Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: Speed Of Light

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by wantobe on February 2, 2000 17:33:45 UTC

: Barry Setterfield of Australia [physicist] did a study of 160 different determinations of the speed of light from the past 300 yrs. He found that the velocity has slowed considerably over time, until 1980, when they started to use atomic [Cesium] clocks, at which time it showed no apparent change. The absence of decay with the atomic clocks is predictable as the radiation of the cesium isotope is a function of electromagnetic radiation; in his terms, the decay of the velocity of c is in "lock-sync" with all 16 atomic functions [Planck's constant etc.]. This hasn't made into the journals yet. It will be interesting to see if they accept it. I would imagine there would be some reluctance on the part of the materialist science establishment to accept a theory that would send them back to the proverbial drawing board with the current cosmological constructs, not to mention, radiometric dating....

WANTOBE From Talk Origins (full article at www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html):

"Setterfield's hypothesis, while initially embraced by the majority of the creationist community, received heavy criticism from the scientific establishment for several years since its introduction in 1981, and was finally rejected by the creationists themselves after it became such a major embarrassment that even the San Diego-based Institute for Creation Research rejected it ( Acts and Facts , June 1988, G. Aardsma).

While the creationist camp would have us believe that the theory of c-decay represented a viable scientific alternative to uniformity, and collapsed only under recent, more intense scrutiny, the thrust of this article is to show that the theory was riddled with massive flaws and glaring contradictions from the very start, and was kept alive as long as it was solely by wishful thinking and grotesque deception on the part of its supporters (a sort of Australian Paluxy River, if you will)."

WANTOBE bzrd, you would do well to research a little before you post creationist propaganda Language Removed like you did above. It only makes you look foolish, though I have a feeling that as I read through more of your postings I'll find that you aren't at all unfamiliar with looking foolish.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins