|
Author
|
Topic: ID, Special Creation, Setterfield cosmology possibly confirmed
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 25. July 2007 09:26
This morning, after much searching I may have found confirming evidnece of a VERY VERY bold prediction of Barry Setterfield's light speed decay theory. Light speed decay (CDK) theory predicts that we will see celestial objects move in slow motion (time dilation) depending on an equation calculated by Dr. Stephen Cheesman. For example, the degree of time dilation predicted when we start to look at objects at say about 30,000 light years is about 59, their physical motions will appear to be slowed down by factors of 59!.
In a survey of Visual Photometric Binary stars and Visually accessible Spectroscopic Binary, I have found confirming evidence of this time dilation! Astronmers have acknoweldged the anomaly and tried to explain away the fact that as one looks farther out from Earth there is an increase in population of slow visual Binary Stars (Stars which orbit one another), or apparently no binary stars at all. Actually, with extreme time dilation, binary stars will look frozen, and this is actually what we are seeing in globular clusters 30,000 light years away.
I have also asserted that there are only supposed eclipsing binaries detected by micro-lensing techniques which are not binaries at all.
I would welcome review of the current work on this subject as it would confirm:
1. Intelligent Design
2. Recent Special Creation
Visit www.YoungCosmosDiscussion.com
regards to everyone, especially my brethren,
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 25. July 2007 16:59
Hi Sal,
I read Cheesman’s paper, “The Effect on the Observed Rate of Events on Distant Planets Resulting from a Reduction in the Speed of Light.”
I found it to be a clever little paper. When numbering the options for young earth creationists, however, Cheesman neglects to include the most promising model for explaining distant stars in a young universe. In fact, I believe this model to be the most reasonable model for anyone to explain how the universe was created.
The type of model I am referring to is explained in detail by Gerald L. Schroeder in his book “Genesis and the Big Bang.” Russell Humphreys also has a go at it in his book “Starlight and Time.”
The basics to the model are as follows:
The universe is an open system in that God existed before time and space were created. By forces alien to our physical universe God stretched out our visible space-time from what is invisible to us. He stretched it out at great speed and most likely under intense gravitational force. How long did this great speed (extremely close to the speed of light) and intense gravitational force last? That would depend on your clock. You see the rate at which time flows is the necessary variable not the speed of light.
Time dilation is an observed fact. It is not apparent. It is real. The faster an object moves; the slower time progresses for that object. The stronger the gravitational field surrounding an object the slower time progresses. So, if you were standing still and watching the universe as it was being created, then you might say that it took billions of years. However, if you were moving with the universe as God was stretching its expanse, then you might say it took as little as six days. There is no absolute time.
Why did God choose the moving clock when relating the account of the creation of the universe to His creation? Straightforwardly it is because God wanted to give us the events as they would have progressed were we to have lived threw them as members of the swiftly forming universe.
How does this solve the starlight dilemma? Well, as far as we can measure, the speed of light is constant or nearly constant no mater the speed of the object measuring light’s speed. That is, if I am moving near the speed of light, then I will still measure the speed of light to be c regardless. So, if the sun were to move out into space very very near the speed of light and, simultaneously, the earth were to move out into space in the same direction very near the speed of light then we would still see the light from the sun continually as the two objects separated in space. It would not take long (measured by earth’s clock) for the distance between the two bodies to grow large. It would take even less time by the sun’s clock. The only observed difference in the light from the sun during the move would be a distinct red shift.
Hey these are the sorts of things we observe with respect to distant stars.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. July 2007 12:19
Very interesting, but I didn't realize until just now that God had written the book of Genesis. I always assumed it was written by ordinary men and women. Also, why must be there be one God and why must it be male? After all, it is generally conceded that Nature is a Mother. It just doesn't seem fair!
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true...Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."
Albert Einstein
AMEN
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 02. August 2007 12:46
Einstein is a great genius.
But empirical evidence is not constrained to geniuses. A single ugly fact discovered by an ordinary indivudual can kill an otherwise beautiful theory.
The possible dilation discovered will not overturn Einstein's relativity, but like what Einstein did for Newton's laws, it will force a major amendment, if indeed our interpretations are correct.
There is Lorentz-Einstein dilation which Gerald Schroeder referred to. The dilation in question here is yet another dilation. For lack of a better term, I've labeled it SCC dilation (SCC = Setterfield-Cheesman-Cordova).
It may take years to sort this out. A discussion of the matter is here: Walter Brown's Prediction about Binary Stars and CDK. I have freely allowed dissent from qualified scientists like Dr. Jellison, Dr. Cheesman, and others.
I am however convinced the case for CDK (light-speed decay) is promising, and if true, it is relevant to the ID debate in a major way.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. August 2007 08:20
Hi Sal,
Good to talk again! I wish I could be supportive of Setterfield cosmology, but I cannot buy it - there are to many reasons that speak against it. The one mentioned by Cheeseman is sufficient on its own:
quote:
This effect [i.e. SCC Time Dilation] rapidly becomes more serious at distances greater than about 10,000 light years and should be visible in such phenomenon as the rotations of close binary star systems, the evolution of novae and supernovae, and the periodic changes of Cephied variables. The absence of any such effect should be taken as evidence that there has not been any change in the value of c or the necessary maagnitude for a young universe
It is an established fact that Cephied variable stars have the same period-luminosity relationship all over our Milky Way galaxy most of which lies outside that 10,000 light years (the radius of the MW is approximately 50,000 light years) - to say nothing of Cephieds in other galaxies millions of light years from us!
Another problem with the young universe hypothesis is that it means de-establishing a huge interconnecting scientific scaffold all of which points to a universe around 13 billion years old. For example there is the age of the Earth ~4.5 billion as obtained from radiodating [this depends on the strong and electric forces]. Then there is the rate of Stellar burning that allows stars to burn steadily for billions of years [governed by the gravitational, electric and weak forces]. You just cannot knock out one part of this "irreducibly complex" scientific framework and end up with something still functional - in an explanatory sense.
I have a question for you - I am not sure on the connection of the young earth hypothesis with ID? Best. Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. August 2007 10:24
Hi Melvin
Good to talk again. I certainly agree with you that the speed of light has remained constant over the history of the universe – and this argues against Setterfield’s cosmology. I wish I knew more about the true nature of light - it is a mystery! However, the constancy of the speed of light is a kind of an empirical finding. One reason we can believe in the constancy of speed of light is that the fine structure constant FSC=2pi(e^2/hc) is the same as seen in distant quasars as it is on earth. If c was different at the time of the quasars (~1billion years after the BB) then, accept in the highly improbable case of e (the electronic charge) and h (Plank’s constant) changing to compensate, the FSC would be different. We can go back even earlier in time – to the time of ~1min after the BB when deuterium formed. The binding of deuterium depends critically on the electric force (The FSC gives the strength of the electric force in dimensionless units). If the FSC, and by inference c, had been only a little different ~1min after the BB we would not have obtained the primordial deuterium and helium that we observe in the universe today.
Both Setterfield and Schroeder are I guess are believers in a young universe (I’m not sure if you are?) and are thus trying to get at the literal 6 x 24 hour period of creation using the physical law. Let me give a few reasons for my discontent with Schroeder’s view
(i) Sure, the gravitational field would have been much stronger at the early stages of the universe (first fractions of a second). Time would have run slow relative to an observer in a gravitational field free region (perhaps at the universe center where the gravitational forces would cancel?). But Schroeder is not placing God at this position – within the space-time fabric (which He Himself Created!!). Schroeder is rightly placing God where He really is – outside and transcending the Universe that is grounded in His very self existence. But Schroeder cannot have it both ways – if God is transcendent then the laws of general relativity cannot with any surety be applied within his realm – not even by way of analogy. No, God is “totally other” and we are wrong to presume we can box him into the substratum of the universe. Dawkins makes exactly the same error when he argues [in his book - The God Delusion] that if God where the creator of specified complexity then He would have to be that more complex – and that all we have done is just shift the complexity problem to a higher level without explanation. The error again is the presumed analogous reasoning from the laws and ways of our world to those beyond.
(ii) The 6 days of creation ( as seen by Schroeder’s space surfing observer on the fabric of the fast expanding universe) would not match with the events in the days of creation as registered in Genesis. The most rapid “stretching out of the universe” occurred in the first 10e-35s (“Inflation Epoch”) when the universe expanded superluminally to become essentially flat in geometry. This epoch – is now widely accepted by cosmologists – not only because it explains many features of the universe, but also because it ties in with Grand Unified Theories (GUTS). In Schroeder’s model, those 6 days corresponded to this very fast phase of the universe’s history would be over long before the planet earth had come into existence (day 1). But lets forget the “inflation” issue (it may be wrong anyway) and argue that God “sees” the time of creation as 13 billion years for the cosmic surfer's 6 days. 1 day equates approximately with 2 billion years so that planet earth which formed about 9 billion years after the BB would appear around day 4 to 5 (and not as the Bible says on day one).
(iii) The scriptures tell us that “For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past and like a watch in the night” Ps90v4 and “that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” 2Pet3v8. The indication is clear – God is not bound by our time but transcends it. Millions of years are nothing to the Author of time! This is the antithesis of Schroeder’s model – for it is certainly man that experiences the millions of years (i.e. fossil record and cosmology) and not God. Indeed the day-age interpretation of Genesis ch1 seems to be very popular amongst many believing scientists because of the neat synchrony between recorded events and those inferred from modern science. Sorry for laboring things. I do look forward to your response. As always Chris
1 Cor 8v2
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. August 2007 11:27
Hi John,
Its good to hear you again! I know you believe in the BFL (Big Front Loader). I know also that you are not sure if there was just a single download or a series of multiple downloads [perhaps the evidence cannot tell us clearly?]. So I think you should be able to believe in the “dual download hypothesis”. That is the first download is during the prescribed (pre-written) code of life (if for the sake of argument we clump all possible biological downloads as one) and the second download is into the scriptures (particularly Genesis ch.1 as regards primary creation events). The BFL surely is surely both free to make a download directly into Nature and also another download into Scripture with man as a mediator of the information and with man’s education a the goal. Sure, Genesis was written by man (probably Moses) but why does this mean that man could not receive information from God and pass it on both by word of mouth and by writing? The “dual download hypothesis” goes a step further in saying that the second download is going to contain a replay (in brief outline) of the outworkings of first download (creation events).
I don’t know if you have studied the Day-Age interpretation of Genesis ch.1. It is quite remarkable how the events recorded in the passage match with those (in sequence) as inferred by modern science. There are no other ancient books in the world for which this phenomenon happens. Even Muslims hold Gen 1 as their creation narrative – i.e. all the Abrahamic faiths. It is comforting to know that those that read the Scriptures long before modern science would have gotten a good picture of the way things really happened. There's something about correcly knowing the past that gives man his identity.
You often say that evolution has stopped since man came on the scene. I also believe this. Note this fact also concurs with Genesis Ch.1. Man (man and women that is) in this passage is clearly the crown of creation – appearing as he does as the last creation (end of the chapter). It is clear that mankind (male and female), made in God’s own “image”, is the very purpose for all the other prior downloads (i.e. supportative ecostructures). Part of what that word “image” means is an innate spiritual awareness - the ability to commune with God – a connection to the primary realm. This capability makes man unique amongst living things – a being actually capable of receiving prescribed information. Biological downloads have thus ended because their need has ended. I thus believe, and I hope you can agree, that it is wrong to infer that God is dead just because there are no more biological downloads. What do you think? Chris
1Cor.8v2
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. August 2007 15:33
Chris
I will let Einstein speak for me.
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God." Ideas and Opinions, 1954
That is much more true now than it was a half century ago.
I feel that Einsteins's understanding of human nature exceeded even his contribution to physics. Relativity was right around the corner and would have emerged without Einstein.
Most of us still refuse to understand that we are all victims in a completely determined world, a position which I endorse and which we owe especially to Einstein. No better proof can be given for this reality than the unspeakable behavior exhibited by the sponsors of so many of the internet blogs and forums. Once again I recommend William Wright's "Born That Way," which I feel is one of the most important summaries of the nature versus nurture conflict, a summary which clearly supports the title - "Born That Way." I am afraid that Free Will, central to Christian, especially Catholic, dogma, is not supported by controlled observations on homozygotic twins reared in markedly opposite sociological environments. As unacceptable as that may be to some, it remains in concert with Calvinism and predestination in general. It is also central to my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
In short -
EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. August 2007, 15:35: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. August 2007 20:40
Chris,
Very good to see you back at brainstorms. I leave in just a few minutes for a week long camping trip. I will look forward to discussing this and other topics on my return.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 10. August 2007 20:45
Just a note before I go, John Gribbin's book "The Birth of Time" is an excellent read for information on the Cepheid variables and all other direct and indirect methods for measuring the cosmos.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 10. August 2007 21:01
Christopher D. Beling: I have a question for you - I am not sure on the connection of the young earth hypothesis with ID?
The YEC model of creation is unquestionably a model of an Intelligently Designed universe. As such, it is an ID hypothesis. I am sure we can agree that if a young earth could be proven, the YEC view would suddenly be taken very seriously. Therefore, any evidence supporting a young earth by definition supports an ID hypothesis.
I, for one, am very far from buying into a young earth model.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. August 2007 21:52
Hi Melvin,
Hope you enjoyed the camping! and thanks for the book reference. I made a mistake in my last message concerning evidence for the constancy of the speed of light. What I said about deuterium I realize is wrong: The small binding energy between the proton and the neutron is determined only by the strong force - the electric force has no effect because the neutron is neutrally charged. Even so it is interesting that Dr. John Webb of the University of New South Wales has described how important the measurement of the primordial Deuterium abundance is in verifying the Big Bang theory (see his website).
quote:
One of the great successes of the Big Bang theory is that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) calculations predict relative abundances of the light elements (such as Helium, Lithium, Deuterium) which agree well with observations. In principle measurements of Deuterium provide extremely powerful constraints because the predicted BBN yield is highly sensitive to the cosmological density of baryons. So, if we can measure the primordial relative abundance of Deuterium, we have a precise measurement of the density of the universe. The latter is very important in cosmology because we need to know all the contributions to the total energy density of the universe in order to fully understand its past and future expansion history.
The evidence from the fine-structure constant as obtained from the most distant visable objects from Earth - seems to suggest that over the last ~6 billion years (half lifetime of universe on the BB model) the Fine Structure Constant has not changed [See Science News, 5/8/2004, vol165,p301]. Chris
[ 13. August 2007, 01:26: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 12. August 2007 22:44
John,
I think that Einstein had personal reasons why he did not wish to see God as personal on an intellectual level. And yet we see from some of his quotes that he often spoke of God as "the Good Lord" and in other effectionate ways that suggest that in reality his existential experience was different. Moreover, if he really felt that all things were predetermined why did he write to President Roosevelt about the need to start work on the atomic bomb?
Also, if you would forgive me, I wonder how you can trust your own thought processes as leading to truth if you really believe in such a strict mechanistic and predetermined universe? Why spend time trying to make people aware of the the failings of Darwinism - if society is ultimately going to be convinced one way or the other?
Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 15. August 2007 22:31
quote:
Chris wrote:
I have a question for you - I am not sure on the connection of the young earth hypothesis with ID? Best. Chris
Delighted to hear from you.
In answer to your question, if the Earth and universe are young, then ID is true for sure. I have had nagging doubts about Lyell's geology. Like Darwin, I think his ideas have misled scientific inquiry, and it appears Lyell had a metaphysical agenda....
There are possibly very good answers to Dr. Cheesman's objections, but he raises important ones nonetheless. You might also be surprised to hear of some very major difficulties with mainstream cosmology, so severe that even people from secular quarters like David Berlinski are likening the Big Bang to Darwinian evolution.
I don't think the issues are going to be resolved any time soon. We are looking into a research program to help solve some of the issues.
I don't necessarily agree with everything in Barry Settefield's cosmology. We're in the process of cleaning up an awful lot.
regards,
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 15. August 2007 22:38
quote:
I, for one, am very far from buying into a young earth model.
I was not either until I read Dr. Walter Brown's work. Brown was a National Science Foundation Fellow, he got his PhD from MIT in only 3 years. A very bright and sensible scientist.
I'm only about 85% convinced. It turns out there were also 2 theories of relativity. One by Einstein, one by Lorentz. In fact, one of the postulates of Enstein's Special Relativity is even named after Lorentz, it is Lorentz invariance or the Lorentz-Einstein transformation.
It maybe that the Lorentz version of relativity is the correct one, superceding Einstein's. Lorentz actually could have gotten credit for relativity, but he was not quite as audacious as Albert.....
What is the prima facie evidence of CDK. It is the following observation. I'll post it below.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic