Jovaro & tuppence wrote:I do not understand your problems tuppence. I present you with facts and instead for showing proof that my facts are wrong you say:
tuppence wrote:
go, jovaro, and learn....with my blessings....
Lets try it again.
Fact: The speed of light has always been constant.
Argument a: For this argument I would like to quote tuppence from here
tuppence wrote:
So, in a funny way, the speed of light has never slowed (although its speed between virtual particles is incredibly faster than we actually measure the speed of light as being), but through time it has required longer and longer to reach its destination due to the increasing number of virtual particles in existence at any one time -- and they are a result of the increase in the Zero Point Energy in space.
But that is not really what this fact is about, so therefore: the next argument:
Argument b: The data that indicates that the measured value of c has been higher in the past is questionable in more than one way. The first thing that should be questioned is the precision. The further we go in the past, the more the values differ from the expected value of c and the lower the precision of the value is. The second thing to question is the definition of the second. Take a look at Wiki and you see that before 1956 the second was defined as 1/86.400 of a mean solar day. By taking a look at Setterfields report we see that the measured decreasing of c almost comes to a complete halt at 1957. What a coincidence....
Especially if we see the data from the IERS that shows that the earths rotation around its axis is not constant but seems to decrease in speed.
Lets see if we can get a usefull response this time.
_________________
Listen to your heart and open your mind
_______________________________________________________
Posted: Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:11 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jovaro, it doesn't seem to matter how many times something is explained to you, you don't get it, so I have given up and encourage you go please, please go learn.
One note, however, if the simple fact the error margins were larger in the past explains the speed of light data, then WHY are ALL the measurements, regardless of error margins, showing a downward trend toward what the speed of light is now? If the speed of light has always been constant as per time between emission and final absorption, then we would expect the measurements to be on both sides of that speed, but they are not.
The statistical verification for the changing speed of light measurements can be found here:
http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm
And, one more time, the LENGTH of a second or a day has NOTHING to do with our calendar system! It is the time it takes the moon to go around the earth and the earth to go around the sun which are the key things. The FACT that the earth turns on its axis is what makes day and night. The length of a day and night even changes with the seasons! So that is not an issue, let alone the length of an hour or a second!
_________________
born again Christian, non-denominational. Young universe creationist.
___________________________________________________
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 03:29 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you refusing to understand what I am saying or what?
The time it takes for the sun to go from the highest point on its orbit (as seen on earth) to the highest point of its next orbit is marked as 24 hours. Until 1956 the 1/86400 part of this timespan was marked as a second.
We now know that what was marked as 24 hours until 1956 was not always exactly 24 hours due to differences in the rotationalspeed of the earth around its axis.
The tendency even seems to be that days are getting longer and that they were shorter in the past. This tendency can be shown true for about 30 years I guess with the by you so holy data.
Shorter days in the past and thus shorter seconds in the past are a perfect explenation for higher measured values for c in that same past.
Do you understand now?
If not feel free to ask, and will try to make it even clearer.
When you claim that the lenght of a second was not based on the lenght of a day in the past, then I have to tell you that you are wrong. Look at the Wiki encyclopedia or Google and you will see that I am correct.
_________________
Listen to your heart and open your mind
________________________________________________
Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2004 04:49 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The speed of light has been measured a number of ways having nothing at all to do with the length of a second or day. It has been measured using eclipse times of Jupiter's moons in the early days, it has been measured with rotating mirrors, toothed combs, and combinations and variations of these. It does not rely on the length of a second or day.
2. The fact that the earth's rotates on its axis (not around it) is what causes day and night, regardless of the length of either the day or the night!
3. This rotation has nothing to do with measuring the speed of light.
4. All of which is why I urge you to go and learn what you are talking about before you start talking.
And all of which is off topic for this forum, so I will edit out any further posts you make on this forum regarding the speed of light.
The topic is the length of the Genesis day. It was, to accomodate you, between 23 and 25 hours long.
_________________
born again Christian, non-denominational. Young universe creationist.