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

On Mar 8, 3:38 am, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:AWFsl.12771$v8.10162@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:w7ysl.12774$qa.9252@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Ross Langerak wrote:
"[M]adman" <g...@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!

Your response doesn't address any of the objections that I raised.
Based on what I saw in the article, the results you posted are
wrong. If you disagree with my objections, then please explain why.

Also, I put a fair amount of time and effort into my response:
finding and reading the article you pasted from, looking into the
subjects that you raised, forming my response.  If you are really
interested in a fair and honest discussion and gaining some
understanding of the issues, shouldn't you do the same?

The response addresses ALL of them.

It is called "Hand Waving"

So, you admit that your responses have just been hand waving?  I
provided legitimate objections to your source's claims and you just
waved them off as if the recency of their "research" somehow solves
their problems.  You're right, your responses do sound like hand
waving.
Roemer's data contradicts the claim that the speed of light has been
changing.  Now, rather than hand waving, can you please address this
problem for your source's conclusions?

Measurement of the fine structure constant demonstrates that there
has been little if any change in the speed of light over the past 12
billion years. These are experimental results that contradict your
sources claims.  You didn't address this problem earlier, so can you
please address this problem now?

I have.

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.

except, of course, there is no basis for assuming a measurement made
300 years ago is valid at all. there is no basis for assuming a
measurement made in 2004 without uncertainty is a valid measurement.
the measurements in several years show the speed of light is
INCREASING.


This is not old and outdated work either.

certainly looks like it is to me. and it has not been replicated. and
from the u. of new s. wales:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_constant.htm

the speed of light is related to the fine structure constant (which
measures, inter alia, the strength of the coupling between light and
electrons):

Has the fine structure constant changed over time?
The obvious answer is "not much, or we should have noticed it". The
temperature of stars (including the sun) is a strong function of α, so
even a modest change would have been very observable. For instance,
life has been on Earth for at least a quarter of the age of the
universe, and perhaps as much as a third. This puts a limit on how
much the sun's temperature could have varied over that time. (Another,
much stricter limit is imposed by measurements of the reaction
products of a natural atomic reactor at Okla (Oklo) in Gabon that was
active about two billion years ago.) So any change over this time
scale must be small. But is the change exactly zero over all time?
Several years ago, my colleagues at UNSW, cosmologist John Webb and
theoretical physicists Victor Flambaum and Vladimir Dzuba developed a
new way of determining α from the spectra of quasar light that had
passed through gas clouds on its way to earth. Quasars are very
bright, so one can measure the atomic absorption spectra of very
distant gas clouds.


Because c is finite, "distant" means "long ago". So John and Victor
thought that their new, very sensitive test would be a way of putting
a new, very tight limit on the possible change in α over times
comparable with the age of the universe. An interesting problem for a
good graduate student, and so Michael Murphy joined them in the
search. (Michael wrote an excellent doctoral thesis and is currently a
postdoc in Cambridge.)

Michelson and Morley expected a small, finite result and found zero.
Murphy, Flambaum and Webb expected zero and found a very small, but
statistically significant effect. These researchers hasten to add that
the effect is small, is observed only in the very young universe (and
is therefore not in disagreement with other determinations of α in
more recent times). They also stress that the results are so
unexpected that they really call for a replication by other,
independent researchers using independent data from the same era.
Nevertheless, their work is a tantalising hint that the laws of Nature
might change on cosmological time scales or distances. It is
interesting to speculate, for instance, that they might have changed
somewhat in the very early universe, when some seriously weird things
seem to have happened, but have stabilised early on. But that is
speculation.

so, no, the speed of light has not changed enough to change the age of
the universe.

and science is inherently conservative. the results you cite have not
been replicated.





The article also mentioned that there were those that disagreed with their
findings. Such as yourself i would assume.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages

  • Book review: A Universe Tuned for Life
    ... A Universe Tuned for Life ... String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent ... life on Earth is a random outcome of the disinterested laws of physics ...
    (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. ... These measurements do not support the assertion that ... other physicists as an interesting speculation, ...
    (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: Time without end: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe
    ... the physical laws of the universe for its own purposes. ... Nowhere in Dyson's long piece do I find anything about intelligent life ... The title of the paper was I believe something like "Physics ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)