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.
Appendix D is definitely worth a read. It details how ad hoc Setterfield's theory really is. Setterfield actually started out claiming that atomic radii were smaller in the past, and when it was shown that smaller atomic radii would not give him the results he wanted he then claimed, out of the blue, that they were larger in the past. In fact, his proposed larger atomic radii would have caused the Earth to be twice as large as it is now.
quote:
In any event, the new version of c-decay has acquired some new problems. If atoms were bigger in the past (as Setterfield now maintains), molecules, crystals, and all solid materials would all have been larger, in proportion to the Bohr radius. We can therefore conclude that the Earth would have been bigger at Creation by a factor of at least two (and probably more, if we accept the need to explain quasar redshifts by this mechanism). Assuming the number of molecules in the Earth’s atmosphere has not changed, air pressure would have been less by at least a factor of 16 when the Earth was twice as large, causing severe breathing difficulties for Adam and Eve. And it seems impossible for the Earth to shrink by a factor of two during 8,000 years without causing catastrophic earthquakes and raising the planet’s temperature to intolerable levels.
--Jellison and Bridgman
™ Version 4.2
(1)
