The following was offered by Stephen J. Cheesman, a signatory of the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin list. I wish to give Dr. Cheesman a fair hearing in his criticism of CDK. I would ask the YECs, and those friendly to Barry Setterfield’s work to give Dr. Cheesman a fair and civil hearing. I believe the truth will eventually assert itself. We need to give open discussion and investigation a chance to lead us to the truth.
The Apostle Peter said ”Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have” (1 Pet 3:15). In like manner we should be aware of the objections to CDK (c-decay) theory.
See:
The Effect on the Observed Rate of Events on Distant Planets
and
Letter from Stephen Cheesman to ICR’s Director of Research
This website is experiencing a few glitches as we attempt to stabalize it. I thank everyone in advance for their patience. Here is something Dr. Cheesman intended to post, which may have failed earlier. It is an update to an earlier post:
=================================================
[Stephen Cheesman writing]
I believe one of the central tenets of the CDK proposition is that gravitational values are unaffected; e.g. the period of orbits remains unchanged. This ensures, for instance, that the number of days in a year has not changed appreciably since creation.
This allows us to test the CDK theory against observation by observing the orbit of globular clusters around our galaxy, which lie at sufficient distance to have a substantial estimated time dilation, based on the sec^2 formula, yet are close enough for us to observe the actual movement against the location of distant galaxies by measuring the relevant movement of stars on photographic plates (as opposed to measuring movement indirectly using Doppler affects, which could, in theory, be masked by CDK affects).
In fact, this has been done. For instance, see the following link:
http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos/venice-proc/oral06_05.pdf
In this oral paper presented in 1997 at the ESA Symposium in Venice, The proper motion of 15 clusters was measured, which yielded proper motions on the order of 0.1 arcsec/cy (century), and true velocities, relative to the galactic center.
Consider one of these clusters, NGC 4147. It lies at a distance of 19.3 kilo-parsecs, or about 63,000 light years away. At the that distance the time dilation factor is 1 + (kd)^2 = 273.
Since the rotational velocity is proportional to the product of the galactic and globular cluster mass, our estimates of this product need to be adjusted by a factor of 273, or, taking the square roots, about 17 times for each.
Such is the size of the factor, and the rapidity of its increase with distance, we should be able to graph the proper motions of similar clusters, based on their relative distance from the earth, against the inverse of the calculated dilation factors, to obtain a straight line. For instance, a second similar cluster, with the same number and type of stars (assuming the absence of large black holes at the center), and thus of the same mass, with a similar orbit, would have a time dilation factor of 1089 (e.g. 4 times as much), and the observed proper motion should be one-quarter as large.
In effect, we should observe an inverse-distance squared affect for the observed proper motion of galactic clusters in their orbits about our galaxy.
Although I was unable to track this down, if the average proper motion of the individual stars in clusters due to their orbit of the gravitational center of the cluster can be observed and calculated, then this too should show the same affect.
This is a simple observational prediction that the CDK theory makes, if we start with the sec^2 formula, without all that messing about with those confusing atomic physical constants.
Following up on proper motions of stars in Globular clusters, it turns out to have been done already in 2006, using the Hubble Space telescope:
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2006/33/full/
This amazing study directly tracked the motion of 15,000 starts inside the globular cluster 47 Tucanae. The measured angular motion was found to average just over one ten-millionth of a degree per year, or the equivalent of the size of a dime at 4500 miles!
This cluster is at a distance of 13,400 light-years, which should produce a time dilation of about 200 times using the sec^2 formula. So are the observed velocities “correct” (assuming no time dilation), or too slow?
First of all, I think in principle the time dilation effect is falsifiable and testable given:
1. good estimates of distance from Earth
2. good estimate of distance of objects between themselves (which is influenced by #1)
3. good estimate of amount of mass involved
In the interest of being empirically and theoretically rigorous, I hinted where some caution was in order as far as estimating distances. A fair result is one which accounts for possible measurement errors.
Regarding the question you posed, there is an inverse square relationship with the estimated mass of the system. Can we estimate the mass without any sort of circular reasoning?
Same goes for distance measurements. I think the question at hand is a worthy empirical question. I do not have any answers today….
I would on the surface argue, if we see comparably bright globlular clusters “frozen” relative to this one, the Setterfield cosmology would have at least survived one level of falsification. If on the other hand we see lots of rotations of similar objects, apparently invariant to distance, it’s back to the drawing board.
God bless you,
Salvador
Dr. Cheesman,
Precession of DI Hercules indicates an precession anomaly of a factor of 17 at 2000 light years away. If the distance estimate off, but instead DI Herculis is actually 5000 light years away, would that be consistent with Setterfield’s hypothesis.
DI Herculis Anomaly
If precession could be decoupled from orbital period, I wonder if that could be used to measure time dilation?
Salvador
This is a point of discussion, not necessarily an endorsement: GENERAL RELATIVITY or NEWTONIAN TIDAL EFFECTS?
[...] In Criticism of CDK from brother Stephen J. Cheesman, I was confronted with some of the sobering difficulties of a particular YEC Cosmology known as CDK (speed of light decay). In that discussion, the topic arose as to what would constitute an empirical support or refutation of Barry Setterfield’s ideas. [...]
[This comment was on the DI Hercules precession rate, and has been moved to that thread]
This is the first of two posts concerning supernovae and the observational affects of CDK.
According to CDK theory, there are two types of phenomena: One is affected by/related to the current speed of light, and the other is not. By my understanding, the light curve of a supernova IS, and the normal luminosity of a star is NOT. The first is required, or supernova viewed at a great distance would have different light curves than those up close (due to the time-dilation affect), and the second is required because we need a consistent amount of energy (and I am equating luminosity with energy) near a star for the preservation of life.
HOWEVER, as noted before, the apparent luminosity of a star should also drop with distance by the same time-dilation factor. This leaves us with two choices for the total energy emitted and observed by a supernova:
1) If the total supernova light-signature energy remains the same independent of c, then there is no observed time-dilation affect on luminosity with distance (beyond the normal inverse-squared relationship). We see supernova as if no CDK occurred (even if it did) because all the affects are compensated for, and the same amount of energy passes us, over the same time interval. All the “compensation” occured at the source, when the supernova occurred.
BUT, since the apparent luminosity of normal star-light IS affected by CDK (because the light is spread out by the ratio of the c then to now), we should find that, relative to the galaxies they appear in, supernova seem brighter the farther away we look, by the same time-dilation factor. The factor at the Andromeda galaxy is over 100,000, and we certainly do NOT see this.
2) In order to maintain a constant ratio between the luminosity of normal stars and supernovae, and maintain stellar luminosity, it is necessary to posit that the total luminous energy of the supernova is reduced by the time-dilation factor. This would be a better proposition if you happened to be in the same galaxy as the supernova, because the “energy singularity” affect (e.g. all the energy hitting you in an instant of time) is removed, but it also would mean that the observed luminosity at a distance (e.g. us seeing a supernova in a distant galaxy) would drop by the same factor as for a star.
Of the two above, I think 2) is more consistent, but in either case you are left with the biggest problem of all: If apparent stellar luminosity drops by the time-dilation factor, why can we see distant galaxies at all?
This is the second post about supernovae. It is simply the observation that CDK theory (at least the version which postulates a sec^2 type of decay in c from quasi-infinite velocities near the creation declining to the present day value) leads to the conclusion that once we are looking more than a million or so light-years away, we are seeing moments on the first days (or even day) of creation, at slowed down rate of occurence factoring into the hundreds of thousands or even millions.
With that in mind, the frequency of observation of any transient event should be reduced by the same factor. This includes, (and perhaps the best and most easily observed example is) supernovae.
So does the number of observed supernovae (supernovae per year per galaxy) fall off with distance in accordance with the CDK value (1 + (kd)^2 for the sec^2 formula)?
If not, then CDK leads to the conclusion that supernovae occurred at an enormous rate at the dawn of creation, and Adam and Eve would likely have seen a night sky that resembled a press gallery in their first week on this earth.
It must have been magnificent. =D
Dr. Cheesman,
Thank you for your continued inputs. This thread is slowly falling off the top of the blog queue, and I intend to re-feature the current discussion in the near future as soon as the website, blog, and discussion forum are fully operational.
Your insights and concerns are valuable and something every serious YEC should be cognizant of.
In the mean time, I will be quite occupied this week with Michael Behe’s visit, and the Baraminology Study Group meeting in Lynchburg.
God bless both you and Barry Setterfield, and may the Lord, the Creator of all things reveal to us what is the truth of our history. I believe in the Privileged Planet hypothesis, that if the question of the universe’s age is important, the physical evidence will tell us the age of the universe in due time.
It seems to me that at least one theory (YEC or OEC) will be wrong. I pray God will give us the willingness to face the truth and also teach us the truth, and thus I pray for both sides in this important discussion.
blessings,
Salvador
“It must have been magnificent.”
Now, I appreciate the humour here, but it is worth considering the implications. According to my careful research (Wikipedia
) a galaxy the size of our own has about one supernova every 50 years.
The Katzman Automatic Imaging Telescope currently scans about 1000 galaxies every night and has found about 60 per year over a nine year period:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzman_Automatic_Imaging_Telescope
Supernovae generally occur as the result of gravitational processes, when the acreting mass of the star overcomes internal pressure and results in rapid nuclear conversion of a sizeable fraction of the mass of the core. There doesn’t appear to me to be any reason why they should be less frequent now than any time in the past, even if “c” has changed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova
So the question remains — if we assume “c” has changed enough to fill the current universe with light since a recent creation, why do we see any supernovae at all from distant galaxies, and how do we see these galaxies in the first place?
SCheesman, thanks for responding. (I meant no irreverence.) There was a humorous aspect to my comment, but also a serious one. Your comment on the night sky of early earth resembling a press gallery sparked my imagination, and I briefly caught a glimpse in my imagining of what magnificence would have been on display during that first week (if our current sky is any indication). In my mind’s eye I envisioned a cosmic combination of Hubble telescope images in a firework-like display.
Since I lack all capacity to respond to this discussion on the level that it’s intended, I opted for something short and sweet. But since I’m here I’ll take a stab at it, risking positing something completely non-constructive. What if the universe were much smaller at the beginning? Would the “stretching of the heavens” (Isa 42:5, 45:12, 51:13; Jer 10:12) have any effect on time dilation, the speed of light, or the luminosity issue?
I think I’ve been spam filtered. Not sure what tripped it up. [nevermind, false alarm]
Hello Apollos. It is interesting to speculate what Isaiah and Jeremiah meant by “stretching out the heavens”, and if it is intended as anything more than a poet description of the whole creation process. (Note that Isa 42:6 continues “…who spread out the earth.”) Isaiah 45:12 conflates the stretching out with the creation of stars, so it may simply be referring to the creation process in general as well.
Even from an OEC viewpoint, I think it is pushing the meaning a bit too far to suggest it refers to the general expansion of the universe since the big-bang (though it certainly is an interesting coincidence!) or, even more particularly the “inflationary” cycle posited to have occurred in the first instances after the big-bang to explain a number of cosmic phenomena.
Still, what affect would a “stretching’ have on these issues such as the (apparent) time dilation, speed of light, and luminosity?
I think the affect is similar to if the speed of light itself has changed, in that the light in transit would get stretched out along with the space through which it was passing, with the result that we would still see things “playing back” in slow motion. The luminosity of distant stars would also drop because the same amount of light is stretched over a much greater distance. In other words, I think stretching space would have the same affect as a declining speed of light. Of course, God could have added extra photons to make up for the brightness change, or not stretched the light somehow as space was stretched, but one involves a new round of “creation” and the other is hard to imagine, and you still need to fill the current enormous universe with the little bit of light available in the first few days or weeks of creation.
Please Note:
ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!
Salvador