Gravitational Waves are for Real

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
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
 

BaBaBlacksheep

Bears & Cankles.
Staff member
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
43,814
Liked Posts:
52,946
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.
 

ijustposthere

Message Board Hero
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '20
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
34,147
Liked Posts:
26,288
Location:
Any-Town, USA
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Cubs
  1. Chicago Bulls
  1. Chicago Bears
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Michigan Wolverines
  2. Purdue Boilermakers
If that were true why doesn't light freeze at the North Pole?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't think it gets to -460° there.
 

nvanprooyen

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Apr 4, 2011
Posts:
18,757
Liked Posts:
27,291
Location:
Volusia County, FL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
I think it also requires a vacuum, in addition to the temperature
 

ShiftyDevil

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 28, 2011
Posts:
7,276
Liked Posts:
4,663
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Washington Huskies
Photon - The thingie moving around

Speed of Light - The fastest things can move, photons move at this speed as long as shit doesn't **** with them
 

nvanprooyen

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Apr 4, 2011
Posts:
18,757
Liked Posts:
27,291
Location:
Volusia County, FL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
Like that racist, pantless whore Beyone
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
Like that racist, pantless whore Beyone

What does that have to do with vacuums? Shouldn't you be posting on the other site?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Monk

I hate acronyms
Donator
Joined:
Oct 17, 2010
Posts:
15,976
Liked Posts:
6,451
Location:
Greenville, NC
I don't think it gets to -460° there.

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
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,344
Liked Posts:
40,411
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.

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.
 

nvanprooyen

Moderator
Staff member
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Apr 4, 2011
Posts:
18,757
Liked Posts:
27,291
Location:
Volusia County, FL
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Bears
Sucks a lot of D. Woosh.
 

Tjodalv

Discoverer of Dragosaurs
CCS Hall of Fame '22
Joined:
Aug 20, 2012
Posts:
16,062
Liked Posts:
13,668
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

Yeah, because someone claimed that...

:lmao:
 

airtime143

This place is dead and buried.
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
14,990
Liked Posts:
14,794
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.

As I understand the course of the argument, it is typical slapshod results oriented science.
Redshift in essence is the visual results of the universe expanding, supporting the big bang theory.
Doppler effect for light if you will.

the house of cards the research is trying to support is that if light decays in speed, the universe could be static. If the universe is static, then the big bang never happened. If the big bang never happened, then God created all.
 

remydat

CCS Hall of Fame
Donator
CCS Hall of Fame '19
Joined:
Sep 15, 2012
Posts:
63,344
Liked Posts:
40,411
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.
 

airtime143

This place is dead and buried.
CCS Hall of Fame '21
Joined:
Aug 21, 2012
Posts:
14,990
Liked Posts:
14,794
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.

so how long till they try to work in time dilation?
 

ShiftyDevil

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
Apr 28, 2011
Posts:
7,276
Liked Posts:
4,663
My favorite teams
  1. Chicago Blackhawks
  1. Washington Huskies
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.

A lot of gymnastics to take something literal in a book full of allegory and what not.
 

brett05

867-5309
Joined:
Apr 28, 2009
Posts:
27,226
Liked Posts:
4,579
Location:
Hell
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.

unfamiliar with this, but thanks.
 

Top