I haven’t looked at that article in about 30 years. We did several things, take his measurements of various constants and back calculate what c would be. The values of lots of constants depend on c. Here is the article.
click on the pictures to make them bigger and thus readable. As I told one guy today, when I was a YEC I was no more comforting to them than I am to people here.
That’s perfect! Thank you
It appears that the article was cut off at pg.65
Any chance you have more?
Thank you so much
p 65 was the last page of our article. You can see our names in the top of the 2nd column on page 65
Hypothetically, how does that work? Einstein’s famous equation (E=MC2) governs the conversion of mass into energy and vice versa. But if light moved faster in the past, wouldn’t that mean that mass and energy conversation rates have changed over time too? Soooo, the Sun burned hotter and brighter in the past too presumably?
How much of a decrease is he suggesting?
Presumably, God would adjust all of those other physical laws on the fly so that nothing bad would happen? Dunno. It reminds of a Steven Wright comedy bit where thieves broke into his house while he was sleeping, stole all of his stuff, and then replaced everything with exact replicas so that he wouldn’t report the burglary. As to the actual numbers:
The link in the quote gets you to Setterfield’s work.
Ah, good old Barry Setterfield.
Barry Setterfield’s c-decay was the first indication to me that all was not well in the land of YEC-dom. I had been an all-guns-blazing YEC for less than three months when I was introduced to it, and even as a first year A level physics student it looked waaaaaaaaay off base. Historical measurements of the speed of light, made with primitive equipment and techniques that were simply not up to the job of tightening down the error bars enough to make a reasonable case, an equation for the decay curve that seemed to be pulled out of thin air, and then there was this cut-off date in the late 50s/early 60s which coincided suspiciously closely with the invention of the laser, and with it the necessary precision to blow the gaff on the whole thing – what was that all about??? It breaks every rule on how to measure things that you can think of, and then some. I ditched YEC in favour of OEC a couple of months later on discovering 2 Peter 3:8.
What amazes me is that some of the more lucid and scientifically literate YECs that I know on Facebook actually think he’s onto something. The mind boggles.
Well if this AiG article is anything to go by then that would be a big job:
To give some idea of the trend of values, the speed of light was 391,966 km/sec. at AD 1 according to the curve. If we accept the short Biblical chronology of 1,656 years from Creation to the Flood, the curve predicts a value at the time of the Flood (2384 BC) of 1,621,908 km/sec. (The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe | Answers in Genesis)
1,621,908km/s! That’s 5.5 times the current speed of light. That’s our sun burning 5.5 times hotter and brighter (Assuming, I’ve not bungled the physics). I hope Noah had sun screen…
Whatever happened to the word ‘crank’?
One would have to wonder about the decay of naturally occurring radioactive isotopes, such as the 40K found in every human being. There might even be stable atomic nuclei that become unstable if physical constants are changing like this.
YECs favorite verse to ignore:
Is there any evidence of his work published in peer reviewed journals??
Can we advance to whack job?
Wouldn’t that be about 30.25 times (5.5 squared) hotter, not merely 5.5? Energy = Mass times the square of the sped of light?
(Oh… but then there’s the inverse square of the radiation over distance, so perhaps it might just have been only 5.5 times the radiative effect. Or something like that. My brain hurts…)
Or 5.5 squared times hotter? E = mc^2, right?
…for all the difference it makes to your point, anyway. 5.5 times … 30 times … that’s all well within YEC error bars, right?
[Ahh – I see @David_Lee beat me to it … No the inverse square law would still just be working on the changed quantity - if it’s ‘K’ times brighter at the source, it’s ‘K’ times brighter everywhere.]
Science progresses by searching outwards. Mostly this is by adding to what is already known, not by fundamentally changing it.
Occasionally, but only occasionally, a well-established understanding (or “theory”) needs to be revised. Classic examples include:
the “ultraviolet catastrophe” in the early 1900s (and it was work related to this, rather than to his more famous relativity, that earned Einstein a Nobel prize)
deep-seated changes in the understanding of gravity and space-time, also in the first quarter of the 20th century
But this is rare. Usually science is about filling in the gaps and about expanding beyond the edges.
It is quite possible to come up with new ideas. But these ideas are usually to explain data that otherwise don’t yet fit established models. Here’s an example. In geophysics, the idea of the “deep mantle plume” developed in the 1970s as part of plate tectonics and is a good fit to the data in certain areas such as the Hawaii chain. It also does a good job of explaining other areas of volcanic activity. But more recently some scientists propose an alternative model of “shallow lithospheric melting” that seems to be a better fit for some volcanic regions. This is an active, live debate. But crucially, this debate, which is lively within the community, is conducted on the basis of real evidence. “We propose this new model for at least some areas (e.g. Iceland, possibly Yellowstone) because it provides a better fit for the observed data.”
So how does that relate to YEC? Real science is based on an already deep understanding of the real science-so-far, and on real data which needs to be fitted into that real science. Peer-review is about arguing and debating all of that, from an already deep knowledge of, and sympathy with, the existing body of knowledge and understanding. But that doesn’t seem to be the case with YEC, which is about starting from a philosophical human opinion and trying to fit all the data into it.
Still, if a YEC person or group can genuinely come up with a scientific framework, that can be well-argued and that fits all the existing data in all the relevant fields, their Nobel prize awaits collection…
Why would such non-disinterested mindless drivel be published in any of them? Why should it be given the time of day on an editor’s desk? Science has more important things to do.
“He never graduated. Science is hard work.” Hmm, so truth is dependent on hard work and a degree? This is fallacious. Truth is truth whether or not the person speaking it has a degree and is not dependent on how hard the person has worked. Even if the devil says something that is true, it is nonetheless true. Now that we are past that —
Setterfield does not deny the laws of physics–that is also not true. His arguments and conclusions may be valid or invalid, but they do not deny the laws of physics. Let’s see if I can summarize his argument about the speed of light:
Zero point energy is the energy that exists in a vacuum at absolute zero, and which is stored energy from the expansion of the universe. Light slows down as it encounters zero point energy. As the universe continues to expand, zero point energy continues to increase, which results in reduction of the speed of light.
So the Plank constant is not a true constant, but rather the Plank constant times zero point energy is the constant. His argument is not that the laws of physics are not at work or have changed.
Further, Setterfield believes that the universe is not the result of the “big bang,” but rather embraces the plasma theory of cosmic origins. There are not a lot of scientists that hold to plasma theory, and I am certainly not anywhere near knowledgeable enough to assess either the big bang or plasma theory.
I freely acknowledge that I don’t know enough to evaluate it myself. From a layman’s standpoint, however, I can easily understand what he is saying, and it is coherent to me. I have talked to several people asking for an assessment of his views. They respond that he is a crank or that he has never requested peer review. I haven’t been able to get anyone to tell me specifically what is wrong with his argument.
And YEC folks would argue that they start with biblical data–not a philosophical human opinion-- rather than trying to shoe horn biblical truth into “scientific” data. And YEC scientists look at real data as well, and come to much different conclusions.
And it is pretty hard to believe that “peer review” is always unbiased. Somehow, that is the one place where everyone is completely honest and the human weaknesses are suppressed? The evidence just doesn’t support this.
So scholars such as John Walton make erudite biblical arguments which are lauded in the BioLogos Forum. But others such as John Lennox point out what he sees as serious problems with Walton’s positions, and his observations make a great deal of sense.
And let me add, if an OEC or a Evolutionary Creationist can genuinely come up with a scientific framework that is well argued and fits ALL the existing data in ALL relevant fields, that will be exceedingly remarkable. Are you claiming that EC is anywhere close to that?
ECs aren’t coming up with scientific models. They accept the scientific consensus.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
