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

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

Encyclopedia Britannica
In 1878 Michelson began work on what was to be the passion of his life, the accurate measurement of the speed of light.

One of Michelson’s last measuring devices is depicted by Barry Setterfield here:

Wherever one may stand on the cdk (slowing of light speed) issue, I thought Barry had a wonderful article on the history of speed of light measurements here: Rotating Mirror Experiments. Michelson’s measurements may have detected a slowing in the speed of light.

The persistent downward trend in the measured value of c was noted by de Bray after Michelson’s 1924 series results became available. As a result, he wrote to the Editor of Nature on the 20th December, 1924, and to l’Astronomie in France on January 23rd, 1925, calling attention to the trend.56 In the latter case, he predicted a lower value for Michelson’s next determination, which was in the process of being prepared. In the event his prediction was justified. As a result of that circumstance, the Editor of Nature, having ignored his earlier calls, decided to publish de Bray’s next offering, which opened up the discussion in the scientific literature throughout the late twenties, the thirties and into the early forties.

Michelson’s measurements:

year speed of light

1878.0: 300,140 ± 480

1879.5: 299,910 ± 50

1882.8: 299,853 ± 60

1924.6: 299,802 ± 30

1926.5: 299,798 ± 15

To the Stars.

PS
Setterfield references the work of one of the scientists, Hal Putoff, at www.Setterfield.org

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 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. ]

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