Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 44 of 84 (513698)
07-01-2009 6:08 AM


The other approach is to claim that light speed has slowed down since "Creation Week." A guy named Setterfield spilled lots of ink on proposals for this. Light needs to have moved millions of times faster for this to work, and physics can get to be a problem: Einstien's E=mc2 would indicate that subatomic events like nuclear decay would release a quadrillion times more energy if c, the speed of light, were a million times faster. We don't see this in old stars.
Ha well I am a progressive creationist, but maybe you can say that just as there was a period of inflation (where the universe exceeded the speed of light) Maybe there was a 'time' where light slowed down? The speed of light (c) doesn't have to be constant (its not). I have no math to support the contention of course.
; {>
'When Selfish Gene author Richard Dawkins challenged physicist John Barrow on his formulation of the constants of nature at last summer Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowship lectures, Barrow laughed and said, “You have a problem with these ideas, Richard, because you aren't really a scientist. You're a biologist'
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 6:58 AM RevCrossHugger has replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 46 of 84 (513709)
07-01-2009 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by cavediver
07-01-2009 6:58 AM


*when I speak of changing the speed of light, I'm implying a changing alpha.
What exactly do you mean by changing the alpha, the energy? I am speaking of relative velocity. The speed of light has been slowed considerably in laboratory experiments and its different in a vacuum than in say earths atmosphere.
Additionally were doing a 'thought experiment', and so generally speaking the universe expanded faster than light with the photons (particles or waves?) inside, so I will stand by my statement as it was written in layman terms and as a thought experiment. But thanks for your reply. I do have a off topic question if your a qualified astronomer cosmologist etc. Does the big bang math or empirical experiments say that this is the only universe spawned, or is it possible that meta verses to sprang from the BB?
: {>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 6:58 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2009 7:30 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 48 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 7:56 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 49 by onifre, posted 07-01-2009 4:19 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 55 by onifre, posted 07-01-2009 5:00 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 56 by onifre, posted 07-01-2009 5:04 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 50 of 84 (513786)
07-01-2009 4:24 PM


Paul writes:
Actually you claimed that c - which is the speed of light in a vacuum - wasn't constant. Please try and get your terminology right.
I may of used c but you know exactly what I meant, so deal with it please! You know this kind of BS gets old fast. In some experiments light has been slowed.
Nevertheless, try to get into the spirit of debate instead of trying to muck things up. If I were writing a scientific paper I would have been more precise, it wasn’t I was responding to a member and considering a thought experiment. Nevertheless,thanks for your reply even if it is a bit hostile.
; {>
* In a Bose-Einstein condensate, the speed of light has been made to go as slow as 17 meters/second.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Perdition, posted 07-01-2009 4:57 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2009 1:53 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 51 of 84 (513787)
07-01-2009 4:32 PM


cave... writes:
Thought experiments and laymans' terms are fine but they are not an excuse to just make up shit...
Why not? That's precisely what Gedanken experiment are for especially if being used to visualize an experiment or work through one! That was what I suggested. I wasn't making it up just for fun.
No, it hasn't, although I admit it is often reported in this way.The speed of light is always the same
Well I would disagree I am correct for all practical purposes.
When it appears slow in air, water, glass, etc, all that is happening is that photons are being abosrbed and re-emitted by the constituents of the medium through which the light is passing. This absorption and re-emission takes time, and makes it appear that light is slowed. But the photons travel from emission event to absorption event at the normal speed of light. In 'delayed' light experiments, the same thing is happening, with just an extended period between absorption and re-emission.
That's kind of like saying time dilation isn't real time travel. As I said in the reply above "In a Bose-Einstein condensate, the speed of light has been made to go as slow as 17 meters/second". When it takes a second for light to go 17 meters call it what you will result is the same, so I stand by my statement, and thanks for your reply...
; }>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by lyx2no, posted 07-01-2009 5:09 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 52 of 84 (513790)
07-01-2009 4:52 PM


cavediver writes:
you quote Barrow, so have a look at his own work on the possible variation of alpha* over the course of the Universe.
*when I speak of changing the speed of light, I'm implying a changing alpha.
Hmmm....well....never mind...
; {>
ps no one (qualified to answer)* has an answer about the standard big bang model and many universes?
* The reason I am asking for a PhD or someone qualified to answer the question is that I am in a bit of a argument with a PhD and the answer to big bang question would either win it for me or crush me out of existence like stepping across the event horizon of a non rotating black hole....
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by cavediver, posted 07-01-2009 5:37 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 74 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2009 10:01 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 53 of 84 (513791)
07-01-2009 4:56 PM


Thanks for your reply onifre.
; {>

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 62 of 84 (513856)
07-02-2009 8:17 AM


onifre writes:
The Big Bang model, the current model for the expansion of the universe, is only for our universe.Multi-verse hypothesis/theories are not covered in the Big Bang mdel.
Thanks onfire that may silence lot of anti KCA people who are members in another forum. They are attempting to discredit the KCA by saying that the Big Bang allowed many universes which would weaken the first cause argument (ie the KCA).
; {>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 07-02-2009 9:10 AM RevCrossHugger has replied
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-02-2009 10:10 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 63 of 84 (513861)
07-02-2009 8:24 AM


Accurate even if slightly exasperated) criticism is not hostility. There is, however, plenty of evidence of hostility in your post.
BS (in a godly manner of course).And cavediver,I doubt your claims of a higher education, you make too many mistakes in your replies and threads. My learning is not science oriented so yes I will make an mistake here and there in science related questions etc. As for your insults directed towards me I say please go find a deep cave to explore, hopefully one with a hungry shark in it.
I am tickled by the attitude most of you have. Is it my avatar, or my religion or a combination of factors? Nevertheless, I from this point on will not answer any replies with personal content. Its a waste of my time, and this forums time.
; {>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2009 8:56 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 69 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2009 9:17 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 80 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2009 12:41 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 64 of 84 (513863)
07-02-2009 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taz
07-02-2009 1:19 AM


cavediver writes:
Many of us believe, and certain ideas/theories strongly suggest, that there are not only multiple 'universes' but multiple types of multiple universes.
Taz writes:
That popping noise you heard was my head exploding.
Hee hee . Ummm Hey cavediver believes something other than the overwhelmingly accepted scientific theory, ie the Big Bang. But he is all over anyone that goes against the party line, or makes a mistake hmmm’
The MWI or MWT has no empirical evidence to support it. Only mathematical pipe dreams much like ”string theory”.
; {>
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Taz, posted 07-02-2009 1:19 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2009 9:07 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 70 by onifre, posted 07-02-2009 9:18 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 76 by Taz, posted 07-02-2009 11:11 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 68 of 84 (513875)
07-02-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by onifre
07-02-2009 9:10 AM


Ha ha really! Well I am a serious amateur astronomer and am well respected by my peers, so no I am not insulted by your comments because you are simply attempting to save face amongst your peers. You not knowing what the KCA and related comments is tell me all I need to know about your knowledge base. BTW I have a MA in C. Theology and will provide proof if anyone wants to pay for copies and my time to get my records to them. What a group of yes men we have here!
; }>
Whats that clicking sound? Hark! its the sound of all the Google scientists here looking for 'what the hell is the KCA'? Click click afway and get back to me...
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by onifre, posted 07-02-2009 9:10 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by onifre, posted 07-02-2009 9:28 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 73 by Theodoric, posted 07-02-2009 9:44 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied
 Message 77 by Taz, posted 07-02-2009 11:27 AM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 81 of 84 (513926)
07-02-2009 2:06 PM


The question of whether "the Big Bang allowed many universes" depends on what you mean by "universes".
I said universe, not Godel universe etc , universe. A universe a universe. Google it.
You're out of your depth here, aren't you?
No, not at all, I would suggest that you are. So, click click away and get back with me when you have learned basic cosmology...
Thanks for your replies, I answered the non personal ones which was zero. As I said I would trade my educational credentials and other achievements (I owned and ran an R&D/and testing lab for four years) with anyone here. That should shut up the posers here. So if you must try and discredit my education and belittle my intelligence etc put up or shut up, got it?
; }>
btw I determine personal content key words and stop reading at that point, so no replies were fully read....FYI
Just for fun, how many Christians do we have in here? Yep just as I thought, the real reason for the confrontational attitude is beyond evident...
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.
Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2009 2:12 PM RevCrossHugger has replied
 Message 84 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2009 2:46 PM RevCrossHugger has not replied

  
RevCrossHugger
Member (Idle past 5373 days)
Posts: 108
From: Eliz. TN USA
Joined: 06-28-2009


Message 83 of 84 (513930)
07-02-2009 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by lyx2no
07-02-2009 2:12 PM


Re: Mine
I will have another look at it. Thanks for the heads up.
; {>

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by lyx2no, posted 07-02-2009 2:12 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024