"swa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <swager@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>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)
Gladys, I won't even look at the following site. I've looked at
enough stuff written by creationists about cosmology, and found basic
errors within the first few paragraphs, that I'm not prepared to
waste my time looking at their latest misinterpretation.
>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1559
>Gladys Swager
Salaam
Ken Smith
--
Dr Ken Smith - Christian, husband, unpaid mathematician, skeptic, ...
`Science is predicated on the assumption that nature is both ordered and
rational. Scientists believe we can come to understand the world, at
least in part, through the exercise of reasoning.' Paul Davies
|
