The decay of C

[dizzle]

A while back I was pretty interested in the whole Setterfield thing. What is the current status of this idea?

[Joe_Sixpack]

JUst read that I am not allowed to post here because I do not fit within the boundraries for the forum board. Pity. Read my post or delete it, I do not care.


Pretty much dead. The creationist organizations (AiG and ICR) are his biggest critics, so he has little support from YECs.

His main problem is that the speed of light is so integral to so many formulas in physics that he needs to a whole lot of weird things to make all the equations he wants to remain the same stay at survivable levels. I interacted with him on the BaptistBoards for a little bit and never could see how he got around the necessary massive increases in mass that have to happen under his model. He waved his hands a lot about a the difference between "dressed" and "undressed" mass and suggested that his changes would only effect the atomic mass but would not carry through to the mass of macro-scale objects. Besides being ludicrous, this would meant that yet another constant would have to be variable in Setterfield's world - Avogadro's Number, which really isn't a constant but a mathematically developed relationship between atomic mass and grams.

[Socrates]

I'm not convinced by Setterfield's data, because the earlier measurements had huge uncertainties. But many of his critics were wrong too, because they claimed that Setterfield was violating physics. But now people like John Gribbin, Paul Davies and João Magueijo are seriously proposing that light might have been faster in the past. Apparently it's OK to rescue the big bang that way, but not to defend Genesis.

AiG's take on Davies is www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

[Socratism]

I recently read on Halton Arp's website that a hypothesis of increasing mass with time solves many current cosmological problems in an elegantly simple manner.

I might add that Arp is no creationist.

[Socrates]

Arp is an interesting man, for sure. And he's faced establishment censorship too, which should give an idea of what creationists are up against.

[TheFiveSolas]

Joe,

Even though I found your post informative I need to ask you to respect the intent of this forum as being for theists only. There are similar threads on other issues where, for example, they are set up for "Open View Theists Only", etc.

To all others, including Joe...

Willful violations of this rule will result in having the offending party's posts moderated. And them placed on moderation until further notice

Thanks.

[dizzle]

I have though that the decay of C is making an important comeback. But what is philosophically interesting is the way that if it were true the tremendous ramifications for science. That to me pointedly brought to bear that there are huge assumptions made in some key areas especially in the dating field. If certain things were not constant as assumed, there is a huge problem.

[geochron]

It seems to me I read this sort of thing a lot - some vague handwaving about the 'assumptions' made in geological dating schemes and how weird theory 'x' throws the whole thing in to doubt.

It also seems to me that requesting further information is the fastest way to make sure there are no further posts in the thread. :smile: So I'll try again.

How does the speed of light affect conventional dating schemes? It seems to me that if there is substance to what you're saying you should be able to explain how, say, K-Ar and Rb-Sr were separately affected and predict what co-variation we should seek.

One possible consequence I'll advance, for instance, is that the energy released in each decay would increase dramatically, making the problems discussed elsewhere with cooling the Earth even more significant.


See the moderator notice in my post above

[dizzle]

Well since no one was really defending it here, and I am not a scientist, but a curious student, I wouldn't take your questions as a thread closer since it was not a lively thread to begin with. Also I have not read many of your posts... are you a creationist?

[geochron]

What strikes me about the creationist stance is that it is all negative. Problems with conventional dating are pointed out, sometimes there are details, sometimes they are thought proivoking, sometimes they are based on misconceptions.

An alternative theory explaining how creationism better explains the data is missing. The speed of light problem is a good example, if I may. If creation scientists were to formulate a theory of how the speed of light varied and how this affected the chronometers, other predictions could be made from this theory and checked.

(My apologies for not spotting that this forum was for creationists only. I won't look at this forum again, but I do think it is confusing to restrict access to a natural sciences forum on the basis of prior belief!)

[Sher]

I figured out the problem ... "To post in this section, you must agree to the terms as laid out in the Cosmogony 101 Guidelines (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4925)." ... is written in invisible ink at the top of the reply box :doh:



:shifty: http://www.homemadesimple.com/swiffer/usenglish/images/swiffer/swiffer_sub_mainphoto.jpg :shifty:

[Socratism]

The question of the speed of propagation of light may well be linked to the question of the speed of propagation of gravity.

It appears that there is abundant evidence that the force of gravity propagates many, many times faster (millions?) than the current measured speed of light.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp

[dizzle]

The decay of C

I just read in ICR’s Back to Genesis about the work of Joao Magueijo who is stressing his belief that light was much faster in the early universe. Is Setterfield becoming justified? It seems that this “physics heresy” is gaining more vocal adherents smattered here and there. Is the holy grail of the constancy of c truly being attacked, or are these truly just fringe guys?

[Socrates]

Today @ 10:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=118895#post118895)
Dee Dee Warren:

The decay of C

I just read in ICR’s Back to Genesis about the work of Joao Magueijo who is stressing his belief that light was much faster in the early universe. Is Setterfield becoming justified? It seems that this “physics heresy” is gaining more vocal adherents smattered here and there. Is the holy grail of the constancy of c truly being attacked, or are these truly just fringe guys?

My answer about Magueijo would be the same, in principle, to Dr Wieland's account of Paul Davies www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp It doesn't vindicate Setterfield per se, but invalidates many of the allegedly in principle objections of Setterfield's detractors.

This also brings up a point I raised on another thread: big bangers have their own light-travel difficulty called the "horizon problem". That is, how to explain the near uniformity of temperature of distant regions of space where radiation should not have had time to traverse and equilibrate the temperature. Magueijo and others propose solving this problem with a much greater c in the past, so evolutionists have no right to complain, in principle, that some creationists (not including me) have used this to explain their own light-travel problem.

[dizzle]

I find this all very, very interesting, even if it turns out not to be the solution for it rocks our very cozy perceptions of the world.

[wdwwilder]

setterfield has made some interesting changes to his theory which now has an explaination involving zero point energy of free space. it seem promising although I think humprey's starlight and time model look good too. http://setterfield.org/theorymods.html



"OUTLINE OF NEW MODEL:
It is generally accepted that the fabric of space was stretched out in response to processes operating at the inception of the cosmos. It is proposed that this stretching invested the fabric of space with an energy that eventually manifests as the zero-point energy, which is an intrinsic property of the vacuum. Evidence is deduced that the zero-point energy is increasing with time. The reason for the progressive change in the strength of the zero-point energy (ZPE) may be traced to the behaviour of the vacuum at the Planck length level. A smooth increase in the ZPE induces a smooth decline in the speed of light, c, and the rate of ticking of atomic clocks, while simultaneously smooth changes in the values of some atomic constants also occur.

Evidence in the scientific literature indicates that the ZPE sustains atomic structures universally. Therefore it is proposed that, as more energy became progressively available to them from the vacuum, atomic particle and orbit energies underwent a series of discrete isotropic increases or quantum jumps when the ZPE increased to a quantum threshold. Within the quantum interval, energy was conserved in all atomic processes, as atoms could not access fractions of a full quantum of energy from the ZPE. Thus, with increasing time, atoms emitted light that shifted in jumps towards the blue end of the spectrum. With increasing astronomical distance (looking back in time), theory indicates that the resulting redshift should increase in jumps of 2.671 km/s, in accord with Tifft's statistically treated observations that yield a quantisation of 2.669 km/s.

[ChristianTrader]

It seems that no one has pointed to Humphrey's model as a YEC answer to distant star light. Here is a link to a power point presentation that simplifies it. http://www.swcp.com/creation/resources/cosmos.exe

Some really interesting aspects of his theory is that our *galaxy is the center of the universe and the universe is no longer expanding.

Here is an AIG article on most of the current creationist cosmology models. Humphrey's model seems to have the least number of bugs in it.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

CT

[TheFiveSolas]

CT,

Actually I pointed out Dr. Humphreys' theory was an excellent answer to the question of distant starlight in a young universe. Though I must admit it was before you became a member!

[One Bad Pig]

Evidence in the scientific literature indicates that the ZPE sustains atomic structures universally. Therefore it is proposed that, as more energy became progressively available to them from the vacuum, atomic particle and orbit energies underwent a series of discrete isotropic increases or quantum jumps when the ZPE increased to a quantum threshold. Within the quantum interval, energy was conserved in all atomic processes, as atoms could not access fractions of a full quantum of energy from the ZPE. Thus, with increasing time, atoms emitted light that shifted in jumps towards the blue end of the spectrum. With increasing astronomical distance (looking back in time), theory indicates that the resulting redshift should increase in jumps of 2.671 km/s, in accord with Tifft's statistically treated observations that yield a quantisation of 2.669 km/s.

Cool! The fact that we get a recognizable quantisation means that we are fairly close to the center of the universe, per Dr. Humphrey's model. Does Setterfield's theory explain the faint ancient sun paradox?

[Orion]

Sometime around 1988, Australian creationist Barry Setterfield brought forth his concept of c-decay, wherein he proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is today. The presumption is that this would account for the fact that we can observe with our naked eye, stellar objects which are millions of light years distant. This, in turn, could be used to justify a 'young earth'.

Setterfield's thesis never got off the ground, the reason being that he based his calculations upon observations of the speed of light made over the last 120 years. Many of these earlier observations were crude, with huge error bars, and drifted all over the graph. Moreover, Setterfield appears to have made selective use of a portion of these observations in an attempt to bolster his thesis. This is not science.

Allow me an analogy: in 230 BCE, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes sought to measure the circumference of the earth. He noticed that a stick in the ground in Alexandria cast no shadow at noon on a certain day, while a stick further south did. From this, he calculated the earth's circumference to be about 19 thousand miles. It was an elegant deduction, but it was also incorrect. Using Setterfield's methodology, we must conclude that the circumference of the earth has increased since the time of Eratosthenes.

[Socratism]

08-08-2003 @ 12:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=173034#post173034)
Orion:

Sometime around 1988, Australian creationist Barry Setterfield brought forth his concept of c-decay, wherein he proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is today. The presumption is that this would account for the fact that we can observe with our naked eye, stellar objects which are millions of light years distant. This, in turn, could be used to justify a 'young earth'.

Setterfield's thesis never got off the ground, the reason being that he based his calculations upon observations of the speed of light made over the last 120 years. Many of these earlier observations were crude, with huge error bars, and drifted all over the graph. Moreover, Setterfield appears to have made selective use of a portion of these observations in an attempt to bolster his thesis. This is not science.



Your summary of Setterfield's work and his approach is not accurate at all.

Although it is true that there were error bars, the interesting thing is that they were highly skewed in favor of the idea that light speeds were higher in the past. Statistically this is quite remarkable.

His work has been examined in detail by those who are expert in statistics, with the result that what was done was quite reasonable, although not conclusive by any stretch of the imagination.

Whether his overall thesis is correct is still open to debate, but your categization of his work was highly inaccurate. Might I add that your treatment of his work is good evidence that you are not objective on this subject, a poor attitude for a person interested in science to have.

[scienceandgod98]

I always find "decaying c" theories a bit funny, because they violate e=mc^2. In other words, if c decayed, we would be here.
I really is that simple. Yet some YECS don't seem to understand that the expansion of space at light speed isn't the same as what is in that space (which is relevant to some current discussions). The YECs should learn from past mistakes and hold off before declaring some great victory only to embarass themselves later.
I know Socrates will disagree, but unlike him, physics is my profession, I don't have to blindly listen what my buddies at the YEC HQ are saying. I can understand it for myself.




"Atheism has no greater source of material than from Answers in Genesis, which believes the universe is under 6000 years old while human civilization is easily traced to at least 60,000. No wonder Christians are confused and atheists are sure God doesn't exist." - author unknown

[Socrates]

Today @ 03:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=196559#post196559)
scienceandgod98:

I always find "decaying c" theories a bit funny, because they violate e=mc^2. In other words, if c decayed, we would be here.

How ignorant can you get. Setterfield's original monograph dealt with this old canard. He answered that rest mass itself is inversely proportional to c2, so that energy is still conserved. He also claimed that there is experimental evidence that the charge to mass ratio of an electron has been decreasing (supporting his claim that mass has increased as c2 has decreased). But as usual, atheistic skeptics, along with their churchian allies like Dean, keep repeating this claim as if Setterfield hadn’t thought of this and answered it. Whether one agrees with his answer or not, it was improper to ignore it (or perhaps his critics don't understand it).

I really is that simple.

:dufus: You sure are!! :rofl:

Yet some YECS don't seem to understand that the expansion of space at light speed isn't the same as what is in that space (which is relevant to some current discussions).

What piffle. I have myself pointed out that the inflationary cosmology doesn't violate relativity because it's the expansion of space itself rather than objects through space. Of course there are numerous realproblems with it, e.g. a mechanism to start the inflation as well as halt it.

And physicists like Troitskii, Davies and Magueijo really have proposed theories of greater light speed in the past. Perhaps Dean needs to write them some abusive and patronising emails about how they have forgotten E=mc2 :dunce:

The YECs should learn from past mistakes and hold off before declaring some great victory only to embarass themselves later.

The anti-YECs should not spruik forth empty rhetoric.

I know Socrates will disagree, but unlike him, physics is my profession,

Physics goes with the territory of my sort of chemistry, fella.

I don't have to blindly listen what my buddies at the YEC HQ are saying. I can understand it for myself.

It hasn't shown so far. And he hasn't listened to YECs, blindly or otherwise, otherwise he wouldn't be raising boring, long-answered canards to support his jihad against biblical chronology.

Atheism has no greater source of material than from Answers in Genesi,

Oh, right, right, that must be why atheist/sceptic organisations constantly target AiG for abuse. Conversely, they hardly bothering with compromising churchian organisations precisely because they are no challenge to the atheistic religion.

... which believes the universe is under 6000 years old while human civilization is easily traced to at least 60,000.

Lovely ipse dixit from someone unqualified, and gives no indication of how the biblical chronogenealogies can possibly be stretched to put Noah back then.

No wonder Christians are confused and atheists are sure God doesn't exist.

Yeah, because so many Churchians don't even truly believe their own book!

- author unknown

And deserves to remain unknown!

[Orion]

When the scientific community begins to take Setterfield's ideas seriously, you might have a case to make.

Meanwhile, to make a claim, as Setterfield has done, that the speed of C has decreased over time, based upon his analysis of historically inaccurate measurements using crude techniques, is hardly convincing.

[Socrates]

Today @ 04:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=206482#post206482)
Orion:

When the scientific community begins to take Setterfield's ideas seriously, you might have a case to make.

When critics of Setterfield cease making stupid attacks on this theory, "Relativity shows that c cannot change", you might have a case to make.

Meanwhile, to make a claim, as Setterfield has done, that the speed of C has decreased over time,

Point of information: it is "c" or "speed of light", not "speed of C".

... based upon his analysis of historically inaccurate measurements using crude techniques, is hardly convincing.

That is a far more cogent criticism of Setterfield's work, and one that I and many creationists share.

[dizzle]

I am glad this thread still lives. I am fascinated by this topic.

[Joe Meert]

Setterfield's work has been severely criticized by creationists and most mainstream scientists who have bothered to look at it. AIG lists it as doubtful and urges caution. THe timeline that is proposed by Setterfield places the Noachian flood entirely within the Precambrian removing the whole 'fossils are dead flood animals argument'. Setterfield's papers have been repeatedly rejected by mainstream literature due to errors in math and logic. Creationists are quick to argue that mainstream science is debating the constancy of c, but most of those arguments discuss non-constancy in the time intervals extremely close to the big bang. So, if people like Socrates want to use Marguejo's arguments, then they must tacitly assume the basis of those arguments which is the Big Bang! I present a detailed description of 'Barry's World' at the following location:
http://gondwanaresearch.com/hp/set.htm

Cheers

Joe Meert

[dizzle]

Joe, please review the thread at

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?action=showthread&postid=128132#post128132

and contact me if you desire to discuss.

[Joe Meert]

Today @ 04:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=207374#post207374)
Dee Dee Warren:



JM: IN skimming through this thread, there is no hint whatsoever that only creationists are allowed to post. I will stop posting here, but this is the oddest 'creationist only' thread I've skimmed through. Might I suggest that you edit the subtitle under the thread on the main link page as it hints that the forum is for something very different than indicated your lengthy (and probably not oft-read 'clarification')? In fact, it seems odd that it would even be placed under 'Natural Sciences' if it a priori excludes Naturalism? However, you're the boss and I promise to stay away from this thread.


Cheers

Joe Meert

[Orion]

Dee Dee Warren (yesterday): "I am glad this thread still lives. I am fascinated by this topic."

Followed by...

Dee Dee Warren (today): "If a poster frankly would not be considered a 'creationist' in general vernacular, then we ask that such do not participate in this section in good faith."

OK, so, I'm outta here.

[dizzle]

The forum guidelines that EVERYONE had to hit 'yes' to before coming to this forum say this area is for creationists only and a large red sticky thread provides further clarification.

[Orion]

Dee Dee Warren: "The forum guidelines that EVERYONE had to hit 'yes' to before coming to this forum say this area is for creationists only and a large red sticky thread provides further clarification."

In other words, you don't wish to discuss or learn anything with respect to cosmology, other than the creationist point of view, despite the fact that you earlier expressed an interest in this subject. I fully understand your position. Within the academic community, we refer to it as "anti-intellectualism".

You are a disgrace.

[dizzle]

Any grievances with moderator action should be taken up by the proper protocol, and your violation of the rules simply by posting here AGAIN is duly noted. There is a whole forum section without the restrictions here so your tantrum is nonsensical. If you throw it here again, you will be placed on moderation.

[dizzle]

This thread is closed until your access here to this area is restricted so that you will not be overcome with a temptation too difficult for you to bear.

[dizzle]

The thread is now reopened.. please proceed while I lurk attentively.

[Xavier]

:bump:

[Socrates]

09-12-2003 @ 04:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=209314#post209314)
Dee Dee Warren:

The thread is now reopened.. please proceed while I lurk attentively.

OK, at last some of the DVDs from the AiG(US) conference reached Australia and I was able to get hold of some of them. One of them was Radioactive Decay Update: Breaking Down the Old-Age Paradigm by Ph.D. physicist Dr Keith Wanser, (see his interview God and the electron: A talk with physicist Keith Wanser (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/electron.asp)), and the DVD is available for $12 at http://shop2.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/3fb738b0026aa9ca2719ccfd844c0711/Product/View/30&2D9&2D050

Dr Wanser is sympathetic to the idea of c-decay and thinks it happened (as do a number of secular cosmologists). But he is concerned to constrain possible cdk theories to the available data. One is the energy loss to gravitational radiation, which is given by General Relativity by:

-dE/dt = (32G4 m12m2 2 (m1 + m2))/(5c5R3)

Here, m1 and m2 are the masses of the two objects orbiting, R is the distance (so we have an inverse cube law) and G the universal gravitational constant. Don't worry too much about that formula -- the main thing is that according to Setterfield's theory:
G ∝ (is proportional to) c4,
and to avoid problem with the E = mc2, m ∝ 1/c2.

This means that the rate of energy loss, from the formula, is

-dE/dt ∝ (c4)4.(c-2)2.(c-2)2.c-2)/(c5)

which works out to:

-dE/dt ∝ c (i.e. the rate of energy loss through gravitational radiation is proportional to the speed of light)

But Setterfield's model has c decaying over historical time, so at the Flood the speed of light was about 138c. But that would mean that the rate of energy loss through gravitational radiation was also 138 times greater.

Gravity is such a weak force that to get detectable gravitational wave loss, objects at least as dense as pulsars are needed. These are fast-rotating neutron stars, thought to have formed when star cores collapse after a supernova. The 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor for discovering a binary pulsar and showing that the energy loss matched the predictions of general relativity to within 0.4%. See Press Release: The 1993 Nobel Prize in Physics (www.nobel.se/physics/laureates/1993/press.html)

The point is, this binary pulsar system is 50,000 light years away, yet we see from this that the speed of light was the same at that distance, which means a long time ago. Setterfield would not say that the light left 50,000 years ago, but the data contradict any idea that it might have left at the time of the Flood and slowed down. Rather, c has not decayed since the light left that pulsar.

So either the theory must be revised to take into account the observations of loss through gravitational radiation, or else the cdk happened during Creation Week before human history.