Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
New or Grew?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SelfSim" data-source="post: 75799460" data-attributes="member: 354922"><p>No .. Sub luminal speeds are no problem, and the speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum, is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer (which has been abundantly verified via measurements).</p><p>IOW the speed of light in a vacuum, is a universal <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant" target="_blank">physical <u>constant</u></a>.</p><p>I am unclear what that has to do with your above question??</p><p>'Doppler shift' is not <em>an explanation</em> for the concluded age of the universe(??)</p><p>Expansion is inferred from the observed recession of distant objects.</p><p>I can't see how 'the rate of expansion' somehow acts to cancel out your words(?) I mean, <em>the rate</em> also appears to have changed over the period of time to the present.</p><p>I do not have a clue what you're talking about here .. you seem to be very confused on this topic(?)</p><p>I don't understand where you're coming from on this.</p><p>Others may care to explain further but until you get the basics clearly nailed in your mind, you should refrain from making accusations about others' understanding and how they have arrived at it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SelfSim, post: 75799460, member: 354922"] No .. Sub luminal speeds are no problem, and the speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum, is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer (which has been abundantly verified via measurements). IOW the speed of light in a vacuum, is a universal [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_constant']physical [U]constant[/U][/URL]. I am unclear what that has to do with your above question?? 'Doppler shift' is not [I]an explanation[/I] for the concluded age of the universe(??) Expansion is inferred from the observed recession of distant objects. I can't see how 'the rate of expansion' somehow acts to cancel out your words(?) I mean, [I]the rate[/I] also appears to have changed over the period of time to the present. I do not have a clue what you're talking about here .. you seem to be very confused on this topic(?) I don't understand where you're coming from on this. Others may care to explain further but until you get the basics clearly nailed in your mind, you should refrain from making accusations about others' understanding and how they have arrived at it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
New or Grew?
Top
Bottom