| Greene's Creationism Truth Filter |
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/50599
From: Steve Heiden Dear BereanSpirit readers, In light of recent news announced by NASA-funded researchers, it may turn out that I've been wrong about SN1987A having occurred 168,000 years ago. It looks like the star may really have actually exploded within the last few years instead, which would mean of course that the supernova occurred well within a time frame of only 6,000 years. See the news release below.
Sincerely, David E. Steitz Headquarters, Washington (Phone: 202/358-1730) Cynthia M. O'Carroll Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. (Phone: 301/614-5563) Embargoed until: April 1, 2002 RELEASE: 02-62b ASTROPHYSICS TEAM FINDS "JUMPS" IN SPEED OF LIGHT Recent technology upgrades to the Hubble Space Telescope has allowed researchers to investigate "quantum anomalies" in the relativistic fabric of space. Using this data astronomers have determined that light that is far from a gravitational source travels at an effective velocity at least a million times faster than the standard speed of light. Using data from observations with HST's new APAC camera, and a refined theory of relativity based on quantum mechanical effects, a team of astrophysicists led by Dr. Donald Mathieu (University of Florida) and Dr. Stan Hedrick (University of Arizona) determined that discontinuities existed in the fine structure-constant. "The reason previous researchers have missed these anomalies is that astronomers have focused on studying stars in galaxies, and there has been no systematic study of energy sources in intergalactic space," said Mathieu. "We've found with such sources between galaxies that what is known as the fine-structure 'constant' isn't a constant at all but in these regions between galaxies it can take on whole different orders of magnitude. These observations are going to revolutionize astronomy in the 21st century." Using new observational survey software developed by NASA, the team was able to map the changes in values across a large volume of the universe within 100 million light-years of Earth. They found that the fine-structure constant actually took on a variety of what seemed to be discrete values, rather than a continuous range, and that almost all of these values were at least a million times smaller than what is thought of as the standard value of the fine-structure constant. Hedrick said, "An implication of these changes is that when light is not close to a gravitational source, such as a star, the speed of light fluctuates radically, but only in discrete steps. If light is not near a star, the much smaller fine-structure value means that light's speed jumps to at least a million times what we normally think of as the speed of light." Another member of the team, Dr. Sean Turke (University of Texas) said, "We completed our survey and analysis over a year ago, but due to the revolutionary nature of the results, we wanted to go over our work exhaustively before presenting it to the astronomy community. Based on this data, what astronomers should realize is that while we've thought for several decades that our observations of galaxies have come from millions and billions of years ago, we are really seeing the entire universe pretty much as it has existed within the last several thousand years. Needless to say, we're facing a great deal of skepticism from fellow astronomers." The team is currently acquiring additional survey data from more areas of the sky, and seeking to determine that exact nature of the discrete values that the fine-structure value takes on. Additional information is available at: http://www.nasa.gov/releases/2002/index.html http://www.astro.ufl.edu/news.html http://ali.opi.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/1/wa/Science http://www.as.utexas.edu/astronomy/
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/50678
From: Steve Heiden Dear BereanSpirit readers, As you may know, yesterday was April 1st. Dr. Donald Mathieu (University of Florida), initials DM, is made up using the initials of David Mathews, who lives in Florida. Dr. Stan Hedrick (University of Arizona), initials SH, is made up using the initials of Steve Heiden, who lives in Arizona. Dr. Sean Turke (University of Texas), initials ST, is made up using the initials of Scott Tucker, who I believe lives in Texas (I'm not sure). If you were watching space-related news several days ago, the Hubble Space Telescope did in fact receive substantial technology upgrades (solar panels replacement, NICMOS camera refigeration unit replacement, and new APAC camera). As far as I know, the HST has not been used for any studies at all since that time, since these upgrades were just recently installed and are currently undergoing a testing phase. The four internet references are legitimate links, they just don't happen to have anything about any studies showing that the speed of light jumps. (I don't know if it's still there today, but yesterday the NASA news links web page did have its very own April 1st prank news release on that page.) Unfortunately, I must note that my April 1st joke apparently failed in that it doesn't seem to have fooled anyone. Personally, what I find amusing about this fake news story, is that this is precisely the kind of scientific news that young earth creationists should have routinely -- but which is completely nonexistent. Indeed, there are already existing astronomical studies that contradict every empirical element of this fake news story. After this, I will post a discussion of mine regarding the fine-structure constant and how genuine empirical observations contradict the thesis of young earth creationists -- April 1st is over.
Chuckling, |
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/50679
From: Steve Heiden Dear Keith, Thank you for the appreciative comment. Please note that a big difference between young earth creationists and me is that I only jest with the truth one day out of the year! Therefore, I only have 1/365ths of the shame that they have!
Chuckling, --- In BereanSpirit, Keith Sisman wrote: > Great post Steve, great post. Tis a shame you jest, but to jest > with truth? > > > Dear BereanSpirit readers, > > In light of recent news announced by NASA-funded researchers, it > may turn out that I've been wrong about SN1987A having occurred > 168,000 years ago. It looks like the star may really have actually > exploded within the last few years instead, which would mean of > course that the supernova occurred well within a time frame of > only 6,000 years.
|
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BereanSpirit/message/50680
From: Steve Heiden Dear BereanSpirit readers, A few months ago I was discussing the subject of the antiquity of the universe and earth in another forum, and when the issue was raised concerning a decay in the speed of light, I discussed the fine structure constant. I thought this might be of some interest and use to you here. I'm simply going to copy portions of my post below. If anyone happens to be interested in the general context of this post, I would refer him to that group's archive (but note that the archive is private, so you have to become a member of the group to view it; also note that "Ann Gerhon" is not the other writer's real name -- name changed to protect the guilty!). Of course, if someone wishes to discuss this subject here, I will do so.
Sincerely, from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianastronomy/message/498
From: Steve Heiden Dear Ann Gerhon, You are failing to deal with the fact that our observations of the universe do in fact come from the distant past due to the propagation time involved. You have raised the issue of whether or not this propagation time may have been radically different in the past, but everyone, including young earth creationists, knows that our observations of the universe are direct observations of the past. When you claim that "You were not there any more than any of these scientists were" you are in fact making an incorrect statement. Since our observations of the universe are in fact observations of the past (leaving open for the moment the consideration of just how far this past is that we observe), we are there. Every time we observe the events that we observe taking place somewhere in the universe we are observing what took place there at some point in time in the past. [snip] You assume the young earth creationist interpretation of Genesis 1, then based on this assumption you claim that "the laws of science today are not the laws of science as they were" about 6,000 years ago. Yet other than your assumption that the YEC interpretation of Genesis 1 is the correct interpretation, do you have any objective evidence to support your contention that the laws of science were different about 6,000 years? Here's a hint: Since our observations of the universe are in fact observations of the past, then if the laws of science were different, we should observe that the laws were different when we observe the past. You base your objection on your assumption that "we [referring to astronomers] assume that all of the universe...transmits light in the same way." You presume that it is astronomers who merely assume that the speed of light was the same in the past. This is a false presumption on your part. It is by the astronomical observations themselves that we can observe characteristics of light at times in the past. We observe that light's speed was the same 6,000 years ago, and 168,000 years ago, and 2.4 million years ago, and so on. A fundamental feature of astronomical observations is spectral lines, and it is in the details of the spectral lines themselves that you can empirically determine a characteristic called the "fine structure constant." Now, even though it's called the "fine structure constant," it may not actually be constant. For years some cosmologists (such as Joao Magueijo, a theoretical physicist at Imperial College in London, England) have proposed that the speed of light was far different for a tiny fraction of a second following the Big Bang before it settled out to its current value. However, a recent study by John Webb (University of New South Wales in Sydney) and some colleagues, using observations made with the Keck Observatory, has provided some tentative evidence that several billion years ago the fine structure constant was actually about 0.001 percent smaller than it is now. If this is correct, this would itself indicate the possibility that several billion years ago the speed of light was a tiny fraction faster that it is now. So here are the two points to understand about this for our current discussion: There has been no change (or, if there was, the change was less than detection limits) within the past several billion years. And if there was a change in the fine structure constant several billion years ago (remember that the results of the current study are considered tentative until further research is done), the change in the speed of light, if there was any change at all (because a change in the fine structure constant does not necessarily imply a change in the speed of light), was only by a small percentage of the current speed. Here are some internet references about the fine structure constant:
"Fundamental constant swells" (Nature)
"The Quasar Absorption Line Fine Structure Experiment" The last link provides several other internet reference for you to explore this particular subject further, if you wish. You should also be aware that Barry Setterfield's speculation (which is what you are arguing for) has also been abandoned by most leading young earth creationists.
Sincerely, --- In christianastronomy, Ann Gerhon wrote: > Dear Steve, > > Yes, I do know what you are talking about. I'm not denying > that by today's standards this Supernova explosion had to have > taken place more than 6,000 years ago. However I believe in an > unlimited God. No one was around to observe it eighteen thousand > years ago and that is my point. You were not there anymore than > any of these scientists were. The laws of science today are not > the laws of science as they were when God created Adam. Living > things did not die when God created Adam. Now they do. The laws > of science changed at least in one manner when Adam sinned. It > is also a well known observation that things, whatever they may > be, do not always decay at a uniform rate. I may not age as fast > as someone else but faster than their brother. Many scientist > attempt to apply uniform principles to astronomy when they would > not think of doing so in say, the medical field. > > You provided me with evidence, but not with observable proof. > (See my last post.) [snip] --- In christianastronomy, Ann Gerhon wrote: > ...I know that you're basing how long ago this supernova exploded > on the time it would take light to reach us from something X > millions of miles away. My objection to this method is in that we > don't know all of what's out there. Sound does not travel through > air and water in the same manner. Why do we assume that all of > the universe consists of the same matter and transmits light in > the same way? I'm as guilty as anyone else of basing my > conclusions on my limited knowledge, so please don't read any > accusation here. It just seems that this method requires > everything to work in the same manner it does in our limited > corner of the universe.
|