CynthiaCypher
Well-Known Member
I read that this morning. A loose plug...it was hilarious. All these people with dreams of interstellar travel just had their hopes dashed again.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Speed of light is constant?
- Thread starter 9Westy9
- Start date
I read that this morning. A loose plug...it was hilarious. All these people with dreams of interstellar travel just had their hopes dashed again.
Somewhere in the distant future, there will be people that...
having found the tiniest parcel of the radiation of light.....
then they will then realize the fact that "light" doesn't move !
~
Kinda like asking: "Does the Cosmos revolve ?"
Around what ?
Within what ?
~
I know, I know.....
God did it.
~
`mud
having found the tiniest parcel of the radiation of light.....
then they will then realize the fact that "light" doesn't move !
~
Kinda like asking: "Does the Cosmos revolve ?"
Around what ?
Within what ?
~
I know, I know.....
God did it.
~
`mud
gnostic
The Lost One
9westy9 said:
It is not a theory. It is Magueijo's hypothesis, which is untested and unverified.
The constant for the speed of light - in a vacuum - hasn't changed.
It doesn't help your standing in this forum that you have selected an article from that website, with opening statement on evolution.
How do the speed of light in any way relates to evolution? How do the speed of light in any way relate to Genesis?
Your link is absolute joke, westy.
Fine by me
as far as we know...
what do you mean by my "standing in this forum"? Care to elaborate.
Also as for the how does it relate to evolution is simple. We can see the light from stars that are billions of light years away. This leads scientists to think that the age of the universe is billions of years old. However Magueijo's hypothesis could show that the universe is much younger (to the delight of creationists everywhere).
I'll admit that it's full of creationist bias, but all I posted it for was to show that their are serious scientists who question the 'light is always, and has always been, a constant' theory.
gnostic
The Lost One
9westy9 said:
Even if Magueijo was ever to prove that the speed of light is less (which has not), it won't by much, and the universe will still be billions of years old.
No matter how you look at it, biologically, archaeologically, geologically, astronomically, all evidences and data showed that the Bible, creationism (and YEC) have been seriously debunked and refuted.
That they stubbornly refused to face scientific facts, only demonstrated their blind faith and scientific illiteracy.
Nothing Magueijo has or will have (which I think is doubtful), will ever save YEC.
gnostic
The Lost One
9westy9 said:
:no:, 9westy9.
It is the fact.
Magueijo has proven any of his hypothesis to be a reality.
But if you want to "embrace" his untested hypothesis, as you have said in the OP, by all mean go ahead.
Evolutionary Biology and the theory of Evolution are still facts, the speed of light won't change that, because the Big Bang Theory and Relativity have nothing to do with biology. The creationists will still be seen as the fools as they are. And that link you provided is garbage.
That you would even post that link to that article, showed that you have no idea of the lies in that article, showed your naive. You admit it yourself that you're not well-versed in physics, but yet you're ready to accept, even before it has been tested, demonstrate your lack of understanding in physics.
facts change...
read all my posts before making claims about what I have and haven't "embraced"
and the second link?
I'm seriously starting to think that you haven't read through the thread. I didn't 'embrace' his hypothesis as fact, only stated my interest in his hypothesis.
and then it could be shown in the future that the universe is actually much younger. Don't be so closed-minded
The age of the earth is, in my eyes, unprovable by science. If you disagree then by all means show me.
I'll admit, it's stubborn of them. They should at least admit that scientific facts ar most reasonable
You're probably right
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
9westy9 said:
You don't need to know the age of the Earth, to know that the Bible is wrong.
The Hebrew calendar put the date of Adam's creation to be under 6000 years. And there has been a number of calculations done, both past and present that also put the dates less than 6000 years. So all these dates are around being 4000 BCE.
There are trees in North America, which predates 4000 BCE.
There are many ice core samples taken from the Antarctica that predated the practice of farming from the Neolithic man (Neolithic period in Asia and Europe, is between 10,000 and 3200 BCE). The oldest age from the ice core was 800,000 years.
The earliest settlement in Jericho is dated to 9000 BCE. Damascus' earliest settlement was just as old as that of Jericho. That's 5000 years before Adam's supposed "creation".
The supposed Flood from Genesis, supposedly happened between 2340 and 2100 BCE, depending on which calculation you accept, DIDN'T HAPPEN. There are no evidences of global flood, in the 2nd half of the 3rd millennium BCE.
In Genesis 10, it claimed that Nimrod founded the city of Erech. Another name for Erech is Uruk, the city of the legendary king, Gilgamesh, who is said to reign in 2600 BCE. The thing is that Nimrod lived after the Flood, and supposedly before Abraham left Ur. So this would put Nimrod in either late 3rd millennium BCE or early 2nd millennium BCE. However, Uruk was actually one of the earliest city in Mesopotamia, the oldest settlement going as far back as 4000 BCE. So Nimrod (that if this mythical figure actually exist) couldn't have been the 1st to build this city.
And not to mention all the fossils of mammals prior to the last Ice Age. Or the dinosaurs in Mesozoic era.
You have to a dim bat not to see these evidences that show the Bible only contained myths about its beginning.
Last edited:
photons are particles of light and neutrino's are particles of matter (I had to look this one up)
I was more hoping for the science that proves the earth is x years old rather than a critique of literal bible interpretation.
gnostic
The Lost One
You're the one who provided a link to creationist article. The stupid article think that Magueijo's hypothesis will some how vindicate the YEC. It won't.9westy9 said:
The age of the universe won't change the fact that the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old. It won't change the fact that the modern humans have been around over 30,000 years ago.
So what do you expect when you posted a link like that?
You should expect criticism.
And you're the one who keep insisting that Magueijo should be accepted, even when his hypothesis is untested and unverified.
I am not going to accept something unproven. You can if you want.
The fact of the matter is that constant, has not changed. And it is not going to change, because that's how the speed of the light is, in a vacuum. What might change is our knowledge of the Big Bang, may need to be modified, if we can get more accurate measurements.
You said so yourself, you not "well-versed" in physics. And if you had any idea what science about, you don't accept any hypothesis, until it can be verified. So you should expect criticism for or prematurely jumping on to Magueijo's bandwagon.
Last edited:
Agreed.
I'm going to start a new thread about the age of the universe. Thanks for the inspiration
and I received criticism. Just the criticism was mostly at the article rather than myself. It's also why I edited the OP
citation needed
Where did I accept his Theory? The entire point of the thread was to find out about his theory some more and see if it has changed since the article was posted.
It's constant as far as our observations have shown to date. You're probably right.
and now I know the difference between theory and hypothesis. Also I'm going to repeat myself by saying that I didn't accept his hypothesis, I merely showed an interest in it.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Its looking like the neutrinos didn't break the speed of light.
Einstein can rest easy as neutrinos obey speed limit | Reuters
Einstein can rest easy as neutrinos obey speed limit | Reuters
Skwim
Veteran Member
Hopefully true. We don't need the universe any more complicated than we currently understand it.
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
I say bring on the complexity...if our current worldview is wrong, then so be it. I'd prefer an ugly truth to a beautiful lie.
In 1783: C= 303 320
In 2004: C= 299 792
That is a [1-(299,792/303,320)=0.0116312805] 1.1% difference in speed.
So if, in the past 221 years, our observations became only 1.1% more accurate, this explains the difference in speeds.
And they did. Even more than 1 or 2 percent, in fact.
In 2004: C= 299 792
That is a [1-(299,792/303,320)=0.0116312805] 1.1% difference in speed.
So if, in the past 221 years, our observations became only 1.1% more accurate, this explains the difference in speeds.
And they did. Even more than 1 or 2 percent, in fact.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Citing the 2004 figure is cheating, because it has no error bar. You'll probably also find the error bar on the 1780 measurement is larger than the 1% difference.