"swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" wrote:
>
> On Apr 24, 9:22 pm, Sean McHugh <se...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Pah...@[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>
> >
> Cosmologists Can't Agree and are Still in Doubt (Technical)
>
<Creationist link spam snipped>
> Gladys Swager
Your writing "(Technical)" means you don't understand its content. If
you don't understand what it is trying to say, then you wouldn't have
a clue if it deals with the point I was rebutting from the other
Creationist. Well, no surprise, it doesn't deal with it at all.
However, I'm quite sure that that wouldn't bother someone whose main
role here is - as I have said many times - a Creationist link spammer.
Sean McHugh
|
