Young Earth/Old Earth

[johnc5055]

I read this a while back and I have considered it over time and I think it presents the theory of a young earth from a different angle than previous arguments. I have never tried to engage in the debate because I see very solid arguments on both sides. The problems with light/temperature travel over vast distances are powerful arguments that cut both ways. People generally insert theories to overcome these arguments in their own favor but arguing with conjectures is like a pillow fight; no one can really land a clean blow against the other. The idea that light itself is slowing down is not terribly new but it is seems that it is being taken seriously by more scientists. If true, the implications about much of the things that we accept as true in the universe are staggering.

Let the copy and paste begin!

Is Light Slowing Down?
(Point -- Counterpoint)

Part 1 by Chuck Missler (from Personal UPDATE)
Part 2 by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (from his Book Creation and Time)

Part 1: by Chuck Missler (from Personal UPDATE)

We now know that time is a physical property and varies with respect to mass, acceleration, and gravity.

Time is tied to our concepts of the curvature of space-time, and the velocity of light. The velocity of light is, in fact, a parameter which appears to affect almost every aspect of both cosmological physics on the large scale, as well as quantum physics in the particle scale. It is, of course, considered to be the fundamental constant of physics.

Historical Perspective

The early Greek philosophers generally followed Aristotle's belief that the speed of light was infinite. As late as 1600 a.d., Johannes Kepler, one of the fathers of modern astronomy, maintained the majority view that light was instantaneous in its travels. Rene Descartes, the highly influential scientist, mathematician and philosopher (who died in 1650), also strongly held to the belief in the instantaneous propagation of light. He strongly influenced the scientists of that period and those who followed.

Speed of Light Measured

In 1677 Olaf Roemer, the Danish astronomer, noted that the time elapsed between eclipses of Jupiter with its moons became shorter as the Earth moved closer to Jupiter and became longer as the Earth and Jupiter drew farther apart. This anomalous behavior could be accounted for by a finite speed of light.

Initially, Roemer's suggestion was hooted at. It took another half century for the notion to be accepted. In 1729 the British astronomer James Bradley's independent confirmation of Roemer's measurements finally ended the opposition to a finite value for the speed of light. Roemer's work, which had split the scientific community for 53 years, was finally vindicated.

Over the past 300 years, the velocity of light has been measured 163 times by 16 different methods. (As a Naval Academy graduate, I must point out that Albert Michelson, Class of 1873, measured the speed of light at the Academy. In 1881 he measured it as 299,853 km/sec. In 1907 he was the first American to receive the Nobel Prize in the sciences. In 1923 he measured it as 299,798 km/sec. In 1933, at Irvine, CA, as 299,774 km/sec.)

Recent Discovery

Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman examined all of the available experimental measurements to date and have announced a discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down over the years! [Roemer, 1657 (Io eclipse): 307,600 +/- 5400 km/sec; Harvard, 1875 (same method): 299,921 +/- 13 km/sec; NBS, 1983 (laser method): 299,792.4586 +/- 0.0003 km/sec.] They all are approximately 186,000 miles/second; or about one foot/nanosecond.)

While the margin of error improved over the years, the mean value has noticeably decreased. In fact, the bands of uncertainty hardly overlap.

As you would expect, these findings are highly controversial, especially to the more traditional physicists. However, many who scoffed at the idea initially have subsequently begun to take a closer look at the possibilities.

Alan Montgomery, the Canadian mathematician, has also analyzed the data statistically and has concluded that the decay of c, the velocity of light, has followed a cosecant-squared curve with a correlation coefficient of better than 99%.

A New Perspective

This curve would imply that the speed of light may have been 10-30% faster in the time of Christ; twice as fast in the days of Solomon; and four times as fast in the days of Abraham. It would imply that the velocity of light was more than 10 million times faster prior to 3000 b.c. This possibility would also totally alter our concepts of time and the age of the universe. The universe might actually be less than 10,000 years old!

Other Implications

The key properties of the vacuum of free space include electrical permittivity, magnetic permeability, zero-point energy, and intrinsic impedance. If any of these properties change isotopically, then both atomic behavior and the speed of light would vary throughout the universe.

The product of magnetic permeability and electrical permittivity is the reciprocal of c-squared. The permittivity of free space has not changed, but permeability has. It is related to the "stretching out" of free space at the time of creation. The "stretching" of the heavens is mentioned many times in the Bible. Setterfield has analyzed 164 measurements of c, the velocity of light, gathered over the past 320 years, which reveal a statistically significant decay in c. When coupled with associated c-dependent "constants," the data includes some 639 values measured by 25 different methods. A comparison of dates in orbital time from history, archaeology, tree rings, etc., with atomic dates from a variety of radioactive isotopes has provided some 1228 data points over 4550 years.

Relaxation, or release, has set in, perhaps after the fall in Genesis 3. The shrinkage of free space could be the cause for the observed slowing down of the velocity of light. The "Redshift" may be caused by a decay of c. In fact, the universe may be contracting, not expanding.

A Tiff about Tifft

William Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has been collecting data for about 20 years on redshifts, and it now appears that the universe might not be expanding. In the 1970's, Tifft noted that the redshift seemed to depend upon the type of galaxy that was emitting the light. Spiral galaxies tended to have higher redshifts than elliptical galaxies in the same cluster. Dimmer galaxies, higher redshifts than brighter ones.

Even more disturbing, Tifft has discovered that some clusters and pairs of galaxies exhibit only certain discrete values, rather than the more random distribution one would expect if the shifts were distance related. These redshifts appear in discrete quantum levels, similar to the energy states of subatomic particles in quantum physics.

These findings are not popular with astronomers or cosmologists, and emotions, even in physics, run deep. If the redshift is not a simple measure of velocity, then the conjectures about the Big Bang, and its derivative issues such as "dark" matter, etc., tend to fall apart. The elaborate theoretical models of the Big Bang traditions may be headed for the scrap heap.

There is also the disturbing evidence that the redshifts change over time. There seems be some basic physics involved that has yet to be understood. These changes could be due to basic life cycles of galaxies, the nature of space or light itself, or other possibilities.

There have been a number of attempts to refute Tifft's observations. One recent one by Bruce Guthrie and William Napier, at the Royal Observatory in Edinburgh, measured the redshifts of 89 spiral galaxies. The results surprised the skeptics by uncovering data that supports the case for quantized redshifts.

If Setterfield proves correct, then this might also explain the quantization of the redshifts. Specific values of c govern the quantization of the emitted wave lengths, and quantized redshifts could result.

Radioactive Dating

Radioactive decay rates have changed. The decay of c affects the speed of nucleons in the atom, and the alpha particle escape frequency. Thus, all radioactive decay rates have decreased in proportion to c throughout the recent history of the universe. For many other reasons, the radio dating methods, carbon-14, potassium-argon, or any other atomic-clock method, are unreliable for very large ages.

Entropy

The Second Law of Thermodynamics indicates that in a closed system, as time flows forward, energy in the universe is becoming less and less available. "Entropy" is the measure of the state of "energy unavailability" in an energy-containing system. Entropy always increases.

Orderly systems of molecules represent low entropy systems. Orderly systems tend, on their own, to become disorderly and chaotic through the processes of decay and disintegration. With passage of time the normal tendency of things is for such systems to become disorderly, chaotic, and randomized. Their "entropy" increases.

We experience this in our daily routine: we spend effort to organize our desktop, our garage, our school locker. Soon, however, as "random" events take their toll, everything tends toward randomness--the entropy increases. To bring order out of chaos, we must put in outside energy or information: instructions, codes, blueprints, and effort. Order comes from chaos only if someone makes it happen. Time plus chance always leads toward chaos--not order--without the intervention of outside intelligence.

Genesis

In the beginning, there apparently was a close connection between the spiritual and physical realms, until the fall of man in Genesis 3.

The universe was pronounced "good"--free of defects--by the Creator. A high degree of order originally existed; that is, there was very low entropy.

But then Adam fell and the curse of sin began. Disorder and entropy began to increase. Could the slowing down of the speed of light have begun with the increase of entropy and, thus, both be a result of the curse brought about by sin?

The subsequent death, dying, decaying, and destroying processes affected not only man, but nature as well (Romans 8:19-23).

Caveat

The possibility that the speed of light is not a "constant" after all and has been slowing down is highly controversial and conjectural. Yet, some of the most dramatic changes in scientific perspective come only after much debate, vigorous opposition, and the like.

The entire field of physics is presently in a state of upheaval. The particle physicists have decided there is no causality, and that the universe has at least 10 dimensions. The redshift has been discovered to be quantized and that may shatter previous conceptions of our universe. Particle physics has totally altered our concepts of reality.

Many of today's scientific orthodoxies, however, originated from yesterday's unpopular heresies. The apparent decay in the velocity of light may be another of these controversial "heresies" looming on the horizon of modern physics. Only time will tell.

Part 2; by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (from his Book "Creation and Time")

The work of two Austrailian creationists has been widely publicized among proponents of a young universe. Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman teamed up to propose the reason the universe appears old is that light used to travel much faster than it does today.¹ Given decay in light's velocity, the present value of the velocity of light would yield an inaccurate measure of the size and age for the universe.

The basis for this claim is a misinterpretation of data from the speed-of-light measurements made over the many years. What the data actually shows is the increasing refinement of measurements, not change in velocity.

The first calculation of the speed of light was attempted in 1675 by Olaus Romer, a Danish astronomer. His figure was about 3 percent higher than modern measurements show. But the uncertainty in his measurement exceeded 3 percent. Recently, three American physicists reworked Romer's calculations. They found that if Romer had had more precise data for one part of his calculation, his speed-of-light figure would have agreed with the modern measurements to within 0.5 percent.²

Apparently the article describing this research was misunderstood by the Australians. They took the 1675 speed figure as evidence for the speed of light decreasing by 0.5 percent since 1675.^3,4 Actually, more than fifty measurements of the velocity of light have been made since Romer's, and when the uncertainties for each of the measurements are taken into account, the velocity shows itself constant through the more than 300 years since ground-based measurements began.

Using other types of measurements, the speed of light proves constant over many more years. Studies on a particular spectral line of hydrogen from nearby galaxies shows its constancy over the last 18 million years. New measurements on that spectral line in very distant galaxies extend that confirmation to 14 billion years.^5,6

Let me add a practical consideration. The existence of life in the universe requires the constancy of the speed of light. A significant change in the velocity of light would so radically disturb such things as the luminosities of the stars and the relative abundance of the elements as to ruin the possibility for life anywhere, anytime in the universe. Since the c in Einstein's equation, E = mc², stands for the speed of light, a change in that figure would necessarily mean changes in the m (matter) or E (energy) or both, an alteration contradicted by abundant observations. If Setterfield and Norman were right, either Adam or Eve would have been incinerated by the sun's heat or the elements essential for building their bodies would not exist. Calling Einstein's equation into question will not help Setterfield and Norman's case either. A recent experiment has confirmed the accuracy of Einstein's equation to at least twenty-one places of the decimal (within 0.0000000000000000001 percent!).⁷

Edited May 17, 2016 by johnc5055
some were offended by the word "plagiarism"

[Jayne]

1 hour ago, johnc5055 said:

IRecent Discovery

Australian physicist Barry Setterfield and mathematician Trevor Norman examined all of the available experimental measurements to date and have announced a discovery: the speed of light appears to have been slowing down over the years! [Roemer, 1657 (Io eclipse): 307,600 +/- 5400 km/sec; Harvard, 1875 (same method): 299,921 +/- 13 km/sec; NBS, 1983 (laser method): 299,792.4586 +/- 0.0003 km/sec.] They all are approximately 186,000 miles/second; or about one foot/nanosecond.)

I "know" Barry and Helen Setterfield from the internet.  She and I have been on a science forum and a couple of Bible forums together.  It's been several years though since I have "talked" to her.  They are they smartest people I know.  In fact, I know NO ONE who knows more about the Bible than Helen.

Barry's idea of the speed of light not being a constant is over my head.  It sounds logical when you follow it slowly and bite by bite.

But then again, you have to have the speed of light being a constant for Einstein's famous relativity equation  (E=mc^2) to be valid.

Both Barry and Albert can't be right, can they?

Einstein has been wrong before (static universe vs. dynamic universe) and he discovered it himself while researching his relativity theory.  He said in his journals that this "annoyed" him.  He said that if the universe IS dynamic then you've got to deal with a "beginning" and he didn't want to do that.

Oh, well, ...... c'est la vie.  Many people oppose Barry.  That's to be expected.  I can't accept it or oppose it because I'm not smart enough to 100% grasp it all.

 

Edited May 17, 2016 by Jayne

[johnc5055]

The term Plagiarism is meant to be taken lightly. In science there is very little original thought - most of it is comparing theories developed by others. The article that followed was just that. Using the theories of others is how people dialogue, not the same as saying that I am the author of Huckleberry Finn.

I posted this because I think it settles a lot of the young earth/old earth arguments in a very tidy way. It is a support for young earth - something I had previously not felt strongly in favor of.

[enoob57]

I can't post here   I don't want to be naughty  

[angels4u]

1 minute ago, johnc5055 said:

The term Plagiarism is meant to be taken lightly. In science there is very little original thought - most of it is comparing theories developed by others. The article that followed was just that. Using the theories of others is how people dialogue, not the same as saying that I am the author of Huckleberry Finn.

I posted this because I think it settles a lot of the young earth/old earth arguments in a very tidy way. It is a support for young earth - something I had previously not felt strongly in favor of.

 

Can you please edit your post and take that word out?

[johnc5055]

6 minutes ago, Jayne said:

I "know" Barry and Helen Setterfield from the internet.  She and I have been on a science forum and a couple of Bible forums together.  It's been several years though since I have "talked" to her.  They are they smartest people I know.  In fact, I know NO ONE who knows more about the Bible than Helen.

Barry's idea of the speed of light not being a constant is over my head.  It sounds logical when you follow it slowly and bite by bite.

But then again, you have to have the speed of light being a constant for Einstein's famous relativity equation  (E=mc^2) to be valid.

Both Barry and Albert can't be right, can they?

Einstein has been wrong before (static universe vs. dynamic universe) and he discovered it himself while researching his relativity theory.  He said in his journals that this "annoyed" him.  He said that if the universe IS dynamic then you've got to deal with a "beginning" and he didn't want to do that.

Oh, well, ...... c'est la vie.  Many people oppose Barry.  That's to be expected.  I can't accept it or oppose it because I'm not smart enough to 100% grasp it all.

 

I think they can both be right. The speed of light (the "C" in E=mc2) seems to correlate nicely with energy (the "E"), regardless of whether the number is constant or changing. Einstein also said he would be surprised if there were actually any "constants" in the universe.

[johnc5055]

1 minute ago, other one said:

actually it may well be truthful for I see this article elsewhere and he did not show it's originality....   so the word may fit quite well.  While I don't know if he wrote it somewhere else or just copy/pasted it here....  I would like to know if it is his original writing or he stole it from someone else.

 

The authors names are shown prominently at the beginning of the article. Please read the first few lines at least before stating that I may have taken someone's article as my own. I even put it in large font!!!

[johnc5055]

7 minutes ago, other one said:

http://www.hope-of-israel.org/light.htm

kind of odd that it shows up here word for word,  did you put it there also?  Just saying that the original material came from the two writers does not cover the work of putting the two together nor does it relay the bibliograhpy of the original writings that is posted on the original article.

So do you write for "hope-of-israel.org"

No I do not write for them. The article was clearly written by Chuck Missler and Hugh Ross. My intent was to discuss the content of the article, not the authorship. 

[kwikphilly]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm,I still have no clue what is going on here

[johnc5055]

5 minutes ago, other one said:

no, the article seems to be written by someone affiliated with that web site and they combined parts of two books to create a different thought/s.

By not showing where it came from you did not pass on where they got all the material

 

here is the information that they sited that you didn't

 

 

Thanks, I kinda thought it was already long winded. I guess the content and its implication about the age of the universe will have to wait.