tuppence wrote:Andreas, there are people publishing material regarding the speed of light all over the place now.
Of course, it's a hot topic. But there are important differences to the work of your husband:
- As far as I know none of them observed a change of the speed of light. They only state if a change occurred, it must be below a certain value.
- The speak about different orders of magnitude than you. For example a change of c during the first 1e-300 seconds after the big bang.
- They are in agreement with the Theory of Relativity.
- They usually make it clear, that they speak about a change of c in relation to other constants. They don't deny this important point.
Because following the data as Barry has done results in the impossibility of an old universe, however, I can guarantee to you that those who agree with him will not be published in peer-reviewed secular journals. The secular peer-reviewed journals turn down EVERY attempt by anyone associated with any creationist leanings.
Ah, the Peer Review Conspiracy [tm]. The simplest counterargument is, that creationistic ideas are hardly know outside America. Try to publish it in an European journal and try to avoid any unsupported claims not supported by any data, interpretate or not.
What you will see in the speed of light materials which are being published in the secular press (Maguiejo, Barrow, Albrecht, etc.) is the insistence on ONLY the speed of light changing, when that is impossible.
Wrong. Should I cite some?
Barry has not done that. He has simply reported, on those charts, the data that was accepted as accurate each of those years and given the publications the data was found in. There is no interpretation in that, just reporting. Keep in mind that those who reported the data and the publications in which the data was recorded are all anti-creation.
So in peer reviewed scientific journals there is clear evidence for a c decay and yet peer reviewed scientific journals refuses to publish an overview of those values. Funny.
However, there is an entire physics research group at Mahatma Ghandi University in India which has requested, and received, hard copies of all Barry's work as it is one of their main fields of research right now.
Names? Publications?
Now, about measurements. The fact that everything consists of atoms has nothing to do with the standards of measurements in the past when atoms were unknown. Atomic measurements are a product of the twentieth century and were unknown, and therefore unused, in the past.
It is irrelevant if the user of a ruler knows if it consist out of atoms. Atoms and the interaction between atoms don't care about the opinion of its user.
About what is wrong in physics. Physicsts are often all to ready to admit that a lot of the quantum theories that hold sway now are running into too many problems to be very satisfactory. You can know something is wrong without having found out what is right yet. There is a lot of work going on. If you are truly interested in this field, suggest you subscribe to one of the standard physics journals and start reading!
Now that's better formulated. I think you are speaking about the renormalization theory of quantum electro-dynamics. That's indeed not very satisfactory. On the other hand it gives a very accurate description how nature works. Your misconception is, that the scientific community don't think those ideas are wrong, they only believe they can be improved and that we don't see the whole picture. A good comparison would be Newton's Theory of Gravity. Today we know a much better theory but nobody would think Newton was wrong.