Re: Chris! Oh Chris! yoohoo..over here. You missed this one Re: Wave

On Mar 8, 10:19 pm, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On 8 Mar, 22:09, "[M]adman" <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
.

The rest is innuendo and fairy tales made up by WingNutDaily, which
you seem to believe is Trvth. And there is your problem, well one of
them anyways.

You failed to recognize that /after/ the peer review and after the
paper was published a group of scientists did exactly what you said.
They disagreed with the findings and set out to prove the theory
wrong.

They could not.

Quite the contrary.

They discovered the same evidence. And that evidence is the universe
is slowing down.

No. Croasdale,  Napier and Guthrie confirmed  Tifft's idea that
redshifts of galaxies  occur preferentially as multiples of a set
number.
here are their articles:
http://tinyurl.com/cs4wt9
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/jaa/18/455-463.pdf

While the results are interesting, the most dramatic conclusion one
"might" draw from them is that the universe is not expanding - an idea
Tifft initially proposed, but then gave up.

It has nothing to do with speed of light. That is where your
(unrefereed , journalistic) source gets it wrong, by connecting this
idea somehow (heaven knows how) with the idea of a decreasing speed of
light, and that in turn with the idea of a younger universe. Nowhere
in Tifft, Croasdale, Napier or Guthries 's work are claims about a
variable speed of light made, let alone about a young universe. (If
you disagree, show me where)

I find it intresting that eact time i post the specifics they are cut out
(not necessarly by you)You are not even addressing the OP or the OLink

"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.) "

Dr. Magueijo is the /only/ one to believe that the speed was faster in the
initial stages of the BB


The rest believe it is still it is slowing down AND/OR irregular.

I do not accept that. Please provide information from primary sources.


"recent observations of the signals received from the aging satellites
Galileo, Ulysses and Pioneer are also in the category of speed of light
anomalies. A unexplained Doppler frequency shift has been detected from all
of these satellites, even though the satellites' distances from the Earth
are only about 20 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun - way too
close for a traditional Doppler shift to occur in the electromagnetic
spectrum. NASA scientists have attempted with little success to attribute
the anomalies to an unknown acceleration. Setterfield suggests that equally
plausible explanations are variations in c.

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.

You post this over and over. Setterfield is a dishonest idiot-
dishonest because he deliberately abuses the tools of science and an
idiot because he thought he could get away with it.


Dr. Tifft's discussion of red-shift anomalies was published with seeming
reluctance in the Astrophysical Journal in the mid 1980s with a rare
editorial note pointing out that the referees "neither could find obvious
errors with the analysis nor felt that they could enthusiastically endorse
publication.

Does this editorial quote end here? You never close it.


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.

They also had difficulty publishing their data. It has been reported that
the prestigious Journal of Astronomy and Astrophysics refused publication
until an additional set of observations from 97 other spiral galaxies was
included. A Fourier analysis of the 302 early data points, and the
subsequent total of 399 data points strongly confirmed the quantum shifts..

Despite this - and additional observations by Bell in 2003 - many scientists
are still reluctant to give up on the theory that red shifts are solely
caused by Doppler shifts and have continued to claim that the red-shift
quanta results by Tifft and others are due to sloppy research or
insufficient data.

It wouldn't surprise me that someone who once did sloppy research,
continued to do sloppy research.
Look at your posts.

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. "

This is another little gem you regurgitate over and over. Roemer was
wrong; you've been shown over and over he was wrong, but you keep
putting it back up. Why should anyone take *anything* you post
seriously?

Chris

.

Relevant Pages