Nice to meet you Mrs. Setterfield. I'm Andreas.
tuppence wrote:
So I can personally vouch for the Setterfield material. I personally have examined it. I have spoken at length with the people who have also examined it. We were invited to speak at ICR over a year ago and are still in conversation with a number of them. Barry has been invited to speak to physicists all over the world and a number of them travel hundreds and even thousands of miles to talk to him here at our home.
So let's repeat it one more time. Since the basic analysis of the data is so trivial, since it is such a hot topic and since your were in contact with scientist all over the world: Where are the other sources? Where are the publications? Even if you want to argue with a big conspiracy of the science community it would be really easy to publish the data in a journal about the history of science.
So until YOU know what you are talking about, it's time to study. And if you are trying to indicate that the folks in the 19th and early 20th century were using atomic bases for measurements you are slightly crackers. You need a little history of math, astronomy, and physics under your belt.
At least I recognize, that you didn't understand my point. Please explain how to measure distances not using a ruler consisting out of atoms. It's not a hard question - I know one.
In the meantime, the references on the chart page have not been 'interpreted' at all. The measurements as accepted by the secular professional physics community in the years indicated are simply put on the graphs. That's it. Not special measurements, but the accepted measurements.
Of course they are interpreted. Corrections are made, measurements of one constant depends on the measurement of other constants which need to be taken into account and so on. That's even noted in the work of your husband, how can you deny it?
And yes, as a matter of fact, a lot of what we think we know in modern physics is indeed wrong. There is a lot that is currently being questioned in the physics journals. There is a lot going on, and it is very interesting and intriguing for those who are keeping up.
I don't get your logic. We know that a lot in modern physics is wrong. If we know that it's wrong how can we know it then?