On Apr 24, 9:22=A0pm, Sean McHugh <se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Pah...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn=92t the
Universe
> > Billions of Years Old? 10
>
> > A Critical Test: =A0If the speed of light has decreased a millionfold,
> > we should observe events in outer space in extreme slow motion.
=A0Here
> > 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=92s slower speed of light.
>
> > Now, thousands of years later, imagine that throughout the universe,
> > the speed of light has slowed to today=92s speed. The first of those
> > light flashes=97strung out like beads sliding down a long string=97are
> > 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 =93slow-motion effect,=94 the apparent orbital
perio=
ds
> > 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>
>
Cosmologists Can't Agree and are Still in Doubt (Technical)
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559
Gladys Swager
|
