Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ps418 · 10-07-2002, 01:26 PM

<a href="http://www.alphagalileo.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=readRelease&Releaseid=11105" target="_blank">Astronomers put quasars in their place </a>

Quote:

A team of UK astronomers, led by postgraduate student Ed Hawkins, has made a decisive step toward resolving an argument that has rumbled on in the astronomical community for decades. The scientists from the University of Nottingham have been investigating the properties of quasars and nearby galaxies. As part of this study, they have overturned previous analyses which suggested that these two classes of object are physically associated, thus confirming the alternative, more widely-held view that quasars are some of the most distant objects in the Universe.

If I recall correctly (and I may not!), some YECs were arguing that quasars are actually very close objects (relatively speaking), supposedly obviating their relavance to 'cosmic evolution.' Looks like that idea can be put to rest.

theyeti · 10-07-2002, 03:34 PM

Unless it was thought they're within 6000 light years, I think that argument should have been put to rest a long time ago.

Dr.GH · 10-07-2002, 03:39 PM

Thanks for the link. I have already had the opportunity to use it on another BB.

Doubting Didymus · 10-07-2002, 03:47 PM

No, no, no.

You see, Einstein was recently provened wrong. light was much much faster in the past! So quazers could've been created a short time ago, but still have the cosmic stuff reach eath in time. The end.

wehappyfew · 10-07-2002, 04:19 PM

Well, you have to go read this thread to see the contortions Creationists will put themselves through over the redshift quantization idea:

<a href="http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000010.html" target="_blank">http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000010.html</a>

I don't make an appearance until the very end, so feel free to skip the seemingly endless nitpicking in the middle.

Coragyps · 10-07-2002, 04:22 PM

This study appears to also put another nail or two in the coffin of the "quantized redshift" scenario that some earlier redshift data had suggested.

It never fails to amuse me that YEC folks make such darlings out of Fred Hoyle and Halton Arp because of their maverick views on certain pieces of cosmology. Both men required a many-million-of-light-year across universe for any of their theories to work, and a many-billion-year-old one at that! Odd, the YEC mind.

ps418 · 10-07-2002, 04:35 PM

Howdy WeHappyFew! We've missed you. Nice work on the helium retention in zircon thread, BTW.

Answerer · 10-08-2002, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>No, no, no.

You see, Einstein was recently provened wrong. light was much much faster in the past! So quazers could've been created a short time ago, but still have the cosmic stuff reach eath in time. The end.</strong>

Well, I thought that the fact of light had travelling faster than its current speed in the past, isn't going to affect the age of the universe much. So, is it or not?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 10-08-2002, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>No, no, no.

You see, Einstein was recently provened wrong. light was much much faster in the past! So quazers could've been created a short time ago, but still have the cosmic stuff reach eath in time. The end.</strong>

Actually, it wouldn't be that light was faster in the past--the meter was shorter. This leads to LOTS of very, very interestingresults if "c decay" were really true.

Why would the meter have been shorter? Well, we defined the meter in terms of the speed of light fairly recently (not in response to C decay, btw, but rather because we could more accurately measure the speed of light than we could a meter :eek

. If light was faster, the only way it could have been so would be if the meter was shorter. This would actualy make the ark feasiblem, as well as a decaying magnetic field, but atmospheric pressure, the size of people, dinosaurs, gravity, etc would have been MUCH greater. Gravity 4 times the size it is now, with a dinousaur about 2 times as big... that is some MIGHTY force.

Shadowy Man · 10-08-2002, 06:38 AM

Doubting Didymus:

Quote:

No, no, no.

You see, Einstein was recently provened wrong. light was much much faster in the past! So quazers could've been created a short time ago, but still have the cosmic stuff reach eath in time. The end.

If you are referring to the result of Davies, Davis, and Lineweaver (Nature 418, 2002) then the change in the speed of light over the past 6-10 billion years has been about 1 part in 100,000. This is not quite consistent with "much much faster".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-07-2002, 03:34 PM	#2
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Unless it was thought they're within 6000 light years, I think that argument should have been put to rest a long time ago.

10-07-2002, 03:39 PM	#3
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Thanks for the link. I have already had the opportunity to use it on another BB.

10-07-2002, 03:47 PM	#4
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	No, no, no. You see, Einstein was recently provened wrong. light was much much faster in the past! So quazers could've been created a short time ago, but still have the cosmic stuff reach eath in time. The end.

10-07-2002, 04:19 PM	#5
wehappyfew Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Virginia Posts: 43	Well, you have to go read this thread to see the contortions Creationists will put themselves through over the redshift quantization idea: <a href="http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000010.html" target="_blank">http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000010.html</a> I don't make an appearance until the very end, so feel free to skip the seemingly endless nitpicking in the middle.

10-07-2002, 04:22 PM	#6
Coragyps Veteran Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Snyder,Texas,USA Posts: 4,411	This study appears to also put another nail or two in the coffin of the "quantized redshift" scenario that some earlier redshift data had suggested. It never fails to amuse me that YEC folks make such darlings out of Fred Hoyle and Halton Arp because of their maverick views on certain pieces of cosmology. Both men required a many-million-of-light-year across universe for any of their theories to work, and a many-billion-year-old one at that! Odd, the YEC mind.

10-07-2002, 04:35 PM	#7
ps418 Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Louisville, KY, USA Posts: 1,840	Howdy WeHappyFew! We've missed you. Nice work on the helium retention in zircon thread, BTW.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.