- Joined:
- Oct 17, 2010
- Posts:
- 15,976
- Liked Posts:
- 6,451
- Location:
- Greenville, NC
If that were true why doesn't light freeze at the North Pole?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If that were true why doesn't light freeze at the North Pole?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Santa and his elves have warmed the North Pole too much.
If that were true why doesn't light freeze at the North Pole?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think it also requires a vacuum, in addition to the temperature
Like that racist, pantless whore Beyone
I don't think it gets to -460° there.
I thought that its been shown that light speed is not a constant? I also thought there is debate on red shift?
You may be thinking of photons. In a vacuum photons travel out the speed of light, but like anything else their rate of speed can be altered.
It doesn't matter what you think really. The fact is light does not freeze at the North Pole. Despite what others would have you believe
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No I think Brett is referencing the work of Barry Setterfield who has argued that the speed of light decays over time and thus it was much faster in the past and hence the age of the universe is much younger. The speed of light is required for radioactive decay dating as well so if the speed of light was not constant then the measurements for radioactive decay are off as well.
So as you might have guessed from the above, it's a young earth creationist theory. There are some anomalies in the speed of light and red shift that raise the question but the evidence thus far presented by Setterfied is flawed as he had some errors in his calculations.
I think the other argument is that the big bang happened with the aid of God of course but back then the speed of light was so much faster that what we think we see being 13.7 billion light years away is actually only 10 thousand light years away because it started it's journey when light was much faster so took a shorter time to get here.
I believe in order for this to work light would have to be something like a million times faster than what it currently is.
I think the other argument is that the big bang happened with the aid of God of course but back then the speed of light was so much faster that what we think we see being 13.7 billion light years away is actually only 10 thousand light years away because it started it's journey when light was much faster so took a shorter time to get here.
I believe in order for this to work light would have to be something like a million times faster than what it currently is.
With love? They warn it with love don't they?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No I think Brett is referencing the work of Barry Setterfield who has argued that the speed of light decays over time and thus it was much faster in the past and hence the age of the universe is much younger. The speed of light is required for radioactive decay dating as well so if the speed of light was not constant then the measurements for radioactive decay are off as well.
So as you might have guessed from the above, it's a young earth creationist theory. There are some anomalies in the speed of light and red shift that raise the question but the evidence thus far presented by Setterfied is flawed as he had some errors in his calculations.