Pahu78@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn’t the Universe
> Billions of Years Old? 10
>
> A Critical Test: If the speed of light has decreased a millionfold,
> we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion. Here
> is why:
>
> Imagine a time in the distant past when the speed of light was a
> million times faster than it is today. On a hypothetical planet,
> billions of light-years from Earth, a light started fla****ng toward
> Earth every second. Each flash then began a very long trip to Earth.
> Because the speed of light was a million times greater than it is
> today, those initial flashes were spaced a million times farther apart
> than they would have been at today’s slower speed of light.
>
> Now, thousands of years later, imagine that throughout the universe,
> the speed of light has slowed to today’s speed. The first of those
> light flashes—strung out like beads sliding down a long string—are
> approaching Earth. The large distances separating adjacent flashes
> have remained constant during those thousands of years, so the moving
> flashes slowed in unison. Because the first flashes to strike Earth
> are spaced so far apart, they will strike Earth every million seconds.
> In other words, we are seeing past events on that planet (the fla****ng
> of a light) in slow motion. If the speed of light has been decreasing
> since the creation, then the farther out in space we look, the more
> extreme this slow motion becomes.
>
> About half the stars in our galaxy are binary. That is, they and a
> companion star are in a tight orbit around their common center of
> mass. If there is a “slow-motion effect,” the apparent orbital periods
> of binary stars should tend to increase with increasing distance from
> Earth. If the speed of light has been decreasing, the Hubble Space
> Telescope may eventually find that binary stars at great distances
> have very long orbital periods, showing that they are in slow motion.
Forget it. We can already look far enough into the universe to know
that that degree of slow motion isn't happening. The approach you
exhibit is typical of Creationists. Why not use as the premise, that
which we observe instead of that which you would would like to
observe? Instead you start with the conclusion (the Bible) and
assume/hope that science will prove it correct. It won't. Science has
only ever taken us further from Bible's ignorance and Creationism has
only tried to pull us back. If you disagree, let's each draw up a list
of the scientific advances of mainstream science and 'Creation
Science'. I'll take mainstream science.
<snip>
Best Regards,
Sean Mchugh
|
