To Harv, my confused friend, well maybe not confused.
See post: http://www.astronomy.net/forums/god/messages/18176.shtml
"What the heck are you talking about??"
A ruber ruler! I new I should have worded my post differently. Let me try again.
"Scientists have defined the speed of light to be exactly 299,792,458 meters per second (about 186,000 miles per second). This definition is possible because since 1983, scientists have known the distance light travels in one second more accurately than the definition of the standard meter. Therefore, in 1983, scientists defined the meter as 1/299,792,458 the distance light travels in one second." from:
"Light." Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2001.
Now in 1983 these scientists used an atomic clock, the NIST F-1, to measure the speed of Light. Now obviously this is the best way to tell time. The atomic clock measures time by measuring the light emitted by a super-cooled cesium atom as they fall though a microwave cavity. Now maybe you can see the problem. The clock is used to tell how fast light is going, but it measures time by light. Basically it is using light to measure light. Hence a ruber ruler problem. Let me give another explanation: If you had two cars, in an enviroment in which you could only measure the cars in any way you wanted, and you were asked how fast they were going. Both cars are moving at the same speed in the same direction. Without looking at land marks you couldn't tell how fast either car was going only that they were going at the same speed. That is the problem with light. We are using Light to measure Light! Effectivly with only the light to go by one couldn't say how fast light is going. This is based on my knowledge if any of you now of any new or old ways that they also measure light by I would be gald to know about them, thank you in advance.
In fact to argue that the speed of light was always the same is just plain wrong. Here is a quote from Dr. V.S. Troitskil, Cosmologist at the Radio-Physical Research Institute in Gorky from the Magazine Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 139, No. 2. Dec 1987 pp 389-411 and I quote:
"The speed of light was ten billion times faster at time zero!"
So this, as you stated, is wrong:
"Come on Aaron, there is nothing suspicious in our measurements of light speed - at least on the scales of millions of light years (perhaps 12 billion light years might see some minor effects, but it is preposterous to think any future theory will drastically affect near distances)."
I think that we both can trust his word.
"Aaron, you're young, but you are living in a make believe land and even a young guy such as yourself is too old to be lost in a make believe land."
No, no, no my friend it is just that you are rusty about current ideas. This is understandable considering that in every area we think that science thinks this or that when we just havn't seen any of the new stuff that changes what they think. It happens to me to, so no offense or anything like that. I certainly hope that the guy I qoute isn't wrong, please correct if so.
Now to the Earth Center Theory! Yuzaaaaaaahh!!! Any way let me qoute my self:
"Another possiblity is that the Earth is located near the center of the universe. Now obviously it isn't at the exact center, but one might assume that our galaxy or group of them could be near the center."
This is a possibilty or a theory if you like. No I don't believe that the universe revolves around the earth and all that junk, but this is one of the theories which might explain how the earth is only 6000 years old and you can get light that is billions of years old. It is a very intersting theory and one of my favorites. Okay let me try to explain it the best I can:
We all know that the universe is expanding at an ever incressing rate, we also now that speed can effect time. Now this is where I get lost because of all the math involved, but basicaly by using the math from the theory of relativity one come can come to a conclusion that the older space is the slower the time with in it "goes by" Thus any near the center of the universe would be experiencing time in a very slow rate while an object near the edge of the universe would in effect be experiencing "fast time." Thus if the earth is near the center of the universe it would be in the slow time zone and could in fact see an object that is billions of years way and still the earth could only be 6000 years old. The guys says the math works and that he having other people check it before he officialy publishes it. Since I don't even know Calculas yet I'm not the one to judge if his math is good or not.
I hope that helps and somedays we all should see the world from the view of a 5 years old I think that we would learn alot.
Ne-ed Mo-re-In-for-ma-tion... NOW-!-!-! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa... Yes I am weird. Mawahahahahahahah. Has any one seen that blade guy? He got me here in the first place. I was kind of suppose to argue with him. Oh well I have all of you fine people to argue with. ;-)