[Advanced Creation Science Topic]
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.
It appears aerospace engineer George Sanctuary independently derived a time-dilation equation and found several anomalies that appear to support the Setterfield cosmology.
GENERAL RELATIVITY or NEWTONIAN TIDAL EFFECTS?
1) Quite surprisingly, the derived nominal tidal effects model duplicates general relativity precessions for all celestial bodies in the solar system. However, for two binary stars, (DI Herculis and AS Camelopardalis), GR predicts double the measured orbital precessions, while the NTE model duplicates the measured values.
Nominal Tidal Effects (NTE) combined with the Hyperbolic Creation Model (HCM) described in this paper offer a reasonable alternative to a universe cosmogony which is explained using general relativity (GR). The HCM cosmogony is heliocentric (sun-centered), as also is the well-known background Red Shift. The cause of the Red Shift frequencies could be a decaying transit super-speed of light. Finally, the possibility that the age of the universe is just a few thousand years has been demonstrated.
To understand a bit more, see Einstein’s nemesis: di herculis
DI Herculis is an 8th-magnitude eclipsing binary about 2,000 light years from earth. These two young blue stars are very close — only one fifth the distance from earth to our sun. They orbit about a common center of gravity every 10.55 days. So far, no problem!
The puzzle is that, as the two stars swing around one another, the axis of their orbit rotates or precesses too slowly. General relativity predicts a precession of 4.27°/century, but for DI Herculis the rate is only 1.05°/century. This does not sound like a figure large enough to get excited about, but it deeply troubles astronomers. D. Popper, an astronomer at UCLA, says:
“The observations are pretty clear. I don’t think there’s any question there’s a discrepancy and, frankly, it is an important one and it’s unresolved.”
The solution may be a Young Cosmos and YEC CDK cosmology.
[Note: I'm on vacation till Monday, June 11, 2007. Sorry I can't joint the fun for a few days. ]
More recently, the reduced precession has been attributed to the possible presence of third, orbiting member. See, for instance a more up-to-date treatment of the problem in:
http://blackhole.aas.org/publications/baas/v37n1/002501bas.pdf
To quote that article: “In a higly inclined orbit, the third body would diminish the rate of apsidal advance of the close pair.” (Villanova University Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, Villanova, Pennsylvania, Report [S0002-7537(95)00201-0]).
(This was previously posted by mistake in the other CDK thread, ahead of the my previous comment above… I have to be more careful!)
Salvador: “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.”
One must be very careful about attempting to explain such an anomaly as due to an erroneous distance measurement. Moving an object from 2000 to 5000 light years would produce a change in the observed precession rate by about the stated amount (1 + (kd)^2) = 2.7, but then you’d have to account for the following as well:
1) The orbital period about the center of gravity would also change by the same amount which would mean…
2) The calculated masses of the two stars, and/or their separation would need to be recalculated to account for the changed orbital period
3) Which would mean that the precession rate would have to be re-calculated.
4) Using the sec^2 formula, the absolute luminosities would have to increased by a factor of 2.7*2.5^2 = 17, from the time dilation (light spread out over its travel path) and the inverse-square distance affect.
In the end, you get more problems than just the difference in precession.
In 1985, Dr. John Moffat at the U.of.T. offered a non CDK solution based on his own gravitational theory that fit very well with the observations.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_v128/ai_3898132
Please Note:
ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!
Salvador