Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Yes. Speed of rotation is probably proportional to c in Setterfield's theory. I say "probably" because he hasn't developed the theory sufficiently to be sure, but the most logical development does have speed of rotation proportional to c.Are you saying that the speed of rotation is tied to c? If so, how?
Helen, if you read my post again, please notice that I wasn't passing judgment on Setterfield's work. *I* don't know enough about the speed of light and what have you, to feel comfortable making a comment about your husbands work.So while Peter and Meatros and Mark can all chop away here, where it is quite safe as the audience hasn't the vaguest what is being talked about for the most part, the people who do know what is going on are attending Barry's lectures, writing us, asking for more.
Yes. Speed of rotation is probably proportional to c in Setterfield's theory. I say "probably" because he hasn't developed the theory sufficiently to be sure, but the most logical development does have speed of rotation proportional to c.Originally posted by M. D. Kluge:
UTEOTW wrote: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Are you saying that the speed of rotation is tied to c? If so, how?
What has listening to Barry Setterfield or having met him hav to do with anything? He's left a paper trail. Not in the places where scientists custimarily leave their paper trails, but a paper trail nevertheless. It is upon this that he is judgedx and found wanting. Whatever fine lecture or personal qualities Setterfield might have is of no concern here.It cracks me up that people who have never listened to Barry or met him pass judgments like this.
So how has Dr. Brown used Setterfield's work in his own research?On the other extreme is Dr. Robert Brown at GRI who, although he disagrees with Barry, has attended every lecture Barry has given down there, plus two dinners given for Barry (I think it was two there...), and recently emailed a mutual friend that he was amazed that anyone with any amount of education could have the grasp of the number of fields that Barry had.
No they don't. Absolutely none of them have cited anything written by Barry Setterfield in any of their own papers in the scientifi literature. You can check the Citation Index yourself.It is not that Barry does not have a degree, it is that those who do have Ph.D.'s in fields related to Barry's work are taking him very seriously now...
In what Journal or what forum is this material being discussed by those competent scientists? In any case I am not concerned with that part of our audience here that doesn't understand this matter. Although mistakes have been made it is a fact that I do well understand Setterfield's writings, and have intelligently criticized the same. Paul, Peter, Meatros, and UTEDTW have also done so here. Tim Thompson has intelligently done so elsewhere (back on CARM). I cannot speak for those others, but I have geared my criticisms of Setterfield to the sophisticated lay audience. (There is no sophisticate physics audience to talk to. The question isn't whether or not Setterfield's work is any good. It isn't. No physicist who has looked at it has approved. Its failings are obvious. The problem is to convince a lay audience. Of course I am always open to elucidating at any depth. However, experience shows that few or no physicists need deep explanation to find Settterfield's work wanting.So while Peter and Meatros and Mark can all chop away here, where it is quite safe as the audience hasn't the vaguest what is being talked about for the most part, the people who do know what is going on are attending Barry's lectures, writing us, asking for more.
No need to wonder. It would have been perfectly reasonable for someone with a degree to have started out as Setterfield did and look at old measurements of the speed of light for evidence of change over recent historical time. Although it's somewhat strained, it's possible that someone with a degree might convince himself that there was more than the slightest statistical suggestion that historical measurements of the speed of light indicated a secular trend. I suspect that a reasonably sophisticated scientist could even get that much published. (He'd need at least the statistical sophistication of his friend Alan Montgomery, together with more flexible personality and willingness to pull some of the punches. A degreed writer might have learned to be sufficiently cautious with inferences from scattered data to have written a paper suggesting that measurements of c from about 1880 to 1950 might suggest, and are not inconsistent with, a slow dow of atomic time with respect to gravitational time. With degrees one tends to learn to abandon that boldness which is rashness! Anyway, in my judgment Setterfield might have gotten something published on the experimental side of things.By the way, Phillip, many thanks for your response. I have often wondered if Barry had been able to continue in university and get whatever degrees, if he would not have been so indoctrinated in the current way of thinking that he would not have been able to take a fresh look at the data and start chasing down more of it.
Absolutely right!Still does not affect purely gravitational systems like eclipsing binaries.
The above paragraph from Helen has been bothering me for these past hours. Of course it doesn't bother me that Helen would prefer the counsel of Brown to my own. What bothers me is the e-mail she says Brown sent her in which Brown wonders "that anyone with any amount of education could have the grasp of the number of fields that Barry [Setterfield]had".It cracks me up that people who have never listened to Barry or met him pass judgments like this. On the other extreme is Dr. Robert Brown at GRI who, although he disagrees with Barry, has attended every lecture Barry has given down there, plus two dinners given for Barry (I think it was two there...), and recently emailed a mutual friend that he was amazed that anyone with any amount of education could have the grasp of the number of fields that Barry had.
OK, here is a place where I might have misunderstood Setterfield. I have understood T to be a measure of dynamical time before present. That is, as a function of red shift. That is, I understand T = 0 to correspond to zero red shift and positive T to be in the past.From Barry:
Mark Kluge correctly states equation 118 in Atomic Quantum States, Light and the Redshift (see the section of the paper here:
http://www.setterfield.org/quantumredshift.htm#periodicitiesandgeo )
reads
t = K[arcsin(T) - (1 - T^2)^(1/2) - T + 1]
This equation gives the atomic time elapsed, t, for a dynamical time elapsed, T, after a starting point T=0.
Because science is a learned profession it defines and maintains standards for its members, just as do lawyers, physicians, and the like. Unlike many other learned professions, or even skilled crafts,, standards for being a scientist are not enforced by law, but by convention.That Barry is a true scientist is beyong argument. His work is full-time, he is funded, his research is original, he has now been invited to submit papers to two peer reviewed journals, and has been invited to speak literally all over the world.
JM: As I recall Barry is having a very difficult time getting his work published in mainstream scientific journals. If these invitations are from true mainstream science journals, then bravo for Barry. Most of the time, invitations to publish articles are given to established and respected scientists. I can't think of an instance where an unpublished scientist is offered not one, but two chances to publish their first work. So, once again bravo for Barry. I assume his invitations to speak are not merely churches and creation organizations, but mainstream scientific venues? I would guess that the invitations are not from creationist organizations since Barry's views are not particularly embraced by most ye-creationists. I had a conversation with Kurt Wise at GSA last year and when I brought up Setterfield's model, Kurt dismissed it as 'fringe' creationism and not accepted as valid. Anyway, be sure to let us know the journals when the articles are published. UF has subscriptions to nearly all of the top-flight mainstream physics journals so it should be easy to obtain.That Barry is a true scientist is beyong argument. His work is full-time, he is funded, his research is original, he has now been invited to submit papers to two peer reviewed journals, and has been invited to speak literally all over the world.
He just doesn't meet your qualifications. That, of course, breaks our hearts. [/QB]
So far so good…Therefore, the y-axis of the redshift graph can changed [sic] to read c instead of z if the scale is changed by the factor k.
Bzzzzzz! Wrong!!! As the sequel makes clear Setterfield means by “a direct relationship between astronomical distance…and dynamical time” as “a direct proportionality between astronomical distance and dynamical time”Furthermore, since increasing astronomical distance means that we are looking further back in time, there should also be a direct relationship between astronomical distance x in (108) and dynamical time T.
But that is totally wrong. Because x is the distance from us of an object that emitted its light a dynamical time T before present, it follows that the speed of light c is equal to the derivative of x with respect to T). (That is,Indeed, if dynamical time is expressed on the horizontal axis of a graph from T = 0 to T = 1 in the same way that the distance, x, is, then from (108) and (109) the equation for c behaviour would then become
c=k{[(1+T)/(1–T^2)^(1/2)]–1} (110)