Setterfield Revisited and Refocused

HI! We're not ignoring you. I'm just in checking things this morning on the women's forums, actually. We took out a giant stump of an old Hollywood juniper last night and put a smaller, new evergreen in its place. Muscles hurt, Barry is still asleep, and our daughter has talked us into going to an early matinee of "Finding Nemo" today which, because she also has a disability, she absolutely loved.

So we'll be back this afternoon sometime and I'll erase this post then and replace it with something from Barry for you.

Thank you for your patience!

ohhhh, I'm sore....!

==========

edit: Wednesday morning. We ended up working with a deaf friend part of yesterday and putting in driveway lights along one side in the afternoon and evening. Today the other side (he is VERY focused!) and get our youngest daughter off to Washington to have fun with relatives for three weeks). Will try for this afternoon...

Thank you for your patience.

[ June 11, 2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

You're a patient fellow, and thank you! I printed off the page and Barry's eyes sort of popped and he said, "That's seven pages of material!" So I asked him if he could at least begin. Whatever is not done tonight will have to wait about a week because we are leaving for a four-day excursion away from net, house, kids, dogs, etc. tomorrow morning. Up to Crater Lake, over to the coast, and down through the Redwoods. He has never seen all this, and I want to show him. OK, that finished, here is Barry now, dictating to me (I type faster).

================

I think you are not thinking some of this through. For instance, you mention that our black hole could not be the same as what we see 'out there' in the distant past because the mass is different now.

Of course it is. But it was not different then. That's the point of the thing. The quasars from the black holes dimish in brightness progressively towards us because the mass is reducing as the material is used up through time. What we see in our black hole is "now", and what we are seeing in the farthest black holes is "before" -- there was a before for us, too.

In the same way there was a "before" for some of the local galaxies near to us. The whole point of looking as far out as we can is to see how everything was before and how things have changed. What would be extraordinary is if our black hole did not show a mass change. In that case, it would still be ultra-brilliant.

As far as showing rapid changes in the light output of quasars, one thing needs to be remembered: the slowing effect due to the changing speed of light. On that basis we would not observe more rapid changes in brightness than we do now. Also, the basis of your proposed prediction regarding my model is faulty. Why should the light output be flickering more rapidly if you have a more massive quasar?

Regarding the rotation rates of pulsars -- The redshift curve on which the changing speed of light is based is very flat for light coming from objects as close as the Magellanic Clouds. As a result, very little slowdown effect would be noted with the pulsars. Going out from us, the first quantum jump has not yet occurred at the distance of the Magellanic Clouds.

You said you had a hard time with my explanation of the buildup of elements in Planck Particle-size black holes. Flambaum and Berengut's paper is talking about atom formations in large black holes. What I am talking about is work done by Gibson which shows that this process can occur with Planck Particles. Under these conditions, once the atom's nucleus is formed, it escapes from the Planck Particle environment and has a normal spectral signature. On this basis, in the earliest moments of the cosmos, the manufacture of elements with the abundances that we currently observe could and possibly did occur. I recently answered an email which was partly concerned with your question here, so let me quote myself from it:

You ask about the massive black holes that lie at the centres of most galaxies. It seems that they were the "seeds" around which galaxies formed as there is a systematic ratio between the size of the central black hole and the size of the galaxy nucleus. ....It seems that these centres of galaxies may have formed as an agglomeration of Planck particle pairs at the inception of the universe and acted as the nucleus around which matter collected to form galaxies.

On this basis, the origin of the elements by the action of Planck Particles in the early universe may account for the different regions in galaxies where there are anomalous abundances of 'metals.' (Remember, to an astronomer, a metal is any element other than hydrogen and helium.)

I hope this helps.

Barry Setterfield

 

Barry Setterfield through Helen wrote:

What paper of Gibson is being referenced here?

Ahd to be clear, is that of Flambaum and Berengut's entitled "Atoms made from charged elementary black hole" as referenced by UTEOTW
?

 

Helen, I've got a question for Barry. If the speed of light changes from merely 2c to c, a trifling small change in Barry's history of the speed of light, what would be the corresponding z amount for the redshift? The z value observed would be . . ??

 

Helen, I’ve got a question for Barry. Why is it that the Disney characters Goofy, a dog can speak and Pluto a dog can’t speak?

 

Ahhh, going to go look at those big trees that evolved from the murky slime and ooze---sounds nice. Is the one who types the fastest the highest evolved? If that works maybe I could try that line on my wife. Actually, I think I want to live longer than the three seconds it would take for her figure out what I just said.
You see I have to practice on reprogramming my thoughts to the new theistic evolution I'm reading a lot of here lately.... Hope the drive was nice.

 

UTEOTW qyoting Setterfield:

Not the one I'm holding. It is almost entirely concerned with elementary black holes although there is a short section on larger black holes at the end.</font>[/QUOTE]We should clearly point out that Faambaum and Berengut do not discuss the formation of atoms at all, but rather the formation of atom-like objects where an electrically-charged black hole substitutes for the atomic nucleus. What they are discussing has nothing to do with the formation of heavy elements.

For reasons similar to those making it improbable that Planck-sized charged black holes would absorb opositely-charged particles and so be neutralized, it is improbable that significant numbers of charged black holes would aquire sufficient positive charge to equal that of any metallic atom. Thus even if such black holes evaporated away leaving a conventionall charged nucleus of the same charge, that mechanism could not account for significant numbers of metal atoms. And even if there were a process for charged black hole evaporation to leave conventional charged nuclei behind, there couldn't be enough black holes, even of Planck mass, to account for the metals found in stars. At a mass of 10^-5 grams a Planck-mass black hole is some 20 decimal orders of magnitude heavier than a typical metal "nucleus". Thus even if all of the mass of a galaxy started out as Planck-sized black holes this process could only produce metal abundances on the order of one part in 10^20 by mass. Using larger black holes just makes the problem worse.

 

It might be good to just mention the important place the "metal" elements have in stars. The nucleii of the elements higher than Helium in the periodic table (such as carbon) are what we are talking about. In the heart of the star they recieve and emit nuclear particles in a way that facilitates the hydrogen fusion process. In other words, the nuclear "engine" that runs stars can work faster, better with a few of the heavy elements around to help the reaction along. This process is understood well enough to actually estimate the percentage of heavier elements based on the observed rate of engergy production from a given star, such as our sun.

Obviously this wouldn't be the case for a pseudo-atom with a mini black hole for a nucleous! No emitting anything THEY absorb! (except as photons, in the Hawking process.)

 

Another astronomical fact that contradicts the Setterfield alternative solar system history!

Setterfield hypothesises that a planet broke up between Mars and Jupiter about 6000 years ago, after Adam was created certainly. This formed our asteroid belt.

There are lanes in the asteroid belt that are formed by the gravitational influence of Jupiter clearing out those asteroids that resonate just the "right" (perhaps we should say "wrong") way with Jupiter's orbital period. These lanes are called Krirkwood Gaps, after the name of the astronomer who first described them and explained why they exist.

Intuitively, it seemed to me that this process - clearing out the lanes in the asteroid belt - would surely take more than a few thousand years. Sure enough, the clearing of the lanes has been simulated and the time frame is in fact a few million years. Evidence that the asteroid belt has been in existance for at least a few million years, and this evidence is by means of a gravitational orbital clock, completely immune to any problems that might be associated with a speed of light issue! Here's the link to the article:

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/~agoodman/astro98/gladmanetal.pdf

Note: It might be held by some that the asteroids were originally created with the gaps already in place. But Setterfield alternative solar system history requires the asteroids be injected into the space following the creation week by a planetary breakup, and so this possible out is not available for him. Setterfield alternative solar system theory is disproved.

 

Phillip wrote on a closed thread:

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;It IS SAD; however, that scientists like Dr. Setterfield have to fight this secular, uphill political battle to obtain acceptance. I do not require that to study his papers and make my own conclusions based on what I read. Sorry!&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;


Perhaps a little explanation will help you understand the true situation. Barry Setterfield does not have a Ph.D. as you assume. In fact he does not have a degree of any kind. In the judgment of many scientists, including this one, he is not able to publish because his papers do not meet the minimum acceptable standards. I also think that it is not accurate to refer to him as a scientist because his career and education do not qualify him for that description either. It is true that he dabbles in scientific topics, but that does not make him a credible source of information.

 

I'm going on vacation for two weeks and posting opportunities will no doubt be sparce . . but do everybody carry on!

 

UTEDTW wrote:

No, according to Setterfield's theory pulsar frequency (like most frequencies) scales with c, so we couldn't see the difference through optical means.

To see this suppose that the pulsar sends out a pulse of light once per revolution. Since frequencies in the past bear a ratio of c_then/c_now to the corresponding frequency now, emitted pulse frequencies also bear that ratio to currently-emitted pulse frequencies. However, as the speed of light slows down over time, those pulses always have the same spatial distances between them; but the frequency with which they imp8inge on a receiver is slowed by a factor of c_now/c_then over their emission frequency. Thus the frequency with which we observe the pulses is not the (higher) frequency with which they would have been emitted in the past, but the same frequency as if the sped of light h ad not changed.

 

Well, I must highly disagree with you. Let me give you a great example why... I am a Director of Engineering in electronics and have been for about 20 years. After having many, many employees who have designed items such as black boxes that go inside the the Tomahawk Cruise and Air-Force's Air Launched Missiles, ground-to-air encrypted military communications gear, pilot survival radios, medical equipment including video enhancement, radar and ships control software among tons of other projects I have a good feeling for who produces and who does not.

I worked with many scientists in many fields, for example Global Positioning, etc.

With all of the management I have done, I found out that many of the best employees I had were ones who actually had no schooling (formal) whatsoever, but had years and years of experience. The lowest individuals I had were those who had Phd's in Electronic Engineering. They were essentially worthless. The reason? Their whole concept of "work" and "career" was to write theoretical white-papers and produce tons and tons of this material. In 90% of the cases, people with this level of education were completely worthless when it came to producing a piece of hard-ware that would get a missile from a ship to Saddam's Palace. NOW, DON'T GET ME WRONG! Many of the Phd's I worked with did help with problems which required a level of expertise to fix, but it was often like pulling teeth to get them focused away from analysing the transistors that went into the circuit, rather than designing the circuit itself. They were completely incapable of using rule-of-thumb settings to get something working. After twenty pages of advanced math, they often announced they could not accomplish the job. A highly experienced technician would sit down at the bench and breadboard a circuit and maybe with the help of a little more experienced engineer to get the circuit parameters to work across the environmental range, the job was finished in one tenth the time and wow, was the cost better.

I am currently involved as a witness in a very high profile patent case where I was the inventor and the President of the company put his name on the patents. It is a real mess, but getting to the subject at hand. It is funny how the courts want the "expert" witnesses to review what I designed and tell me (or the court) in 200 pages that I used a microcontroller to operate a small audible alarm after an input was received and a time-out occurred. The "expert" witnesses would list their papers, making their resumes 100 pages in length. The problem is, if you read the papers involving the circuits I designed, the "experts" have a lot of difficulty in providing a decent explanation that can be understood by a jury (the job they are required to do).

I did not mean to write a novel and I have NOTHING against higher education. Although mine is only a Masters Degree, I feel that each year of experience I have is worth more than that degree. Degrees get people in the door past the "personnel" people, but experience (and I do mean dabbling with something you are very interested in) can make a person a real "Expert". Einstein and Edison were great examples.

Most of the problem appears to enimate from the colleges themselves where the "higher educated group" set the standards of who is qualified to write these papers. Most of the scientists that I have read who do research at a college would be very hard-pressed to provide a product, "production ready", under a dead-line.

Therefore, I will NOT judge Barry Setterfield on anything except the results of his studies. Studies such as this are often based on certain assumptions---such as "old earth" and time measurements. I have read a lot of Barry Setterfield's work and I have been very impressed with the level of understanding he has based on real-world subjects. So, based on these assumptions I will not bad-mouth Mr. Setterfield or his theories based on whether or not he has a Phd or if he is a junior patent examiner who got a grip on reality. (pun intended).

I am NOT insulting the higher level Phd research scientists, many know their subjects and do well producing, but while most of the ones who are doing research to get another research grant, the ones in industry are getting the job done.

By the way, what would YOU consider the MINIMUM specifications are for a person to be capable of writing a paper worthy of the scientific world to publish?

In Christ,
Phillip