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: 8,000 Year Old Universe

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by daViper on July 19, 1999 19:09:32 UTC

: What is the evidence that the speed of light is a constant. I know of none. Could anyone enlighten me. ::::::::::: For as long as we have been able to measure it accurately, it has been. Other than that, none.

: And secondly, one aspect of relativity is that everything is relative to the speed of light. So perhaps the processes that have been used to estimete the age of the earth are also relative to the speed of light. If the speed were much greater in the past, the chemical processes would presumably also be much faster. : Relativity would also say that the speed of the earth around the sun would be greater. Somehow I can't understand how that's possible, but everything is relative. ::::::::: As to the evidence of the speed of light being constant, in my previous post I tried to point out that this specific issue on its own is irrelevant. We simply ASSUME it has been constant since there is no evidence to the contrary. It would seem to be that a challenger to that hypothesis has the onus of showing how it could be otherwise. Could it have changed? I don't know. But I'd want to see why someone would postulate that it has and show just cause for the postulation. It still then comes back to the OTHER evidences for cosmological age that then all agree with each other that have nothing to do with lightspeed, even if it COULD be proven that light has slowed down.

I'm still left with the question of WHY someone wants to dismiss ALL scientific evidence in favor of a theory that has no basis for the hypotheses of why it could be so. I simply do not understand why the need to try to prove the cosmological age of the universe is anything less than the evidence says it is. What is the purpose in this?

In the context of THIS message board, how do any of these hypotheses apply to determining the existence of God one way or the other? I don't understand the need to disprove accepted science in order to prove God, if that's what the motive behind such theories as "light slowing down" are. What possible difference could it make?

Addendum: Not sure what you mean by ..."Relativity would also say that the speed of the earth around the sun would be greater."...

You lost me here.....??

Thanks.

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