the changing speed of light. dad, this thread is for you

[Mumbo]

i'd like to know your thoughts on this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y&feature=related

you say that the speed of light, among other things, was different before the fall of man, yes? specifically, it was FASTER!!!, which explains why the universe appears to be billions of years old when it is only 6000 or so. the upshot of this, however, is that this would make the supernova featured in the video much farther away than it appears, even if you factor in the changes that may have happened to the speed of light over time. the faster lightspeed gets, the older the universe gets.

now this sort of thing might defeat the average young-earth creationist, but i'm sure you have a rational explanation! which one would you like to use? does your belief that time in deep space appears to be moving backward muddle things up a bit? did math work differently before the present state? whatever your answer is, i'm sure it's interesting!

 

[moogoob]

Wow, thanks! Great astronomical evidence.

 

[Naraoia]

you say that the speed of light, among other things, was different before the fall of man, yes? specifically, it was slower,...

(faster )

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Astronomical YEC debunking: the most underrated and underused method but nothing like tacking on a few orders of magnitude to the numbers in play to make them look even more silly than they already are.

 

[eri]

Awesome video - I'm keeping the link to that one. I hadn't thought about it in that way before. Good old SN 1987A.

 

[Bushido216]

Big numbers! Ahhhhhhhhh!

 

[dad]

i'd like to know your thoughts on this

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nRmJbP25m-Y&feature=related

you say that the speed of light, among other things, was different before the fall of man, yes? specifically, it was slower, which explains why the universe appears to be billions of years old when it is only 6000 or so. the upshot of this, however, is that this would make the supernova featured in the video much farther away than it appears, even if you factor in the changes that may have happened to the speed of light over time. the slower lightspeed gets, the older the universe gets.

now this sort of thing might defeat the average young-earth creationist, but i'm sure you have a rational explanation! which one would you like to use? does your belief that time in deep space appears to be moving backward muddle things up a bit? did math work differently before the present state? whatever your answer is, i'm sure it's interesting!

I haven't watched the movie yet, maybe later. As for light, it is not that our light was slower or faster, or in existence. The fabric of the universe was different, is the idea there, not that light changed after our light and universe state came to be.

 

[Washington]

I haven't watched the movie yet, maybe later. As for light, it is not that our light was slower or faster, or in existence. The fabric of the universe was different, is the idea there, not that light changed after our light and universe state came to be.

You're right. It wasn't corduroy, it was linen fabric. Must be fun to simply pick out a term and throw it in where ever it sounds good. I'd ask you explain what this "fabric of the universe is" but am afraid of the answer.

 

[Mumbo]

(faster )

see this is why i shouldn't make posts at 4:30 AM, edited

 

[Mumbo]

agreeing with washington, but unlike him i'm not afraid at all of what you're going to say! give me your best shot!!

 

[FishFace]

I haven't watched the movie yet, maybe later. As for light, it is not that our light was slower or faster, or in existence. The fabric of the universe was different, is the idea there, not that light changed after our light and universe state came to be.

Oh! That explains everything!

Now tell us exactly how it was different, why we should be believe it was different and what (and why) exactly that predicts.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I haven't watched the movie yet, maybe later. As for light, it is not that our light was slower or faster, or in existence. The fabric of the universe was different, is the idea there, not that light changed after our light and universe state came to be.

there you go. that's it case closed. i love how creationists try to explain away evidence that debunks their ideas by supposing a universe in which those rules dont apply. The problem is that there would still be consequences. if there are no consequences then it's just omphalos.

 

[RichardT]

I personally really don't like amateur youtube videos. The only videos I actually like that deal with Creation and Evolution are the more professional ones.

 

[Valkhorn]

I personally really don't like amateur youtube videos. The only videos I actually like that deal with Creation and Evolution are the more professional ones.

So in other words you either didn't watch it or are unable to refute the math involved.

How cowardly.

 

[RichardT]

So in other words you either didn't watch it or are unable to refute the math involved.

How cowardly.

Many amateur videos are absolute trash and contain ad hominems.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I personally really don't like amateur youtube videos. The only videos I actually like that deal with Creation and Evolution are the more professional ones.

Many amateur videos are absolute trash and contain ad hominems.

like the professional Hovind debates? his entire position is ad hominem and strawman.

 

[ReverendDG]

I haven't watched the movie yet, maybe later. As for light, it is not that our light was slower or faster, or in existence. The fabric of the universe was different, is the idea there, not that light changed after our light and universe state came to be.

yeah.. is that even an answer to anything?
funny that you never have any evidence to support your nonsense, but expect people to accept your nonsense

 

[BrainHertz]

Many amateur videos are absolute trash and contain ad hominems.

Did it occur to you that your post above is an argument ad hominem?

Do you have a response to the argument made? If it helps, I could write it out in text for you.

 

[eri]

I personally really don't like amateur youtube videos. The only videos I actually like that deal with Creation and Evolution are the more professional ones.

I can assure you that this one is mathematically and scientifically sound. So no worries - you can watch it safely.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

The speed of light is rather tightly built into present physical models.

While the speed of light can probably change a little bit without causing too many problems, a very large change in the speed of light would either result in atoms not being able to exist, or (at the very least) severe changes in the way electrons are bound to nuclei.

This last would probably result in observable optical effects for distant objects (i.e. the emitted and absorbed colors would be very very weird).

28c is probably ridiculous when this is considered. At best it probably would result in severe and noticable distortion, at worst, instability of matter altogether.

Creationists should remember arguments about how "finely tuned" the physical constants are coming from their camp. Screwing with the speed of light this much would completely destroy that fine tuning.