Science, Creation & EvolutionSetterfield againMister Emu wrote:
I realize that I probably have no right to be discussing such things(I'm in high school and know little about physics having yet to even take the HS course on it) but, why doesn't someone who wishes to disprove the C-decay work just use one of the older lightspeed tests, if it consistantly shows up within the ranges that were previously recorded(with the same instruments) than you could say no decay has occured, if on the other hand a consistant lower (with the same instrument) than the previous(however long ago) reading than could you not say with at least a modicum of certainty that C has decayed?
Several points.
- No single modern observation supports his hypothesis. For most people there is no reason to wish to disprove him. They are simply not interested.
- There is too much data and the way it is presented doesn't help to review it.
- It's not so easy as it seems. To interpret older measurements you have to know much about the older standards. They didn't have atomic clocks, for example.
- Some of the data was allready reviewed. The reviews can be found on talkorigins and on the webpage of the Institute for Creation Research.
- Nobody trust his data because it can easily seen that his conclusions are absurd. There is no reason to assume that his data is correct if his conclusions are flawed. For example there is no way ever, to determine the explicit curve of the decay or how c behaved in the last 6000 years. The error bars are too big.
- There are other publications which affirm a constant speed of light.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |