as a Whole, I suppose you get another pass here.

 

Elephant hurling is a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument.

http://www.astorehouseofknowledge.info/w/Elephant_hurling

 

Examples would be:

 

1. Posting "just" a link to a large body of evidence without singling the out the specifics and speaking to it.

 

2. "evolution is True....check: Google/NCBI Data Base/Library of Congress, ect."

 

3. "evolution is True...check: Genetics, Biology, Chemistry, Paleontology, ect".

 

Do you scrutinize anything? (It's Rhetorical).  @ this point, I find it hard to believe that you to conduct day to day operations without assistance.



#23 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 04 September 2015 - 03:30 PM

Aside from whether you disagree that Calypsis was elephant hurling, Enoch, what's your opinion on what's contained within those citations. Do you think the reported changes in the speed of light (if correct)shift the weight of evidence to a that of a 6000 yr old universe ?

#24 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 September 2015 - 04:03 PM

Aside from whether you disagree that Calypsis was elephant hurling, 

 

Agree and Disagree have nothing to do with it.  It's either Elephant Hurling or it's NOT...there is no "Grey" Subjective area.  Based on the Definition of Elephant Hurling, it's quite obviously NOT.

 

 

Enoch, what's your opinion on what's contained within those citations. Do you think the reported changes in the speed of light (if correct)shift the weight of evidence to a that of a 6000 yr old universe ?

 

 

Personally, I'm not on that Train due to some Paradoxes that result downstream from it; However, I've reviewed the Data that Setterfield put together along with... (Can't remember his name or the source off the Top of my head...having to do with Quantized Red Shift)...it was pretty compelling.  I think Setterfield had some "Actual" Measurements from the 1600's lol.  Can these be Validated?  Are the instruments used to capture the data Precise?  No way to know/Validate... too many questions for me.

 

Whenever, I run into these things..... particularly dealing with the Deep Past and Outside of Sciences' Purview ...I RUN to Scripture:

 

(Genesis 1:14-19) "¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

That's telling me that When HE made them and Placed them..... the LIGHT, was Instantaneous.

 

And One Elephant in the Room that most miss....The Laws of Physics/Chemistry et al were not Codified until Day 7.

 

This is where I stand.


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#25 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 04 September 2015 - 10:51 PM

Rule 15: Elephant hurling, such as providing a barrage of citations to give the illusion of weighty evidence.

 

Let's deal with Calypsis' elephant hurling first....  if it is not elephant hurling, Calypsis should explain why he produces 4 references to one scientific paper and 2 references that are actually the same article.

......

I think it has been shown that the "weighty evidence" provided by Calypsis "barrage of citations" isn't all that big a deal.  The first thing we found was that the nine were actually five. 

 

Of the five, one supported what I've been saying; one discussed the speed of light varying in the wrong direction; one discussed a possible variation that if it were stacked in one direction amounts to only a couple hundred years in twelve billion; and the two Wiki articles that don't seem to amount to much.

 

Notice, I did not "dis" the articles.  In fact, I will "take heed" to each and every one of them (except the Wiki articles)... I'm fine that light has varied in such a way it may have taken an additional 120,000 years to reach us from distant galaxies.  It doesn't bother me at all that light may be as much as 180 years faster over a period of 12 billion.  And I'm absolutely delighted that one of Calypsis' references is in full agreement with everything I've said.

 

2. Calypsis didn't Elephant Hurl ya nitwit.   Posting numerous CITATIONS isn't Elephant Hurling, if it was 99.8% of all Scientific Research would be Elephant Hurling.  But since we confirmed you're Absolutely Clueless concerning "Science" as a Whole, I suppose you get another pass here.

Ad hominem "nitwit" (Fallacy).  Poisoning the well (Fallacy).

 

As defined by Rule 15, the evidence is pretty strong that Calypsis was elephant hurling.  Perhaps you have a better reason than giving "the illusion of weighty evidence" he would cite the exact same article .... right down to the punctuation .... as two different references.  In fact, one of the versions actually said it was a reprint of the other.  Then we can discuss why four articles on the same published paper were presented as four different sources.  (In other words, six of his sources were actually two.)

 

More importantly.... I did specifically address each and every one of the actual (non-repeated) sources.... as I pointed out one agreed with me; one had the speed of light varying in the wrong direction; and one would amount to (at most) a couple hundred years difference in travel time at 12 billion light years.  The other two were Wikipedia articles and you have made no secret of your disdain for Wiki as a scientific resource.

 

 

Do you scrutinize anything? (It's Rhetorical).

Obviously one of us didn't.  Did you read the rest of my post where I specifically evaluated each and every one of Calypsis? 

 

Would you care to engage in a substantive discussion of the issues raised with his references?  One where we actually evaluate the impact of these factors.

 

No? 

 

Didn't think so.

 

 

@ this point, I find it hard to believe that you to conduct day to day operations without assistance.

Ad hominem (Fallacy)


  • Schera Do likes this

#26 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 September 2015 - 08:12 AM

Ad hominem "nitwit" (Fallacy).  Poisoning the well (Fallacy).

 

 

1. Ad Hominem (Fallacy)--- in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. http://http://www.ni...ad-hominem.html

 

 

This was not an Ad Hominem Fallacy. "nitwit" was the conclusion after a careful assessment and refutation "The WHY" of your erroneous assumption of what an Elephant Hurling Fallacy was.. which is refuted as documented.

 

 

2. Poisoning The Well (Fallacy) --- This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

 

  1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
  2. Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

 

This was not "Poisoning The Well" because I never said or implied ANY claims you make are False;  Just your Claims regarding SCIENCE.  Due to the fact of your demonstrated complete and utter ignorance of the mere basic fundamentals of SCIENCE (Hypothesis/Experiments/Variables), AS EVIDENCED here...

 

 

http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry124582

 

http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry125705

 

 

This is Tantamount to the Chair of Neuro-Surgery interviewing Joe Shmoe for a vacant position and the Surgeon asking Joe Shmoe for his thoughts on the Cerebellum and Joe Shmoe replying: "What's a Cerebellum?"

 

Then

 

@ the Neuro-Surgeon's Convention the Chair prefaces his the Opening Remarks by warning his fellow Professionals concerning Joe Shmoe's Science Acumen then Joe Shmoe standing up and saying:  "Wait just a Minute, That's a Fallacy!!! .... You're "Poisoning The Well" !!!"

 

:rotfl3:  

 

As defined by Rule 15, the evidence is pretty strong that Calypsis was elephant hurling.  Perhaps you have a better reason than giving "the illusion of weighty evidence" 

 

 

Yea, How about the actual Definition of Elephant Hurling (AGAIN)....

 

Elephant hurling is a debate tactic in which a debater will refer to a large body of evidence which supposedly supports the debater's arguments, but without demonstrating that all the evidence does indeed support the argument.

http://www.astorehou...lephant_hurling

 

You are in ERROR, by definition.

 

Is there something that's particularly confusing about this?

 

 

More importantly.... I did specifically address each and every one of the actual (non-repeated) sources.... as I pointed out one agreed with me; one had the speed of light varying in the wrong direction; and one would amount to (at most) a couple hundred years difference in travel time at 12 billion light years.  The other two were Wikipedia articles and you have made no secret of your disdain for Wiki as a scientific resource.

Obviously one of us didn't.  Did you read the rest of my post where I specifically evaluated each and every one of Calypsis?

 

 

Non-Sequitur and a Straw Man Fallacy.

 

Errr.... I really don't Care if you Summarily Refuted his every last point, that's not my Argument.

 

My Argument is...He's NOT Elephant Hurling.  

 

 

Would you care to engage in a substantive discussion of the issues raised with his references?  One where we actually evaluate the impact of these factors.

 

No? 

 

Didn't think so.

 

Nope, just don't feel like it right now.   Why?  Well, the same reason why I wouldn't argue The Color Choice Preferences of the Electric Company's Receptionist's Hair when I arrive to dispute my Bill.

 

It's not my argument.

 

 

ENOCH2021: @ this point, I find it hard to believe that you to conduct day to day operations without assistance.

 

Ad hominem (Fallacy)

 

 

As mentioned above, an Ad hominem is attacking the messenger in lieu of attacking their argument or position.

 

This is my Conclusion after a thorough Assessment...not the Argument (which was Comprehensive and Poignant) I presented, which you left out ("Quote Mining" Fallacy)...to make this frivolous Assertion with the superficial "appearance" of merit.



#27 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 September 2015 - 09:50 AM

Aside from whether you disagree that Calypsis was elephant hurling, Enoch, what's your opinion on what's contained within those citations. Do you think the reported changes in the speed of light (if correct)shift the weight of evidence to a that of a 6000 yr old universe ?

 

The speed of light has been measured differently many times over the last 300 years. It is not a constant and no one on this board nor anywhere else can prove that God did not alter the veloclity of light in the expansion of the universe after the creation. 

 

But why are our counterparts fighting so hard for the constant in the velocity of light? Answer: their comrades in cosmic evolution tell us why --- Quote: "A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be off." Live Science. http://www.livescien...t-constant.html

 

They also said, " Light waves are made up of both an electric and magnetic wave, so changing those quantities (permittivity and permeability) will change the measured speed of light." So even very small changes can become very huge changes as it concerns greater and greater distances.

 

But even more, quantum physics tells us that when man is observing and/or measuring light that every other particle of light 'know's' that it is being observed and reacts in the same way as that which is being measured. If that is so then light is infinite in essence & our concept of time as it relates to the speed of light changes.

 

Quite frankly if the speed of light is not constant then not only does it spell doom for cosmic evolution it spells doom for biological evolution as well and most of the dating methods would be rendered useless.



#28 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 September 2015 - 05:09 PM

The speed of light has been measured differently many times over the last 300 years. It is not a constant and no one on this board nor anywhere else can prove that God did not alter the veloclity of light in the expansion of the universe after the creation. 


That's a terrible argument. The speed of light has been refined over the last 300 years (as technology advancements allow)
 

But why are our counterparts fighting so hard for the constant in the velocity of light? Answer: their comrades in cosmic evolution tell us why --- Quote: "A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the [/size]size of the universe might be off." Live Science. [/size]http://www.livescien...t-constant.html


You've shown absolutely nothing that challenges a billions of years universe (as Piasan has succinctly stated)
 

They also said, " Light waves are made up of both an electric and magnetic wave, so changing those quantities (permittivity and permeability) will change the measured speed of light." [/size]So even very small changes can become very huge changes as it concerns greater and greater distances.


That last sentence you've made up yourself for impact. Is that what the article is saying ? Where does it say that the speed of light could be so drastically changed (in one direction favouring you) that billions of years could be reduced to 6000 or less ?

In the same article it is stated thus:

"As such, the amount of time the light takes to cross a given distance should vary as the square root of that distance, though the effect would be very tiny — on the order of 0.05 femtoseconds for every square meter of vacuum. A femtosecond is a millionth of a billionth of a second. (The speed of light has been measured over the last century to high precision, on the order of parts per billion, so it is pretty clear that the effect has to be small.)"

Why do you you gloss over these statements and just pick out (quote mine) the hypotheticals you like ?
 

But even more, quantum physics tells us that when man is observing and/or measuring light that every other particle of light 'know's' that it is being observed and reacts in the same way as that which is being measured. If that is so then light is infinite in essence & our concept of time as it relates to the speed of light changes.


Are you referring to quantum entanglement ? I don't claim to understand this concept (I don't think anyone does) but I don't think this has a bearing on our ability to measure the speed of light, particularly as it has been demonstrated from astronomical observations that c was the same at very great distances (SN1987 etc).
 

Quite frankly if the speed of light is not constant then not only does it spell doom for cosmic evolution it spells doom for biological evolution as well and most of the dating methods would be rendered useless.


You hope. It needs to be more than inconstant for you, the measured speed of light needs to be enormously wrong. (How does the speed of light affect dating methods ?)



#29 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 September 2015 - 05:46 PM

You've shown absolutely nothing that challenges a billions of years universe (as Piasan has succinctly stated)

 

 

 

If he hasn't, the One Way Speed of Light is your Huckleberry....and to be dovetailed in one moment below (Quantum Entanglement).

 

You're jumping on Board Paisan's Science Train??  I'd look to bail quickly (He doesn't know what Experiments/Hypotheses/Variables are)....

 

http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry124582

 

http://evolutionfair...e-2#entry125705

 

 

 

Are you referring to quantum entanglement ? I don't claim to understand this concept (I don't think anyone does) ...

 

Understand it?  Huh?  It's pretty basic....

 

"...Quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded."
A. Peres PhD Physics; Delayed choice for entanglement swapping. J  Mod. Opt. 47, pp 139-143, 2000.

 

Ya understanding it now?

 

 

Are you referring to quantum entanglement ? I don't claim to understand this concept (I don't think anyone does) but I don't think this has a bearing on our ability to measure the speed of light, 

 

 

Not the Ability to "measure" light (That's a Straw Man Fallacy, rather clumsy I might add) it's shows the BEARING it has on INFORMATION traveling Instantaneously: remember... instantaneous action-at-a-distance ??  I think "Instantaneous" is "a tad" Faster than the Two-Way Speed of Light, don't you?

 

The ability....Errr, Inability ;)  to Measure the "ONE WAY" Speed of Light was presented earlier, Here: http://evolutionfair.../icon_share.png  Ergo...you have no way to VALIDATE the "Time" part; Savvy?

 

 

You hope. It needs to be more than inconstant for you, the measured speed of light needs to be enormously wrong. (How does the speed of light affect dating methods ?)

 

 

It's Right; However, your measuring sticks and World View (clouding your Vitreous Humor) are Demonstrable Stumbling Blocks.



#30 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 05 September 2015 - 06:07 PM

wibble:

 

That's a terrible argument. The speed of light has been refined over the last 300 years (as technology advancements allow)

 

 

 

 

You say that because you have never seen the power of God in your life, apparently. Had you seen the supernatural, that is; direct, immediate healings, demonic manifestation, resurrections of people from the dead you wouldn't have said a foolish thing like that. But there are plenty of us that have and I have been fortunate enough to see it plenty of times myself.  Australian astronomer Barry Setterfield gave a great amount of documentation about the speed of light decay since the 1700's but piasan just blew it off...including what Setterfield documented about the more modern measurements which are different form the current so-called 'constant'. 

 

Here is Setterfield: ( you would do well to view the whole thing)...

It was like pulling teeth to get piasan to view it.

 

You've shown absolutely nothing that challenges a billions of years universe (as Piasan has succinctly stated)

 

 

 

And just what has piasan said of any substance? He not only doesn't believe us...nor does he believe anyone of his persuasion that counters his shallow arguments, he claims to be a believer in God but doesn't even believe what God says! His trust is in nature.............just like you.
 

So if you wish to place your trust in the blind forces of nature then you are free to do so....but you are a fool if you do. Nature cannot do what God did. It cannot create matter nor energy nor can nature create life. If you disagree then give me even one observed example of either.  And --- if you can't do that then don't ever tell me again, "You've shown absolutely nothing that challenges a billions of years universe." Is that clear?


That last sentence you've made up yourself for impact. Is that what the article is saying ? Where does it say that the speed of light could be so drastically changed (in one direction favouring you) that billions of years could be reduced to 6000 or less ?

 

 

 

 

And it does have an impact. You also apparently don't know what the meaning of extrapolation is. Piasan only understands extrapolation when the measurements reflect his prejudices. So it is with those who believe in the fairytale called Darwinism. A young universe is indicated by several things: the existence of mature galaxies from Andromeda (the closest spiral to us) all the way out to the 12 to 15 billion light yrs out...in regions where there shouldn't be ANY mature galaxies...in fact, none at all. Yet we find plenty of them in that region and the one known as 'The Redshift Desert". 

 

BX442 at 10.7 'billion light yrs out'. 

BX442spiralgalaxy_zps23a0c66d.jpg

 

According to cosmic evolution theory this spiral galaxy should not even exist. It should have dissipated long ago. But several other spirals have been discovered by the Hubble well beyond BX442.

 

Define 'so drastically changed' and then demonstrate that God COULD NOT have expanded His universe from the time of Adam until what we observe NOW. Good luck.

 

Secondly, the R.A.T.E. discovery of helium decay rate as compared to the uranium rate is at a hundred thousand times faster and indicates a 6,000 yr (+ or - 2,000 error factor). (ICR)

zircons02_zps589ad525.jpg

 

In the same article it is stated thus:

"(1)As such, the amount of time the light takes to cross a given distance should vary as the square root of that distance, though the effect would be very tiny — on the order of 0.05 femtoseconds for every square meter of vacuum. A femtosecond is a millionth of a billionth of a second.(2) (The speed of light has been measured over the last century to high precision, on the order of parts per billion, so it is pretty clear that the effect has to be small.)"

 

 

 

1. Under normal circumstances as they exist now...yes. When God Almighty expanded His universe ....NO!

2. The 'high precision' statement is inaccurate. You don't know the history of this matter obviously. 

 

Why do you you gloss over these statements and just pick out (quote mine) the hypotheticals you like ?

 

 

 

 

Don't even go there. It wasn't necessary to  quote the entire article...but the article was available for all to read, so eliminate the nit-picking if you wish to continue any discussion with me on this matter.

 

Are you referring to quantum entanglement ? I don't claim to understand this concept (I don't think anyone does) but I don't think this has a bearing on our ability to measure the speed of light, particularly as it has been demonstrated from astronomical observations that c was the same at very great distances (SN1987 etc).

 

 

Look, if light measured here on earth IMMEDIATELY causes the same reaction to light particles in distant regions of space then the light velocity argument is, for all practical purposes null and void. Why don't you just sit down and do some real thinking instead of parroting those nit-wit scientists you call 'experts'. 

 

You hope. It needs to be more than inconstant for you, the measured speed of light needs to be enormously wrong. (How does the speed of light affect dating methods ?)

 

 

 

 

Are you kidding me? You don't see how all the radiometric dating methods would be trashed if the velocity of light is not a constant? The truth is that much of the 'understanding' of the millions/billions of yrs time frame of  cosmic evolution based upon their theory about star distance. So geologists had to make adjustments with the astronomers so their dates/ages matched.



#31 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 September 2015 - 10:04 PM

The speed of light has been measured differently many times over the last 300 years. It is not a constant and no one on this board nor anywhere else can prove that God did not alter the veloclity of light in the expansion of the universe after the creation. 

First:  We do not need the speed of light to be constant to debunk claims of a 6000 year old universe.   It need only be consistent (within a few percent).

Second:  We have data from at least two different measurements using two independent methods that the speed of light was consistent with modern measurements when (1) it left Sanduleak 69-202 (redesignated as supernova Sn1987a after it exploded) in the decay of Co-56 (this measurement isn't precise enough to determine the exact speed) and (2) when it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth (determined by comparing the fine structure constant) as reported by physicist Paul Davies in an August, 2002, issue of the journal Nature

Third:  On the other hand, you have no evidence supporting a claim that God altered the speed of light.   Keep in mind, a change of light's speed would dramatically change the energy output of the sun (E=mc2).  (Note:  "Stretching the heavens" is not a change in the speed of light and it would leave its own (different) signature.)

 

But why are our counterparts fighting so hard for the constant in the velocity of light? Answer: their comrades in cosmic evolution tell us why --- Quote: "A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be off." Live Science. http://www.livescien...t-constant.html

This is the same "Livescience" article Calypsis cited in post #10.  The paper to which that article referred was also the subject of three other articles Calypsis cited.  I suggest it may be more useful to the discussion if Calypsis were to address the issues already raised with that article (in post #19) rather than simply reposting it.

 

I almost hesitate to make this point because it is ripe for a quote mine but ..... of course a change in the speed of light will "mean that the estimates of the size of the universe might be off."  The change the article is speaking of is miniscule.

 

Here are some other things the article Calypsis presents (again) says:

..... some scientists are exploring the possibility that this cosmic speed limit changes, a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space ....  a varying light speed would change the strengths of molecular bonds and the density of nuclear matter itself.....

Jay Wacker, a particle physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, said he wasn't confident about the mathematical techniques used, and that it seemed in both cases the scientists weren't applying the mathematical tools in the way that most would. "The proper way to do this is with the Feynman diagrams," Wacker said. "It's a very interesting question [the speed of light]," he added, but the methods used in these papers are probably not sufficient to investigate it.

 

Quite frankly if the speed of light is not constant then not only does it spell doom for cosmic evolution it spells doom for biological evolution as well and most of the dating methods would be rendered useless.

Quite frankly, a fluctuation in the speed of light so small we can't even measure it has negligible impact on billions of years.  Even if it completely shreds "cosmic evolution and the "Big Bang," billions of years remains.

 

As for radiometric dating methods and the speed of light,  Calypsis is quite correct... changing the speed of light by a factor of a couple million (so we can even see those distant objects) would render those dating methods useless. 

 

But it wouldn't matter much as the Sun would generate four trillion times the energy (E=mc2).  This is about 130,000 years of energy per second .... it would vaporize the entire solar system.



#32 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 September 2015 - 11:35 PM

... Australian astronomer Barry Setterfield gave a great amount of documentation about the speed of light decay since the 1700's but piasan just blew it off...including what Setterfield documented about the more modern measurements which are different form the current so-called 'constant'. 

I did not simply "blow it off."  I gave a list of specific objections and problems that would be created by the kind of light decay Setterfield claims.  Here they are again....

If the speed of light were a billion times the current value, it would mean the energy output of the sun would be a billion billion times greater (E=mc2).  To compensate, Setterfield proposes mass be less.  However, without mass, the Earth and solar system would quickly fly apart due to a lack of gravity.  So, to maintain gravity, Setterfield needs to change the gravitational constant by a factor that I'm not even going to figure now, but it's in the billions and maybe billions of billions.  Even then, it is impossible for Earth to maintain both the law of Conservation of Energy and Conservation of Momentum in its orbit.  This is because kinetic energy = 0.5mv2 and momentum = mv.  In order to maintain both laws, Earth's velocity must change by different amounts.

 

In addition, I presented an evaluation of Setterfield's claims by YEC physicist Dr. Gary Aardsma of ICR.  His review has been presented multiple times without rebuttal.  Here are a couple of his comments:

Unfortunately, even a cursory glance at the data reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not valid. ...

When I analyzed the entire data set of 163 points using the standard, weighted, linear least squares method, the decay of c was determined to be: decay of c = 0.0000140 ± 0.0000596 km/s/year. (Pi comments:  emphasis in the original) This result says pretty plainly that there is no discernible decay trend in the data set presented by Norman and Setterfield. ....

 there are some peculiarities in Norman and Setterfield's selection of data of which the reader needs to be aware. ....

Norman and Setterfield have chosen to use a reworked or "corrected" value for Roemer's c determination (this is the earliest measurement shown on the graph), and an uncorrected value for Cassini's. It is peculiar that Norman and Setterfield were content to use an uncorrected value for Cassini, given the comments by the eminent and talented Halley, above. It is also unfortunate, since this single, anomalous point is responsible for most of the apparent 38 km/s/year decay which they report. Furthermore, Roemer's uncorrected c determination would graph below the line at -24%, more than offsetting the uncorrected Cassini value.

(Source: http://www.icr.org/a...-light-decayed/ )

 

C-decay is also listed by both CMI and AIG as an argument creationists should avoid using:

“The speed of light has decreased over time” (c decay). Although most of the evolutionary counter-arguments have been proven to be fallacious, there are still a number of problems, many of which were raised by creationists, which we believe have not been satisfactorily answered.

(Link: http://creation.com/...-should-not-use )

 

Calypsis, of course, will continue to claim I "just blew if off" as if I had not provided considerable reason to do so.... both from my own analysis and from YEC experts.

 

Here is Setterfield: ( you would do well to view the whole thing)...

It was like pulling teeth to get piasan to view it.

This 80 minute video was offered by Calypsis as a rebuttal to my analysis involving the impact of changing "c" by any significant amount (above).  Before I was willing to devote that much time I asked Calypsis if it had anything that would address the issues I had already raised.  Calypsis complained I wouldn't even watch it, so I did.  The only thing the video did was explain what I already knew (and had discussed) before watching it.  It did nothing to address the issues raised by me or Aardsma.

 

And just what has piasan said of any substance? He not only doesn't believe us...nor does he believe anyone of his persuasion that counters his shallow arguments,

First, with regard to Setterfield, you have both an analysis by me and a substantive review by YEC physicist Aardsma.  You have addressed neither.

 

Second, with respect to those of my "persuasion," .... you have a detailed analysis of the nine .... er ..... five articles you presented and I specifically agreed each and every one of them.  See post 19.

 

Finally, with regard to "shallow arguments" .... One of us is posting links to various articles and snippets from them.  The other is reading the article and analyzing the consequences of the findings. 

 

Of course, everyone knows the one who doesn't even read enough of the article to know he has posted the exact same article twice is doing serious research and producing substantive material while the one who does an evaluation is being "shallow." 

 

:rotfl3:

 

 

The truth is that much of the 'understanding' of the millions/billions of yrs time frame of  cosmic evolution based upon their theory about star distance.

The truth is that the distances are much more than theory.  Distances to over 167,000 light years have been measured by direct trigonometry.  Distances to several billion light years are measured standard candles and by application of the Inverse Square Law



#33 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 September 2015 - 10:11 AM

First:  We do not need the speed of light to be constant to debunk claims of a 6000 year old universe.   It need only be consistent (within a few percent).

Second:  We have data from at least two different measurements using two independent methods that the speed of light was consistent with modern measurements when (1) it left Sanduleak 69-202 (redesignated as supernova Sn1987a after it exploded) in the decay of Co-56 (this measurement isn't precise enough to determine the exact speed) and (2) when it left galaxies 12 billion light years from Earth (determined by comparing the fine structure constant) as reported by physicist Paul Davies in an August, 2002, issue of the journal Nature

Third:  On the other hand, you have no evidence supporting a claim that God altered the speed of light.   Keep in mind, a change of light's speed would dramatically change the energy output of the sun (E=mc2).  (Note:  "Stretching the heavens" is not a change in the speed of light and it would leave its own (different) signature.)

 

This is the same "Livescience" article Calypsis cited in post #10.  The paper to which that article referred was also the subject of three other articles Calypsis cited.  I suggest it may be more useful to the discussion if Calypsis were to address the issues already raised with that article (in post #19) rather than simply reposting it.

 

I almost hesitate to make this point because it is ripe for a quote mine but ..... of course a change in the speed of light will "mean that the estimates of the size of the universe might be off."  The change the article is speaking of is miniscule.

 

Here are some other things the article Calypsis presents (again) says:

 

Quite frankly, a fluctuation in the speed of light so small we can't even measure it has negligible impact on billions of years.  Even if it completely shreds "cosmic evolution and the "Big Bang," billions of years remains.

 

As for radiometric dating methods and the speed of light,  Calypsis is quite correct... changing the speed of light by a factor of a couple million (so we can even see those distant objects) would render those dating methods useless. 

 

But it wouldn't matter much as the Sun would generate four trillion times the energy (E=mc2).  This is about 130,000 years of energy per second .... it would vaporize the entire solar system.

 

You cannot debunk the truth. What God said in the chronologies of Genesis  and in the family lineage of Jesus Christ is final and there isn't anything you can do about it. 

 

I will never convince you, piasan because you have no trust in the God of the Bible. But about ten seconds of hell fire will change your attitude rather abruptly.

 

(1 Corinthians 15:39) "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

 

The chronologies of scripture were correct and the time frame of Darwin was wrong -- dead wrong.

 

P.S. I had to make a some changes in my wording.



#34 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 06 September 2015 - 03:06 PM

wibble:
 
 So if you wish to place your trust in the blind forces of nature then you are free to do so....but you are a fool if you do. Nature cannot do what God did. It cannot create matter nor energy nor can nature create life. If you disagree then give me even one observed example of either.  And --- if you can't do that then don't ever tell me again, "You've shown absolutely nothing that challenges a billions of years universe." Is that clear?[/color][/size][/font]


I wasn't arguing about whether nature can create matter, energy or life. What's that got to do with the age of the universe ?

And can you drop the school master tone please. What's clear is that you lack any humility whatsoever.



#35 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 06 September 2015 - 04:15 PM

wibble:

 

I wasn't arguing about whether nature can create matter, energy or life. What's that got to do with the age of the universe ?

 

 

 

 

It's called 'origins'. Perhaps you have heard of it. :think:  But those of your persuastion don't like to start with origins because you know you have no case there. But there is a long held rule in baseball: you can't get to first base without starting at home plate first. So deal with it.

And can you drop the school master tone please. What's clear is that you lack any humility whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

And you lack discernment. If you think this retired science teacher is going to just sit here and let those of your ilk make the most stupid statements and claims without giving one shred of evidence that our world is actually millions and/or billions of years old without raising a strong objection, then perhaps you are from a different realm than we are. But it isn't going to happen.

 

Now would you kindly deal with the facts that I brought forth in post #30? Otherwise perhaps we are done here.



#36 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 September 2015 - 12:25 PM

The chronologies of scripture were correct and the time frame of Darwin was wrong -- dead wrong.

 

P.S. I had to make a some changes in my wording.

This isn't about the time frame of Darwin.... unless you can find some reference by Darwin to the speed of light and the time it takes for light from distant objects to reach Earth.  To the best of my knowledge, Darwin made few, if any, comments on astronomy.

 

You're big on the LAWS of science.  This is about time frames established by the Hubble LAW; calculations using observations and applying the Inverse Square LAW.

 

I understand about the changes in wording.... I often need to do that myself because I sometimes get a bit .... um .... blunt for what forum rules may allow.



#37 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 September 2015 - 12:53 PM

It's called 'origins'. Perhaps you have heard of it. :think:  But those of your persuastion don't like to start with origins because you know you have no case there. But there is a long held rule in baseball: you can't get to first base without starting at home plate first. So deal with it.

The topic of this discussion is not origins.  I don't need to know how home plate and first base originated to tell how long it will take to run from home to first.  We do not need to know the origin of a car to be able to determine how long it takes to get from Point A to Point B.  In similar fashion, we don't need to know the origin of the universe to be able to determine how long it takes light to travel from Point A to Point B either.

 

 

If you think this retired science teacher is going to just sit here and let those of your ilk make the most stupid statements and claims without giving one shred of evidence that our world is actually millions and/or billions of years old without raising a strong objection, then perhaps you are from a different realm than we are. But it isn't going to happen.

First, I want to thank you for telling us your teaching experience.  I wasn't really looking for your life story, but some of what you said answers many of the questions I had.

 

As for not "giving one shred of evidence" regarding ancient ages..... I've given a whole universe full of evidence ..... everything beyond 6,000 light years.  (Actually, according to Danny Faulkner, that would more properly be two light days as the stars were created on day 4 and man was created on day 6 and, according to the Biblical account, he should have been able to see the stars .... even though the closest one other than the sun is 4.3 light years from Earth.)

 

 

Now would you kindly deal with the facts that I brought forth in post #30? Otherwise perhaps we are done here.

Well, I have already addressed Setterfield and your claim that I "just blew it off."  Forget what I said about Setterfield..... do you have anything substantive to say about YEC Physicist Aardsma's evaluation of Setterfield's claims?  Or did Aardsma just "blow off" Setterfield too?

 

I'll get back to your post #30, but there are some other (earlier) posts I need to deal with first ......



#38 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 September 2015 - 05:09 PM

Does this look Familiar:  D = RT ??  What we want is Rate, correct?  So then we re-arrange: R = d/t.  It's the " t " that I'd like to focus on for a moment.

 

To figure out the One-Way Speed of Anything, you need a Distance and 2 CLOCKS that are SYNCHRONIZED, eh?  ahhh, duh?

Well, that may be true in general terms, but there ways to work around it. 

 

LORAN systems, with varying levels of accuracy have been in use since the early 1940's.... in other words, for more than 70 years.  When I was on subs (1971-74) we used LORAN-C which was critical to our pinpoint navigation.  As a military veteran, I'm sure Enoch understands that the nuclear missiles on our Polaris - Poseidon - Trident submarines have been a key component of our strategic defenses since the first one went into operation in 1961.  If one is going to launch a missile and hit the target, the first thing you need to know is where you are. 

 

Given the time that has passed and the fact that GPS with an accuracy to less than 50 feet is readily available to any Yahoo with  , I don't think I'd go to jail for this ....

With LORAN-C, a daily satellite fix (independent confirmation of the LORAN); and what amounts to a highly sophisticated dead-reckoning system, we always knew our position within 500 feet.

 

Here's the work-around for clock synchronization...

LORAN works by triangulation.  We tracked three stations, a "Master" (M) and two "Slaves" (A and B).  Of course, we know the locations of the stations and the distance between them.  M sends out a pulse which is retransmitted by A and B.  We would track the time difference between the M pulse and the slave pulses.  Using those differences we could calculate our position using D=RT with R= the established speed of light and T= the measured time delays. 

 

Notice, if R is not the established value, T to slaves A and B will be in error as will T from the slaves to the receiver.  Because T is wrong D will also be wrong.  If you are able to get a fix at all, it will be wrong.  Any directional dependency in R would immediately show up as fix errors.  In other words, the system would not work.

 

Have we actually measured the one way speed of light?  No.  Have we confirmed the speed of light is the same in all directions .... absolutely YES.

 

 

According to Special Relativity, the instant you move that 2nd Clock....the CLOCKS, Errr....Aren't Synchronized.... anymore. ahhh, duh?

 And Special Relativity gives a way to correct for that.  In fact, the GPS system requires corrections for relativistic effects on its satellite clocks in order to operate accurately.  I recommend this article which discusses the matter in some (layman) depth:

http://www.astronomy.../Unit5/gps.html

 

 

If your measuring equipment is not "Precise" what happens to the "Accuracy" of the Measure? 

The measurement will be wrong.  Which is confirmation that the LORAN-C and GPS systems are precise.  In fact, according to the referenced article, synchronization of the GPS system requires synchronization to billionths of a second.... which would be impossible if the speed of light were direction dependent.

 

 

Wait until the new system "Galileo" comes on line.  GPS is good to 30 feet or so ..... Galileo will be down to centimeters (a centimeter is 0.4 inches).  None of which would be possible if the one way speed of light is anything but (about) 300,000,000 meters per second.

 

 As it turns out, the error correction factor needed for that 2nd Clock is; Drum Roll Please   :drums: ...

The ONE-WAY SPEED OF LIGHT !!!!!!!

 

Ergo........it's A Begging The Question Fallacy IN TOTO. 

We have confirmed the one way speed of light is exactly the same as the two way speed of light for so many years with so many (indirect) measurements, this quibble goes beyond the absurd.

 

There is no legitimate, rational reason to argue the one way speed of light is anything but 299,792,458 meters per second.

 

ProTip:  if it were me, I wouldn't be following the lead of a Science Professor that doesn't know how to conduct a Scientific Experiment and wouldn't be able to tell you what an Independent Variable was if it landed on his head and whistled dixie.  AS EVIDENCED BY:
 
 

Already addressed .... see the "Independent and Dependent Variables" discussion.



#39 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,428 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Retired science teacher with 26 yrs of experience: Biology, physical sciences, & physics.
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 07 September 2015 - 05:35 PM

I am glad that most of my brethren are ignoring him. How useless it is to even try.



#40 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 September 2015 - 09:12 AM

Well, that may be true in general terms, but there ways to work around it. 

 

 

In General Terms, eh?  LOL

 

 

 

Here's the work-around for clock synchronization...

 

LORAN works by triangulation.  We tracked three stations, a "Master" (M) and two "Slaves" (A and  B).  Of course, we know the locations of the stations and the distance between them.  M sends out a pulse which is retransmitted by A and B.  We would track the time difference between the M pulse and the slave pulses.  Using those differences we could calculate our position using D=RT with R= the established speed of light and T= the measured time delays. 

 

 

Really?  How did you Synchronize "THE CLOCKS"..."Generally" speaking?   :laugh_point:

 

 

 

 

Given the time that has passed and the fact that GPS 

 

 

I've already explained your "GPS" nonsense a number of times, I'm not doing it again.

 

 

Already addressed .... see the "Independent and Dependent Variables" discussion.

 

 

 

You did eh?  On this Thread?? .... start here: http://evolutionfair...es/#entry126307

 

There's no way out for you sir.  Your "Science Acumen" is completely and utterly "Kaput"!!  And I'm being "Kind".

 

 

There is no legitimate, rational reason to argue the one way speed of light is anything but 299,792,458 meters per second.

 

 

Really?  Look UP!!  







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: astronomy, time, distance, light

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users