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: Noise Noise Noise

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Dood on February 5, 2000 16:48:15 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. : : : ..........."the number of atomic seconds in a dynamical interval is becoming fewer. Presumably, if the result has any generality to it, this means that atomic phenomena are slowing with respect to dynamical phenomena ...” This is the observational evidence......... Further details can be found in “Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II”, pp.625-627, National Bureau of Standards (US) Special Publication 617 (1984), B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips editors.

: : Noise noise noise... "c" is a constant relationship between flesh and light, flesh being mass. But the mind shifts between the perspective of mass and energy and thus varies perspective of time and space. To remember is to not be bound to the timespace of the flesh. As far as a shifting "c" factor... nonsense! Change the relationship of mass to energy and witness an increased entropy which pales the sun. Ta ta.

: bzrd here: You would deny the observational evidence posted above? Perception is temporal; ie. not necessarily reflective of reality.

!* Therefore according to your words: your perspective as well as the percieved observation posted above does not necessarily reflect reality.

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 1994-2020 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