smartaxes.com Blog

[Advanced Creation Science]

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

[Advanced Creation Science]

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….
(more…)

[Advanced Creation Science]
I’m opening this thread for a more detailed and mathematically rigorous discussion of the Boltzman distribution objection to CDK. This a critique of paper by Dr. Jellison introduced here. I welcome civil, academic discussion and civil treatment of the subject matter. I thank the participants in advance for their restraint in holding back their frustrations with each other. The discussion will move forward as we stick to the facts and theories.

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:

(more…)

[Advanced Creation Science]
I am great supporter of Barry Setterfield’s work. See www.Setterfield.org

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…..
(more…)

[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. ]