Is Carbon dating still accurate?

Recently in 2002, scientists discovered that light was slowing down, and was not a constant value. Many websites have verified this. As these sites also say, wouldn't light slowing down also effect the decay rate of radioactive materials? So is carbon dating still acurate if the rate of decay is no longer a constant? Has anyone else heard about this?Sites where light is said to be slowing down.
Is Light Slowing Down?: More Turmoil in Physics: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House
http://www.ldolphin.org/speedo.html
An Accelerating Universe, or Light Slowing Down?
News articles and features | New Scientist

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The first two links provided no evidence.
The third link offers the idea of light speeding down as an alternative to the accelerating universe, and concludes by saying that it's an interesting idea, but has no weight.
The fourth link doesn't work.The speed of light has nothing to do with radioactive decay.

---

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Lying Dumbass" Hovind's website

​

Lying Dumbass

I don't know but I think it does.The forth link isn't relevant because it discusses the idea that there may have been differences in the speed of light only at the very early stages of the universe. Not connected to the rate of decay in more recent times (like billion years).The link did work for me but doesn't now.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-14-2004 02:29 PM

The first three links are all Creationist sites.The last is a popular science magazine. It reports that some scientists argue that the speed of light was slightly higher 10,000,000,000 (that's 10 billion years ago).There is no chance that that would have any effect on carbon dating, or even on the radiometric techniques used to measure the age of the Earth.

Read the articles again.

quote:

---

Another possible explanation is that the speed of light is slowing down.

---

I'd hardly call that a new finding.Besides, let us look at the homepages of the first 2.Koinonia House
Lambert Dolphin's PlaceI generally don't trust such websites because of their obvious bias.You only need to look at what Davies himself said in the newscientist page. It's an interesting idea, but i woulnd't call that a new finding. It's more of a suggestion to attempt to explain some things we don't know yet.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Whatever the speed of light has done (and you references don't do a good job of supporting you idea) you still need to answer the correlations between C14 and other dating methods.see: Message 38In other words: Yes carbon dating does work because this study is just one of many the calibrate it.Separately it can be, apparently, shown that whatever light did in the distant past it has stayed resonable constant for a long time.Your first two references need to include error bars on the measurements and are doing selective picking of data points. That is an erroroneous approach. They should know it is too.

They don't directly affect each other, but they are linked. Note that both the speed of light and the rate of radioactive decay have dimensions (length per ure time, and time or inverse time, respectively). Since their values depend on what system of units we use, they are not truly fundamental quantities; only dimensionless quantities, such as the fine-structure constant, are truly fundamental. And the truly fundamental dimensionless constants are made up combinations of quantities such as the speed of light, and the various atomic/nuclear parameters that affect radioactive decay, and others.So, if one changed, the other might change, depending on the mechanism of change. It's really difficult to come up with a change in either that doesn't have already-falsified observable consequences (absent a miracle, which would remove it from the domain of science), because it's all connected. Setterfield's been trying to do it for the speed of light for years, and hasn't managed it.

Check out Dave Matson Young Earth Additional Topics Supernova » Internet InfidelsThe above site contains two of the more powerful arguments for both the speed of light and the constancy of radioactive decay.The first piece of evidence is supernova 1987A which is 170,000 light years away. The observed decay rate of cobalt 56 observed in the supernova confirmed that the rates have been constant for the last 170,000 years.Millisecond pulsars are also mentioned at the above sight. These pulsars are spinning at fantastic rates. Each spin is recorded by an electromagnetic pulse, so we can measure the rate of rotation. If the speed of light is somehow slowing down as it approaches earth, then this would mean that we are watching a slow motion film of this pulsar. This would mean that the actual rate of rotation is higher than we observe here on earth. However, this is impossible because if these pulsars were spinning any faster they would be torn apart.Two strong arguments for the constancy of the speed of light and radioactive decay rates.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 12-14-2004 04:07 PM

Why do you say they provide no evedence, because they say the word scripture on them? At least K-house says about the tests, and probally idolphin as well. Did you even read the articles?ADMIN: I am going to be gone for a few weeks after today, so don't assign me to boot camp because I have not been responding.

Your first link inaccurately reports historical measurements of the speed of light by cherry picking: in fact, if you collect a more complete set of measurements you find that historical measurements lie above and below the current value - as one would expect through experimental innaccuracy.As does your second link.Your third link presents a hypothesis, but no evidence.

Physics students measure the speed of light every semester in freshmen optics classes, and they've been doing it for decades. It hasn't changed in all that time.You can do it yourself, I guess, via a microwave and a bar of chocolate. And a little math. No webpage found at provided URL: http://physics.about.com/cs/opticsexperiments/a/290903.htm

quote:

---

Why do you say they provide no evedence, because they say the word scripture on them? At least K-house says about the tests, and probally idolphin as well. Did you even read the articles?

---

As noted above, the speed of light has not changed but our measurement of it has changed. As technology improves it is expected that some of the constants will be measured in a more accurate fashion, and hence the numbers will change. This does not mean that the speed of light has changed.Did you read the article I posted? It supports the constancy of the speed of light and radioactive decay rates.

I read them. All they said is that there was evidence that the speed of light had changed. They never told us what that evidence was.

---

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent "The Lying Dumbass" Hovind's website

​

Lying Dumbass

they stated when it had been mesured and at what speed it was then. is this not enough?