Setterfield Revisited and Refocused

[UTEOTW]

Hi, Helen!

We had some discussions going which were very interesting to me before a number of threads went hopelessly down the drain. I am trying to pull everything back into something coherent so we can finish and allow anyone that wants to jump in have a little more focused thread.

You had pointed out that the stars could be divided in Population I and Population II stars and were offering that the Population II stars were the morning stars and created on Day 1 and that the Population I stars were created on Day 4. I had pointed out that there were physical traits of these groups, notably size and metal content, and had asked for explanations of these traits according to your cosmology. (Feel free to correct any mistakes I have made in summarizing and to clarify anything you wish in your response.) You had replied with the following from Barry:

As far as the abundance of elements is concerned, there are several anomalies existing with current BB theory. Gamow originally proposed the building up of all elements in his BB scenario. However a blockage was found in that process which was difficult to overcome. As a result, Hoyle, Burbidge, and Fowler examined the possibility of elements being built up within stars, which later exploded and spread them out among the intergalactic clouds. This proposal is now generally accepted. However, it leads to a number of problems, such as the anomalous abundance of iron in the regions around quasars. There are other problems, such as anomalous groups of stars near the center of our galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy which have high metal abundances. Because of the current approach using the production of these elements in the first generation of stars, this process obviously takes time. As a consequence, these anomalous stars can only be accounted for by collisions or cannibalization of smaller star systems by larger galaxies. There is another possible answer, however, which creationists need to consider. It has been shown that in a scenario with small black holes, such as Planck particles, the addition of a proton to the system or to a system with a negatively-charged black hole, the build-up of elements becomes possible. The blockage that element formation in stars was designed to overcome is eliminated, because neutrons can also be involved, as can alpha particles. As a consequence, is it possible to build up other elements than hydrogen and helium in the early phases of the universe. This may happen in local concentrations where negative black holes formed by the agglomeration of Planck Particles exist. Stars that form in those areas would then have apparently anomalous metal abundances. Importantly, in this scenario, if Population II stars were formed on Day 1 of Creation Week, as suggested by Job 38, and Population I stars were formed half-way through day 4, as listed in Genesis 1:14, we have a good reason why the Population I stars contain more metals than the Population II stars, as this process from the agglomeration of black holes would have had time to act.

I had a hard time with this explanation to begin with but I was able to track down a paper from Flambaum and Berengut which I assume is the basis for the above. (For the interested http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0001/0001022.pdf )Having read the paper a few times I have a much better understanding of what was being described but I also have some objections.

1. There is a great deal of speculation here and chief is the assumption, against what is mainstream accepted, that black holes do not completely evaporate but instead end up at some minimum mass. There is still much debate on both sides of this but theory leans towards black holes completely evaporating.
2. The paper is very specific that atoms formed from this process would have shifted spectral lines compared to normal, equivalent atoms and gives the method to calculate the difference. Where is the spectroscopic evidence for this? The paper suggests that scientists should look for these spectral differences implying that the differences are within our measurement ability. If most of the metals in Population I were from black hole atoms then it seems resonable that scientists would have noticed the shift in spectral lines from the sun and other bodies as important as spectroscopy is to astronomy. Since this is not the case, it seems reasonable to assume that very little of the sun, if any, is made from black hole atoms.
3. The paper states that the abundance of elementary black holes would be about 10^-15 of the abundance of hydrogen. The abundance of hydrogen in the sun is only about 50 times the abundance (by mass) of metals. Now, only a fraction of these elementary black holes could be the negatively charged variety from above. How to explain such an extreme concentration of black hole atoms relative to their overall abundance? If instead, black hole atoms make up little to no mass of the sun then this would explain why these spectral differences have not been seen.
4. There is no reason to suppose that the elementary black holes that would have been in or near Population II stars should not have also been acquiring protons, electrons, and electrons and forming atoms. This means there must be some reason to keep the elementary black holes away from the Population II stars and concentrated near the Population I stars.

This treatment also completely ignores the issue of the mass of the Population I and II stars. Why are the only Population II stars around the very low mass stars that would have been expected to last billions of years to still be around today in a Big Bang model?

 

[UTEOTW]

We had been discussing whether the black hole at the center of the galaxy could have powered a quasar bright enough to have provided the equilalent of daylight on earth until the sun was created in order to preserve the morning and evening of the creation days. I had challenged that the galaxy's black hole is far too small (about 3*10^6 solar masses compared to about 10^8 solar masses for a typical quasar) to have provided enough energy to provide that much light and that even the largest known quasars would only provide a thousandth of the requires light. You gave the following response which seemed to incorporate comments from both you and Barry.

Regarding distance and age of galaxies: There is no argument that distance indicates age. This should be stated first. It was this very fact that the further out we looked, the more different the universe appeared, that caused the downfall of the Steady State model. Specifically, it was the discovery of quasars that produced this result. Importantly, quasars become brighter and more numerous the further out we look. At a redshift of around 1.7, their numbers and luminosity appear to plateau. Closer in from 1.7, their numbers and intensity decline. Furthermore, a redshift of 1.7 is also an important marker for the formation of stars. We notice starburst galaxies of increasing activity as we go back to a redshift of 1.7. At that point, star formation activity appears to reach a maximum where young, hot blue stars of Population I are being formed (therefore emitting higher amounts of UV radiation). At a redshift of 1.7, the redshift/distance relationship also undergoes a major change. The curve steepens up considerably as we go back from that point. This has caused current BB thinking to introduce some extra terms into their equations which would indicate that the rate of expansion of the cosmos has speeded up as we come forward in time from that point. On the lightspeed scenario, a redshift of 1.7 effectively marks the close of Creation Week, and so all of these above effects would be expected to taper off after that time.

As far as the black hole in the center of our Milky Way Galaxy, we see it as it is NOW. When we look out in space, we can see the way things WERE. This is pretty different! There is no reason to assume our black hole was any different from what we are seeing 'out there.'

from Barry: Initially, the black holes were so energetic that the quasars associated with them were even more brilliant than some of the most energtic quasars we see closer in. The figure that was used in the calculation for the energy of a quasar is for one of the quasars nearer to us than those on the frontiers of the cosmos. There, the quasars are over a hundred times more luminous than those closer in, and so this has to be factored into the calculation. The calculation itself is correct; it is just the wrong figure that is being used.

You accept that I can properly do an inverse square law calculation to predict how bright something would appear at different distances for different absolute brighnesses so that is off the table. You say that There is no reason to assume our black hole was any different from what we are seeing 'out there.' But there is a reason to assume this. The mass is different. The Eddington Limit tells how much energy an object can radiate for a given mass and the black hole at the center of our galaxy is several orders of magnitude too small. Your response makes no attempt to address this other than to say that other supermassive black holes were more massive and much brighter in the past and so ours must have been too. In this there is no doubt but it ignores that none have been found bright enough for you and that ours is much too small to be even close to as bright as even those we know about.

So I went digging through setterfield.org. I found this:

Nevertheless, whichever option is adopted, the main effect of dropping values of c on quasars is that as c slows, the diameter of the black hole powering the quasar will progressively increase. This will allow progressive engulfment of material from the region surrounding the black hole and so should feed their axial jets of ejected matter. This is the key prediction from my variable speed of light model on that matter.

I do not see how this helps you, however. You claim that changes in the speed of light should not affect the gravitational relationship between objects. So a change in the speed of light should not affect the accretion disk surrounding the black hole. I assume that when you speak of the black hole getting larger, you mean the size of the event horizon. (This is fairly easy to see based on a change in the speed of light.) If the event horizon gets larger without a change in the matter in the accretion disk, then all the event horizon is doing is encomposing more of the accretion disk within the black hole and not making any more mass available. The matter now in the expanded disk cannot contribute to the energy radiated in the region of the black hole.

Your statement also leads to an important prediction. How quickly the light received from an object changes is related to the size of the object. It should be possible to show that the most distant quasars are not only the brightest but that they also show changes on the shortest periods of time. Has this been shown? I am under the impression that the opposite is true.

 

[UTEOTW]

I originally asked:

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
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.

You responded:

from Barry: I have responded to this on the website here: http://www.setterfield.org/AstronomicalDiscussion.htm#quasarsandpulsars

Start there and work your way down. I think you should be able to find the appropriate responses without the troubling equations and such.

First, I should have said "fastest known pulsar associated with a supernova remnant." And that was a few years ago.

Frankly, I don't get it. Yeah, I see the part about other possible theories on what gives rise to the pulse itself. But the point is that for any object over 6000 light years away, the light must have been traveling faster when it was emitted to have arrived here is less time than that. (And that is allowing that for an object 6000 light years away that the light would have been emitted way back at the very beginning to only be arriving here now. Not a good assumption.) Even if you want to use a different mechanism for generating the pulse, the time slowing effects of faster light travel should still affect them. The faster light should have resulted in a slowing of time. In the case of pulsars, it should be expected that there should be a general trend towards longer and longer periods as you move to more distant objects.

Now there is a lot of talk here about why there should not be red-shift effects on objects in the Milky Way and in the LMC. But I am not sure how that relates to the expected difference in light speed between when the light was emitted and when it was recieved. Why do we not see a trend towards longer periods for pulsars as the distance increases? How long ago and at what speed relative to today's value for c was light emitted from the LMC that is reaching us today?

 

[Helen]

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 ]

 

[UTEOTW]

I'm not in any great hurry. That you might be ignoring me never crossed my mind. I can take a while to get back to a subject myself and I sometimes ramble a bit when I do.

This is an enjoyable exercise for me. It forces me to look at things in new ways and to look into new subjects. You seem to stay fairly busy on the forum and off and I realize some of the questions I ask may take a bit of time. It helps me to flush out the details of the idea to get a better indication of where you are coming from.

I look forward to hearing back from you.

 

[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

 

[mdkluge]

Barry Setterfield through Helen wrote:

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

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
?

 

[UTEOTW]

Thanks for getting to some of it. I get the feeling we may be on our to agreeing to disagree. I hope you enjoy your trip. I'd like to make it out that way for pleasure rather than business one day.

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 would be extraordinary is if our black hole did not show a mass change. In that case, it would still be ultra-brilliant.

This makes absolutely no sense. The mass of the material around the black hole is used up or dispersed and so decreases but not the mass of the black hole itself! (Yes, black holes evaporate, but the bigger they are the slower they evaporate and the 15 billion year age of the universe only gives enough time to evaporate about a mountain massed black hole.) It grows bigger and bigger. The mass only gives the maximum energy output. Our supermassive black hole is still supermassive, just quiet because of a lack of "fuel." Simply, we have measured the mass of our black hole (it could not have been larger in the past though it almost certainly had more new material to capture than currently), we know what the most energy that can be given off by a supermassive black hole of a given size (any more output and you blow away the material around the black hole more quickly than you have the gravity to attract the material and thus output is limited), and ours is many orders of magnitude too small for the output you propose. To which part do you object, the measured mass of our supermassive black hole ( http://www.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de/gcnews/gcnews/Vol.14/eckart@ph1.uni-koeln.de_orbits.abs.shtml ) or the Eddington limit for energy output from such objects?

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.

I thought that is where you were headed. Flat compared to what you propose for the earliest times, I believe. Flat compared to today, with this I have a harder time. It is simple. We've got light that went about 160 - 170 thousand light years in somewhat less than 6000 years. It had to have started out much faster than our current value of c or it would not yet be here. How much faster would light from that far away have been traveling when it left, how long ago did it leave, and what is the history of its speed since then? (Or give me a formula for a curve that accurately shows this and I'll integrate it myself for the answers.) Do you have another way to get light that far in such a short period of time without changing its velocity much? What am I missing?

Flambaum and Berengut's paper is talking about atom formations in large black holes.

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. A bit from the abstract. "A charged "elementary black hole" (with the minimum possible mass) can capture other charged particles to form a "black hole atom." We find the spectrum of such an object with a view to laboratory and astronomical observation of them, and estimate the maximum lifetime of the bound states." At the very end: "Finally we consider atoms fromed with much larger black holes." Almost the entire paper is concerned with elemental black holes and even discusses why a black hole with such a minimum mass may not be able to evaportate further into nothing. The minimum mass given for their black holes is 0.93 * Planck Mass for black holes that have spin and 0.085 * Planck Mass for black holes without spin. We are certainly not talking about large black holes in any sort of comparison. These black hole atoms are presented as stable, as retaining the black hole as part of their nucleus, as being much less numerous than needed to explain the metals in stars, and as having an observable spectral difference that has yet to be observed. I would need to read the Gibson paper to even have a chance at understanding. Without a reference, and with a name as common as Gibson, I'm stuck. It is to be determined if your reference can disprove the claims of my reference that such atoms would stay associated with the black holes. I would also like to know if Gibson allows for the production of most of the known metals in the universe through the process he outlines.

Edit to add:
I like Paul's question below. What is the exact relationship between z and the value of c when the light was emitted?
MDK also adds another nail to idea of elementary black holes being responsible for the non H or He content of the universe without a cycle of supernovae.

[ June 19, 2003, 02:44 AM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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 . . ??

 

[john6:63]

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?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted 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).

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.

 

[mdkluge]

UTEOTW qyoting Setterfield:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Flambaum and Berengut's paper is talking about atom formations in large black holes.

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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.)

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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.

 

[Peter101]

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.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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

 

[UTEOTW]

Oddly, a different objection based on pulsars just hit me.

Setterfield claims measurable changes in the speed of light right until relatively recently. Certainly measurable changes in the last few hundred years are claimed. We still have the slowdown effect from faster light.

So, take a pulsar some distance away, maybe a few hundred light years. As the speed of light at that location decreases the slowdown effect should also decrease. The net effect being that anything that happens on a regular basis should appear to be happening more often as the speed of the light when emitted decreases. So, careful observation of an individual pulsar, or any other regular event such as an eclipsing binary, should show a steady increase in the frequency of the action.

So for a pulsar we should see the time between pulses decreasing. We actually see an increase in the time between pulses. Since this could be explained by pulsars slowing down more rapidly than believed (though this would not fit with theory of how they slow down), I include the eclipsing binary example also. In general, a prediction would be that regular events in space should be observed to be happening more frequently as time passes. I have never heard of such an observation. I would think that a large number of astronomical objects showing such a change would be noticed. I would even suspect that it would be likely to be noticed because it would be happening to almost every object that has some sort of periodic change.

And if he wants to avoid by saying that the speed only changes in jumps, fine. He claims that their has been an observered change in several speed of light measurements in the last few hundred years so some of the jumps must have taken place in this time. A sudden step change in the timing of objects would stand out even more clearly.

[ June 20, 2003, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: UTEOTW ]

 

[mdkluge]

UTEDTW wrote:

Oddly, a different objection based on pulsars just hit me....

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.

 

[UTEOTW]

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

Are you saying that the speed of rotation is tied to c? If so, how?

If not, let's make up numbers to make the math easy to show. Let's suppose you have a pulsar that emits a pulse once per second. Further let's suppose that the speed of light is now 1 unit/sec and that at some point in the past it was 10 units/sec. So a pulse is emitted. One second later another pulse is emitted. Now we have two pulses 10 units apart. As light slows, they maintain this separation, the basis for the time slowing effect of the theory. When the light reaches an observer where light speed has slowed to 1 unit/sec, 10 seconds will be observed to pass between pulses.

Now let's suppose a little time has passed and the speed of light is 8 units/sec when the pulses are emitted. These pulses are now 8 units apart. After they have traveled sufficient time to our observer and light speed is 1 unit per sec the pulses will be observed to be 8 seconds apart.

So, to an observer making periodic measurements of how often a pulse is received, there would be a progressive decrease in the time period between the pulses. Since light speed is theorized to chamge more quickly in the past, this effect would hold up with the speed changing at both locations.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Peter101:
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.

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