Physics looks for new Einstein as nature rewrites laws of universe

How fast do you think light travelled back then? A ballpark will do.

Fast enough to make Genesis and the 6,000 year-old universe a credible account of creation, you satanic dog.
</Taliban mode off>

Yes, his stuff can be found at www.khouse.org. He is pretty interesting and there are others like him as there are others on your side too.

Yes, the difference is that the folks who subscribe to the notion that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a constant have real degrees in physics and Astrophysics, unlike your source: "Chuck Missler, Ph.D, B.A. all that good stuff in astrophysics ..." [snip].

A persual of his own website indicates he has a masters degree in engineering and a Ph.D. from a Baptist school which one can only presume is a divinity degree or something related thereto. There is not a single piece of information on his website to substantiate your claim that he has ever taken a course in Astrophysics, let alone holds a degree of any kind in it. In short, there isn't any evidence that Mr. Missler is a scientist of any kind.

Since you seem to have trouble getting facts straight, I'll be brief. That the speed of light is constant is a scientific reality accepted by the vast preponderance of the world's scientists. You have opined that is isn't. You offer only your personal observation that "things decay" and the unsubstantiated claim that the speed of light was previously measured at 200,000 mi/sec.

You are the one making the extraordinary claim, not me. You are the one who has the burden of providing extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary assertion.

Please provide us with compelling evidence that protons, photons, neutrinos, and electrons decay, and that the speed of light was conclusively faster in the past than it is today. Cite the original sources, if you please.

Ecclesiastes
3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
3:2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3:3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

Satisfied, satanic dog?
</Taliban mode off>

Do a google search on "Greg Egan" and then you will understand. ;-)

Yes, he has real degrees as more like him do too. Your religious bigorty about folks who dont agree with you are somehow lyhing about their education is ridiculous and you have yet to make any case. Just personal attacks based on your religious belief.

Longshadow, there is also a fellow named Lambert Dolphin who has some degrees since you think it is necessary for a person to have one in order to appeal to your vanity. Anyhow, his website is at www.ldolphin.org. He has some pretty good stuff too. The evience that you have yet to deal with which I have provided is #1-The Red Shift, #2-Measured speed decay from about 1890 to 2000, and #3-Observation that all things decay and to believe the contrary is to go against the natural law. Your statement that you agree with a lot more scientists is meaningless to the point.

You asked if we should say 5000 years ago for the sake of argument. No, we shan't :)

The Controversy Continues: Speed of Light Slowing Down? by Chuck Missler The field of physics worships at the altar of c, the velocity of light. It is widely regarded as the inviolate constant which affects all things: from our knowledge of astronomy to the very behavior of subatomic particles. Even the basic relationship between mass and energy is known by every schoolboy as E = mc2. For many years, and in many of our previously published materials, we have made allusions to the very controversial view, held by some, that the speed of light (usually designated mathematically by "c") has been slowing down. (1) We have, naturally, received a number of adverse reactions from those who have difficulties dealing with this possibility. Evidence suggesting that the velocity of light, c, has been slowing down throughout history was first reported by Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman for some years. (2) Now two physicists-Dr. Joao Magueijo, a Royal Society research fellow at Imperial College, London, and Dr. Andreas Albrecht, of the University of California at Davis-are proposing that, immediately after the universe was born, the speed of light may have been far faster than its present-day value of 186,000 miles per second. (3 )They now believe that it has been slowing down ever since. The effects predicted by their theory are to be published in the prestigious scientific journal, Physical Review. "If it's true, it would be a very big leap forward that will affect our perception of the universe and much of theoretical physics," said Dr. Magueijo. One mystery that it seems to be able to explain is why the universe is so uniform-why opposite extremes of the cosmos that are too far apart to have ever been in contact with each other appear to obey the same rules of physics and are even at about the same temperature. It would only be possible for light to cross from one side to the other if it traveled much faster than today moments after the universe was created, between 10 billion and 15 billion years ago. Their hypothesis suggests it was so fast that it could have been travelling at 186,000 miles a second multiplied by a figure with 70 zeroes after it! Calculations based on the theory also give the most elegant explanation for the speed at which the universe appears to be expanding, which is thought to be just fast enough to avoid an eventual collapse to a big crunch. Instead, the universe would simply grow forever-though at a decreasing rate-and its ultimate fate, it is suggested, would be a slow, lingering death as all the stars burn out and every particle of matter within it separates. "It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea that has so many appealing consequences," said John Barrow, professor of astronomy and director of the Astronomy Centre at the University of Sussex, who has collaborated with Magueijo and Albrecht. It is disturbing that with this view continuing to gain credibility in some quarters, acknowledgment of the contributions of Setterfield, Norman, and others is conspicuous by its absence. Historical Background Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite. (4) Even Kepler (1600 a.d.) maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous. (5) Descartes (who died in 1650) strongly held to a belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of the period and following. It wasn't until 1677 that a Danish astronomer named Olaf Roemer announced that the anomalous behavior of the eclipse times of Jupiter's inner moon, Io, could be accounted for by a finite speed of light. It took another half century for that notion to be accepted. It wasn't until 1729 that James Bradley's independent confirmation finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated. This emotional inertia concerning the velocity of light seems to continue to haunt the dogmas of physics. The speed of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods over the past 300 years. However, Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman, reexamining the known experimental measurements to date, have suggested a highly controversial discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down! 1657: Roemer 307,600. +/- 5400 km/sec 1875: Harvard 299,921. +/- 13 km/sec 1983: NBS (laser method): 299,792.4358 +/- 0.0003 km/sec The speed of light is now measured as 299,792.4358 kilometers per second. (6) (This is approximately 186,000 miles/second; or one foot per nanosecond.) The Canadian mathematician, Alan Montgomery, has reported a computer analysis supporting the Setterfield/Norman results. His model indicates that the decay of velocity of light closely follows a cosecant-squared curve, and has been asymptotic since 1958. If he is correct, the speed of light was 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; four times as fast in the days of Abraham, and perhaps more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c. Needless to say, this view is highly controversial and the majority of physicists intensely reject this hypothesis. Some confirmatory trends have been reported in 475 measurements of 11 other atomic quantities by 25 methods in dynamical time. But it could again, as it did in the days of Roemer, take fifty years before it is resolved. But there is another most disturbing discovery that strangely may prove to support the Setterfield view. The Shift of Tifft Ever since Edwin Hubble formulated his theory that the "red shift" observed in the spectra of stars was a form of the "Doppler Effect," astronomers have built upon the assumption of an "expanding universe." The universe itself-the space between the galaxies-may be expanding. Matter is now viewed as a distortion in space-time. Gravity is the influence of gravitational forces from curvature of space-time: "space tells matter how to move; matter tells space how to curve." As light travels through expanding space, it is "stretched" to longer wavelengths, that is, to the red. There are a number of Biblical passages that also seem to suggest this possibility. (7) Some scientists worry that there may be yet other explanations for the red shift and that too much reliance may have been placed on Hubble's Law. Halton Arp, an American astronomer based in Germany, has collected "discrepant" red shifts which appear to be in conflict with traditional views. Some galaxies are even moving towards us, such as the Andromeda Galaxy. Furthermore, William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data on red shifts for about 20 years, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. Tifft has discovered that galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. The red shifts appear to be quantized. Strangely, this may prove to vindicate the Setterfield hypothesis concerning the decay of c. These red shifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wavelengths, and quantized red shifts would result. (8) It will take some time for the Setterfield Hypothesis to be proven acceptable, but it is extremely provocative and would dramatically alter our concepts concerning the physical universe. Fracture of Reality in Genesis 3? There appears to be some Scriptural basis for assuming an original close coupling between the spiritual and physical world. The highly venerated Onkelos translation of Genesis 1:31 emphasizes that originally "...it was a unified order." The suggestion has been advanced that current physics, including the entropy laws ("the bondage of decay" [9] ), were a result of the fall of man recorded in Genesis Chapter 3. (10) The entropy laws reveal a universe which is "winding down." It had to have been initially "wound-up." This windup-the reduction of entropy, or the infusion of order (information)-is described in Genesis 1 in a series of six stages. The terms used in this progressive reduction of entropy (disorder) are erev and boker, which have led to their being translated "evening" and "morning." (11) Evening-and-mornings constituted the principal stages of creation. Six "evenings" and "mornings" became the "days" constituting the creation "week." However, what we presently know about the physical universe is derived only from observing the universe after the upheavals of Genesis 3. Some of us suspect that the ostensible decay of c, the slowing velocity of light, was one of the results of the upheavals of Genesis Chapter 3. Sources: See also Lambert Dolphin's excellent website, http://ldolphin.org Missler, Chuck, Beyond Time and Space, See page 27. Missler, Chuck, Cosmic Codes: Hidden Messages From the Edge of Eternity, Koinonia House. See page 22. Notes: 1. Personal UPDATE, March 1993, p.12-26; March 1995, p.10-14; Beyond Time and Space, p.11-12; Genesis and the Big Bang, p. 8-13. 2. Setterfield, B., and Norman, T., The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Invited Research Paper, SRI, August 1987. (Available from Lambert Dolphin). 3. Steve Farrar, Science Correspondent. "Speed of light 'slowing down?'", London Sunday Times, November 15 1998. 4. There were exceptions: Empedocles of Acragas (c. 450 B.C.); also Moslem scientists Aviecenna and Alhazen (1000 A.D.) both believed in a finite speed for light. 5. Again there were exceptions: Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon (1600 A.D.) both believed in a finite speed of light. 6. A dynamical second is defined as 1/31,556,925.9747 of the earth's orbital period and was standard until 1967. Atomic time is defined in terms of one revolution of an electron in the ground state orbit of the hydrogen atom. 7. "The stretching of the heavens": Isa 40:22; 42:5; 44:27; 45:12; 51:13; Jer 10:12; 51:15; Zech 12:1; the heavens as a scroll: Isa 34:4; Rev. 6:14. 8. Setterfield, Barry, Atomic Quantum State, Light, and the Red Shift, in publication (received by private correspondence). 9. Romans 8:21. 10.Heb 11:3; Rom 8:19-23; Psa 102:25-27; Prov 16:33; Eph 1:11; Heb 1:2-3; Col 1:16,17. 11. Erev initially referred to darkness, obscurity, randomness; maximum entropy. As darkness envelopes our horizon, we lose the ability to discern order or patterns. The darkness was originally "without form and void." From this term we derive the current sememe for "evening," when the encroaching darkness begins to deny us the ability to discern forms, shapes, and identities. Boker refers to the advent of light, where things begin to become discernible, visible; order begins to appear. This relief of obscurity, and the attendant ability to begin to discern forms, shapes, and identities has become associated with dawn or "morning," as the early twilight begins to reveal order and design.

Your post 168 is the most useless, incoherent, ignorant, and deranged pile of unformatted glop I've seen in days. Fundamentalism is a mental disorder. Deal with it.

ok

Yes, he has real degrees as more like him do too. Your religious bigorty [sic] about folks who dont [sic] agree with you are somehow lyhing [sic] about their education is ridiculous and you have yet to make any case. Just personal attacks based on your religious belief.[sic]

You asserted that Missler had "Ph.D, B.A. all that good stuff in astrophysics ..." [snip]. Missler's own website shows this is NOT true. Thus, it is NOT Missler who is lying, but you who appears to be making untrue statements.

As for me not making "any case," I once again remind you that you have the burden of proof, not me, as it is you who have asserted that "everything decays" and that the speed of light has decayed. I have merely pointed out that the vast preponderance of scientists, who DO have degrees in physics and astrophysics, subscribe to position that is contrary to your assertion.

I have provided you with examples of four things that have never been seen to decay on their own, to wit: protons, photons, neutrinos, and electrons. If your assertion that ALL things decay were true, then it would be true for these four nuclear particles. Yet you have cited not a scintilla of evidence that any have ever decayed. Nor have you provided us with an over-arching scientific principle that would require the decay of everything that would apply to the speed of light.

Lastly, I was unaware that pointing out errors constituted a "personal attack." I am also perplexed by your bizarre characterization that pointing out errors could somehow be motivated by "my religious beliefs," as I have made no statement regarding same.

Longshadow, there is also a fellow named Lambert Dolphin who has some degrees since you think it is necessary for a person to have one in order to appeal to your vanity.

Well, aren't you a petulant little man! Dolphin's (and Setterfirld's) work has been debunked numerous times here on FR, but I'm sure we can dredge up the info yet again, as an appeal to your vanity, as it were.

The evience that you have yet to deal with which I have provided is #1-The Red Shift,

I haven't dealt with it because it isn't relevant to your assertions that all things decay and that the speed of light has decayed.

#2-Measured speed decay from about 1890 to 2000,

You assert as fact that which is in contention. The "decay" has never been "measured," only various experimental values for the speed of light. That a handful of people claim that these measured values constitute evidence that there is in fact a decay in the speed of light does not make it so. It is their conclusion. The issue is whether or not the total body of scientific evidence supports this interpretation of the data.

and #3-Observation that all things decay and to believe the contrary is to go against the natural law.

I'm sorry, but all you have provided us for evidence that "all things decay" is:

****"Observation. A car will rust. A tree will die. People grow old and die. Wood will rot."*****

To assert that those four observations constitute a basis for asserting that "all things decay" would constitutes the single greatest advance in the power of logical induction ever achieved by the mind of man. Four casual observations do NOT form the basis for asserting a scientific principle applicable to all of matter and energy. It is woefully insuufficent evidence to conclude much of anything, other than dead organic matter rots and oxidation is a common phenomonon.

What is the "natural law" that you claim is contrary to the non-decay of photons, protons, neutrinos, and electrons?

Your statement that you agree with a lot more scientists is meaningless to the point.

Very good! You are absolutely correct. My opinion has nothing to do with how the Universe actually works. Just as YOUR opinion, and that of a handful of wayward scientists, has nothing to do with the way it works.

Which brings us back to the fact that the burden of proof is on you to back up your assertion that "everything must decay" and that, as a consequence, the speed of light must have decayed.

Please do not allow this response to interfere with your answering "Physicist's" questions (in reply # 156 & 160); feel free to devote your full attention to telling us the answers to these questions before responding to this reply:

1) how long ago did SN1987a occur, and

2) how fast was the speed of light at that time.

As "Physicist" has stated, ballpark figures will suffice, you needn't strain yourself trying to come up with answers down to the last decimal place.

Your post 168 is the most useless, incoherent, ignorant, and deranged pile of unformatted glop I've seen in days.

Er, Patrick, Bryan Number 1276 was not talking to you in that post. He clearly addressed it to Bryan the 1276^th.

But since you chose to have this conversation with yourself on an FR thread, let me also interrupt. This thread details the questions I had for Lambert Dolphin and the answers I didn't get by emailing him. (I eventually heard from Helen Fryman, Setterfield's tech editor, but . . .)

The executive summary of my problems with CDK:

1) While the speed of light is high, the earth and sun are cooking off their nuclear fuel materials at a ridiculous rate, which Setterfield and Norman gleefully note will create "the appearance of age." To keep Adam from being cooked out of Eden, the energy flux is constant due to the redshifting of solar light. But people can't see infrared. Is Adam blind?

2) Everything at the atomic level happens so fast. Shouldn't blind Adam's internal processes be ridiculously fast? Shouldn't he age and die like a mayfly?

3) What about the nuclear decays in the earth? You're either cooking off all that uranium or you aren't. If you are, you're making alpha particles. And they should be flying very fast.

There have been 3 offerings of evidence thus far. As the burden of proof falls on me I offer #1-The Red Shift, i.e.,the degeneration of energy measured by a light spectrum. #2-The natural decay of all enery and matter alike. The contrary, i.e., a perpetual motion machine is unatural and nonexistent inside this created universe. #3-The actual measurements of light from around 1600 to 2000 wherein light has decreased its velocity. What I mean when I say the degeneration in the speed of light: that light, over chronological time slows down and that light, over measured space loses energy. Seeing infrared: No, Adam could see. Adam age like a mayfly: You said all atomic processes happen fast then asked if Adam's internal processes happen fast. Last I checked, organs like the stomach, intestines, heart and such were not "atomic" processes. You answered your own question there. What about the nuclear decay of the earth? Well, what about it.

1) how long ago did SN1987a occur, and Hmmm, probably about 14 years, but that's just my guess. Maybe later, maybe earlier. 2) how fast was the speed of light at that time. This has more to do with how far away it is. But I'd say lightspeed was pretty fast back then too. Hasn't changed measurably I'm sure. As "Physicist" has stated, ballpark figures will suffice, you needn't strain yourself trying to come up with answers down to the last decimal place. I agree cause you wouldn't be able to check out the answers to see if they were correct anyway.

There have been 3 offerings of evidence thus far . . .

The red shift is not evidence for CDK, period. Your second law arguments have been refuted too many times to take you seriously. That leaves your historical data points.

Setterfield originally tried to use this table to show light used to be faster. But, challenged on his methods, he changed his theory. Now he says the observations occurred after the speed of light had bottomed and began bouncing up and down in a damped oscillation.

That also accounts for some of the early measurements being lower than the modern value. But a better explanation is that the early measurements had large error bars which the modern value lies well within. So the nucleus of the evidence justifying this madness is statistical noise.

I gave you A Thread where I detailed the problems with CDK. Perhaps by not reading same, you have failed to deal with anything I said.

Seeing infrared: No, Adam could see.

That looks a lot like what Helen Fryman wrote. What kind of answer is that supposed to be? If Adam could see, the light isn't very redshifted. (How far down into the infrared can you see? Or did God give Adam LF radio antennas for eyes?) If the light isn't very redshifted, you can't cook off the amount of nuclear material in a short time necessary to create the appearance of age claimed by CDK-ers and not cook Adam. You either cook off all that fuel or you don't. If you do, you have to deal with all the reaction byproducts, not just the ones you want to. The only way to de-energize a photon is to redshift it.

Adam age like a mayfly: You said all atomic processes happen fast then asked if Adam's internal processes happen fast. Last I checked, organs like the stomach, intestines, heart and such were not "atomic" processes.

Last time I checked, chemical reactions were the result of the flight of electrons. In Setterfieldian gibberish, the charge of the electron was the same, but the mass of an electron was absurdly diminished on Day 6 of creation. That should make chemical reactions happen absurdly fast.

Similarly, nerve impulses are waves of depolarization rippling down an axon. The molecules flying through the axon membrane are lighter, but the forces on them are the same as now . . .

What about the nuclear decay of the earth? Well, what about it.

Alpha particles (in large numbers) are bad for you. I've heard the claim that the alpha radiation of the rapidly cooking earth would have lifted Adam off of the ground on Day 6 of a Setterfieldian universe.

how long ago did SN1987a occur, and Hmmm, probably about 14 years, but that's just my guess.

Ridiculous. It's 150,000 light years away, and we saw its first light only 14 years ago. If it happened not long before we saw it, that either means that it could only be a tiny fraction of a lightyear away, or that the light travelled instantaneously only 14 years ago. You don't believe any of that, do you? Try again.

Placemarker.

Reread my answer.