10/19/2007 11:30:07 PM
Einstein (if it even was him) claimed that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant.
Everyone (yes, even Einstein!) knows that if you put light through some other medium it'll slow down.
Well, then there are quantum effects.
But really you're just reaching, now. "Oh, that could explain my version of events, so let's not care whether it actually does or not and just say it does! I are such great science good greatness!"
10/19/2007 11:30:39 PM
Knowing what you're talking about makes a more convincing argument.
10/19/2007 11:44:41 PM
"Records of the
speed of light made over the last four centuries indicate that its speed was
faster in the past."
What records are these? Hows it feel to be such a liar Roger? Trying to be another Kent Hovind?
To the tune of "Bringing In The Sheaves".
Lying for Jesus!
Lying for Jesus!
let's all get together to lie for Jesus!
And so forth...
Sorry I can't think up lyrics tonight, my brain has been near destroyed by reading fundie nonsense.
10/19/2007 11:51:12 PM
People, when will you realise that there are no lengths to which god will not go to disprove his existence? He just doesn't want people bothering him for eternity so he's shunting us all to hell. That's why he keeps creating mountains of evidence against himself.
10/20/2007 12:08:12 AM
What's "almost infinitely fast"? Is that, like, infinity minus five m/s?
10/20/2007 12:30:09 AM
Scientist have get life to change its speed?, WTF are you speaking about?
10/20/2007 12:34:35 AM
Lightspeed "C"... is constant... IN A VACUUM arsehole.
Quote mining dickheads who only bother to half read information make baby Jesus cry
10/20/2007 12:37:28 AM
I'd ask you for a link to that experiment but it probably doesn't exist.
10/20/2007 12:39:27 AM
The writers for Star Trek came up with convenient machines and theories to fix certain plot problems or unknowns. I suspect you fundies might have taught them how to do this on a grand scale. Ignorance of something does not change if you merely make a bunch of crap up to catalog it and shove it under the rug.
10/20/2007 12:53:27 AM
Does 'speed of light in a vacuum' mean anything to you?
10/20/2007 12:58:24 AM
Oh, and would God have a hard time changing the speed of light if we couldn't do it?
10/20/2007 12:59:04 AM
10/20/2007 1:58:03 AM
I'm still trying to decide whether Pastor Roger is honestly ignorant or willfully lying.
10/20/2007 2:31:07 AM
there are two types of fundies in the world, those who say science is satanic and those who try (and fail) to use science to prove god.
10/20/2007 2:41:11 AM
Cue The USS Make Shit Up...
10/20/2007 4:18:56 AM
Try new Pastor Roger brand concentrated nonsense! This 8-oz bottle of Pastor Roger contains as much nonsense as this 32-oz bottle of the leading brand of regular nonsense.
10/20/2007 7:34:23 AM
Do you PAY YOUR TAXES Roger? Got a degree from a college in a trailer-park? This made up pseudo-scientific nonsense sounds an awful lot like a well known federally convicted liar and tax cheat that we all know over here.
10/20/2007 9:11:10 AM
Fibbing for jeebus again?
10/20/2007 10:24:45 AM
And your Ph.D in physics is from which of the great accredited universities again Roger?
Oh, you don't have one?
Then shut the fuck up about topics on which your state of knowledge is inferior to that of an amoeba.
10/20/2007 10:58:01 AM
"Does 'speed of light in a vacuum' mean anything to you?"
You complete bastard, Roger's just ruined my brand new vacuum clearner by smashing it open and shining a torch in it. I expect you to pay for a replacement.
10/20/2007 11:03:41 AM
I'd say Pastor Roger just increased the speed of dimness here.
10/20/2007 11:33:11 AM
It's always amusing when fundy pastors correct scientists.
10/20/2007 5:03:28 PM
Maybe I've screwed up the math, but wouldn't a decreasing speed of light cause supernova SN1987a to be even longer ago and give us older dates? If light was, say, 100 times faster when SN1987a exploded, that would mean it was 100 times further away: a=b/(arctan x), where a is the distance and b is the radius of the dust ring. If light was 100 times faster 6,000 years ago, that would make b 100 times bigger (b=ktc), where t is the time it took the light to reach the dust ring (known and fixed by observation - about 200 days) c=the speed of light, k is an adjustment for the tilt of the ring. Since k, t and x don't change (they're based on Hubble observations), a would also be 100 times bigger. At a constant 300,000 km/s, light travels 5.7x10^16 km in 6,000 years. At 30,000,000 km/s decreasing to 300,000 km/s over 6,000 years, it would travel 2.9x10^18 km, which is only 51 times as far, not 100. What am I missing?
10/20/2007 8:04:33 PM
Why would light slow down as time progressed, that doesn't make any sense!
10/20/2007 11:33:43 PM