[Administrator: the following is a compilation of a number of threads.] DINGO I have seen some to and fro happening here about Setterfield’s work on c decay. The following are the facts. Setterfield did his work while working as a technician at Flinders Uni. in South Australia. He plotted a series of selected measured values for c over a period of many years. He ignored several points which did not support his seemingly preconcieved results. (This is called Creation "Science") He did not take into consideration the improvement in measurement techniques over the period of his study period. He did not take into consideration the fact that the value of measured c has been almost identical since said techniques have reached a very accurate level. This lack of scientific rigour from Setterfield and the results he has drawn from his work indicates at best utterly shoddy behaviour, or more likely action very close to scientific fraud. He originally published under the FU letterhead, but the University refused to be identified with work of such a dubious nature and insisted their name be removed immediately. The work has been totally and comprehensively rejected by all scientific disciplines. To use it as a serious reference is to invite ridicule and scorn. However, it has not stopped a number of creationist groups and individuals using it in a misguided attempt to support their cause. I can give examples and I have been at meetings where it was used by creationists who were in the full knowledge of the facts as explained above. HELEN Well, as Barry Setterfield’s wife, perhaps I am in a position to correct the above post. His facts are off. Barry never worked at Flinders. In any capacity. He plotted every value for c available which had been measured and published, ever. If you know of some values he missed, I am sure he would be interested in knowing about them. His points were not preconceived. He was interested in what the data had to show and all data was used. He did take into consideration the improvement in techniques. The point that he has made, and a number of others have made as well, is that whenever the SAME method was used (whatever it was) at a later date, the measurement always showed a slower speed of light. The trend was always downward. This was noticed and remarked upon. The values of c have remained the same ever since atomic clocks were used to measure c because atomic clocks and c are synchronous. Therefore c could not be anything other than stable as a measurement if it is being measured in accordance with something that is changing at the same rate it is! Barry’s 1987 paper was an INVITED white paper by Stanford Research Center International. It was written in partnership with Trevor Norman, who headed one of the computer departments at Flinders University at the time. Flinders U math department reviewed the paper before it was printed. They did not retract their support until the call from Aardsma informing them that Norman and Setterfield were young earth creationists. It was at that point the paper was disavowed, Norman was threatened with job loss, and Setterfield was denied access to anything at Flinders except the library. They sort of don't like YEC folks. What the author above considers shoddy work was defended publicly and in print by professional statistician Alan Montgomery among others. Alan has never met Barry. The work has not been rejected by a good many people who are involved in physics, math, and astronomy. Dingo, your statement using a universal is quite adequate evidence that you are simply spouting some kind of rhetoric and haven't the foggiest what has actually been going on. Ridicule and scorn get heaped on the strangest people! Galileo, Copernicus, Pasteur, Wegener -- in short 'professional' or mainstream ridicule and scorn means literally nothing. What matters is whether the person is right or wrong in the long run. I would love to know what creationist groups are backing the Setterfield model! That would be news to Barry and to many others! Please give with some names, and thank you! FOCUSZX3S2 I always thought that it would be worthwhile for Setterfield and Co. to replicate the early speed-of-light measurements using the same techniques and technology used by experimenters 2 to 3 centuries ago. That would eliminate variations in measurement bias as a possible cause for the supposed observed c-decay. The ICR and CRS certainly have the funding and expertise to replicate the 300-year-old technology needed to repeat those early experiments. Have Setterfield and his colleagues considered doing this? HELEN I have heard this suggested before and I believe there is a student (university level) working with this right now. I don't know any more than that, except that it seems interesting and I agree with you. As for Barry doing it, that would be interesting, too. Right now I know he is preparing for several major speaking engagements coming up in November and trying to master power point! I think he will be presenting/defending his present work for awhile, but if things ever slow down for him and if that one student or someone else hasn't beaten him to it, I'll see what I can do about encouraging him to try some of that. Question, though -- and I think of it laughing -- would his detractors accept ANYTHING that he came up with as honest? I sort of doubt it! It would be far better for someone else to do the work with that in mind. Barry has already been accused of so much -- just like the post that started this thread! It's gone so far past ridiculous now that I'm not sure there's an adjective for it. For the sake of Barry's reputation, it would be better for someone else to do the work, I think! But still it would be fun to do just for his own curiosity, maybe... MILAN If somebody wishes to find a detailed discussion of Setterfield's mistakes, there is an excellent article in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html JOHN PAUL Barry Setterfield answers Robert Day http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp Ya see Milan it is not enough for one person to find alleged mistakes with someone else's work. You should present it to that person or else the rebuttal is invisible to whom it matters most. THINK PLEASE While that [The Day article on t.o.]was relavant at the time, I don't believe that the T.O work is relavant to the current iteration of the cDK model. As I said in another thread, if Setterfield work gets published, and when there is a detailed copy of his work with all of his arguments detailed in a logical and coherent fashion, then I will be interested in seeing what it says. But right now, the current iteration of the model is non-viable because it is not logically presented. It is very much presented in a stream-of-consciousness fashion, with earlier forms of the model getting confused with later forms of the model. It is not something that I think should be considered by anyone to be worhty to be discussed because of the lack of detail, and a lack of coherent structure. HELEN Milan, the TO article was irrelevant from the time it was written. It is a hatchet piece written concerning some initial findings and a preliminary article presenting them. But they will leave it up at TO as long as there are people gullible enough to believe what they read there. That suits their purposes just fine. The 1987 white paper for SRI is here. www.setterfield.org THINKPLEASE Helen, T.O article is relevant as long as Setterfield leaves copies of his outdated work on the internet for distribution. Frankly, the more I consider his website, the more I think it would help him if he cleaned it up. The presentation of his work is quite disorganized, and could use some clarification in places. Some of the older work needs to be clarified as such, to limit confusion between older and newer ideas presented. PAUL OF EUGENE Hi Helen - does Barry still maintain that light speed was faster in the days of living men by a factor of million times and more? HELEN The website was given to Barry and set up by Lambert Dolphin. Barry will be visiting the U.S. in November and will try to learn how to work the silly thing then. Right now it is not in his control! And I don't know how to program a website, so I'm no help with this at all. Hi Paul. The Setterfield model postulates an initial speed of light about 10^11 or 10^10 times its current speed and decreasing as a Lorenzian (sp?) curve. I know c is figured by all who have been playing around with, very much including Barry, to have dropped extremely rapidly at first (at the least). So yes, the earliest men would have been living under those conditions and more. NAT Helen, You mentioned that: "I know c is figured by all who have been playing around with, very much including Barry, to have dropped extremely rapidly at first (at the least). " This is not generally accepted in the physics community, although it may seem that way due to some of the discussions one may find on Big Bang Cosmology. In fact, a non-constant c is not necessary for the expansion of the earlier Universe to escape its own gravity. The simple reason is that the other fundamental forces are many many times more powerful than gravity, but the more sophisticated reason is the warping of spacetime explained in the standard inflationary model. Further, you continually bring up that physicists are now having quite a bit of debate about the constancy of c. This debate, however, is not all that supportive of the ideas of Setterfield and other YEC as you suggest. The debate derives from a recent discovery that strongly suggests that the fine structure constant was actually a little different billions of years ago. Since the fine structure constant and c are related, this suggests a changing c. It does not however suggest anything on the order of Setterfield's claims. In fact the measured difference in the fine structure constant was quite small. Finally, I, as a physicist, am simply confused on how a massively different c is even possible given the number of things that are intimately related to c. For example - if c were 10^11 times greater 6000 years ago as you and Setterfield are suggesting, then fusion would be 10^22 times more energetic. Given what we know about how our sun fuses hydrogen we would expect a few things if this was true: first the Earth would have been crispy fried, but let's ignore that for now; second, the core of the Sun would have a rather large amount of lead and others metals that under current models are impossible for a medium-small star like our to form. Spectral signatures from the Sun would provide evidence of these metals, but we don't see them. [Administrator: this link might be informative: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0201/10ironsun/ ] Now, Setterfield could claim that Einstein's E=mc^2 wasn't always correct and just happens to be right now, but that is a serious stretch of credulity - don't cha think? DINGO Helen. Firstly, I will take your point re Setterfield not being employed by Flinders Uni. It was my belief both he and Norman were working there. It is not really a matter of any importance. However, what is clear is Setterfield's work is incredibly shoddy, to the extent that it borders on fraudulent. Milan's link makes that abundantly evident and Setterfields response is at best weak. It is noteworthy how strongly real scientists reacted to Seterfields pap. It was then and is now laughable. This has all the hallmarks of typical creation "science" methodology. Firstly one knows the answer from the bible. Secondly one makes the results fit the answer. Thirdly if 2. does not work bend the data until it does. Lastly misquote real scientists to support ones case. The challenge for Setterfield here is to produce real science with real evidence which will stand up to real analysis and real critical evaluation and peer review and get published in real journals. If he can do that, and clearly his maths and analytical efforts to date preclude it, then there is a Nobel Prize awaiting him at the door. .Setterfields work was rejected because it was clearly false with dodgy data interpreted in a mathematically illiterate manner to arrive at false results. Apart from those minor points it was a wonderful piece of work! RONGOGIABE the speed of light is derivable, if you are sufficiently bored, from Maxwell's laws. Or so I have been told, never attempted it myself because light is an electromagnetic wave and Maxwell's laws cover that ground, so it seems to make sense. That said a changing value for c indicates changing Maxwell's laws. I suspect this would lead to some strange stuff, but maybe not. or maybe it's moot, after all Maxwell's laws are predicated on an inertial rest frame (I don't think they would work at say .96c) Strange that Maxwell's laws haven't changed much (I hear the first formulations were a bit untidy while still mathematically and physically correct) PHILLIP Helen, Questions for you and these are really serious and not some kind of trap. I'm doing some number crunching. Okay, let us assume light has dropped in velocity based on a very abrupt curve. Does anybody have any specific theories, yet, on exactly the speed of light at specific times after the creation such as a chart. My point is at the moment of creation what was the speed. Did it drop by a factor of 100 times in 10 nanoseconds or 10 seconds or 10 hours, etc. etc.? Is there enough theoretical background yet to actually have developed a chart which would indicate the speeds vs. time-from-creation to some point where it settles out at a close proximity to what it is today? You gave me a lot of references and although I am seriously reading them I have had to skim today to find this information and may have overlooked it if it exists. It is also your contention that there was a stretching of the universe...when? at the point of creation (or right after)? or sometime in the past at a different point in time? and if so any ideas of the former size? (I think you already gave me your thoughts on actual size today in atomic clock time/speed). You do have me interested and I won't rule anything out without studying it. As I told you earlier--My belief is that although I still tend to lean toward "old earth" theory I still believe God could do it all in a day if he wanted to--after all--he is infinitely powerful. THE BARBARIAN Helen, regarding Setterfield's work. I've read it, too. But scientists in the field haven't accepted it, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that if the value of c changed enough to make a difference, then there wouldn't be any matter of the sort we see today. So either physics is wrong, or Setterfield is wrong. Given that, scientists, even those in the ICR, have concluded Setterfield is wrong. HELEN For both Phillip and Barbarian, I have Barry Setterfield on the phone right now, my headset is on, and I am taking down what he says verbatim. He is in italics.: 1. Helen, Questions for you and these are really serious and not some kind of trap. I'm doing some number crunching. Okay, let us assume light has dropped in velocity based on a very abrupt curve. Does anybody have any specific theories, yet, on exactly the speed of light at specific times after the creation such as a chart. Here is a chart I did awhile ago. It is still basically good with only some minor changes needed. http://www.ldolphin.org/harmon2.html Just recently the main curve has been determined from astronomy. It is the same curve as astronomers use for the redshift-distance relation, because redshift and light speed are linked in the same way that redshift and the rate of ticking of the atomic are linked. Since distance, astronomically, means looking back in time, there is also a direct correlation between astronomical distances and time. Therefore the redshift-distance relationship is the same curve as the speed of light-time relationship or the rate of ticking of the atomic clock against orbital, or dynamical time relationship. The only difference is the axes would have to be re-scaled. On this basis, the chart which is on the website is shown to be basically correct. 2. My point is at the moment of creation what was the speed. According to the mathematics of the situation, the redshift data indicate that the maximum value for lightspeed was around 4 x 10^11 times its current speed. 3. Did it drop by a factor of 100 times in 10 nanoseconds or 10 seconds or 10 hours, etc. etc.? One minute after creation, the value of c was around 4 x 10^11 its current speed. The value of c , 127 years after creation, was 4.2 x 10^7 c now. The actual function is the same as the redshift function. That will give you some idea of how quickly it dropped initially. 4. Is there enough theoretical background yet to actually have developed a chart which would indicate the speeds vs. time-from-creation to some point where it settles out at a close proximity to what it is today? That same graph actually does that. 5. You gave me a lot of references and although I am seriously reading them I have had to skim today to find this information and may have overlooked it if it exists. There are a number of curves in my 1987 Report, but they have been superceded by the new work and the redshift data curve. The paper is in peer review now. 6. It is also your contention that there was a stretching of the universe...when? at the point of creation (or right after)? or sometime in the past at a different point in time? At the point of creation. Further calculations are needed to try to find the length of time during which the stretching took place. It has certainly closed by the finish of creation week, almost certainly by the end of the fourth day, and it may have even finished sometime early on day 1. 7. and if so any ideas of the former size? (I think you already gave me your thoughts on actual size today in atomic clock time/speed). Creation by God was 'ex nihilo' or from nothing. The original size of the ball of energy which is now the fabric of space is probably a matter of conjecture, but would certainly be quite small in comparison to our current universe. 8. You do have me interested and I won't rule anything out without studying it. As I told you earlier--My belief is that although I still tend to lean toward "old earth" theory I still believe God could do it all in a day if he wanted to--after all--he is infinitely powerful. I certainly agree with that, yes. To add one more thing, the redshift curve has allowed the harmonization of geology, astronomy, and the Scriptural time base in a very beautiful way. After you have read the material on my website, please feel free to email me with questions. firstname.lastname@example.org Onto Barbarian's letter: 1. Helen, regarding Setterfield's work. I've read it, too. But scientists in the field haven't accepted it, for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that if the value of c changed enough to make a difference, then there wouldn't be any matter of the sort we see today. That is not relating to my work specifically. That is relating to Barrow and Tipler's work on the Anthropic Principle, and related studies. These studies have tried varying a variety of constants with dramatic effects. Fortunately, those models have absolutely nothing to do with my model, which is based on energy conservation. When energy is conserved in the process of c varying, other associated atomic constants vary in such a way that there are very few observable physical effects, such as the problem that you raise. 2. So either physics is wrong, or Setterfield is wrong. Given that, scientists, even those in the ICR, have concluded Setterfield is wrong. (Barry is laughing) As far as ICR is concerned, the rejection of the work was basically on statistical grounds. The new work with the redshift data takes the development of this way beyond any statistical doubt, as the curve is already defined by other parameters. It is interesting that a number of physicists have indeed looked at my work, to see precisely what has been suggested, and have come to the conclusion that it is a viable option. Those holding to the Anthropic Principle approach seem to be unaware that a conservation of energy approach overcomes much of the difficulty. The recent paper is based on standard physics, and for this reason, several physicists are recommending publication.