Shift on Red Shift

[shernren]

Once again, a double standard. You use a barely understood phenomen for radiation emissions (pulsars)

Pulsars have been intensively studied for nearly 40 years now (since their discovery in 1967) by the astronomical community, and their mechanisms have largely been elucidated. Take a good look at that graph again: Setterfield's theories predict spin-up rates of roughly 10^-4 to 10^-6; actual pulsars demonstrate spin-down rates of roughly 10^-12 onwards. That's a discrepancy of at least 10^6 or roughly a million, i.e. not even a millionth of cDK's predicted spin-up is observed in nature. Is this amount of discrepancy attributable to unknown theory?

and use it against a guy whose alleged failure to distinguish between possible aspects of emissions/propagation makes him a fraud.

Hey, we're only zooming in on one particular aspect of the theory right now so that the thread will be reasonably focused. It isn't just pulsars, but the pulsar graphs are pretty fun, with lots of wiggle room if only you tried. The bit about Adam suffocating is pretty boring, but we can look through that too if you want.

You take pulsar frequencies mostly in the lreatively near universe

The pulsars involved don't belong to the relatively near universe. Look at the x-axis of the graph, where distance is graphed on a logarithmic scale. Most of the data points fall between 10^3 and 10^5 light years, i.e. between 1,000 and 10,000 light years away.

Now according to Setterfield, cDK was measurable as recently as 100 years ago. So anything outside 200-300 light years (being generous) should be outside the range of "c-constancy" that we allegedly experience, and hence cDK should have measurable effects that can be validated or disproved.

where the effects you allude to would be ephemeral

Mind you, Bridgman used data points supplied by Setterfield himself to construct the cDK models that he uses to calculate the predicted spin-up. As I've shown, many pulsars are at least 1000 light years away, where the cDK effects would hardly be ephemeral, especially since Setterfield wants to use them to squeeze 13.6 billion years of "atomic time" into 6,000 years of "dynamical time" - or was it the other way around?

to rip apart a fellow Christian who you kill for measuring very small, ephemeral or insubstantial current measments of Cdecay.

Rip apart? Kill? Don't flatter yourself or Setterfield. I doubt it's worth the effort.

Seriously though. This will be the third time already that I'm offering as much mathematical tutoring as you need to figure out the equations and pin-point what is wrong with them. As it is, your last two posts have tried to focus on the recentness of pulsar data and the nearness of the pulsars themselves, both of which have fallen flat. If you want to know how to refute the argument, you'll have to understand the argument first of all.

And then you get mad because I won't read all 76 pages of your favorite bunk on the subject.

No, you don't get it.

Whatever.

Hey, we read your favorite bunk, too.

 

[busterdog]

LOL - you haven't a clue about any of this. Quite sad really. You'd trumpet P.T Barnum if he had a pro-Creationist physics paper - or even Krusty the Clown.

And once again, you simply can't follow either the rules of common courtesy in a discussion or the rules of Christian forums, which you consistently violate by your rudeness.

 

[busterdog]

Apparently I am the only one here who knows what theoretical means.

It means that only conventional cosmologies can have unresolved issues. Unconventional theoreticians are suitable for mockery only.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0009425F-F967-1C59-B882809EC588ED9F&sc=I100322

n the spring of 386 A.D., Chinese astronomers made note of a new star, most likely a supernova, in the sky near Sagittarius, as the constellation later came to be known. Its remnants—an expanding ring of gas and particles—were found in the 1970s and named G11.2-0.3. Now a group of Canadian researchers report that a pulsar in the area is probably left over from the historic event as well. Using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory, Victoria Kaspi and her colleagues at McGill University discovered that the pulsar, a neutron star originally spotted in 1997, lies at the exact geometric center of G11.2-0.3. They described their finding last week at the American Astronomical Society meeting in San Diego.

The pulsar's precise location suggests that it was created during the fourth-century explosion. I f so, it is only the second such star associated with a recorded supernova: the Crab Nebula is believed to have resulted from the supernova in 1054 A.D. Based on the pulsar's spin rate of 14 times per second, scientists at the Japanese Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics (ASCA) estimated its age to be roughly 24,000 years old. But if it is truly 1,615 years old, as the new research suggests, then pulsars may spin more slowly than was expected. "We believe that the pulsar and the supernova remnant G11.2-0.3 are both likely to be left over from the explosion seen by the Chinese observers over 1,600 years ago," says Mallory Roberts of McGill University. "While this is exciting by itself, it also raises new questions about what we know about pulsars, especially during their infancies."

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMB6IBUQPE_index_0.html

"The theory of how pulsars emit their radiation is still in its infancy, even after nearly forty years of work," says Werner Becker, Max-Planck Institut für extraterrestrische Physik, Garching, Germany.

 

[Servant222]

Thank you Shernren for being so patient and so gracious in your willingness to take the time to explain.

Ephesians 4:

1As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. 2Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. 3Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.

As Christians, it is not only about what you say, but how you say it, that matters.

 

[Deamiter]

Scientists don't yet understand everything about pulsars and how they form, but we CAN measure their periods. And if Setterfield's cDK were correct we CAN predict what the data we can take should look like.

It doesn't look like Setterfield's model predicts. Why is that?

 

[busterdog]

Scientists don't yet understand everything about pulsars and how they form, but we CAN measure their periods. And if Setterfield's cDK were correct we CAN predict what the data we can take should look like.

It doesn't look like Setterfield's model predicts. Why is that?

Maybe because setterfield is wrong.

But, we are weighing one theory against another. A distant spin rate in a universe with apparently varying spin rates, assuming that spin is even the issue for emissions (yes I know what convenstion says about it) is just not that overwhelming of a piece of evidence.

The problem is that nothing in BB admits even the possibility that it is wrong. The theory of pulsar emissions is part and parcel of the same cosmology. Is it any surprise that it is not consistent with Setterfield's cosmology?

Remember, the prodominant theme in this thread is about Setterfield being a fraud, said directly to his wife. Bridgman obviously has a similar anti-creationist ax to grind.

Frankly, it is not all that much fun dealing with that type of polemic.

Terms like "pulsar" are not terms that we can agree upon. I have no desire to admit a BB cosmology for the purposes of testing Setterfield's cosmology. Maybe I am just not nice enough to indulge that type of discussion. Frankly, I don't think TE has earned the right for more any concessions for discussion purposes. There are a number of scathing responses on this thread which just don't rate that kind of consideration.

 

[grimbly]

Remember, the prodominant theme in this thread is about Setterfield being a fraud, said directly to his wife. Bridgman obviously has a similar anti-creationist ax to grind.

Where did that underlined part come from?

Bridgman did what any scientist would expect of his peers or himself, that is, critically examine the ramifications of the theory, be it your own or somebody else's. Actually, as I read Bridgman's paper, I got the sense that he treated the Setterfield conjecture with a display of restrained professionalism and intellectual integrity that is the hallmark of technical excellence. That he added a pedagogical aspect to the analysis was just icing on the cake.

Now, what Bridgman did was neither unusual nor vindictive. Every competent scientist before he publishes his findings probably spends more time trying to break his conclusions than he did arriving at them. Why? Because there's always some smart-ass kid lurking around the corner just waiting for the chance to prove you wrong. Yea, buster, if you think what happens on these boards is bad, you should attend a conference where you have two sides with competing/conflicting theories going after each other. It ain't pretty, but eventually truth will be winnowed out in the end. Maybe not there at the conference but slowly, methodically, even with a few steps backwards, eventually some progress gets made and what results is a better understanding of reality. Nobody said the process is pretty or even nice, but it works.

So, I didn't see Bridgman taking a cheap shot at Barry, but rather Bridgman doing the homework that Barry should have done in the first place. That's the norm and not the exception. I and many others expect from professional scientists that type of eye for detail and it is one of the characteristics used to discern professionals from amateur dabblers.

 

[Deamiter]

Wait, we can't agree on the definition of pulsar? What would you call an extremely rapidly spinning star that is a source of periodic pulses of radiation?

And "nothing in BB admits even the possibility that it is wrong?" What does that even mean? Scientists will always admit that there is a possibility that their theories are wrong! Do you want it written as a disclaimer on every scientific theory, "This is only a theory -- it may be wrong"?

The problem with Setterfield's model is that it does not take into account all the evidence gathered by scientists in many fields. The definition of "pulsar" is not in question, how the measurements of what astronomers call pulsars fits in Setterfield's model most definitely is in question.

And I do apologize for caustic remarks. I don't believe I ever told his wife that he was a fraud, but discussion of his questionable choices of data points and his questionable choice of non-standard (i.e. not accepted by other scientists) correction factors applied selectively is quite applicable.

Note that in science, somebody does not need "an axe to grind" to challenge somebody else's work. If your work is challenged (and even as a lowly grad student, mine is daily) you are expected to show why the challenge is unfounded.

So please do, show us your definition of pulsar and show how the measured data from what astronomers currently call "pulsars" fits Setterfield's model. Show that the criticism is unfounded -- because that's how science works.

 

[shernren]

The problem is that nothing in BB admits even the possibility that it is wrong. The theory of pulsar emissions is part and parcel of the same cosmology.

So if we got rid of the BB, pulsars would vanish? Or our understanding of their periodicity would radically change?

Here's how a pulsar works. Imagine a ship approaching a lighthouse from afar. The lighthouse is continually emitting a unidirectional beam; the ship doesn't see a spinning beam, however, it sees periodic flashes as every half-revolution the beam points in its direction. In the same way, a pulsar is a spinning neutron star emitting high-intensity radiation (at the source, at least), and every time during its spin we see it, we see a flash with a definite period.

Pulsar periods are typically very short. The longest one in the ATNF catalogue is about 11.8 seconds. This means that our pulsar data is very high-resolution: even an hour's worth of watching a pulsar with an 11.8-second period would give us about 300 pulses' worth of data to study, to say nothing of many pulsars which have periods on the scales of milliseconds (and keep time to exquisite accuracy).

So even if we don't know how pulsars emit light, that doesn't affect our understanding of their period or spin-up/down. It's like the case of the ship and the lighthouse: the ship doesn't need to know whether the lighthouse is using a gaslamp, or a tungsten filament bulb, or a LED array, or 5,000 caged glow-worms, to know how fast the lighthouse is rotating and how much it is slowing down.

Is it any surprise that it is not consistent with Setterfield's cosmology?

Actually, yes. Remember that Setterfield himself assumes that dynamical processes are not affected by a changing c. All we are doing is taking him by his word, nothing more or less.

In all of Setterfield's work so far, we have not seen any justification to assume that pulsars are anything different from what normal astronomers (more or less independent of a BB cosmology) say they are. They are dynamical processes with regards to their period, so Setterfield is not allowed to assume that a changing c affects its period by his own assumptions.

By the way, note the way this discussion is going. If pulsar data contradicts Setterfield's hypotheses, then there must be something wrong with the pulsar data. If the universe goes up against your favorite theoretician then the universe has to lose! Isn't this a rather unscientific approach?

Remember, the prodominant theme in this thread is about Setterfield being a fraud, said directly to his wife. Bridgman obviously has a similar anti-creationist ax to grind.

"Obviously"? I wonder if you can show anything in Bridgman's work that makes his disdain for Setterfield so "obvious", other than the singular cardinal sin of disagreeing with Setterfield. In fact, there is a section where Bridgman actually defends Setterfield in the work. See, critics have been using the radiation emitted from Supernova 1987A to argue that c cannot have changed between its eruption and today; Bridgman shows that in general, supernovae observations simply cannot tell us anything about how much c has changed between now and then. That doesn't sound like someone who has an ax to grind to me.

Frankly, it is not all that much fun dealing with that type of polemic.

But it's a lot of fun for the audience!

Terms like "pulsar" are not terms that we can agree upon. I have no desire to admit a BB cosmology for the purposes of testing Setterfield's cosmology. Maybe I am just not nice enough to indulge that type of discussion. Frankly, I don't think TE has earned the right for more any concessions for discussion purposes. There are a number of scathing responses on this thread which just don't rate that kind of consideration.

Yeah, I thought this:

No, you don't get it.
Whatever.

was pretty scathing ... oh wait.