Davies and Setterfield on c-decay

[Jerry Smith]

Not really: I really don't think Setterfield had any input on this, but I'm sure he will see it as validation.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157961167.html

Pretty heady stuff if it works out!

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

It's interesting to contrast the methods of the scientists in this article with those of Setterfield.

Setterfield selectively mines outdated results and attempts to fit them into his preconceived biblical worldview.

Davies et al actually devised and performed experiments and reported conclusions from those results, even though their conclusions are completely at odds with their preconceived notions.

That's a pretty good example, IMO, of the difference between real science and creationist pseudo-science.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Precisely.

 

[Morat]

  Actually, it nails Setterfields little theory to the wall and hangs it out to dry. (By the way, this is a prediction of string theory. Hence some of the excitement).

  Think about it. They're discussing a small change in the speed of light, in the very early universe (10 to 12 billion years ago).

  It's something of a hard pill to swallow that they can detect very small changes 10 billion years ago, but can't detect the order of magnitude changes Setterfield claims in the last 10,000 years.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

The article says "If the speed of light was close to infinity, immediately after the Big Bang"

Close to infinity?

 

[Morat]

  I think that's journalistic garble. First off, the work itself clearly indentifies a small change, (by this, we're talking decimal points). Secondly, I think he's referring to inflation, when the universe expanded many times faster than light speed anyways.