portegys@ihuxv.UUCP (10/25/83)
Although Dr. Brown's talk on scientific creationism was not
very good - far too little specific information, and far too
many unsupported claims - the thing he said about the speed
of light decreasing over the years was interesting. I know
some people have analysed the effects of this (Lew Mammel),
but there was another aspect which was not considered for
its own sake.
Although I don't think he came right out and said it, I suppose that
the support for creationism to be drawn from this is that
stars which are in excess of 6,000 light years distant, yet
which we can observe, are no longer evidence for the universe
being older than 6,000 years. 6,000 years or so is the proposed
age of the universe for creationists.
Dr. Brown even went as far as mentioning that the speed change
also explains the Doppler observed in stars, with, of course,
no further expansion on his part. In my understanding of the
Doppler effect, the greater the speed of light, the less effect in
the form of red or blue shift should be observed. Is this right?
If I am wrong on this, you can stop reading now.
I also assume that once light is emitted from a body at a certain
frequency as measured by an observer, that it will remain at that
frequency, even if its speed changes.
So, if I can see a star which is 10,000 light years away, then
if I am to believe a creationist, the light which is hitting my
eye was once moving faster than it is right now. Then, if that
star is moving away from me, I should be able to detect a more
and more pronounce red shift effect as time goes on, since
subsequent light was emitted at a slower speed. This might make
me think that the star is accelerating away from me, had I
not believed in the light speed change theory.
What's more, this effect contradicts the observed greater red
shift in more distant stars, which makes me suspect that
I might be wrong in my thinking.
Tom Portegys, Bell Labs IH, ihuxv!portegys