Message 7 of 41 (655291) 03-09-2012 7:37 AM

Reply to: Message 1 by foreveryoung 03-08-2012 11:42 AM

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.

Message 15 of 41 (655357) 03-09-2012 6:05 PM

Reply to: Message 14 by Khy 03-09-2012 5:46 PM

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?

Message 18 of 41 (655430) 03-10-2012 9:05 AM

Reply to: Message 8 by Perdition 03-09-2012 10:54 AM

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?

Message 19 of 41 (655431) 03-10-2012 9:19 AM

Reply to: Message 16 by Khy 03-09-2012 8:12 PM

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.

Message 21 of 41 (655440) 03-10-2012 11:55 AM

Reply to: Message 20 by Khy 03-10-2012 9:56 AM

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?

Message 23 of 41 (655458) 03-10-2012 2:02 PM

Reply to: Message 22 by Khy 03-10-2012 12:57 PM

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.

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.

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.

Message 27 of 41 (655466) 03-10-2012 3:53 PM

Reply to: Message 24 by Khy 03-10-2012 3:00 PM

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.

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.

Message 28 of 41 (655467) 03-10-2012 4:08 PM

Reply to: Message 24 by Khy 03-10-2012 3:00 PM

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Message 30 of 41 (655470) 03-10-2012 4:44 PM

Reply to: Message 29 by Khy 03-10-2012 4:25 PM

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.

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.

Message 31 of 41 (655472) 03-10-2012 5:04 PM

Reply to: Message 29 by Khy 03-10-2012 4:25 PM

"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?

Message 33 of 41 (655477) 03-10-2012 5:48 PM

Reply to: Message 32 by Khy 03-10-2012 5:30 PM

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?

Message 35 of 41 (655480) 03-10-2012 6:49 PM

Reply to: Message 34 by Khy 03-10-2012 6:21 PM

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).

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

Message 37 of 41 (655490) 03-10-2012 7:34 PM

Reply to: Message 36 by Khy 03-10-2012 7:12 PM

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.

Message 39 of 41 (655506) 03-10-2012 11:28 PM

Reply to: Message 38 by Khy 03-10-2012 8:13 PM

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...