Science, Creation & EvolutionSetterfield againIn keeping with trying to get material in one thread to conform to the thread topic, I am erasing this thread of mine in the other thread and putting it here. It actually came just before the material in the post before this one:
**********
tuppence wrote:It is very easy to show a speed of light change right where you are.
Put a straw in a glass of water. It appears that the straw has disconnected somewhat at the surface of the water when you look at it from the side. That is due to a change in light speed due to the medium it is passing through.
That is EXACTLY the same reason we have been able to measure a change in c for the last several hundred years. Things are happening to the 'fabric of space' which have caused this change.
In the meantime, Planck's constant and the mass of the electron have been measured as changing in direct relation to the changes in c.
All of this has absolutely nothing to do with 'one man's crusade' -- it has to do with the data
By the way, Admiral, it's easier to research data than to pull your hair out; usually less painful, too.
justforfun stated the evidence for evolution stands up. WHAT evidence??? I would love to see some!
You wrote, If one man calls you an ass, ignore him. If 100 people call you an ass, buy a saddle. That is a terribly ignorant and mocking statement. It assumes truth is truth by majority rule. History certainly does not bear that out! Now, if a man I know and respect for his knowledge and honesty calls me an ass, then no matter what the hundred other folk say -- even if they think I am brilliant and right and such -- I will considere buying a saddle!
And yes, often it is laypeople arguing on forums. But I am not one and neither is my husband and we have plenty of data and documentation to back up what we say here.
Admiral, the earth is not 6000 years old; it is closer to 8000. Nor has c stopped changing, for the vascillation that is occurring can now be seen in it and a number of other constants now that the curve has flattened out pretty well. You are spending your time ignoring data, and that is doing nothing to help you at all.
Here is a little raw data for you: The three measurements of the atomic constants listed are from 1969, 1980, and 2002, in that order. The trend is then listed as up or down. I think you will find that there have been changes!
COMMITTEE ON DATA FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(CODATA) RECOMMENDED VALUES
The figures in parenthesis are error values as per the last digit(s) in the measurement
Planck’s Constant
x 10-34 Joule-seconds
6.626196 (50)
6.6260755 (40)
6.6260693 (11)
Down
Electron Mass
x 10-31 kilograms
9.109558 (54)
9.1093897 (54)
9.1093826 (16)
Down
Proton Mass
x 10-27 kilograms
1.67265392 (11)
1.67262310 (10)
1.67262171 (29)
Down
Gyromagnetic Ratio
x 10^8 seconds^-1Tesla^-1
26751.270 (82)
26751.5255 (8 )
26751.5333 (23)
Up
Magnetic Flux Quantum
x 10^-15 Weber
2.0678538 (69)
2.06783461 (61)
2.06783372 (18 )
Down
Josephson Constant
x 10^14 Hertz/Volt
4.8359740 (11)
4.8359767 (14)
4.83597879 (41)
Up
Electron charge-to-mass
x 1011 coulomb/kg
1.7588028 (54)
1.75881962 (53)
1.75882012 (15)
Up
Electron charge/h,
x 10^14 Amps/Joule
2.41798805 (12)
2.41798836 (72)
2.41798940 (21)
Up
Rydberg Constant
meters -1
10973731.2 (11)
10973731.5 (0)
10973731.5 (0)
Constant
In other words, Admiral, come back when you have something besides your declarations to offer.
Andreas, the possible change in the fine structure constant has nothing to do with c. One of the terms in the fine structure constant is hc. h, Planck's constant (see aboce chart), is proportional to 1/c. Therefore hc is a constant and no changes in c or h will be reflected in any change in the fine structure constant.
The other way of putting it is that any measured changes in h or c are independent of the fine structure constant.
Is Barry's work starting to gain acceptance? Yes. It is. He has been invited to submit work to a peer reviewed journal. This was a shock to us, albeit a very pleasant one. His paper is in the works.
Going further down (which is actually up...grin) the list of posts here, what I am seeing is just a lot of declarations, mocking, and nay-saying, without any referencing or data at all. You evolutionists, get with it! Quit with the words only stuff and get some science together! You have declared yourselves so many times that it is getting boring to read it again and again.
If we are so stupid and ignorant, you MUST have the data which proves yourselves to be correct.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |