Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution ! bu-bye! bu-bye!.....

"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xnKsl.14401$19.786@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w7ysl.12774$qa.9252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:s1qsl.12591$qa.7929@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



It appears that you no longer have the amount of time necessary for
spontaneous life and macro-evolution to occur.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<quote>
Modern physics is now considering a theory that could throw into
confusion virtually all of the accepted temporal paradigms of
20th-century science, including the age of the universe and the
billions of years necessary for evolution.
[]
Within the last 24 months, Dr. Joao Magueijo, a physicist at
Imperial College in London, Dr. John Barrow of Cambridge, Dr. Andy
Albrecht of the University of California at Davis and Dr. John
Moffat of the University of Toronto have all published work
advocating their belief that light speed was much higher - as much
as 10 to the 10th power faster - in the early stages of the "Big
Bang" than it is today. (It's important to note that none of these
researchers have expressed any bias toward a predetermined answer,
biblical or otherwise. If anything, they are antagonistic toward a
biblical worldview.)

During the early stages of the Big Bang, light wasn't going
anywhere. During the first 380,000 years, the Universe was opaque.
Matter existed only as a plasma which interfered with the travel of
photons. Once the Universe cooled to a temperature where atoms
could form, photon decoupling occured. This decoupling is the
source of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The speed of light is actually a function of two other constants.
These constants show up in other formulas in physics. So if the
speed of light were to change, it would affect more than just the
speed of light. For instance, these constants show up in the
calculation of the fine structure constant. The fine structure
constant has been measured at distances of up to about 12 billion
light years. These measurements do not support the assertion that
the speed of light has changed significantly over the history of the
Universe.
It's important to recognize the resistance that the current
hierarchy of science has to the possibility that light speed may
not be constant. Dr. Joao Magueijo was forced to wait for over a
year between submission of his initial work on varying light speed
and publication. Setterfield, Dr. Tifft, Dr. Paul Davis, Dr. John
Barrow and others have been subjected to peer review which borders
on ridicule.

Perhaps for good cause?

After Dr. Tifft's initial publication, several astronomers devised
extensive experiments in attempts to prove him wrong. Among them
two Scottish astronomers, Bruce Gutherie and William Napier from
the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh observed approximately 300
galaxies in the mid 1990s. They found to their surprise
confirmation of quantum banding of red-shift data.

Can you please explain "quantum banding of red-shift data"? Other
than the sources you copied this from, I can't find any information
on it.
They also had difficulty publishing their data.
[]
It's intriguing to note that the first measurement of light speed
by Olaf Roemer in the late 17th century was an attempt to disprove
the Aristotelian belief that light speed was infinite. Despite
overwhelming and repeatable evidence, over 50 years passed before
the scientific hierarchy of the time accepted evidence which, in
retrospect was clear, compelling and unimpeachable.

Also interesting, is that the series of luminal velocities that are
presented in the article that you quoted from don't include Roemer's
measurements. Perhaps that is because calculations based upon
Roemer's data don't support the claim that the speed of light is
decreasing. Roemer's data gives us a speed of 186,000 mi/s (300,000
km/s), a value very close to the currently accepted value.

Also interesting, is that if we perform the same experiments today
that were performed in the past, we get the same results. In other
words, the speed of light is not changing; the experiments are
getting better.
Also interesting, is that this argument directly contradicts another
creationist argument that asserts that physical constants are finely
tuned and that life could not exist if they were altered in any
way. So which is it? Are the physical constants finely tuned, or
can they vary significantly?

The results i posted were done Within the last 24 months. hahaha!

So your handwaving

Did

not

work



Handwaving? That's an incredibly dumb remark.

Those highly speculative theoretical results are regarded by most
other physicists as an interesting speculation, not backed by any
observations at all. There are other theories that represent
explanations of the same phenomenam, that do not require variable c
in the first 10^(-34) sec of the Universe. These are all theories.
Recency of publication is no guarantee of quality or correctness for
something this speculative in a rapidly moving field.

The "quantization of red shifts" has nothing to do with variation of
c.

And the fact that you are quoting measurements of c from over a
century ago as "proof" that c is varying is absolutely the stupidest
thing I have seen you claim today. (You have made so many stupid
claims on other days that I can't reliably bestow a "stupidest
all-time Adman idea" award, as there are so many strong contenders.)
You have absolutely no idea how difficult such measurements were for
early physicists. Measurements of the fine-structure constant
"proxies" prove this constancy of c over not just the past few
hundred years but the past several billion years.

You are such a fool.

This information must be making your back teeth float.

Clue:
The work at my first link followed ALL scientific methods. The work was
given full peer
review. AND others tried to falsify it but came up with the same answers.

And it is current work although i posted an excerpt of the much older
findings.

The data is good and recent You do not like the results


You have a complete inability to read for comprehension. I said:

"Recency of publication is no guarantee of quality or correctness for
something this speculative in a rapidly moving field."

And I meant it. You somehow think that only the latest paper has any claim
on truth. That's false, as the history of science shows.

Even if the novel "first 10^-34 sec" results prove to be correct (and how
they can be tested and demonstrated to be more correct than other ideas
about inflation) is something no one knows) it would have absolutely nothing
to do with the age of the Universe or the age of the Earth.

And nothing in the "quantization of redshift" claims has anything at all to
do with the age of the Universe. You seem to be conflating the two.

Hint to Adman: Wingnut Daily is NOT a peer-reviewed science journal.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution ! bu-bye! bu-bye!.....
    ... for spontaneous life and macro-evolution to occur. ... During the first 380,000 years, the Universe was opaque. ... These constants show up in other formulas in physics. ... Roemer's measurements. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution ! bu-bye! bu-bye!.....
    ... During the first 380,000 years, the Universe was opaque. ... These constants show up in other formulas in physics. ... Roemer's measurements. ... Your response doesn't address any of the objections that I raised. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution ! bu-bye! bu-bye!.....
    ... During the first 380,000 years, the Universe was opaque. ... These constants show up in other formulas in physics. ... Roemer's measurements. ... Your response doesn't address any of the objections that I raised. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Poll: Are PCs Turing Machines?
    ... That is not an endorsement of Platonism which is ... > realized in the physical existence of the universe before heat death. ... It is the current position of Physics that no more ... Realism holds that these ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Wave bu-bye to evolution ! bu-bye! bu-bye!.....
    ... During the first 380,000 years, the Universe was opaque. ... These constants show up in other formulas in physics. ... Roemer's measurements. ... Your response doesn't address any of the objections that I raised. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading