Setterfield on Youtube

[busterdog]

Have a listen to all six installments, or just the last one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlIdtnea8DY&mode=related&search= This is a brief description of things like zero point energy, or the amount of energy that reside in a "vacuum." In about 9 minutes, you will be treated to a delightfully cogent reorientation of everything. The quantities involved in vacuum energy also suggest numbers that have the ability to overwhelm every Big Bang equation. This is tangible evidence of the theoretical ability to create everything in six days. Highly recommended. If we simply compare the energies in the BB model and those in the ZPE model, the latter exceeds the former by many orders of magnitude.

Thus, if BB derives from an equation, it is an equation that does not account for the bulk of the available energies. BB tinkers with vacuum energy simply to balance out its equation in seeking a pre-determined result (15 Billion year creation). But the latter sum is simply taken to be whatever is necessary for the BB to work. No serious attempt is every made to account for these measured energies in this model.


This more basic YEC issue is, if light was much faster at the time of creation, this explains why distant galaxies can be so far away and their light so "old" in a young universe.

Here is a link to one of six videos. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrP1WZsnx2Q You can also get the same thing at nwcreation.net, along with some other good videos.

Couple of interesting stories on this section:

Setterfield and Norman were fired apparently because their paper was inconsistent with evolution.

Setterfield spoke to Albrecht in 1999 about his paper (having made no attribution to Setterfield and Norman, which Setterfield never mentions) hypothesizing a greatly increase speed of light at the time of creation. Setterfield asked why he also dropped the speed of light shortly after creation, to which Albrecht replied that he couldn't get the other constants to agree. Setterfield suggested conserving energy in the theory to remove the problem. Albrecht replied that he couldn't have acheived what he wanted to acheive with the theory that way.

Glen Morton suggested in 1983 that the earth would have melted in a Setterfield model. Again, no one wants to conserve energy and balance the equations. Since speed is only one of several determinants of energy, balancing the equation elsewhere becomes the challenge for the nay-sayers.

Talkorigins has some really witty insults, but I don't see anyone dealing with the measured variation in planck's constant, which varies inversely to the speed of light according to Setterfield. In fact, its rate of change plateaus about the same time the light seemed to stop changing (possibly the trough of a sine wave).

Setterfield was hooted for excess heat in creation and for the "convenient" lack of measured change in recent years. Helen Setterfield was never answered here on that point.

 

[KerrMetric]

Setterfield and Norman were fired apparently because their paper was inconsistent with evolution.
.

Could you please elaborate on this? What has biology got to do with it.

Thanks



ps

I wonder why Setterfield posted his videos on youtube with the comments disabled feature????? I guess he doesn't want input.

 

[shernren]

Oh quit it KM. Whenever someone posts in the Creationist-only section it's simply because they're not willing or prepared to handle TE input. We should respect that. If people don't want to listen, they simply won't listen, whether or not they are wrong or right.

 

[busterdog]

Could you please elaborate on this? What has biology got to do with it.

Thanks



ps

I wonder why Setterfield posted his videos on youtube with the comments disabled feature????? I guess he doesn't want input.

He did, did he? Powerful assumption, there. Sure it does a lot for you.

 

[busterdog]

Oh quit it KM.

* * *

We should respect that.

***

Thank you.

 

[busterdog]

The ZPE quantity is not so much an equation or proof of six days of creation. But, it is a big enough variable to wreck assumptions that the BB equations are "proof".

The BB cosmology is balance by "dark matter" or other dark quantities that vary with the desired result. BB assumes a 15 B. year cosmology and makes the dark stuff fit any of the missing energies.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i1/milky_way.asp

For sake of convenience I combine this fudge factor with the presumed efforts to account for vacuum energy in the BB model. That may make it imprecise.

What is the effect of enormous numbers or enormous variables in scientific modelling?

In his controversial[citation needed] book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler claims to prove the existence of life after death, provided by an artificial intelligence he calls the "Omega Point" and which he identifies with God. The line of argument is that the evolution of intelligent species will enable scientific progress to grow exponentially, eventually enabling control over the universe even on the largest possible scale. Tipler predicts that this process will culminate with a nearly all-powerful artificial intelligence whose computing speed and information storage will grow exponentially at a rate exceeding the collapse of the Universe, thus providing infinite "virtual time" which will be used to run computer simulations of all intelligent life that has ever lived in the history of our universe. This virtual reality exercise is what Tipler means by "the resurrection of the dead."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_J._Tipler

You will note recent debates about how can TE in Genesis be applied to Revelation with rigidly (even if unfairly) consistent idioms? No one bit on the idea of evolving into paradise. Well, as you can see, Tippler did. Its rather simple. With an infinite future, as with the past, anything is possible, including resurrection of the dead.

The essential argument is a lot like Darwins. If you can assume all the time you want, you can get anything you want.

However, neither Darwin nor Tippler have the right to assume that they have all the time they want. (Leaving aside other arguments such as irreducible complexity and basic probability. For the record, 1,000,000 monkeys have never been assembled at one time and given typewriters. That they may generate a good copy of Hamlet is thus a rather bold assumption.)

What about the energies necessary to create a universe in six days? Well, that does exist. Darwin's logic works, but not for his theory. Whether GOd so employed ZPE, however, is not an issue resolved scientifically. All we have on that is Genesis.

At times, one may note that YEC is condemned for the lack of modeling to show how the six day creation happened. There is an obvious lacuna in our model, which is why we have scripture.

However, ZPE represents exactly this for BB: it fails to qualify as a valid model, because it has this enormous lacuna -- or so this TE method of criticism would suggest to me, IMHO.

 

[busterdog]

Oh quit it KM. Whenever someone posts in the Creationist-only section it's simply because they're not willing or prepared to handle TE input. We should respect that. If people don't want to listen, they simply won't listen, whether or not they are wrong or right.

Come now. I am sure there is input other than argument available. Scientists can discuss the nature of the warp drive on the Enterprise, why not this? And if I were to return to OT, you broke the rules here by your implied argument and assertion against me. Am I to assume that you will honor more ordinary rules for fair discussion in OT?

 

[shernren]

Thank you.

Having said that, you're free to come back to that good old thread on cDK any time you see fit:

http://www.christianforums.com/t4301356-shift-on-red-shift.html

Most TEs try hard to ignore stuff here, I should think, simply because of the overwhelming desire to point out mistakes coupled with the stringent rules against that. If you're willing to bring that stuff to the OT forum we'll be more than happy to engage it there.

 

[shernren]

Come now. I am sure there is input other than argument available. Scientists can discuss the nature of the warp drive on the Enterprise, why not this? And if I were to return to OT, you broke the rules here by your implied argument and assertion against me. Am I to assume that you will honor more ordinary rules for fair discussion in OT?

Scientific theories are only either right or wrong. I can see nothing to indicate that cDK is right, and I am not allowed to post anything here showing that cDK is wrong. Engagement should be done in the OT, by the terms of this forum itself. I am merely inviting it.

 

[busterdog]

Demonstration of the casimer effect, which proves ZPE:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQQIV63HiaE

I am trying to get a another source for the values used by Setterfield for ZPE. He suggest the energy of many suns in a square centimeter. Since this is even energy, it is like atmospheric pressure, which you hardly notice on a given day. Differentials in pressure are noticeable, but we are generally aclimated to 15lbs per square inch.

 

[busterdog]

A fair and temperate response.

 

[busterdog]

Scientific theories are only either right or wrong. I can see nothing to indicate that cDK is right, and I am not allowed to post anything here showing that cDK is wrong. Engagement should be done in the OT, by the terms of this forum itself. I am merely inviting it.

A fair and temperate response.

Hopefully posting here is a learning opportunity. I don't learn much from OT. I did learn about the pulsar problem for Cdecay.

I simply don't know enough to fight every battle there. ITs never one battle. It is usually many at once. Sometimes the assumption is that the battle is where truth is tested. I disagree with that model, regardless of how it sounds.

 

[KerrMetric]

Oh quit it KM. Whenever someone posts in the Creationist-only section it's simply because they're not willing or prepared to handle TE input. We should respect that. If people don't want to listen, they simply won't listen, whether or not they are wrong or right.

I gave no input - I asked for an elaboration of a comment with no detail to it.

 

[busterdog]

For those looking for a real YEC cosmology, have a listen to this:

http://www.nwcreation.net/videos/stretching_the_heavens.html

Interesting note about the work of someone named Boudreaux in forming elements out of water plasma, which doesn't have the BB's beryllium problem.

Anyone have access to online materials from Boudreaux?

 

[KerrMetric]

Boudreaux is associated with ICR - he's a chemist. Check their website.

What beryllium problem?

 

[busterdog]

Although Weinberg is a self-described agnostic, he cannot but be astounded by the extent of the fine-tuning. He goes on to describe how a beryllium isotope having the minuscule half life of 0.0000000000000001 seconds must find and absorb a helium nucleus in that split of time before decaying. This occurs only because of a totally unexpected, exquisitely precise, energy match between the two nuclei. If this did not occur there would be none of the heavier elements. No carbon, no nitrogen, no life. Our universe would be composed of hydrogen and helium. But this is not the end of Professor Weinberg's wonder at our well-tuned universe. He continues:

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/tuning.html

 

[shernren]

Just for information, I've started a thread on Setterfield's youtube videos at OT.

 

[busterdog]

That didn't answer the question but that's OK. I didn't think Schroeder got much credence these days - if he ever got any.

ps

you do realise that this beryllium issue has nothing to do with the Big Bang don't you? I take it by your above comments you did NOT know this. I know this is not a debate board but wouldn't you like this point clarifying for you to prevent future error.

Since there was no BB, by definition, beryllium would indeed have nothing to do with it.