Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking Setterfields Speed of Light Model
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 6 of 41 (655271)
03-08-2012 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
03-08-2012 11:42 AM


I've skimmed the article, but haven't read the whole thing in detail. At any rate, Setterfield's claims are nonsense. I looked at them many years ago, soon after they came out. My conclusions were pretty similar to those of Gerald Aardsma of ICR. Specifically, I noticed that:
1) Setterfield did NOT weight his fit based on the error-bars of the measurements. This is a major error, especially when the error-bars vary by orders of magnitude, as they do here.
2) Setterfield eliminated a few historical data points which were LOWER than the currently accepted value of c. This biased his fit.
3) The mathematical function which Setterfield chose for his fit had no a-priori theoretical justification. It is unusual and was chosen arbitrarily. Why not a quadratic or exponential fit, which would be more natural?
What Setterfield noticed is something very normal and natural, as pointed out by Aardsma. Early measurements of fundamental constants are often in error, and it takes time for the measurements to settle to their true values. For an example, see these historical plots of particle properties.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by foreveryoung, posted 03-08-2012 11:42 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024