Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 153 (8093 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2014 11:53 PM
200 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: yudi
Upcoming Birthdays: Bliyaal
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 733,008 Year: 18,849/28,606 Month: 2,120/2,305 Week: 325/671 Day: 57/114 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Debunking Setterfields Speed of Light Model
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 7 of 41 (655291)
03-09-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung
03-08-2012 11:42 AM


Seriously?
I've read the entire document up through the summary, which nicely sums up the arguments made by the authors. I did not look at the Appendix material. I can come up with a few questions about some of the authors' arguments, but nothing that would be helpful to preserving Setterfield's model. I agree with their conclusion that Setterfield has no model and no real argument that the speed of light has changed over time in a way as to make a 10,000 year old universe a possibility.

I can remember learning in 10th grade about Roemer's measurement of the speed of light by observing eclipses of Jupiter's moons. At the time, I was barely able to follow the details of the method for inferring the speed of light from the data. Our teacher did not require that we understand the experiment to that level of detail.

But I do remember the clear impression that the greater part of the achievement was showing that light actually did propagate at a finite speed. At the time of the Roemer's work, man did not even have an accurate value for the earth/sun distance. The data showing the difference between expected and observed eclipse times also included significant uncertainty.

Further, at least one subsequent attempts to measure the speed of light using Roemer's method produced an even higher value for the speed of light. I find it completely persuasive to reject Setterfield's conclusions simply on the basis of his analysis and cherry picking of the speed of light measurements and the apparent unjustifiable assumption that those old experiments were of reliable accuracy.

On top of that there is the bad math, the unpersuasive ad hoc explanations needed to explain the stability of current measurements of the speed of light, and the disagreement with observation, all detailed in the paper, that compel the conclusion that Setterfield is out to lunch.

I'd be interested to hear what portions of the paper the OP finds unpersuasive.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Taq, posted 03-09-2012 12:19 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 13 of 41 (655347)
03-09-2012 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Khy
03-09-2012 4:43 PM


Point 3 makes the rather important point that the data never supported or even suggested a time dependent speed of light in the first place. Setterfield's endeavor was entirely wishful thinking and something akin to numerology. I'm not sure how we can make light of that fact.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Khy, posted 03-09-2012 4:43 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Khy, posted 03-09-2012 5:46 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 15 of 41 (655357)
03-09-2012 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Khy
03-09-2012 5:46 PM


I only meant to point out that Jellison made an error in point 6...

This point would be worth pursuing. Are you suggesting that Jellison is wrong about Earth's ability to keep an atmosphere is evidence against Setterfield's being correct?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Khy, posted 03-09-2012 5:46 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Khy, posted 03-09-2012 8:12 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 18 of 41 (655430)
03-10-2012 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Perdition
03-09-2012 10:54 AM


Re: How do you get off of inifinite speed?
I don't know of any math that could get you off of infinite speed once you're on it. So, either he calculated a very high rate of speed that is being erroneously labelled "inifinite" or his math fails at this very simple level...or I'm missing something (an eminitely probable proposition).

I don't find this particular line of reasoning condemning of Setterfield's work. Extrapolating back to time zero is probably unjustified, and it really isn't necessary for the speed to be infinite at time zero, given that we cannot even see any objects for which light has traveled the full 13.7 billion years of the universe's existence.

Under the big bang theory, we don't extrapolate back to time t=0. Would it be a fair criticism of modern cosmology to argue that BBT does not accurately reflect what happens at t=0?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Perdition, posted 03-09-2012 10:54 AM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Perdition, posted 03-12-2012 10:47 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 19 of 41 (655431)
03-10-2012 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Khy
03-09-2012 8:12 PM


Mass is also a factor in the definition of energy (he used the ergon which is defined as 1 g·cm2/s2), if he had used the same factor on his boltzmann's constant, it would cancel out with the zeta^-2 in the divisor. Molecular speeds would then not increase with an increasing c-decay factor.

As I understand your point, you are suggesting that the Jellison did not include the effects on Boltzmann's constant that would result from the rest of the stuff Setterfield has postulated.

I don't think the unit analysis method you've put forward is sufficient to determine what the effect on k should be, but I think, a more generalized view of your position does have merit. After all if Plank's constant, isn't constant, lots of stuff is probably wrong. Perhaps even the values used for temperature need to be defended.

Perhaps there is a way to trace through the physics to determine the effect on Boltzmann's constant. I, personally, am not up to it, and I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. I'd probably just not use the escaping atmosphere argument.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Khy, posted 03-09-2012 8:12 PM Khy has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 21 of 41 (655440)
03-10-2012 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Khy
03-10-2012 9:56 AM


Re: LaTeX
I'm pretty sure that this unit analysis method would not produce the proper dependency of k on mass except by the sheerest of coincidences.

Once you've reduced everything to base units, what does the L correspond to? Would we be able to say that since atoms are supposed to have gotten bigger (or smaller, I cannot remember what Setterfield finally said, and I'm not going to look) that we need to introduce a corresponding ratio everwhere that L appears?

Let's consider the simpler equation for gravity.

F = GMm/r^2

Would it be correct to delve into the base units for G to determine how the constant G varies with Setterfield's assumptions in addition to considering what happens to M and m?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 9:56 AM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 12:57 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 23 of 41 (655458)
03-10-2012 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Khy
03-10-2012 12:57 PM


Re: LaTeX
Consistency is a good thing, you cannot let one mass obey the c-decay factor, and another not.

You don't apply the c-decay factor to units of energy etc, you apply them to the actual masses, lengths, units etc that are actually pertinent to the problem. In the end, we will want to express our answers in terms of the units that we know.

1. A meter is defined as: "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum in 1 ⁄ 299,792,458 of a second."

That's the way those units are defined now. The meter could also have been defined as the length of a platinum/irridium bar held in some measurement lab, and the second could be defined as 1/86400 of the time required for a full earth rotation. The size of those units would be essentially the same as the units we use now.

It's just plain silly to talk about maintaining the definitions of the units when the underlying properties change. How is maintaining some arbitrary definition going to affect whether our atmosphere escapes. We should get the same answer to that question regardless of how we define a second or a meter.

Then you're making the same wishful mistakes as Jellison did

I'm not making any error. I'm not saying Jellison is right. I'm saying that you aren't correct.

If Jellison made a mistake it was in not evaluating the effect on the other physical constants he used. But if he tried to take them into account using your method, he would have been making yet another error.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 12:57 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 3:00 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 27 of 41 (655466)
03-10-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Khy
03-10-2012 3:00 PM


Re: LaTeX
Energy is defined by mass. If you use a constant, then that constant, and all terms in it's entire definition ARE pertinent to the problem

A joule of energy is expended when any mass is accelerated across a friction free horizontal surface by a 1 N force over a distance of 1 meter.

One erg of energy is expended when either a 1g or 10000000000000 g mass is accelerated across a friction free surface by a 1 dyne force over a distance of 1 cm.

That's how we define our units of energy. We don't change that definition when the mass of proton changes.

NoNukes writes:

How is maintaining some arbitrary definition going to affect whether our atmosphere escapes. We should get the same answer to that question regardless of how we define a second or a meter.

It is not, that is exactly what I'm saying and that's why I did not use the c-decay factor on time or distance quantities.

The above logic is not right. We should also get the same answer regardless of how we define the gram or kilogram, yet you do chose apply the c-decay factor to mass units.

Boltzmann's constant relates the energy of molecules to the bulk temperature. The constant is the same for the atoms or molecules of any ideal gas. I don't see, from mere unit analysis, a reason why the constant would change simply because those atoms have become heavier.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 3:00 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 4:25 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 28 of 41 (655467)
03-10-2012 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Khy
03-10-2012 3:00 PM


Re: LaTeX
Duplicate removed

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 3:00 PM Khy has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 30 of 41 (655470)
03-10-2012 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Khy
03-10-2012 4:25 PM


Re: LaTeX
Are you saying that a 1 dyne force will accelerate 1g just as fast as it will accelerate 10000000000000g, because according to its definiton above a dyne will accelerate 1 gram at a rate of 1 cm per second squared. That means it would accelerated a mass of 10000000000000g at a rate of 1/10000000000000 cm per second squared.

Your math is correct. But now calculate the kinetic energy of each mass after the force is applied over the 1cm distance. In each case the answer will be one erg although the final velocities in each case will be quite different.

But to answer your question -- no, I'm not an idiot.

True, I read too quick! Those formulas are, however, all logical implications of changing the speed of light without throwing today's physical laws out the window.

No those formula are not logical implications of changing the speed of light.

In particular, the change to G is done for the express purpose of keeping the earth in its orbit while the mass of the sun changes.
The effect on G is independent, but exactly counteractive from the changing of the speed of light and the change in mass, and is Sutterfield's ad hoc nonsense. If there is a logical link, I'd appreciate you pointing that out.

ABE:
And of course we do have evidence that the speed of light was the same as it is today 168,000 years ago, and that at least some decay rates used for aging have not changed over millions of years.
ABE: end

The exercise should illustrate the lengths at least one creationist will go to in order to deny that a single word of Genesis is not literally true.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 4:25 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 5:30 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 31 of 41 (655472)
03-10-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Khy
03-10-2012 4:25 PM


Re: LaTeX
I did not chose to do that, Jellison did and I only pointed out that he was inconsistent and wrong that earth would lose its atmosphere, as you said: "We should also get the same answer regardless..."

"We should get the same answer regardless..." means regardless of what units of measure we use, and not "regardless of whether the mass of a proton changes."

You, and you alone attempted to predict the effect on k using unit analysis. I have acknowledged that there may be some change to k that follows from Setterfield's assumptions, and perhaps we can detect the effect using one or more of the postulates on page 6. But attempting analyze that effect by merely looking at the definition of gram or kilogram is wrong.

I've also explained why the technique appears to work with G. What have I omitted?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 4:25 PM Khy has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 33 of 41 (655477)
03-10-2012 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Khy
03-10-2012 5:30 PM


Re: LaTeX
Khy writes:

If the mass of an oxygen molecule decreases, then why wouldn't the mass of the IPK and subsequently the gram decrease

The mass of the IPK would decrease. Although it would be attracted to the earth by exactly the same force (according to Mr. S), the mass would become easier to accelerate through non gravitational means.

But that would simply mean that using standard amounts of material could not be used to establish the gram or the kilogram. If Newton's three laws are to remain correct, the definition of the gram and kilogram would have to change so that a 1 newton force always provided a 1 m/s acceleration to a 1 kg object.

So what's your initial claim?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 5:30 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 6:21 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 35 of 41 (655480)
03-10-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Khy
03-10-2012 6:21 PM


Re: LaTeX
So the change in force needed to accelerate an S-world-kilogram would have to be proportional to the decrease in mass compared to a present day kilogram.

No. An S-world kilogram would always require 1 Newton of force to accelerate it to the 1 m/s/s. But the number of atoms in an S-world kilogram would have to change over time.

Otherwise, we'd have to let go of F=ma (at least when appreciable period of time were involved).

My initial claim is not just that there is a change in k (Nm/s^-2)

In my opinion you have yet to show why k should change. Maybe it would.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 6:21 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 7:12 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 37 of 41 (655490)
03-10-2012 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Khy
03-10-2012 7:12 PM


Re: LaTeX
If at some point in the past an oxygen molecule would have a mass 0.5 times that of what it is now, then any other unit of mass (including the kilogram) would also be 0.5 times the size of what it is now containing the same amount of molecules that all just have half of their present mass

What problem are you looking for? Using your units, a newton and a kg change their value over time. If that doesn't bother you, then so be it.

If we put Avagardo's number of oxygen atoms on a scale, they would always weight 16 grams, but over time that collection of atoms could be accelerated to increasingly higher velocities by adding the same amount of kinetic energy.

Over some time scale, F=ma is not true because F= dp/dt = d(mv)/dt where m is changing so that we cannot simply use F= m(dv/dt) = ma.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 7:12 PM Khy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 8:13 PM NoNukes has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 4951
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 39 of 41 (655506)
03-10-2012 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Khy
03-10-2012 8:13 PM


Did Jellison err?
A newton and a kilogram would indeed change their value over time, that is the whole idea of Mr Setterfield.

You continue to make the same mistake. And that mistake is in part the basis for your mistake regarding Dr. J's critique.

The size of our measuring units should never change. 1kg in universe Einstein should be equal to 1kg in universe Setterfield. The problem is that the inertial on similar objects is different in the two universes. That's why it is possible for oxygen to escape in one universe but be held in the atmosphere in another.

ABE:

On reflection, I suppose you could develop a system of units based on what you can measure in universe S. But if you do so, you should be prepared to develop the laws of physics in universe S as well. Given that a mass in S-universe units behaves differently over time to all forces except gravitational forces, I suspect that coming up with a proper statement of the laws of physics using S universe units won't be easy. In order to evaluate whether oxygen can escape the atmosphere, you'll have to deal with both gravitational forces, and with the energy/temperature relationships that determine the velocities of oxygen molecules. Good luck with that.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Rethinking the previous answer...


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Khy, posted 03-10-2012 8:13 PM Khy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by AdminModulous, posted 03-11-2012 4:29 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014