Science, Creation & EvolutionSetterfield againOk, I stand corrected. It's not true that the data is presented in a way that it cannot be reviewed easily. On Lambert Dolphin's web page there is a link to the c-decay data: cdata.txt So it's easy to import the data in any program to analyze it. Let's guess the result - it almost looks like the graph in Aardsma's article. No obvious decrease can be seen. Next let's run some fitting algorithm on the data: Exponential decay: No dependence from the fitting parameters Double exponential decay: No convergence in the fitting iterations Line: Finally it works, the result is: c=c0+dc*time c0=2.9979e+05 +-0.118 km/s dc=-6.8e-06 +-6e-5 The reduced Chi Square is 23. constant: It works again, the result is c=2.9979e+05 +-0.00016 km/s with a reduced Chi Square of 23 The data can be perfectly explained by a constant c. There might be a slight decrease in c, this decrease would mean that c 12000 years ago would have the value 2.9973e+5 km/s. 13.7 billion years ago it would have the value 3.9e+5 km/s. Of course the error of dc is much to high to legitimate such a calculation. Tuppence, not everything I write is meant as negative criticism. The atomic clock was an example why the analysis of old data can be very hard. The wrong assumptions in above paragraph were already addressed in the old thread. Did I talk about vacuum fluctuations? I didn't notice anything wrong with the quote of your husband. I addressed your wrong understanding of c in matter versus c in vacuum. Wegener used fossils to legitimate his theory. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame