|
Aaron,
***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.***
We don't need to use atomic clocks to measure the speed of light. We could use Leon Foucault's method of rotating mirrors (he obtained a rather accurate measurement of 299,796 km/s). The latest methods are more accurate and we have confidence in their accuracy.
***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!"***
Two corrections before I respond to this. First, the physicist's name is V.S. Troitskii (no 'l' in his name). This is a big deal because I couldn't find any references and I get bothered when I have to spend wasted time in this manner (sometimes creationists intentionally misspell names, etc just to make refutation that much harder). I believe you used this website as your source:
http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=8
Okay, now a reply. You treat Troitskii as if he is the final authority on the matter. He was proposing a hypothesis, and this was presumably utilizing cosmological concepts as his backdrop in making those predictions (I haven't read his paper either since the A&SS magazine doesn't hold on their website the abstracts for that far back). I'm guessing that you wouldn't support Troitskii's cosmological notions either.
In the way of empirical findings, there aren't any that I am aware of to support an increase in the speed of light near the big bang. In fact, the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background radiation) is due to the decoupling of baryons (matter) with photons (they formed a plasma). Once the universe cooled significantly after about 300,000 years the photons were able to decouple and this background radiation is measurable today and forms one of the strongest confirmed predictions of the big bang cosmology. If light travelled billions of times faster at 'time zero', then it couldn't get very far due to the baryonic plasma.
***I think that we both can trust his word.***
Oh how eager my young earth creationist is to accept wild scientific hypotheses whenever they could even hint at supporting your deeply held religious views. I'm sorry, I'm not in that boat, so I cannot trust Troitskii's ideas. If it's any consultation, his paper isn't referenced very frequently (I checked LANL and could find no references to his paper - that's bad if you want evidence to 'trust his word').
***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.***
As Richard mentioned, there is speculation about VSL models (i.e., variable speed of light). However, these models are generally within the context of big bang cosmology (or string theory cosmology). I'm not aware of scientists who are suggesting that the speed of light is variable in the area of millions of light years. The effect would occur on the billions of light years (which I mentioned that there is some possibility).
In any case, in terms of creationist pseudoscience, the whole idea that VSL models will somehow rescue 6,000 'cosmology' is ridiculous. Firstly, the more distant the object the speed of light should go faster. For example, object that are measuring 12 billion light years (approx) should have light speed that is going billions of times the speed of light. Light that is a few million light years would need to go slower at million times, etc. In addition, as the light approached earth, it would need to slow down to 300K/km/s so that we wouldn't detect faster than light speed photons. Do you see how ridiculous such a proposal is?
***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."***
You need to reference whatever scientific hypothesis you are mentioning. However, if the universe is only 6,000 years old, the whole universe is the same age so the space is same age (not 'older' space). Even if the expanding space is 'newer', but with only 6,000 years to play with this expanding area is a miniscule percentage of the space that was created instantly 6,000 years ago. This hypothesis doesn't work.
Aaron, both you and Sam are smart kids. Why not use your intelligence and genuinely pursue science as it is currently understood. Forget all this pseudo-science baloney. You can stay in your faith and conform to current scientific understanding. I realize that both of you go to fundamentalist churches, but there are Christian churches that allow you more freedom. I see that you guys are heavily influenced by your parent's beliefs, and I think this is stiffling your genuine interest in science.
Warm regards, Harv |
