Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution PART 2


"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:63xsl.12742$qa.10370@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


More evidence the speed of light is slowing.


"The Canadian mathematician, Alan Montgomery, has reported a computer
analysis supporting the Setterfield/Norman results. His model indicates
that the decay of velocity of light closely follows a cosecant-squared
curve, and has been asymptotic since 1958. If he is correct, the speed of
light was 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days
of Solomon; four times as fast in the days of Abraham, and perhaps more
than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c."

Computer analysis of bad data doesn't produce good results.

http://www.setterfield.org/essays/speedo.html

I read the article:

1) "Now two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at
Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of
California at Davis-are proposing that, immediately after the universe was
born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value
of 186,000 miles per second."

For the first 380,000 years, the Universe was opaque. Light could not
travel through it. We cannot look into it. How did these researchers
determine that the speed of light was faster immediately after The Big Bang?

2) "One mystery that it seems to be able to explain is why the universe is
so uniform-why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to
have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of
physics and are even at about the same temperature."

The laws of physics were established at the origin of the Universe. We have
no idea how that happenned or how or even if the laws could be different.
The Universe is relatively uniform because it expanded relatively uniformly.
The author seems to have gotten confused by some issues in cosmology that
have already been adequately answered by scientists. There is no need to
propose a changing speed of light to explain a problem that has already been
solved.

3) "the speed of light appears to have been slowing down!"

"1657: Roemer 307,600. +/- 5400 km/sec"

If I remember correctly, this result was based upon an incorrect value for
the orbit of Jupiter. Using the correct value produced a speed of about
300,000 km/s, leaving the current value well within the margin of error.

"1875: Harvard 299,921. +/- 13 km/sec"

If you perform the Harvard experiment today, you get the same result as they
got in 1875. The question isn't whether speed of light measurements have
produced decreasing values, but whether the same experiments performed today
will produce reduced values. And the answer is, they don't. The speed of
light has not changed; the experiments have changed.

4) "Halton Arp, an American astronomer based in Germany, has collected
"discrepant" red shifts which appear to be in conflict with traditional
views. Some galaxies are even moving towards us, such as the Andromeda
Galaxy."

Not all galaxies move through space independent of each other. The
Andromeda Galaxy is part of our local group of galaxies. Our Milky Way
Galaxy and the Andromeda Galaxy are gravitationally bound (they orbit each
other). So yes, at times, the Andromeda Galaxy will be getting closer to
us, much like the Moon at times is getting closer to the Earth.

Astronomers are well aware of discrepant red shifts. Ask yourself this: How
do astronomers know they are discrepant? How do astronomers know that the
distance, as measured by the red shift, is wrong?

Astronomers have more than one way to measure distances, and some of those
ways have huge margins of error, and some of those ways make assumptions
that don't always turn out to be correct. So before Halton Arp concludes
that the red shifts are wrong, he should take a look at those other methods.

5) "Tifft has discovered that galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values,
rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were
distance related. The red shifts appear to be quantized."

Galaxies are organized into groups, clusters, and superclusters. Galaxies
don't move independent of each other; they move in groups (and clusters and
superclusters). I haven't seen Tiffts data, but I suspect that the
"quantization" that he is seeing is the result of this organization of
galaxies.



.

Relevant Pages
Loading