Upheaval in Physics: History of the Light-Speed Debate

Originally posted by melatonin


In 1981, he wrote an article for Ex Nihilo, a creationist magazine. In it, he made his aims very clear.

What he does in his spare time has no bearing really. Perhaps your implication is that only atheist and scientific materialists can do good science?
Clearly they have no preconceived notions or biases.

Heh. Awww, cheers for that. I'll make sure the undergrads I teach stats & methods next year know that...I'll also make sure to tell them the difference between systematic and non-systematic errors.

Good idea. The physics curriculum is sorely lacking in some areas.
One thing that always bothered me is the way they treat their models as a religion. Searching for the one true model as though they were finding God. My recommendation is to treat the model as a mere locally applicable parameterized fit. You can then use estimation and detection techniques to test things like model order and even to find consistent and maybe efficient estimates of the free parameters.

I know you don't understand, but early measurements were crap for good reasons. If you really want to believe that c is decaying, then I would wait to see how the highly accurate measurements we are taking now pan out.

I think they did a pretty good job for what they had available to them.

Do you even know he didn't use ALL early measurements? That he cherrypicked the historical measurements? Completely ignoring the measurements that cause his 'theory' problems? He also used the top extreme of the errors (i.e. the highest possible values, ignoring the lowest range). A proper assessment of Picard's & Roemer's 17th century work is quite consistent with current values:

Setterfield and his supporters claim he used all the available data.

Please note the statement that the measurements 300 years ago best fit no change in c. This paper is from 1973, well before creobots like Setterfield were mangling physics. He even managed to misinterpret this paper and use the 0.5% figure to calculate his value of c (i.e. c at +0.5%), when the paper clearly states the best fit is at no change.

That would be dishonest if you can prove he purposely resorted to this, which I doubt. My point again is not the validity of his work as much as the attitude of the physics community which is to attack anything non-mainstream like ravenous wolves. I believe your tone fits that model.

Amazingly, even other creationists see that his work is obvious piffle and not supported by the data (i.e. AIG).

www.icr.org...

Even they are not that dishonest, heh.

There are no so called error bars for the earlier data so the weighted averaging scheme should not be used here. Some type of statistical curve fitting is probably appropriate.

Not at all. We have evidence from numerous sources that Setterfield is wrong. Only by mangling physics and data can he make it seem right.

This is a statement of opinion not fact. Others disagree. The hostility shows your bias and your arrogance led to this whole argument. Here is a statement of fact. All of your physics theories are wrong, they are inconsistent. That should make us a bit more open minded and perhaps even humbled at the mystery of God's creation.

As for the flood, we can start with the fact that almost every ancient culture mentions it and even has a Noah figure in their histories. There is also plenty of physical evidence as I mentioned.

You can start with the hundreds of underwater cities found all over the world. Here are some samples:
archives.cnn.com...
news.bbc.co.uk...

It turns out that the existence of the fossil record itself is best explained by a flood. Modern day fossilization is rather rare and seems to require rapid burial

Originally posted by SevenThunders
What he does in his spare time has no bearing really. Perhaps your implication is that only atheist and scientific materialists can do good science?
Clearly they have no preconceived notions or biases.

Not exactly what I said, was it really?

I think they did a pretty good job for what they had available to them.

Yup, I think they did the best they could. Some measures were better than others. When the data is assessed properly, we find no evidence for c-decay.

I also note you completely ignored the 1973 article I found for you. The one saying that Picard & Roemer's measures are consistent with current measures.

This was the best you could do?

Setterfield and his supporters claim he used all the available data.

Read the articles I provided, they'll outline his cooking and cherrypicking of data. I couldn't care less about his cheerleaders.

That would be dishonest if you can prove he purposely resorted to this, which I doubt. My point again is not the validity of his work as much as the attitude of the physics community which is to attack anything non-mainstream like ravenous wolves. I believe your tone fits that model.

Oh, OK. It's all about the attitude of the physics community in response to pseudoscientists like Setterfield. I'm quite sure most physicists would never have heard of him. I'm sure most of those that do, or did see his work, spent a few minutes reading, laughed, then got on with some real science.

He is irrelevant to real physics. And, anyway, most real scientists are too busy 'attacking' each other to have time for a no-mark like Setterfield.

But, hey, lets just ignore the fact he's wrong, and even the papers he has been using shows he is wrong. Even the creationist article points out his questionable treatment of data. Check the 1675 figure in that article, are its error bars taking in current c? No, then we know there has been some data manipulation. The 1973 article clearly points out that this data is consistent with current measures of c at 0.5% error.

And lets ignore the fact that me and you both know he is wrong on age because of SN1978A, but just ignores this and keeps peddling his specious calculations. He lacks intellectual honesty. Not a good trait.

There are no so called error bars for the earlier data so the weighted averaging scheme should not be used here. Some type of statistical curve fitting is probably appropriate.

Yeah, of course. We'll completely ignore the fact that he has completely misused the data, altering one set of data that would disconfirm his finding, but using the original data for another, but it is that one unaltered data point that his whole finding hangs on...

Lets just completely ignore his intellectual dishonesty. The fact he is clearly wrong about age and has a penchant for questionable data manipulation.

Meh.

This is a statement of opinion not fact. Others disagree. The hostility shows your bias and your arrogance led to this whole argument. Here is a statement of fact. All of your physics theories are wrong, they are inconsistent. That should make us a bit more open minded and perhaps even humbled at the mystery of God's creation.

I have no doubt that a lot of our theories are wrong and will require adjustment or be discarded in future. But it won't happen because of dishonest creationists.

And I think you're being quite remiss. All my first statement said was:

"Or maybe he was simply wrong. Flawed, like most creationist-sourced arguments. Just saying like..."

You started with the attitude and arrogance. Mr Pot meet Ms Kettle.

As for the flood, we can start with the fact that almost every ancient culture mentions it and even has a Noah figure in their histories. There is also plenty of physical evidence as I mentioned.

No, they mention a flood. Considering most ancient settlements were based around water, not surprising really.

Many ancient cultures have myths around a fire-bringer. Usually an animal, but I somehow doubt that really happened...

................

Apache: Fox steals fire "for the world"

Australian: The robin steals fire from the cockatoo, but it gets out of hand and becomes common property.

Brittany (France): The fire-crested wren steals fire (details rather scanty)

Caroline Islands (Pacific): Olofat, trickster hero, forces his way into heaven and sends a bird to carry fire to humans from heaven.

Cherokee: Rabbit steals fire from the weasels out of compassion for humans

Choctaw: Grandmother Spider steals fire out of compassion for humans and animals, but only humans learn how to use it.

Greece: Prometheus steals fire out of compassion for humans

India: Matarisvan steals fire from the sky, entrusts it to humans

Khoi-San ("Bushman", S. Africa) : Mantis steals fire from the ostrich and gives it to the Bushmen.

Klamath : Coyote steals fire from the Fire Beings out of compassion for humans

Lappland: A stag steals fire on behalf of the whole world (details scanty)

Mayan: The first men steal fire from the gods

Polynesia: Maui steals fire (sometimes from the gods, large number of variants)

Zimbabwe: Rukuba (a dog) steals fire from the god Nyamurairi on behalf of the hero Nkhango

................

So you now believe that some animal stole fire for humans?


Likewise, many cultures have earthquake myths.

But lets take one flood myth. The welsh one, as I know about it. It is actually part of a triad of disasters that hit Prydain (Briton). So, why pick one? What about the volcano and heatwave?

There is no evidence of a world-wide flood. Do you not think that fossils could have been laid in place over time from various different mechanisms that would provide the necessary environment for fossilisation?

Do you really think the whole fossil bearing geological record was deposited in one flood event?

Or is this also not about the reliability and validity of creation science, but the apparent hubris of mainstream science?

[edit on 5-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I also note you completely ignored the 1973 article I found for you. The one saying that Picard & Roemer's measures are consistent with current measures.

I note that you don't seem to get that I am not trying to prove Setterfield right or wrong. You also do not seem to realize that I am not a young earth creationist, although I do believe in the God of the Bible. As a matter of fact
I didn't even know Setterfield was a creationist. I simply noted the usual knee jerk reaction by so called scientists against anything outside the current status quo.
I also reacted to your obvious bias against people of faith and science. A misplaced bias as am sure Newton and Pascal would tell you if they were alive today.

I note there is a discussion concerning c decay by Malcolm Bowden that suggests that a more recent computation of the IO data shows a higher value for c. He also suggests a deliberate anti-decay bias in some of the analysis done by the skeptics.
www.ldolphin.org...

This is similar to the same fraud you were accusing the creationists of doing.

Oh, OK. It's all about the attitude of the physics community in response to pseudoscientists like Setterfield. I'm quite sure most physicists would never have heard of him. I'm sure most of those that do, or did see his work, spent a few minutes reading, laughed, then got on with some real science.

He is irrelevant to real physics. And, anyway, most real scientists are too busy 'attacking' each other to have time for a no-mark like Setterfield.

Uh huh, just like the 'real' scientists at scientific american who spent an article debunking the Wright brothers heavier than air flight three years after it happened.

Yeah, of course. We'll completely ignore the fact that he has completely misused the data, altering one set of data that would disconfirm his finding, but using the original data for another, but it is that one unaltered data point that his whole finding hangs on...

Normally if your result falls apart by discarding one data point it should be viewed as suspect. I'm not sure if this has been done in this case. All I've seen so far is one controversial data point regarding the IO moon calculation and then another scheme that uses a dubious renormalization. At least one professor of statistics concluded a downward trend after viewing the data independent of any prior knowledge of what the data points were for.


As for the flood, well this site shows the overwhelming number of cultures that agree on the existence of the flood
www.talkorigins.org...
Do you find it odd that Mount Ararat has pillow lava is found at the 14,000 foot level? This type of lava is only formed underwater. Ararat was once submerged.
How by the way do you explain polystrate fossils? fossils that occupy multiple strata presupposed to be separated by millions of years? There are many fossilized tree specimens, stripped of roots by the way that have this property. There is even a whale fossil like this. Perhaps the whale died, like a tree with it's tale buried in the sand and then it took millions of years to fill in the strata around it? It probably made an interesting whale monument.

By the way the Mt. St. Helens eruption produced sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick in a matter of hours instead of millenia as previously thought.

Core samples from the gulf of Mexico show a universal worldwide flood based on a huge influx of fresh water in the area.

www.earthage.org...

Originally posted by SevenThunders
I note that you don't seem to get that I am not trying to prove Setterfield right or wrong. You also do not seem to realize that I am not a young earth creationist, although I do believe in the God of the Bible. As a matter of fact
I didn't even know Setterfield was a creationist. I simply noted the usual knee jerk reaction by so called scientists against anything outside the current status quo.
I also reacted to your obvious bias against people of faith and science. A misplaced bias as am sure Newton and Pascal would tell you if they were alive today.

I have no issue with people of faith. Just people who mangle science.

I note there is a discussion concerning c decay by Malcolm Bowden that suggests that a more recent computation of the IO data shows a higher value for c. He also suggests a deliberate anti-decay bias in some of the analysis done by the skeptics.
www.ldolphin.org...

This is similar to the same fraud you were accusing the creationists of doing.

I think most of the discussion is between creationists. The recalculation is their own. I have no reason to accept their claims as valid.

Uh huh, just like the 'real' scientists at scientific american who spent an article debunking the Wright brothers heavier than air flight three years after it happened.

And the evidence won through.

I only see a mangling and cherrypicking of the evidence in this case. I know you fail to see it, but he has cherrypicked the data to fit a preconceived idea - that the earth is a few thousand years old. He is acting just like a normal creobot.

Normally if your result falls apart by discarding one data point it should be viewed as suspect. I'm not sure if this has been done in this case. All I've seen so far is one controversial data point regarding the IO moon calculation and then another scheme that uses a dubious renormalization. At least one professor of statistics concluded a downward trend after viewing the data independent of any prior knowledge of what the data points were for.

There is one outlying data point that is the basis of his trend. As the ICR article points out he uses the claims of Halley to justify that Roemers data should be pushed up, but ignores the same source who suggests the Cassini's data should fall.

That is the important point. Without that point at ~+17% c he has nothing.

But the thing is, even if we can show a downward trend, it is still more likely an artifact of the measurments, rather than a true physical effect. If we can show a continuing downward trend into the future with current measures, I'll readily accept c-decay. Until then, the most parsimonious answer is that any trend, up or down, is an artifact.

Do you find it odd that Mount Ararat has pillow lava is found at the 14,000 foot level? This type of lava is only formed underwater. Ararat was once submerged.
How by the way do you explain polystrate fossils? fossils that occupy multiple strata presupposed to be separated by millions of years? There are many fossilized tree specimens, stripped of roots by the way that have this property. There is even a whale fossil like this. Perhaps the whale died, like a tree with it's tale buried in the sand and then it took millions of years to fill in the strata around it? It probably made an interesting whale monument.

By the way the Mt. St. Helens eruption produced sedimentary layers hundreds of feet thick in a matter of hours instead of millenia as previously thought.

Core samples from the gulf of Mexico show a universal worldwide flood based on a huge influx of fresh water in the area.

www.earthage.org...

I'll answer this stuff tomorrow, I'm off to bed. We should really move it to another thread though. Start one if you like. It's a bit OT here.

Originally posted by melatonin
I have no issue with people of faith. Just people who mangle science.

OK I'll take you at your word, no hard feelings. I simply reacted somewhat negatively to your tone.

I'll answer this stuff tomorrow, I'm off to bed. We should really move it to another thread though. Start one if you like. It's

Agreed. This whole area has been talked to death anyway. I end up taking issue with both the conventional viewpoint and the young earth creationists. There are probably half a dozen existing threads where the issue can be hashed out.


I just have one issue with the c decay claim. If it's correct, does that mean that one day I'll have to travel at relativistic speeds to pick up a carton of milk at the local store, and will my children have aged, gotten married and moved out of my house by the time I get back?