Galaxy rotation

I must ask that if you insist on moving this to your own webpage that all of the material I have posted on this thread be included in its entirety. At least that which is relevant to the discussion. There are a few side issues that can be safely removed and not lose the context nor the heart of the discussion. If the verbal descriptions and mathematical parts are editted, condensed, paraphrased, whatever, I feel that the strength of the statement of the problem may be lost. And could you come back to this thread and post a link directly to the part of the discussion area where it is specifically addressed.

And as long as we are answering old questions...

Could you please add a discussion concerning your claims about a quasar at the center of our galaxy serving as a directional light source for a few days. The key points are that the most intrinsically bright quasars known are a minimum of three orders of magnitude too dim to have been as bright as the sun. In addition, the measured mass of the Milky Way's black hole is at least 2, maybe 3, orders of magnitude less massive than the brightest quasars. You only answer in the past has been that as the speed of light decreased, the black hole enlarged engulfing more material. This answer cannot be correct. While it is true that the black hole will get larger with a decreasing speed of light, what this means is that more and more of the disk which is emitting the energy will now be inside the event horizon which should actually cause slight dimming. OTOH, less energy from the center would allow slightly more material to fall towards the black hole. So the expected overall result should be very close to a zero change in luminosity.

I would also like a better explanation for the very old claims I have made about the lack of observation of the slowing down of purely gravitational systems, such as eclipsing binaries. The answer you have given in the past is that the last drop in redshift was more distant than the location of such objects that can be observed. This makes no sense for two reasons. One is that many of these objects are greater than 6000 ly away and therefore must have, by definition, intially had an accelerated speed of light. Second, you deny that such observations should be possible but in other places you claim anomalous behavior in objects as close as the moon and space probes we have launched. This is contradictory.

I am disappointed that you have chosen to bring this subject here but then back away from debate once it inevitably occurs. I hope that you will make up for this by giving these items a prompt, fair and complete review on your webpage. These items have been outstanding for a long time and have not been adequately answered in my opinion.

 

We assume you are talking about the redshift of the galaxies, which is used to measure the the rate of the expansion of the universe, or equivalently, the speed of the recession of the galaxies.

What does Barry do with the red shift of the great galaxy in Andromeda? At a distance of 2.9 million light years, it should already be showing a substantial "evidence" of participating in the light speed alteration of Setterfield physics. You already know, from your general science education, that it shows no red shift at all, in fact it has a mild blue shift, showing it will collide with our galaxy in a few billion years.

How do you reconcile your statement above with this fact?

The amount of the light speed change demanded by Setterfield theory is documented in his own papers as being well over a million fold. The red shift for galaxies billions of light year distance only show wave length stretching in the amount of 2 or 3 times.

How do you reconcile your statement above with this fact?

I don't understand that kind of reasoning at all. When light speed changes, and the wave length does not change, as stated over and over by Setterfield, then of necessity the frequency must change. They change in lock step with each other. If the frequency and the wave length both don't change, the speed of light can't possibly change.

How can the frequency be "secondary"?

 

Paul

This is something that I have never understood either, but I have never pressed. My logic is very similar to yours.

The way I understand it is that the theory accounts for redshift by saying that as the speed of light slows, the frequncy drops which mimics the redshift explained by modern astronomy as being caused by the expansion of the universe.

Now, this is what I do not understand. Let's take a given spectral line. In the past when the speed of light was higher, was the line emitted at the same frequency, the same wavelength or neither.

If the answer is the same wavelength, then you do not get any redshift from the slowing light since it stays the same.

If the answer is the same frequency, then you do not get nearly enough redshift observed. Let's use your example and logic of M31. It's velocity in our direction gives it a blue shift that amounts to a fraction of a percent of the wavelength / frequency of any specific line. But, because it is miilions of light years away, it is necessary that its light must have started out travelling at thousands of times greater velocity that currently observed for it to have reached here if a few thousand years. If light speed drops by a factor of 1000, so willl the frequency. This is not observed.

So this leaves the final answer. In the past, the spectral lines were emitted at different frequencies AND wavelengths. And these differences are extremely precisely correlated such that the combination of changing light speed and changing emission frequencies exactly match the expectations of the inflationary cold dark matter lambda theory of today. In this case, the Setterfield hypothesis becomes no so much an ida of changing light explaining the redshift as it is an idea of a very fine tuned variance in differences between eletron orbits in the past explaining redshift.

Since this is an area which has been confusing for a while and I have never found it explained succinctly, perhaps while Helen is adding the above problems and discussion to the webpage, we can get a short FAQ added along with it that describes exactly how the wavelength of spectral lines varied with changing light speed. It would be very interesting to see how this fine tuning is accomplished. It must vary. But it cannot very by the same fraction as light or else there would be no red shift observed. Perhaps we can be given an example of a particular object at a given distance. We could be given the speed of light when light from this object was emitted and how to calculate that. Then we could be given the wavelength of a particular spectral line for this object and distance and how to calculate that. It would be a first step to getting something that can be examined.

Though it would be nice to get discussion here where it was brought up and where it can be best responded to.

[ September 19, 2005, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

I for one am grateful that Helen at last posted SOMETHING about galactic rotation and the problem it poses for Setterfield physics. I also think that we should be in prayer for the Setterfields. I am convinced they are very very sincere in presenting this material and I am also convinced it simply doesn't compute and I am concerned about how these two concepts colliding in their minds will affect them.

 

Probably because most of the rest of us are still scratching our heads.

So far, I've been able to gather that:

The expanding universe results in a red shift of light.
Our Solar system orbits the Milky Way Galaxy once every 250,000,000 years (once every quarter-billion years).

That the most concise post here was Natters' "And all of God's people said 'huh?' " post.

 

Johnv, I'm truly sorry that the educational system in this country has failed our citizens so that you and others like you, obviously bright people, are unable to participate in this exchange about light speed and galactic rotation.

 

Ute, another idea has occurred to me.

As you are aware, Setterfield light-speed slowing necessariy implies that we will see everything from a distant galaxy moving slower, in exactly the same slowed fashion as the light itself slowed on its way to us.

Setterfield himself has acknowledged this and depended on this affect to explain the otherwise inexplicable problem for his theory that light echoes from supernova appear to expand at the normal speed for light at the calculated distance.

The observed slowing of all motion would necessarily apply to the rotation of galaxies, of course, and that is an alternate way of looking at the exact same thing we are discussing in terms of the doppler shift showing the receding and approaching limbs of galaxies.

Well, it occurs to me that the limbs of galaxies are not the only items that have doppler shifts out there. There are also eclipsing binaries. It should be possible to locate an eclipsing binary star and measure the timing of its orbit by the period of the eclipses. This being an absolute timing kind of thing, the slow down affect of light speed slowing should show that eclipsing slowed down as well. We can then compare that method of timing the orbital paramaters with the same conclusion about the orbital paramaters based on the doppler shifting.

If the two praramaters fail to separate widely due to the slow down affect being visible in the one hand and the doppler shift failing to work in accordance with Setterfield calculations of the doppler affect being somehow immune to the otherwise all incompassing slow down affect of the light speed slowing, this will be again a rather difficult observation for him to explain.

On the other hand, should he be able to show that there has been this problem of a divergence between binary star orbit timing based on doppler shifts and binary star orbit timing based on stars occulting each other, perhaps this would count as evidence on his side. He could scour the astronomical literature for just such discrepancies and see what he may find.

 

It is Barry’s position that the earth is not much more than 10,000 years old (if even that), and he is arguing, therefore, that that virtually every scientist alive today is incapable of understanding what is so clear to him. That is not only the grossest and most sinful arrogance that I can possibly conceive of; it is also the most blatant and irresponsible insult that I can possibly imagine to scientists all over the world!

Most certainly if I came up with a theory of science that put me in a very tiny minority made up of a bunch of Christian fundamentalist extremists rather than objective men of science, I would make every effort to get the very best psychiatric care available. And Barry is not only at odds with thousands of physicists and astronomers; he is also directly at odds with the vast majority of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, palynologists, mycologists, entomologists, botanists, zoologists, herpetologists, chemists, and other sane and well educated persons. And it is not as though he is outnumbered by just 20 to one—he is outnumbered by more that 200 to one. And it is not as though he is on equal footing with those who oppose him—he is opposed by men and women who are very much more learned and objective than he is.

Therefore, I believe that it is expressly clear who needs to “grow up.”

 

My Personal View of Evolution as a Christian Man

I am a born-again, conservative, evangelical Christian. And as such a man, I do not believe that modern man evolved from a lower form of life, but that modern man is a direct and divine creation of God. As a scientist, however, it is my duty and my responsibility to be objective rather than subjective, and I know for an incontrovertible fact the body of scientific evidence, as we have it today, points very clearly to a very old earth and universe, and the evolution of man from lower forms of life. Is my faith at odds with the scientific data? Yes, it is. Is my science at odds with the scientific data, no it is not.

I choose, as a Christian, to believe what my personal faith tells me is true. I choose, as a scientist, to accept what the data points to regarding evolution, and I find here an apparent contradiction. As a Christian, I choose to accept what the biblical data points to regarding the age of the earth and the universe. As a scientist, I choose to believe what the data points to regarding the age of the earth and the universe, but I find here no contradiction whatsoever.

 

it is also the most blatant and irresponsible insult that I can possibly imagine to scientists all over the world!

Most certainly if I came up with a theory of science that put me in a very tiny minority made up of a bunch of Christian fundamentalist extremists rather than objective men of science, I would make every effort to get the very best psychiatric care available. And Barry is not only at odds with thousands of physicists and astronomers; he is also directly at odds with the vast majority of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, palynologists, mycologists, entomologists, botanists, zoologists, herpetologists, chemists, and other sane and well educated persons.
/QB][/QUOTE]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
So what???

If you were at my gasoline station and I were fillin' your tank up with a lighted cigarette danglin' out of my mouth with my nose practically touching the nozzle of the hose--- and I knew I could do that and get away with it every time---that I had a system down where I knew I could without being blown "sky high"---and I knew I could handle the chemical's volital makeup even with a cigarette danglin' from my mouth---but yet it made you nervous to watch me----but yet I knew how to handle this chemical without having a nervous breakdown---would that offend you that I know how to handle certain chemicals with a lit cigarette----jealous would be the word for it!!

Give me a list of proper names and I will ask they come to my house and apologize to me for being insulted!!!!!

Blackbird

 

Paul

You are absolutely correct. That is a new and interesting way to test these assertions. We have brought up eclipsing binaries in the past, butthis is a bit of a different slant on the idea.

I love it. You measure the distance to the pair, their angular separation and the Doppler velocities. You now have enough information to accurately calculate the orbital parameters including mass and, most importantly, orbital period. From the distance, Setterfield should be able to calculate and exact discrepancy that should be observed in the frequency of the eclipses. To astronomers, this difference would be an unexplained anomaly. But Setterfiled could very accurately predict the differences. That is if the Doppler shift is as he claims.

------------------------

For the reader, the previous way of examining this used a different set of data. If you know the distance, separation and spectral type of the star you have enough information to do the other calculations. Spectral type will give you mass information. However, Paul's idea of the Doppler shift measurement is more straight forward and more accurate.

------------------

I wonder what the odds are of all this being properly phrased and properly addresses in the Q&A section of the webpage next week? There are several good topics here.

 

The speed of light in a vacuum is C. 186K miles per second. Using this speed, astronomy has determined that the farthest object we can see with the naked eye is the Andromeda Galaxy, so distant that it takes light from it over 2 million years to reach us. Now, if light was being slowed down, it would take it even longer to reach us.

The truth is, God does NOT tell us when He created the physical universe.

 

Now now, not everyone need be an expert. I'm an expert at some things that many others will be saying "huh" to. I'm more than happy to learn from the experts here and remain silent myself. That doesn't mean that the educational sysem has in any way failed me.

 

As per request of Helen, the original poster of this thread---we will "padlock" the gates to get in as of right now!!

Thanks!

Blackbird