What Properties Might Light of Millennia Past Have that Today's Doesn't?

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.

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.

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

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

Speed of LightThat 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.

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.

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

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

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 Rmer: 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.

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

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

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.

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 don’t know, Carmeli proposed this as an alternative to FL models, only Hartnett’s 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.

No. Yoda you are? 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?

quote:

---

No.

---

More accurately, uniformitarian.

quote:

---

Yoda you are?

---

I love Yoda. He’s cool. Although Kal Skirata didn’t think so...But that’s 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 I’m 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?