Setterfield discussion continued

Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by Administrator2, Jan 27, 2002.

  1. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: this first post is the second half of a post started in "String Theory"]

    PAUL OF EUGENE
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> from Helen: And, secondly, Paul, I think you vastly misunderstand Barry's material
    to have made the statements you made. The laws of physics never
    changed. If you want to ask about his stuff, maybe we could start a
    thread on that or bring up the old one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yes, I think that another thread would be appropriate. And I know there's one already down there - but its so big! Maybe a "current comments" thread or something.

    You know in the past I've attempted to prove Barry wrong by having Adam drop rocks 16 feet and timing the fall - having angels shine lasers - taking Adam for a ride in a space ship and having him step on a pair of bathroom scales under acceleration - this time, I think we'll ask Adam to sing for us.

    But let me summarize Barry's theory as I understand it and you set me straight where I go astray, just so we start off on the right foot together here.

    Barry asserts that the speed of light has been changing since the days of Adam and Eve, having been more than a million times faster while they lived and walked about the earth.

    Barry asserts that Einsteinian relativity remains valid at all times from creation until now, including the fact that light speed is that one speed which nothing in the universe can exceed, and that gravity and acceleration are identical forces both now and in all earlier millenia following the 7 days of creation.

    Barry asserts that the equation e equals m c squared remained valid all that time, with the energy within a given number of atoms remaining constant, but that as c was greater, so the mass of a given amount of matter was less, precisely to that degree necessary to have the energy locked within a given number of atoms remain the same. Something like m = e/c^2 where e remains fixed and c varies.

    Barry asserts that the force of gravity was stronger to the degree necessary to keep orbits in the same shape in spite of the lesser mass of such bodies as sun, moon, earth. In the Newtonian approximation, he simply postulates that G - the gravitational constant in Newton's famous inverse square law of gravitational attraction. - becomes that much greater as the mass reduces, thereby keeping orbits going as they should, human leaps to the same heights, and so forth.

    Barry also asserts that the changed speed of light necessitates some interesting effects on the Planck constant, radioactive decay rates, and I suppose some other things I don't have on the tips of my typing fingers at the moment.

    Finally, Barry asserts that this hyperfast speed of light is able to explain why the universe though consisting of objects millions and billions of light years away that we can see is able to be only about 6 thousand years old..

    How did I do?
     
  2. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    RADIOCHEMIST

    The following quote is attributed to Barry Setterfield on the
    URL: http://www.setterfield.org/cdk/cdkconseq.html
    Barry Setterfield: "The problem with the radioactive decay rate is that
    this would have been faster if the speed of light was higher. This would
    lead to a shorter half-life than the light-intensity curve revealed. For
    example, if c were 10 times its current value (c now), the half-life
    would be only 1/10th of what it is today,....."



    I have a question for Barry. Can you please show mathmetically why it is
    that radioactive decay rates will be one-tenth of their original value
    if the speed of light is 10 times its current value? And please do not
    give a reference. You gave a reference previously in answer to this
    question but the reference merely asserted this relationship and did not
    prove it or demonstrate it in any way. I would like to see a solid
    proof, based on equations and known physics, that your claim is correct.
    In the above quote, you have asserted this relationship and that is
    plain for anyone to see. But claiming something and basing the claim on
    a solid foundation are two different things. I know you claim it, now
    can you demonstrate it to be true? I am from Missouri, show me! (Barry
    if you are not acquainted with this Americanism, maybe it will help to
    say that Missouri is called the "Show me" state.)

    Radiochemist
     
  3. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    BARRY SETTERFIELD

    To Radiochemist,
    You will find the equations you are looking for in my 1987 Report, equations
    20-26 and in the section entitled "Radioactive Decay." http://www.setterfield.org/report/report.html
    To Paul,
    I will respond to you tomorrow. Helen may be able to respond to some of
    this. It is about 5 a.m. right now and I am just retiring for the night, or
    morning, after a night of research and writing. Your patience is
    appreciated.
     
  4. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    RADIOCHEMIST

    Barry,
    I asked that you
    NOT give a reference but that you demonstrate how changing the speed
    of light would change the radioactive decay rates. I have read your
    1987 report and you do not show that, you merely make the claim. I have the time and interest to
    follow your explanation.
     
  5. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    DAVID PLAISTED
    My understanding is that c (the speed of light) appears somewhere in the
    equations for radioactive decay rates, so if c were higher, decay would
    have been faster. I heard this from someone other than Barry at one point
    but am not attempting to defend it or the proposition that decay rates
    were different in the past, although it is worth investigating.
    David Plaisted
     
  6. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    BARRY SETTERFIELD

    To radiochemist:
    You asked me not to give a reference. Do you mean you want me to re-derive
    it all again, over the net for you now, when it has already been done in
    these other pages? You claim that I have merely asserted the relationship
    that half-lives are c-dependant and did not prove it or demonstrate it in
    any way. You asked for it to be solid proof based on equations and known
    physics.

    First of all, in the reference that you were given, the previous nineteen
    equations covering a number of tens of pages were establishing the
    relationship of the various physical constants with c, both on a theoretical
    basis and from the data. For example, it was demonstrated from the data,
    and from theory, that Planck's constant h was proportional to 1/c.
    Essentially, in equations 20-26, the standard equations for the various
    forms of radioactive decay are taken, in which the foregoing constants,
    which had just been discussed, appear, and the relationship between those
    constants and c is then applied to those equations. As a result of this, it
    is demonstrated that in every case there is a c-proportionality in the rates
    of decay.

    For example, for the Beta-decay process, Von Buttlar's equation for the
    decay constant includes Planck's constant in the denominator, and because as
    already proved in the previous equations, h is proportional to 1/c, it means
    that the decay constant is proportional, also, to c.

    There are other ways of achieving the same result. Interestingly, even some
    of the most ardent critics of my variable c work, including some professors
    of physics, have agreed that I have at least got this one right!


    To Paul:
    I think you have a number of misunderstandings concerning what my work is
    about. In some cases, I also think you are looking at some old work which
    has been updated. Theoretic summaries of the recent work can be found on my
    website
    www.setterfield.org

    You must understand, Paul, that as a result of the recent proposals by
    Albrecht and Magueijo which postulate original light speeds of 10^60 times
    the current light speed, Magueijo himself has stated he is rethinking some
    aspects of relativity. I cannot give you an exact reference on that at the
    moment, but suffice it to say this is a matter still under discussion.

    Some other aspects of relativity have recently been called into question as
    a result of the cosmic microwave background, effectively providing an
    absolute reference frame for motion. This was recognized as far back as
    1988 where Martin Harwit in his second edition of Astrophysical Concepts, p.
    178, states "it is interesting that the presence of such a radiation field
    [the microwave background] should allow us to determine an absolute
    reference frame on the basis of local measurement." He goes on to say that
    "the establishment of an absolute reference frame would emphasize the fact
    that special relativity is really only meant to deal with small-scale
    phenomena, and that phenonema on larger scales allow us to determine a
    preferred frame of reference in which cosmic processes look isotropic."

    You say that "with the energy within a given number of atoms remaining
    constant, that as c was greater, so the mass of a given amount of matter was
    less…" You have missed one of the key points of the new work, concerning
    the cause of the redshift: namely that c was greater because the zero
    point energy of the vacuum was less, and so, as a consequence, was the
    potential energy of atomic orbits, which was why emitted light was redder in
    the earlier universe. See if Helen's or my theoretical summaries on my
    webpage help. They should help you get up to speed regarding where my work
    is headed and what the conclusions are.

    One other point, perhaps: it is important to remember that gravitational
    acceleration is constant only in dynamical time.
     
  7. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    RADIOCHEMIST

    In fairness to Barry Setterfield and having read again his 1987
    paper, I must correct my previous statement that he did not offer
    proof that the speed of light was related to radioactive decay
    rates. He does offer at least some proof, although for one type
    of decay, I don't think it is strong proof. Nevertheless, he
    did make an effort, contrary to my original statement. I was
    relying on memory, having read the web paper some time ago. My
    memory was faulty.
    RADIOCHEMIST
     
  8. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Administrator: The following is a combination of three emails from radiochemist. The divisions between each email are marked.]

    RADIOCHEMIST

    The idea that radioactive decay rates have changed sharply during the
    history of the earth offers many opportunities to prove or disprove
    Setterfield's theories. For example the Olko Natural Reactor
    that occurred about 1.8 billion years ago would have produced unusual
    results if the event had actually taken place only 6,000 years ago.
    As far as is known, the Oklo reactors operated much the same as
    modern reactors operate today, with a few differences. It seems
    that so far, no one has found puzzling charateristics in the Oklo
    Reactors that contradict current ideas about the age of the
    earth. I don't know offhand what differences might be expected,
    but I bet if someone spends time on this question, it will either
    prove or disprove Setterfields ideas.

    * * *

    Glen Morton, a former creationist, had written the following about
    speed of light decay:
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Supernova 1987A proves the speed of light has been constant for
    170,000 years.
    If the speed of light has changed, then
    1. the rates of radioactive decay will also have changed.
    2. the energy of radiation emitted by an atom will change.
    In 1987 a star in the Large Magellanic Cloud exploded. Or rather, the
    light from the explosion reached earth. Nine months later astronomers
    discovered a ring of gas with a diameter of 1.37 light years around the
    former star. They also discovered the characteristic gamma ray emission
    of Co-57 and Co-56. These gamma rays had the same energy that we observe
    in an earth laboratory. This means that the speed of light was the same
    as it is today when the star exploded. Theoretical models of a
    supernova said that the decay of radioactive Co-56 and Co-57 would
    power the light given off by the supernova gases. The light curve
    has decayed at precisely the half-life as we measure in our labs for
    Co-56 and Co-57. This further confirms that the speed of light was the
    same as today when the star exploded. The time it took the light to
    travel from the supernova to the ring allows us to measure the size
    of the gas ring shown above. Knowing this and the angular size of the
    ring as seen in a telescope gives us a distance of 170,000 light
    years to the star. Thus, since the distance to the supernova can be
    trigonometrically determined, the speed of light has been constant
    for the past 170,000 years." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    Note that Morton's comments are based on the fact that there is
    no sign of a change in energy for the decay of Co-56 and Co-57,
    and that the apparent half-life of the decay of the light curve
    (from an event long ago) agrees with our present value of the
    half-lives of Co-56 and Co-57. Barry Setterfield might object
    that the time of the event was somewhat less than 170,000 years,
    if the speed of light has changed. However that has no bearing on
    the lack of support for a change in energy or a change in half-life.
    In other words, predictions based on Setterfield's theory are not
    confirmed by the explosion mentioned above. I hope it is clear to
    everyone that our observation now, of a decay in the light curve
    of an event that happened long ago, is in effect, a measurement
    of the half-lives of the radionuclides at that remote point in
    time.

    * * *

    Barry Setterfield previously answered the objection related to the
    explosion of the Supernova with the following rebuttal. I will
    quote it below and then give my comments after the quote. Unless
    I am not thinking clearly this late at night, I believe Barry
    is using flawed logic.
    Setterfield comments:

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Additional Note, 1/18/99: In order to clarify some confusion on the
    SN1987 issue and light-speed, let me give another illustration that
    does not depend on the geometry of triangles etc. Remember, distances
    do not change with changing light-speed. Even though it is customary
    to give distances in light-years (LY), that distance is fixed even if
    light-speed c is changing.
    To start, we note that it has been established that the distance from
    SN1987A to the sheet of material that reflected the peak intensity of
    the light burst from the SN, is 2 LY, a fixed distance. Imagine that
    this distance is subdivided into 24 equal light-months (LM). Again the
    LM is a fixed distance. Imagine further that as the peak of the light
    burst from the SN moved out towards the sheet of material, it emitted
    a pulse in the direction of the earth every time it passed a LM
    subdivision. After 24 LM subdivisions the peak burst reached the
    sheet.
    Let us assume that there is no substantive change in light-speed from
    the time of the light-burst until the sheet becomes illuminated. Let
    us further assume for the sake of illustration, that the value of
    light-speed at the time of the outburst was 10c now. This means that
    the light-burst traversed the DISTANCE of 24 LM or 2 LY in a TIME of
    just 2.4 months. It further means that as the travelling light-burst
    emitted a pulse at each 1 LM subdivision, the series of pulses were
    emitted 1/10th month apart IN TIME.
    However, as this series of pulses travelled to earth, the speed of
    light slowed down to its present value. It means that the information
    contained in those pulses now passes our earth-bound observers at a
    rate that is 10 times slower than the original event. Accordingly, the
    pulses arrive at earth spaced one month apart in time. Observers on
    earth assume that c is constant since the pulses were emitted at a
    DISTANCE of 1 LM apart and the pulses are spaced one month apart in
    TIME.
    The conclusion is that this slow-motion effect makes it impossible to
    find the value of c at the moment of emission by this sort of process." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Comments by RADIOCHEMIST: It seems to me that an earthly example may
    be more effective on this problem of logic. Suppose John Doe left
    New York City for Virginia at a speed of 60 miles an hour and gradually
    slowed his speed from 60 miles an hour to a final speed of 10 miles
    per hour by the time he reached his destination 300 miles from New
    York. Suppose also that his average speed was 30 miles an hour for
    the distance of 300 miles. Time enroute was therefore 10 hours. Let
    us further suppose that his wife, Jane Doe, left New York City on
    the same route one hour later, and she also slowed her speed in
    exactly the same way as her husband. Her average speed also was 30
    miles an hour and her time enroute was 10 hours. Now the key
    question is what is the time interval between John Doe's arrival
    and Jane Doe's arrival in Virginia. Obviously since she covers the
    same distance in the same time as her husband, her arrival time will
    be one hour later than her husband, the same time interval as was
    present in their departure. So by analogy, it seems to me that
    Barry Setterfield's claim that the time interval between pulses
    when they arrive at earth is not the one month that he claims,
    but rather it would still be one tenth of a month, the interval
    at which they were emitted. Another point that helps this view
    is that the distance between the explosion and the reflecting sheet
    is small compared to the distance from there to the earth, reducing
    the effect of changes of light speed during the 2 light years of
    his example - a point that he has granted in advance.
     
  9. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PAUL OF EUGENE
    Hi, Barry, its good to be posting directly to you instead of via Helen on this issue. Hope this posting finds you both well. I'm going to visit Australia once in my lifetime - just to see the clouds of magellen -

    Anyway, thanks for your handy link. Most of my assumptions I listed appear to be correct, based on what I read on the link you provided. Apparantly you view your theory as crowding out Einstein's relativity in the extreme situations near the beginning of the universe, whereas I assumed you would attempt to be consistent with relativity throughout; but on the points key to my argument I'm about to present it would appear I have things correct. Also there is a lot of stuff about quantumization of the red shift that I am passing over in favor of a larger view here.

    I'm thinking about the newtonian aproximation of laws of mass, acceleration, gravity during adamic time when c was precisely (for the sake of discussion) one million times faster than it is now.

    Your web site included the following comment in the posting IMPLICATIONS OF NON-CONSTANT LIGHT VELOCITY by Lambert Dolphin:

    "Setterfield's latest work implies that G itself varies inversely with c to the fourth power."

    This is a good thing for you to do, since it preserves the shape of earth's orbit under conditions of greatly reduced mass for the same amount of matter, more or less.

    Here is the relevant equation: in our time, F = (G x M1 x M2) / d^2

    Exponents are shown by the ^ character, just like in computer program formulas. the x means multiply.

    Let us arbitrarily say that in our day the speed of light is one (as in one lightyear per year.) Then when light was faster, it used to be 2, 3, or a million. This simplifies the following equation:

    In ADAM's time: F = (G / (c ^ -4) x (m1/ c^2) x (m2 / c^2)) / d^2

    Note how EACH MASS is reduced by the square of the speed of light (strictly speaking, the amount by which the speed of light was faster then compared to now) and this is compensated for EXACTLY by the modifiction of G by c to the inverse 4th power JUST LIKE YOU SUGGESTED, which leaves F UNCHANGED between Adam's day and ours. Earth's beautiful, round, 93 million mile radius orbit would have it no other way! ;)

    Now as you are aware, in Newton's dynamics, F = M x A , where A is the acceleration produced on a given mass by a given force.

    Let us recast this equation as A = F / M and consider the implications for a typical one pound rock we drop a mere 16 feet. We know it is a one pound rock - Adam could feel that one pound of force when he hold it still in his hand, just like we can today.

    The MASS of the rock is reduced, however, as you have specified. It is reduced by a factor of c^2, c being the much increased speed of light in adamic time. This means that the rock FALLS FASTER! It falls faster by a factor equal to the square root of the decrease in mass. Exactly c.

    A rock dropped 16 feet will, in our day, fall almost exactly in one second. In adam's day, it would fall faster by a factor of c

    That's a change in dynamic time! This proves that your own adjustments fail to achieve the static dynamic time you strive for in order to experience a change in c. Since a dropped rock is executing a mini-orbit of a sort(until it hits the ground) a similar line of reasoning would show that the earth itself was whizzing around the sun by the same increased speed factor. A trip around the sun defines the year. Lo and behold, we get back all those millions and millions of years you are trying to get rid of!

    Should we choose to take this as a cue that our adamic seconds need to be revised, and adjust a second in Adam's day to be equal to the time it takes for a rock to drop 16 feet, we determine that in our revised, adamic world time, the speed of light itself has renormalized to what it is in our day.

    I haven't forgotten my promise to make Adam sing. I'll get to that when I get home and get the correct formula from my library.

    Give my regards to Helen!

    [Administrator: The following email arrived not long after and so is added here:]


    I promised to "have Adam sing" and its time to let that happen. We procede back in time in the time machine of our imagination and we gather round the campfire as Adam himself, the patriarch of the family, prepares to sing. He is going to sing "row row row your boat", a great family favorite, and it starts out on the bass c note, a nice comfortable note for Adam to sing, and that happens to be a note of frequency 131 cycles per second.

    But we recall that we have traveled back, in our imagination, to a Setterfield altered universe, in which, among other affects, the mass of all objects has been reduced by the tremendous factor of one million squared. What will this do to Adam's voice?

    Well, the formula for the frequency of a tone from a stretched string - is pretty simple. I found it on page 32 of The Science of Musical Sound by John R. Pierce, which was published by Scientific American. Here it is:

    f = frequency T= tension M = mass of string L = length of string

    f = sqr(T / M)/2L

    You will note that T is DIVIDED by M. What this means is, the smaller M becomes, the bigger the ratio T/M becomes. Recall that under Setterfield light speed change theory, M has become very very small indeed.

    Adam sounds his note. The frequency becomes faster by a factor of exactly one million due to the decreased mass of his vocal cords, which are the stretched strings under consideration for our story. Nobody can hear a note - the sound is way supersonic!

    EXCEPT FOR ONE LITTLE DETAIL. This little circumstance is actually a clue to us that we need to redefine the second AS IT WOULD BE PERCIEVED BY ADAM. Because surely Adam could hear himself sing!

    So we redefine the second to include one million of what we have been thinking seconds were. Sure enough, the frequency obligingly drops down to a reasonable sound level that Adam can hear again, if these newly defined seconds actually define seconds as perceived by Adam. I submit that it is necessary to do this, because Adam could, in fact, hear himself sing.

    But under these newly redefined Adamic seconds, the speed of light has again become slower, back to the speed we all know and love today. Setterfield theory is again shown to be incapable of actually managing to speed light up in relation to how the world functions. Certainly as measured by the "clock" of Adam's vocal cords, the speed remains the same.

    [ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]
     
  10. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    RADIOCHEMIST

    To Paul of Eugene,
    I found your equations about Adam singing very interesting. But I
    don't quite follow your logic. If equations show that Adam could
    not sing in an audible way, then we have to accept that, don't we?

    Of course, I don't buy Setterfield's theory but logically if the
    equations say that Adam can't be heard, I don't have any problem
    with accepting that, at least in a theoretical sense. Is there
    something I am missing? I think that perhaps your logic on the
    acceleration of gravity is the strongest point, since I am sure
    it would be easy to find evidence that the orbital speed of the
    earth has not undergone tremendous change, as required by the
    equations.
     
  11. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    TIM THOMPSON

    On Nuclear Decay Rates

    The assumption that radioactive decay rates depend linearly on the
    speed of light is strictly Setterfield's. The demonstration for this
    is found in his 1987 paper "The Atomic Constants, Light and Time".
    See sections IV(B), "Atomic Rest-Masses" and IV(E), "Radioactive
    Decay". In order to conserve energy in Setterfield's cosmology, he
    has required that mc^2 (Einstein's total energy) remain a constant,
    so that mass, m, becomes dependent on c, such that m = 1/(c^2)
    (section IV equations 2 & 3). He then derives (section IV, equations
    5-7) that the velocity of an atomic particle must be directly proportional
    to the speed of light (although I do not see how equation 7 comes from
    equation 5). This result is carried on into the section on radioactive
    decay, where the escape frequency of a particle from the nucleus is
    directly proportional to the speed of light as well (section IV, equations
    20 & 21).

    I can find no indication in standard nuclear physics that the decay rate
    is, or should be, proportional to the speed of light. The clearest
    theoretical description I can find ("Alpha emission and spontaneous
    fission through quasi-molecular shapes", G. Royer, Journal of Physics G:
    Nuclear and Particle Physics 26(8), 1149-1170, August 2000) presents an
    equation that is much the same as Setterfield's equation 20 (section IV),
    where the half-life depends on the potential barrier and the assault
    frequency (which Setterfield would argue, depends on the speed of light).

    So, as I read it, if Setterfield's cosmology is correct, then decay rates
    depend on the speed of light. On the other hand, if Setterfield's
    cosmology is incorrect, then decay rates do not depend on the speed
    of light. But keep in mind that in Setterfield's cosmology, the more
    rapid decay rate of the past would not have released any more energy,
    since his mass depends on (1/c^2), so that the energy loss per decay
    event would be smaller due to the smaller mass. Hence, the higher decay
    rate of the past would not leave behind any observational clue that I
    can come up with.

    On the Variable Speed of Light.

    I think the weakness of the whole show is back at the beginning. The
    argument that experimental evidence indicates that the speed of light
    is time variable is a poor argument, not supported, either by experimental
    evidence, nor by Setterfield's statistical analysis. His results are in
    fact perfectly consistent with, and indistinguishable from, the results
    to be expected, if in fact the speed of light were truly constant with
    time. The same is true for the argument regarding all of the other,
    allgedly tme variable "constant" of physics. Indeed, so far as I can
    tell, Setterfield's cosmology has no observational signature, and is
    in all cases observationally indistinguishable from the standard cosmology,
    which raises the question: "Why bother?"

    Cheers.
     
  12. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    JAY OSWALD

    Why not just cut to the chase?

    The speed of light varies in different media correct? It has been
    experimentially varied by a fairly large amount in labs.

    Why not devise an experiment where c is changed, and then empirically
    measure some constant, (such as Planck's constant)? If these constants are
    indeed functions of c, then it should be fairly obvious to either demonstate
    whether or not c could have varied over time.
     
  13. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    RADIOCHEMIST

    Tim Thompson,
    I agree with you that Setterfield's main problem is at the start
    when he claims, without solid evidence, that the speed of light has
    slowed down based on experimental results. But it seems to me that
    Glen Morton is correct in thinking that the Supernova 1987A provides
    proof that the speed of light has not changed in the last 170,000
    years. Setterfield rebuts that by claiming that what we see is
    essentially only an illusion caused by the speed of light changing.
    Both of these arguments, Morton's and Setterfield's are given in
    this thread. Who is right, in your opinion?

    RADIOCHEMIST
     
  14. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    RADIOCHEMIST
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Why not just cut to the chase?
    The speed of light varies in different media correct? It has been
    experimentially varied by a fairly large amount in labs.
    Why not devise an experiment where c is changed, and then empirically
    measure some constant, (such as Planck's constant)? If these constants
    are indeed functions of c, then it should be fairly obvious to either
    demonstate whether or not c could have varied over time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Good try but that won't work. What is meant when they say that
    the speed of light has changed is the speed of light in a
    vacuum. A light wave itself does not necessarily enter into
    the various processes such as radioactive decay, but what is
    meant is that c as a constant may, in some cases, enter into
    the mathematics describing a process. Therefore no experiment is
    possible of the type you suggest. Planck's constant is purely a
    mathematical construct and has no physical reality that can be
    tested. In other words, you can slow down light with no problem,
    but you can't use that slower light to measure any constant.

    RADIOCHEMIST
     
  15. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    HELEN

    To Jay:
    I’ll let the men argue the technical material here (although, guys, Barry is
    not only
    sick right now but due to fly back to the United States in a few days, so we
    may not
    hear from him for a bit&#8230 ;)

    Jay, the way Barry sees it, light speed is a RESULT of something. Another
    result is
    the change in h. Thus, changing c in a lab would create an artificial
    result, in a sense,
    and not have any effect on h at all. It’s not as though a change in c
    results in a
    change in h, or your experiment might show something. But the model
    postulates
    that both c and h are results of a common cause – sort of like siblings with
    the same
    parents. I hope that helps a bit.

    Helen
     
  16. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PAUL OF EUGENE
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> from radiochemist:
    I found your equations about Adam singing very interesting. But I
    don't quite follow your logic. If equations show that Adam could
    not sing in an audible way, then we have to accept that, don't we?

    Of course, I don't buy Setterfield's theory but logically if the
    equations say that Adam can't be heard, I don't have any problem with accepting that, at least in a theoretical sense. Is there something I am missing? I think that perhaps your logic on the
    acceleration of gravity is the strongest point, since I am sure
    it would be easy to find evidence that the orbital speed of the
    earth has not undergone tremendous change, as required by the equations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    It is not necessary to prove this to the creationist mind set because they accept from the Bible that the earth existed and Adam could talk. In the same way, Barry Setterfield has full confidence in his projections of universe conditions that allow for an age of the universe merely 6000 years old even though we view objects millions and billions of light years distant becase he views that 6000 years old datum as a fact, established by the Word of God.

    I merely seek to reduce his views to a kind of reducto ad absurdem - if they are true, they call for ridiculous things, such as an Adam that sings but cannot be heard.

    There is an awesomely simple way to view the Setterfield universe. Simply, for example, redefine the second today to be, say, half as long as it currently is. Now measure the speed of light in seconds. Twice as fast! Now check out the equations for the planck constant, radioactive decay, any esoteric physical phenomenon you choose to investigate in order to see what happens. You KNOW you will be able to consitently find a way to redefine these laws, because seconds are arbitrary human constructions. If you examine enough paramaters and then begin to be a little careless in your references as to the old seconds versus the new seconds as you describe them - you can probably carry on a verbally convincing line that manages to even convince you yourself that something odd may be happening here.

    This is what I'm thinking of when I keep stressing that redefinition of the seconds to what Adam perceives seconds to be results in restoration of the normal speed of light.
     
  17. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
  18. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    TIM THOMPSON

    Radiochemist asks: "But it seems to me that Glen Morton is
    correct in thinking that the Supernova 1987A provides proof
    that the speed of light has not changed in the last 170,000
    years. Setterfield rebuts that by claiming that what we see is
    essentially only an illusion caused by the speed of light changing.
    Both of these arguments, Morton's and Setterfield's are given in
    this thread. Who is right, in your opinion?
    "

    In this case, Setterfield is right (so long as we assume the
    validity of Setterfield's cosmology).

    From Morton's argument (as posted by Radiochemist):
    "They also discovered the characteristic gamma ray emission
    of Co-57 and Co-56. These gamma rays had the same energy that we observe
    in an earth laboratory. This means that the speed of light was the same
    as it is today when the star exploded.
    "

    Morton's argument is valid only for claims that the speed of light,
    and only the speed of light, has been time variable. While
    it is applicable to those arguments, it is not applicable to
    Setterfield's argument, because he varies several of the fundamental
    constants simultaneously, and in proportion to each other.

    For instance, Morton agues that the invariant photon energy proves
    that the speed of light has remained invariant. However, in Setterfield's
    cosmology, both the speed of light (c) and Planck's constant (h)
    are time
    variable, such that the product hc remains invariant. That forces the
    energy of a photon at a given frequency to remain invariant, which
    invalidates Morton's photon energy argument.

    This also invalidates my own earlier argument that the energy per decay
    event would be smaller in the past, compensating the higher decay rate.
    The photons are generated directly by decay events, so if the photon
    energy is invariant, so is the energy per decay event. More decay events
    per unit time mean more energy per unit time, and that should affect the
    shape of the supernova light curve. A higher decay rate implies a faster
    drop off of the light curve. But observation shows that the drop off
    rate for supernova light curves is consistent with invariant c,
    and the application of relativistic time dilation.

    Setterfield's counter argument looks valid to me. We measure the decay
    rate by measuring the time between photons, and assuming that the time
    interval between photons at the detector is equal to the time interval
    between photons at the source. However, in Setterfield's cosmology,
    photon A leaves the source, and a short time later, photon B follows.
    Photon A left the source at a higher speed than photon B, so the
    distance between the two photons is constantly growing as the photons
    propagate, so that they arrive at the detector farther apart than
    they were at the source. We assume that the time interval we see at
    the detector was the time interval at the source, and so we assume that
    the energy is spread out over a larger time, which implies a slower
    decay rate than was the case in reality. This would also appear to
    invalidate the argument that we should see a faster drop off in
    brightness of the light curve.

    It also covers the problem of the higher decay rate pushing the peak
    brightness higher, since we measure brightness by integrating photons
    per unit time. But since the photons are spread out in time when we
    get them, the observed peak brightness is consequntly lower.

    So far as I can tell, Setterfield has constructed a cosmology which
    is observationally indistinguishable from standard cosmology. That
    might motivate one to ask "why bother?", and it seems a fair question.
    Since no observation can distinguish one from the other, why bother
    to abandon an already quite successful cosmology, for one based on a
    premise that is shaky at best (i.e., the historic time variability
    of the speed of light).
     
  19. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    PAUL OF EUGENE

    from Paul of Eugene

    There is a general objection to all faster than light theories, including that presented by Barry Setterfield. There is one essential observation missing from what we would expect to see. We should see things running apparantly slower. They don't.

    The reason we should see things running slower is because of a fundamental relationship about the presentation of the information that is recorded at one speed and read from at another speed. We have all seen this when a tape, a movie, or a record is played at a slower speed. The sounds all drop in frequency. The songs all last twice as long as when they were originally recorded. These two affects must happen; you can't slow these media down and expect anything else to happen.

    If the galaxies did their thing and that "movie" was sent to us by light traveling at one speed and then that light slowed down - well, we would expect to see exactly the same kind of thing happening. Just as the sound drops in frequency because the tape slowed down, so would the frequency of the light from the galaxies drop because the light slowed way down. How much would it change? It would change in exact relationship with the amount the light slowed down to get to us. This would manifest itself in terms of what we call a "red shift" in the light.

    Take the great galaxy in Andromeda by way of example. It is the nearest full size galaxy to us. It is known to be more than two million light years away from us. As a disbeliever in Setterfield physics, I naievely think the light has been traveling for two million years to get here. This is a serious problem for the young universe type literal interpretation of Genesis, because that galaxy contains stars that were made, it says, about six thousand years ago, and not before.

    Any faster light theory that rescues that kind of literal Genesis asserts light was traveling, once, fast enough to cover all that distance and then slowed down over historical time to its current rate. Lessee now - that would be 2 million devided by 6000, a minimum factor of 333. Actually, to account for the time light spent moving slower than that, the speed of light at the time it was being generated by the andromeda galaxy would, in such faster light physics, be at least twice 300, say 600 times. That is still a large underestimation.

    So such a physics would predict, then, that light from the great galaxy in andromeda has slowed down by at least a factor of 600. This would mean, for one thing, a substantial red shift should be observed, with a z factor greator than nine. Galaxies further out would be expected to be seen with even greator z factors.

    Such extreme z factors are not seen amoung the galaxies. In particular, the great galaxy in Andromeda shows no red shift at all - it shows the opposite, a blue shift. Normal astronomers interpret that to mean it is moving towards us. (Stand by for the galaxies to intersect in about two billion years.) Strike one against ANY formerly faster light theory rescuing the literal interpretation of Genesis.

    Now the other affect when we slow down movies or tapes is - everything takes twice as long. Makes a lot of sense, when you think about it. In exactly the same way, events "recorded" at a fast speed setting of 600 times and then "viewed" by light traveling at normal speed will also, BY NECESSITY, seem to occur 600 times slower. Do we, in fact see such slowing down of events in the galaxies? We do not. We can cite the example of cepheid variables, which wax and wane in normal time frames, certainly NOT slowed by a factor of 600 or more in the Andromeda galaxy. Strike two against ANY formerly faster light theory rescuing the literal interpretation of Genesis. We can cite the example of supernova decay rates, They are certainly NOT slowed by such absurdly large values whenever they are observed in whatever galaxy they are observed - strike three against faster light theory of any sort.


    None of this casts any problems on theories involving light speed variation in the very earliest stages of the Big Bang, before there were stars and galaxies. Such time frames are hidden from direct observation, having occurred before the radiation we now observe as the cosmic background radiation was generated, and theories along that line are no comfort for supporters of a universe only 6000 years old.

    I found the following related comment at WWW.SETTERFIELD.ORG
    --------------------------------
    From Implications of Non-Constant Light Velocity collected by Lambert Dolphin

    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Setterfield also now proposes that when the velocity of light was (say) ten times higher than now, then 10 times as many photons per second (in dynamical time) were emitted from each square centimeter of surface. Each photon would however carry only one tenth as much energy, conserving the total energy flux. Setterfield says, "This approach has a dramatic effect. When light-speed c was 10 times higher, a star would emit 10 photons in one second compared with one now. This ten-photon stream then comprised part of a light beam of photons spaced 1/10th of a second apart. In transit, that light beam progressively slowed until it arrived at the earth with today's c value. This speed is only 1/10th of its original speed, so that the 10 photons arrive at one second intervals. The source appears to emit photons at today's rate of 1 per second. However, the photon's wavelength is red-shifted, since the energy per photon was lower when it was emitted."

    Setterfield continues, "This red-shift of light from distant galaxies is a well-known astronomical effect. The further away a galaxy is from us, the further down into the red end of the rainbow spectrum is its light shifted. It has been assumed that this is like a Doppler effect: when a train blowing its whistle, passes an observer on a station, the pitch of the whistle drops. Similarly light from galaxies was thought to be red-shifted because the galaxies were racing away from us. Instead, the total red-shift effect seems due to c variation alone."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
    ---------------------------------------
    Setterfield here explicitly acknowledges the affects I have been describing as a necessary consequence of faster light theory. He just doesn't explain the necessary implications for his theory in terms of what we actually observe.
     
  20. Administrator2

    Administrator2
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    1,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    DAVID PLAISTED

    A possible evidence that things are being seen in slow motion (at least
    to some extent) is found in my article www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/slow.html

    I'm not claiming that this is enough to put the universe age at 6000 years
    but it could indicate a change in the speed of light.

    Dave Plaisted
     

Share This Page

Loading...