- Feb 17, 2005
- 8,463
- 515
- 38
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Busterdog brought up some Setterfield videos in Creationism, and it would be interesting to talk about them. In particular, Setterfield discussed in one video (number 4 in the Youtube sequence, I believe) some attempts by Andreas Albrecht and others to do VSL theories, trying to compare them to his own theories in an attempt to make his own theories sound more orthodox. I emailed Albrecht about this, and the unbelievable thing is that our friendly professor answered within 48 hours!
[/SIZE]
And finally, Setterfield has not conserved energy in his equations. By allowing m and G to vary, he causes a lot of energy change in otherwise energy-constant systems. It is easy to show that when the constants change as he proposes they do, then the total mechanical energy in a gravitationally bound system increases with time; and since this mechanical energy affects the orbital time, which he claims is constant, there is inconsistency here. Energy is not always mc^2!
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] shernren <shernren@gmail.com> [/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 7:21 PM [/SIZE][SIZE=-1] To: albrecht@physics.ucdavis.edu [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]I understand that you are quite busy and that I probably won't get a rapid response from you, but I hope to clear something up. I was watching a video presentation by creationist Barry Setterfield, who as you know is promoting a theory in which the speed of light has decreased significantly in relatively recent times. As part of his presentation, he tried to make himself appear more orthodox by appealing to VSL work done by astrophysicists such as you. In the course of that he quoted a conversation which he had with you, which he recounts as follows:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] "I had a chance to talk with Prof. Albrecht at Davis a few years ago, just after his report came out, and I said to him, 'why are you dropping the speed of light dramatically shortly after the beginning of the cosmos?' Well he said, 'We couldn't get the data to agree with other constants if we do that.' I said, 'it will work if you conserve energy in the process instead of adopting this minimalist position.' He said, 'Yes, we looked at that, but if we conserved energy we could not achieve what we wanted to do with our theory!' Ok, they're not running with the data, they're running with the theory."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] While it might be unrealistic to expect a full and nuanced reply from you, given your schedule,
hopefully I could at least hear it from you whether or not you have been justly quoted in the above anecdote. Thanks![/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Shern Ren[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Andreas Albrecht <albrecht@ucdcosmo.net> [/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM [/SIZE][SIZE=-1] To: shernren <shernren@gmail.com> [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Dear Shern Ren[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Thanks for your message. I don't recall the specifics of the[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] conversation you mention, but maybe this will help clarify your concern. When I say something like "we could not achieve what we wanted to do with our theory" it is important to understand that what we want to achieve is agreement with data. So I disagree with the spin that we are "not running with data". There are certain data that limited our ability to change the speed of light in certain ways, and other data about the universe we were trying to explain with VSL along the line of cosmic inflation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] As you suggest it is hard to keep up with every attempt [to] manipulate good science (or even just OK science which is how I feel about the VSL work). But I hope that clarifies things a bit.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Best Wishes[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Andreas Albrecht[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Professor of Physics[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Not only that, I tracked down the paper which Setterfield references concerning Birge's concern with changing constants in the 1940's. Here's what the paper actually says:[SIZE=-1]I understand that you are quite busy and that I probably won't get a rapid response from you, but I hope to clear something up. I was watching a video presentation by creationist Barry Setterfield, who as you know is promoting a theory in which the speed of light has decreased significantly in relatively recent times. As part of his presentation, he tried to make himself appear more orthodox by appealing to VSL work done by astrophysicists such as you. In the course of that he quoted a conversation which he had with you, which he recounts as follows:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] "I had a chance to talk with Prof. Albrecht at Davis a few years ago, just after his report came out, and I said to him, 'why are you dropping the speed of light dramatically shortly after the beginning of the cosmos?' Well he said, 'We couldn't get the data to agree with other constants if we do that.' I said, 'it will work if you conserve energy in the process instead of adopting this minimalist position.' He said, 'Yes, we looked at that, but if we conserved energy we could not achieve what we wanted to do with our theory!' Ok, they're not running with the data, they're running with the theory."[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] While it might be unrealistic to expect a full and nuanced reply from you, given your schedule,
hopefully I could at least hear it from you whether or not you have been justly quoted in the above anecdote. Thanks![/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Shern Ren[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Andreas Albrecht <albrecht@ucdcosmo.net> [/SIZE][SIZE=-1] Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 4:20 PM [/SIZE][SIZE=-1] To: shernren <shernren@gmail.com> [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Dear Shern Ren[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Thanks for your message. I don't recall the specifics of the[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] conversation you mention, but maybe this will help clarify your concern. When I say something like "we could not achieve what we wanted to do with our theory" it is important to understand that what we want to achieve is agreement with data. So I disagree with the spin that we are "not running with data". There are certain data that limited our ability to change the speed of light in certain ways, and other data about the universe we were trying to explain with VSL along the line of cosmic inflation.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] As you suggest it is hard to keep up with every attempt [to] manipulate good science (or even just OK science which is how I feel about the VSL work). But I hope that clarifies things a bit.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Best Wishes[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Andreas Albrecht[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] Professor of Physics[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]This paper is being written on request - and at this time on request. In spite of the delusive word "Constants" appearing in the title, it is the continual variation in the values of the quantities that furnishes most of the interest in the subject. It would indeed be disheartening to any real scientist to feel that an accepted value of any physical constant would never be changed. The most characteristic feature of science - in general and in particular - is its never-ending change. But what one must not overlook is the fact that it is the probable value of any given constant that changes, not its actual value. A belief in any significant variability of the constants of nature is fatal to the spirit of science, as science is now understood.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]It is, of course, a fact that the experimentally determined value of every "constant" varies in general with each determination, and just such variations often furnish invaluable clues to errors of experiment and of theory. It has always seemed to me that the chief value of the critical work that has been done on the general constants lies just in its potential exposure of such experimental or theoretical errors. In fact, possibly as a result of such critical work, the situation in respect to the general constants is now vastly improved over that obtaining in 1929, when I wrote my first general paper [citation omitted] in the field; and for the first time since 1929 it seems possible to present with some confidence a new set of values.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1] (emphases in original) Setterfield makes it sound as if Birge is being entirely dogmatic on the matter of changing constants, and shutting the door altogether on new exploration. In fact, the paper is hardly dogmatic. It sets out good statistical and experimental reasoning for every assessment of the experimental results it makes, and what's more, it concludes with an experimental value of c that is lower, not higher, than today's value: 299776 +/- 4 km/s (as opposed to today's 299792 km/s).[SIZE=-1]It is, of course, a fact that the experimentally determined value of every "constant" varies in general with each determination, and just such variations often furnish invaluable clues to errors of experiment and of theory. It has always seemed to me that the chief value of the critical work that has been done on the general constants lies just in its potential exposure of such experimental or theoretical errors. In fact, possibly as a result of such critical work, the situation in respect to the general constants is now vastly improved over that obtaining in 1929, when I wrote my first general paper [citation omitted] in the field; and for the first time since 1929 it seems possible to present with some confidence a new set of values.[/SIZE]
And finally, Setterfield has not conserved energy in his equations. By allowing m and G to vary, he causes a lot of energy change in otherwise energy-constant systems. It is easy to show that when the constants change as he proposes they do, then the total mechanical energy in a gravitationally bound system increases with time; and since this mechanical energy affects the orbital time, which he claims is constant, there is inconsistency here. Energy is not always mc^2!
[/SIZE]
