tuppence wrote:Good gravy,
1. The material is posted on Setterfield's site, but the references are from mainstream secular physics journals! Are you trying to say that if Setterfield references it then it must be wrong?
Not quite, I just don't trust his interpretation. Let me explain why:
A) Setterfield makes an extraordinary claim. If he is right, almost everything we know about modern physics is wrong.
B) Extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.
B) The way, how he got his data is trivial. To look at old measurements is no big deal. Everybody with a decent scientific background can review his claims. And yet, bot creationists as well as the scientific community reject his findings.
So, if it is so extraordinary but in the same instance so trivial there must be other references you can cite. The change of fundamental constants is a hot topic in physics, so where is the work that is in agreement with Setterfield?
tuppence wrote:
2. The Aardsma article on the data use in the 1987 report was fallacious. You will notice no measurements are given on the chart. That is because they are so big that the changes shown in the historical data all get lumped together. It is the same idea as deciding to measure the petal lengh of flowers in kilometers. The actual data, shown in appropriate scale, describes a definite and consistent downward trend. This was noted by physicists in the early part of the twentieth century. As for the Setterfield use of the data, it has been examined and reported on quite accurately by Lambert Dolphin, a senior research physicist at Stanford Research Institute International at the time and Alan Montgomery, a senior statistical analyst for the Canadian goverment. Their reports may be found here:
http://www.setterfield.org/data.htm
Tell that the Institute for Creation Research. They would be very glad to find one scientific proof for a decay of the speed of light.
3. It is obvious you have neither looked at the post above where I described historical ways of measuring the speed of light nor have you looked at the Setterfield material for yourself.
Please inform yourself of what you are talking about before you start talking about it, OK?
I would appreciate it very much if you would response to my points and not to repeat some unsupported claims about my person.
Your claim is:
tuppence wrote:
The reason the speed of light appears to not have changed in the last thirty years is because that is the amount of time the speed of light has been measured via atomic processes. Since the speed of light is in sync with atomic processes, there is no way a change in it could be measured via those means.
My response:
Andreas wrote:
There is no way to measure the speed of light independent from atomic processes. Not today and not the last centuries. To state that c changed but is in sync with atomic processes is meaningless. If something changes and there is no way to notice this, way would anybody insist that it changed?
You seem to disagree, so let's look at some of your examples:
Toothed-Wheel Experiments:
You need the distance the light will travel. To measure this distance you need a ruler. And the length of the ruler is depended from what?
tuppence wrote:
What is happening is that the light carrying the information from the Jupiter-Io system is taking time to travel across the diameter of the earth’s orbit, so the eclipse information takes longer to get to the earth when it is at the furthest point in its orbit.
For this measurements you need the distance between Earth and Jupiter. How do you measure this distance? Again you need a ruler. And the length of the ruler is dependent from what?
My main point is, that every measurement of c is dependent from a ruler which length is dependent from c. If you disagree explain why. If you don't understand ask.
Andreas