Talk:Speed of light

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I understand that basic paradigm of the site, but nowhere is it clearly defined to be that the purpose of this site is to provide a young earth creationist view point on every article that might be remotely applied. Try the creationwiki for that. I think that most articles that are not DIRECTLY related to the subject at hand should may just bypass the ramifications of "age". Sticking a "this is a problem but YEC organization Answers in Genesis has this press release to describe why its not really problem" on the end of a bunch of random articles will look silly. Yes having silly articles got this site attention, but the hope is to eventually prove the mockers WRONG not right. Tmtoulouse 12:03, 9 March 2007 (EST)

With respect I was simply offering a explanation of events that is consistent with a biblical interpretation and providing a appropriate reference. I fail to see the problem.
The problem is that outside a very small subset of people, even a small subset of conservatives, it is not taken seriously in the least. Do we want to turn the "speed of light" article into a small definition followed by a big back and forth involving age of universe disputes? I removed not only your material but the material that made the claim that it proved the age of the Universe was at least 2.5 million years old. I think the preferred solution for this kinds of articles (evolution, creationism, age of the earth, ect. are hopeless) is to just stick to basic science and not worry about the ramifications of age. To do otherwise will simply prove your critics right.Tmtoulouse 12:58, 9 March 2007 (EST)

A warning from an Admin

This site is not Wikipedia that for the most part deletes all creationist material on the spot. [1] I prefer not to block people but I will if someone displays a penchant for the aforementioned behavior. Conservative 16:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Read my response here [2] Tmtoulouse 18:33, 9 March 2007 (EST)

According to AiG...

...the article I reverted was incorrect or at least outdated. Read "How can we see distant stars in a young universe?" and "A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem" for the problems other creationists point out. The former article is described by AiG as the "currently favored creationist answer to the distant starlight problem" and contains sentences like "If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not". Right now, according to the newest theories, creationists apparently assume that the speed of light did NOT change.

Sorry, but I'm reverting this. In related issues, it would be awfully nice of Conservative to invite Tmtoulouse back in. This project needs more people who contribute good material, not less. --Sid 3050 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Sid, you selectively quoted the Sarfarti article which stated, ""If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not". The article also stated, But Setterfield’s particular theory predicted that the FSC would remain constant,7 and given the small change and tentative nature of this new discovery, by itself this is not conclusive evidence against the Setterfield theory. More importantly, you are ignoring what AIG most recently said on this topic which was a link I cited. [3]
I am giving you the same warning I gave to the other gentleman. I don't want to block you so please heed the warning. Conservative 21:44, 9 March 2007 (EST)conservative
Your own 2003 source says:
Wherein lies the solution?

There are five possible areas of explanation, in my opinion, all consistent with the text of Genesis, that still maintain the 6 x 24-hour literal days. They are,


4. That the speed of light was enormously faster in the past, of the order 1011c to 1012c. This may have been the case during Creation Week and then the light slowed enormously to the present value. Again this model is testable, especially with astronomical observations, such as measurements of the fine structure constant. This hypothes is has been advanced in the past by creationists Setterfield and Norman,1 who placed considerable weight on the precision of a few historical astronomical determinations of the speed of light. The idea is currently in vogue in the secular community,14 but they are not dealing with timescales on Earth of only 6,000 years. The observational evidence available to us today clearly precludes this model.15 It is absolutely not viable, unless there is and has been a complicated balance of changes in many ‘so-called’ constants over observable history. But Occam’s razor16 would tell us that this is not the case. Another model in this category is the Harris model.17 It starts with an infinite speed of light at creation. Then, after the Fall, it changes to the current value as a function of time and linear distance from Earth. Like an expanding bubble spreading out through the universe, the speed of light drops from an infinite value to the current value at the surface of the bubble. One problem with this model may be the massive blueshifts resulting from a change of infinite to finite speed of light. Also the fine structure of the atomic spectra must change from a stage of no fine structure to the current state as the bubble passes. This would be observable in starlight. It isn’t.
(emphasis mine)
The source you cite goes on about TIME being distorted, not about c changing. This theory also happens to be the currently favored answer to the starlight question:
The biggest difficulty, however, is with certain physical consequences of the theory. If c has declined the way Setterfield proposed, these consequences should still be discernible in the light from distant galaxies but they are apparently not. In short, none of the theory’s defenders have been able to answer all the questions raised.


Creationist physicist Dr Russell Humphreys says that he spent a year on and off trying to get the declining c theory to work, but without success. However, in the process, he was inspired to develop a new creationist cosmology which appears to solve the problem of the apparent conflict with the Bible’s clear, authoritative teaching of a recent creation.


This sort of development, in which one creationist theory, c-decay, is overtaken by another, is a healthy aspect of science.


Let us briefly give a hint as to how the new cosmology seems to solve the starlight problem before explaining some preliminary items in a little more detail.


If the speed of light (c) has not changed, the only thing left untouched in the equation is time itself.
(emphasis mine again)
I will revert the edit now as per the first Conservapedia commandment. Not even your own sources currently favor your additions. Your warning will be ignored due to its lack of proper basis. --Sid 3050 22:18, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Oh, that article is wonderful. Hartnett lists the usual YEC explanations to the "starlight travel time problem," explains why they're all wrong, and submits that the correct explanation is, in fact...magic!
That last paragraph in particular cracks me up. "In this model, the laws of physics are suspended while creation is in progress..." followed two sentences later by "No non-physical requirements are placed on the model." Brilliant! Tsumetai 09:51, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Sid, I would point out that Occam's razor is a Ceteris paribus principle and perhaps you should consider that this is a complicated issue (for example the Big Bang theory has a starlight problem) and not write in stone that the "constants" have not changed in the past. I would also cite this information: "Recent news headlines have been buzzing with reports of research purportedly showing that fundamental constants of nature may have changed, including the fine structure constant, which is related to the speed of light.... A research team led by John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, intend to publish their research on August 27 in Physical Review Letters. (Many scientists frown on media announcements before the proper peer review / publication process is complete)."[4]Conservative 19:34, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

  • You just responded to something that is now six months old, and an editor who has been banned perhaps three or four times since then. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:00, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

The value of what?

From the artcle: "As the speed of light is used to define the SI metre, this is the value by definition." NousEpirrhytos 18:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Articles with unsourced statements?

What is the unsourced statement? This is typically marked with the {{fact}} template which then includes the category. --Mtur 15:15, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

All of them are unsourced except for the statement I recently added. Dpbsmith 15:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Never mind, I think we're probably back where Wikipedia used to be, where we only fuss about questionable unsourced statements. Dpbsmith 15:20, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Another thing AIG states regarding the speed of light

Here is what Answers in Genesis states: "Dr Keith Wanser, B.A., M.A., Ph.D. is Professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. His research interests lie in fibre-optic sensing techniques, experimental and theoretical condensed matter physics, and basic theories of matter. With over 30 refereed and 18 other technical papers and seven U.S. patents in his track record, Keith Wanser would be justified in chuckling at the common accusation that ‘creationists don’t publish’, or ‘creationists don’t do real science’ [see Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? — Ed.]. A full Professor at a major U.S. university, we were immediately struck by his warmth and humility. 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 [for footnote #11 please see:New Scientist, July 24, 1999, pp. 29–32.][5]