lol, it's the first thing to come up when I googled 'speed of light slowing down'. Also notice in that crappy article, that's published by the way, that red shift is clearly gaining a mention. Also, the evidence is only suggestive which is all I ever said. I never said there is substantial proof. Adrian's the proof maniac, not me.
Anyways, why shouldn't red shift naturally have a slowing effect on light waves. After all, doesn't the infrared end of the spectrum propagate at 'slower' speeds! How else does refraction work.

(January 18, 2010 at 4:31 pm)MasterDebater Wrote: I don't believe in god

Then you are an atheist, by definition. No matter what you wish to label yourself as, if you do not believe in God, then by definition you are an 'atheist'.

And that leaves absolutely everything open. Except God(s)...

Well, of course, you could always change your mind and start believing in God, it's just that then you'd no longer be an atheist

EvF

(January 22, 2010 at 9:57 am)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(January 18, 2010 at 4:31 pm)MasterDebater Wrote: I don't believe in god

Then you are an atheist, by definition. No matter what you wish to label yourself as, if you do not believe in God, then by definition you are an 'atheist'.

And that leaves absolutely everything open. Except God(s)...

Well, of course, you could always change your mind and start believing in God, it's just that then you'd no longer be an atheist

EvF

Why are you not satisfied with the statement MasterDebater just made? Is there any new information in the assertion that he is an atheist that not already is in his otherwise very clear statement? And if there is any new information in the atheist label, why do you attribute it to him without asking?

(January 22, 2010 at 7:28 am)TruthWorthy Wrote: lol, it's the first thing to come up when I googled 'speed of light slowing down'. Also notice in that crappy article, that's published by the way, that red shift is clearly gaining a mention. Also, the evidence is only suggestive which is all I ever said. I never said there is substantial proof. Adrian's the proof maniac, not me.
Anyways, why shouldn't red shift naturally have a slowing effect on light waves. After all, doesn't the infrared end of the spectrum propagate at 'slower' speeds! How else does refraction work.

The article is pathetic. It's an attempt to show that the Genesis account could be real, since the site is run by creationists. Find some actual research please. If the measurements in the article are true (and I highly doubt they are, since WND tends to make up shit all the time), then all it shows is that measuring has become far more accurate.

Your statements about red-shift show your complete lack of understanding of physics. Red shift occurs because space is expanding as light moves away from us, stretching the wavelength of the light. This doesn't slow light down though, because the frequency is also shortened by a proportional amount. The speed of light 'c' is calculated by multiplying the frequency and wavelength of the light (as is the calculation for any speed of a wave).

c = fλ

If the wavelength is doubled, the frequency is halved. End result: same speed.

No, the infrared end of the spectrum doesn't travel slower than the ultraviolet end of the spectrum *facepalm*. They have different wavelengths and frequencies, but the same speed.

The reason refraction occurs is because when entering a different medium (in this case, glass), the speed of light and the wavelength changes, but the frequency doesn't. The refractive index of glass varies with frequency, resulting in dispersion of the different frequencies of light into the colours of the visible spectrum.

When you picture yourself a sphere with a radius of 6,000 lightyears (ly) with the earth at the center, the sphere would not be big enough to leave our galaxy. The distance from the earth to the center of the galaxy is 30,000 ly and the thickness of the plain is about 1,000 ly. Creationism is so pathetic. It really should act as a huge warning sign how religion can fuck up da brain.

Even if their theory is correct and their measurements (a linear trend) accurately reflect time slowing down, the universe would have only slowed down 81,140m/s total (average .073% per year) over 6000 years making the time required for visible light from distant galaxies to reach faster by only 0.79%, meaning there is still light from 13.2 billion light years away that we can observe, but the universe is 6000 years old

Thanks adrian, I feel like a goof - again! Why isn't there a fucking law against creationists?

I remember reading theories back in the 70's on time in relationship to an expanding universe. As the universe expands time would slow down. If time slowed down, the speed of light would slow down also, although I don't know if we could measure it because we would be in the same frame of reference.

(January 22, 2010 at 3:35 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Why are you not satisfied with the statement MasterDebater just made? Is there any new information in the assertion that he is an atheist that not already is in his otherwise very clear statement? And if there is any new information in the atheist label, why do you attribute it to him without asking?

He said he wasn't sure if he was an atheist or agnostic, so I replied that that statement alone (assuming it's true) makes him an atheist by definition.

EvF

So now you are sure about it. What about MasterDebater? Have you checked?