Hi, Helen!
We had some discussions going which were very interesting to me before a number of threads went hopelessly down the drain. I am trying to pull everything back into something coherent so we can finish and allow anyone that wants to jump in have a little more focused thread.
You had pointed out that the stars could be divided in Population I and Population II stars and were offering that the Population II stars were the morning stars and created on Day 1 and that the Population I stars were created on Day 4. I had pointed out that there were physical traits of these groups, notably size and metal content, and had asked for explanations of these traits according to your cosmology. (Feel free to correct any mistakes I have made in summarizing and to clarify anything you wish in your response.) You had replied with the following from Barry:
I had a hard time with this explanation to begin with but I was able to track down a paper from Flambaum and Berengut which I assume is the basis for the above. (For the interested http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0001/0001022.pdf )Having read the paper a few times I have a much better understanding of what was being described but I also have some objections.
1. There is a great deal of speculation here and chief is the assumption, against what is mainstream accepted, that black holes do not completely evaporate but instead end up at some minimum mass. There is still much debate on both sides of this but theory leans towards black holes completely evaporating.
2. The paper is very specific that atoms formed from this process would have shifted spectral lines compared to normal, equivalent atoms and gives the method to calculate the difference. Where is the spectroscopic evidence for this? The paper suggests that scientists should look for these spectral differences implying that the differences are within our measurement ability. If most of the metals in Population I were from black hole atoms then it seems resonable that scientists would have noticed the shift in spectral lines from the sun and other bodies as important as spectroscopy is to astronomy. Since this is not the case, it seems reasonable to assume that very little of the sun, if any, is made from black hole atoms.
3. The paper states that the abundance of elementary black holes would be about 10^-15 of the abundance of hydrogen. The abundance of hydrogen in the sun is only about 50 times the abundance (by mass) of metals. Now, only a fraction of these elementary black holes could be the negatively charged variety from above. How to explain such an extreme concentration of black hole atoms relative to their overall abundance? If instead, black hole atoms make up little to no mass of the sun then this would explain why these spectral differences have not been seen.
4. There is no reason to suppose that the elementary black holes that would have been in or near Population II stars should not have also been acquiring protons, electrons, and electrons and forming atoms. This means there must be some reason to keep the elementary black holes away from the Population II stars and concentrated near the Population I stars.
This treatment also completely ignores the issue of the mass of the Population I and II stars. Why are the only Population II stars around the very low mass stars that would have been expected to last billions of years to still be around today in a Big Bang model?
Setterfield Revisited and Refocused
Discussion in 'Creation vs. Evolution' started by UTEOTW, Jun 10, 2003.
Page 1 of 3
-
We had been discussing whether the black hole at the center of the galaxy could have powered a quasar bright enough to have provided the equilalent of daylight on earth until the sun was created in order to preserve the morning and evening of the creation days. I had challenged that the galaxy's black hole is far too small (about 3*10^6 solar masses compared to about 10^8 solar masses for a typical quasar) to have provided enough energy to provide that much light and that even the largest known quasars would only provide a thousandth of the requires light. You gave the following response which seemed to incorporate comments from both you and Barry.
So I went digging through setterfield.org. I found this:
Your statement also leads to an important prediction. How quickly the light received from an object changes is related to the size of the object. It should be possible to show that the most distant quasars are not only the brightest but that they also show changes on the shortest periods of time. Has this been shown? I am under the impression that the opposite is true. -
I originally asked:
Frankly, I don't get it. Yeah, I see the part about other possible theories on what gives rise to the pulse itself. But the point is that for any object over 6000 light years away, the light must have been traveling faster when it was emitted to have arrived here is less time than that. (And that is allowing that for an object 6000 light years away that the light would have been emitted way back at the very beginning to only be arriving here now. Not a good assumption.) Even if you want to use a different mechanism for generating the pulse, the time slowing effects of faster light travel should still affect them. The faster light should have resulted in a slowing of time. In the case of pulsars, it should be expected that there should be a general trend towards longer and longer periods as you move to more distant objects.
Now there is a lot of talk here about why there should not be red-shift effects on objects in the Milky Way and in the LMC. But I am not sure how that relates to the expected difference in light speed between when the light was emitted and when it was recieved. Why do we not see a trend towards longer periods for pulsars as the distance increases? How long ago and at what speed relative to today's value for c was light emitted from the LMC that is reaching us today? -
HI! We're not ignoring you. I'm just in checking things this morning on the women's forums, actually. We took out a giant stump of an old Hollywood juniper last night and put a smaller, new evergreen in its place. Muscles hurt, Barry is still asleep, and our daughter has talked us into going to an early matinee of "Finding Nemo" today which, because she also has a disability, she absolutely loved.
So we'll be back this afternoon sometime and I'll erase this post then and replace it with something from Barry for you.
Thank you for your patience!
ohhhh, I'm sore....! :D :D :D
==========
edit: Wednesday morning. We ended up working with a deaf friend part of yesterday and putting in driveway lights along one side in the afternoon and evening. Today the other side (he is VERY focused!) and get our youngest daughter off to Washington to have fun with relatives for three weeks). Will try for this afternoon...
Thank you for your patience.
[ June 11, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Helen ] -
I'm not in any great hurry. That you might be ignoring me never crossed my mind. I can take a while to get back to a subject myself and I sometimes ramble a bit when I do.
This is an enjoyable exercise for me. It forces me to look at things in new ways and to look into new subjects. You seem to stay fairly busy on the forum and off and I realize some of the questions I ask may take a bit of time. It helps me to flush out the details of the idea to get a better indication of where you are coming from.
I look forward to hearing back from you. -
You're a patient fellow, and thank you! I printed off the page and Barry's eyes sort of popped and he said, "That's seven pages of material!" So I asked him if he could at least begin. Whatever is not done tonight will have to wait about a week because we are leaving for a four-day excursion away from net, house, kids, dogs, etc. tomorrow morning. Up to Crater Lake, over to the coast, and down through the Redwoods. He has never seen all this, and I want to show him. OK, that finished, here is Barry now, dictating to me (I type faster).
================
I think you are not thinking some of this through. For instance, you mention that our black hole could not be the same as what we see 'out there' in the distant past because the mass is different now.
Of course it is. But it was not different then. That's the point of the thing. The quasars from the black holes dimish in brightness progressively towards us because the mass is reducing as the material is used up through time. What we see in our black hole is "now", and what we are seeing in the farthest black holes is "before" -- there was a before for us, too.
In the same way there was a "before" for some of the local galaxies near to us. The whole point of looking as far out as we can is to see how everything was before and how things have changed. What would be extraordinary is if our black hole did not show a mass change. In that case, it would still be ultra-brilliant.
As far as showing rapid changes in the light output of quasars, one thing needs to be remembered: the slowing effect due to the changing speed of light. On that basis we would not observe more rapid changes in brightness than we do now. Also, the basis of your proposed prediction regarding my model is faulty. Why should the light output be flickering more rapidly if you have a more massive quasar?
Regarding the rotation rates of pulsars -- The redshift curve on which the changing speed of light is based is very flat for light coming from objects as close as the Magellanic Clouds. As a result, very little slowdown effect would be noted with the pulsars. Going out from us, the first quantum jump has not yet occurred at the distance of the Magellanic Clouds.
You said you had a hard time with my explanation of the buildup of elements in Planck Particle-size black holes. Flambaum and Berengut's paper is talking about atom formations in large black holes. What I am talking about is work done by Gibson which shows that this process can occur with Planck Particles. Under these conditions, once the atom's nucleus is formed, it escapes from the Planck Particle environment and has a normal spectral signature. On this basis, in the earliest moments of the cosmos, the manufacture of elements with the abundances that we currently observe could and possibly did occur. I recently answered an email which was partly concerned with your question here, so let me quote myself from it:
You ask about the massive black holes that lie at the centres of most galaxies. It seems that they were the "seeds" around which galaxies formed as there is a systematic ratio between the size of the central black hole and the size of the galaxy nucleus. ....It seems that these centres of galaxies may have formed as an agglomeration of Planck particle pairs at the inception of the universe and acted as the nucleus around which matter collected to form galaxies.
On this basis, the origin of the elements by the action of Planck Particles in the early universe may account for the different regions in galaxies where there are anomalous abundances of 'metals.' (Remember, to an astronomer, a metal is any element other than hydrogen and helium.)
I hope this helps.
Barry Setterfield -
Barry Setterfield through Helen wrote:
Ahd to be clear, is that of Flambaum and Berengut's entitled "Atoms made from charged elementary black hole" as referenced by UTEOTW
? -
Thanks for getting to some of it. I get the feeling we may be on our to agreeing to disagree. I hope you enjoy your trip. I'd like to make it out that way for pleasure rather than business one day.
Edit to add:
I like Paul's question below. What is the exact relationship between z and the value of c when the light was emitted?
MDK also adds another nail to idea of elementary black holes being responsible for the non H or He content of the universe without a cycle of supernovae.
[ June 19, 2003, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ] -
Helen, I've got a question for Barry. If the speed of light changes from merely 2c to c, a trifling small change in Barry's history of the speed of light, what would be the corresponding z amount for the redshift? The z value observed would be . . ??
-
Helen, I’ve got a question for Barry. Why is it that the Disney characters Goofy, a dog can speak and Pluto a dog can’t speak? :D
-
You see I have to practice on reprogramming my thoughts to the new theistic evolution I'm reading a lot of here lately.... Hope the drive was nice. -
UTEOTW qyoting Setterfield:
For reasons similar to those making it improbable that Planck-sized charged black holes would absorb opositely-charged particles and so be neutralized, it is improbable that significant numbers of charged black holes would aquire sufficient positive charge to equal that of any metallic atom. Thus even if such black holes evaporated away leaving a conventionall charged nucleus of the same charge, that mechanism could not account for significant numbers of metal atoms. And even if there were a process for charged black hole evaporation to leave conventional charged nuclei behind, there couldn't be enough black holes, even of Planck mass, to account for the metals found in stars. At a mass of 10^-5 grams a Planck-mass black hole is some 20 decimal orders of magnitude heavier than a typical metal "nucleus". Thus even if all of the mass of a galaxy started out as Planck-sized black holes this process could only produce metal abundances on the order of one part in 10^20 by mass. Using larger black holes just makes the problem worse. -
It might be good to just mention the important place the "metal" elements have in stars. The nucleii of the elements higher than Helium in the periodic table (such as carbon) are what we are talking about. In the heart of the star they recieve and emit nuclear particles in a way that facilitates the hydrogen fusion process. In other words, the nuclear "engine" that runs stars can work faster, better with a few of the heavy elements around to help the reaction along. This process is understood well enough to actually estimate the percentage of heavier elements based on the observed rate of engergy production from a given star, such as our sun.
Obviously this wouldn't be the case for a pseudo-atom with a mini black hole for a nucleous! No emitting anything THEY absorb! (except as photons, in the Hawking process.) -
Another astronomical fact that contradicts the Setterfield alternative solar system history!
Setterfield hypothesises that a planet broke up between Mars and Jupiter about 6000 years ago, after Adam was created certainly. This formed our asteroid belt.
There are lanes in the asteroid belt that are formed by the gravitational influence of Jupiter clearing out those asteroids that resonate just the "right" (perhaps we should say "wrong") way with Jupiter's orbital period. These lanes are called Krirkwood Gaps, after the name of the astronomer who first described them and explained why they exist.
Intuitively, it seemed to me that this process - clearing out the lanes in the asteroid belt - would surely take more than a few thousand years. Sure enough, the clearing of the lanes has been simulated and the time frame is in fact a few million years. Evidence that the asteroid belt has been in existance for at least a few million years, and this evidence is by means of a gravitational orbital clock, completely immune to any problems that might be associated with a speed of light issue! Here's the link to the article:
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~agoodman/astro98/gladmanetal.pdf
Note: It might be held by some that the asteroids were originally created with the gaps already in place. But Setterfield alternative solar system history requires the asteroids be injected into the space following the creation week by a planetary breakup, and so this possible out is not available for him. Setterfield alternative solar system theory is disproved. -
Phillip wrote on a closed thread:
>>>>It IS SAD; however, that scientists like Dr. Setterfield have to fight this secular, uphill political battle to obtain acceptance. I do not require that to study his papers and make my own conclusions based on what I read. Sorry!<<<<<
Perhaps a little explanation will help you understand the true situation. Barry Setterfield does not have a Ph.D. as you assume. In fact he does not have a degree of any kind. In the judgment of many scientists, including this one, he is not able to publish because his papers do not meet the minimum acceptable standards. I also think that it is not accurate to refer to him as a scientist because his career and education do not qualify him for that description either. It is true that he dabbles in scientific topics, but that does not make him a credible source of information. -
I'm going on vacation for two weeks and posting opportunities will no doubt be sparce . . but do everybody carry on!
-
Oddly, a different objection based on pulsars just hit me.
Setterfield claims measurable changes in the speed of light right until relatively recently. Certainly measurable changes in the last few hundred years are claimed. We still have the slowdown effect from faster light.
So, take a pulsar some distance away, maybe a few hundred light years. As the speed of light at that location decreases the slowdown effect should also decrease. The net effect being that anything that happens on a regular basis should appear to be happening more often as the speed of the light when emitted decreases. So, careful observation of an individual pulsar, or any other regular event such as an eclipsing binary, should show a steady increase in the frequency of the action.
So for a pulsar we should see the time between pulses decreasing. We actually see an increase in the time between pulses. Since this could be explained by pulsars slowing down more rapidly than believed (though this would not fit with theory of how they slow down), I include the eclipsing binary example also. In general, a prediction would be that regular events in space should be observed to be happening more frequently as time passes. I have never heard of such an observation. I would think that a large number of astronomical objects showing such a change would be noticed. I would even suspect that it would be likely to be noticed because it would be happening to almost every object that has some sort of periodic change.
And if he wants to avoid by saying that the speed only changes in jumps, fine. He claims that their has been an observered change in several speed of light measurements in the last few hundred years so some of the jumps must have taken place in this time. A sudden step change in the timing of objects would stand out even more clearly.
[ June 20, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ] -
UTEDTW wrote:
To see this suppose that the pulsar sends out a pulse of light once per revolution. Since frequencies in the past bear a ratio of c_then/c_now to the corresponding frequency now, emitted pulse frequencies also bear that ratio to currently-emitted pulse frequencies. However, as the speed of light slows down over time, those pulses always have the same spatial distances between them; but the frequency with which they imp8inge on a receiver is slowed by a factor of c_now/c_then over their emission frequency. Thus the frequency with which we observe the pulses is not the (higher) frequency with which they would have been emitted in the past, but the same frequency as if the sped of light h ad not changed. -
If not, let's make up numbers to make the math easy to show. Let's suppose you have a pulsar that emits a pulse once per second. Further let's suppose that the speed of light is now 1 unit/sec and that at some point in the past it was 10 units/sec. So a pulse is emitted. One second later another pulse is emitted. Now we have two pulses 10 units apart. As light slows, they maintain this separation, the basis for the time slowing effect of the theory. When the light reaches an observer where light speed has slowed to 1 unit/sec, 10 seconds will be observed to pass between pulses.
Now let's suppose a little time has passed and the speed of light is 8 units/sec when the pulses are emitted. These pulses are now 8 units apart. After they have traveled sufficient time to our observer and light speed is 1 unit per sec the pulses will be observed to be 8 seconds apart.
So, to an observer making periodic measurements of how often a pulse is received, there would be a progressive decrease in the time period between the pulses. Since light speed is theorized to chamge more quickly in the past, this effect would hold up with the speed changing at both locations. -
I worked with many scientists in many fields, for example Global Positioning, etc.
With all of the management I have done, I found out that many of the best employees I had were ones who actually had no schooling (formal) whatsoever, but had years and years of experience. The lowest individuals I had were those who had Phd's in Electronic Engineering. They were essentially worthless. The reason? Their whole concept of "work" and "career" was to write theoretical white-papers and produce tons and tons of this material. In 90% of the cases, people with this level of education were completely worthless when it came to producing a piece of hard-ware that would get a missile from a ship to Saddam's Palace. NOW, DON'T GET ME WRONG! Many of the Phd's I worked with did help with problems which required a level of expertise to fix, but it was often like pulling teeth to get them focused away from analysing the transistors that went into the circuit, rather than designing the circuit itself. They were completely incapable of using rule-of-thumb settings to get something working. After twenty pages of advanced math, they often announced they could not accomplish the job. A highly experienced technician would sit down at the bench and breadboard a circuit and maybe with the help of a little more experienced engineer to get the circuit parameters to work across the environmental range, the job was finished in one tenth the time and wow, was the cost better.
I am currently involved as a witness in a very high profile patent case where I was the inventor and the President of the company put his name on the patents. It is a real mess, but getting to the subject at hand. It is funny how the courts want the "expert" witnesses to review what I designed and tell me (or the court) in 200 pages that I used a microcontroller to operate a small audible alarm after an input was received and a time-out occurred. The "expert" witnesses would list their papers, making their resumes 100 pages in length. The problem is, if you read the papers involving the circuits I designed, the "experts" have a lot of difficulty in providing a decent explanation that can be understood by a jury (the job they are required to do).
I did not mean to write a novel and I have NOTHING against higher education. Although mine is only a Masters Degree, I feel that each year of experience I have is worth more than that degree. Degrees get people in the door past the "personnel" people, but experience (and I do mean dabbling with something you are very interested in) can make a person a real "Expert". Einstein and Edison were great examples.
Most of the problem appears to enimate from the colleges themselves where the "higher educated group" set the standards of who is qualified to write these papers. Most of the scientists that I have read who do research at a college would be very hard-pressed to provide a product, "production ready", under a dead-line.
Therefore, I will NOT judge Barry Setterfield on anything except the results of his studies. Studies such as this are often based on certain assumptions---such as "old earth" and time measurements. I have read a lot of Barry Setterfield's work and I have been very impressed with the level of understanding he has based on real-world subjects. So, based on these assumptions I will not bad-mouth Mr. Setterfield or his theories based on whether or not he has a Phd or if he is a junior patent examiner who got a grip on reality. (pun intended).
I am NOT insulting the higher level Phd research scientists, many know their subjects and do well producing, but while most of the ones who are doing research to get another research grant, the ones in industry are getting the job done.
By the way, what would YOU consider the MINIMUM specifications are for a person to be capable of writing a paper worthy of the scientific world to publish?
In Christ,
Phillip ;)
Page 1 of 3