On Apr 4, 7:17 am, rogue
hotmail.com> wrote:> On Apr 4, 3:26 am, "Kadaitcha Man"
gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
gmail.com> wrote in message>
>
>>> Because Galaxies Are Billions of Light-Years Away, Isn't the Universe
>>> Billions of Years Old? 3
>
>>> If either Setterfield or Troitskii is correct, the big bang theory
>>> will fall (with a big bang).
>
>>> Other cosmologists are proposing an enormous decay in the speed of
>>> light (8). Several of their theoretical problems with the big bang
>>> theory are solved if light once traveled millions of times faster (9).
>
>>> 8. "We have shown how a time varying speed of light could provide a
>>> resolution to the well-known cosmological puzzles." Andreas Albrecht
>>> and Jo=E3o Magueijo, "A Time Varying Speed of Light as a Solution to
>>> Cosmological Puzzles," Physical Review D, 15 February 1999, p.
>>> 043516-9. [The authors state that light may have traveled thirty
>>> orders of magnitude faster than it does today!]
>
>>> "It is remarkable when you can find one simple idea [a decaying speed
>>> of light] that has so many appealing consequences." John D. Barrow,
>>> Professor of Astronomy and Director of the Astronomy Centre at the
>>> University of Sussex, as quoted by Steve Farrar, "Speed of Light
>>> Slowing Down," London Sunday Times, 15 November 1998.
>
>>> "If light initially moved much faster than it does today and then
>>> decelerated sufficiently rapidly early in the history of the Universe,
>>> then all three cosmological problems--the horizon, flatness and lambda
>>> problems--can be solved at once." John D. Barrow, "Is Nothing Sacred?"
>>> New Scientist, Vol. 163, 24 July 1999, p. 28.
>
>>> Two comments: First, each problem Barrow mentions is actually a
>>> reason for concluding the big bang theory is wrong. Second, no
>>> scientific law says the speed of light is a constant. It has only been
>>> assumed to be such. In fact, today it is arbitrarily defined as a
>>> constant. W.B.
>
>>> 9. For example, "the horizon problem" recognizes that opposite
>>> extremes of the universe have the same temperature and laws of
>>> physics. Why should this be? The universe isn't old enough for such
>>> vastly separated regions to have ever had contact with each other.
>>> Light doesn't travel fast enough--at least today.
>
>
>> Just that last point shows the failure of your whole proposition.
>
>> Heisenberg's uncertainty principal heralded the solution for the "the
>> horizon problem" as far back as 1925, and inflation theory solved it
>> completely, along with "the magnetic monopole problem" and "the flatness
>> problem" in one fell swoop, you fact-dropping nutbar.
>
>> --
>> PT.IndoSat Kupang Nusa Tenggara Timur Indonesia
>
> JERRY
> You should quit grasping at straws you don't understand and actually
> learn some science. Evolution has already been proved. It's proved
> in the lab. It's proved in the field. It's proved in the fossil
> record. Mosd of what theists throw up as "proof" are nothing more
> than arguments from incredulity and straw man arguments based upon
> their lack of knowledge in science.
>
> The Big Bang and abiogenesis has nothing whatsoever to do with
> evolution. Evolution is the process by which life changes and adapts
> in order to survive, nothing more. Even if you could prove the Big
> Bang wrong, that wouldn't disprove evolution.
sorry, my response was meant for the person you were responding to.
