Oldest Galaxies

DoogieTalons

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
If what we see in in slow motion then light was moving faster back then ? if it was then the refelction would have been quicker MUCH quicker. If what we see is in such slow motion that the reflections appearing .66 light years away in 8 months ( Current Speed of Light )


Explain to me what possible mathematics or speed could be involved to show the following please...

In 1987 we see a Supernova at an approx distance of 169,000 years.

169,000 years ago a supernova happened, at the speed of light dust clouds .66 light years away reflect the light from the supernova.

In october 1987 we observe the reflections here on earth.

There is no way any slow motion theory of your could explain this rationaly.

It happened Bob b it was witnessed here on earth and the measurements match exactly the current speed of light.

Slowed Down up we would witness a quicker reflection or a reflection "Further Away" we would witness a calculation of any decay rate but we didn't.

IF we are watching a slowed down version we would witness the reflections quicker as they would have physically happened quicker if light traveled faster then.

We are not watching a slow motion of the cosmos unfolding Bob B, not to the tune of 169,000 years that's ludicrous you have to bend the laws of physics into a bloomin Pretzel to even imagine it.

If you are sure show me calculations I'll show you mine.

Speed of light circa 2007 299792458 metres per second

Distance from earth of SN 1987 169,000 Light Years
Distance from earth of Dustclouds 169,000 Light Years
Distance of dust clouds from SN 1987 .66 light years.

Witness of SN 1987 Jan 1987
Witness of SN 1987 reflections Sept 1987

ergo Light wasn't moving quicker then or now. and if we were seeing events in slow motion we would stil lsee the reflections quicker.

Bob, some say when two opposing views meet the truth must lie somewhere in the middle.

I say no YOU ARE JUST WRONG.

7,000 year old universe is nonsense, just pure and simple. It's laughable, and stupid to make up dumb maths with ifs and buts to fill in the gaps. Like your god your theorys are just to fill the gaps to stop you going over the edge, to love science and see it shake your faith has led you down this path of blind ignorance bob and I pity you.

If you teach any of this stuff you should be locked away for preserving ignorance.

After reading your wily ways around the laws of physics the gloves are off

You're a clown and you're here not to educate put to entertain.

I love science ? if you love it, why do you butcher it so ?
 
Vern Reed

Vern Reed

BANNED
Banned
bob b said:
This is just one of the reasons why there are a growing number of cosmologists doubting the accuracy of the Big Bang hypothesis.
Click to expand...

And as you see doubts put forward, your mind immediately surmises that if the Big Bang may be wrong, the universe HAS to be 6000yrs old. That's one hell of a jump.
 
DoogieTalons

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Vern Reed said:
And as you see doubts put forward, your mind immediately surmises that if the Big Bang may be wrong, the universe HAS to be 6000yrs old. That's one hell of a jump.
Click to expand...
The problem is Vern, Bob didn't instanlty surmise the the universe HAS to be 6000 odd years old, he already had that belief, so searched for cracks in science that may let his god peek through.

The problem is he finds small stresses and sticks a metaphysical tire iron in them trying desperatly to fight his own cognative dissonance.

It's sad to watch really.

Bob seems to be a "Physicist" a "Geologist" and a "Biologist" yet if you read the mission statement on the AiG website which he so often uses as defence and has himself made a similar statement:

"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

When you approach a problem with such an impassive positon, you're never going to learn very much. Your knowledge will become retarded.
"retard: to slow the growth or development of"

If you think the Answers are in Genesis Bob... read Genesis and be happy with it, what else are you looking for ? If it's validation, you won't find it in science.
 
H

Hank

New member
bob b said:
Setterfield claims that the speed of light has decayed in the last 6000-7000 years.

My concept is different: I claim that the expansion of the universe occurred extremely rapidly (within one revolution of the Earth).

These are completely different concepts.

But the two different concepts do share one phenomenon in common: what we receive in our telescopes today is a slow motion version of what happened in the past among the stars and galaxies.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the speed of light has never changed?
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hank said:
Are you saying the speed of light has never changed?
Click to expand...
I think that if a star exploded while the universe was being stretched out then the light reaching us would have always travelled at the same speed, but given the acceleration of the star away from Earth the light would reach us in a stretched out fashion.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
DoogieTalons said:
If what we see in in slow motion then light was moving faster back then ? if it was then the refelction would have been quicker MUCH quicker. If what we see is in such slow motion that the reflections appearing .66 light years away in 8 months ( Current Speed of Light )
Explain to me what possible mathematics or speed could be involved to show the following please...
In 1987 we see a Supernova at an approx distance of 169,000 years.
169,000 years ago a supernova happened, at the speed of light dust clouds .66 light years away reflect the light from the supernova.
In october 1987 we observe the reflections here on earth.
There is no way any slow motion theory of your could explain this rationaly.
It happened Bob b it was witnessed here on earth and the measurements match exactly the current speed of light.
Click to expand...

Doogie, you need to take a course in beginning astronomy. Even if we assume that the universe is expanding at a slow rate as Big Bang advocate do, one still has to correct the measurements to take into account that the universe has expanded since the light rays were admitted. In other words the Supernova was not 169,000 light years away when the waves were emitted. Also the light waves were stretched out also, so that what is received today in the telescopes is not the same as when the waves were admitted. Thus, the Red Shift must be taken into account. In other words time has been affected.

But if the universe was expanded more rapidly than the Big Bang assumes, the corrections would be larger (way larger).
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Doogie. Here is what Setterfield says about SN1987A:

Supernovas

1987A

Comment: By the way, there's a pretty easy way to demonstrate that the speed of light has been constant for about 160,000 years using Supernova 1987A.

Setterfield: It has been stated on a number of occasions that Supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) has effectively demonstrated that the speed of light, c, is a constant. There are two phenomena associated with SN1987A that lead some to this erroneous conclusion. The first of these features was the exponential decay in the relevant part of the light-intensity curve. This gave sufficient evidence that it was powered by the release of energy from the radioactive decay of cobalt 56 whose half-life is well-known. The second feature was the enlarging rings of light from the explosion that illuminated the sheets of gas and dust some distance from the supernova. We know the approximate distance to the LMC (about 165,000 to 170,000 light years), and we know the angular distance of the ring from the supernova. It is a simple calculation to find how far the gas and dust sheets are from the supernova.

Consequently, we can calculate how long it should take light to get from the supernova to the sheets, and how long the peak intensity should take to pass.

The problem with the radioactive decay rate is that this would have been faster if the speed of light was higher. This would lead to a shorter half-life than the light-intensity curve revealed. For example, if c were 10 times its current value (c now), the half-life would be only 1/10th of what it is today, so the light-intensity curve should decay in 1/10th of the time it takes today. In a similar fashion, it might be expected that if c was 10c now at the supernova, the light should have illuminated the sheets and formed the rings in only 1/10th of the time at today's speed. Unfortunately, or so it seems, both the light intensity curve and the timing of the appearance of the rings (and their disappearance) are in accord with a value for c equal to c now. Therefore it is assumed that this is the proof needed that c has not changed since light was emitted from the LMC, some 170,000 light years away.

However, there is one factor that negates this conclusion for both these features of SN1987A. Let us accept, for the sake of illustration, that c WAS equal to 10c now at the LMC at the time of the explosion. Furthermore, according to the c decay (cDK) hypothesis, light-speed is the same at any instant right throughout the cosmos due to the properties of the physical vacuum. Therefore, light will always arrive at earth with the current value of c now. This means that in transit, light from the supernova has been slowing down. By the time it reaches the earth, it is only travelling at 1/10th of its speed at emission by SN1987A. As a consequence the rate at which we are receiving information from that light beam is now 1/10th of the rate at which it was emitted. In other words we are seeing this entire event in slow-motion. The light-intensity curve may have indeed decayed 10 times faster, and the light may indeed have reached the sheets 10 times sooner than expected on constant c. Our dilemma is that we cannot prove it for sure because of the slow-motion effect. At the same time this cannot be used to disprove the cDK hypothesis. As a consequence other physical evidence is needed to resolve the dilemma. This is done in Atomic Quantum States, Light and the Redshift where it is shown that the redshift of light from distant galaxies gives a value for c at the moment of emission.

By way of clarification, at NO time have I ever claimed the apparent superluminal expansion of quasar jets verify higher values of c in the past. The slow-motion effect discussed earlier rules that out absolutely. The standard solution to that problem is accepted here. The accepted distance of the sheets of matter from the supernova is also not in question. That is fixed by angular measurement. What IS affected by the slow motion effect is the apparent time it took for light to get to those sheets from the supernova, and the rate at which the light-rings on those sheets grew.

Additional Note: In order to clarify some confusion on the SN1987A issue and light-speed, let me give another illustration that does not depend on the geometry of triangles etc. Remember, distances do not change with changing light-speed. Even though it is customary to give distances in light-years (LY), that distance is fixed even if light-speed is changing.

To start, we note that it has been established that the distance from SN1987A to the sheet of material that reflected the peak intensity of the light burst from the SN, is 2 LY, a fixed distance. Imagine that this distance is subdivided into 24 equal light-months (LM). Again the LM is a fixed distance. Imagine further that as the peak of the light burst from the SN moved out towards the sheet of material, it emitted a pulse in the direction of the earth every time it passed a LM subdivision. After 24 LM subdivisions the peak burst reached the sheet.

Let us assume that there is no substantive change in light-speed from the time of the light-burst until the sheet becomes illuminated. Let us further assume for the sake of illustration, that the value of light-speed at the time of the outburst was 10c now. This means that the light-burst traversed the DISTANCE of 24 LM or 2 LY in a TIME of just 2.4 months. It further means that as the travelling light-burst emitted a pulse at each 1 LM subdivision, the series of pulses were emitted 1/10th month apart IN TIME.

However, as this series of pulses travelled to earth, the speed of light slowed down to its present value. It means that the information contained in those pulses now passes our earth-bound observers at a rate that is 10 times slower than the original event. Accordingly, the pulses arrive at earth spaced one month apart in time. Observers on earth assume that c is constant since the pulses were emitted at a DISTANCE of 1 LM apart and the pulses are spaced one month apart in TIME.

The conclusion is that this slow-motion effect makes it impossible to find the value of c at the moment of emission by this sort of process. By a similar line of reasoning, superluminal jets from quasars can be shown to pose just as much of a problem on the variable c model as on conventional theory. The standard explanation therefore is accepted here.[/quote]
 
DoogieTalons

DoogieTalons

BANNED
Banned
Man that's really reaching.

It's like me saying but If ther's no god then the universe is older.... without proof.

We have no evidence that light has slowed to what it is now from the massive speed neeed to show this effect, too much else would be inconsistant.

You're about as far off on calulations as me saying

"If you lived next door I could be at your house in five minutes..."

"but you don't your in america..."

"yes but if you lived next door you could be here in five minutes... but you don't..."

repeat ad nausem.

I think I'll stick with real science bob, leave you to your psedo stuff and just debate theology on here (For now :chuckle:). It makes sense.
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
DoogieTalons said:
Man that's really reaching.

It's like me saying but If ther's no god then the universe is older.... without proof.

We have no evidence that light has slowed to what it is now from the massive speed neeed to show this effect, too much else would be inconsistant.

You're about as far off on calulations as me saying

"If you lived next door I could be at your house in five minutes..."

"but you don't your in america..."

"yes but if you lived next door you could be here in five minutes... but you don't..."

repeat ad nausem.

I think I'll stick with real science bob, leave you to your psedo stuff and just debate theology on here (For now :chuckle:). It makes sense.
Click to expand...

From Wikipedia article Faster Than Light

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion

Universal expansion
The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, if comoving distance and cosmological time are used to calculate the speeds of these galaxies. However, in general relativity, velocity is a local notion, so velocity calculated using comoving coordinates does not have any simple relation to velocity calculated locally.[citation needed] Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies. This expansion rate is thought to have been at its peak during the inflationary epoch thought to have occurred in a tiny fraction of the second after the Big Bang (models suggest the period would have been from around 10-36 seconds after the Big Bang to around 10-33 seconds), when the universe may have rapidly expanded by a factor of around 1020 - 1030.[12]
 
H

Hank

New member
bob b said:
Setterfield claims that the speed of light has decayed in the last 6000-7000 years.

My concept is different: I claim that the expansion of the universe occurred extremely rapidly (within one revolution of the Earth).

These are completely different concepts.

But the two different concepts do share one phenomenon in common: what we receive in our telescopes today is a slow motion version of what happened in the past among the stars and galaxies.
Click to expand...

Bob, are you saying the speed of light has never changed?
 
B

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Hank said:
Has the maximum speed of light changed
Click to expand...

The maximum effective speed of light can we larger than what is measured today. This is due to there being no limit to the speed of expansion of space, which because it is in the coordinates of space is not effected by Einstein's limit which only refers to material objects. See Wikipedia.

So during the inflationary period, the effective speed of light was millions of times faster than what we measure today.

If God was the motive force behind the expansion of space, then a mere 10-33 seconds increase in the inflationary period would have expanded the universe to its current size. The inflation then stopped, and because of the proper motion (and hence velocity red shift) of nearby stars (within 6000 light years distance) we would not be aware that the expansion had ceased.
 
zoo22

zoo22

Well-known member
Hank said:
Has the maximum speed of light changed
Click to expand...

Whatever anyone tells you ^ they don't know.

(Unless they have been hiding the proof from the rest of the world).

The speed of light may be constant, it may not be.
 
J

Johnny

New member
bob b said:
The maximum effective speed of light can we larger than what is measured today. This is due to there being no limit to the speed of expansion of space, which because it is in the coordinates of space is not effected by Einstein's limit which only refers to material objects. See Wikipedia.

So during the inflationary period, the effective speed of light was millions of times faster than what we measure today.
Click to expand...
But the speed relative to matter in the universe would remain constant because the matter was expanding along with the light. So it really becomes meaningless to say the "effective speed of light was millions of times faster" because there is nothing to compare the speed to. In other words, if you assume some object stationary outside the universe, then it one might say "the effective relative speed to an object outside of the universe was millions of times faster". But when comparing to objects inside the expanding universe, such as the Earth, an observer would notice no change in the speed of light because he would be expanding with the same proportion the light waves expanded. Do you agree?

I'm starting to believe you and I have very different ideas of what you're trying to explain. Perhaps I've been misunderstanding this whole time. You claim the expansion solves the light problem. Is this because the Earth and said stars / galaxies were all compressed into close proximity initially (thus allowing the light to reach earth), and then the expansion occurred which stretched the light waves in transit and caused a redshift? Or is it because you believe that somehow the expansion can make light travel faster towards the Earth? If it's the latter, could you please respond to the above? If it's neither, please clarify.
 
H

Hank

New member
bob b said:
The maximum effective speed of light can we larger than what is measured today. This is due to there being no limit to the speed of expansion of space, which because it is in the coordinates of space is not effected by Einstein's limit which only refers to material objects. See Wikipedia.

So during the inflationary period, the effective speed of light was millions of times faster than what we measure today.

If God was the motive force behind the expansion of space, then a mere 10-33 seconds increase in the inflationary period would have expanded the universe to its current size. The inflation then stopped, and because of the proper motion (and hence velocity red shift) of nearby stars (within 6000 light years distance) we would not be aware that the expansion had ceased.
Click to expand...

Has the maximum speed of light changed? Not talking about effective speed or measuring relative to space expanding, but actual speed. I don't need the theological implications, just a simple answer. Has the maximum speed of light changed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top