Setterfield and the variable speed of light model

My recollection is that Barry could offer no good explanation for the implications of his theory in regard to changing mass. It seems to be quite common for both Helen and Barry to respond to a question by answering some other question, even those that were not asked.

The Setterfields, a year or so ago, were telling how that one of his papers was in a journal's review process. Now we hear nothing about that, I suppose because it was not accepted.

 

I am curious about the time slowing aspects of the theory. Barry freely shows in the writings on his website that distant actions should seem to be slower at distance. You even use this above in response to the question about observing atomic processes at great distances above. So why is it that the fastest known pulsar, in supernova remnant N157B, is in the LMC? It seems to my layman reasoning that the LMC is far enough away that the observed rate of its rotation should have been slowed. And if its rotational rate that we observe is actual slowed by changing light speed, then does any one know if that high rate of rotation might have an effect on theories of supernovas and pulsar formation? The more general statement is that it seems that we should be observing slowing processes at increasing distance that I am not sure that we actually observe.

Edit to ask:

Since it would be slower for me to try and dig through your equations, can I ask a question. Light reaching us now from the LMC, about 170,000 light years away, how much faster would the light have been traveling then than now? 170,000 / 6000 gives a minimum average of about 28 fold faster but I expect that it would be much higher than that just because the speed would have been changing the whole time.

[ May 31, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

Helen wrote:

I'm not sure what types of measurements you are talking about, Helen. Off hand I can only think of rather unsurprising measurements of crystalline lattice constants (by x-ray or other diffraction) and macroscopic weighing of those crystals yielding molecular (or atomic) masses of those crystals' constituents disagreeing with (by perhaps a few parts per million) microscopic mass measurements for those same constituents.

Is that the type of experiment, or are you talking about something else?

 

Peter101 wrote:

You're partly right, Peter. Setterfield did submit a paperto at least two reputable journals, but was rejected by both. You are wrong, however, to suppose that we hear nothing about the paper's rejection. About a year ago that was all the rage here. Helen did bitterly complain of the unfairness of the refereeing process that led to its rejection. I suppose we have head little about it lately simply because the topic has become unfashionable. I haven't lately heard Helen complain specifically about that paper's rejection.

However, the Setterfields do continue to publicly do battle with Journal referees. At http://www.setterfield.org/staticu.html you can read Barry Setterfield's account of the recent rejection of a recent paper of his by the creationist Journal, [italic]Creation Research Society Quarterly[/italic]. I do not know if or where there is currently a publicly-avilable account of Setterfield's version of the rejection of the article he submitted to mainstream Journals. I don't know if the rejected article is available either.

 

Paul of Eugene wrote:

Paul, you may be conflating two works of van Flandern. Helen is referring to some old work by van Flandern in which he claims that lunar laser-ranging data and timings of lunar stellar occultations indicate a slowing down of atomic processes with respect to "dynamic" (read "gravitational") processes. That work has not been widely accepted, but its failings have nothing to do with van Flandern's understanding (or lack thereof) of relativity.

You are, perhaps, thinking of a paper he wrote on alleged problems with gravitation having to propagate faster than the speed of light. In that paper he simply misunderstood the nature of the gravitational interaction in General Relativity. He incorrectly supposed that it was a central-force interaction (in General Relativity it is not quite so) and calculated that it would have to propagate much faster than the speed of light or disagree with observation. I do not think Helen was referring to that latter paper here.

 

Paul of Eugene wrote:

Helen replied:

To which Paul responded:

Firstly, in response to Paul's original remark, it should be emphasized that the Doppler shift does not measure velocities, but rather the ratio of v(t)/c(t), where t is the time of emission of the light we are seeing.

If gravitational effects were weaker in the past relative to "atomic" effects, then velocities of gravitationally-bound objects (not to metion the ratio of those velocities to the then supposedly faster speed of light) would have been less than at present. Hence rotational Doppler shifting of distant galaxies ought to be much less than in nearby galazies of similar mass distribution, according to Setterfield's theory.

Helen's response that Setterfield is working on "[t]he Doppler equation in relation to gravitational effects" is just misleading nonsense. Gravitational Doppler shifts tend to be small even in conventional physics and astronomy. In Setterfield's physics they would necessarily be even smaller in the distant past due to the relative weakening, in the past, of gravitational effects with respect to "atomic" effects.

Paul was dead right in his response that there are not very many Doppler Equations and they aren't very complicated. But one has to wonder why Setterfield would even bother working on that aspect of his theory when other more basic concerns have not been addressed.

Where are the Setterfield Equations of motion, the equations of motion corresponding to Newton's Laws of motion? Although Setterfield has reached grand conclusions of cosmological scale with his theory, that basic foundation is lacking.

Setterfield has given us his version of Maxwell's Equations (although, as I showed in a previous post he uses a time scale making them more complicated than nec essary.) But we have never seen something as basic as the Setterfield counterpart to the equation governing the pondermotive (electric and magnetic) force on a moving charged body. Why not? Without it it's hard to do calculations in Setterfield's theory.

Never have we seen the differential equations that govern the gravitational motion of planets and stars. Isaac Newton did not think it too undignified to do so with his theory.

Setterfield asserts (probably correctly) that variable speed of light models are not incompatible with special relativity; but he has not even tried to show that HIS variable speed of light model is compatible with special relativity.

Although Setterfield makes much of the quantum theory of the hydrogen atom in his theory he has introduced no Setterfield analog of the Schrödinger Wave Equation. Without such an equation it is not possible to evaluate his claims as to what does or does not happen at the supposed "quantum transitions" when qtoms suddenly can absorb energy from the increasing background zero-point energy.

In short, there is no theory, at least as that term is understood by physicists. What Action Principle permits Setterfield's theory to be derived from it. If there isn't one, what significance does Setterfield attach to that? If fundamental physical constants are varying with time, and the law of conservation of energy is (as is understood by every physicist) a consequence of the time-invariance of fundamental dynamical equations, why does Setterfield suppose that energy conservation should hold in his theory?

I could go on and on. Those and similar questions are the questions physicists would want to know of a supposedly promising physical theory. They are questions we expect to have answered, or at least to have a novel theory presented in such a way that one might attempt to answer them. But Setterfield has not written down the basis of his theory. Instead he has chosen to give us its conclusions, or to work on advanced ideas (gravitational Doppler shift) which cannot possibly succeed without a sound basic theory.

When are we going to get Newton's Laws of Motion modified for Setterfield's theory?

 

I wrote:

Helen reploed:

Thank you, Helen, but that's not the article I was referring to. I was talking about the one rejected by two mainstream journals (some astronomy journal and [italic]Journal of Physics[/italic], I think). The article pointed to by the URL you gave is the article rejected by CRSQ. Is the other article available on line somethere?

 

Helen,

It seems that you have argued in the past that the 2nd law of thermodynamics conflicts with evolution. Recently, and I think for the first time, several authors of textbooks on thermodynamics have given their opinion of the issue. You can find those opinions at the following site:

http://www.ntanet.net/Thermo-Internet.htm

All three of these experts have written at least one textbook on thermodynamics, and all agree that the creationist argument is mistaken.

 

I've got a strange notion in my head about Setterfield variable light speed theory and I'd like to run it by folks who are interested in it to see what they think.

We all know how light will change direction when it passes through a medium that causes it to change its speed. This is the phenomenon that allows our eye lenses to focus and give us sight.

Setterfield theory postulates quantum changes in C occuring many hundreds of time since creation. These changes he postulates to occur simultaneously across the universe, using the motion state of the background radiation of the universe as the motion state of reference by which to define what simulutaneous means for the purpose of these light speed changes.

From our point of view, the light emanating from a given light speed shift S(n) will just now be arriving here as from a great sphere that surrounds the earth at the appropriate distance that light would have traveled from there to here in the time since that change.

But consider this: the earth is moving with respect to the background reference for absolute C changes to take place. This would mean that we are not in the center of the sphere so defined.

This in turn would seem to imply that light crossing the speed change boundary on its way to earth is, in some directions, not hitting the speed change boundary straight on, there would be some angle involved.

Might this imply then some kind of bending of the light ray should be expected?

There are a lot of issues to clear up before this can be settled. Light is normally refracted in situations where the wave length is altered but the frequency stays the same. Will the same refraction patterns abide when it is the wave length that stays the same and the frequency that changes?

Relativistic affects cause changes in the shape of things. Do relativistic affects rescue the apparant off centering effect of the earth's motion on the perceived expanding boundary change sphere? I don't see that occuring in my visualization of this situation, due to the definition of simultanity adopted in Setterfield theory being at variance with simultaneous events as defined from earth, but - ???

Anyway, its just a wild thought I'm tossing out to add to the mix.

 

I thank Helen for the corrected URL for the Setterfield article that was rejected by three Journals, and for the synopsis of the reasons for rejection by each.

I've got to say that I receive the news with mixed feelings; I've read the article in question, and thought that no one could possibly have submnitted it to any journal. On the other hand, it is among Setterfield's articles, easily the most sophisticated. If I'd had to pick one of the articles on his web site as the most likely to have been submitted to (and rejected by) a scientific Journal, I'd have picked that one.

But I am pleased to see the paper available on the web. I well recall your complaints (I think on this forum) about alleged injustices in the Journal refereeing of that paper, but we couldn't see the paper then. Now, at least, everyone interested can read the paper and judge for himself or herself whether a refereeing injustice was done.

I have a few comments. Helen wrote:

I recall discussing this one with you before. I can see why this one would bother you as a lay person. It would bother me also if thaat reason were given by referees for most Journals.

However, FOF is a bit of an eccentric Journal, and their definition of timliness and [general] interest are not the everyday definitions of those terms. FOF is more a philosophical Journal than an archival Journal. By "Foundations of Physics" is meant the seeking of a rigorous development of established physics. FOF is not the Journal in which to publish something novel. Even if I thought Setterfield's paper was perfectly sound I would not have expected FOF to have published it. It's just the wrong subject for the Journal.

Again, wrong Journal. I hope you have learned from those two rejection experiences. Part of scientific communication is picking the correct medium, the right Journal in which to publish. You wouldn't have tried to publish it in "Journal of Fluid Mechanics" or "Solid State Communications" either. If you had you would expect that the article would have been rejected out of hand by those Journals, even if the article was entirely correct.

Evidently you didn't know that FOF and AJ were bad choices for the subject matter of that article. I hope you learned better by now. It would be foolish for you to inveigh against either of those Journals for rejecting an article which, even if entirely correct, clearly falls outside the scope of either of those Journals.

The case of (3) below is, however, somewhat different:

At least that would have been a suitable Journal had the article been sound.

I remember you complaining about the first objection about using an introductory physics text as a reference. I do not think that it would be reasonable for any referee to reject an article solely on such a basis. It would be appropriate to insist on a different reference as a condition of publication, but not to reject an article outright solely on that basis.

As your synopsis of the referee report makes clear, however, that reference was only one of many objections the referee had.

The quantization of the second Bohr equation really doesn't make sense. If Setterfield had used quantum mechanics (a Schrôdinger Wave Equation instead of the old Bohr theory, which is known not to work) then he would have immediately run into the problem that there is no way to do the "quantization" he wants to do. Quantum conditions follow in quantum mechanics from boundary conditions on admissible solutions of the Schrôdinger Equation (or sometimes, as in the case of quantization of angular momentum, simply algebraic commutation relations of Hermetian Operators corresponding to observables.) You can't just impose quantum conditions arbitrarily. This is a difficult point to make to a non-physicist, since you do not understand where quantum conditions come from in quantum mechanics. In any event, if Setterfield thought that his second quantum condition made sense withoin quantum mechanics (rather than the old quantum theory) it would have been incumbent upon him to demonstrate it. Setterfield didn't, and the referee quite reasonably insisted he do so if the paper and its ideas are to be taken seriously.

Regarding the use of SED rather than QED, you need to remember that the SED program (still unrealized) is to duplicate (or establish its testable differences from) QED. QED is the established theory that makes predictions to as many as 11 significant figures (the electron g factor). SED can sometimes duplicate QED, but not everywhere. SED is a more intuitively pleasing approach. Someday it may establish itself to rival QED, but not yet.

If someone wants to do new physics based on SED one must, to be taken seriously, either demonstrate that one's new results agree with QED (thus doing the derivation in QED as well as SED) or that they disagree. Or if one can't establish whether QED and SED give the same results for whatever one is doing, one must discuss the calculational difficulties prohibiting a determination.

Remember that QED is, in terms of its predictive precision, the most successful theory bar none in all of science. SED is not. You are free to philosophically prefer the conceptual simplicity of SED over the weirdness of QED, but if you base your theory on SED it is incumbent upon you to explain at great lenght and breadth why.

Regarding the final referee point about quantum redshift not being the study of any studies except those of Tifft, you are correct that the referee was wrong (although my reading is that Tifft's work is not taken too seriously by most astronomers. However, among astronomers he does have his defenders, and the referee's remark was wrong.)

However, ignoring the first point (the text book reference) which could have been easily corrected, and the fourth (the mistaken remark on the uniqueness of Tifft's studies) there remain points 2 and 3 (and any others that the referee didn't bother to mention.) Either or both is sufficient to torpedo the whole paper. The paper needs to be, at least, rewritten in terms of standard quantum mechanics (and quantum electrodynamics) with a view towards explaining how the novel quantization arises. This means essentially a complete rewriting of the paper.

Note that this is the case even if the paper is otherwise completely sound. The paper as written does not meet curren standards for a paper in a professional physics Journal. (Good grief. I haven't harped much on QED versus SED, but even I have ragged Setterfield about his failure to use ordinary quantum mechanics in favor of the ancient Bohr theory. If Setterfield won't listen to me, won't he please at least take heed of the referee's remark on the same subject?)

"My criteria" are those of any professional physicist. If he wants to publish as a professional physicist, and be respected among them, he must adopt their high standards.

Regarding his being a creationist, that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I have written about his paper. I have made many criticisms of it, but none has had to do with alleged creationist implications of the paper. Its physics is so bad that I haven't even gotten to the supposed creationist aspects yet. I doubt whether any of the Journal referees thought the article had any creationist implications either. In order to reach them one has to get to the equation transforming dynamical time to atomic time. But before getting ther one has to wade through too much "unphysics".

Glad to hear it. I look forward to seeing many citations from many authors of this respected physicist's work.

He can start with the replacements for Newton's Laws of Motion. Without them his theory isn't just not right. It's not even wrong. It's not even a physical theory. The problem isn't that he hasn't done everything. It's that he hasn't done ANYTHING expected of a physicist with exciting and novel results.

I thought it was only 16 years ago in 1987. I thought we weren't allowed to discuss anything he did back in, say, 1983. Something about discussion of a calculated .99999999+ correlation coefficient for scattered data being verboten...

 

Helen,

I don't have the right background to comment on most of the physics aspects of Barry's ideas, except in certain cases, such as his mistakes with statistics, which were quite elementary. But of course, Barry does not wish that ancient aspect of his work to be considered. Still, it seems to me that Mark's comments have the ring of truth. To the extent that I dimly understand this type of physics, I see much the same thing in Barry's papers.

However, the situation seems to be that Barry's papers have been continously rejected for a period of 20 years or so, not only by mainstream journals but by creationist journals as well. This is a rare situation. It is not uncommon to have a paper rejected, but for most professionals in science, a string of continuous rejections, over many years is very rare. It seems to me that given the normal turnover of editors and reviewers and the large number of journals, a large number of editors and reviewers have found nothing of interest or perhaps serious errors in Barry's work. Is it really reasonable for him to continue to take such a beating? Does he ever seriously consider that the critics might be right and that he is on the wrong path?

What I would suggest, even at this late stage in his life, is that he enroll in a degree program in physics. Even if he has to work on an undergraduate degree, this might be satisfying to him and provide an outlet for his energies. I think it is obvious that he has done a great deal of study on his own and that he perhaps has a little talent in the field, even though his papers may not now be of publishable quality. If he is truly as capable in physics as he thinks, he should be able to breeze through to a graduate degree in a short time and with a degree, he would certainly be more credible. With a better education, I think also that he might see some problems in his approach that he does not now recognize. His persistence is admirable, although in my opinion, the quality of his judgment is not good.

The long string of continuous rejections should tell both of you that there is something lacking in his background and approach, otherwise he would occasionally be able to publish something. Scientists who are truly good in their field commonly publish several papers a year. One of the experts in thermodynamics, who was asked to review the creationist argument, has over 160 journal articles to his credit. So you see, when someone cannot get a single paper published, then the proposition that he has an astounding new theory that will revolutionize physics, is a difficult idea to accept.

Be careful of forming the opinion that all those editors and reviewers are just idiots and somehow fail to realize the immense importance of his work. There are thousands of failed eccentrics who have thought along similar lines. It has been my experience that editors and reviewers are often quite competent and their judgments should be considered seriously. I would say the same thing about Mark's comments here. He seems to be telling you the truth. I suspect that many physicists would rate Barry's manuscripts as showing some promise as a student in physics, but nothing more at this stage.

Barry is trying to leap over the normal educational requirements in physics and is trying to accomplish something without having the needed education and experience. His written work shows that lack of education and unless he realizes that and corrects it by getting the proper education, then he will surely fail. He might fail anyway in getting his theory accepted even with the proper education and experience, but without it, his failure is guaranteed.


It is like someone trying to run for President of the U.S. without having held any prior elective office. It is theoretically possible, but the times it has happened can be counted on a few fingers. In the last 100 years, if I remember correctly, only President Eisenhower did not hold any previous elective office.

[ June 01, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Peter101 ]

 

Helen wrote:

Well that's a case of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. Setterfield started his research in 1979? Fine. Let him be responsible for everything he wrote thereafter. That includes the 1983 statistical faux pas (which no statistician defends).

For those who may not recall, in 1983 Setterfield tried to fit a curve through obviously-scattered speed-of-light measurements versus time. He found AND PUBLISHED a correlation coefficient of .99999999+. Anyone who even looked at a graph of the data would have instantly known that something was wrong, but Setterfield published and didn't realize that something was wrong until he looked at his computer program and found that he had "calculated" the correlation coefficient in the wrong place.

WHelen says that he was pressured to publish. Lots of people are pressured to publish. None of them EVER to my knowledge has published a similar blunder in the scientific literature. Blunders yes, but not like this one, whic h is obvious to anyone who has studied and remembered anything about statistics.

He had oibnly partial data when he published? That has absolutely nothing at all to do with the statistical blunder under discussion. Only if he had exactly two points (no more, no less) could his .99999999+ correlation coefficient agree with his data; but then there would have been no reason to calculate it. Anyway, his partial data then did not include exactly two points, so his statistical blunder has nothing to do with his having had only partial data.

Wieland himself added to some of those early papers?Did Wieland add the .99999999+ correlation coefficient? Setterfield admits that Setterfield did that himself when he later states that it was subsequently noticed that the correlation coefficient had been calculated in the wrong place in his computer program. Wieland may have done Setterfield wrong for all I know; but it is not Wieland who is responsible for Setterfield's statistical blunder.

Setterfield's 1987 paper is the first he was satisfied with? Fine. He wishes the 1983 paper had never been published? Again fine. Only its failings are Setterfield's. He has to take responsibility for them and quit blaming others. If he wants to be credited with 24 years of research he has to take responsibility for his failings over those 24 years of research as well as his successes.

Despite the enormity of Setterfield's 1983 statistical blunder, if Setterfield were to frankly admit his mistake and take responsibility for it I think that neither Peter101 nor I nor many others would give it more than passing mention. The trouble is that when Setterfield (through his wife/spokesperson) puts the blame for his mistake on others it shows, or at least suggests, a lack of understanding of the nature and seriousness of his early-career blunder. If there were indications from Setterfield that he understood his error and that he understood his responsibility for it, that would be evidence of Setterfield's growth since 1983. I think the issue would die by strangulation. Until then, however, as long as Setterfield contiuues to suggest that the Setterfield o today fails to understand the blunder of the Setterfield of 1983 we cannot help but think that the Setterfield of today and the competence of Setterfield today matc, respectively, the Setterfield and competence of Setterfield of 1983.

 

Helen wrote:

But he does have sufficient background in statistics to comment upon, and appreciate the enormith of Setterfield's .99999999+ correlation coefficient. And that is the area upon which Peter has principally commented.

You, Helen, on the other hand, have no background in mathematical statistics or physics. That hasn't stopped you from commenting, though.

Barry's 1983 .99999999+ correlation coefficient has been defended by no one. It is other statistical work of Setterfield, not that discussed by Peter, that has been defended by others. Here, Helen, you are guilty of blatant equivocation.

I commend Setterfield for his care of and dedication to his ailing sister. I certainly do not blame him for failing to complete his degree. I don't read Peter101 as blaming him either.

The fact is, however, that for whatever reason Setterfield did not receive his undergraduate degree in physics. It is also quite evident that despite his many years of self-study Setterfield still lacks much educational background that would ordinarily be provided during the last years of an undergraduate degree program in physics. In order to nourish Setterfield's obvious interest in physics, he would do very well to consider Peter101's suggestion that Setterfield complete an undergraduate physics degree.

Peter101 sees possible real undeveloped talent in Setterfield's writings. I would not disagree, but would concur with reservation. Were Setterfield an undergraduate Junior (3rd year) physids undergraduate, and had he shown me a draft of the quantum redshift paper that he submitted to the three Journals, I would think that man had real spunk, daring, and raw potential. The effort is suitable for a Junior undergraduate. That it would not be published in its current form in a reputable Journal hardly matters, since Junior undergraduates are not judged upon the publication-quality of their work. I would think such a young undergraduate to be promising indeed.

I am less sanguine about the prospects for the middle-aged Setterfield because unlike my hypothetical young Junior undergraduate Setterfield is already set in his ways. His work, rather than flowing from the spring of youth, is a mature work. It must be judged by mature standards, and as I have noted before, it doesn't even come close to meeting those standards.

Still, studying undergraduate physics might be a good way to channel some of Setterfield's energies more profitably. Or if his self-study has taken him beyond that he might consider actually studiying at the graduate level. He might, for instance, read Messiah in quantum mechanics, or Jackson in classical electrodynamics.

When the standard of scientific success is measured by the number of one's endorsements, then Setterfield will be considered a great scientist indeed. However, scientific greatness is measured by the use other scientists make of one's work. I see zero citations of Setterfield's work in the Citation Index. Have I missed something?

It's fine to cut back on one's life ambitions as one ages. If he doesn't want to get his college degree that's fine; but in deciding that he also forfeits the opportunities (due to knowledge gained) afforded him by obtaining his degree.

As for the professors consulting him, we look forward eagerly to see the papers in which his consultations are cited.

I'm sure he knows better than to run with the scisors. It's his physics judgment that is in question.