Light years

[humblethinker]

I do not believe this was starlight, because stars were not created until the 4th day. The scriptures also say there was a morning and evening BEFORE the sun was created on day 4.

So, my answer is... I DON'T KNOW :tongue3:

"If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained . . . . There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it." - M. E. J. Gheury de Bray

http://www.sound-doctrine.net/FAQ-UniverseBillions.html

the present time, it appears that general support by the creationist community of the decay of the speed of light hypothesis is not warranted by the data upon which the hypothesis rests.​

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=283

Also, they seem to speak to the "22 coincidences" here:

Thus, any gradual and asymptotic approach of the results of experiments to measure c to its present-day value needs to be carefully and critically scrutinized to determine if the effect is due to real, physical changes in the structure of the universe which have altered c, or if it is merely the result of "refinements of technique and method" of measurement.

It is also well known that a given body of data can be inadvertently manipulated due to subjective bias in such a way as to yield unwarranted conclusions. The best way to avoid this problem in the current context is to treat the entire data set as a whole. This minimizes the effects of systematic experimental error and enhances the possibility of discerning any real, overall trend in the value of c.

Unfortunately, the authors of the technical report devote great effort to the discussion and analysis of the data in separate, small groups for any kind of c decay trend within the group, and report changes which can only be explained as technique refinement, as if they were unequivocally in support of c decay. They do, in one place, however, consider the whole body of data collectively. In this one instance, they use a nonweighted least squares technique to find the straight line which best fits the data (ignoring the relative uncertainties in the different data points), and conclude:

When all 163 values involving 16 different experimental methods are used, the linear fit to the data gives a decay of 38 km/s per year (p. 25).​

If this was the end of the matter, it would certainly seem to provide powerful evidence in favor of the c decay hypothesis. Unfortunately, even a cursory glance at the data reveals that the above analysis is inappropriate for the given data set, and, hence, the conclusions drawn from it are not valid.
​

There's more in the article.... Read on.

 

[Winman]

There's more in the article.... Read on.

I did read the article, he did not really refute Setterfield's work, he just disagreed with it. This is NORMAL in science, especially when new theories are first introduced.

The truth is, many secular scientists since Setterfield have also claimed that light speed has slowed, some claim the speed of light was much higher than the numbers Setterfield came up with, literally BILLIONS of times faster. In fact, I have heard of 10 to the 70th power faster!

THE speed of light - the fastest thing in the universe - is getting slower. Physicists have devised a new theory to explain how the cosmos emerged from the big bang which overturns one of the central pillars of modern scientific belief - that the speed at which light travels has always been the same. The idea, proposed by two experts from Britain and America, could rewrite the textbooks and challenge Einstein's theory of relativity if space observations reveal evidence to support it.

Dr Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis, say the speed of light immediately after the universe was born may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles a second. They say it has been slowing down ever since.

"If it's true, it would be a very big leap forward that will affect our perception of the universe and much of theoretical physics," said Magueijo. The effects predicted by the theory are to be published in the scientific journal, Physical Review D. One mystery that it seems to be able to explain is why the universe is so uniform - why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even at about the same temperature. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other if it traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created, between 10 billion and 15 billion years ago. Their hypothesis suggests it was so fast that it could have been traveling at 186,000 miles a second multiplied by a figure with 70 zeroes after it.

Calculations based on the theory also give the most elegant explanation for the speed at which the universe appears to be expanding, which is thought to be just fast enough to avoid an eventual collapse to a big crunch. Instead, the universe would simply grow for ever though at a decreasing rate, and its ultimate fate would be a slow, lingering death as all the stars burn out and every particle of matter within it separates. "It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea that has so many appealing consequences," said John Barrow, professor of astronomy and director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, who has collaborated with Magueijo and Albrecht.

The new theory rivals the accepted theory, known as "inflation", to describe what happened immediately following the big bang.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9811018

If there is any truth at all to this, then light from the farthest reaches of space would have reached earth in an instant of time.

So, this is not just the theory of a creationist who is trying to explain how starlight from distant galaxies has reached earth in 6000 years, there are many secular scientists who have also submitted evidence that light has slowed down.

And to this day, no one has refuted Setterfield.

 

[humblethinker]

Looks like the above quote was from... Wait for it... 1999? Really? What is the new consensus or idea? Did their report actually result in rewriting the text books?

(See "1999" in the link) http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/print/

 

[Winman]

Looks like the above quote was from... Wait for it... 1999? Really? What is the new consensus or idea? Did their report actually result in rewriting the text books?

(See "1999" in the link) http://www.khouse.org/articles/1999/225/print/

Actually, the article you posted was from 1988, and Setterfield has answered it long ago.

The only statement that Robert Day has made that has any real relevance to the current discussion over c-decay is his mention of the Acts and Facts Impact article for June 1988 issued by Gerald Aardsma for the ICR. Aardsma’s incorrect methodology was pointed out to him by several individuals before he even published the article. He arguments were also effectively rebutted by Trevor Norman, who was in the Math Dept. of Flinders University. Norman’s rebuttal was based on a superior statistical approach recommended by the then Professor of Statistics in his Department. Aardsma never fully addressed the issues raised by Norman, and neither did several other statistical detractors. Furthermore, following an extensive series of analyses, Alan Montgomery presented two articles, one at a Creationist Conference (ICC 1994 Proceedings), the other in Galilean Electrodynamics (Vol.4 No.5 [1993] p93 and following), that effectively silenced all statistical criticism of the c-decay proposition. Montgomery’s two articles have never been refuted.

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp

You see, you can always find negative articles if that is what you want to find. It doesn't mean they are valid.

 

[humblethinker]

Actually, the article you posted was from 1988, and Setterfield has answered it long ago.



http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp

You see, you can always find negative articles if that is what you want to find. It doesn't mean they are valid.

It's not the case that I'm looking for anything less than what is accurate and representative any of the sides. There's too much bias as it is and too much obfuscation from those who want to justify their bias. I'll try to make sense of the timeline here. If I referred to an outdated article it was not my intent and I hope that you believe that I have more intellectual integrity than to "find negative articles" since "that is what want to find".

 

[saturneptune]

.....Jesus ascended in Acts 1....no space suit, no oxygen tanks, ......::thumbs:

Actually, to strengthen the faith of those who observed the Ascension, He had His space suit hid under His robe, and when He was beyond their eyesight, He put the suit on before He ran out of air.

 

[humblethinker]

Actually, the article you posted was from 1988, and Setterfield has answered it long ago.



http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp

You see, you can always find negative articles if that is what you want to find. It doesn't mean they are valid.

Winman, I'm engaging you on this subject with the hope that you are aware of significantly meaningful information that I have not yet happened across. Let's start at Wikipedia and see if you can enlighten me as to how they've got it wrong:

"When these points are added back into the set, there is no apparent decay. More recent versions of Setterfield's paper include these figures, using adjusted mathematics to rebuild the curve. These mathematics have been the object of ridicule.[18]"​

From the 'c decay' section here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_cosmologies

 

[JohnDBaptiste]

How old was Adam on day two of his life?

An infant two days old?

A full grown man two days old?

 

[humblethinker]

How old was Adam on day two of his life?

An infant two days old?

A full grown man two days old?

Hello JDB, glad to have you here on the BB. I think most people on the BB would say that Adam was a two day old grown man on his second day of existence. Did you have an unsettled opinion on the matter or were you expecting that this hadn't already been considered by us?

 

[Winman]

Winman, I'm engaging you on this subject with the hope that you are aware of significantly meaningful information that I have not yet happened across. Let's start at Wikipedia and see if you can enlighten me as to how they've got it wrong:

"When these points are added back into the set, there is no apparent decay. More recent versions of Setterfield's paper include these figures, using adjusted mathematics to rebuild the curve. These mathematics have been the object of ridicule.[18]"​

From the 'c decay' section here: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist_cosmologies

I am not qualified to speak on this subject, I would suggest you e-mail Barry with your specific questions, he will answer you. I wrote him several questions years ago and was amazed at his quick response. He also has a page at his site that answers many of his critics.

I do not know for an absolute certainty that this theory is true, but I believe it very credible and completely possible. That is what I have said from the beginning, "I believe". It is a matter of faith.

I could as easily believe God made the universe with the appearance of age, but I tend not to believe this. God is perfectly honest, he does not mislead. So, if the universe appears old (and distant starlight that has arrived here suggests that), then I believe there must be a scientific explanation for it. I do not believe scripture and true science ever contradict each other, but rather that true science will always agree with scripture when properly understood.

That said, considering Adam, he MUST have been created with the appearance of age.

 

[convicted1]

I am not qualified to speak on this subject, I would suggest you e-mail Barry with your specific questions, he will answer you. I wrote him several questions years ago and was amazed at his quick response. He also has a page at his site that answers many of his critics.

I do not know for an absolute certainty that this theory is true, but I believe it very credible and completely possible. That is what I have said from the beginning, "I believe". It is a matter of faith.

I could as easily believe God made the universe with the appearance of age, but I tend not to believe this. God is perfectly honest, he does not mislead. So, if the universe appears old (and distant starlight that has arrived here suggests that), then I believe there must be a scientific explanation for it. I do not believe scripture and true science ever contradict each other, but rather that true science will always agree with scripture when properly understood.

That said, considering Adam, he MUST have been created with the appearance of age.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[humblethinker]

I am not qualified to speak on this subject, I would suggest you e-mail Barry with your specific questions, he will answer you. I wrote him several questions years ago and was amazed at his quick response. He also has a page at his site that answers many of his critics.

I do not know for an absolute certainty that this theory is true, but I believe it very credible and completely possible. That is what I have said from the beginning, "I believe". It is a matter of faith.

I could as easily believe God made the universe with the appearance of age, but I tend not to believe this. God is perfectly honest, he does not mislead. So, if the universe appears old (and distant starlight that has arrived here suggests that), then I believe there must be a scientific explanation for it. I do not believe scripture and true science ever contradict each other, but rather that true science will always agree with scripture when properly understood.

That said, considering Adam, he MUST have been created with the appearance of age.

I appreciate this reply. I doubt I'll contact Barry. I'll let him make his case to his peers and form an opinion from his case and the rebuttals of his peers. I'm an IT consultant. I find much of this talk of science similar to some situations I have seen in my profession. There are plenty of biases and there are proven universal facts. I might be able to convince a novice of the validity of my bias but in the end I will not represent my bias as being a universal fact. This is where peer review is important, especially for us who are not qualified to speak on the subject authoritatively. Now, when Barry does not convince his peers , especially those that 'want to believe' his case, then that SHOULD weigh heavily in my mind.

I appreciate your desire to maintain intellectual integrity. I share it. My intellectual integrity will not allow me to embrace a YEC view, including Barry's view on starlight.

Regarding God not being deceptive, perhaps it is Babette's in another thread, but, you do think there is a difference between being deceptive and accommodating someone else, right?

 

[HankD]

I am not qualified to speak on this subject, I would suggest you e-mail Barry with your specific questions, he will answer you. I wrote him several questions years ago and was amazed at his quick response. He also has a page at his site that answers many of his critics.

I do not know for an absolute certainty that this theory is true, but I believe it very credible and completely possible. That is what I have said from the beginning, "I believe". It is a matter of faith.

I could as easily believe God made the universe with the appearance of age, but I tend not to believe this. God is perfectly honest, he does not mislead. So, if the universe appears old (and distant starlight that has arrived here suggests that), then I believe there must be a scientific explanation for it. I do not believe scripture and true science ever contradict each other, but rather that true science will always agree with scripture when properly understood.

That said, considering Adam, he MUST have been created with the appearance of age.

Hi Winman,

How about the "best" wine which Jesus created in a moment at the wedding at Cana which being "the best" normally meant well aged?

And what of the sun which gives the "false" impression of "rising" and "setting" viewed at with the human eye.

I dont think we should classify these as "misleading" but just that we don't have all the information or faculty of understanding.

There are many many examples in creation that seemingly are "deceptive" but in truth are simply the result of the limitations of the equipment of perception and the understanding of creation that we possess.

e.g. A mountain appears small but as we approach it it get larger and larger - but does it actually get larger?

And what do we actually see? we dont "see" the actual thing we are looking at but a translation of the reality of the thing as light reflects of of it and the photons passing through the optic nerve are translated into a representative signal which is interpreted in the brain and acted upon in the reality of our mortal existence we now possess.

etc, etc, etc.

Ecclesiastes 8:17 Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it.

HankD

 

[Winman]

I appreciate this reply. I doubt I'll contact Barry. I'll let him make his case to his peers and form an opinion from his case and the rebuttals of his peers. I'm an IT consultant. I find much of this talk of science similar to some situations I have seen in my profession. There are plenty of biases and there are proven universal facts. I might be able to convince a novice of the validity of my bias but in the end I will not represent my bias as being a universal fact. This is where peer review is important, especially for us who are not qualified to speak on the subject authoritatively. Now, when Barry does not convince his peers , especially those that 'want to believe' his case, then that SHOULD weigh heavily in my mind.

I appreciate your desire to maintain intellectual integrity. I share it. My intellectual integrity will not allow me to embrace a YEC view, including Barry's view on starlight.

Regarding God not being deceptive, perhaps it is Babette's in another thread, but, you do think there is a difference between being deceptive and accommodating someone else, right?

Barry has submitted his work numerous times for peer review, but it has been rejected over and over again, but not because of error;

Yet, his work is not referenced by any of the others. The Stanford paper is just about forgotten, if it was ever known, by the folks in mainstream physics and astronomy. However, not only are the measurements still there, but the red shift data has added much more information, making it possible to calculate the speed of light back to the first moment of creation. So Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal. So, in 2000, he sent it off to another physics journal. They refused it because they did not like one of the references Barry used: a university text on physics. They also disagreed with the model of the atom that Barry used - the standard Bohr model. In August 2001, the paper was updated and submitted to a European peer-reviewed science journal. The editor has expressed interest. We will see what will happen. In the meantime everything continues: Barry Setterfield is giving presentations in different countries, the mainstream physicists and theorists are continuing to publish all manner of theoretical ideas, and the subject of the speed of light has erupted full force back into the scientific literature.

As you see here, no one has said Barry's work is error, they have simply made excuses not to look at it. In the meantime, many secular physicists and scientists have also theorized that light was once much faster, in fact, they believe it was fantastically faster than any speeds given by Barry.

Truth is, many do not want to accept this theory because it would prove the world is young as the Bible says.

If you do not allow for this anti-Bible bias, you are not seeing the whole picture. It is real, and it is out there.

 

[humblethinker]

Truth is, many do not want to accept this theory because it would prove the world is young as the Bible says.

If you do not allow for this anti-Bible bias, you are not seeing the whole picture. It is real, and it is out there.

I hear you, and I recognize that there is an anti-Bible bias that some have. But I don't think it is warranted to think that all those who are not YEC share that anti-Bible bias, they just view the Bible differently than you. That does not make them wrong. The reality is whatever it is regardless of what any of us believe it to be. Why should anyone believe other than that which they are convinced? While I remain open to be re-convinced of YEC, I am convinced otherwise based on Biblical and scientific grounds.

 

[HankD]

I hear you, and I recognize that there is an anti-Bible bias that some have. But I don't think it is warranted to think that all those who are not YEC share that anti-Bible bias, they just view the Bible differently than you. That does not make them wrong. The reality is whatever it is regardless of what any of us believe it to be. Why should anyone believe other than that which they are convinced? While I remain open to be re-convinced of YEC, I am convinced otherwise based on Biblical and scientific grounds.

Good call.

HankD