This morning, after much searching I may have found confirming evidence of a VERY VERY bold prediction of Barry Setterfield’s light speed decay theory. Light speed decay (CDK) theory predicts that we will see celestial objects move in slow motion (time dilation) depending on an equation calculated by Dr. Stephen Cheesman. For example, the degree of time dilation predicted when we start to look at objects at say about 30,000 light years is about 59, their physical motions will appear to be slowed down by factors of 59!

In a survey of Visual Photometric Binary stars and Visually accessible Spectroscopic Binary stars, I have found confirming evidence of this time dilation! Astronmers have acknoweldged the anomaly and tried to explain away the fact that as one looks farther out from Earth there is an increase in population of slow visual Binary Stars (Stars which orbit one another), or apparently no binary stars at all. Actually, with extreme time dilation, binary stars will look frozen, and this is actually what we are seeing in globular clusters 30,000 light years away.

I have also asserted that there are only supposed eclipsing binaries detected by micro-lensing techniques which are not binaries at all.

I would welcome review of the current work on this subject as it would confirm:

1. Intelligent Design
2. Recent Special Creation

Visit www.YoungCosmosDiscussion.com

regards to everyone, especially my brethren,
Salvador

Was there a Big Bang? by David Berlinski.

NOTWITHSTANDING THE investment made by the scientific community and the general
public in contemporary cosmology, a suspicion lingers that matters do not sum up as they should. Cosmologists write as if they are quite certain of the Big Bang, yet, within the last decade, they have found it necessary to augment the standard view by
means of various new theories. These schemes are meant to solve problems that cosmologists were never at pains to acknowledge, so that today they are somewhat in the position of a physician reporting both that his patient has not been ill and that
he has been successfully revived.
….

THE BIG BANG rests on the hypothesis that the universe is expanding, and in the end the
plausibility of its claims will depend on whether the universe is expanding. Astronomers can indeed point to places in the sky where the redshift of the galaxies appears to be a linear function of their distance. But in astrophysics, as in evolutionary biology,
it is failure rather than success that is of significance. The astrophysical literature contains interesting and disturbing evidence that the linear relationship at the heart of Hubble’s law by no means describes the facts fully.

At the end of World War II, astronomers discovered places in the sky where charged particles moving in a magnetic field sent out strong signals in the radio portion of the spectrum. Twenty years later, Alan Sandage and Thomas Mathews identified the source of such signals with optically discernible points in space. These are the quasarsquasi stellar radio sources. Quasars have played a singular role in astrophysics. In the mid-1960’s, Maarten Schmidt discovered that their spectral lines were shifted massively to the red. If Hubble’s law were correct, quasars should be impossibly far away, hurtling themselves into oblivion at the far edge of space and time. But for more than a decade, the American astronomer Halton Arp has drawn the attention of the astronomical community to places in the sky where the expected relationship between redshift and distance simply fails. Embarrassingly enough, many quasars seem bound to nearby galaxies. The results are in plain sight: there on the photographic plate is the smudged record of a galaxy, and there next to it is a quasar, the points of light lined up and looking for all the world as if they were equally luminous. These observations do not comport with standard Big Bang cosmology. If quasars have very large redshifts, they must (according to Hubble’s law) be very far away; if they seem nearby, then either they must be fantastically luminous or their redshift has not been derived from their velocity. The tight tidy series of inferences that has gone into Big Bang cosmology, like leverage in commodity trading, works beautifully in reverse, physicists like speculators finding their expectations canceled by the very processes they had hoped to exploit.
….
WITHIN ANY scientific discipline, bad news must come in battalions before it is taken seriously. Cosmologists can point to any number of cases in which disconcerting evidence has resolved itself in their favor; a decision to regard the quasars with a watchful indifference is not necessarily irrational. The galaxies are another matter. They are central to Hubble’s law; it is within the context of galactic observation that the crucial observational evidence for the Big Bang must be found or forged. The battalions now begin to fill. The American mathematician I.E. Segal and his associates have studied the evidence for galactic recessional velocity over the course of twenty years, with results that are sharply at odds with predictions of Big Bang cosmology. Segal is a distinguished, indeed a great mathematician, one of the creators of modern function theory and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. He has incurred the indignation of the astrophysical community by suggesting broadly that their standards of statistical rigor would shame a sociologist. Big Bang cosmology, he writes,

“owes its acceptance as a physical principle primarily to the uncritical and premature representation of [the redshift-distance relationship] as an empirical fact…. Observed discrepancies … have been resolved by a pyramid of exculpatory assumptions, which are inherently incapable of noncircular substantiation.”

The serious student of creation science is invited to enjoy the rest of the article!

Although I think YEC theory has a ways to go, there are various anomalies reported from secular quarters that continue to give hope to YEC proponents. One paper cited is a 1991 peer-reviewed paper by Tifft: Properties of the Redshift III: Temporal Variation. In this paper, Tifft argues that changes in redshifts from the same have object have been detected by historical measurements. It is like looking at an object and seeing its color change before your very eyes. This would throw some doubt on the standard interpreations of the Big Bang.

Comparisons between new 21 cm redshifts and older data, especially older 300 foot telescope data, are used to demonstrate the presence of systematic deviations, toward higher redshifts, in all the older data.

Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).

— Stephen Jay Gould

[Gould was the beloved mentor of creationist Kurt Wise]

I will try to put a mix of advanced creation science with topics of interest to the general reader. YoungCosmos will be set apart from other websites in its willingness to invite and discuss serious challenges with various YEC hypotheses.

However, I recognized, exclusive focus on specialty topics will discourage interest in the website. So, I’ll try to maintain about a healthy mix of interesting topics and specialty topics. This post deals with an attempt at clarification of both Setterfield’s work and Dr. Jellison and Bridgman’s work regarding wavelength behavior with respect to time at the same general location and at various locations….

The wavelength of various waves of light can be measured directly or indirectly. The earliest measurement a wavelength was not too far of from the notion of using an actual ruler, but with some clever variation to measure wavelengths of light. One such method is the use of Diffraction Techniques.

My reading of CDK is that, presuming a chemical or electrical generation of light, if hypothetically I were around near the beginning of creation on Earth, I could take a laser and the wavelength measured at day 100 would be the same at day 30,000 when the diffraction measurement is made close to the laser (say 10 meters or so).

However, what would happen if I somehow measure the laser beam from far away? Say I measure a light beam emitted by the laser and detect it on day 30,000 but much farther away, in fact, as far away as the beam could travel from day 100 to day 30,000. I would presume, I would see a red shift, but is my interpretation of CDK wrong?

There is also another consideration on top of all this. When the Zero-Point Energy causes the universal transition which Barry Setterfield ties to quantized red shifts, would the laser device create a different diffraction frequency when changes in light speed/ZPE cause a universal quantum jump?

If the change of such processes (like with the laser) were universal, chemical processes ought to behave similarly since the abosorption behavior will be alter as well. However, any processes which are tied to physical distances (like crystal lattices) might be affected. This consideration, might of course lead to empirical confirmations or falsifications. That’s presuming of course, I’m representing CDK correctly. I would welcome discussion of this.

This discussion is tied to issues raised in Jellison and Bridgman, which can be found: here

I’d like to thank Dr. Jellison for raising important question regarding CDK which I expect many others will have and which I hope CDK supporters will consider carefully.

I would like to offer my counter-critique in defense of CDK pertaining to page 29. The traditional Boltzman distribution is:

Dr. Jellison’s interprets Boltzman under CDK to be:

I believe this interpretation is mistaken, albeit very understandably mistaken. Before I move forward, to emphasize the dependence on “t” let me rephrase the traditional Boltzman equation as:

A mis-interpretation of the Boltzman distribution occurs because of the meaning of m(t). m(t) should be judged in terms of m(t) relative to the mass of other objects in the universe at time t, not m(t) in relation to the mass of the universe at other times ( t plus or minus some number). Thus, with this in mind, m(t) will observationally appear to be invariant with t, and m(t) = m under classical dynamics.

The derivation by Dr. Jellison reflects an interpretation of m(t) relative to the universe at other times, and I consider this erroneous. When this aspect of m(t) is taken into account, it can be shown this derivation by Dr. Jellison:

is erroneous. The correct, interpretation, under CDK axioms, and the presumption k(t) = k, and m(t) = m (for the considerations stated above) is:

which is what we observe. Hence, CDK with respect to the question raised on page 29 of Dr. Jellison’s paper, is not controverted by the Boltzman distribution.

PS
Use of Latex to display equations is discussed by jb here. To display an image in Latex on this website use

< img src="URL" />

Part of advancing the his work involves exposing it to scientific criticism. Though facing criticism may be difficult, if a theory is true, it will prevail in the end.

With that in mind, I present the hard work of two scientists (Jellison and Bridgman) who have written a critique of an idea I really like, namely CDK. I do not expect the discussion to be settled anytime soon, and the work of these two scientists is worthy of consideration. I’d like to thank them for making their work available online. The issues here could take years to settle, and I think it unfair to Barry to make any demands he respond anytime soon.

I must sadly assert, rather than condemning Old-Earth Creationists as being compromisers or finding flaws in OEC theology, it would be far more productive (for science and the cause of the gospel, if indeed CDK is true) to solve scientific problems such as the ones outlined by Dr. Jellison. For as long as these scientific problems linger, there will be those who will accept an Old Universe, and I for one can’t blame them…..

Though Dr. Jellison and I disagree intensely, I would like to thank him for his care and hard work on the issue, and his very civil demeanor. If one firmly believes in YEC and that Barry has a chance of being correct, then one ought to pray for Barry and supporters of his work. And also importantly, if one has scientific insight, by all means join the exploration.

Dr. Jellison’s critique can be found at: Critique of CDK. I would ask we respect Dr. Jellison’s privacy and that discussion be focused on the questions he poses.

This thread will not be the last time his work is featured. I will try to put a place on the new website where it can be discussed and where Latex can be used to present mathematical ideas. In the interim, I’m simply posting this to make available.

I would like to encourage Barry Setterfield to not be pressured to comment immediately. Public exposure of the theory will generate interest and get creationists with physics backgrounds involved and contributing to the discussion. Further, I’d like to assure Barry, he has friends he may not be aware of who may be willing to help with his work. I hope they will visit this site and help out. If CDK is correct, I think the Intelligent Designer will ensure that it will be vindicated as that was ordained from the beginning of time….

I’d like to thank Barry Setterfield, Gerard Jellison, Stephen Cheesman for their participation here at YoungCosmos. I recognize that surely at least one of you must be wrong, and that entails even the very hard work at least one you have put forward will be eventually falsified. I can’t thank you all enough for each of you volunteering hours of your personal time to exploration of these very important topics.

In fact, the BSG’s activities have reached the very halls of the Unted States Congress and the Office of Special Council in the Richard Sternberg affair. See: www.rsternberg.net

Here are my reflections of Thursday, June 14, 2007:

In attendance were 65 people including

Kurt Wise
Paul Nelson
Marcus Ross
Todd Wood
Gordon Wilson
Tim Brophy
Georgia Purdom
David Cavanaugh
Steve Gollmer

There were several others, some of whom I perhaps should not mention since they’re somewhat in Guillermo Gonzalez’s shoes right now if you know what I mean.

[Ironically, I did not have the privilege of meeting Jean Lightner who gives her alternate report here.]

I was only there on Thrusday Evening, June 14, 2007 for the business meeting (election of officers) and the poster session so I will focus on that.

When I walked in to DeMoss hall I saw a very attractive and charming woman talking on her cell phone. It was none other the molecular biologist Dr. Georgia Purdom. Purdom had made some very negative comments about ID at the 2005 YEC mega-conference. Conversely, I had also made some very negative remarks publicly about what she had to say about ID. She recognized me too. OOPS! She was very kind to show me around, and I’ve decide from this day forward, to be much nicer when I crticize Dr. Purdom publicly.

Most creationist ideas that one reads in the literature is geared toward demolishing naturalistic evolution. BSG is for the most part is not focusing on that. In a manner of speaking, Darwinism is about as relevant to their science as phlogiston is to chemsitry….

Their investigation is not focused on disproving Darwinism (like most everyone else). The question they focus on are:

1. what were the created kinds and how did they evolve into the creatures we see to day. For example, many Baraminologists think Wolves, Jackals, Dogs, and Foxes proceeded from a common ancestor. If this sort of front-loaded evolution existed, then that would solve a lot of problems with all the creatures in Noah’s ark. One can somewhat commically argue, YECs are hyper-evolutionists. [See this great YEC article: Evolution: God's Greatest Creation.]

2. what sort of things were front-loaded into the organisms. Gordon Wilson and others argue death, disease, thorns, thistles, and all sorts of other miseries were pre-programmed into life. They discuss empirically detecting evidence to support this hypothesis. Plagues, like those today, and those which God used against Pharoah, are the work of Intelligent Design….

3. Systems Biology and Medical Research from a creationist theory. I have pointed out many times at Uncommon Descent, how the Darwinian paradigm continues to incorrectly characterize biology as it operates today (much less as to how it operated in the past). If Darwinists like Ken Miller can so casually dismiss DNA as junk, when in fact it has medical significance, how much better will a creationist biology help advance medical science.

I was impressed that active interest in pusuing medical and industrial science is becoming a major focus versus purely activities of “evanglizing and making war on evil world views”. As creation theory helps advance science, it will help further its acceptance. In the words of the Apostle Peter, there are times hearts are won over without saying a thing…..

I talked to Marcus Ross, and he agreed that 20 years ago, creationist ideas were in horrible shape. The classic example is canopy theory by Henry Morris which dominated (dare I say impeded) creationist theory for 30 years…..

With that thought, I mentioned that creationists would do well to start a journal where fierce criticisms of their theory would be admitted and not censored. I said it would attract readership because it allowed controversy rather than supress it. He thought it was a good idea. [Any one willing to help in this enterprise. hint hint.]

One of the best creationist journals has only 10 submissions, and is available for free online. It is the BSG’s occasional papers. I would be delighted to see one like that, but one that reflects some of the values of the YoungCosmos website, where contrary opinions are welcomed and even sought after.

Most creationists journal will not pass something written favorable to Old Earth or Darwinists. But this scientific research is not about evangelizing or persuading, it is about dealing with tough questions and finding answers. YEC theory will advance by allowing criticism, it will be hindered to the extent it evades and supresses it. YECs will not solve problems with YEC theory unless they are willing to first acknowledge these problems exist.

If God is for the YECs, the theory will prevail in the end, despite human efforts to disprove it. I am officially sympathetic to the theory, but I think as a scientific hypothesis (versus a theological one), it has a long, long way to go.

Finally, I must mention Kurt Wise whom I met for the very first time. Oh my goodness. He had studied under the best paleotologists in the world at University of Chicago (under David Raup) and then got his PhD at Harvard under the tutelage and association of the most famous Darwinsits:

Stephen Gould
Richard Lewontin
Ernst Mayr
E.O. Wilson

Oh, my goodness. Could a creationist have a richer background than that? Wise helped teach some of Lewontin’s classes in statistical biology. He also studied fractals under Mandelbrot. Good gravy, the guy is a scholar. He spoke so glowingly of his mentors like Gould, Lewontin, and Mayr.

If one wonders whether miracles can happen, one only need look at Kurt Wise, the YEC who was awarded a PhD by Stephen Gould and the Darwinists at Harvard.

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. ]

History of the Light-Speed Debate by Helen Setterfield

[Ed Note: We have been following Barry Setterfield's research on the speed of light since 1993.
It is interesting that both evolutionists and creation scientists can be blinded by their own presuppositions...]

More