Shift on Red Shift

[shernren]

I'm glad you decided to bring that site up. I pointed it out to KM in another thread but thought it might be overkill for the current level of discussion. Kinda like bringing a couple of tactical nukes to a rabbit hunt, effective but are they really necessary??

That being said, Bridgman's site does offer a stark contrast between the methodologies practiced by professional scientists versus what you see from amateur dabblers. Unfortunately I would imagine most people's eyes would start to glaze over by about the third page. Still my hats off to Bridgman for putting together such an excellent site. He's also amassed a pretty decent set of links to other resources also.

I find Bridgman's stuff really invaluable, not just because it makes effective real-world predictions, but also because it is unexpectedly pedagogical. I've been reading a QM textbook recently and reading his stuff felt much the same, the right mix of explicit derivations and "exercise for the interested student" statements. I especially like the stuff he did on angular momentum of a particle in a changing c physics, it's exactly the kind of starting point that you could further analyze using Schrodinger's equation.

Still awaiting creationist response ...

 

[busterdog]

Why is it that some scientists are nicer about slowing c than some of the TEs?

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/showthread.php?t=430&page=3

Dr. Kaku's Response:

About two years ago, there was speculation that the speed of light may have changed over billions of years. This result was due to observations of light from the early universe, and the measurement of "alpha," the fine structure constant. Some observations seem to indicate that alpha might change, which means that the speed of light c, or perhaps electron charge e, changed with time.

However, so far these results have been challenged, and most physicists, I think, are skeptical of these reults. (A few of my friends have even tried to write down a non-relativistic generalization of Einstein's theory to accomodate a varying c. So far, I have not been impressed by any of these proposals. These theories are
rather ugly and ad hoc.)

As Carl Sagan used to say, remarkable claims require remarkable proof. So far,the varying c data is not very reliable, so most physicists think either this result will eventually disappear, or that it's prudent to wait for more reliable data.

 

[grimbly]

Why is it that some scientists are nicer about slowing c than some of the TEs?

http://www.mkaku.org/forums/t430&page=3

Busterdog, Did you take a look at http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/. There's a 76 page PDF there, where the author absolutely eviscerates the decaying c conjecture. Yes, it's a lot to wade through, but I, KM, and Shernren waded through it and could find no errors.

Notice the stark contrast between how real scientists operate and what you find on Barry's pages. What struck me after reading Brigman's is that the analysis was not done with either malice or an attempt to make Barry look foolish, but rather out of a desire to see if the Setterfield conjecture could hold up to scrutiny with regards to what we currently know about the universe. It Couldn't.

Now this is exactly what Barry should have done before he proposed his decaying c conjecture and it is what differentiates real professional scientists from dabbling amateurs.

 

[Deamiter]

You might also note that Dr. Kaku in this note is in NO WAY considering of supporting Setterfield's work or conclusions. If the change in c Dr. Kaku talks about IS verified, it will directly disprove Setterfield's work as Setterfield's current proposal is that every "constant" is really changing so that it only LOOKS (from Earth) that c has been constant in the past.

If our measurement of c based on cosmological measurements shows a change in c (note -- changing by a fraction of a percent over billions of years, not from infinity to the current level in 6000 years!) then the thesis that it LOOKS the same because the frequency of emitted light was changing with the speed of light would be false.

busterdog -- HAVE you ever looked at that detailed 76 page response to Setterfield? I notice that you continue to call his page, "one of [your] favorites." Have you justified your support of Setterfield in a response to this detailed critique of his work or are you simply ignoring the detailed analysis so that you can continue with your current beliefs?

 

[busterdog]

I looked for a few minutes. I had seen and dealt with the same criticisms elsewhere. It wasn't a very intersting debate there either.

I know Kaku is not a c decay guy. I appreciate his style and open-mindedness, which does more justice to the unsettled nature of this particular realm of science.

 

[Deamiter]

So... you skimmed briefly over a detailed, 76-page document and decided that every point had already been covered elsewhere?

Could you please show me where Mr. Setterfield has countered the following equations showing that his changing speed of light cannot account for a frequency change in atomic processes (which is necessary to account for the redshift seen in distant galaxies):

 

[shernren]

I second Deamiter's question. In particular, though, I wonder why you say that these issues are the same issues you have seen dealt with by Setterfield. Wading through Setterfield's pages I haven't seen these issues being dealt with.

In particular, I find Bridgman's approach far more intuitive and logical than Setterfield's, i.e. the technique of defining a constant part and a functional part for the speed of light in the dynamical timeframe. That's how math works. To me it looks like Bridgman is doing Setterfield's work for him! For example, Bridgman takes the bother of defining two separate time variables, t and tau, since Setterfield's formulation requires that the two are separate. This clear separation of variables doesn't happen in Setterfield's own work, as far as I can see! To me, that's absurd.

And I'm surprised that you think Kaku is being sympathetic to slowing c theories. Look again at what he said:

(A few of my friends have even tried to write down a non-relativistic generalization of Einstein's theory to accommodate a varying c. So far, I have not been impressed by any of these proposals. These theories are rather ugly and ad hoc.)

As someone who likes math I think "ugly" is one of the strongest things one can say about another person's mathematical work. Ugly math, that runs all over the place and assumes unnecessary stuff and invokes unnecessary equations and does stuff without economy, is bad math. It is also dangerous math because the "uglier" math is, the harder it is to check for errors. "Ad hoc" is on the other hand one of the strongest things one can say about another person's scientific work. Ad hoc theories don't ever explain stuff, but constantly have to be tweaked to give a semblance of coherence, like how Setterfield in one paper starts by saying that G is constant and then later on the same page says that actually the product Gm is invariant.

In other words, "ugly and ad hoc" = bad math and bad science.

 

[KerrMetric]

the unsettled nature of this particular realm of science.

There you go - the same old "it's still unsetteld" or "scientists are still debating" card.

No we are not. This is not an unsettled issue. There is no real debate ongoing because quite simply there is no reason for a debate. It is only unsettled or debate worthy in the minds of those with little to no understanding of the physics.

These lame attempts to portray science as bubbling with lively debates on these topics are just that - lame.

 

[busterdog]

So... you skimmed briefly over a detailed, 76-page document and decided that every point had already been covered elsewhere?

Could you please show me where Mr. Setterfield has countered the following equations showing that his changing speed of light cannot account for a frequency change in atomic processes (which is necessary to account for the redshift seen in distant galaxies):

You haven't clearly stated you question and your equations are not readable. Please state the question so that everyone can read it.

I suspect that your intent is to try to demonstrate that I don't know how to read your equations. I don't know your motives and I can't verify that this is your intent. I will save you some time and say I would probably struggle to get through those equations, if I can get through them, though I cannot read them, since the print is light and small.

If this is a simple communication issue and not an attempt to use a measure of my formal training as a basis to score to points, then please restate your problem in English and I will try to respond.

However, there have been a number of philosophical objections that have simply been dismissed by TE. The Bridgman website complains about fudging with the substitution of variables as a matter of convenience, which is similar to the YEC objection to TE confidence in Big Bang. All the equations in the world are not going to change that. The holes that make TE cosmology a theory as opposed to measured quantities will not retreat any time soon. Can Setterfield by challenged similary? Of course. Its a freakin theory!

But, the evidential grounds have been challenged by lame charicatures called graphs and the equally lame straw man assertion that Setterfield theories have been offered as the equivalent to Discovery Channel film on the first six days of creation.

 

[pgp_protector]

You haven't clearly stated you question and your equations are not readable. Please state the question so that everyone can read it.

The Equations are quite readable, did you click on the Attached Img ?

Here I'll make it easer.

 

[Servant222]

Without getting into the debate itself, I would just like to say again that I think it is very important that this type of issue be resolved in a logical and amicable manner so that it does not undermine the credibility of the Christian faith.

Proverbs 8:

4 "To you, O men, I call out;
I raise my voice to all mankind.

5 You who are simple, gain prudence;
you who are foolish, gain understanding.

6 Listen, for I have worthy things to say;
I open my lips to speak what is right.

 

[Deamiter]

I'm sorry, I was feeling a bit lazy and didn't bother to attach the image in the test thread and link it here. In the future, you might try clicking on an image that looks that bad, as I believe your browser probably compressed it to fit on the screen (when clicked, it usually returns to normal size).

Anyway, it's straight from the paper that we've been discussing recently. You said you found each point to be refuted on Setterfield.org, but there are a number of points including this one that I have not found an answer to. The conclusion is in very plain English at the bottom of the quote -- "In essence, Setterfield's seperate atomic/dynamical time scales linked via the speed of light cannot produce a frequency change for atomic processes at all!"

The really cool thing about scientific theories is that they CAN be disproven. Setterfield claims that a changing speed of light can account for the observed atomic red shift because atomic processes would have a shifted frequency. Of course Setterfield doesn't bother to show this mathematically, he just makes the claim. Bridgman here shows that the emission frequency of atomic processes would NOT be affected by a changing speed of light (and by extension I think it shows that atomic clocks are just as accurate assuming a changing c as any other measurement of c).

The Big Bang theory is fully supported by data, but the difference between it and Setterfield's proposals is that it has stood up to careful analysis. You find a lot of discussion directed at laymen (his primary audience apparently) but he never justifies his claims or conclusions mathematically or even logically -- he just makes them and expects that since you, the reader, don't have the education to sift through the complex claims, you'll find it just as plausable as any other scientific theory. Once he's become "just as good" as any other theory in the mind of a layman, you're of course free to pick whichever fits your worldview (in this case, YEC).

Am I WAY off base here? Has he published the proofs (note, not proof, but mathematical proofs) of his many claims beyond the statistical analysis of historical c measurements? Do you NOT accept his claim at face value that his model is based on data whereas the Big Bang theory is not?

 

[shernren]

I suspect that your intent is to try to demonstrate that I don't know how to read your equations. I don't know your motives and I can't verify that this is your intent. I will save you some time and say I would probably struggle to get through those equations, if I can get through them, though I cannot read them, since the print is light and small.

But do you want to get through those equations? You may not like math, but I love math, and I love getting people to like math. (That's why I ended up doing physics: it's as scientific as math ever gets to be. XD)

Do you want us to walk through the PDF together? It would be an interesting exercise. I'm assuming you know basic differentiation and integration, although that can be taught for an extra fee i.e. you'll have to pay more hours. ;D

If this is a simple communication issue and not an attempt to use a measure of my formal training as a basis to score to points, then please restate your problem in English and I will try to respond.

However, there have been a number of philosophical objections that have simply been dismissed by TE. The Bridgman website complains about fudging with the substitution of variables as a matter of convenience, which is similar to the YEC objection to TE confidence in Big Bang. All the equations in the world are not going to change that. The holes that make TE cosmology a theory as opposed to measured quantities will not retreat any time soon. Can Setterfield by challenged similary? Of course. Its a freakin theory!

"Fudging with the substitution of variables" is not a matter of convenience, it's a basic question of whether Setterfield has adequate techniques to tackle the case he is trying to prove. If Setterfield is going to bring audacious claims, he'd better have the right techniques to prove his case and explore its ramifications. In mathematical terms, variables are very important handles by which one grasps the quantities that are being manipulated. Using variables loosely is like trying to use a cross-head screwdriver on a Philips head screw, or using a car to cross the Pacific - the wrong tools for the task won't let you get your task done.

That's the nature of this particular complaint against Setterfield's methodology. If he doesn't even bring the right tools into the mathematical lab, how on earth can he obtain what he claims to obtain? Besides ...

But, the evidential grounds have been challenged by lame charicatures called graphs and the equally lame straw man assertion that Setterfield theories have been offered as the equivalent to Discovery Channel film on the first six days of creation.

"Lame caricatures called graphs"? The graphs show where reality stands in relation to Setterfield's cDK theories, and it isn't pretty ...

(annotated from p. 34)

The ball's in your court. Do you want to see the mathematical reasons for saying that cDK lives where it lives, and to see how you can reconcile it with reality? Or are you going to keep shouting about persecution and philosophy in the hope of drowning out the real world?

 

[busterdog]

Shernren,

I am quite frankly shocked that anyone would call a theory a fraud on the basis of pulsar data. (I don't know whether you personally like the word "fraud", but be it baseless garbage or whatever the word is, the outright dismissal is the concept.)

Pulsar data has been measured for how many years? 2,000 or so? Well, no. Less than a century. And Bridgman kills Setterfield on his data set for measuring light speed? Please.

Pulsar data and the aging of these stars is "theory."

Setterfield's work is "theory."

That his assumptions don't fit Bridgmans, I understand that. What that means is that there isn't a "rule out" diagnosis possible for Setterfield, at least not the way Bridgman did it.

This is tiresome. It is nothing new. Been there. Done that.

Bridgman lays that "bad data" thing on us for light speed measurements. Well, Montgomery says different and I see charts simply exaggerating error bars and other such nonsense. No one redid any of the Montgomery calculations. As for excluding data, Montgomery gave the exact basis for doing so and all scientists use that method. The underlying assumption is that the early measurements must have been unreliable (excuse me, biased is the right word, since unreliable, as in error bars, is no problem at all), but nothing is offered to prove that but assumptions. Lambert Dolphin even ran the data with the excluded material and it still supported Setterfield.

Bridgman says the Setterfield site is hard to follow and poorly organized. Yeah, well, I have read more incisive comment in the gossip section of the New York Post. Being catty just underlines for me that this really is about a crime against fashion, not about science.

 

[shernren]

Shernren,

I am quite frankly shocked that anyone would call a theory a fraud on the basis of pulsar data. (I don't know whether you personally like the word "fraud", but be it baseless garbage or whatever the word is, the outright dismissal is the concept.)

Pulsar data has been measured for how many years? 2,000 or so? Well, no. Less than a century. And Bridgman kills Setterfield on his data set for measuring light speed? Please.

Pulsar data and the aging of these stars is "theory."

Setterfield's work is "theory."

That his assumptions don't fit Bridgmans, I understand that. What that means is that there isn't a "rule out" diagnosis possible for Setterfield, at least not the way Bridgman did it.

This is tiresome. It is nothing new. Been there. Done that.

You know what is tiresome? The way you raise your objections shows that you have made absolutely no effort to try to understand what Bridgman was trying to do. We have tried to understand your source; the least we ask is the courtesy for you to try to understand ours. I have even offered (twice now) to offer as much mathematical help as you need to personally verify or disprove the equations involved.

Anyways, here's the Cliff Notes' version of the problem with the pulsars.

The graph on page 12 shows how a periodic phenomenon will appear to speed up to a distant observer, with the mathematics of it covered via calculus in pp. 8-11. As the speed of light decreases throughout the whole universe at the same time, the speed of light when the pulsar (or, in general, any periodic emitter) emits light is much higher than the speed of light when we observe that light. Crudely speaking, this "mismatch" causes the periodic phenomenon to appear to speed up to us, i.e. its period will decrease. (If the speed of light was increasing between emission and reception, the period would increase instead.)

By using the exact functions Setterfield provides, it is possible to determine exactly how much speed-up each pulsar will experience. Assuming that distance estimates to the pulsars are accurate (an assumption Setterfield himself uses), it is possible to figure out how much the "mismatch" between speed at emission and speed at reception will be different. (Note that what we receive now was emitted many thousands of years ago when in cDK lightspeed was heavily changing, therefore the data is pertinent - even if it is observed in the present when the speed of light doesn't appear to change to us in our time.) It is then possible to plot how much "mismatch"-speeding up each pulsar should experience vs its distance from us. This is graphed by the lines; they are dotted because the period is decreasing (if something goes faster, it takes less time), meaning that the quantity dP/dt (rate of change of P) is negative.

We have reliable data on how the periods of pulsars have been changing over some time, and hence we can plot actual data onto that theoretical plot. If Setterfield's model is right, we should expect the data points to fall neatly on the curve, showing that there is indeed a large mismatch between pulsar emission lightspeed and our reception lightspeed. Instead, the data points cluster around zero, showing in turn zero mismatch (other than dynamical spin-down inherent to the pulsars which is orders of magnitude smaller than cDK change).

And now, having explained the relevance of the data, here it is again:

Terrible things happen when you take a physical theory too seriously ...

 

[Deamiter]

That his assumptions don't fit Bridgmans, I understand that. What that means is that there isn't a "rule out" diagnosis possible for Setterfield, at least not the way Bridgman did it.

Wait, the assumptions are the same! I challenge you to point out a single assumption made by Bridgman that was not made by Setterfield!

You say there is no "rule out" diagnosos -- surely you're not saying that Setterfield's thesis is impossible to disprove! If it is impossible to take data (say, the measured period of pulsars at a measured distance) and examine whether or not it fits a particular model, then what's the point of having the model?

In this case when Bridgman takes data and fit it to Setterfield's model of cDK, we find that it does not even remotely fit. Are you claiming that because it's a theory, testing predictions based on the theory is impossible?

Anyway, I'd really like just ONE assumption you think Bridgman makes that Setterfield does not make. You claimed that they have different assumptions so Bridgman's analysis is inaccurate so I'd be interested to know what you are referring to.

 

[KerrMetric]

Shernren,

I am quite frankly shocked that anyone would call a theory a fraud on the basis of pulsar data. (I don't know whether you personally like the word "fraud", but be it baseless garbage or whatever the word is, the outright dismissal is the concept.)

Pulsar data has been measured for how many years? 2,000 or so? Well, no. Less than a century. And Bridgman kills Setterfield on his data set for measuring light speed? Please.

Pulsar data and the aging of these stars is "theory."

Setterfield's work is "theory."

That his assumptions don't fit Bridgmans, I understand that. What that means is that there isn't a "rule out" diagnosis possible for Setterfield, at least not the way Bridgman did it.

This is tiresome. It is nothing new. Been there. Done that.

Bridgman lays that "bad data" thing on us for light speed measurements. Well, Montgomery says different and I see charts simply exaggerating error bars and other such nonsense. No one redid any of the Montgomery calculations. As for excluding data, Montgomery gave the exact basis for doing so and all scientists use that method. The underlying assumption is that the early measurements must have been unreliable (excuse me, biased is the right word, since unreliable, as in error bars, is no problem at all), but nothing is offered to prove that but assumptions. Lambert Dolphin even ran the data with the excluded material and it still supported Setterfield.

Bridgman says the Setterfield site is hard to follow and poorly organized. Yeah, well, I have read more incisive comment in the gossip section of the New York Post. Being catty just underlines for me that this really is about a crime against fashion, not about science.

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.

 

[busterdog]

Once again, a double standard. You use a barely understood phenomen for radiation emissions (pulsars) and use it against a guy whose alleged failure to distinguish between possible aspects of emissions/propagation makes him a fraud. You take pulsar frequencies mostly in the lreatively near universe, where the effects you allude to would be ephemeral, to rip apart a fellow Christian who you kill for measuring very small, ephemeral or insubstantial current measments of Cdecay.

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.

 

[Mallon]

For goodness sake, busterdog. Just admit it. You cannot defend Setterfield's bad science.
shernren and Deamiter have called you on it, and you just refuse to deal with the specifics, complaining instead that Setterfield is some sort of underappreciated martyr ahead of his time. Why continue to defend what you do not fully understand (as you admitted earlier)?

 

[Deamiter]

wait, are you seriously claiming that objects measured to be 1000 - 100,000 light years away emitted light recently enough that C-decay was already minimal? Are you REALLY?

Please confirm this if you do, because if so I'll gladly go and use Setterfield's equations to show when HE claims the light would have been emitted and what HE claims the speed of light was at that time. Off hand, I am pretty confident that it is not negligable as you seem to claim!

Setterfield claims that the speed of light was SIGNIFICANTLY slower even 100 years ago! A pulsar that is 100,000 light-years away at today's speed would have emitted light many centuries ago when Setterfield claims the cDK was significant.

And "barely understood"? What is it that scientists don't understand that would make such an analysis invalid?