Galaxy rotation

And all of God's people said "huh?"

 

Natter's: It is short for:
The observed red shift of light is due
to the speed of the expanding universe
NOT due to a change of the speed of light.

About 20 years ago i had a proof
(from Jewish literature mostly our O.T.) by
a Jewish fellow that the Universe was
15 Billion years only. Adam was created
in BC 3761 nly 5,766 years ago.
The Universe was created 15 Billion years ago.

 

Thank you Helen. I welcome the opportunity to examine this issue in a new thread.

I must complain upfront that I doubt that you could really accuse me of highjacking the other thread. I was not the first to bring up the subject, I merely responded to an earlier post. If discussion of this subject is to be considered hijacking, then I would think that the first to introduce the new subject in the thread would be the guilty party.

I would like to begin by bringing my previous post on the matter over to this forum.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3136/6.html#000078

Galaxies rotate in the neighborhood of hundreds of km per second. This is not relativistic so I do not understand the need to go to the relativistic formula, but I will indulge you.

Let's take the hydrogen alpha line as our starting point to give an arbitrary wavelength and frequency. It is 6563 angstroms. Let's also take as an example a galaxy at such a distance that the speed of light was 1000 times greater than the current speed when the observed light was emitted and that said galaxy rotates at 250 km/s.

As you said, wavelength is constant under changing speeds of light, so we will use that fact. With normal lightspeed, the frequency of a 6563 A wave would be 4.5711E14. With 1000 fold higher lightspeed this value would be 4.5711E17.

Now if you plug these frequencies and rotational velocities through the relaticistic doppler shift, using the appropriate speed of light for each case, you find something interesting.

The difference in wavelength from each side of the galaxy for the given spectral line for the increased speed of light case is 1000.4 times less than it should be. Now earlier, when using the nonrelativistic formula, I said that it would be exactly 1000 fold to little.

As you said, wavelegth does not change, so this discrepancy will be carried forward through whatever changes in light speed are asserted to have occurred. The problem does not go away by shifting to relativistic versions.

 

Now, let's move ahead with the latest post.

Helen presents the formula

f* = f + v/L

There is a serious problem that she overlooks in her handling of the formula.

Let's recall that

c = f * L

Solving for f we get

f = c / L

Let's substitute this into the new formula.

c / L = c / L + v / L

Now it should be obvious that we have a problem. Because the speed of light is changing between the emission of the light and the observation of the light, the "c" term on each side has a different value. To see how this affects things, let's first take the special case of no Doppler shift at all. This sets v = 0.

Now, Helen has stated before that the frequency changes while the wavelength stays the same. Going back to the example of light emitted when the speed of light was 1000 times greater, this means that the frequency of hte light will have decreased by 1000 fold also during the transit of the light. You see this clearly by looking at the earlier formula.

f = c / L

If L is held constant, then when c decreases, f will decrease by a proportional amount.

So let's consider what we have in our example. The speed of light at time 1, c1, is 1000 times greater than the speed at time 2, c2. So

c1 = 1000 * c2

or

c2 = c1 / 1000

Let's substitute this in and see how it works just as Helen has described.

f* = f + v / L

with v = 0 and c2 = c1 / 1000 and f* = c2 / L and f = c1 / L we get

c1 / (1000 * L) = c1 / L

Solve through this and you will get the correct change in frequency during the transit.

Now we will return to the case of a Doppler shift.

c1 / (1000 * L) = c1 / L + v / L

Let's multiply through by 1000.

c1 / L = 1000 * (c1 / L + v / L)

It should now be clear that the change in frequency caused by the Doppler motion will be affected by the same 1000 fold change as previously asserted.

 

UTEOTW, very well done analysis!

 

Let's take a look at the problem from a separate point of view.

Let's imagine that instead of observing the light now, the light is observed immediately after it is emitted such the the change in the speed of light between the time of emission and time of observation can be approxiamted to be zero.

Let's go back to the formula provided by Helen.

f* = f + v / L

Let's solve for the change in frequency.

(f* - f) = v / L

Now, let us again consider what happens to frequency as the speed of light changes according to the model being presented. Since L is held constant, the frequency changes by the same factor as the change in lightspeed.

So in the case of light that is observed immediately after being emitted, we see that

delta L = f* - f

Let's talk a little more in depth here about what a Doppler shift is. Let's take an object that is emitting light at a given wavelength. If the object is in motion, then the wavelength of the light is lengthened of shortened by how far the object moves during the time to emit one wavelength. This is the basis of the formula provided by Helen.

So, since the motion changes the wavelength and thus the frequency, the difference is there as soon as the light is emitted. (Since what we are ultimately dealing with here is the difference in velocity between the side of a galaxy rotating towards us and the side rotating away from us, we can safely use our own position as a reference and not worry about additional shifts due to motion of us or the galaxy with respect to one another. Those will not come into play when simply looking at the difference in velocity across the disk of the target galaxy.)

So, again, we have

delta L = f* - f

Now during transit, the final value of f* will change by a factor of 1000 as will the final value of f. Let's represent that this way.

f*2 = f*1 / 1000

and f2 = f1 / 1000

Now you should be able to see that for an observer on earth

delta L = f*1 / 1000 - f1 / 1000

As shown with various methods in other posts, the observed change in wavelength, or frequency, will be less by the same factor as the speed of light has changed. In our example, this value is 1000 fold.

So, now we have seen by four different methods of calculation that the measured values of galactic rotation will be off by a factor equal to the factor by which the speed of light has changed since the light was emitted. Since this simple prediction of light speed decay is not observed, it cannot be a suitable hypothesis to explain the problems which it attempts to address.

 

Or perhaps...

http://www.creationism.org/ackerman/AckermanYoungWorldChap08.htm

 

JackRUS

This is the subject that is being discussed. The Barry Setterfield that is talked about on that link is Helen's husband. The specific discussion centers on a potential fatal flaw for the theory. In the past, I have tried to bring up several different simple predictions that can be made from the theory and ask for evidence that these things have indeed been observed. For some, the effect would be subtle and Helen and I disagree on whether such effects should be observed and whether they have been observed. But this aspect, measured galaxy rotation rates, is very simple to understand and very easy to measure. In my opinion, the hypothesis fails this test.

 

I must point out an obvious typo in the above discussion. The change in frequency should have been noted as "delta f" and not "delta L." This does not affect the point of the discussion nor change the formulas presented (other than fixing the typo). My apologies.

 

The galaxy rotation argument has been presented for quite a while now as evidence against the Setterfield theory and I've also prepared a little bit of an anlysis against the quote Helen provided in the other thread defending Setterfield theory. Here goes!

It is good to know that Barry has decided to take this serious objection seriously.

In other words, they would appear to disprove Setterfield theory.

Yes, one might indeed think that very thought. Here's why. Light has a wave pattern. It travels out from a star with wave after wave going forth in a definate pattern, a definate spacing of the waves. But if the star is ALSO moving towards us, then every time a follow up "wave" or "crest" of light goes forth from the star, it must be adjusted by the fact that the star, having moved a little bit towards us in the meantime. This crowds the waves closer together as they come towards us.

And, if the star happens to be going away from us, it stretches out the waves.

Now a moments reflection will show that this crowding and stretching is, of necessity, taking place right there at the time and place the very waves of light are being made, not in transit, or when they reach us. So, at the time they leave the star, the two key factors that are involved in determining how much stretching or compressing takes place would be (a) the speed of light at that time and (b) the speed of the motion towards or away from us. Nothing else would be involved at all.

Setterfield CDK theory, being a YEC rescue theory, is constrained by the need to tie the number of years since the beginning of the universe to about 10,000. He speeds light up by millions of times in the beginning of the universe to make us able to see things at the astronomical distances they are seen. But what does it mean to say that light is millions of times faster? Faster in relation to what? It is in relation to orbital velocities, at least. Nobody can deny that the definition of a year is the time it takes the earth to circle the sun. That's an orbit. Setterfield theory insists there have only been about 10000 earth orbits to take place while light has traveld over distances of billions of light years and then slowed down to only one light year per year. That is what Helen is referring to in the above sentence.

Using the frequency is a tricky thing here, because it involves both the length of the waves and the speed of the waves. This allows a certain confusion to come in to play, which allows Setterfield to perform his verbal gymnastics.

Setterfield theory requires that regardless of the speed of light, the wavelengths of the emitted light do not change, only the speed of the wave as it moves through space. This affects the frequency of the wave, of course. It is a necessary thing for the wave lengths to not change, or else ADAM would have been blinded, trying to see things by light of such long wave length they could not be focused by his normal sized eyes.

This is an important part of Setterfield physics, folks, as the speed of light slows, the wavelengths never change, only the frequencies change, and they change in direct relationship with the speed of light change. Keep that in mind.

The mathematically challenged readers will be unable to follow this but here goes anyway. Setterfield has conveniently neglected to mention the all important initial ratio derived by these formulas.

If a given v in equation 125 remains the same but the c is pumped up by a factor of a million, what happens to f*?

All the expressions following f have an enormously bigger C in the bottom of their fractions. You all know that 1/1 is much bigger than 1/1,000,000. Given the the v of equation 125 is, for galaxy rotation amounts, typically less than a thousandth of the speed of light in our modern era, what happens to f* in such cases?

I leave it to your imagination just how little f* will diverge from f if c is pumped up like that. (Hint: about a million times less than it would today). Just scan the equation, folks, see for yourselves! So the RATIO f* to F would be very very close to one, they would be practically equal, for commonly observed rotation rates in the galaxies.

Right there, folks, in this very phrase above, Setterfield mentions again how the frequencies are going to drop in proportion. This means, friends, according to the elementary principles of mathematics, that f*/f will STILL BE THE SAME in the new, slower light environment, that is ALMOST IDENTICAL TNE, which is what Ute and I have been all along saying, his theory predicts the rotation of galaxies should be practically immeasurable. Nevertheless, Setterfield blythly continues on:

One senses somehow that this last phrase is intended to cinch the matter, but note the sneaky way he refers to the classical doppler formula. The first term v/l can be allowed to stand alone without mentioning c in the classic equation, all right, but that is because the classic equation assumes that light has a constant velocity all along the route. The classic equation could not take that form if light speed variation were contemplated at all, and we all know that the scientists who developed those equations did so without regard to any thought of light speed changing.

The wording is somehow suggestive, on the surface, of saying Setterfield physics should result in no observational differences at all in the appearance of galaxy rotations across the universe. But when analyzed for content, it all falls apart.

 

I haven't had time to read through the initial argument in detail, but my assumption is that in order to reach an age of ~6000 years for the universe, a particular initial value of c is necessary.

Would it be possible to ramp up this initial value of c by some orders of magnitude and reach the conclusion that the universe is, say, 600 years old? Does the theory demand a single initial value of c, or will it accept various ones?

 

Kitchen getting too hot?

I have seen no attacks, only rebuttals and discussion.

 

This is why I have never wanted to do this through email and your webpage. The ability to have a discussion goes out the window.

And you are right. This is not a Setterfield attack board or discussion board. And no one is attacking Barry. You should know that an attack upon an idea is not the same as an attack on a person. That is why we have defined the fallacy of the ad hominem. It is not a good argument to attack the person. And no one has. No one has said he lied or he is an idiot or anything. It has purely been a discussion if ideas.

But if you do not want this to be discussed in public and in such forums, then you should restrain yourself from initiating the discussion as you have over the last few days. If you are going to bring it up yourself, then you should not real away in horror when someone then wants to challenge what you are saying. There is no logical reason that you should think that you can bring it up but then everyone else is wrong for wanting to continue the discussion that you began.

"UTE, when the speed of light changes, wave frequency is no longer primary, but secondary. This is where you are not understanding what is going on. Barry will respond more fully on the website."

Yes, I addressed this.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3139.html#000006

When the light is emitted, the wavelength, frequency has already been changed by the motion of the rotation of the galaxy. This can be copnsidered an absolute kind of motion. The Doppler shift due to the rotation is caused by the actual rotation and is independent of any other motion happenning with the galaxy or the observer.

This rotation sets the difference in wavelength between the light from each side of the galaxy. The hiher speed of light and the corresponding higher frequency for a given wavelength means that the change in wavelength is reduced by the same factor as how much that the speed of light is increased. It is unavoidable. If the frequency is 1000 times higher then ther 1/1000th as long of a period of time for each wave to be compressed or lengthened. There is no way around this problem. As the light slows, these wavelength differnces do not change.

You will notice that I have done the analysis based o n both what happens to the wavelength and the frequency. It comes out the same. I have done it for nonrelativistic and relativistic cases. The same answer is reached.

This is very simple math. Any high school student should be able to do it so I doubt I have made a mistake. If I have, my work is here on a public forum for anyone to review. The mistake that you are making is that the Doppler shift happens when the speed of light is high but you are framing the math in such a way that the shift is calculated based on the present, lower speed of light. My analysis, and that of Paul above, points out this problem in sufficient detail. It is the equivilent of the logical fallcy of equivocation. You are using two different values for the speed of light in a formula that assumes they are the same. This is pointed out mathematically above when I substitute the formula based on f = c /L.

"That is where this material will be responded to in full."

Why can we not get discussion in the forum where you initiated it and where responses can be analyzed and challenged? You have been insulting me for a long time with your phrase that I just don't understand. I am, again, asking for and giving you the opportunity to show me where I am wrong.

"I have long had permission from the webmaster to use any material on this board on our website, so that is what we will do. The website is in the middle of major changes right now (different server, etc. and I am switching from Front Page to Dream Weaver) and should be up and running in about a week."

That is the other normal answer. The answer will be coming at some time in the future. I understand you are busy and some of the unique challenges you have. But these answers have been promised for a long time.

 

Before I leave the house, I thought of one more way to illustrate the point of how different values of "c" are being equivocated.

But first I must ask if you have carefully and openly read my postings in recent days? I have spend many hours carefully reading things from you. Posts. Your website. References from your posts and website, some of which took some digging. You have always been the most enjoyable of the YEers here with which to interact because you were always the best informed and had long ago gropped many of the silly things that mar most of YE.

Anyhow...

Let's go back to your equation.

f* = f - v / L

Now, let's substitute the L according to

L = c / f

Now, you will see that the higher value of "c", the one from the accelerated speed of light that is present when the light is emitted and thereby shifted, must be used.

You end up dividing by this higher value of the speed of light. So the shift is reduced by however much the speed of light is increased.

You error results from not being careful enough about what value of the speed of light is appropriate in the various terms of the equations you use. It is complicated by the fact that the equations in use do not contemplate different speeds of light and therefore consider it to be a constant. When it is not, there are terms that are different that are not so easily apparent. It is a forgivable mistake, but is definately present.

 

Lemme add one observation that the average layman will understand...RELATIVITY. Let's suppose we have a train traveling 60 MPH(88 feet per second) that's blowing its whistle at a frequency of 600 hz. If I'm standing near the track, the whistle's sound will be approaching me at about 1100 feet per second...but the whistle sounds to me as if it's sounding at 800hz because the train is moving toward me and between each sound wave, it moves a little closer to me, reducing the space between the waves by the amount of distance the train covers between the waves. Thus, the waves are closer together, and my hearing perceives them as an 800-hz sound. As the distance between the train and I decreases, the sound seems to increase in frequency because of the proportion of the decrease of the distance between me and the train decreases as it comes closer, and the distance between the waves heading toward me decreases accordingly. While the train is 880 feet from me, it covers 1/10 its distance from me in one second. When it's 176 feet away, it covers HALF the distance from me in one second; therefore the waves are much-closer together.

Also, ANGULAR velocity plays into the mix. If I'm standing on the tracks so the train is coming directly at me, the Doppler effect will be at its max because the distance between me and the whistle will be at its minimum at any point on the train's path. (DON'T TRY THAT AT HOME!) If I'm standing a mile away from the tracks, the Doppler effect will be minimal because the angular velocity of the train as compared with my location will be much-lower than the train's actual speed.

Another point...THE SOUND WAVES CANNOT TRAVEL THROUGH THE AIR ANY FASTER THAN C.1100 FEET A SECOND. Thus, if I were near the tracks & the train were moving 300 mph & tooted its whistle while it was 1100 feet from me, it would still take a second for that sound to reach me. The train's speed, as it approaches, is NOT added to the speed of its whistle's sound, nor is it deducted when the train passes me. As each sound wave is generated, it moves away from its point of origin at 1100 feet a second in all directions. It expands from its point of origin in a circle. Some of it doesn't get very far, as it strikes parts of the train, and the ground, but that doesn't affect the rest of the wave.

Obviously, we're dealing with much-greater speeds & distances when dealing with intergalactic light, but the principles are still the same. We are traveling at somewhere about 1000 mph, faster at the equator, none at the earth's rotational poles, due to earth's rotation. We are moving over 20 miles per second as the earth orbits the sun. We are moving over 155 miles a second as our solar system orbits the center of the galaxy. Our whole galaxy is moving at about 185 miles per second within its group of galaxies. Our local group is moving toward a larger group of over 2000 galaxies at about 200 miles a second. However, we don't feel those motions because of God's gift of RELATIVITY. If WE are moving at the same speed as our surroundings, we don't detect the motion by senses of touch and balance at all.

And all those speeds added together are nowhere near the speed of light, so their Doppler effect is almost undetetable.

If I'm driving a car at 60 mph with the windows up, I seem to be still, discounting the vibrations from my tires. If there's a fly inside the car, it can buzz around with no consequences due to my speed. If I pass a stationary pedestrian, and his/her eyes are sharp enough, the fly in my car will pass him at 60 mph, as will I & my car, even if the fly is buzzing around in the air. Now, we know a fly cannot actually travel 60 mph of its own volition, but if it's flying 1 mph in the same direction as the car's going, it will pass the pedestrian at 61 mph because its speed is added to that of its surroundings.

If I roll down the window, I'll feel a 60 mph wind if the weather is calm. What I'm feeling is the result of my speed in relation with the surroundings. If the fly gets sucked out the window, it'll experoence a brief 60 mph before the air halts its progress. Assuming the fly survives that sudden change in speed, my car will now be traveling away from it at 60 MPH.

I once saw this relativity illustrated on the Ripley's believe It Or Not TV show. In the early 1950s, Bob Feller was one of the best and fastest-throwing baseball pitchers of his day. Several people claimed Feller could throw faster than 100 mph, while others doubted it...so, the show got feller to consent to a test. They had a pro motorcycle rider using a bike with a certified-accurate speedometer, equipped with a motion-pic camera, ride by Feller at exactly 100 mph, as Feller tried to time pitching a baseball exactly with the MC's passing. Feller timed it perfectly; the camera showed the ball passing the mc a little, then slowing as it dropped. Feller indeed could throw over 100 mph.

I believe we know the law of relativity, but cannot always put every aspect of it into words. But when considering the intergalactic distances and speeds, we should remember light works on the very same principles as do sound waves.

I hope this simplifies the discussion a little, aside from mathematical formulae.

BTW, science has NOT been able to speed up light, although scientists have been able to slow it to about 38 mph within a certain translucent jelly. I believe its speed is constant in space.

 

Thanx for your link, Helen! I see more of what Barry is getting at.

I recall reading that the Hubble scope has revealed much more universe than could be seen from earth, and that the red shift of several of the farthest objects was sometimes less than that of nearer objects....but that scientists explained it away as being equivalent to an aerial fireworks burst, where the burst is somewhat circular, some of its inner parts move away from the burst point faster than the farthest ones do.

I shall await the full posting of his work, but to me this is yet another support for the 'old universe' theory.