RE: The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old
February 7, 2014 at 2:10 pm
warped one claimed Wrote:That’s measuring the round-trip speed of light which nobody here is disputing. I cannot believe I wasted seven minutes watching that
Wrong. It is measuring the speed of light independently of distance traveled by measuring it's wavelength and multiplying the result by its frequency. If it was a two-way measurement and one-way was different from the other, you would have two different wavelengths. The fact that we only see one wavelength demonstrates not only the isotropic nature of light, but that the speed of light that is conventionally use in ALL OF PHYSICS is correct. And that means that no matter how you try to twist the laws of physics, you will never get a 10,000 year old universe out of one that is 13.7 billion years old.
'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
