Slashdot Mirror

Just as the electric interactions manifest to us in the form of waves or particles, so also gravity is theorized to be manifest as gravitational waves or particles that have been named gravitons. Even though billions have been spent in building detectors which are supposed to detect gravity waves, none have ever been found. These constructs appear to be only mathematical entities existing in cosmologists and physicist's equations. Dark matter and dark energy as well as black holes are also in this category. They are inferred by mathematics, but but never directly observed.

Since the equations for gravity contain no terms related in any way to the speed of light, it is not likely therefore then that gravity is limited to the speed of light which we happen to measure today. Electromagnetic energy appears to be limited by the medium through which it propagates. Light travels more slowly through many other substances, such as glass or water. No one has ever discovered a medium through which light travels faster than through so-called “empty space”. Space is not really an empty nothing, but has certain measurable electrical and magnetic properties. No one really knows WHY light travels at the speed we observe it to do today. There is a theory that it has something to do with the zero point energy. You can read about it here in terms that the average person should be able to understand, especially someone that visits /.

http://www.setterfield.org/000docs/behaviorzpe.html

Zero point energy limits the speed at which the electromagnetic phenomena can propagate. Both moving matter and energy are electromagnetic and are therefore subject to the relativistic speed limit imposed by the present density of the zero point energy. Since gravity is not electrical in nature, the zero point energy imposes no limit on the velocity of its propagation.

It is not possible to “shield” against gravity, at least not by any technology that we know about, so by our knowledge we cannot use gravity as a means of communication. We do not really shield against electrical/magnetic phenomena, but are able to generate equal and opposite electromagnetic fields which have the effect of canceling out the incident field. If humanity ever discovers antigravity, then that would also allow us to communicate instantaneously throughout the universe. Our physical world of electrical charges is however always limited by the medium of space itself to the speed of light.

...You know, this would be so much easier if you would do the very basic courtesy of providing sources for your assertions...

Well, if you really want to dig deeply into this, here is a place to start:

http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html

Pay special attention to the references given at the end of the article. I hope you have plenty of time to look into this with an open mind.

Remember, that real progress in science has NEVER been done by the consensus of the majority or a large committee.

Any time constancy and linearity over a large amount of time is promulgated, it is time to get suspicious. About the only thing constant in nature is change. We live in a dynamic, ever changing universe. Postulating slow uniform processes over great spans of time is not in keeping with the observed dynamics of the Universe. The entire solar system bears the hallmarks of a violent past. On Earth there is evidence of sudden catastrophes, such as impacts of asteroids, monstrous volcanic outbursts and floods that made great changes very quickly. One look look at the moon or mars will show you the great number of these events.

Therefore, it is not so far fetched to assume that NOTHING is truly constant for very long. Ask any Physicist. There is NO law of physics that says that the speed of light MUST be constant.

Wow, you have an open mind, sort of. Anyway, let me propose something to you that puts a nail in the head of evolution. Look up information regarding the logarithmic decay of the speed of light. Photons affect radioactive decay and the changing speed of light affects the rate of radioactive decay. There is clear scientific evidence light is slowing down (less so now because of the logarithmic nature of the decrease). With that said, if carbon dating is based on radioactive decay and decay is based on the speed of light, carbon dating needs fixed. The anwers need modified to show accurate dates. When those dates are modified correctly billions of years turns into thousands which blows evolution out of the water. I'd like your opinion on the matter if you would be so kind. I found this site which discusses the speed of light decay. An interesting timeline is also provided which shows a different view of earth's age

Wow, you have an open mind, sort of. Anyway, let me propose something to you that puts a nail in the head of evolution. Look up information regarding the logarithmic decay of the speed of light. Photons affect radioactive decay and the changing speed of light affects the rate of radioactive decay. There is clear scientific evidence light is slowing down (less so now because of the logarithmic nature of the decrease). With that said, if carbon dating is based on radioactive decay and decay is based on the speed of light, carbon dating needs fixed. The anwers need modified to show accurate dates. When those dates are modified correctly billions of years turns into thousands which blows evolution out of the water. I'd like your opinion on the matter if you would be so kind. I found this site which discusses the speed of light decay. An interesting timeline is also provided which shows a different view of earth's age

Because the speed of light affects atomic decay and there is proof the speed of light has always been decreasing, radiocarbon dating of fossils and anything else is put into question. Not to say the values are wrong, but they aren't the final values because they don't take into account the fact that c has always been decaying which changes the carbon date results. Gary Setterfield has a ton of information on this topic on his site along with referenced research papers for those who think evolution (which needs millions/billions of years) is unquestionably correct. A timeline matching up traditional geological ages with the real ages of the universe is also on his site here which seems to be appropriate for this story. If anyone has some sites that refute these claims I'd like to read them.

Because the speed of light affects atomic decay and there is proof the speed of light has always been decreasing, radiocarbon dating of fossils and anything else is put into question. Not to say the values are wrong, but they aren't the final values because they don't take into account the fact that c has always been decaying which changes the carbon date results. Gary Setterfield has a ton of information on this topic on his site along with referenced research papers for those who think evolution (which needs millions/billions of years) is unquestionably correct. A timeline matching up traditional geological ages with the real ages of the universe is also on his site here which seems to be appropriate for this story. If anyone has some sites that refute these claims I'd like to read them.

....Seeing as the earth must be angularly decelerating at an excruciatingly slow rate......

At present, measuring the distance of the earth to sun to great accuracy is less feasible than doing this for the earth moon relationship. Both the earth and the moon are thought to be (by evolutionary theory) about the same age. It is a measured fact that the moon is receding from the earth a little each year. Figuring the present rate backwards would place the moon in contact with the earth in only a few hundred thousand gravity years, not millions or even billions. The possibilities are: 1) The earth "captured" the moon or it was ripped out of the earth much later, 2) The earth and moon are not nearly as old as evolutionary beliefs postulate.

The rate at which comets lose material can be plainly observed. A comet should not last more than about 15,000 gravity years. The fact that comets still exist means either the universe is very young or comets are being still made somewhere. No evidence has been OBSERVED for a spawning place for comets. There are some mathematical speculations about an Oort cloud, but NO observations of such.

(.....I'd like to see a citation or something; that's a hell of a claim.....)

The most detailed, easily understood source, with all sorts of citations, should you be inclined to pursue this, is found at:

http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html

You will find there a rather comprehensive history of man's measuring of one of the fundaments "constants", namely the speed of light. Planck's Constant is inversely related to this and appears in the equations governing atomic phenomena, including radioactivity which of course is used for dating rocks, both from the earth and the moon and other sources. The speed of light is highly variable, dependent on the medium it propagated in. If the medium changes, the speed changes. Space is just another medium, having measured electrical and magnetic properties. If its properties change, then the speed of light through will also.

Fossils are a major cornerstone of evolutionary theory. Yet nobody has ever made a fossil in the laboratory or observed one in process of formation today. Today, if an organism dies, it provides food for another, but NEVER makes a fossil.

Like I said, evolution is a belief system, just like any other religion. The difference is that it is cloaked in the mantle of science and funded by taxpayer money in the US.

found this:
PIONEER 10 AND 11 ACCELERATION ANOMALY

Basically says (i think), that one possible explanation is c is not constant.

.

First I would like to point out that ID is falsifiable just as Evolution is falsifiable; as a matter of fact they are opposites of each other, in other words, if you prove one you disprove the other, this has been stated by many atheists.

Quote:
Evolutionist Quote of the Week

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.

For all of you who have not taken the time to actually delve in to the finer points of irreducibly complex systems here is an article that might help:

Notice the credentials of the author:
Joseph W. Francis
Associate Professor of Biology
Cedarville College, Ohio

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb20 1.htm

I believe this man is no different than you or I in that he is in all security doing the best job he can and following the facts as he sees them.

Scientists speak about evolution:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"--*Charles Darwin

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1 .htm#top

More information about evolution the atheists don't want you to know:

http://evolution-facts.org/

More links:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/

One of my favorites: "The Origin of Language and Communication"
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

I understand you will dismiss the authority of these scientists because the day they admit they are a Christian they all of a sudden become blabbering idiots. It reminds me of a friend of mine who teaches hand-to-hand combat to the special forces, he upset his teacher and his teacher demoted him from 7th degree black belt to white belt, like all of a sudden his knowledge was sucked out of him by magic, he is still one of the toughest guys I know, LOL.

BTW - Having a formal education in physics, and three engineering disciplines I was very skeptical when I came across this information. The problem was, as a scientist, I was curious and the more I studied the more I realized these other scientists weren't a bunch of crackpots. These scientists felt so strongly about what they had learned they sacrificed their careers in order to pursue alternate scientific postulations of the given data.

Given limited resources, they have driven discoveries in the field of science that the current university system has totally ignored because of the atheistic agenda. This is the very system that puts boundaries on scientific study based on personal beliefs and the ACLUs control by amending our constitution with Thomas Jefferson's unofficial letters to justify their atheistic position.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when an atheistic or

Actually, red shift does tell us some things, but its not what you think :)

For more information on Quantized Redshifts, i would reccomend http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm
I admit it's pretty dry reading, but the implications are emormous!

I guess there are a few professional rocket scientists hanging out here (and plenty of amateurs...), so now is a good time to ask a question that has bugged me for a long time:

Has any consensus been reached over what has caused the unexpected change in velocity of the Pioneer 10 and 11, Ulysses and Galileo probes? Remember this?

Since this was announced I've done some regular googling to see if this has ever been adequately explained. There are plenty of pages out there with plenty of theories, but most of the sites discussing this also have theories about things like zero-point energy generators, perpetual motion machines, that sort of stuff... Hardly the sort of thing that smells of proper scientific method.

Other theories include drag from dust, Changing velocity of light and "tired light redshift" (what the HELL is THAT???)

I have found this paper, which looks very interesting, and much more authoritive, but its is unfortunately waaay over my head!

There is still a lot of discussion on this topic, can any astrophysics lurking here comment? Are we looking at a modification of gravity? Does this tie in with dark matter/energy?

Ta :)

It could be, of course, that there's actually some merit to Barry Setterfield's theory that the speed of light is not constant, but rather has been decreasing throughout history.

Barry is an Australian scientist as well. He's a long-time supporter of CDK (C decay).

But of course, when an Atheist thinks the matter through instead of simply reporting what he finds, anything which tends to support CDK is quickly binned. CDK offers a neat, simple solution to speed-of-light objections to a recent six-day creation of the world on one hand, and hard limits to the age of the universe on the other.

`Close to infinity' describes the mental oscillations needed to remain an Atheist in the face of a mounting stack of observations indicating the impossibility of your position.

Barry is an Australian scientist as well. He's a long-time supporter of CDK (C decay).

But of course, when an Atheist thinks the matter through instead of simply reporting what he finds, anything which tends to support CDK is quickly binned. CDK offers a neat, simple solution to speed-of-light objections to a recent six-day creation of the world on one hand, and hard limits to the age of the universe on the other.

`Close to infinity' describes the mental oscillations needed to remain an Atheist in the face of a mounting stack of observations indicating the impossibility of your position.