Slowdown Due to Changing Speed of Light

This thread is a good "example" of story-vs-story. The very place where Evolutionism finds a "level playing field" an arena in which to avoid some of its more embarrassing confessions from ITS OWN atheist evolutionists. An arena where imagination and "what-if-scenarios" are all fare game.

The perfect "zone" for evolutionism to try out its wings. I like it because it is one area where we see a contest between something like equals. Imagination vs imagination.

Bible affirming imagination - vs Bible-contradicting and Evolution-affirm imagination.

Lots of fun!

In Christ,

Bob

 

OK Tell me what is "imagination" and therefore discountable in the following:

a) If the speed of light used to be very much faster, by a million times or more, at the time the light left the distant galaxies, that would explain why we see them from so far even though they were created only 6 to 10 thousand years ago.

b) That would imply that light moved very much faster in times past and slowed down on its way to finally arrive here at the current speed of light.

c) However, should that have been the case, there would be observational affects, exactly analogous to listening to a record that is slowed down from the speed of original recording; that is, anything we see via slowed down light will appear to be slowed down.

d) We have positive measurements of galaxy rotations going out millions and billions of light years in distance.

e) Rotation rates show no change in relation to distance, and this is contrary to the prediction of the changing light speed theory; slow down affects of the magnitude necessary to preserve a young universe would slow down the rotation rates so much they would not be seen to be rotating at all by current methods.

f) Therefore these observations rule out the possibility of light speed changes from the time the galaxies generated the light by which we see them until the time we see them now.

g) Therefore they were all in existance millions and billions of years ago.

OK Your challenge - point out in this logic where speculative imagination has run amuk and gotten us the wrong answer. Pick the critical weak link and explain what's wrong with it.

NOTE - this will require thinking. So don't woory, we will all understand if you fail to rise to the challenge.

 

OK Tell me what is "imagination" and therefore discountable in the following:


Obiviously it starts with "what-if" gaming. Then it goes to "well in that game scenario hopefully I would find a widget that would be different than what I see today because God could not have done it that way without doing as I imagine".

Anyway - I am not arguing that the gaming here is in anyway less valid from player-A than Player-B.

I am very happy to root for the imagination of Player-A who seeks to defend full acceptance of the text of scripture. I just think this form of discussion is less-revealing and less-embarrassing for Atheist evolutionists - and all other evolutionists as well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

We are still unpacking and about 500 emails behind which Barry wants to answer. However, his response to one inquirer this morning puts enough of the material succinctly enough that I thought it might be helpful here. Here is the body of his letter:

************

Let me make a couple of introductory points here.



First, the speed of light is slowing because the strength of the ZPE is increasing with time. The ZPE is increasing with time because of the recombination and hence annihilation of the Planck Particle Pairs (PPP). When these PPP (which are positively and negatively charged) recombine/annihilate, they emit electromagnetic radiation which comprises the ZPE. The mathematical form of this recombination process is well-known. The PPP were formed as a result of the energy which was imparted to the fabric of space by its initial stretching. The turbulence accompanying the stretching spawned more PPP until the turbulence died out in a manner explained by Gibson. The formula for the decay in turbulence is also well-known, and hence the build-up rate of the PPP from turbulence can be established. When both of these mathematical relationships governing the behaviour of the PPP with time are added together, the result is found to have the same form as the redshift/distance relationship.



But it has been shown that the ZPE supports atomic structures across the cosmos. As a lower ZPE means a lower energy for all atomic orbits, the light emitted from those atoms will also be of lower energy, and hence redder. Thus as we look back in time by looking into the distant regions of the universe, we see that light emitted by astronomical objects becomes increasingly redder with distance. The redshift of light from distant objects is thereby the result of a lower strength for the ZPE in the past. The proof that the redshift is an atomic thing related to the ZPE and not related to any universal expansion or the motion of galaxies is the quantization of the redshift. It is primarily atomic phenomena which show quantization effects. The quantization of motion or universal expansion is something that is clearly unacceptable to current scientific thinking. The conclusions is that the quantization of the redshift shows that the redshift itself originates with atomic orbit energies and hence the ZPE which governs those energies. Thus the redshift and lightspeed both are children of the same parent, the strength of the ZPE. Since the strength of the ZPE/time can be shown to behave in a way that is in accord with the redshift/distance (or redshift/time) relationship, it follows that the behaviour of the lightspeed/time relationship is also in accord with this.



In all this, the amount of matter in the universe is of no account as it does not affect lightspeed which is inversely dependent upon the strength of the ZPE. The only necessity for the amount of mass to increase is in the Narliker model in which a static universe is stable against collapse if mass was slowly increasing. This has nothing to do with lightspeed; it is an entirely separate phenomenon, although related to the strength of the ZPE. This answers your initial question.



Your second question is: “since distances were closer than now if the universe is expanding, wouldn't it have taken far less time for light to travel than now”? This whole question hinges on the assumption that the universe is still expanding. In actual fact, the prime evidence for that expansion is the redshift. If the redshift is explicable in terms of the ZPE, then the expansion interpretation is in serious doubt. That doubt is increased by the fact of the redshift quantization. This reveals that the redshift cannot be due to motion of any kind, whether the flying apart of galaxies, or the expansion of space-time. Any such motion would smear-out the quiantization so that it no longer exists. This is what happens in the centre of the Virgo cluster of galaxies. These galaxies are orbiting under the action of a strong gravitational field. That motion is sufficient to wipe out the quantization. As a consequence, the redshift cannot be due to motion or cosmological expansion.



The model presented on my website implicitly accepts that the universe underwent a very brief period of initial expansion out to its present size, at which it stabilized. This means that there is no current expansion. Hence, the vast majority of astronomical objects should show no redshift due to expansion. The only possible exception would be objects at the very frontiers of the cosmos. Given the brief initial expansion conditions, your second question becomes relevant then, and only then.



Under these restricted conditions, the answer to the second question follows a line of reasoning which goes something like this. It is certainly true that the ZPE was lower, and that the speed of light must have been much higher at the time of the initial expansion. It is also true that the universe was smaller than now during that initial expansion phase. However, if the fabric of space was expanded out initially, a couple of points need be made. The first is that no atomic structures existed before the primordial ZPE had formed. In other words, atoms and matter did not exist prior to the existence of the ZPE. This in turn required some considerable initial expansion of the fabric of space. We can go further. The existence of atomic structures is essential to the origin of light from celestial objects. Therefore a primordial ZPE must have existed sometime before the first stars were shining.



From an entirely Scriptural point of view, there are 12 references to the stretching out of the heavens. Two points emerge from these verses. First, the action is always in the past tense, so the heavens are not being expanded out now. Second, it is always in the context of Creation Week, so by the end of the 6th Day, expansion must have ceased. Indeed, since the astronomical heavens were completed by the close of the 4th Day, then expansion must have ceased by then. It is also entirely possible that the expansion had ceased by the time that light was visible from the earth half way through the 1st Day. We find a reference in Job 38 which helps us here. In Job 38:7 to the fact that the first stars already shining when the foundation of the earth was laid. From Genesis 1, these events occurred very early on the 1st Day. Now both these events imply the existence of matter, which in turn requires the existence of the primordial ZPE, which itself requires the initial expansion to be largely complete before the middle of the 1st Day.



There is another aspect to this. If the very fabric of space is being stretched out, every structure embedded in that fabric will also be undergoing expansion. This means that all atoms existing at the time, and hence all matter, will be undergoing expansion, too. This fact introduces some unusual effects that Sumner has outlined, as well as changes to the strength of the electronic charge in order to maintain the stability of matter. Since these effects are not observed, even at the frontiers of the cosmos, it seems likely that the formation of atomic structures and hence matter, stars and planets, occurred after the expansion was substantially complete. If this reasoning is correct, this limits the expansion to the earliest moments of the 1st Day of Creation Week.



Therefore, the answer that emerges for your second question is that atomic structures did not exist during the expansion phase of the cosmos, and since light is emitted from these structures, the emergence of light must post-date the expansion of the universe. Therefore, from the time that light emerged on the 1st Day, distances in the cosmos were basically the same as we have now. And, Yes, the time it took light to travel those distances was far less than what we have now. But there is probably no effect on light travel time due to a smaller cosmos that was implied in the question.



I hope that this resolves your difficulties.



Barry Setterfield.



Barry and Helen (Penny) Setterfield

[email protected]

www.setterfield.org

 

I will freely confess that it is the evidence for evolution and an ancient universe that convinces me that is so. You call that a "game"; evaluating evidence and seeking evidence based truth; but that is all of science.

So, why did you decide Scripture as you interpret it trumps all other evidence? Did you have any evidence in favor of that proposition or did you decide that without any evidence? This is a good time to give your personal testimony about why you value scripture so highly. I'm curious if you allow evidence in that case only, and why you would justify evidence being valid in only one case.

 

Oops, I see my reply to BobRyan got in after Helen's post and that might be confusing to some. Oh, well.

Helen, I've been thinking about expansion based red shifting and Barry's red shift idea. Under Barry's scenario, as the light moves along, the wavelength does not change, it is the speed of light itself that slows down.

The cosmic red shift we observe, however, is definately of wave lengths being stretched. They are longer now. This is inconsistent with Barry's model of light merely slowing down without changing its wave length.

Indeed, with all light coming into our telescopes at the same speed today, IT IS ONLY THE STRETCHING OF THE WAVE LENGTHS that makes the red shift visible to us.

Motion away from us, of course, would automatically stretch the wave lengths as we see them. The continued expansion of the universe would be an equivalent way to express the same observations.

I'm afraid its back to the drawing board for your grabbag of explanations as to why all of modern science is wrong. You'll have to go back and tweak something that explains why the light got stretched as well as slowed.

We all await your continued adjustments.

 

I think its all way over his head. But maybe Helen could come up with a critique. She and Barry are bright enough to understand it.

 

Paul of Eugene, you are totally out of the park where understanding what Barry is saying is concerned. Suggest you actually read his material.

UTE, Barry will get to the questions when he can, and put the material on his website for future referencing.

 

Leave it to the Chemists to come up with a good "light story".

I love it.

Let the games continue.

In Christ,

Bob

 

UTE, we are busy, and thanks for understanding. Off topic here, we spent Tues-Thurs morning in Portland at immigration in pursuit of Barry's green card, travel papers, and work permit (so he can get a social security number). The immigration officials at the San Francisco port of entry at the airport had been really nasty to Barry a couple of times, and others had warned us about how difficult it could be. When I called the information number with questions about filling out some of the myriad of forms a couple of times, they were not terribly encouraging either.

So by the time I had checked everything over about four times before we left, I was nervous and tired. By the time we were given a number in the immigration office and sat there waiting, if somone had blown at me, I probably would have shattered into about a thousand pieces.

And then when our turn came, after two hours of waiting, they were so great! That is something we have found about Oregon -- the people we have run into so far are incredibly friendly and kind. They got his travel papers and work permit out of the way in a couple of hours! The background check for the green card is running about 4-6 months behind, so our interview won't be until about January, and of course we will stay a little nervous until the whole thing is over -- but they were so nice! And that was so unexpected!

When we got back to the hotel after our day there, we collapsed. Then we woke up a few hours later and went down to the gift shop and got a bunch of junk food and took it up to our room and pigged out.

Home Thursday afternoon and still have so much to do here. But Gina (yeah, the Gina of Baptist Board) and her kids are coming to spend a week on Monday so we are getting ready for that. Queen size air mattresses on the floor and all! It should be a blast.

But tired? You bet your bananas. Barry is trying to respond to at least two emails a day right now. At this moment, in the twilight darkness, he is still setting stepping stones out back. God bless him!

Life will settle down this autumn, I'm pretty sure. But I'll try to see if Barry will take the time for your questions asap. Thanks again for your patience.

Just wanted to share about immigration, too. I'm still unwinding!

 

OK. the question about the slow down affect missing takes precedence. It has been on the table now for - oh, well over a year, I think . . . if not longer . . .

with no answer in sight. (sigh)

 

Barry looked at your responses, Paul, and his comments were that you clearly had never read the article he and Daniel Dzimano wrote. The link is on the bottom here:
http://www.setterfield.org/scipubl.html