|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evidence for the Slowing Down of Light | |||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Australian scientists have discovered that light isn't quite as fast as it used to be.
quote: [This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: JM: Isn't that still a little too old a Universe for you young earth folk? Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
Current light years you mean... and if light was faster in the past it would have a smaller distance to travel since there would be less time for the universe to expand. If you want the actual Nature article, here it is.
This paper argues that it must be c slowing down, as a change in e would violate 2LoT.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Joe
With quantized redshifts and a probable centre to the universe (unlike the big Bang model which has no centre) then the creationist cosmology really does become the default model for cosmology. It leaps out of General Relativity. If you have an expanding universe from one originally high density location you will have a universe with time running billions of time slower at the centre. The naive creation week story of Scripture, so ridiculed, with stars and galaxies appearing during the week actually becomes the default cosmology. No kidding. High denisty with a centre = slow time. Fact of GR. Already proven by atomic clocks as I'm sure you know. This new analysis of the earlier fine-structure constant results are interesting and, if confirmed, will almost certainly become important in both mainstream and creationist cosmology. I agree with you that the slowing down of light speed per se does not really enter into the issue of age of the universe. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-07-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
quote: This paper is supporting a change in light speed near the beginning of the Universe and has nothing to do with decreasing the age of the Universe from 12-15 billion years down to 6000-10000 years. Sorry. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Joe,
I concur. It seems to me from the link provided and the following link that scientists are being really cautious. CNN.com - Einstein's theory may be relatively wrong - August 8, 2002 I would not like to see anyone jump to any wild conclusions. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--This paper is supporting a change in light speed near the beginning of the Universe and has nothing to do with decreasing the age of the Universe from 12-15 billion years down to 6000-10000 years. Sorry.
Cheers Joe Meert-- If we see a ray of light that appears to be 12 billion years old, we're basing that off of saying it's 12 billion light years away, no? So if light has actually slown down, wouldn't that change how we estimate the ray of light's age? David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: The calculation is based on the constancy of the speed of light, yes. However, if the speed of light was greater than it is now for the first few seconds or few hundred million years after the big bang and then stablized at its current rate, the consequences for creationism are nil. The universe is still, basically far too old for Biblical Creation.
quote: Yup, the consequences of this discovery, if it holds, could be very dramatic. But, as above, the rate of slowdown isn't enough to drag us into the Biblical age of the universe. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
--The calculation is based on the constancy of the speed of light, yes. However, if the speed of light was greater than it is now for the first few seconds or few hundred million years after the big bang and then stablized at its current rate, the consequences for creationism are nil. The universe is still, basically far too old for Biblical Creation.--
Davies is a Scientist who believes in evolution. His assumptions no doubt will be different than that of a creationist. But I do know what you're saying, so I'm not getting excited over anything. It will just be interesting to see how Scientist on the creation side react to this. One thing I did think of... Assumption of 12 Billion YearsTotal Difference between Original Speed and Speed Now = D Rate of Slow Down = 12,000,000,000/D = Slow Rate of Change at beginning Assumption of 6,000 yearsTotal Difference = D Rate = 6,000/D = Fast Rate of Change at beginning Not being a astrophysicist, I don't know if that makes sense when all things considered. I noticed AiG mentioned this without talking about that, so I'm sure I've missed something. Nonetheless it could be an illustration on how assumptions change the outcome. David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Halycon
Are you aware of the creationits 'Big Bang' ideas of Rusell Humphreys? They are pretty much (creationist) mainstream now that the universe expanded fom a point near us automatically generating a time dilation so that the outer part of the universe experienced billions of years whereas the cental part only a short time. This is a breakthrouhg for us that I alwasy suspected - I never agreed that the galaxies were not billionos of years old. After the early part of expansion the two time zones run at the same rate. It's simply general relativity on a bounded space-time continuum. So the light speed issue may have more to do with ideas on decay constant changes than makling us able to see all of the stars although undoubtedly (in our scensario) both the light speed issue and the time dilation work together. The time dilation isn't a crack-pot idea - everybody knows that you get different rates of time near black holes. The creationist Big Bang is essentially the same thing. Humphreys started dropping his objections to the expansion/age of the universe when he noted that (i) the Bible talks about the stretching of the heavens(ii) redshift quantization suggests we might be at the centre of the universe and hence the cosmological principle may be wrong and (iii) without the cosmological principle the Big Bang automatically has time dilation built in! [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-11-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
halcyonwaters Inactive Member |
<
Not yet. By the way, don't feel bad about posting the TJ article. When I read what you said about quantized red-shifts, I went to AiG, ordered his book, and subscribed to both magazines. You made a sale! I'm just hoping they send me the last issue they sent out, not make me wait til the next one is produced. David
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Not being an astrophysicist, I'm not sure it makes sense either but I don't get it. Sorry, but I have completely missed your point. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 511 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
What is your game, TB?
Humphrey's theories have been pulled to bits elsewhere, and quantized redshifts as evidence for Earth being the centre of the universe is the topic of another discussion, where it too has been criticized. Now here you are, expounding these silly theories again as if none of the perevious discussion had ever occurred! Looking for a new audience who you can hoodwink? First reply to the (dead) discussion about quantized redshifts. Mike H.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 511 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
Sorry, TB, but my previous reply was too personal and aggressive. I must remember to keep a tone of friendly banter.
But if you want to bring up the subject of Humphreys theory, and quantized redshifts, then you should refer to the existing discussions, so that we don't have to repeat eveything here. Mike.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024