Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Here's an interesting comparison of science and the Bible.  You can
    really see the imprint of God now that we know the truth!
    
    Earth is Round
    --------------
    For centuries, people believe the earth was flat.  Obviously these
    people ignored God's Word.
    
    Isaiah 40:22  "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
    inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens 
    as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
    
    Earth hangs in Space
    --------------------
    'State-of-the-art' thinking in ancient times seem to agree with the
    myths from the Islamic Koran and Hindu Veda about the earth riding on 
    the back of the turtle. 
    
    Job 26:7  "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth 
    the earth upon nothing."
    
    Stars are Innumerable
    ---------------------
    It wasn't until within the last 20 years or so that astronomers have
    finally realized that the stars are innumerable, and use the volume of
    sand on seashores as a model.  In ancient times, astronomers would catalog 
    stars that they've counted.  For quite some time, they believed there 
    were only 1,200 stars!
    
    Genesis 15:5 "And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward 
    heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said 
    unto him, So shall thy seed be."
    
    Nuclear Fusion
    --------------
    For years, Bible critics used to use this passage as proof that the
    Bible was false.  The reasoning was that nothing of this magnitude
    could destroy the earth this way.  Now we know better.  The Hebrew word
    for "dissolve" ("destroyed" in some versions) literally means to
    "untie."  This is exactly what happens when splitting atoms.  Untying
    them is what causes the great releases of energy.
    
    2 Peter 3:10-12 "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the
    night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and 
    the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works 
    that are therein shall be.  Seeing then that all these things shall be
    dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation 
    and godliness,  Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of
    God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the 
    elements shall melt with fervent heat?"  
    
    Oceans' Floor
    -------------
    For centuries, man believed the floor of the seas were smooth and
    gently sloping.  Now we know otherwise.  The infamous Marianas Trench
    is 7 miles deep.  You could put Mt. Everest inside of it and still have
    over 1 mile of water over it!
    
    Job 38:16 "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea? or hast thou
    walked in the search of the depth?"
    
    Jonah 2:5-6 "The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth 
    closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.  I went
    down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me 
    for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O LORD my
    God."
    
    Sea Currents
    ------------
    Interesting background on this one.  The man who went on to chart all
    the major shipping lanes in all the oceans, and is the founder of the
    Annapolis Academy, was ministered by this passage.  He was ill at the 
    time and his son was reading Psalm 8 to him.  When the boy read verse 8, 
    the Holy Spirit ministered to the man (Maury?) and jumped up and said, 
    "Well if God's Word says so, they must be there!"  His statue at Annapolis
    shows him with the navigator's tool in one hand, a Bible in the other. 
    Also note the Hebrew word for "paths" literally means a well-trodden
    path or caravan route.  
    
    Psalm 8:8 "The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever
    passeth through the paths of the seas."
    
    Hydrological Cycle
    ------------------
    Amos, a mere fig picker, had the Lord reveal to him the hydrological
    cycle.  Likewise for Isaiah.  'State-of-the-art' thinking in ancient 
    times seem to agree with the myths from the Islamic Koran and Hindu Veda 
    about a giant frog causing rainfall.  You can see how much more advanced 
    the Word of God is.
    
    Amos 9:6 "It is he that buildeth his stories in the heaven, and hath 
    founded his troop in the earth; he that calleth for the waters of the sea, 
    and poureth them out upon the face of the earth: The LORD is his name."
    
    Isaiah 55:10 "For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and
    returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth 
    and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:"
    
    Wind Currents
    -------------
    In addition to the hydrological cycle, God reveals the wind currents to
    Solomon.
    
    Ecclesiastes 1:6-7 "The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about 
    unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth 
    again according to his circuits.  All the rivers run into the sea; yet 
    the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither 
    they return again."

    Thanks Mike!  Good stuff.
    
    Bing

    I've heard that this verse refers to the uniqueness of each snowflake!
    I wish I knew more about the Hebrew word here for "treasures."
    
Job 38:22  "Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou 
    seen the treasures of the hail,"
    
    Mike

  Treasures : Strong's 0214

  OWTSAR (transliteration) 

  Supplies of food or drink
  Storehouse (we would say warehouse)
  Magazine (Like an ammo clip)
  Armory (weapons warehouse)

  Nothing special about the word , Job 38:23 speaks about the day of war
  God is asking Job something like 

  Where do I store all the snow for a snow storm? or the hail for a 
  thunderstorm? Have you been in the place? have you even seen it?

  A rhetorical question, the place dosn't exist, the forms of these things
  are created individually and spontaneously.

  Although there might be an interpretation concerning the uniqueness 
  (especially considering verse 23) of each snowflake. This uniqueness 
  was not fully understood until the age of technology when we learned 
  all the answers to everything and didn't need God anymore, subsequently 
  denying Him.

  So, He may be saying to the children of the Age of Technology...
  Look at the beauty and infinite patterns of the snowflake ( a treasury
  of His attributes) figure that one out if I don't exist.
 
  Hank

Re: .90  (Mike)

>    Here's an interesting comparison of science and the Bible.  You can
>    really see the imprint of God now that we know the truth!
>    
>    Earth is Round
>    --------------
>    For centuries, people believe the earth was flat.  Obviously these
>    people ignored God's Word.
>    
>    Isaiah 40:22  "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the
>    inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens 
>    as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:"
    
But does God really "sit" on the earth?  Or consider this:

"After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth,
holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing
on the land or on the sea or on any tree."  (Rev 7:1)

I don't want to be a party pooper, but we need to exercise caution before
touting the bible as a scientific treatise.  For sure, it is notable how
the bible does not conflict with the natural sciences.  In fact, it can be
said that it is more encompassing than the natural sciences, since it contains
God-breathed testimony of phenomena both natural and supernatural, whereas
scientific study is limited solely to natural phenomena.  But trying to apply 
a verse of scripture here and there to vindicate a latent scientific discovery
can backfire if we are not careful to first examine in context what the 
author of the scripture is intending to describe.

    the follow is from the Mailbag section of Chuck Missler's November
    newsletter:
    
    Dear Chuck,
    
    I am a forensic scientist with a heavy background in cell and molecular
    biology (I currently am the supervisor of a DNA biotechnology company
    in Seattle) and I relish the Bible being presented from a scientific
    viewpoint.
    
    I wanted to pass along a tidbit of information regarding DNA that you
    could chase down.  DNA, when in a superhelical state, just prior to the
    beginning of its replication cycle in the cell nucleus, forms a cross!
    
    "It is not at all clear why a cruciform structure should arise in DNA
    if it can easily transform itself into a regular double helix,"
    "Unraveling DNA," by Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetskii, p. 107.

 replies 2-6 moved here from 71.






Jim Co Mod

    re .6
    But does God really "sit" on the earth?
    
    The psalms tell us that God is enthroned in heaven and Earth is his
    footstool (sorry, no references, I haven't got my concordance here in
    the office.)
    
    I agree with Garth's expression of caution in the last paragraph of .6
    
    God bless,				Richard.

�    re .6
�    But does God really "sit" on the earth?
    
�    The psalms tell us that God is enthroned in heaven and Earth is his
�    footstool (sorry, no references, I haven't got my concordance here in
�    the office.)
    
The online one is handy ;-) ... :

Isaiah 66:1 :
  "Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
   footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the
   place of my rest?"

							Andrew

    Somewhat related...
    
    See the new issue of "Time" for an interesting controversy started by
    Hubble observations.  
    
    Mike

    (Can you summarise?  I do not get "Time"... [grin])

    basically...
    
    Latest Hubble observations have astronomers stating that the universe
    is really only 8-12 billion years old instead of 15-20 billion years.
    However, they still insist certain stars are 14-16 billion years old. 
    This equates to the child being older than the parent in the Big Bang
    scheme of things.  A definite contradiction that has most of them
    puzzled.  I find it amusing.
    
    Remember now, time was always the evolutionist's friend, but now it is
    its enemy.  Probabilities of random life originating would take as long
    as ~70 billion years.  The more astronomer's learn, and reduce their
    estimates, the more doom it spells for evolution, and the closer it
    gets for creation.
    
    Another interesting quote, one astronomer stated rougly that only 1/3
    of all leading-edge scientific observations remain true.  That means we
    have lots more corrections to look forward to.
    
    Mike

    btw - I've been learning some interesting things lately about the
    Hebrew Mazzeroth.  This is the original star and constellation names
    that pre-date the Babylonian Zodiac corruptions used in astrology
    today.
    
    For some teasers, each of the 12 constellations stood for each of the
    12 tribes, which the Sun passes through along the ecliptic.  Virgo
    pointed to the Virgin and the tribe that resides over Nazareth
    (Zebedee?).  Leo the Lion was really Judah (Lion of the tribe of
    Judah).
    
    Hebrew tradition attributes the naming conventions to Adam and Seth and
    may be recorded in one of Enoch's writings.
    
    Basically the constellations spell out the redemption story in the sky.  
    Psalm 19:1 tells us the heavens declare God's glory.  What is God's
    glory?  Is it Creation?  No.  God's glory can be measured by the most
    important subject that consumes most of the Bible.  Creation is only
    discussed in a few chapters.  However, Redemption is in every book of
    the Bible.  Redemption is the glory of God declared in the heavens.
    
    more as I read it,
    Mike

Sounds interesting, Mike.  I must re-read the book of Enoch an see if I 
spit any pointers in th bits that aren't obvious later additions...

For instance, neither Enoch nor Adam would know about the twelve tribes, 
unless by direct revelation, just as they wouldn't be aware of the virgin 
birth unless they had a similar revelation to Isaiah...  Possible, but not 
predicatable ;-)

							Andrew

    Andrew, tradition only said they gave the names of the
    stars/constellations.  However, based on Genesis 3:15, I'm sure Adam 
    knew about the virgin birth.

� Andrew, tradition only said they gave the names of the stars/constellations.
I'm not quibbling really, only interested.. ;-)

� However, based on Genesis 3:15, I'm sure Adam knew about the virgin birth.
I rather wonder how much they understood of the full implications of 3:15,
given the response to Cain's birth... 

							Andrew

re: .12

Mike,

In the articles on what the astronomers are reporting, could you please
reference what they're saying abut evolution?

Thanks,

TTom

    Re: Note 663.12 by OUTSRC::HEISER
    
>   Another interesting quote, one astronomer stated rougly that only 1/3
>   of all leading-edge scientific observations remain true.  That means we
>   have lots more corrections to look forward to.
    
    Um, do you think he means conclusions and not observations? 
    Observations are fact.  Conclusions from observations are the
    scientific statements that we hear about.
    
    (e.g. observation; spectrum analysis of a nearby star reveals a
    movement of the sodium peak by a certain percentage.  Conclusion; the
    star is moving away at a specific velocity.  Alternate conclusion (for
    which no other evidence is available); sodium burns differently over
    there.  Alternate conclusion; something between it and us changes the
    spectrum by a certain percentage.  etc...)
    
    As Christians we cannot disclaim observations, unless they contain
    specific assumptions.
    
    James

>In the articles on what the astronomers are reporting, could you please
>reference what they're saying abut evolution?
    
    I don't recall the article specifically mentioning evolution.  That was
    my own editorial since it's blatantly obvious that time is the
    evolutionist's enemy.  
    
    Try topic 640.* for some more information on the subject.
    
    Mike

    Here's a teaser for an article I'm currently trying to enter:
    
    A group of astronomers (some here in Tucson) have shown that light
    (like time) is no longer considered a constant.  Observations over the 
    last 300 years show it's gradually slowing to the tune of CSC^2 (cosecant 
    squared with a 99% correlation to the curve).  Applying this to the rest 
    of time show a real interesting scenario of the age of the earth.  For 
    instance, ~3000 B.C. light would've been 10M times faster than it is now 
    and the earth would be less than 10,000 years old.
    
    amazing,
    Mike

cool.  Projecting into the future, when does it stop altogether?

>cool.  Projecting into the future, when does it stop altogether?

When Jesus comes.  Good night!  :-)

Re: .20  (Mike)

That is the Norman/Setterfield light decay theory.  I originally had this in
my Creation vs. Evolution essay on young-earth metrics a couple of versions
back.  The anti-creationists called me on it and I backed down and threw it
out.  

The problem was two-fold.  First was Setterfield's statistical analysis of the
raw data, which was too rough to demonstrate that it fit his proposed function.
Second was the fact that in recent decades the speed of light has been measured
sufficiently accurately to potentially validate the theory, yet during that
timeframe the numbers have not changed in any particular direction, much less
conformed to Setterfield's equation.  I don't believe that Setterfield provided
an answer to that. 

There is one possible way that Setterfield's theory might be saved.  A few 
decades ago the speed of light began to be measured using atomic clocks.  If
these clocks are also slowing down with the speed of light then this would
explain why the measurements would show no change in the speed of light since
that time.  This, however, is speculation.

I have chosen not to endorse this theory at the present moment because of the
above problems, and would advise others to exercise similiar caution.

    It's not just Setterfield now.  The source lists Dolphin, Alan
    Montgomery (Canadian mathematician), William Tift (University of
    Arizona astronomer), and Troitskii as others who have done research 
    in this area.  
    
    Mike

	I agree with Garth, that, while it is very intriguing, this
is probably something on which we can best afford to "wait and see".

	Over time, with a variety of measurements of increasing
sophistication, any actual slowing of "c" must eventually become
obvious to every honest and informed investigator.

	We may be near the bottom of a flattening curve, making any
further slowdown much more difficult to measure.

	The theory does seem to provide a good explanation for many
of the phenomena that can be observed.  For example, light emitted
from distant sources (by this theory shortly after the creation of
the universe) would be traveling faster than 300,000,000 meters per
second, so its wavelength would have to be longer (red shift) in order
to deliver the same quantum of energy per photon as our "ordinary" light.

Setterfield's [etc] decrease in the speed of light is a very interesting
theory, in all it's derivations, and the implications it has on many
aspects of our changing environment, including the actual and apparent ages
of the earth.  It neatly ties up a lot of things that would otherwise seem
either inconsistent or indeterminate.  From that perspective I'd like to
know of any advances or developments in this connection. 

The fact that any proof of the theory is so far absent is one area; it
can't be presented as fact, and might never reach that position.  We, after 
all, are an integral part of the experiment we are measuring.  However, 
there is similarly, a lack of any proof (so far) to the contrary.... ;-}

Mike, do you have online access to these papers?

							Andrew

I was going to pass this by but here's a real dumb question:

Why not?  Why shouldn't light decrease in speed over distance
due to resistence or entropy?  We know that light bends with
gravity.  Light is just a bunch of photon particles screaming 
through space at speeds we cannot comprehend except on paper.
(Paper that isn't in the dark.)

MM

    According to the folks who think that the speed of light was different
    in the past, do they think that e=mc^2 still held? Seems like there'd
    be a problem with a larger (or smaller!) c.
    
    	BD�

> Why not?  Why shouldn't light decrease in speed over distance
> due to resistence or entropy?  

As I understand it Mark, it's decreasing not over distance but over time. 
The light from a star millions of 'light-years' away arriving here is
travelling at the same speed as the light from a candle across the room. 
It's not that the light that has come all that way from the other star has
slowed down because of the trip.

The theory holds that 100 years ago, the light from the distant star and the
light from the candle across the room were both travelling faster than they
do today, that the fabric of the universe has changed since then in a way
which causes the speed of all light everywhere (or at least all we can
observe) to decrease over time.

Paul

Ok, Paul.  I get it.

But how do we know that light has a constant speed over such vast 
amounts of distance?  

-- Unilluminated in New Hampshire

> But how do we know that light has a constant speed over such vast 
> amounts of distance?  

We don't.  We know that all the light we can see, both the light from very,
very far away and from right across the room, is travelling at the same
speed.  We've always assumed that this speed has remained constant over time.
A reasonable enough assumption, given that some of the light we observe
reaching us at this point in time originated at some point significantly in
the past, and it is travelling at the same speed as the light we observe
being created today.  According to that assumption of constant speed, the
light we observe from distant objects originated billions of years ago.

But if, according to this theory, light has been slowing down with time (or
alternately, if time has been speeding up), then the light which we observe
today wasn't always travelling at the speed that it is today.

A very interesting theory.  I'd love to hear more about it.

Paul

    
    Well, as I get older, it sure does seem that time is
    speeding up!  8*)
    
    Pam

>We've always assumed that this speed has remained constant over time.

That's what I thought.  How do we measure the speed of a candle across
the room.  There's math for traveling 10 feet at 282,000 miles per second
but how do we *measure* it?  It takes light 8 minutes to reach the
earth from the sun according to an assumed constant speed of light.
But if our measurements are insufficient pieces of statistics, how do
we know that light doesn't slow down over certain distances?  Maybe
light from the sun actually takes ten minutes.  The *math* says 8 minutes
but that assuming that light always travels at a constant speed no matter
how far light is traveling.

Also, with a candle in a room, the out edge of the room is dark and
dim.  We see the point of light   But let's go out 100 yards.  The point
of light is smaller because the photons are being scattered (in a sphere)
and the farther out you get the fewer photons that will come in a direct
line to our eyes.  

Okay, stars are humungous object and are extremely bright.  But does the
math account for some of the distances we think stars are in relation to
how much light we see from them?  I don't know.  I was never good at this
sort of thing.

Mark

    Interesting theory.  Is there a book or magazine article I can get a
    hold of to read more about it?
    
    -steve

    I just plotted CSC(X)^2 using Maple on my VAXstation (and also on my HP
    graphing calculator).  On both machines, light appears to be undefined
    at time 0 ;-)
    
    Oh and Paul, light hits 0 when x = 1.57, but then around x=4 it jumps
    up again.  Must be the new heaven and new earth.
    
    Mike

    RE: .31  HI Paul,
    
    >We've always assumed that this speed has remained constant over time.
    >A reasonable enough assumption, given that some of the light we
    >observe reaching us at this point in time originated at some point
    >significantly in the past, and it is travelling at the same speed as
    >the light we observe being created today.  According to that
    >assumption of constant speed, the light we observe from distant
    >objects originated billions of years ago.
    
    Assumed???  Sounds real scientific-like to me.  I'm not sure how this
    is a reasonable assumption for any Bible-believing christian.  We know
    that the heavens and earth are young.  Now I'm not the scientific-type
    but it seems to me that if I've made assumptions about our universe
    being millions/billions of years old based on say craters up on the
    other planets which are so large it must have taken alot of time to do
    and then I see parts of a asteroid/comet (whatever it was) hit Jupiter
    and put massive holes in it over the course of a few days, shouldn't I
    be wondering if maybe my assumption was wrong?  Wouldn't that be the
    logical next step?  So if I had to change that assumption, maybe my
    assumptions about other things like light and what not are wrong.
    
    Jill
    

	Hmm...  I'm wondering...  Has anyone done any experiments that
verify that all light (from all sources, even very distant) is traveling
at the same speed "c" when it arrives here on earth (or the vicinity)?

	One possible way is to gather enough photons from a distant source
within a small range of wavelengths.  If you can measure the total energy
flux (very small and difficult to measure), and simultaneously measure the
rate (photons per second; this is possible), you could get a measurement
of energy per photon.  If it is significantly different from the expected
value (is it photon energy = Planck's constant * c / wavelength ?), then
maybe you have measured a light speed different from "c".  That would be
very bizarre and unexpected.  After all, we would expect that any light,
regardless of its original source, would propagate through our area of
space at the same speed, determined by our peculiar space/time perspective.
Or is that only an assumption?

	Or, consider measuring frequency as well as wavelength, since
frequency = speed / wavelength.  How do we measure wavelength?  Usually
by observing the angle at which the light is refracted thru a prism.
Longer wavelengths refract less.  Or is it lower frequencies?

	How do we measure frequency?  Perhaps by observing excitation
(e.g. laser emission) from molecules with known resonant frequencies
that are illuminated by the light source?  Sometimes it's hard to tell
what we are measuring, if we can't depend on "c"!

	Mark, I have heard it proposed that light may "red-shift" as it
escapes a huge gravitational pull.  This would add yet a third competing
possible explanation of the observable red shifts of distant sources.
Maybe it slows down as well.

>	Mark, I have heard it proposed that light may "red-shift" as it
>escapes a huge gravitational pull.  This would add yet a third competing
>possible explanation of the observable red shifts of distant sources.
>Maybe it slows down as well.

Red shift?  Do you mean like a sling shot effect that we use for our
satellites to gain speed going around a planet?  The more I think
about it, why does light have to have a speed constant?

MM

� about it, why does light have to have a speed constant?

So it doesn't get picked up by the interstellar speed cops.

								&

Arrest that humour!

Something caught my attention ...

� Arrest that humour!
                  ^
                  ^
                  ^
                  ^
                  ^

I know where that was tagretted .. ;-)

Good eye, those Brits.

Nancy is a British Cop car down deep.  The sirens the Brit Fuzz have
go "neener neener neener" while the American Cop cars go "WHOO WHOO WHOO."

{from Chuck Missler's Personal Update - "Is Light Slowing Down?", Mar 1995}

In earlier articles, we discussed the nature of time and the fallacy of linear
and absolute time concepts.  We now know that time is a *physical* property and
varies with respect to mass, acceleration, and gravity.  Time is tied to our
concepts of the curvature of space-time, and the velocity of light.  The
velocity of light is, in fact, a parameter which appears to affect almost every
aspect of both cosmological physics on the large scale, as well as quantum
physics in the particle scale.  It is, of course, considered to be the
fundamental *constant* of physics.

Historical Perspective
----------------------
The early Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the
speed of light was infinite (exceptions: Empedocles of Acragas [c. 450 B.C.];
also Moslem scientists Aviecenna and Alhazen [1000 A.D.] both believed in a
finite speed for light; Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon [1600 A.D.] both believed
in a finite speed of light).  As late as 1600 A.D., Johannes Kepler, one of the
fathers of modern astronomy, maintained the majority view that light was
instantaneous in its travels.  Rene Descartes, the highly influential scientist,
mathematician and philosopher (who died in 1650), also strongly held to the
belief in the instantaneous propagation of light.  He strongly influenced the
scientists of that period and those who followed.

Speed of Light Measured
-----------------------
In 1677 Olaf Roemer, the Danish astronomer, noted that the time elapsed between
eclipses of Jupiter with its moons became shorter as the Earth moved closer to
Jupiter and became longer as the Earth and Jupiter drew farther apart.  This
anomalous behavior could be accounted for by a *finite* speed of light.
Initially, Roemer's suggestion was hooted at.  It took another half century for
the notion to be accepted.  In 1729 the British astronomer James Bradley's
independent confirmation of Roemer's measurements finally ended the opposition
to a finite value for the speed of light.  Roemer's work, which had split the
scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated.

Over the past 300 years, the velocity of light has been measured 163 times by
16 different methods.  (As a Naval Academy graduate, I must point out that
Albert Michelson, Class of 1873, measured the speed of light at the Academy.  In
1881 he measured it as 299,853 km/s.  In 1907 he was the first American to
receive the Nobel Prize in the sciences.  In 1923 he measured it as 299,798
km/s.  In 1933, at Irvine, CA, as 299,774 km/s.)

Recent Discovery
----------------
Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman examined
all of the available experimental measurements to date and have announced a
discover: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down over the years!
They all are approximately 186,000 miles/s; or about 1 foot/nanosecond (a
dynamical second is defined as 1/31,556,925.9747 of the earth's orbital period
and was a standard until 1967.  Atomic time is defined in terms of one
revolution of an electron in the ground state orbit of the hydrogen atom).

Year     Who         Method             Speed of Light     Error Margin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1657     Roemer      Io eclipse         307,600            � 5400 km/s
1875     Harvard      "    "            299,921            � 13 km/s
1983     NBS         laser              299,792.4856       � .0003 km/s

While the margin of error improved over the years, the mean value has noticeably
decreased.  In fact, the bands of uncertainty hardly overlap.  As you would
expect, these findings are highly controversial, especially to the more
traditional physicists.  However, many who scoffed at the idea initially have
subsequently begun to take a closer look at the possibilities.  Alan Montgomery,
the Canadian mathematician, has also analyzed the data statistically and has
concluded that the decay of c, the velocity of light, has followed a CSC�
curve with a correlation coefficient of better than 99%.

A New Perspective
-----------------
This curve would imply that the speed of light may have been 10-30% faster in
the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; and four times as fast
in the days of Abraham.  It would imply that the velocity of light was more than
10 million times faster prior to 3000 B.C.  This possibility would also totally
alter our concepts of time and the age of the universe.  The universe might
actually be less than 10,000 years old!

Other Implications
------------------
The key properties of the vacuum of free space include electrical permittivity,
magnetic permeability, zero-point energy, and intrinsic impedance.  If any of
these properties change isotopically, then both atomic behavior and the speed of
light would *vary* throughout the universe.  The product of magnetic
permittivity is the reciprocal of c�.  The permittivity of free space has not
changed, but permeability has.  It is related to the "stretching out" of free
space at the time of creation.  The "stretching" of the heavens is mentioned
many times in the Bible (Isaiah 40:22, 42:5, 44:27, 45:12, 51:13, Jeremiah
10:12, 51:15, Zechariah 12:1, the heavens as a 'scroll': Isaiah 34:4, Revelation
6:14).  Setterfield has analyzed 164 measurements of c, the velocity of light,
gathered over the past 320 years, which reveal a statistically significant decay
in c.  When coupled with associated c-dependent "constants," the data includes
some 639 values measured by 25 different methods.  A comparison of dates in
orbital time from history, archaeology, tree rings, etc., with atomic dates from
a variety of radioactive isotopes has provided some 1228 data points over 4550
years.  Relaxation, or release, has set in, perhaps after the fall in Genesis 3.
The shrinkage of free space could be the cause for the observed slowing down of
the velocity of light.  The "Redshift" may be caused by a decay of c.  In fact,
the universe may be contracting, not expanding.

A Tiff about Tifft
------------------
William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting
data for about 20 years on redshifts, and it now appears that the universe might
*not* be expanding.  In the 1970's, Tifft noted that the redshift seemed to
depend upon the type of galaxy that was emitting the light.  Spiral galaxies
tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies in the same cluster.
Dimmer galaxies, higher redshifts than brighter ones.  Even more disturbing,
Tifft has discovered that some clusters and pairs of galaxies exhibit only
certain *discrete* values, rather than the more random distribution one would
expect if the shifts were distance related.  These redshifts appear in discrete
quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum
physics (Dava Sobel, "Man Stops Universe, Maybe" Discover, April 1993).

These findings are not popular with astronomers or cosmologists and emotions,
even in physics, run deep.  If the redshift is not a simple measure of velocity,
then the conjectures about the Big Bang, and its derivative issues such as
"dark" matter, etc., tend to fall apart.  The elaborate theoretical models of
the Big Bang traditions may be headed for the scrap heap.  There is also
disturbing evidence that the redshifts *change* over time.  There seems to be
some basic physics involved that has yet to be understood.  These changes
could be due to basic life cycles of galaxies, the nature of space or light
itself, or other possibilities.

There have been a number of attempts to refute Tifft's observations.  One recent
one by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh,
measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies.  The results surprised the
skeptics by uncovering data that *supports* the case for quantized redshifts.
If Setterfield proves correct, then this might also explain the quantization of
the redshifts.  Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted
wavelengths, and quantized redshifts could result (in a varying c scenario,
emitted energy flux remains unchanged, upholding the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Power is thereby conserved.  High c values result in lower photon energies at
emission, and a consequent redshifting of light from distant astronomical
sources).

Radioactive Dating
------------------
Radioactive Decay rates have changed.  The decay of c affects the speed of
nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency.  Thus, all
radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent
history of the universe.  For many other reasons, the radio dating methods,
carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic clock method, are unreliable for
very large ages.

Entropy
-------
The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in a closed system, as time
flows forward, energy in the universe is becoming less and less available.
"Entropy" is the measure of the state of "energy unavailability" in an
energy-containing system.  Entropy always *increases*.  Orderly systems of
molecules represent low entropy systems.  Orderly systems tend, on their own,
to become disorderly and chaotic through the processes of decay and
disintegration.  With passage of time the normal tendency of things is for such
system to become disorderly, chaotic, and randomized.  Their "entropy"
increases.

We experience this in our daily routine: we spend effort to organize our
desk top, our garage, our school locker.  Soon, however, as "random" events take
their toll, everything tends toward randomness - the entropy increases.  To
bring order out of chaos, we must put in outside energy or information:
instructions, codes, blueprints, and effort.  Order comes from chaos *only* if
someone *makes it happen*.  Time plus chance always leads toward chaos - not
order - without the intervention of outside intelligence.

Genesis
-------
In the beginning, there apparently was a close connection between the spiritual
and physical realms, until the fall of man in Genesis 3.  The universe was
pronounced "good" - free or defects - by the Creator.  A high degree of order
originally existed; that is, there was very low entropy.  But then Adam fell and
the curse of sin began.  Disorder and entropy began to increase.  Could the
slowing down of the speed of light have begun with the increase of entropy and,
thus, both be a result of the curse brought about by sin?  The subsequent death,
dying, decaying, and destroying processes affected not only man, but nature as
well (Romans 8:19-23).

Caveat
------
The possibility that the speed of light is not a "constant" after all and has
been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural.  Yet, some of the
most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come only after much debate,
vigorous opposition, and the like.  The entire field of physics is presently in
a state of upheaval.  The particle physicists have decided there is no
casualty, and that the universe has at least 10 dimensions.  The red shift has
been discovered to be quantized and that may shatter previous conceptions of our
universe.  Particle physics has totally altered our concepts of reality.  Many
of today's scientific orthodoxies, however, originated from yesterday's
unpopular heresies.  The apparent decay in the velocity of light may be another
of these controversial "heresies" looming on the horizon of modern physics.
Only time will tell.  But the Bible changes not.  It doesn't need to.

The Reality of Eternity
-----------------------
There is a part of you that is not physical, and, therefore, has no time: it is
eternal.  Our Creator has provided a destiny for us that is so fantastic that it
is entirely beyond our own eligibility, or ability to earn it.  That is why God
has provided for our eligibility through His Son.  His plan of redemption is
available for the asking.  But it's up to us to accept it.  Throughout eternity
you will either be in the presence of God, or separated from Him.  What will it
be for you?

Bibliography
------------
Dolphin, L., and Montgomery, A., "Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?"
Galilean Electrodynamics, 1993.

Setterfield, B., The Speed of Light and the Red-Shift, pre-publication paper
received by private communications.  (Box 318, Blackwood, South Australia,
5051).

Setterfield, B., and Norman, T., The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, Invited
Research Paper, SRI, August 1987.

Troitskii, V.S., "Physical Constants and the Evolution of the Universe,"
Astrophysics and Space Science, vol 139, pp. 389-411, Dec. 1987.

So that's it, huh?  What we've all been waiting for?  Another article by
Missler?

>So that's it, huh?  What we've all been waiting for?  Another article by
>Missler?
    
    Does it bother you that he explicitly states it's interesting
    speculation?  His newsletter has some of the best science articles in
    it I've seen.  Certainly on topics that nobody else in Christiandom
    would touch.
    
    Mike

Re .46  (Mike)

Sure, I'll take a free 1 year subscription.

>    Does it bother you that he explicitly states it's interesting
>    speculation?  

I'm having a hard time figuring out what Missler is trying to accomplish.  Is
he trying to promote the Norman/Setterfield theory?  Near the beginning he
says:

	"Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman
	examined all of the available experimental measurements to date and
	have announced a discover: the speed of light appears to have been
	slowing down over the years!"

Yet near the end, he says:

	"The possibility that the speed of light is not a 'constant' after all
	and has been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural. 
	Yet, some of the most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come 
	only after much debate, vigorous opposition, and the like."

Perhaps the word "tease," which you used in reply .20, is appropriate.  Missler
serves up all these "possibilities" in such a way that we can all get excited
about it, but doesn't document any of the problems with the theory. 

For example, he claims that Norman/Setterfield have "examined all the available
experimental measurements to date" and discovered that "the speed of light
appears to have been slowing down over the years." But he makes no mention of
the well-known fact that highly accurate measurements made in recent decades
have shown no change in the speed of light at all!  So what he has said is a
half-truth, really. 

Here are the numbers that Missler cites in your posting:

	Roemer    1657 		307,600 km/s 	+/- 5400 km/s
	Harvard   1875 		299,921 km/s 	+/- 13 km/s
	Michelson 1881 		299,853 km/s
	Michelson 1923 		299,798 km/s
	Michelson 1933 		299,774 km/s
	NBS	  1983 		299,792.4856	+/- .0003 km/s

So what about the following numbers that Missler doesn't cite?

	1966	Karolus		299,792.44	+- 0.2
	1967	Simkin		299,792.56	+- 0.11
	1967	Grosse		299,792.50	+- 0.05
	1972	Bay et al.	299,792.462	+- 0.018
	1972	NRC/NBS		299,792.460	+- 0.006
	1973	Evenson		299,792.4574	+- 0.0011
	1973	NRC/NBS		299,792.458	+- 0.002
	1974	Blaney		299,792.4590	+- 0.0008
	1978	Woods et al.	299,792.4588	+- 0.0002
	1979	Baird et al.	299,792.4581	+- 0.0019
	1983	NBS		299,792.4586	+- 0.0003

What happened to the decay?

Re: .20  (Mike)

I've got another problem.

If Missler did not catagorically state that light is slowing down, then why
did you?

>                             -< light is slowing >-
>
>    Here's a teaser for an article I'm currently trying to enter:
>    
>    A group of astronomers (some here in Tucson) have shown that light
>    (like time) is no longer considered a constant.  Observations over the 
>    last 300 years show it's gradually slowing to the tune of CSC^2 (cosecant 
>    squared with a 99% correlation to the curve).  Applying this to the rest 
>    of time show a real interesting scenario of the age of the earth.  For 
>    instance, ~3000 B.C. light would've been 10M times faster than it is now 
>    and the earth would be less than 10,000 years old.
>    
>    amazing,
>    Mike

There is not the slightest room for speculation in your original reply.

    Garth, there is no speculation in the actual measurements, only in what
    physicists will do with them and how they impact creation.  The
    measurements you posted only occur within a 17-year gap.  The ones in
    the article have at least a century in between them.  We will have to
    wait another century (if the Lord tarries) to see the degradation.
    
    Nobody has refuted the quantized redshift dilemma either.  I think the
    only constant in this universe is God and it won't surprise me to see c
    and other constants tossed out as we learn more.
    
    Mike

Following is an article from the December issue of "Christianity Today".  It is
titled "Cosmology's Holy Grail", by Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer.  Dr. Ross
describes the set of breakthrough discoveries in the past two years which
has stirred waves of exuberance from the scientific community.  Hugh Ross
    is the author of "The Fingerprint of God (Promise, 1991), "The Creator
    and the Cosmos (NavPress 1993), and "Creation and Time" (NavPress
    1994).  Dr. Ross is president of Reasons to Believe, a ministry founded
    to develop new tools for demonstrating the factual basis for faith in
    God and confidence in the accuracy of the Bible.

"Carlos Frenk, of Britain's Durham University, exclaimed to reporters, "[It's]
the most exciting thing that's happened in my life as a cosmologist." 
Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Stephen Hawking, a
master of theoretical physics and of understatement, described just one of the
several breakthroughs as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time."
Michael Turner, University of Chicago and Fermilab astophysicist said
researchers have found "the Holy Grail of cosmology."

What is this "holy grail" to which Turner refers?  The answer is perhaps best
stated by George Smoot, University of California at Berkely astronomer and
leader of one of the breakthrough projects: "What we have found is evidence
of the birth of the universe...It's like looking at God."  According to science
historian Frederic B. Burnham, many scientists have suddenly come to consider
God's creation of the universe "a more respectable hyposthesis today than in
any time in the last 100 years."

Until April 1992, astronomers knew only of ordinary matter, the stuff that we
and these pages are made of - protons, neutrons, electrons, and a small host
of other fundamental particles that strongly interact with radiation. The stuff
that researchers have just found evidence for is different.  It is called
"exotic" matter, for it does not strongly interact with radiation.

The reason this discovery generated so much excitement among astrophysicists is
that it constitutes a significant piece of the nearly completed puzzle of how
the universe came to be.  Perhaps another reason is that exotic matter actually
makes up a sizable proportion (no less than 60 percent and maybe as much as
90 percent) of the matter in the universe.

Since 1990, astronomers had been certain that the universe must have erupted
from some kind of extremely hot, extremely compact creation event.  Evidence
for this scenario came from measurements of the entropy of the universe.  What
is the connection between entropy and this cosmic big bang?

Entropy describes how efficiently a system radiates energy and how inefficiently
it performs work.  A burning candle illustrates a highly entropic system.  The
candle is effective in radiating heat and light but relatively ineffective in
propelling an engine or performing any other type of work.  Physicists designate
the entropy of a system by a number that indicates the amount of energy
degradation per proton.  A burning candle has a specific entropy measure of
about two, and that is considered high.

Compare that number with what astronomers have discovered about the universe.
It has a specific entropy measure of one billion.  Let the impact of that
number sink in. Only an explosion can generate an entropy measure significantly
higher than that of a candle.  But none of the explosions produced by humans
comes anywhere close to one billion.  Only an explosion from an *incomparably*
hot, *incomparably* compact source could generate such an enormous specific
entropy.

But a troubling hitch remained in the big-bang creation models.  The radiation
left over from the creation event, radiation that permeates the cosmos, appears
smoothly distributed throughout the cosmos.  this smooth distrsibution would
lead us to expect that matter, too, would be smoothly distributed.  But as we
see even with our naked eyes, it is not.  some radiation ripples have been found,
but they are much too tiny to account for the clumpiness of matter.  Matter is
very clumpy.  It is densely clumped in galaxies and galaxy clusters.  If the
radiation is so smoothly dispersed, why isn't the matter also smoothly
distributed?

the discovery of evidence for the reality of exotic matter solved the problem.
Since exotic matter only weakly interacts with radiation, it is free to clump
under the influence of gravity, regardless of the distribution of the 
radiation.  ONce the xotic matter has clumped, it will gravitationally attract
ordinary matter to it.  thus, the radiation from the creation event can be 
smoothly distributed while the galaxies and galaxy clusters are clumped -
providing that the universe contains about three to ten times as much exotic
matter as ordinary matter.

This ratio is exactly what researchers have found, and not just from one study,
but from many.  Several probes with the Hubble Space Telescope, two with the
400-inch Keck telescope, four with other ground-based telescopes, one with the
Roentgen Satellite, and one with the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite all
have measured evidence fro exotic matter since April 1992.  And the measurements
all corroborate each other.  this fitting together of various pieces of 
research, both theoretical and observational, is what thrilled the scientists.
It is the kind of thing scientists dream of.

Solid evidence for the big-bang creation event has been available for some time,
but because of their typical caution, most scientists have been reluctant to
make public pronouncements.  this narrowing in on a specific subset of big-bang
models made possible by the solution to this matter mystery has finally pushed
them to acknowledge the big bang with more certainty.  (Recently, many
newspapers and newsmagazines have carried stories on how one group of scientists
while measuring the expansion of the universe, has demonstrated that the oldest
stars are about twice as old as the cosmos.  for a free article explaining
    the nature of these measurements and how the age of the oldest stars
    can be reconciled with the creation date of the universe, write Reasons
    to Believe, P.O. Box 5978, Pasadena, CA  91117).

But what does the big bang say about the existence of God - more specifically,
the God of the Bible?  Many Christians have been taught that the big bang
contradicts their faith in the Creator.  Such teaching must be based on a
misunderstanding of the event and what it implies.  Here is what a noted
scientist, Geoffrey Burbidge, has to say on the subject.  A few days after
the initial detection of exotic matter, the University of California at San
Diego astronomer loudly complained in a radio interview and to newspaper
reporters that his colleagues were rushing off to join "the First Church of
Christ of the Big Bang."

The scientific underpinnings for correlating the big bang with Jesus Christ lies
in a set of mathematical equations, the equations of general relativity.  Albert
Einstein, the developer of these equations, worked out some of the solutions
to them between 1917 and 1930.  To the surprise (and dismay) of many scientists,
his solutions showed that the universe is expanding.  It is expanding, and at 
the same time, its expansion is slowing down - losing steam, so to speak.  What
physical phenomenon is described by simultaneous expansion and deceleration?
An explosion.

And if the universe is "exploding" there must have been a start and Starter to
that explosion.  As Genesis reveals, the universe had a beginning - hence, an
Initiator, one who existed before and outside the universe, as the Bible
uniquely declares.

These results sent the scientific community, even Einstein, scrambling for
loopholes.  Many imaginative origins models were proposed and some ancient ones
dredged up, but all fell apart as observational data accumulated.  The only set
of models that withstood the test of time and observations was the big bang set,
based on general relativity.

In 1970, three British astrophysicists, George Ellis, Stephen Hawking, and
Roger Penrose, took the solution of Einstein's equations a step further.  These
three developed the space-time theorems of general relativity.  Their work
showed that if general relativity truly describes the physical dynamics of the
universe, not only did matter and energy have a finite beginning, but so did
space (the dimensions of length, width, and height) and time have a beginning.
Such a finding carried profound ramifications not only for cosmology, but also
for theology.

The *if* attached to general relativity took on enormous importance.  How firmly
could general relativity be trusted? The confirming evidence was not quite
strong enough in 1970 for astronomers to rest their weight confidently upon it
and replace the *if* with *since*.  By then, astonomers had determined the
accuracy of general relativity only to the second place fo the decimal (that is,
1 percent precision).  The skeptics wanted a stronger limb to hold them, and
they did not have to wait long.  Thanks to the efforts of the NASA space
program, confirmation to five places of the decimal (to 0.007 percent precision)
was achieved in 1980.  In 1993, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor received the
Nobel Prize for Physics for their study confirming general relativity to one
part in a hundred trillion.

Thus, with considerable confidence, astronomers now affirm to the theologians
and anyone else interested that the cause of the universe resides beyond (thus,
independent of) matter, energy, space, and time.  How does this fact help us in
identifying the Cause?

Of all the holy books of the world's religions, only the Bible unambiguously
states that time is finite, that God created time, that God is capable of 
cause-and-effect operations apart from the universe's time dimension, and that
God did cause many effects before the time component of our universe came to be.

Some holy books other than the Bible allude to extra-dimensional or trans-
dimensional phenomena and to transcendent reality, but these allusions are vague
and inconsistent - inconsistent with each other and with the facts of nature.

Only the God of the Bible is revealed as a personal Creator who can act
independently of the cosmos and its space-time dimensions.  The god of the
Bible is netiher subject to nor contained within the limits of our space and
time.  He is the one who brought these features of the cosmos into existence.

And no other God besides the god of the Christian Bible claims attributes that
defy explanation in the context of four dimensions.  For example, only the
biblical God is simulataneously singular and plural (a tri-unity) and simul-
taneously accommodates both humanity's freedom of choice and God's sovereign
choice (that is, predetermination).

We can speak confidently of God's operating in dimensions beyond those we
experience.  Both Scripture and general relativity place the cause of the
universe outside the time dimension of the universe.  This placement tells us
something about the Creator's relationship to time - and to us.  Since time is
that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place (according to
the physicists' definition), and since the universe was caused from outside
its own time dimension, the Creator must operate within at least two dimenisons
of time, or the equivalents thereof.  Passages such as John 1:3 ("Through
Him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made"),
John 17:24 ("You loved me before the creation of the world"), Ephesians 1:4,
Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 11:3, among others, describe God's cause-
and-effect activities before the beginning of time in our universe.

From particle physicists we learn that the events within the first split second
of the universe's existence (literally within the first 10~-10 [ten to the
negative ten power - JB] second) require the existence of at least nine (and
perhaps many more) dimensions of space.  Powerful particle accelerators like the
one at Fermi Natl Accelerator Lab. in Batavia, Illinois, enable scientists to
re-create the extrememly high temperatures that existed in the first split-
second after the universe was created.  Particle physicists can thereby
observe how the four fundamental forces of physics emerged from three.  they
can get a glimpse of how the three emerged from two and a hint at how the two
emerged from one.  They have discovered many of the fundamental particles and
building blocks of such particles that the emerging of forces, namely, unified
field theory, predicts.  the discovery of the top quark (the last of the six
building blocks of fundamental particles to be found), announced in April 1994,
is a case in point.  The only reasonable explanation for these observations and
discoveries is that the universe experienced a collapse of dimensionality some
time previous to the 10~-34 second.  Initially, the universe was composed of
nine or more dimensions of space.  But sometime between the moment of creation
and the 10~-34 second, six or more of these dimensions collapsed into 
infinitely small circles, leaving us with the fundamental forces of physics,
fundamental particles, and the three dimensions of space we experience today.
Since God controls the beginning, he controls all these dimensions, and his
reality encompasses them all.

Now, we cannot say that God is limited by any dimensions since he is the Creator
of these dimensions, but we can speculate how God might work through multi-
dimensions when he interacts with his creation.  Perhaps the Bible illustrates
God's operation in extra dimensions of space when Jesus seemingly passes
through the walls of the upper room after his bodily resurrection (Luke 24; John
20).  We can understand this by speculating that Jesus' physical, post-
resurrection body had access to at least a fourth, fifth, and sixth spatial
dimension (dimensions we cannot possibly visualize, though they are undoubtedly
real).  It may be that he transferred his physical body into those dimensions,
passed through the wall, then re-entered dimensions, one, two, and three
wherein the disciples could see, hear, and touch him.  He assured them they
were not seeing a ghost.

Many difficult biblical doctrines over which we struggle now, truths we can only
fully comprehend in that day when we "know as we are known", can be better
understood, integrated, and embraced in light of this extradimensional reality.
Our four-dimensional attempts to resolve them have led to needless strife and
even bloodshed despite God's explicit statement that is ways are above our ways
and his thoughts above our thoughts.  Such mysteries as salvation, the Trinity,
and atonement clearly require dimensions of space and time beyond our own, or
perhaps super dimensions that encompass space and time capacities.

How awesome to consider that God caused the big bang and all its components,
including exotic matter and over 10 billion trillion stars, for the sake of
knowing and being known by us in an eternal love relationship.  The thought
both reduces me to a speck of dust and lifts me up to the heavens.

    
    Hugh Ross?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!
    
    He believes in theistic evolution.  It's completely unbiblical.
    
    Jill

    
    What's completely unbiblical?
    
    jeff

    this also talks about some of Ross's points on the time dimensions of
    God...
    
    {from "Grace Outside Time" by Pastor Chuck Missler, November 1994}
    
    The latest discoveries in quantum physics and astrophysics provide
    remarkable evidence of God's ongoing involvement in the creation of
    time, space, and matter.  The latest insights of Einstein's General
    Theory of Relativity reveal that time itself is a created property as
    1 of 4 dimensions of our universe.
    
    In 2 Timothy 1:9, the apostle Paul makes a remarkable statement that
    God's grace "was given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of
    time."  A study of the Greek phrase "pro chronon aionion," translated
    "before the beginning of time," shows the independent existence of
    God's grace in Christ outside of our time domain.  Consider the
    following observations:
    
    1) The Greek preposition "pro" corresponds closely to our own English
    preposition "before," which can connote either position or
    chronological order.  For example, we can speak "before someone" in the
    sense of giving a speech to them, or we can speak "before someone" in
    the sense of talking prior to their getting a chance to do so.  Both
    meanings are included within the preposition "before."  The Greek
    preposition "before."  The Greek preposition "pro" can mean the same
    thing.
    
    2) The Greek word "chronos" means durations of measurable time such as
    seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, decades, centuries,
    millenia, epochs, etc. (the quantization of time into units, as is now
    recognized in quantum physics is thus implied!).
    
    3) the Greek word "aionion" used in 2 Timothy 1:9 means time in the
    sense of the dimension of time itself.  The word appears to be derived
    from 2 Greek words which, taken together, mean "time which is not
    self-existent"; i.e., time which starts with a point but which
    continues toward some unknown destination.  This origin for the Greek word 
    "aionion" (time) is provocatively similar to the defintion that most 
    modern physicists use to define "time"; i.e., a 1-way physical dimension 
    in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place but in which travel can go 
    forward but not backward.
    
    Putting all 3 observations together, it is grammatically possible that
    the apostle Paul is telling Timothy that God's gift of grace was given
    to us both spatially in front of, as well as antecedent to the creation
    of, measurable time.  It was given to us outside of our time domain of
    cause-and-effect phenomena AND BEFORE THERE WERE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT
    PHENOMENA.  God's grace eternally existed for us literally "before time
    existed."  That's why the NIV translates the verse by saying that God's
    grace was given to us before time began.
    
    His grace exists outside of cause-and-effect phenomena, that is why
    it's grace!  It's independent of human actions, thoughts, words,
    choices, or attitudes.  Think about this the next time you're worried
    about how many of your sins were covered by Christ's grace or what part
    you can play in receiving the gift.  His grace was given to you and
    displayed in the presence of, antecedent to, and independent of all of
    your sins and choices.  Since Christ's grace existed for you in His own
    timeless eternity, not one human act or choice has been excluded from
    grace.  But it still needs to be received, or accepted.
    
    Perhaps another fundamental lesson that all of the theologians among us
    can learn from is that a basic understanding of general relativity can
    go a long way toward reconciling the apparent paradoxes of grace and
    works, faith and sight, and free choice and predestination.  When did
    God first begin dealing with you?
    
    "He hath chosen us in Him (Christ) before the foundation of the
    world..." Ephesians 1:4

    
    Well I can touch on this just briefly right now without reference
    material with me.  I believe Hugh Ross is a questionable resource
    for a Christian.  
    
    Hugh Ross believes:
    
    - that the days of creation actually lasted millions of years when the
      Hebrew translation is very specific to a 24 hour day (day/night).
    
    - in a pre-Adam race of hominoids without souls.
    
    - that there was millions of years of death and bloodshed before Adam. 
    
    - in a localized flood rather than a global one.  (Don't bother
      building an ark, Noah - just move!  After all God is given you a
      huge headstart.) 
    
    Do you not believe that God is capable of creating the universe in 6
    days?  Do you not believe that human life starting with Adam?  Do you
    not believe that sin and thereby death and bloodshed entered the world
    through Adam?  Do you not believe that God could flood the earth?
    
    I don't believe that this is an issue of some Christians being naive
    and just not accepting scientific data.  There are major errors in Hugh
    Ross's teaching that do not match up to God's Word.  I believe that
    Theistic Evolution is a cop out for Christians.  It allows them to to
    keep their Phd's from being looked down on by the intelligentsia of
    today.  It's a compromise of the truth in order not to look stupid to
    other people who are deemed knowledgeable by our society.  We should
    be seeking God's favor not mans'.
    
    Jill

    
    Thanks, Jill.  I could not agree with Ross on some of the items you
    mentioned but he's not alone in his beliefs, I"m sure.  In any case,
    those items don't seem to have anything to do with what he has written
    in the document I entered.
    
    jeff

Re: .49  (Mike)

>    Garth, there is no speculation in the actual measurements, only in what
>    physicists will do with them and how they impact creation.  

I think that you are missing the point.  In .20 you categorically stated that
the speed of light was decaying.  After posting Missler's article, you called
it "interesting speculation."  Which is it?  Scientific fact, or speculation?

>    The
>    measurements you posted only occur within a 17-year gap.  The ones in
>    the article have at least a century in between them.  We will have to
>    wait another century (if the Lord tarries) to see the degradation.
    
I think you'd better take a closer look at those numbers.  Their resolution is
orders of magnitude better than what would be needed to show a change in the
speed of light that is consistent with the Norman/Setterfield theory.

	The speed of light does appear to be very nearly constant over the
last several years, *within our very narrow frame of reference*!  What if
we were to widen our field of view, broaden the scope of our experiments?
What might we find then?

>I think that you are missing the point.  In .20 you categorically stated that
>the speed of light was decaying.  After posting Missler's article, you called
>it "interesting speculation."  Which is it?  Scientific fact, or speculation?
    
    I think you read too much into things.  The measurements of the various
    experiments are scientific fact.  The scientific community embracing
    the conclusions are still under speculation.  Based on the fact of the
    measured data, it is decaying.  What the scientific community does with
    it hasn't been determined.

>I think you'd better take a closer look at those numbers.  Their resolution is
>orders of magnitude better than what would be needed to show a change in the
>speed of light that is consistent with the Norman/Setterfield theory.

    Good enough to conform to a 17-year snapshot that would correlate to
    the CSC� curve?  If I remember my calculus right, the first derivative of 
    this function would be -2�CSC(x)��COT(x).  This states that the rate of
    change when x = 299792.458 is .0860112615654 km/s.  Given that it was
    supposed to have only a 99% correlation to the curve, the derivative is
    not far off the precision for the other measurements so the 17-year
    snapshot is still too small.
    
    And to expand on what Mr. Sampson says, this is all from our relative
    perspective of the universe.  I wonder what the HST or Voyager would 
    measure for c in space.
    
    Mike

Re: .58  (Mike)

>>I think that you are missing the point.  In .20 you categorically stated that
>>the speed of light was decaying.  After posting Missler's article, you called
>>it "interesting speculation."  Which is it?  Scientific fact, or speculation?
>    
>    I think you read too much into things.  The measurements of the various
>    experiments are scientific fact.  The scientific community embracing
>    the conclusions are still under speculation.  Based on the fact of the
>    measured data, it is decaying.  What the scientific community does with
>    it hasn't been determined.

The measurement data is not "scientific fact."  The measurement data is 
historical fact, and no one is disputing it.  

What I am asking you to clarify is whether you are confident that the speed of
light has decayed and/or is decaying, as a result of Norman/Setterfield's
alleged scientific interpretation of the historical data. 

Please clarify.

>>I think you'd better take a closer look at those numbers.  Their resolution
>>is orders of magnitude better than what would be needed to show a change in
>>the speed of light that is consistent with the Norman/Setterfield theory. 
>
>    Good enough to conform to a 17-year snapshot that would correlate to
>    the CSC� curve?  If I remember my calculus right, the first derivative of 
>    this function would be -2�CSC(x)��COT(x).  This states that the rate of
>    change when x = 299792.458 is .0860112615654 km/s.  Given that it was
>    supposed to have only a 99% correlation to the curve, the derivative is
>    not far off the precision for the other measurements so the 17-year
>    snapshot is still too small.
    
You've got your variables reversed.  Norman/Setterfield's proposed function is
c = A*CSC^2(Kt).  What you are looking for is dc/dt as a function of t, where
c is the speed of light and t is time.

Now try again.

>What I am asking you to clarify is whether you are confident that the speed of
>light has decayed and/or is decaying, as a result of Norman/Setterfield's
>alleged scientific interpretation of the historical data. 
>
>Please clarify.
    
    In looking at the observations of Roemer, Harvard, and NBS, I say it
    appears that it is.
    
>You've got your variables reversed.  Norman/Setterfield's proposed function is
>c = A*CSC^2(Kt).  What you are looking for is dc/dt as a function of t, where
>c is the speed of light and t is time.
    
    What is A in this equation?  I've only seen it associated with CSC�.
    
    Mike

Re: .60  (Mike)

>>You've got your variables reversed.  Norman/Setterfield's proposed function
>>is c = A*CSC^2(Kt).  What you are looking for is dc/dt as a function of t,
>>where c is the speed of light and t is time. 
>
>    What is A in this equation?  I've only seen it associated with CSC�. 
    
A is the minimum value for the speed of light.

Just so that I can understand where you are coming from, is the Missler
article that you posted your sole source of information on the Norman/
Setterfield light decay theory?  If not, then what other sources have you
drawn from?

Hi,

	just wanting to clarify something.

	We are referring to 'the speed of light' as a shorthand for 'speed of
light in a vacuum'. Some may not know it, but even light doesn't travel at the
speed of light in say, water. And it _definitely_ stalls when it tries to pass
through steel ;')

	h :*]

	wading into Relativistic Theory that I haven't touch in over a decade!

>A is the minimum value for the speed of light.
    
    give me a realistic number for it then so I can see what kind of
    numbers it yields.

>Just so that I can understand where you are coming from, is the Missler
>article that you posted your sole source of information on the Norman/
>Setterfield light decay theory?  If not, then what other sources have you
>drawn from?
    
    the Missler article was the first I've heard of it.  I haven't read any
    of the sources in his bibliography (which includes Setterfield's
    books).
    
    Mike

	My main point is that it appears to be possible to devise
experiments which would "shed light" on the issue.  For example,
if photons from any distant sources could be shown to have different
energies than indicated by their wavelengths, this would definitely
set the notion of a universal constant speed of light on its ear.

	Also, I think we now have the capability to send out probes
that can accelerate to a significant fraction of the speed of light
(whatever that happens to be ;-), to distances of perhaps a few light
years from earth.  These could send back some very valuable observations
and measurements, including star maps that could show us actual
(vs. estimated) distances of many local (Milky Way Galaxy) stars
from earth.

    Re : constant A in equation
    
    I still don't see how this will give me a rate of change, only some
    minimum value for c � some tolerance.

Re: .63  (Mike)

I think that we should get a copy of Setterfield's paper.  What do you think?
Would you volunteer to pursue this, since it was your initiative to bring the
topic up for discussion?  Ask for two copies, one for you and one for me.  If
it costs something, I'll pay my share of it.

>>A is the minimum value for the speed of light.
>    
>    give me a realistic number for it then so I can see what kind of
>    numbers it yields.

Because the data isn't precise, constants A and K take on different values,
based on the data points used to obtain them. 

Why don't you use the 1933 and 1983 figures from Missler's article, solve
for A and K, then find out if the data that I posted from 1966 to 1983 
agrees with the function.

I'll answer my own question from my last reply, and evaluate the function 
c = A*csc^2(Kt) given the recent measurements of the speed of light that
I posted.

Taking the first derivative of c as Mike did in reply .58, we know that dc/dt
is at a minimum when Kt = 90 degrees.  At this value of Kt, csc^2(Kt) = 1.  Let
us assume that the 1983 NBS data point represents the minimum value and let A =
299792.4586.  Since Mike, Missler, and Setterfield claim that the data supports
the function going to infinity 6000 years ago, we will let K = 90/6000 = 0.015.
The most generous rendering of this function is therefore 

	c = 299792.4586csc^2(0.015t)

The year 1966 is 17 years prior to 1983, which would be 6000-17 = 5983 = t
on the absolute scale.  Therefore, in 1966 we would expect the value of
c to be 299792.4586csc^2(0.015*5983) = 299798.3969.  But from the table of
values I gave, the 1966 value was actually measured to be 299792.44 km/sec
with an accuracy of +- 0.2 km/sec.  Even if we evaluate the function assuming
time zero was 10,000 years ago, the corresponding value of c would have to be
at least 299794.5964.  So in conclusion, it is impossible to reconcile the
proposed csc^2 function with the best available measurement data. 

On a more subjective level, the whole idea of using a csc^2 function seems
bizarre.  Using a circular trig function implies that time is some sort of
angle, with the speed of light being a periodic function of that angle.  The
function starts at infinity, goes to its minimum value, then increases back to
infinity again.  Repeat.  What theoretical precedent is there for proposing
such a function? 

I would intuitively think that the function c = f(t) would decrease
monotonically to its limit (if it decreased at all) in keeping with the
general principle of increasing entropy in the universe. 

    We'll eventually have to get this paper, as you suggested, to see how
    he arrives at these numbers.  I agree that based on your analysis it
    doesn't make sense.
    
    Mike

    >                     -< meanwhile, try exponential decay >-
    
    I did, but it left me feeling like I was wasting away.

    You totally missed the pun, man.
    
    Exponential decay at a continuous rate is:
    
    Q=e^(-0.2t)
    
    if not continuous:
    
    Q=O�e^(-k�t)
    
    where O is the initial value of Q, k is some constant.  how do you want 
    us to apply it?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

	Well, I don't remember missing any pun... ;-)

	You can apply it any way(s) you like.  I don't entirely follow
your formulae, owing to a VT320 with (I think) defective firmware that
tends to display many members of the special DEC character set as
backward question marks.

	I wuz sorta thinkin' mebbe it coulda started out about 6,000
years ago at (or near) infinitely fast, then slowed down rapidly as
the LORD caused the heavens to stretch out, to these (very last?)
days, where lightspeed is mebbe asymptotically approaching its
minimum value (nearly constant over the last several decades or more).

	Who knows?  When He rolls up the heavens like a scroll, mebbie
the same thing will happen in reverse, only faster?

>    if not continuous:
>    
>    Q=O�e^(-k�t)
    
    Q=O x e^(-k x t)

 Thanks, Mike.  I was just about to post that but you beat me to it.






 Jim

    Actually we don't need any of these formulas when common sense tells
    you the answer.  If time changes according to gravity, anything that
    uses time to be measured cannot be constant across the universe.  The
    speed of light will also vary according to gravity.  That's why it's
    absolutely silly to use an earth-bound constant to measure the entire
    universe.
    
    Mike

	Yes, the speed of light is generally *assumed* to be the only
constant, while measurement of length, and measurement of the passage
of time, are both *assumed* to be observably variable, when looking at
one (accelerating) frame of reference from another.

    I just received my first issue of "Creation" magazine and it has some
    great stuff in it.  Lots of full color photos so the children would
    love it.
    
    - The island of Surtsey in the Atlantic Ocean was formed in 1963 and is
      a major thorn in the side to evolutionists.  It was literally born in
      days and possesses geological formations previously associated with
      taking millions of years to form.
    
    - The value of pi as stated in 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2.
    
    - Interview with a professor of physics & astronomy at Grace College in
      Indiana.  One of the highlights is the increasing orbit of the moon
      at 2-3 inches/year.  Tracing it backwards, the moon would be in
      catastrophic contact with the moon in 1/4 the time that evolutionists
      speak of.  Physics states that moon capturing is impossible because
      our gravity isn't strong enough.  The moon also has signs of young
      life (moonquakes, lava flows, etc.).
    
    - Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor have a new book out "Creation and
      Time" that refutes the errors in Hugh Ross's theories.  Also an
      article on the subject.
    
    - Jonah and the Great Fish.
    
    - Ancient civilizations were more advanced that what evolutionists believe.
    
    If you're interested, it's a quarterly publication at $22/year (USA),
    $A19.50 (Australia), and L11.50 (UK).
    
    USA                                      Australia
    ---                                      ---------
    Creation Science Ministries              Creation Science Foundation
    P.O. Box 6330                            P.O. Box 6302
    Florence, KY 41022                       Acacia Ridge DC, Qld 4110
    (606) 647-2900                           (07) 273 7650
    
    U.K. & Europe
    -------------
    Creation Science Foundation (UK)
    P.O. Box 1427
    Sevenhampton, Swindon, Wilts.,
    SN67UF, United Kingdom
    (01793) 512 268
    
    Also have addresses for Canada and New Zealand.
    
    Mike

Hi Mike,

I've been toying with the idea of subscribing for some years, but I already
find it difficult to read all that arrives!  However, by this one I'm
significantly tempted! ;-)  They have some tremendous material on audio
cassette also. 

							Andrew