Comments for Young Cosmos

Comment on The Setterfield-Brown Young Cosmos Cosmology by nude male muscle

Sat, 01 Nov 2008 07:12:22 +0000

nude male muscle…

. The type of fat determines whether you use it for muscle energy or store it as body fat! The LeanLipids used in Muscle Milk®…

Comment on ANNOUNCEMENT: MAJOR WEBSITE(S) OVERHAUL by Finnen Iver

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:47:01 +0000

SignX — Full Service Sign and Lighting Contractors…

Useful, thank you!…

Comment on A new journal for exploration and application of origins theories by Leopold Clum

Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:47:17 +0000

SignX — Full Service Sign and Lighting Contractors…

Useful, thank you!…

Comment on ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED! by Hermagoras

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 05:33:33 +0000

Sal,

I’m trying to send a (very nice, by the way) reply to your last message in the Rhetoric forum, but it’s not working. The preview works fine, but when I hit Submit it just kicks me back to the editing screen. The same thing happens whether I’m using Firefox or IE7.

Hermagoras

Comment on Web mechanics and ideas by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:33:36 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Continuation of uncommon descent discussion and open thread by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:33:11 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on The Setterfield-Brown Young Cosmos Cosmology by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:32:53 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on History of the Light-Speed Debate by Helen Setterfield by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:32:23 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Open Thread #1, Plans and Purpose for this site by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:31:58 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Hydroplate Theory Baby! by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:31:38 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Criticism of CDK from brother Stephen J. Cheesman by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:31:23 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Criticisms of YEC RATE group by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:31:06 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Discussion of Genesis and other scriptures by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:30:45 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Creation Safaris, Inspiration for Young Cosmos by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:30:26 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Why the Big Bang needs VSL theory by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:30:10 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on another creation science museum opens July, 2007 by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:29:49 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on good creationist vs. bad creationist by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:29:34 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on ANNOUNCEMENT: MAJOR WEBSITE(S) OVERHAUL by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:29:19 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on DI Herculis anomaly may support Setterfield cosmology by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:28:59 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on “Scoundrel? Scoundrel…I like the sound of that” by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:28:37 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Behe Wednesday, BSG Thursday, Tunica Friday by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:28:19 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on More proof of the great flood…. by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:27:48 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Dinosaurs Contemporaneous with Humans? by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:27:33 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Is Biotic Message a Creationist or ID theory? And other questions… by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:26:52 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on BSG conference, June 13-15, 2007 by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:26:36 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on A new journal for exploration and application of origins theories by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:25:55 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on YEC Resources by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:25:36 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Dr. Gerard Jellison’s critique of CDK by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:25:17 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on counter-critique of Dr. Jellison’s CDK boltzman distribution by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:24:52 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Science against Evolution by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:24:36 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on A Young Cosmos and Space Travel by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:24:19 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Nobel Laureate Albert Michelson’s speed of light measurments support YEC CDK by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:24:02 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Open thread #2… by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:23:16 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Wavelength behavior at a fixed location, Jellison and Bridgman’s critique… by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:22:57 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Redshift may change over time by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:22:37 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on The state of the stalemate, evidence for and against YEC by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:22:14 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Young Galaxies imply a Young Cosmos by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:21:43 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Was there a Big Bang? by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:21:18 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Teaching ID and Creation Science may become illegal in Europe by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:20:48 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Dr. Cheesman’s question about the moon, objections to YEC by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:20:26 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on A time for war and a time for peace, ideas for civil discussion by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:19:53 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Another paradigm on the brink of extinction? Mantle plume theory in crisis by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:19:17 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on The Five Reasons Galaxies Can’t Exist by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:18:47 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on The relative poverty of the most important creationist and ID organizations by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:18:16 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Face lift and new website by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:17:54 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Greatest find in 100 years confirms the book of Jeremiah by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:17:29 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on YoungCosmos Discussion Forum is Working! by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:17:05 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on RSS Feeds For the Forums by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:16:28 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! by scordova

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 03:16:13 +0000

Please Note:

ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!

Salvador

Comment on Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! by Salvador

Tue, 31 Jul 2007 04:22:26 +0000

I’m going to be talking to some researchers. The goal is to have a repository of papers that people feel can be a good theoretical and empirical starting point. A good model is Arxiv.org

There are two parts:

1. the authors, editors, and publishers
2. the web admins

I could probably set it up myself. I could use help for the web page and website that will host the papers. I don’t expect a large volume. Maybe 2 papers a month?

regards,
Salvador

Comment on Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! by JGuy

Mon, 30 Jul 2007 22:27:44 +0000

Sal,
I’m not sure how one would go about setting up a peer reviewed e-journal. How can I help?

Comment on Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! by Salvador

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 18:50:16 +0000

JGuy,

There will be more tests. Unfortunately for now, Dr. Cheesman, Barry and I haven’t worked out the details. Dr. Cheesman’s calculation, if true and IF [a BIG IF] CDK is true is that the univere is [gasp] not 13,000,000,000 light years across (the meaning of raidus and diameter is a bit flakey because of the non-Euclidean geometries involved), but rather 110,000 light years acorss. Meaning, all the celestial phenomena are packed, and our measurement apparatus is all out of whack.

This can be confirmed with improved parallax measurements. We see some hints of this at 300 light years (see the pleiades distance debate), but it will really assert itself with supposed gargantuan distances like the great galaxy Andromeda. Too early to tell!

It will probably take a year to uncoil the math into something workable. You’re of course welcome to help me set up the electronic peer-reviewed journal to study these issues (hint, hint).

Salvador

Comment on Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! by JGuy

Sun, 29 Jul 2007 09:06:39 +0000

Sal,
If your find is verified to be true, then congratulations(!!); it would certainly be an excellent discovery of a risky theoretical prediction. To test it further: Could a predictive curve be calculated? And is there enough suitable data to test for a statistically significant fit to such a curve?

Comment on Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! by Jehu.

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:28:42 +0000

Great stuff Sal! Keep up the good work.

Comment on Wavelength behavior at a fixed location, Jellison and Bridgman’s critique… by Salvador

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 21:01:04 +0000

Barry gave me permission to post the following:

Dear Salvador,

First of all, a big thank you for what you are doing. Your involvement in this has helped me in a number of areas. The recent exchange with Dr. Jellison has been very helpful. The problem which he points out with the orbits getting larger with time was in fact a real problem. I had made a mistake. As I went back to the article I was referencing, I saw I had misread the article and that, in fact, orbits should get smaller with time because electron masses were increasing. This has necessitated some word changes on four or five pages of my article, but very little else. The basic conclusions remain the same except that orbits are getting smaller with time as electron masses increase. I am profoundly grateful for this exchange which has pointed out this problem. Please feel free to post this on the site as we do not have the time to do a formal exchange right now. But we will not ignore him nor will we forget to acknowledge his contribution when we change the wording on the website.
….
Barry Setterfield

Comment on Bold prediction of CDK possibly confirmed!!!! by Salvador

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:28:02 +0000

I have just communicated with the Setterfield’s. They are excited over these developments. They are involved in a major project right now and will get back to us. They are delighted with these developments.

Many thanks to everyone.

Comment on RSS Feeds For the Forums by SCheesman

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:15:50 +0000

My RSS reader says there is an error in the RSS code:

Thre is an invalid character in the given encoding. Line 85. position 523.

Comment on RSS Feeds For the Forums by Rick

Tue, 24 Jul 2007 06:43:14 +0000

Icon’s there, on forum home page.

Comment on Wavelength behavior at a fixed location, Jellison and Bridgman’s critique… by Salvador

Sat, 21 Jul 2007 01:09:13 +0000

Regarding the discussion forum, I must accept some of the blame as the transition has not been totally smooth.

Helen,

Did you get the new password from JB at the discussion forum? If there is a password you like, you can e-mail it to me and I’ll set it there.

The weblog is here is a bit unwieldy for these sort of discussions and we may be moving the weblog soon.

Do you have my e-mail?

Salvador

Comment on Wavelength behavior at a fixed location, Jellison and Bridgman’s critique… by G. P. Jellison

Sat, 21 Jul 2007 00:11:29 +0000

On the first point, Setterfield has forgotten the context of the discussion. My claim is that crystals should enlarge DURING QUANTUM JUMPS when mass drops and atoms expand. He says degeneracy pressure won’t change because the change in electron mass is cancelled out by the change in Planck’s constant. But in his 2007 report “Behavior of the Zero Point Energy…” he states “…at the actual moment of the jump…Planck’s constant, h [and other constants] will all remain unchanged…the only basic quantity left to change in the orbit energy equation is the mass of atomic particles, m…” Since his own theory claims that Planck’s constant doesn’t change during the jumps but mass does, my argument stands.

On the more important matter of the red/blue shifts: yes, of course, energy is proportional to -1/R. The energies of the atomic states are all negative, otherwise they wouldn’t be bound states. But this is precisely where Setterfield gets it wrong.

All the states are negative. The upper ones are very closely spaced, and they merge into the continuum of free states at E = 0. If electron mass decreases at a quantum jump and the atom enlarges, all the states will increase in energy. But the upper ones won’t increase much because they are bounded above by the “barrier” at E = 0. Clearly, if the lower states move up a lot and the upper ones barely move, all the states will be compressed into a narrower range of energy values. Hence, energy differences between states will decrease!

By all means, let’s take a specific example. In hydrogen, the lowest energy level (n = 1) has an energy of about -13.53 eV. This can be computed from the simple Bohr energy level formula (equation (34) in the “Behavior of the Zero Point Energy” document). The n = 2 state has an energy of about -3.38 eV. The difference in energies is thus 10.15 eV. Since Planck’s constant is 4.14E-15 eV-sec, an electron making a transition between these two states (the “Lyman alpha” transition) will have a frequency of 2.45E15 sec-1. The wavelength will be 1216 Angstroms.

If we now let the electron mass decrease by a factor of two (to make the point dramatically), the energies of the n = 1 and n = 2 states will be reduced in magnitude, to -6.765 and -1.69 eV, respectively. This follows as before, from the Bohr energy equation. As Setterfield says, they are both larger (less negative). But their DIFFERENCE is now 5.075 eV, which is smaller, not greater! Obviously, the energy difference between the states has gone down by a factor of two, so the emitted photon energy will be DOWN by this factor. The wavelength of the emitted energy will be greater by a factor of two. Redshift, redshift, redshift!

If this is still unclear, please see the energy level diagram on page 39 of the Jellison/Bridgman report (Figure 21).

(I will also post this in the Discussions Forum, since I think that’s where these discussions are now supposed to take place.)