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

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 daViper on July 26, 1999 22:44:10 UTC

: Remember that discussion on the possible variability of the speed of light about two weeks ago. Well, this week's on-line edition of New Scientist has an article on the fact that the speed of light may not be a constant by John Barrow, author of many books on Physics and Cosmology. : You can find his article under the header, "Nothing's sacred" at : : He describes theories based on variable speeds of light in the early universe that would replace inflation theory in explaining the flatness problem,and also explains the smallness of the cosmological constant, which he claims is also variable and was extremely large early on in the history of the universe. : But he also describes astronomical measurements of distant quasar light made by him and his students that suggest the the speed of light was constant for billions of years back in time. : Frankly, the constantsy of the speed of light has been an article of my faith in science. I also believed in one universe. Now Inflation theorists and String theorists say that out universe is just a speck in a vast multitude of universes. : And things exist, virtual things, and that entanglement thing in the EPR paradox of Aspects experiment,that go faster than the speed of light. And empty space is full of these virtual things. : So the high priests of science take away the cornerstones of my belief system and try to replace them with ghosts. Read the latest string theory papers. They are full of ghosts. They claim that they try to avoid them, but they use them all the same. No wonder some of us have trouble with scientific belief. It's getting too supernatural. What's left for a good old fashioned conservative materialist? :::::::::::::: Yeah I hear you. I'm hanging onto my "faith" in Cosmology, but Quantum Mechanics is just too "spooky" (Einstein's word, not mine) for me.

I'm not puttin' my money on any science that uses the word "strange" as a valid description for something. Like a property of quarks. :-)

It just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 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