Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 3:06 AM
399 online now:
Dredge, frako, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 394 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,437 Year: 10,043/21,208 Month: 3,130/2,674 Week: 546/961 Day: 8/151 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
12NextFF
Author Topic:   What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?
Noitartst
Junior Member (Idle past 2193 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 01-24-2011


Message 1 of 170 (601842)
01-24-2011 4:53 PM


I was thinking about this, when someone in that dating forum said that Creationists don't have our own dating methods, and it occurred to me that the one that makes most sense is extrapolate back in time using things, or factors, that make sense today, and see where they stop making sense. I'm talking stuff like gravity, the solar wind eroding the atmosphere, the moon's orbit, and the like.

Most of all, what comes to mind for me is the speed of light. Its speed has been observed to be slowing consistently since first observed in the 19th century, (as has the rate with which it's done so) and beyond that, I think it's pretty clear that it's aging on a curved, non-linear line, and as the present is the key to the past, we can presume it aged in the same way long before contemporary scientists started measuring it.

The question is, just how steep was the curve? Do we know enough to chart its trajectory? Millions of years ago, even if we extrapolate linearly, the effects of light from yesterday must not be the same as today. Light from distant stars back then, which take thoasands of years to get here would not have needed to, would they? How quickly are we talking? What would be the other effects? How about on life, here? In a younger, more energized light, just what would all the differences be?

Can we collaborate our measurements of light with other forms of energy, and see if we can't find corroborating evidence? Has gravity weakened over time, like light? How about electricity? How strong would it be, compared with today, millions of years ago? Would it make sense? Why, why not?

Basically, when did the Point of Erosion start? Where does math, observation, and common sense best point towards? (I would expect creationists and evolutionists to differ in their assumptions, but I think this is an interesting question.)

PS: I was debating in another forum, and wanted to learn more about current dating methods. I was arguing elsewhere with someone, and as a result, I am looking for evidence against current dating techniques. If someone could send me some links, or point me to a book or two, that would be nice, but also, if you wish to point me in the direction of stuff refuting that, I will be open to such, also.

Edited by Noitartst, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-24-2011 5:42 PM Noitartst has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Briterican, posted 01-24-2011 5:56 PM Noitartst has not yet responded
 Message 9 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-24-2011 6:50 PM Noitartst has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 2 of 170 (601849)
01-24-2011 5:40 PM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15561
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 3 of 170 (601850)
01-24-2011 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Noitartst
01-24-2011 4:53 PM


Noitartst writes:

Most of all, what comes to mind for me is the speed of light. Its speed has been observed to be slowing consistently since first observed in the 19th century...

I'd be very interested in hearing about these observations of the consistently slowing speed of light.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Noitartst, posted 01-24-2011 4:53 PM Noitartst has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by molbiogirl, posted 01-24-2011 5:54 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 24 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


(1)
Message 4 of 170 (601852)
01-24-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Percy
01-24-2011 5:42 PM


c decay
After googling around a bit, it seems Noitartst is referring to this:

wiki writes:

The concept of c-decay was first proposed by Barry Setterfield in 1981 in an article for the Australian creationist magazine, Ex Nihilo. He selected a number of historical measurements of c starting with the original measurement by Ole RÝmer in 1667, and proceeding through a series of more recent experiments, culminating in "modern" measures in the 1960s. These showed a decreasing speed over time, which Setterfield claimed was in fact an exponential decay series that implied an infinite speed in the not distant past.[2] The claim was later expanded to cover an apparent similar decay of several other physical constants.[3]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Percy, posted 01-24-2011 5:42 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 1331 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 5 of 170 (601853)
01-24-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Noitartst
01-24-2011 4:53 PM


Consider it refuted
http://www.fsteiger.com/light.html

That refutes the entire notion that the speed of light is slowing, a creationist argument that is "based on gross misinterpretations of inaccurate data" (from the article linked).

As an interesting aside... "Setterfield's hypothesis was so lacking in plausibility that even the Institute for Creation Research rejected it. (Acts and Facts, June 1988, G. Aardsma)" (also from the linked article).

Thanks for the querying attitude, but I find it disconcerting that you are actively seeking evidence to refute current dating methods, before even trying to learn about those dating methods and how they have come about. This demonstrates that you've already made up your mind, and wish now to cherry pick from the existing pool of knowledge anything that might support your world view.

I'd encourage you to read the MANY fact laden posts in the "Dates and Dating" Science forum, which is not to be confused with the "Seeking a Date" forum to be found on another website.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Noitartst, posted 01-24-2011 4:53 PM Noitartst has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6079
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 6 of 170 (601855)
01-24-2011 6:14 PM


There is also the fact that the speed of light is an intrinsic part of the relationship between mass and energy made famous by Einstein's equation E=mc^2. If the speed of light was that much greater in the past then so too was the amount of energy produced per unit mass in the center of stars. This has very obvious consequences. If c-decay is true then we should see stars that deviate greatly from what physics predicts, but we don't. Not only that, but this also indicates that the decay of isotopes on Earth in the past was much, much more energetic leading to massive increases in both radiation damage and the overall temperature of Earth.

Needless to say, creationists have not thought this one through very well. The consequences of an increase in c is the utter destruction of all life on Earth, not to mention stars across the galaxy.


Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by nwr, posted 01-24-2011 6:47 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 8 by subbie, posted 01-24-2011 6:48 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5516
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 7 of 170 (601865)
01-24-2011 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
01-24-2011 6:14 PM


Taq writes:
Needless to say, creationists have not thought this one through very well. The consequences of an increase in c is the utter destruction of all life on Earth, not to mention stars across the galaxy.

The "fine tuning, therefore God" creationists, and the "physical constants have been decaying since the fall" creationists should get together and exchange notes.


Jesus was a liberal hippie
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 6:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 89 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 8 of 170 (601866)
01-24-2011 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
01-24-2011 6:14 PM


How do you know E=mc^2 millennia ago? Were you there? Did you conduct any experiments? Was Einstein there?

/creobabble


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 01-24-2011 6:14 PM Taq has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 9 of 170 (601867)
01-24-2011 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Noitartst
01-24-2011 4:53 PM


Most of all, what comes to mind for me is the speed of light. Its speed has been observed to be slowing consistently since first observed in the 19th century, (as has the rate with which it's done so) ...

You're wrong about everything, including your claim that the speed of light was "first observed in the 19th century".

Which leads me to wonder --- exactly how long did you spend trying to check whether what you wrote was true before you posted it? It would have taken mere seconds to google on such phrases as "measurement of the speed of light" and find out about the history of such measurements. It's not as though they're a big secret.

Here's some historical measurements of the speed of light.

* 1675 RÝmer: 200,000 Km/sec
* 1728 Bradley: 301,000 Km/s
* 1849 Fizeau: 313,300 Km/s
* 1862 Foucault 299,796 Km/s
* 1879 Michelson 299,910 km/s
* 1883 Michelson 299,853 km/s
* 1906 Rosa and Dorsey 299,781 km/s.
* 1935 Michelson, Pease & Pearson 299,774 km/s
* Present day: 299792.458 km/s

(Figures from here and here.)

Cherry-pick the right ones and you could pretend it's slowing down. Cherry-pick the right ones and you could pretend it's speeding up. In both cases, you'd have to ignore the inaccuracies inherent in the measurements.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Noitartst, posted 01-24-2011 4:53 PM Noitartst has not yet responded

  
arbaba 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2161 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 02-26-2011


Message 10 of 170 (606559)
02-26-2011 1:51 PM


Re.
That was a very healthy discussion,with some good and effective points,I really appreciate this thread,thanks for all the information.

Edited by arbaba, : No reason given.

Edited by AdminSlev, : removed signature. do not reply to this message


Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Admin, posted 02-27-2011 7:42 AM arbaba has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12433
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 11 of 170 (606627)
02-27-2011 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by arbaba
02-26-2011 1:51 PM


Re: Re.
If you signature spammers were worth the money websites paid you for promotion (and usually these websites have no idea that signature spamming is part of your promotional efforts), it wouldn't be so obvious that you're signature spamming. I mean, supposedly if you were worth the money you'd have some skills, right?

Usually when I notify the site being promoted they email back saying that signature spam is certainly not what they thought they were for paying for. How do you guys stay in business if you get fired every time you try to earn your money? I know, I know, there's a sucker born every minute. I wish I had your ethics, I'd be rich.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by arbaba, posted 02-26-2011 1:51 PM arbaba has not yet responded

    
luluxiu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1698 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 08-06-2011


Message 12 of 170 (628244)
08-08-2011 1:39 AM


Ruguo the speed of light is much greater in the past, then that is the star center of the amount of energy produced per unit mass. This has been very clear consequences. If C - decay is true, then we should see the stars, a significant departure from the physical prediction, but we do not.

Edited by Admin, : Spamify the signature.


    
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 13 of 170 (674204)
09-27-2012 4:09 AM


I would like to point out a few things. I am a creationist, by the way.

First of all, if the speed of light was decreasing, we would eventually not be able to see it. (Meaning that it disappears)

Have you heard of the Carmeli-Hartnett Cosmological Model? It explains this problem quite easily (For those who donít know, Carmeli proposed this as an alternative to FL models, only Hartnettís version is creationist.)

Re: Present is key to the past. This assumes that everything has a constant. Example, that if something is decaying at such a rate now, it was decaying at such a rate before. Extrapolation this is. One should not use extrapolation, it relies too much on assumptions.


Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:54 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15777
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(3)
Message 14 of 170 (674233)
09-27-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by LimpSpider
09-27-2012 4:09 AM


Re: Present is key to the past. This assumes that everything has a constant.

No.

Extrapolation this is.

Yoda you are?

One should not use extrapolation, it relies too much on assumptions.

So, presumably you tie yourself to the bed every night, in case gravity reverses direction while you're asleep and you fall up and break your neck on the ceiling.

Or do you just reject the use of "extrapolation" (or "the scientific method" as the rest of us call it) when it leads to answers you don't like?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 4:09 AM LimpSpider has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by LimpSpider, posted 09-27-2012 9:31 AM Dr Adequate has responded

  
LimpSpider
Member (Idle past 1563 days)
Posts: 96
Joined: 09-27-2012


Message 15 of 170 (674238)
09-27-2012 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Dr Adequate
09-27-2012 8:54 AM


quote:
No.

More accurately, uniformitarian.

quote:
Yoda you are?

I love Yoda. Heís cool. Although Kal Skirata didnít think so...But thatís off topic.

quote:
So, presumably you tie yourself to the bed every night, in case gravity reverses direction while you're asleep and you fall up and break your neck on the ceiling.
Or do you just reject the use of "extrapolation" (or "the scientific method" as the rest of us call it) when it leads to answers you don't like?

I do not get you tie to the bed analogy. Can you explain? The scientific method is not extrapolation.
1. to infer (an unknown) from something that is known;conjecture.
2.
Statistics . to estimate (the value of a variable) outside thetabulated or observed range.
3.
Mathematics . to estimate (a function that is known over arange of values of its independent variable) to values outsidethe known range.

I guess you know what the scientific method is. What Iím saying is that extrapolation does not always lead to the correct answers. Perhaps the curve is like a rate of reaction-substrate concentration graph shape?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-27-2012 9:39 AM LimpSpider has responded
 Message 17 by ringo, posted 09-27-2012 11:59 AM LimpSpider has responded

  
1
23456
...
12NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017