User:Conservative/speedoflight

From Conservapedia

Here is what I found at CMI regarding what the respected YEC scientists Dr. Keith Wanser stated: "Keith was familiar with the theories (including recent work) of Australian creationist Barry Setterfield, which have c declining from a huge initial value. He said, ‘I don’t go along with Barry’s statements on this; he’s well-meaning, but in my opinion he’s made a lot of rash assumptions. For instance, he has a whole sequence of things that have to be held constant just because his theory needs it, and he’s certainly not come up with any real equations explaining anything. There is not a lot of mathematical and physical theory in his work, and there’s a misunderstanding of many of the things that would have happened if c had been 1010 higher than what it is today.’10

From what Keith told us in more detail, it appeared that the vocal humanist/sceptic critics of the Setterfield theory also needed some lessons in high-level physics. He went on to say, ‘There are other reasons to believe that the speed of light is changing, or has changed in the past, that have nothing to do with the Setterfield theory. It’s an exciting field — a very bright colleague of mine at the University of Colorado in Boulder has just completed some little-known but fascinating work in this area.’11 (footnote 11 goes to: New Scientist, 24 July 1999, pp. 29–32)." [1]

Have any interest in looking up the New Scientist article? (do you have an online subscription) I am at a University library right now but the science section may be closed now. Also, since you appear to know Dr. Wieland do you have any interest in asking him about the New Scientist info? Conservative 21:32, 15 September 2007 (EDT)