Just finished reading it. Very interesting book. Covered some things I knew about, brought up some points I did not know about. I will definitely be buying it used from Amazon.
I remember reading years ago, that supposedly many of the oldest measurements of the speed of light were actually higher than today's, and generally the older, the faster. The claim was that it wasn't because of errors and lack of accuracy, but it was because light actually was faster, then. How they figured that, I dunno.
Timmy, c is slowing down. Here is a site that explains how it is measured, and gives a chart showing the rate of slowing.
In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)
The Article is really a good read. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733
One physist theorized that c actually speeds up and slows, like a wave, through time. Also interesting.
Here is a wiki article that talks about the effects of varible c on different branches of physics and cosmology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
Timmy, c is slowing down. Here is a site that explains how it is measured, and gives a chart showing the rate of slowing.
In 1738: 303,320 +/- 310 km/second
In 1861: 300,050 +/- 60 km/second
In 1877: 299,921 +/- 13 km/second
In 2004: 299,792 km/second (accepted constant)
The Article is really a good read. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39733
One physist theorized that c actually speeds up and slows, like a wave, through time. Also interesting.
Here is a wiki article that talks about the effects of varible c on different branches of physics and cosmology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light
Using a pocket watch in the 1700's to measure the speed of light will inevitably be fraught with inadequacies. Using an oscilloscope in the 21st Century will give you a more precise reading. Since the advent of electrical measuring devices the speed of light seems to have stabilized. Curious.
The World Net Daily article was based upon an article written by the lovable gadfly, Lambert Dolphin. The World Net Daily article failed to give us all the details. For some reason. I dunno.
To line up the dates and alleged "speeds of light" like they did without providing the means in which that data was collected and failing to mention that only selected data points were used is just the sort of stuff that I was complaining about earlier, Orthodoxy. We have to go back to the original artical by Dolphin to get the facts.
The article is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Notice the cluster of "data" from the pre-electrical world? And then only one year (2004) is even used from the time period since Einstein's first paper on Relativity (1905). Why is that? No mention of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887 either.
Somebody came up with a formula for the speed of light over time, and it was the craziest thing you've ever seen! It was claimed to be the best fit for the data points, but taking it back to a few thousand years ago gave outrageously high speeds. Quite amusing.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Somebody came up with a formula for the speed of light over time, and it was the craziest thing you've ever seen! It was claimed to be the best fit for the data points, but taking it back to a few thousand years ago gave outrageously high speeds. Quite amusing.
The "data" is selected from observations from the pre-industrial era and that will conform to the desired outcome. The other pre-industrial observations are then tossed out. - http://ldolphin.org/constc.shtml - It was Barry Setterfield's paper that started this.
Next, a single, more accurate observation from the industrial era is compared.
Why take several observations from the late 1700's through 1877 and then only a single observation from the 20th Century?
They do this because their hearts are set to deceive people. They have no love of truth and so a strong delusion has come upon them and they end up believing their own lies.
These evil men and seducers, being deceived themselves then deceive others. "Bible believers" from North America are a relatively affluent bunch of saps and are thus the target audience.
Look at the billions that has gone into Jim Bakker, Benny Hinn, the "Laughing Revival," and that kook in Florida who used to assault the elderly to get them to be "slain in the spirit" - only to dump his wife and run off with his girlfriend.
And we turn to their cohorts in deception for "scientific" information? Whatta a bunch of rubes!
Using a pocket watch in the 1700's to measure the speed of light will inevitably be fraught with inadequacies. Using an oscilloscope in the 21st Century will give you a more precise reading. Since the advent of electrical measuring devices the speed of light seems to have stabilized. Curious.
The World Net Daily article was based upon an article written by the lovable gadfly, Lambert Dolphin. The World Net Daily article failed to give us all the details. For some reason. I dunno.
To line up the dates and alleged "speeds of light" like they did without providing the means in which that data was collected and failing to mention that only selected data points were used is just the sort of stuff that I was complaining about earlier, Orthodoxy. We have to go back to the original artical by Dolphin to get the facts.
The article is a deliberate attempt to mislead. Notice the cluster of "data" from the pre-electrical world? And then only one year (2004) is even used from the time period since Einstein's first paper on Relativity (1905). Why is that? No mention of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887 either.
Brother David,
Thank you so much for explaining the article. Can you further explain your first sentence regarding the data and "increasing" speed? It is really increasing or is that data flawed in some way? Because you also write, "Since the advent of electrical measuring devices the speed of light seems to have stabilized."
In your opinion, is c a constant that we were all taught, or is it speeding/slowing or possibly move in waves?
We, as ministers, like to say, "time is speeding up." I know we mean the time of God (Moed, Karios), but is there some physical truth to the statment; does Chronos have variences?
The "view" that the earth is just 6,000 to 10,000 years old isn't just an "alternate opinion" that may or may not be valid. It is ridiculous.
I'm not sure how you can say that YEC is not even worthy of being considered an "alternate opinion."
Some of the most widely-respected and educated contemporary evangelical teachers are young-earth, six-day creationists including Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. Albert Mohler, Dr. Ligon Duncan, and the late Dr. D. James Kennedy. (If you want sources, I'll get them for you.)
Also, as I'm sure you know, the vast majority of the church leaders throughout history held the same view. And there are many documented PhD scientists from respected schools around the world who hold to YEC.
I'm not sure how you can say that YEC is not even worthy of being considered an "alternate opinion."
Some of the most widely-respected and educated contemporary evangelical teachers are young-earth, six-day creationists including Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Dr. Albert Mohler, Dr. Ligon Duncan, and the late Dr. D. James Kennedy. (If you want sources, I'll get them for you.)
Also, as I'm sure you know, the vast majority of the church leaders throughout history held the same view. And there are hundreds of documented Ph.D. scientists around the world who hold to YEC.
There will be blood! 
Linear Mode
