Talk:Speed of light

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sid 3050 (Talk | contribs) at 03:18, March 10, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

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...the article I reverted was incorrect or at least outdated.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)