To: All Msg #63, Dec1092 09:29AM Subject: Speed
From: scharle
To: All Msg #63, Dec1092 09:29AM
Subject: Speed of light
Organization: Univ. of Notre Dame
From: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
MessageID: <1992Dec10.172918.10522@news.nd.edu>
ReplyTo: scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu (scharle)
Newsgroups: talk.origins,sci.skeptic
Unfortunately, I lost the attribution to this recent post:
It was on sci.skeptic, and I am posting this to sci.skeptic and
talk.origins.
> New Light on an Old Problem
> =========================== by Alan Montgomery
> In 1981, Barry Setterfield a young Australian astronomer, gathered
> and analyzed all the available data on 'c'. To his amazement he
> discovered not only the systematic decrease of 'c' with time, but also
> that the best mathematical relationship to fit the data was a
> trigonometric formula:
> 2
> c(t)=299.792 cosec (0.015)t
> where t=time in years since creation
...
Perhaps I have profoundly misunderstood what this is saying, so
I will gladly accept correction. Is this really the famous varying
speed of light equation? If I understand this correctly, there is
at least one serious problem with it, which surely no scientist
would have overlooked, so I must be really confused.
Has anyone ever remarked on the fact that the cosecant will take
an infinite value at zero (corresponding to the time of Creation)
*and* at integral multiples of pi? Thus, when t = n * pi / .015,
or approximately every 209 years since creation, the speed of
light is infinite. Not only that, but at the intermediate points,
the cosecant will be one, so that the speed of light will be
299.792.
There are enough problems with creationism that we don't
have to invent them, so if there is something wrong with my
reasoning, please let me know.

Tom Scharle cm65n6@irishmvs(Bitnet)
Room G003 Computing Center scharle@lukasiewicz.cc.nd.edu(Internet)
University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, IN 465560539 USA
EMail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank
