Science, Creation & EvolutionDinosaurs?warpus wrote:However, here again you are not responding to all that I post. How can time be different for those is spacecraft A versus sapcecraft B, and how do you explain how a person traveling at a constant 1G acceleration can live billions of orbital years?
Time passes slower for an observer who is travelling closer to the speed of light.
Why?
Jovaro, E=mc^2 tells us the amount of energy (which has mass) in a closed system equals the amount of mass (which is energy) times light speed squared. This formula will always work regardless of the speed of light. Before 1941
Question: Was this material about the speed of light changing talked about before?
Setterfield: Between 1880 and 1941 there were over 50 articles in the journal Nature alone addressing the topic of the decline in the actual measured values of lightspeed ( c). For example in 1931, after listing the four most recent determinations of c, De Bray commented in Nature "If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, invariably, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained ...? There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it" (his emphasis). The interest was world-wide, and included the French, English, American, German and Russians. In addition, these discussions included some consideration of the fate of the newly developing concept of relativity if c were not a constant.
The whole discussion was brought to a close in August of 1941 by Professor R. T. Birge in an article dealing with the changing values of the atomic constants "With special reference to the speed of light" as the title stated. Birge's first paragraph raised many questions. In part it read: "This article is being written upon request, and at this time upon request.... Any belief in a change in the physical constants of nature is contrary to the spirit of science" (his emphasis) [Reports on Progress in Physics (Vol. 8, pp.90-100, 1941)]. Although this article effectively closed the whole discussion, the data trend continued. This was documented in our 1987 Report.
http://www.setterfield.org/history.htm#before1941
Now, I could take the time to research the above but why since Barry has it all in just 2 paragraphs. Is the speed of light constant and has it been constant throughout human history? Based on historical measurements the answer is no, and based on the current work of a minority of scientists other than creationists the answer is also no. Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time Magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.
As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik.
The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2. It is attributed by convention to be the sole province of Albert Einstein (1905). However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton ("Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another...", 1704). The equation can be attributed to S. Tolver Preston (1875), to Jules Henri Poincaré (1900; according to Brown, 1967) and to Olinto De Pretto (1904) before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2 (Ives, 1952), there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
So, I will ask you again why should I believe Einstein?
C is defined not because C has a historical measurement but for convenience and uniformity, therefore although Setterfield's theories may not be popular they carry as much validity as Einstein.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |