RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
December 12, 2013 at 10:47 pm
orogenicman Wrote:Warped one,
warped one Wrote:Who?
I think you know who.
orogenicman Wrote:if the speed of light is not a constant, what do you think that does for all the astronomical discoveries made in the last 100 years? What does it do for the Hubble constant, the expanding universe, the fact that other galaxies are not a part of our own? The constancy of the speed of light made all these discoveries possible.
warped one Wrote:No, the consistency of the round-trip speed of light made all of those discoveries possible. Nobody here is arguing that the round-trip speed of light is not constant.
You have been arguing for a young universe (or Earth, whatever) based on your interpretation that the speed of light (one-way, whatever) is not a constant. Here you are admitting that the velocity of light (be it two-way, or whatever - what we use in equations determining the standard candle) is a constant in a vacuum. This is an important admission since you cannot make this admission and then come to the conclusion that the universe is young. Hence my statement below:
orogenicman Wrote:Since you don't believe that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant, how do you fit 100 billion galaxies inside our own? Or do you own some magical ruler that somehow shrinks when exposed to the Bible?
warped one Wrote:I have no idea what you are talking about here. The round-trip speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
So you are saying that you admit that the universe cannot be young. Is this a breakthrough? Or what? Do you want to rephrase your earlier bullshite statements, or what?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens
"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".
- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "
- Dr. Donald Prothero
